8 Lessons I Wish I Learned Sooner In Life:
| Psychology & Life Thread |
If I've been able to add at least 1% to your life, you can support me by: LIKE/RT/FOLLOW
Thank you all!
Thank you @AlexMaeseJ for the visual!
Subscribe to my FREE newsletter for a deep dive on self-development topics every Friday!👇
https://t.co/hwuqN6w4ga
More from Book
Another thread on Whittle as a companion to this thread.
Here Stephen makes an impassioned plea for the rights of trans people not to be sterilised. I agree. Does Stephen know that we are now, effectively, sterilising “transkids”? Is Stephen speaking out about this?
Yes. I agree you have the right to be parents. You know many “transmen” who have given birth. What will happen to the kids put on #PubertyBlockers followed by Cross-sex hormones?
Makes a clear statement activists did not want to campaign on “surgical status”. #LeaveNoOneBehind. Also that they have the right to bodily privacy,
Just trans folks? Do women have the right to bodily privacy?
Is this what passing looks like? Ignoring women?
Congratulations
An impassioned defence of the campaign for Self-Identification. Make no mistake this was a demand that women accept male-bodied women in single sex spaces. That was significant over-reach and a massive blunder. Women only spaces, regardless of surgery, is my stance now.
So I am in the middle of a document co-authored by Stephen Whittle. I took a little detour to have a look at Whittle on YouTube.
— Patrick\U0001f578 (@STILLTish) December 9, 2020
Here are a few clips. This one surprised me. Whittle recalls being heckled by Butch Lesbians and is asked about their role. pic.twitter.com/OWFd0kNDei
Here Stephen makes an impassioned plea for the rights of trans people not to be sterilised. I agree. Does Stephen know that we are now, effectively, sterilising “transkids”? Is Stephen speaking out about this?
Yes. I agree you have the right to be parents. You know many “transmen” who have given birth. What will happen to the kids put on #PubertyBlockers followed by Cross-sex hormones?
Makes a clear statement activists did not want to campaign on “surgical status”. #LeaveNoOneBehind. Also that they have the right to bodily privacy,
Just trans folks? Do women have the right to bodily privacy?
Is this what passing looks like? Ignoring women?
Congratulations
An impassioned defence of the campaign for Self-Identification. Make no mistake this was a demand that women accept male-bodied women in single sex spaces. That was significant over-reach and a massive blunder. Women only spaces, regardless of surgery, is my stance now.
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
