• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hypatia Transracialism Controversy

shemp said:
I think most of the people involved in this tale should follow what I call "Shemp's Three Ups":

1. Suck it up.
2. Grow up.
3. Shut up.
Click to expand...

As a transracial person myself (correct term: other-colored), I am highly offended by this. I refuse to go back into the closet. I wear my race proudly, if ambiguously. And even though it only extends as far as my belly button.

Not that it's anyone's business, but my genitalia remain Caucasian. I have deadnamed my penis "Michael Bolton." I will be cancelling my subscription to Hypatia!
 
crescent said:
My 2 cents: Mentioning that Jenner was once known as "Bruce" is not deadnaming. Insisting on still referring to Kaitlen Jenner as a man named Bruce would be deadnaming.

Considering how famous Bruce Jenner was, is seems harmless to recognize that Kaitlen Jenner was formerly known as Bruce Jenner. I mean, those of us where were alive in the 1970's know that Bruce Jenner was very, very famous. It seems silly to suggest that the name should never be used again.
Click to expand...

When I hear "Kaitlen", I just don't think of that person, probably because almost nobody of that age born in the US has that name (http://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Kaitlen). So I naturally think it must be some younger (probably twenty-something) Jenner, and even after hearing it dozens of times the realization takes a few seconds each time. It's like an 80 year old man named "Brandon" - just doesn't seem likely.
 
This bit caught my eye: "Tuvel enacts violence...throughout her essay."
Normally I feel an obligation to read someone's full comments in context before developing or expressing an opinion on them. Once in while, though, someone says something so outrageous that I just can't take them seriously enough to even do that. Question to anyone stronger than myself who made it through that nonsense: Any chance this is some sort of elaborate prank?
 
Civet said:
This bit caught my eye: "Tuvel enacts violence...throughout her essay."....

Any chance this is some sort of elaborate prank?
Click to expand...
You mean something like where there is no real violence but we are told that there is?
 
William Parcher said:
You mean something like where there is no real violence but we are told that there is?
Click to expand...

More like the article and the responses to it being some sort of performance art or a comedy skit. Let it go on for a few weeks generating controversy then get up at a conference and say "The Aristocrats!" and let everyone know that they've been clowned. I like that version of reality better than this being something the participants are taking seriously.
 
Travis said:
1) I don't understand why people get upset over transracialism. It doesn't harm anyone so...have at it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are unaware of the various benefits that are available to members of selected races. For example, the federal government awards contracts to small and mid-sized businesses who submit bids to do the work. But if the business is a MWOB (minority- or woman-owned business) the government gives them a preference; if their bid is 10% or less above a competing bid by some white males, they win the bid. Minority is basically defined to exclude descendants of Europeans, although at least the last I heard Arabs are not included either.

The transracialism wheeze (it's mostly a gag) comes up because some commenters have noted that if we let people define whether they are male or female (despite generally abundant evidence biologically that they are the opposite from what they claim) then how do we stop them from claiming to be Asian-American, even if their ancestry does not include anybody from Asia?
 
It's just inappropriate to say there is violence when there is none. Even if it is a prank, it isn't nice being lied to like that.

It can greatly diminish the significance of real violence when you walk around saying that words are violence.
 
William Parcher said:
It's just inappropriate to say there is violence when there is none. Even if it is a prank, it isn't nice being lied to like that.

It can greatly diminish the significance of real violence when you walk around saying that words are violence.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Thing is, a prank in poor taste would still be better than a reality in which a professor at a good-sized university responsible for helping shape impressionable minds honestly believes that essay to be an act of violence. That scares the **** out of me.
 
The better descriptive term would be offensive, rather than violent.

If this is an extended prank, would it be something like a Sokal Hoax as a test to see if academic Philosophy is still sleeping at the wheel?
 
marplots said:
As a transracial person myself (correct term: other-colored), I am highly offended by this. I refuse to go back into the closet. I wear my race proudly, if ambiguously. And even though it only extends as far as my belly button.

Not that it's anyone's business, but my genitalia remain Caucasian. I have deadnamed my penis "Michael Bolton." I will be cancelling my subscription to Hypatia!
Click to expand...

But I thought you had succeeded as a transracial when you made me think you were Uzbeki. Or did I just deadname you?

You can't go back into the closet, it's too crowded in there.

And at your age, it takes a big man, no matter which trans-race, to admit that his penis is dead. And Michael Bolton? Wouldn't 'Dead Little Me' be more precise?

Unless your birth gender was Feminazi? Ooops, more deadnaming.

My psychologist just told me that down inside I am a woman. But she is a Asian Lesbian. Should I change my name to Case-sis? Cassis? Or Tiger Lilly?
 
theprestige said:
And classrooms full of students who have been conditioned to believe that learning from academics is critical to their formation as adult human beings.
Click to expand...

Citation? Because that's not what I was like as a student, nor were my classmates. Unless you're speaking of kindergartners rather than college students?
 
William Parcher said:
If this is an extended prank, would it be something like a Sokal Hoax as a test to see if academic Philosophy is still sleeping at the wheel?
Click to expand...

Since I'm told we now live in some sort of post-factual world, I'm just going to declare that to be the case. This whole mess is a skilled exercise in quality control for the field. Only those academics who respond appropriately will retain credibility. Also those who just ignore it. That counts as an appropriate response.
 
A philosophy paper in a philosophy journal caused this much outrage?

The whole thing - article, response and counter-response - is a ridiculous waste of time.
 
casebro said:
But I thought you had succeeded as a transracial when you made me think you were Uzbeki. Or did I just deadname you?

You can't go back into the closet, it's too crowded in there.

And at your age, it takes a big man, no matter which trans-race, to admit that his penis is dead. And Michael Bolton? Wouldn't 'Dead Little Me' be more precise?

Unless your birth gender was Feminazi? Ooops, more deadnaming.

My psychologist just told me that down inside I am a woman. But she is a Asian Lesbian. Should I change my name to Case-sis? Cassis? Or Tiger Lilly?
Click to expand...

That's it. I'm triggered.
Excuse me while I head over to the Knox thread - my safe space.
 
Civet said:
This bit caught my eye: "Tuvel enacts violence...throughout her essay."
Normally I feel an obligation to read someone's full comments in context before developing or expressing an opinion on them. Once in while, though, someone says something so outrageous that I just can't take them seriously enough to even do that. Question to anyone stronger than myself who made it through that nonsense: Any chance this is some sort of elaborate prank?
Click to expand...

Unlikely, but if it was it certainly backfired!!!
 
Brainster said:
Perhaps you are unaware of the various benefits that are available to members of selected races. For example, the federal government awards contracts to small and mid-sized businesses who submit bids to do the work. But if the business is a MWOB (minority- or woman-owned business) the government gives them a preference; if their bid is 10% or less above a competing bid by some white males, they win the bid. Minority is basically defined to exclude descendants of Europeans, although at least the last I heard Arabs are not included either.

The transracialism wheeze (it's mostly a gag) comes up because some commenters have noted that if we let people define whether they are male or female (despite generally abundant evidence biologically that they are the opposite from what they claim) then how do we stop them from claiming to be Asian-American, even if their ancestry does not include anybody from Asia?
Click to expand...


It's also a very large factor in college admissions.


Why I faked being black for med school


I may not have studied all that hard in my economics and statistics classes, but I knew enough to realize that anecdotal evidence was not enough to draw valuable conclusions. I had to work the problem. I studied the statistics and data made public by the Association of American Medical Colleges and came to a surprising conclusion. The data suggested that an Indian-American with my grades (3.1 GPA) and test scores (31 MCAT) was unlikely to gain admission to medical school, but an African-American with the same grades and test scores had a high probability of admission.

While I wasn’t able to pin down the exact number, I reasonably calculated that African-American or Hispanic applicants had as much as a 30 to 40 percent better chance of acceptance than I. This number left me speechless — but it also started my wheels turning.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom