Wednesday. I make the mistake of chiming in on the social media feed of a friend upset about J.K. Rowling’s statement on trans rights.
My friend — let’s call them Jordan — writes, “I needed to hear her fully state her opinion because no reasonable person would say that trans rights erases women’s rights. And, well ... I now know where she stands ... oof.”
One of her friends — a person I’ve never met; let’s call them Avery — responds, “'Trans rights erases woman's rights’ is a vague slogan and not an argument, so it can't be properly evaluated as it stands. Moreover, that phrase doesn't even feature in her essay, which i found to be thoughtful and nuanced, while lacking a single factual or logical error. Of course, I could have missed something, so I’d appreciate it if someone could quote anything problematic they've noticed, so we can take a closer look together.”
Somehow, I’m drawn in by the “Let’s take a look, shall we?” invitation — in retrospect, an obvious blunder. The “lacking a single factual or logical error” should have been evidence enough of a troll at work.
Jordan: “I suggest reading her piece again with these rebuttals in mind.” [Links to a long, point-by-point counterargument by Andrew Carter, a British ally of trans people]
Avery: “I skimmed Carter’s thread and didn't notice him identifying specific errors. He mostly riffs off Rowling’s essay with angry associations and almost certainly misrepresents her. For example, has Rowling really called trans people ‘mentally disturbed sexual deviants’?
Here’s where I jump in: “Avery, the quote you've selected above does not claim that Rowling used that description but that she supports Magdalen Berns, who called trans women, among other things, ‘black face actors’ rather than women, acting out their ‘sexual perversions’ as a ‘fetish.’”
No response from Avery. In retrospect, this failure to acknowledge the obvious misreading is Troll Behavior Clue No. 2.
Meanwhile, Jordan walks back the language of the initial post: “Maybe ‘erodes’ rather than ‘erases’ is a more accurate paraphrase — will edit.”
Avery: “But I don't think she's said that either. We should comment on her essay, because those are her words.”
Me: “Here's a quote from Rowling's essay: ‘In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation.’ So in fact she did say that exact thing.”
Avery: “Which exact thing?”
Me: “I'm noting that in fact she said, in the sentence I quote, precisely that trans rights are eroding women's rights.”
Avery: “Any literate person can see that the phrase 'trans rights' isn't present in the quote you provided.”
Me: “If you don't acknowledge that's her clear implication, then I don't think your argument is in good faith. The whole context of her piece, including the paragraph from which I quote, is about trans rights.”
Avery: “If she meant to say that trans rights erode women's rights, she would have said it. Dismissing the interlocutor as having bad faith without evidence is a cheap trick, as is putting words in his/her mouth, as you did for her. That, in fact, is evidence of bad faith, unless the person who does it never heard of this logical fallacy. If you want to have a thoughtful discussion about this, please quote a problematic part from the essay and explain why it's wrong, without imputing alleged implications to her. The whole point of her essay is to provide her own nuanced view on what has become a misinformed and even malicious attack on her. You don't seem to have read it, at least not carefully.”
I walk away from the laptop for a while, knowing what’s coming: Avery accuses me of further bad faith. Later in the discourse another person, walking a path I wish I’d taken, cuts short discourse with Avery, writing, “You seem to be trolling, and I have no interest in debating you. My tolerance for nonsense is especially thin this month, so save it for someone else.”
Avery, to the thread’s initiator: “Jordan, do you think I’m trolling?”
Jordan exercises the wisdom of silence.
Then there’s The Kid’s K-8 public school, whose Brooklyn mixture includes a chunk of what I’d call North Brooklyn liberals (a category in which I include myself) and a perhaps larger chunk of South Brooklyn émigrés from Russia and the former Soviet republics, many of whom are as Trumpist as anyone in the borough outside the orthodox Jewish communities. (My description of parent groups is reductive but defensible; South Brooklyn, for what it’s worth, has a lot of Trump voters.)
I’ve written about the parents’ social media page, which often devolves into acrimony. My strategy is mostly to stay out, but Thursday morning I post an article on a topic about which parents are expressing much concern: the Department of Education’s CoronaWorld-induced absence of plan to place middle schoolers in the city’s select public high schools. That the city’s segregated school system produces racist outcomes is beyond argument; a tiny percentage of black and Hispanic students qualify for the best high schools, a result born of more than a dozen racist policies, including neighborhood redlining. (Nikole Hannah Jones in 2016 conducted a thorough examination).
Response to my post is muted: a few “sad-faced” emojis; a parent who who writes, “This will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for most New Yorkers that I know. Lots of money will be moving out of NYC.” (White flight!)
More energetic are reactions to a North Brooklyn friend’s post, which copies a #BlackLivesMatter poster calling for rallies at local public schools to redirect city budget dollars from the New York Police Department to the Department of Education.
My friend — let’s call her North Brooklyn Parent 1 — writes, “Letting people know about this event. Ignore if it doesn't interest you.”
South Brooklyn Parent 1: “I hope comments here don't turn inflammatory. Hard to know how to react to this post though (lol). Definite yes to more funding for schools (obviously), definite no to cutting NYPD budget. Better to refocus on how their budget is spent, such as retraining. Be proactive instead of reactive.”
South Brooklyn Parent 2: “Let’s welcome shooters, right. And, yeah, let's get divided — school against police? Makes sense. *Sarcasm”
South Brooklyn Parent 3: “Many of us are getting together to visit police stations, send them posters and cards from our kids, and bring them snacks, lunches, etc., to show appreciation to cops and support them. I will be posting more information here if anyone is interested to join.”
South Brooklyn Parent 4: “People, you don't know what you're asking for. You (Americans) never lived in a crumbling country. No pleasure, trust me. I don't want my child to experience it.”
North Brooklyn Parent 2: “I was at first taken aback by the slogan ‘Defund the Police,’ and have been doing a lot of reading to try to understand what it really means. I found this article helpful.”
Group Administrator: “Admin here: I am going to assume this was meant to share the event, which is specifically about funding schools. I’m not letting this devolve into a political slingfest. Please do not be lured into insults and sarcasm. That is not the right tone for this group. As parents we need to work together for the betterment of our kids.
If you disagree with this rally, don’t go.”
South Brooklyn Parent 3: “I didn’t post about our support-police activities here because I know how divided people feel on this topic and I am not judging anyone. It is still a free country (not for long, unfortunately), and we all decide whom to support. But this event poster will only create division. As an admin you have the right to decide if it is appropriate or not. I respect your decision here.”
South Brooklyn Parent 2: “Maybe it's time to collect appreciation letters to first responders again? Make it a school-wide event?”
North Brooklyn Parent 3: “Please don’t make it a school-wide event.”
South Brooklyn Parent 2: “Why not? What happened, police are not considered first responders anymore? We want to defund them and let all the criminals into our schools and neighborhoods? And didn't we just discuss George Floyd's death school wide?”
South Brooklyn Parent 5: “I hope that people calling for defunding the police realize that there is no school if there is no safety, because at the end of the day safety is sooo much more important than education. Police brutality is to be addressed within the police, not by defunding them. We live in a free country, but to stay free and safe a healthy, strong, and respected law enforcement body is necessary. Let’s not forget it before disgracing officers in the eyes of our children!!!”
South Brooklyn Parent 2: “Can we defund the corrupt mayor and his family? Just asking — the answer is too obvious, I know. de Blasio is not Bloomberg (not to mention Giuliani).”
Admin: “OK folks. This has been fun (not really), but I’m closing the comments. Everyone stay safe and well.”
No comments:
Post a Comment