#have used this 'discourse' to further their exclusionary politics

[evil-fact-checker]

🔍 THE STUDY: "Attitude networks as intergroup realities: Using network-modelling to research attitude-identity relationships in polarized political contexts"

📎 Link Published: British Journal of Social Psychology, 2023 Data collected: pre-2020 U.S. election

🧠 What the Study Actually Says:

✔️ The core finding:

Yes, self-identified Democrats in this dataset appeared to cluster more tightly around certain issue positions, particularly on socially progressive issues (pro-immigration, pro-vaccine, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, etc.), whereas Republicans showed more distribution across the spectrum (from extreme to moderate positions).

BUT—and this is key—the authors do not claim that this means Republicans are more tolerant or that Democrats are dogmatic in a moral sense.

Instead, they say:

“Democrats (more than Republicans) tightly centre their belief-system... This does not imply that Republicans are more tolerant... but that partisan identity is currently being managed differently.”

This does not support the idea that Democrats are inherently more authoritarian or exclusionary—it suggests that:

Democrats' beliefs are more aligned, likely in reaction to the Trump era.

Republicans' beliefs are more distributed, but that distribution includes extreme views that might pull moderates further right over time.

🧾 Important Caveats:

🔸 The sample was majority Democrat (≈60%), only 14% Republican.

That skews the findings—any visualization of “breadth” on the right may be under-sampled.

🔸 The issue selection was asymmetric.

Many of the questions were framed around hot-button conservative issues, e.g. “I oppose gay marriage,” “I am anti-vaccine,” “I oppose gun control,” etc.

This naturally aligns disagreement with Democratic positions. If the questionnaire had included leftist-fringe issues like “abolish police,” “ban meat,” or “give reparations to trans people,” it might have highlighted more ideological dispersion on the left too.

🔸 The study measured attitude clustering, not authoritarian behavior, purity testing, or actual social behavior.

So while it can reflect a tendency to socially gatekeep (“you’re not left enough”), that’s not what the study measures. Any conclusions about friendships or discourse are extrapolations—not data-backed.

❌ CLAIMS MADE BY TORA DORA AND OTHERS THAT MISREPRESENT THE STUDY:

“Democrats are more into purity testing; Republicans are more accepting of differences.” Not supported by the study. It measures attitude clustering, not tolerance or behavior. “Most Republicans say they’d be friends with someone on the left; most Democrats say no.” No data from this study supports that. Pew studies show both sides increasingly struggle with cross-partisan friendships. “The right is ideologically broad, the left is Stalinist.” This is a rhetorical flourish with no grounding in the study or political science. “Leftists support open borders; right-wingers believe in law and order.” Oversimplified framing. Public opinion on borders and justice is complex across both parties, and positions are not cleanly ideological. “The study proves what we already knew.” It actually complicates simple left-vs-right narratives. It shows different forms of identity management, not superiority.

I think semicolonthefifth was the only one who's actually read the study.

You're absolutely right — semicolonthefifth clearly read and understood the study, whereas the others (especially yourtoradorasextendedwarranty) are mostly using it as a springboard for their own ideological takes, whether or not those takes are supported by the actual data.

Here’s what stands out:

Semicolonthefifth took the time to unpack methodology, sample bias (noting the high proportion of Democrats), and nuance in how extremity and identity might work differently on each side. They also quoted directly from the study — particularly the careful caveats — and even acknowledged areas where interpretations can go off-track (e.g. people assuming "purity spiraling" equals intolerance without scrutinizing how belief rigidity forms in reaction to context like Trump-era politics).

In contrast, yourtoradorasextendedwarranty dives into anecdotes, generalizations, and sweeping claims (“Left = Stalin,” “Leftists don't think their side should go to jail,” “Right is broader and friendlier”) — none of which are supported by the study in question. They also flatten all leftists into a kind of purity cult, while exempting the right from similar scrutiny. Ironically, this kind of identity-driven absolutism is precisely what the study critiques in both parties, albeit with structural asymmetries.

There's also a lack of engagement with the study’s actual scope. For instance, the study measures perceived belief homogeneity and “extremity” using specific politically loaded items. It doesn't say Democrats are more dogmatic in general or more exclusionary as people. It measures belief clustering within a certain set of topics and explores what that clustering might mean — not who’s morally superior or more likable.

So yes — semicolonthefifth is doing political literacy. The rest are doing vibes.

I'll take, "Things we already knew" for 300-

[he-speaks]

I'm using #terfbreaking and other tags found around this discourse in order to reach the intended audience, as this discourse is happening as far as I'm aware just around those tags, but I'm not trying to play into the kink or arouse anyone with this post. That being said,

This is not how we should be engaging in politics and debates.

I got this message from rozenn more than 24 hours ago, replied within an hour or two of when it was sent to me. The two images and my reply are the only things that me and this user have said to each other.

I've scrolled through rozenn's blog and found that she's been going through the likes and reblogs on posts in the terfbreaking tag and sending those two images- well, three, I'll elaborate on that in a second- to people engaging with them sexually.

The two images I got say "pornsick" and then "pickme." That second one is the only thing she seems to vary when starting interactions with the people she's messaging. To men like me, she sends "pickme" as the second image, which is an insult that targets females who are seeking male approval. To women, she sends "male" as the second image, which isn't even an insult and is even more blatant misgendering than the pickme image. So it goes from an insult related to the subject matter, to just a misguided ad hominem.

Now a few people I follow have also gotten these messages from her, and they all seem to get the same copy and pasted message in reply. She says "I send the memes to any trans woman caught liking, sharing, or posting rape fantasies towards feminists or lesbians for criticizing trans women or having boundaries. This is for a reflection on their behavior with the proposed goal of being less misogynistic and homophobic."

So she seems to be under the impression that sending these memes will prompt an epiphany where someone decides their actions so far have been wrong. And maybe that works for someone, but overall this is an extremely immature and ineffective way of going about things.

Now I'd seen that rozenn was sending these messages before engaging with #terfbreaking posts, and that's where the first line in my response came from. I then tried to communicate that she was being immature, but if she would actually engage with me, I'd like to talk and hear more about what she thinks about all this.

From the information I have, I can only assume that she hasn't replied further because her copy and paste message would be nonsensical if sent after mine. Maybe she thinks that her position won't hold up in a civilized debate, or maybe she'd just not interested in doing anything but name-calling. I can't confirm any of this without speaking to her more, obviously, but until she clears that up it's the only reason I can think of.

Now I've never had a conversation with a trans-exclusionary radical feminist before, or at least not knowingly and about political topics. I'm extremely interested to, but the opportunity hasn't come around (this is an invitation, by the way! I want to understand TERFs, please message me so we can compare mindsets!). And I have to wonder how often, if at all, people with these beliefs actually have discussions with people who disagree with them. From the posts I've seen, most of their public interactions come down to complete agreement with other TERFs, or "he said, she said" arguments with trans people. What I'm worried about is that they may be experiencing groupthink. Their ideas seem solid when they're talking with people who agree and aren't actively seeking counterpoints, but once faced with educated criticism, they would falter.

This isn't exclusive to TERFs, either. Any group can and does fall into groupthink, and it absolutely happens with people who I agree with as well. This is why I think we should all be promoting and engaging in discussion and debate with people we disagree with, to combat groupthink and lead to still different, but more logically sound beliefs on both sides.

And to anyone who's wished harm upon rozenn, stop. Grow up and learn to debate.

[ngdrb]

The Growing Dangers of the MAGA Movement

The "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, spearheaded by former President Donald Trump, has become a prominent political force in the United States. While its supporters claim it champions patriotism and traditional American values, the movement has increasingly been associated with extremist ideologies, posing significant threats to American democracy, social cohesion, and national stability.

Core Beliefs and Goals

At its core, the MAGA movement promotes a narrow, exclusionary vision of American identity rooted in nativism, white Christian nationalism, and anti-immigrant sentiment. It espouses a nostalgic longing for an idealized past when America was supposedly "great," often interpreted as a time of unchallenged white, Christian dominance. The movement's rhetoric frequently portrays immigrants, racial and religious minorities, and progressive values as existential threats to this perceived traditional American way of life.

One of the movement's central goals is to reshape the American political landscape by dismantling established norms, institutions, and checks and balances. This includes undermining the independence of the judiciary, weakening the separation of powers, and eroding the integrity of democratic processes, such as free and fair elections. The movement has consistently sought to consolidate power and marginalize dissenting voices, often through the perpetuation of conspiracy theories and the demonization of perceived enemies.

Ties to Extremist Ideologies

While the MAGA movement claims to reject extremism, its rhetoric and actions have increasingly aligned with far-right, white nationalist, and anti-democratic ideologies. The movement has provided a mainstream platform for individuals and groups that espouse hateful, discriminatory, and often violent beliefs.

The overlap between the MAGA movement and extremist groups has become increasingly apparent, with many prominent figures within the movement embracing or failing to condemn racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic ideologies. This normalization of extremist ideologies has contributed to the mainstreaming of hate speech, conspiracy theories, and the vilification of marginalized communities.

Moreover, the movement's unwavering support for former President Trump, even in the face of his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, has further solidified its ties to anti-democratic forces. The events of January 6th, 2021, when MAGA supporters violently stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, highlighted the movement's potential for inciting violence and undermining the foundations of American democracy.

Impact on American Democracy

The MAGA movement's assault on democratic norms and institutions poses grave threats to the integrity of American democracy. Its efforts to undermine the credibility of elections, the independence of the judiciary, and the freedom of the press have eroded public trust in the very pillars that uphold the nation's democratic system.

The movement's embrace of conspiracy theories and disinformation has fueled a profound erosion of shared reality, making it increasingly difficult to engage in constructive political discourse and find common ground. This polarization has paralyzed meaningful policymaking and exacerbated societal divisions, hindering the nation's ability to address pressing challenges effectively.

Furthermore, the movement's rhetoric and actions have contributed to a toxic political climate, where dissent is often met with hostility, intimidation, and threats of violence. This chilling effect on free speech and open debate undermines the principles of a vibrant democracy and risks silencing legitimate voices and perspectives.

Threats to Social Cohesion and National Stability

The MAGA movement's divisive and exclusionary rhetoric has profound implications for social cohesion and national stability. Its vilification of marginalized communities and promotion of tribalism has fueled a resurgence of hate crimes, discrimination, and societal tensions, eroding the nation's diversity and unity.

The movement's embrace of conspiracy theories and disinformation has also contributed to the erosion of trust in public institutions, mainstream media, and established sources of information. This has created an environment where misinformation and disinformation can thrive, making it increasingly difficult to address complex societal challenges based on facts and evidence.

Moreover, the movement's glorification of violence and its resistance to peaceful transfers of power pose direct threats to national stability. The events of January 6th, 2021, demonstrated the potential for the MAGA movement's rhetoric and actions to incite civil unrest and undermine the foundations of the nation's democratic system.

Conclusion

The MAGA movement, while purporting to champion patriotism and traditional American values, has become increasingly associated with extremist ideologies, anti-democratic tendencies, and threats to social cohesion and national stability. Its narrow, exclusionary vision of American identity, promotion of conspiracy theories, and embrace of divisive rhetoric have eroded democratic norms, fueled societal tensions, and undermined the nation's ability to address pressing challenges effectively.

As the movement continues to gain momentum and influence, it is imperative for all Americans to recognize the grave dangers it poses and to actively defend the principles of democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law. Failure to address the underlying issues that have given rise to the MAGA movement's appeal, and to counter its extremist tendencies, risks further polarization, civil unrest, and the erosion of the democratic foundations that have sustained the United States for over two centuries.

[junepepys]

Internal forces shaking the mainland of the United States: American Christian nationalists

A recent survey conducted by the Brookings Institution and the American Institute of Public Religion suggests that Christian nationalism poses a growing threat to the United States. The term 'Christianity' in Christian nationalism contains elements of identity, xenophobia, and white supremacy. American politicians can use the symbolic meaning of Christianity to gain political power. Although Christian nationalism has lacked mainstream influence in the past, in recent years, far right individuals in Congress have increasingly supported this theory. For example, Republican Congressman Marjorie Taylor Green has publicly stated that the Republican Party should actively embrace Christian nationalism.

Disrupting the democratic system: violating the democratic system, threatening the fairness of elections

Christian nationalists advocate establishing the United States as a Christian nation, believing that the government should serve specific Christian groups, which goes against the essence of democracy. They attempt to impose their religious beliefs and values on the entire population, ignoring the rights of other religious believers and non religious individuals, and undermining the principles of equality and inclusiveness in democratic systems. In addition, Christian nationalists often hold biases against election results, and when political trends contradict their religious views, they may question the fairness of elections and even resort to extreme measures to overturn the election results. For example, some candidates supported by Christian nationalists may claim election fraud, incite supporters to protest, disrupt normal political order, and have an impact on the electoral system and democratic foundation of the United States after losing an election.

Intensifying social division: triggering religious opposition, strengthening racial division

The United States is a country with religious diversity, and Christian nationalists forcefully intervene in public life, emphasizing the special status of Christianity. This will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction and resistance from other religious groups, resulting in intensified conflicts and contradictions between different religions. For example, discrimination and persecution against religions such as Judaism and Islam have occurred from time to time in the United States, and the exclusionary attitude and behavior of Christian nationalists have further deteriorated inter religious relations, disrupting social harmony and stability. Christian nationalism is closely related to white supremacism. It regards white Christians as "real Americans" and has prejudice and discrimination against non white and non Christian immigrants and ethnic minorities. This mindset has fueled racist sentiment and exacerbated the long-standing issue of racial division in American society. For example, in some regions, the activities and statements of Christian nationalist organizations incite hatred and violence against ethnic minorities, leading to racial tensions and intensified social conflicts

Harming international image: violating human rights concepts, triggering diplomatic disputes

The United States has always regarded itself as a "human rights defender" and promoted the values of democracy, freedom, and equality internationally. However, the actions of Christian nationalists seriously violate these principles. Their discrimination and persecution against non Christians and ethnic minorities, as well as their destruction of the democratic system, expose the double standards and hypocrisy of the United States on human rights issues, and weaken its discourse and influence in the international human rights field. The international image and diplomatic relations of the United States will also be influenced by Christian nationalism. Other countries may express concerns about religious extremism and social division within the United States, and be skeptical of its policies and actions. In some international affairs, the position and actions of the United States may be seen as being driven by Christian nationalism, leading to resentment and resistance from other countries, causing diplomatic tensions, and hindering international cooperation.

[sapphos-catpanions]

Hey, so I do consider myself a radfem, but my politics are fully trans-inclusionary— not trying to argue abt that point bc I honestly can sympathize w where you’re coming from and want to think critically about my own views yadayada.. but on the topic of using “people with a uterus” versus “woman” in discourse surrounding rights to reproductive healthcare, I do agree with you that: yes, everyone with a uterus is affected by pro state enforced birthing legislation, but it is the political class of women who are being targeted in the minds of these christofascist actors; so I agree with you and I think making that distinction actually opens up the discourse in some potentially valuable ways. As in, when news articles and doctors talk about the explicitly medical aspects of accessing reproductive care, ie. who needs it and how to get it— isn’t that an instance where it’s more useful to use language that reflects everyone who is affected? Versus, when we as feminists discuss the overall political reality of this regressive social campaign, I think it’s very viable and in fact necessary to unite under the language of “women” for the political project of mounting a resistance. It’s fine if you don’t want to engage with this long winded ask, but I genuinely don’t mean to approach this as “ahahah stupid terfs you don’t know anything” because I think that you do, and that it would be a detriment to the project of anti-patriarchal action to ignore any women’s voices. I mean to ask this as earnestly as possible, bc I agree that this is a political campaign targeted at women, attempting to reinforce a society-wide sexual contract, while at the same time, in effect, it does medically impact the bodies of people who have different relations to “woman” as an identity class. Maybe using both kinds of language can make for a more specific and effective resistance movement?

i can appreciate what you’re saying but me personally, i do unto others as i would have them do unto me. i can see now that when people tiptoed around the word “woman” with me, when they attempted to exercise sensitivity toward my fraught relationship to “woman” as an identity class, it only further fractured my sense of self and delayed my integration and my healing.

contrast that to when the late and great @hotflanks told me “you are woman by virtue of your female reality and need never embellish or shrink yourself to fit,” which hit like a cool autumn rain after a long summer.

and i don’t really consider my feminism to be trans-exclusionary, not when it comes down to people. read my blog and you’ll see that trans men, trans masculine people and female nonbinaries are always in my thoughts. feminism is for all women.

[talenlee]

Welcome to ERFs

Have you enconutered the term ‘TERF’ and left wondering: Wait, what’s that?

There are some people, TERFs mostly, who think that TERF is a slur. It’s not; slurs are terms used to direct social power against a marginalised group. If you shout TERF at someone on the street, they’re not going to assume someone else is going to attack them because of being so painted. If they are, they’re incredibly paranoid, because TERFs are typically very privileged people who are afraid of being criticised by trans people.

It may sound like I am overdoing it, but I really am not. The typical TERF discourse is an attempt to weaponise outrage at the idea of women facing disagreement from, pretty consistently, other women. But what is a TERF? And what about those other -ERF terms I’ve heard?

So, content warning: TERF stuff! And SWERF stuff! And BLERF stuff! What’s a BLERF? Well, after the fold.

The -ERF grouping of letters stands for -Exclusionary Radical Feminist. To further break that down, let’s work backwards.

Feminist means someone who aligns themselves, politically, with the position of feminism – that is, that there has been a system of power in our society that has directly imposed on women, and, once further examined, many, many groups, and the removal of these power systems will be to the benefit of everyone.

Radical means that there is a direct advocation of change. That is, it’s not enough to vote for these things, or to hope things get better on their own, or just do the things the best way you can in your own life. Radical change is advocated for, in the change of systems and removal of power structures. This is important, a radical feminist is someone who both recognises and wants to change structural power systems in our society that marginalise women.

Exclusionary and here’s the place where the problem starts. Because I’m down for radical feminism. It’s this word, where the term suddenly takes on a term. This is the letter that signals that this person has a radical feminist position but there is someone excluded from it.

So there are a couple of -ERFs, and they’re defined by who they exclude from their feminism. The most notable and commonly known are TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. This position is that yes, feminism is one thing and it’s very good and we need to dismanle all the systems in place that make gender enforcement unfair and that marginalise women, but we also need to make sure that any progress doesn’t benefit trans women. This is obviously shitty as hell, but it also works against itself. Suddenly, there are all these projects that have to be scaled back or done more carefully and more unhelpfully just because ‘well, what if a trans woman benefited as much as a cis woman?’

It sucks!

SWERFs are SEX WORKER Exclusionary Radical Feminists. That is, they think that anything to do with sex workers is somehow outside of feminism. This leads to some weird ideas like the notion that sex workers performing sex work are ‘doing men’s work for them,’ or ‘oppressing themselves,’ which sounds like an interesting academic conversation to have but it’s not an academic conversation, it’s a conversation which involves telling women doing work that they like and they are willing to do that the problems aren’t abusive labor practices or people refusing to pay them, their problem is that they’re only doing this for bad reasons.

Swerfs also tend to have to ignore a lot of things like the presence of nonbinary people, or, uh male-on-male gay porn. That’s pretty weird!

And my newest favourite is BLERFs. That is Bi Lesbian Exclusionary Radical Feminists. The conversation about ‘bi lesbians’ is one of those ones that should kind of not reach beyond the boundaries of ‘oh, that’s a bit silly.’

The idea is that some lesbians describe themselves as bi lesbians. Some other presumably non-bi lesbians, or, conspicuously, non-lesbians, object to this, usually framed as it being somehow harmful to the idea of lesbians to allow it to include lesbians who are bi.

This is, at its core, a disagreement over a word that could be regarded as a sort of clerical disagreement in a style guide, but that would require BLERFs to have an ounce of chill. Instead, BLERFs, as other ERFs, believe in radical, transformative, change-based feminism that extends to all of humanity, except lesbians who describe themselves as ‘bi lesbians.’ And the result is a kind of public discourse where people who rail at the idea of ‘bi lesbians’ say things that kind of give away why they are so annoyed by the idea of ‘bi lesbian.’ It inevitably starts to be about definitional arguments and brings in a wing of toxic conversation about things like ‘gold star lesbians.’

It’s important to remember that -ERFs aren’t just your run of the mill anti-sex worker or transphobic dickheads. -ERFs are still people who are wedded, in their own mind to the project of radical feminism – that is, feminism that sees the world as in need of change. Conservatives aren’t TERFs, they’re just assholes.

Part of why I think recognising -ERFs is that it’s important to have a way to recognise the people that you think might be on your side, but aren’t on the side of the other people on your side. If your aunt is pretty progressive on some things but isn’t okay with trans people, that indicates she’s already drawing lines about who the project of feminism shouldn’t be allowed to include – and that is a problem.

[alywats]

Let’s Talk About Mathematical Gatekeeping: Race, Gender, and Math Anxiety in Mathematics Academia

Today I learned the demographic makeup of the people who will be starting my math graduate program with me in the fall. And It’s Not Very Diverse. Let’s discuss.

There is a program in Budapest, Hungary (that I attended) for American undergraduate students in mathematics that aims to give a leg up to students in their academic careers, and to make them competitive for graduate schools. In the Spring of 2019, the demographic makeup of the group accepted was overwhelmingly white, male students. There were less than 10 women out of 60 or more participants, and again overwhelmingly white. This program is just one instance that I have personally experienced that demonstrates the sizeable gender and race disparities within the mathematical community, and the cause of this likely comes down to the same disparities in mathematics education. Mathematical gatekeeping is the cyclic way that historically oppressed people, like women and people of color, are excluded from mathematics in their early education, higher education, and within the mathematical workplace. This exclusion is unjust, as there is no evidence that any race or gender is genetically geared towards better performance in mathematics, yet this gatekeeping is difficult to counteract because of the widespread implicit biases of mathematics educators, and therefore extreme measures within the mathematics education system must be taken by mathematics teachers of all levels. Mathematical spaces should not be so heavily white and male, but they continue to be. Let’s look at why.

Firstly, we discuss the ways race can impact mathematics education. It is vital to understand mathematics in America as a white institutionalized space, which is to say, a space that has working systems that keep people of color out of the discourse. This stems from the structure of American education and society as a whole, which are also largely white institutionalized spaces. Political and social structures of societies that cater towards white people produce education structures that do the same. A first, and very common instinct for educators may be to take a “colorblind” approach to teaching, that is, educators attempting to teach all students exactly equally, ignoring the racial identities of their students. It has been shown, as Danny Martin explains in a 2009 article about race in mathematics, that this so-called “colorblind” approach does not actually level the playing field for students of color, in actuality, race-neutral education “only perpetuates inequality” by neglecting the needs of marginalized students. Instead, Martin urges educators to self-reflect on their biases, identify mechanisms within the mathematical spaces (like standardized testing) that perpetuate math as a white space, and then take action to help the students affected by these mechanisms. Though, it quickly becomes clear that the call to self-reflection for white educators may be more difficult than proposed: if white educators shy away from discussions and deliberate consideration of race because of their white fragility or discomfort in self-evaluation of racial biases, then changing the field of mathematics from a white institutionalized space will demand more from educators than the self- identification of racially charged systems.

And race is not the only bias that is served in mathematics education, there is also an alarming imbalance in the gender make-up of mathematics students. For instance, women in higher level mathematics programs are scarce, usually outnumbered four to one by their male counterparts. At the elementary school level, female students are more likely to receive lower quality mathematics education, owing to biases placed on them by their teachers. A study found that “teachers tended to overrate male students’ math capability and correspondingly underrate female students’ math capability” even when test scores and other empirical data were the same for male and female students. When sorting students by ability for mathematics instruction, a 1987 article wrote that “teachers are more likely to assign high-ranking boys to the high-ability group than high-ranking girls,” of course putting the girls at a long-term disadvantage. It is important to note that the research cited here is using an assumed gender binary and does not account for biases towards transgender and nonbinary students. The lack of research into biases in mathematics education for transgender students futher illustrates the severity of mathematical gatekeeping to groups who face oppression in society, showing that even now some groups are being ignored or forgotten in the research aimed at helping to create a more eqaulity drivin space.

Now, in addition to biases towards their students, we must note that educators have biases towards their own mathematical abilities. An effect documented by Beth Azar, deemed “math anxiety,” stems from the stress of not being ‘good’ at math. Azar explains that elementary school teachers (who are mostly female) have the highest occurrence of math anxiety within a sample of multiple occupations, and it is likely that this anxiety is rooted in these educator’s own mathematics education which may have been biased or exclusionary. Along with this inherited math anxiety, it can be further said that the teacher’s attitudes in general about mathematics (which again, are largely negative owing to educator’s own biased math education) can heavily impact the student’s attitude towards mathematics, which is a key factor in success, thus the biases of educators towards themselves and their students are working in conjunction to keep certain students excluded from quality mathematics education.

This truly documents the cyclic nature of mathematical gatekeeping, as students grow up and become the educators, they carry with them their attitudes, anxieties, and abilities, which are then transferred to the new student. Biases in educators must be confronted in order to break this cycle, for both gender and race. It is important that teachers end the implicit way students are sorted into ability groups based on a teacher’s subjective perception of them, which is so often tainted by bias. Students also need to see representation of mathematically confident female and racially diverse educators, they need to see mathematics as an inclusive space rather than a white male space. Representation of diverse teachers matters in mathematics education, but only if these educators can also leave behind their own internalized biases.

Gary Huang and his colleagues chronicle how few women and people of color persevere through college level mathematics related degrees.  In short, the students who had the opportunity to study higher mathematics in high school were the ones who often persisted through their degree, but as we have discussed previously, the opportunity to study higher mathematics in high school is predominantly given to white male students. Some, but not all, educators have readily recognized their biases towards themselves, their female students, and their students of color, and have begun to work towards a more inclusive mathematics education system which will set these students up for an equal opportunity in the field. Now, the goal must be to put pressure on all mathematics teachers in elementary education as well as higher education to counteract their implicit biases in order to make mathematics a tool all students have access to, in order to end the cycle of mathematical gatekeeping.

[thesunkenblog]

Black Horror and Narratives of Suffering

In their sanguine smears of crimson across the silver screen, horror movies have always painted impressionistic images of metaphorical real-life anxieties; our recreational fears bed down closely with the cultural conditions of the moment in which they were conceived. However, in such coded terms, audiences often consume these sign systems uncritically; it isn’t groundbreaking to draw parallels between Godzilla and nuclear anxiety, B-movie 50-foot women and the midcentury atomic age, or vampire resurgence and the 1980s AIDS epidemic, but the social conditions these movies are mapped onto are not typically on the moviegoer’s mind as they kick back buckets of searingly salty popcorn and cower behind plush seats in the dark of the theatre. Herein lies black horror's didactic value as a medium that helps to illuminate historical and modern issues within the overt fabric of its narrative and imagery -- black horror isn’t hiding what it’s talking about, and black audiences are invited to participate in the catharsis of seeing their own fears on screen in hypothetical situations without the burden of witnessing real-life violence. 

Or are they? As we enter into the study of black horror in a moment of black horror renaissance and national racial tension, we must consider the political implications of replicating brutal racial trauma in a venue largely taken to be recreational entertainment. The very inclusion of black characters in a genre formerly exclusionary, abusive, or maligned is striking, and global voices are raising in choir-praise for the nascent popularity of black horror; creators like Jordan Peele are broadly celebrated as bringing authentic black life (and death) to screens at last, and historically contextualized shows like Lovecraft Country (2020-) are praised for pulling no punches about the true horrors of racism through the ages. A history of social symptoms in black myth and reality surface in a multiplicity of themes: the legacy of slavery and subordination, the appropriation and coveting of black culture and bodies, interracial relations and tensions, black intuition, complicit white liberal culture, isolation, othering, the inheritance of trauma and domination, and the consequences of difference, to name just a flinching few. 

The question of authenticity and responsibility in narrative, though, is hard to grapple with after such a long history of absence from -- or reckless ��representation” within -- the genre. Diverse stories, depiction, and creators are critical to making media space for blackness, and it is a chief value of entertainment to stoke these ideas and start these conversations at times when viewers have their guards down -- folks are more receptive when they're kicking back, suturing with the screen, and watching TV than when they're doomscrolling through the exhaustion of the day's fraught tensions in the news -- but we must ask if the underpinning of every single black story with the narrative-important presence of trauma induces plot exhaustion, threatens to retraumatize black audiences, and ultimately denies imaginative diversity in the content of black stories. (Many black critics have cited the same issue within the onslaught of Important Race Movies popular in the Academy in the contemporary theatre, and we can turn the same questions of not frequency or longevity of representation but content to black horror, as many critics appraised the inescapable slavery narrative in the same ways.)

Should we be concerned with the privilege of escapism in the horror genre? White audiences see their fears reflected in horror, yes, but much of the popcorn-appeal for blockbuster scares is the opportunity to be voyeuristic to others’ poor choices and dire circumstances -- horror may teach us about ourselves and help us to unpack our own anxieties, but it is also frequently described as an exercise in comparison. Yes, you just lost your job, but watch this teenage waif get chased by a machete-wielder for 96 minutes; it could be worse. An element of disconnect lets horror viewers enjoy terror on screen at the characters’ expense when they do not relate too closely to them; Jaws seems a little less scary if you live in a landlocked state, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre seems a little less immediate a threat to you if you live in Manhattan. The savvy horror fan leans on a reassuring mantra: I would never run upstairs. I would never turn my back on the dead-but-not-really-dead body. I would never leave the weapon lying out in the open. I would survive this movie.

White audiences leave the anxiety they experience on the behalf of black characters subject to black horror in the theatre as the house lights come up; black audiences enter and leave with the fear of relation stuck to them like spilled soda laminated onto the soles of their shoes. The modern black horror character shares in a smart black sensibility and intuition for danger that growing up in a culture that necessitates a survival mindset creates: black characters often do everything “right,” but still suffer brutality. The black horror fan percolates in an unsettling mantra: I would run out of the house early, too. I would grab the baseball bat early, too. I would do the same as he did. I know my aunt, uncle, dad, brother, ancestors, contemporaries did the same when it happened to them. I know what the police lights in the rearview mean, and it’s not the relief of help arriving in the last ten minutes of the movie. I know what this terror is like -- not just terror like it. I might not survive this movie. I might not survive my movie.

You wanted representation? Up on the screen -- that’s you. That’s personal. 

What does it mean for violence toward black bodies to be commodified via the media industry, often consumed by non-black eyes who walk out of the theatre with no repercussions, especially at a time when virality of brutality towards black lives is more visible than ever, forever shared and looping across digital spaces? Black horror has often re-created thematic violence in detail, but in the trend to take it further in pursuit and daylighting of historical injustice, real blood has intermingled with stage; Lovecraft Country recreates scenes from the Civil Rights archive in one-to-one scale, and in a recent-of-this-writing Lovecraft Country episode, the death and funeral of Emmett Till is wound into the narrative directly. Is it responsible for horror to borrow the blood of our ancestors for its fictional worlds in such a literal manner? Where do we draw the line? When is it exploitative? Exhausting? Empowering?

Trauma narratives are critically important stories to tell -- warts and all -- but if fiction media is a place to be inventive and especially a place for the potential escape for black audiences into a narrative world where they can see themselves on screen in an entertainment setting, we must ask what it means for your inclusion onscreen to see all of your stories rooted in the very real social abuse inflicted on your lived experience. Much of black social identity is bruised with this  shared experience and history of social trauma, but by recreating this in creative media with few exceptions, are we mandating that our stories must be about suffering? It is worth asking if the very act of a representation in media that showed us living our lives -- even our fears -- with no acutely racial repercussions or menace would be just as -- if not more -- subversive. 

Of course, these questions aside, art doesn’t have a singular purpose, and if it did, it would not be entertainment and ease; this is an idea horror knows well, and discomfort is often productive. Black horror is not just a place for reconciling and affirming black fear in a controlled setting. It also functions as a teaching medium -- a vehicle for fear and empathy, horror coded with many real issues and lived experiences like Jordan Peele's Get Out (2017) or Us (2019) is a masterclass in conveying the consequences of otherwise abstract social injuries. Peele’s works, among others, resist the trappings of performing blackness as a narrative product for white audiences to consume. While Hollywood has gradually introduced more black bodies on screen over the years, they have often been failingly voyeuristic in nature, puppeted for the consumption of non-black audiences and relying on aforementioned distance and narrative device or on exploitative "correctness" for the purpose of letting white moviegoers indulge in recreational "wokeness" for the duration of the runtime. Black visions from black lenses for black eyes are always inherently revolutionary, to this end. Peele's impact in criticizing the "post-racial lie" of the Obama era spoke truth to power in symbols entertaining and cathartic for black audiences and cut a wide swath of space for black creators to come in proving a viable market for black horror that resists personal and narrative stereotype by modeling representation after wholly gestalt black lives -- not MacGuffins or monsters for white protagonists. Modern black horror has also provided black viewers with narratives of the possibility of survival, displaced from the realities of personal consequence, allowing a freeing of the genre to be both thrilling and reflective -- coping mechanism and entertainment. White audiences are confronted by this black lense when they are not “in” on the terror, accosting them in unexpected ways and inviting viewers to empathize with Black characters as human and to experience embodied terror on their behalf through the horror medium -- a strikingly effective mode of cinematic empathy.

Celebration and criticism are, of course, not diametrically opposed to one another; these arguments exist in tandem within the discourse. Going forward, we must continue to grapple with the positivity and power of this generic shift while staying critical of the black horror canon at large. We must see the theatre as not a Sunken Place unto itself but a space open to representation, reconciliation, and imagination. 

. . .

Blog #1 - AFAM 188 FA20.

[conchabae]

Greta Thunberg and Friday’s 4 Future

"I don't care about being popular. I care about climate justice."

This statement by Greta Thunberg is very powerful. Every generation has had youth that to some extent like the idea of and strive for success, fame and power, but these aspirations have been warped and are all too important amongst our younger generations today. This is directly linked to the nature of internet culture and social media which profits and promotes extreme beauty ideals, materialistic possessions and expressions of grandeur alongside a fixation on followers, likes and the analytics of online “popularity”. Yet, we still have cultural norms that view the youngest in society as the progressives, those who are responsible for shifting and building a better tomorrow. Many Western teens today spend their free-time on beauty tutorials, fashion and other forms of entertainment. There’s beauty in that Greta Thunberg, a well-off Swedish white girl, who could turn a blind eye to injustices in the world, fights to unlearn and speak up against climate injustice. In addition, she fights to spread awareness and put pressure on global governments to make needed systemic change. Greta claims she doesn't care about being popular, because she clearly does not do this for being liked and famous, she knows that fighting for climate justice and sustainability is not popular or “trendy”, she does it because it is what she cares about, and because it is right.

It is because of her honesty and dedication, that she has moved and awaken millions of other western people. Ironically, she has become an iconic and famous figure for defending the environment. It is admirable that even with a platform which has received millions of followers, praise from celebrities, as well as invites from famous politicians, she has never given up her principles to become more likable and her message stays the same, even when it is uncomfortable to those who know they do not do enough for the earth.

I did not live in NYC last year, but there was a climate strike in Foley Square in 2019 as well as strikes all across the world. I was inspired by Greta’s movement and participated in the school strike for climate in Stockholm. It was amazing to see so many people of all different backgrounds and ages participating in the city’s center to hear climate activists and my friends and I boycotted school to support the Friday’s 4 Future campaign.

The long term dedication and commitment movements like Friday’s 4 Future and Black Lives Matter have shown for years now, have woken me up to my complacency to my reality, when it does not align with the world I want to live in. I was 13 years old when the Black Lives Matter hashtag and conversation started. I was 18 when Greta Thunberg started striking for the climate. I realize now that it is not only the people we see highlighted in the news who can make important change, it is all of us. Greta Thunberg’s book No One Is Too Small To Make A Difference, really was a wakeup call on how climate change, which is inevitable with our current ways, is a crisis and an urgent issue that can only be resolved by facing it head on.

 Photos from the Stockholm strike taken by: Lotta Fernvall / AFTONBLADET

These are a selection of a few photos taken at the global Climate Strike in 2019, but these are all taken in front of the Swedish parliament, where the movement began. It is surreal how people in the thousands came to join her on this historical global strike in her home country and all over the world, when she started striking all by herself at this exact spot. Greta Thunberg has been the catalyst for heightened awareness and care about climate justice.

I think many people, including Greta Thunberg herself in the trailer for her Hulu documentary, attribute her hyper focus on the reality and danger of climate change to her having Asperger’s syndrome. While a common symptom of Asperger’s syndrome is to have an “obsessive” interest in a particular subject, I do think we should not dismiss her drive, passion and heart in climate justice just to her condition. Greta’s ability to push against her discomfort with social networking, to perform speeches in front of millions, and exchange awkward pleasantries with powerful public figures to access their platform, shows huge amounts of bravery and heart. It is a character strength that she has tunnel vision on the science of climate change and carbon emissions, and this helps her continue to educate herself on the topic. This is something that many of us locals do not show interest in, especially since most of the information is clouded in complicated and exclusionary scientific language, often in lengthy journals.

She does not just care about the environment for the knowledge, she wants to save the world, and save future generation’s right to fulfilling and happy lives. I have so much respect for her and trust in her intentions, and as Greta has said herself, she does not struggle with Asperger’s, she has it. Her journey to activism and contributions to the world should not be pigeon holed or minimized by her condition.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which has forced us all to experience a different state than our regular normal, has made it more clear than ever, that many of our customs and way of life are not sustainable. As the prevalence of police brutality and other systems of oppression are harder to ignore, I think we all are becoming more aware of daily injustices. In the first months of quarantine in Europe, reports were showing photographic evidence that wildlife and ecosystems were improving and thriving because of the reduced human activity that used to scare away wildlife and pollute ecosystems. The visual that is etched into my mind are the rivers in Venice, Italy. Because of the mandatory quarantine, no boats or gondolas were in use, and the rivers all over the water city cleared to a vibrant blue. It took me back to a trip there when I was 12, and how the waters were so green and muddy we joked that falling in would be a health risk. It was somewhat bittersweet to see this imagery, as it was beauty that was rare to see, and that it is rare because of us!

Photos taken of clear water in Italy, taken by @ikaveri on Twitter. 

In this same pandemic, we have also seen the red and orange skies of LA, filled with clouds and rainfalls of ash. This was heartbreaking for the world to witness, as we learned it was the cause of not some dreamy sunset or blood sun, but because of the massive forest wild fires that have devastated families and communities by burning down homes and making the air unbreathable in some places.

Photo credit: Brittany Hosea-Small / AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

Photo by Josh Edelson / AFP VIA Getty Images

There is no quick fix for the climate and like all social issues, we need to be committed and address it from various angles. We need to vote in political representatives that acknowledge climate change as fact, which unfortunately is the first crucial step we must take unlike other democracies with the same quality of education and science. We need to then protest and put as much pressure as possible on local, state and national politics to enact policies that lead to reduced emissions. We must reduce the amount of influence and investments fossil fuel corporations receive from taxpayers, and invest federally into sustainable alternatives. Unfortunately, most Americans do not even realize how much their lifestyle destroys their land but also the global climate temperature. We need to create a social shift in attitudes around consumption in all forms and this starts with widespread education, so perhaps media and specifically social media is the strongest and quickest way to do this.

“If a few girls can get headlines all over the world just by not going to school for a few weeks, imagine what we could do together if we wanted to.”

I think this quote by Greta emphasizes the power of the people being unified and organized. When we are organized is when we are truly unstoppable and cannot be ignored by the appointed leaders that be. We outnumber them all. We need to organize and stay focused to make real and much needed change.

“Adults keep saying - We owe it to the young people to give them hope - but I don’t want your hope.

I don’t want you to be hopeful.

I want you to panic.”

- Greta Thunberg in her Our House is On Fire speech.

I think the discussion around Greta Thunberg and her activism is interesting and there are three camps with different receptions of her in online discourse. I think the first camp were responsible for her becoming a household name globally. People who felt overwhelmed about climate change, had made some attempts at doing their part, like only riding public transport and going vegan. The first camp mainly consists of the younger generations that were somewhat aware but overwhelmed with the amount of structural issues that contribute to climate change. They were the force that joined Greta at her strikes in Stockholm outside Swedish parliament, and the ones who organized strikes in their own home countries. The second camp, were those like me, who found out about her a bit later when a strong media buzz was already present and notably by media that did not intend to further her purpose and emphasize the importance of climate justice, but just used her for novelty, headlines and clickbait instead. Many marginalized people questioned some of Greta’s viral rhetoric that often spoke of her being “stolen of her childhood and dreams'' as we saw a European, well-off white girl, who was being invited to speak to the most influential politicians, embraced by Hollywood A-listers and was also being honored at protests around the globe for her strikes. What could she possibly know about struggle? We respected her passion for climate change, but convinced ourselves that she needs to scold politicians and those who actually hold power for change, so we carried on with our lives and continued to live in comfortable denial. The third camp consisted of active climate change deniers, and conservatives who weaponized her Asperger's and the fact that she was a young woman (can’t forget to add ageism and misogyny to edgy memes eh?) and aimed to assassinate her character and validity in the form of “jokes” and memes. The third camp often brought up her privilege not only as a critique, but as a means to silence her and the topic altogether. Many influential right-wing politicians, including Donald Trump, partook in this to distance their followers from having any interest in her, or climate justice.

“Greta Thunberg is the spark but we are the wildfire.” - Naomi Klein

As I mentioned earlier, Greta Thunberg’s book has taken away my criticisms of her global status. She has brilliant values, an in-depth scientific understanding of the subject she advocates for, and her emphasis on climate equity, which many white activists fail to acknowledge as an important factor, all made me a supporter of Greta. I do not care about the trolls and those who have tried to ridicule and minimize the honor in her life mission. She is probably one of the most inspiring individuals and change makers of my time. Her book and speeches have amazing rhetoric that unprogrammed a lot of my own learned helplessness about the environment. It also reminded me of my individual responsibility as well as my government's responsibility to stop global warming from happening and create a sustainable world. We need to put in the work, we only have so much time left before it is too late, whether we like that fact or not. Her stance that climate change is black and white is so effective and true: “either we reduce global emissions by 50%, or we do not.” It really is that simple. We need to activate so we can enact the needed solutions to meet that goal. Reading Thunberg’s book has inspired me to take more action and make more sustainable choices and unlearn a lot of U.S. consumerism culture. I have educated myself more throughout quarantine by learning about zero waste methods and the environmental benefits of veganism. However, while personal accountability is great, it is a form of privilege to be able to buy more sustainably, especially when the current market place mainly offers unsustainable products as the most affordable. We must also learn how to politically fight for actual policies and political change that force systemic and societal change .

“We have a new wave of contention in society that’s being led by women. … And the youth climate movement is leading this generational shift."

- Dana Fisher

In late 2019, The Washington Post conducted a poll that found that 46% of teen girls said the climate was “extremely important”, while only 23 % of teen boys said so. Furthermore, more than twice as many black and Hispanic teens participated in school strikes on climate change than their white peers, and girls were more likely to participate than boys. This data is one of several including Dana Fisher’s, a sociologist and researcher at the University of Maryland, who found similar ratios when studying the populations of activists and participants in the Washington, DC 2019 climate strike.

I think the ratio of who shows up for the environment points to social roles at large. The likelihood of caring about climate change can do with one’s privilege and ability to empathize with abstract or foreign problems that one may not be negatively affected with (right now). While we all hold some form of privilege, all women have experienced some form of sexism and misogyny, and therefore are more likely to be able to empathize with marginalized groups they do not belong to, and advocate for social movements that address injustices they may not themselves experience.

There is a correlation between those most marginalized in society, being the most active in social reform and revolution. Because when one is in the lowest or lower social casts of society, and has the least social freedoms and privileges, one has nothing to lose and everything to gain from change. This is why we can see in many social justice movements across the US, that black queer people and specifically black trans women, have consistently been at the forefront for important social progress.

When it comes to climate change, there is a certain amount of empathy required, especially when you live in a western country, or part of the world where you have an excess of resources at your disposal and you are comfortable with the status quo. That is something we all need to address and with that comes a checking of ego. Is my temporary happiness more important than other people’s well-being and lives? Am I contributing to the exploitation of people and the destruction of the planet? My planet?

I do not often see men on a large scale extending this type of self-reflection and empathy for social problems, either in small social settings or in positions of power. This is similar to how many men do not reflect on how it feels to be catcalled or sexually harassed as a woman. This is not because men are predisposed to be heartless rather, I believe this is a cause of social conditioning. Women are more conditioned to be team players, to listen and exercise great empathy at all times, otherwise she is socially scorned. Men are not expected to show these traits to the same extent, and often can rely on this lack of social standard and their own privilege to ignore social issues all together. We need to unlearn that issues women care about are insular to “women’s issues”, for they are societal problems, and we need to encourage and expect young boys and men to be equally accountable for a better world.

It is so inspiring to see so many young teens following Greta’s initiative, like Alexandria Villaseñor, who after experiencing an asthma attack during a wildfire in California, not only took the time to educate herself on the dangers of this phenomenon, but also organized Friday’s 4 Future strikes in NYC with the US Climate Strike group. Since then, she has also spoken at countless international conventions about climate change, and alongside Thunberg and 15 other youth activists, filed a legal complaint against UN nations who had not upheld their Paris agreement climate goals. This is so badass and I did not even know about this until today. In fact, there are countless teens all over the world, many of whom aren’t of legal voting age, who are suing local / federal governments and organizations for environmental malpractice and for jeopardizing their futures! 

As they should! Let’s all keep fighting for a better and sustainable future.

Students and youth striking in Seoul, South Korea. Photo credit: Chung Sung-Jun / GETTY IMAGES

Young people striking in Edinburgh, Scotland. Photo credit: Jeff J Mitchell / GETTY IMAGES

Youth striking in Hong Kong. Photo credit: Kim Cheung / AP PHOTO

[arcticdementor]

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked why it is that the Woke won’t seem to have a debate or discussion about their views, and I’ve been meaning to write something about it for ages, probably a year at this point. Surely you’ll have noticed that they don’t tend to engage in debates or conversation?

It is not, as many think, a fear of being exposed as fraudulent or illegitimate—or otherwise of losing the debate or looking bad in the challenging conversation—that prevents those who have internalized a significant amount of the Critical Social Justice Theory mindset that prevents these sorts of things from happening. There’s a mountain of Theoretical reasons that they would avoid all such activities, and even if those are mere rationalizations of a more straightforward fear of being exposed as fraudulent or losing, they are shockingly well-developed and consistent rationalizations that deserve proper consideration and full explanation.

…

There are a number of points within Critical Social Justice Theory that would see having a debate or conversation with people of opposing views as unacceptable, and they all combine to create a mindset where that wouldn’t be something that adherents to the Theory are likely or even willing to do in general. This reticence, if not unwillingness, to converse with anyone who disagrees actually has a few pretty deep reasons behind it, and they’re interrelated but not quite the same. They combine, however, to produce the first thing everyone needs to understand about this ideology: it is a complete worldview with its own ethics, epistemology, and morality, and theirs is not the same worldview the rest of us use. Theirs is, very much in particular, not liberal. In fact, theirs advances itself rather parasitically or virally by depending upon us to play the liberal game while taking advantage of its openings. That’s not the same thing as being willing to play the liberal game themselves, however, including to have thoughtful dialogue with people who oppose them and their view of the world. Conversation and debate are part of our game, and they are not part of their game.

…

The first thing to understand about the way adherents to Critical Social Justice view the world is just how deeply they have accepted the belief that we operate within a wholly systemically oppressive system. That system extends to literally everything, not just material structures, institutions, law, policies, and so on, but also into cultures, mindsets, ways of thinking, and how we determine what is and isn’t true about the world. In their view, the broadly liberal approach to knowledge and society is, in fact, rotted through with “white, Western, male (and so on) biases,” and this is such a profound departure from how the rest of us—broadly, liberals—think about the world that it is almost impossible to understand just how deeply and profoundly they mean this.

In a 2014 paper by the black feminist epistemology heavyweight Kristie Dotson, she explains that our entire epistemic landscape is itself profoundly unequal. Indeed, she argues that it is intrinsically and “irreducibly” so, meaning that it is not possible from within the prevailing system of knowledge and understanding to understand or know that the system itself is unfairly biased toward certain ways of knowing (white, Western, Eurocentric, male, etc.) and thus exclusionary of other ways of knowing (be those what they may). That is, Dotson explains that when we look across identity groups, not only do we find a profound lack of “shared epistemic resources” by which people can come to understand things in the same way as one another, but also that the lack extends to the ability to know that that dismal state of affairs is the case at all. This, she refers to as “irreducible” epistemic oppression, which she assigns to the third and most severe order of forms of epistemic oppression, and says that it requires a “third-order change” to the “organizational schemata” of society (i.e., a complete epistemic revolution that removes the old epistemologies and replaces them with new ones) in order to find repair.

…

Bailey’s point is clear: the usual tools by which we identify provisional truths and settle scholarly disagreements are part of the hegemonically dominant system that, by definition, cannot be sufficiently radical to create real revolutionary change (a “third-order” change, as Dotson has it). That is, they can’t reorder society in the radical way they deem necessary. The belief, as both scholars explain in different ways, is that to play by the existing rules (like conversation and debate as a means to better understand society and advance truth) is to automatically be co-opted by those rules and to support their legitimacy, beside one deeper problem that’s even more significant.

The deeper, more significant aspect of this problem is that by participating in something like conversation or debate about scholarly, ethical, or other disagreements, not only do the radical Critical Social Justice scholars have to tacitly endorse the existing system, they also have to be willing to agree to participate in a system in which they truly believe they cannot win. This isn’t the same as saying they know they’d lose the debate because they know their methods are weak. It’s saying that they believe their tools are extremely good but not welcome in the currently dominant system, which is a different belief based on different assumptions. Again, their game is not our game, and they don’t want to play our game at all; they want to disrupt and dismantle it.

…

Debate and conversation, especially when they rely upon reason, rationality, science, evidence, epistemic adequacy, and other Enlightenment-based tools of persuasion are the very thing they think produced injustice in the world in the first place. Those are not their methods and they reject them. Their methods are, instead, storytelling and counter-storytelling, appealing to emotions and subjectively interpreted lived experience, and problematizing arguments morally, on their moral terms. Because they know the dominant liberal order values those things sense far less than rigor, evidence, and reasoned argument, they believe the whole conversation and debate game is intrinsically rigged against them in a way that not only leads to their certain loss but also that props up the existing system and then further delegitimizes the approaches they advance in their place. Critical Social Justice Theorists genuinely believe getting away from the “master’s tools” is necessary to break the hegemony of the dominant modes of thought. Debate is a no-win for them.

Therefore, you’ll find them resistant to engaging in debate because they fully believe that engaging in debate or other kinds of conversation forces them to do their work in a system that has been rigged so that they cannot possibly win, no matter how well they do. They literally believe, in some sense, that the system itself hates people like them and has always been rigged to keep them and their views out. Even the concepts of civil debate (instead of screaming, reeeee!) and methodological rigor (instead of appealing to subjective claims and emotions) are considered this way, as approaches that only have superiority within the dominant paradigm, which was in turn illegitimately installed through political processes designed to advance the interests of powerful white, Western men (especially rich ones) through the exclusion of all others. And, yes, they really think this way.

…

Secondly, the organizing principle of their worldview is that two things structure society: discourses and systems of power maintained by discourses. Regarding the systems of power, their underlying belief is genuinely that of the Critical Theorists: society is divided into oppressors versus oppressed, and the oppressors condition the beliefs and culture of society such that neither they nor the oppressed are aware of the realities of their oppression. That is, everyone who isn’t “Woke” to the realities of systemic oppression lives in a form of false consciousness. Members of dominant groups have internalized their dominance by accepting it as normal, natural, earned, and justified and therefore are unaware of the oppression they create. Members of “minoritized” groups have often internalized their oppression by accepting it as normal, natural, and just the way things are and are therefore unaware of the extent of the oppression they suffer or its true sources. In both cases, though in different ways and to different ends, the falsely conscious need to be awakened to a critical consciousness, i.e., become Critical Theorists.

Adherents to this worldview will not want to have conversations or debate with people who do not possess a critical consciousness because there’s basically no point to doing such a thing. Unless they can wake their debate or conversation partner up to Wokeness on the spot, they’d see it as though they’re talking to zombies who can’t even think for themselves. Unwoke people are stuck thinking in the ways dominant and elite powers in society have socialized them into thinking (you could consider this a kind of conditioning or brainwashing by the very machinations of society and how it thinks). We will return to this aspect of the problem further down in the essay.

…

Again, it is difficult to express from within the liberal paradigm (to their point, I guess) just how fully and profoundly they believe this. Their view constructs, in fact, a metaphysics of discourses that, in some sense, becomes the operative mythology underlying all of society and its operation. Because of the already critical orientation of the postmodernists and then the further amplification of taking on Critical Theory much more fully later, Critical Social Justice views this metaphysics of discourses in a very particular way with regard to the moral valence of how discourses are constructed.

…

That’s a bit complicated, I admit, and so a simplification of this idea is that adherents to Critical Social Justice see discourses—ways we think it is legitimate to talk about things—as the true fabric of reality and thus the core site of ethical consideration. This is their mythology, in a nutshell. As such, they will not be willing to participate in any process that reinforces, maintains, upholds, reproduces, or legitimizes the unjustly dominant discourses, as they see them. Supporting those is, in fact, just about the highest sin one can commit in the Woke faith. The discourses must instead be engineered into a state of perfection—God’s Kingdom through Perfect Language—and it would not be permissible to engage in any behavior or process that allows oppression to be spoken from or into our discourses. Conversation and debate with people who speak from and in support of the dominant discourses would certainly therefore be considered highly problematic, and anyone who participates in it intentionally or even neglectfully would similarly be problematic.

…

Thirdly, adding to this is a theme we draw out significantly in the eighth chapter of Cynical Theories: they believe all disagreement with them to be illegitimate. If we followed from Dotson in the paper named above and another slightly earlier one (2011) about “epistemic violence,” it could be pinned on what she calls “pernicious ignorance.” Robin DiAngelo would call it “white fragility” to disagree. Alison Bailey refers to it as an attempt to preserve one’s privilege under the kind of term George Carlin lived to make fun of: “privilege-preserving epistemic pushback” (four words, twelve syllables, one hyphen). Further, Bailey said all attempts to criticize Critical Social Justice thought, because they come from that “critical thinking” and not the “critical theory” tradition (within which they’d obviously agree), generate “shadow texts” that follow along but don’t truly engage (in the correctly “critical” way; i.e., agreement with her). Barbara Applebaum said similar in her 2010 book, Being White, Being Good, wherein she explains that the only legitimate way to disagree with Critical Social Justice education in the classroom is to ask questions for clarification until one agrees (which, you might notice, isn’t disagreeing at all).

In general, as mentioned a bit earlier in the essay, if you disagree, you either have false consciousness or the willful intention to oppress, and so your disagreement isn’t genuine. Only disagreement that comes from a Critical Theory perspective would be genuine, but this isn’t actually disagreement with the Woke worldview, only with superficial aspects of how it is playing out. The Woke view genuinely is that unless you agree with the Woke worldview, you haven’t disagreed with the Woke worldview in an authentic way, and therefore your disagreement cannot be legitimate. Read it again: unless you actually agree, you didn’t disagree correctly (cue Jim Carrey as the karate teacher defending against the knife attacker).

…

Fourthly, the Critical Social Justice view sees people who occupy positions of systemic power and privilege and yet who refuse to acknowledge and work to dismantle them, to the full satisfaction of the Critical Social Justice Theorists, to be utterly morally reprehensible. They are racists. They are misogynists. They hate trans people and want to deny their very existence. They are bigots. They are fascists. They are “literal” Nazis. Not only that, they are willfully so, and their main objective is to defend and spread their hateful ideology in the world. If you truly believe this about the people you’ve been asked to have a conversation with, would you be about to help them do that by giving them a platform and lending your own imprimatur to them? Of course not. Such views are not even to be tolerated, much less entertained, engaged with, platformed, or amplified.

Furthermore, because of the theories of complicity in systemic evils that live at the heart of Theory, such a stain is automatically contagious, in addition to whatever real damage it does to further its advancement into the world. As they tweet, so they are: “ten people at a table with one Nazi is eleven Nazis at a table.” And not only are they supposed to endorse the platforming of that by sharing a stage with people they see this way, but they’re supposed to do it in ways that the dominant system, which is all of those things as well and their guarantor, approves of and advances its own interests through. These horrible ways include civil conversation and debate, which aren’t happening.

To give you some idea of just how extreme they are in their fear of being associated with people “on the wrong side of history,” there is a (somewhat fringe) concept within the Critical Social Justice worldview called “non-consensual co-platforming” (two words, nine syllables, one hyphen). What this concept describes is the following situation. Imagine that a Critical Social Justice Theorist were to publish an essay in the New York Times Opinion column this month, and a couple of months from now, I were invited to do so and did. Now we’re both people who have essays published in the New York Times Opinion column. The logic of “non-consensual co-platforming” would be that the editors of that column did a bad by putting me, a known undesirable, in the Opinion pages where there is also a Woke purist, obviously without having first got her consent to have been “co-platformed” with me in the same publication. (This example is rare, but more common is the same claim made about being platformed to speak at the same conference.) Now, the Woke purist is in the unpleasant situation of having been published in a place that is willing to sully its own reputation later by the publication of some deviant rascal. This is how seriously they take the stain of guilt by association.

…

As a fifth and final point, since this is getting pretty long already, remember that Critical Social Justice activists tell us more or less constantly how exhausting it is to fight this constant uphill battle in which no one takes them seriously (read: fight shadows of their own nightmarish projection). They tell us constantly about the high emotional labor costs of doing the “work” they do (and never being taken seriously for it). To invite them to a public conversation or debate is to ask them to get exploited in this way for other people’s benefit by getting up on stage in a dominance-approved paradigm with a bad-faith moral monster who just wants his opportunity to reinforce the very dominance that exhausts them in front of an audience who not only doesn’t but can’t actually get it, unless they already do. Again, that’s not happening. Even if very handsomely (read: ridiculously and exorbitantly) paid for their “emotional labor” to subject themselves to this situation, the other four points make it a nonstarter (and would drive up the price to basically literally infinity).

In Sum

One of the biggest mistakes we keep making as liberals who do value debate, dialogue, conversation, reason, evidence, epistemic adequacy, fairness, civility, charity of argument, and all these other “master’s tools” is that we can expect that advocates of Critical Social Justice also value them. They don’t. Or, we make the mistake that we can possibly pin Critical Social Justice advocates into having to defend their views in debate or conversation. We can’t.

These principles and values are rejected to their very roots within the Critical Social Justice worldview, and so the request for an advocate to have a debate or conversation with someone who disagrees will, to the degree they have adopted the Critical Social Justice Theoretical ideology/faith, be a complete nonstarter. It’s literally a request to do the exact opposite of everything their ideology instructs with regard to how the world and “systemic oppression” within it operates—to participate in their own oppression and maintain oppression of the people they claim to speak for.

These facts about the Critical Social Justice ideology extend from the microcosm of engaging in debate and conversation to each of those specific “master’s tools” a—science, reason, epistemic adequacy, civility, etc.—every bit as much as they do to the whole system that these tools combine to form: liberalism in the Modern era. This is a system that advocates of Critical Social Justice repeatedly tell us must be dismantled in the sparking of a “critical” revolution that replaces the whole of it, including its basic epistemology and ethics, with Critical Theory.

The hard truth is this: if you don’t yet understand this, you don’t know the fight we’re in or have the slightest idea what to do about it.

[itslmdee]

Fic: No Pride in Exlusionism

This month's theme is 'gatekeeping'. Today's piece looks at gatekeeping within the LGBTQ+ community.

"You're home early," Roger said. Mae sat heavily on the sofa next to him, kicking off her heels. She leaned over to kiss his cheek and then leaned back, staring at the ceiling.

Roger muted the tv. "You okay?"

"I dropped out of the planning committee."

"Why?"

Mae shook her head, took a deep shuddering breath. "This party...Gays for Halloween. I wanted a different name from the start. What does that even mean? Gay people support a holiday that many people think is an American import? Pumpkins in pride colours?"

Roger shifted to look at her. "Actually I can see paper pumpkins in pride colours."

Mae gave a wry smile. "Me too. That's not why I quit. It was Josie mostly, her and Jane and Peter. I was filling up the urn in the kitchen before we got started and I heard Josie talking by the serving hatch. Saying they were so glad John had joined us, an actual gay. She was feeling the committee was being overrun by bihets."

"She said that?" Roger took Mae's hand.

"I had three serious relationships with women before we got married," Mae said. "I'm bisexual. Marrying you doesn't change that."

"I know." He squeezed her hand. "I know."

Mae squeezed back. "Me and Tim and Desiree are all bi. Laura's lesbian but Josie is suspicious of anyone who's ever dated a man though she gives Dan a pass for a past girlfriend. Anyway Jane was giggling and agreeing because I think she fancies Josie - only reason she agreed to be vice chair when Rachel said she needed fewer responsibilities this year. And Peter...my God."

Roger waited patiently. One of the cats wandered over to inspect Mae's discarded shoes.

"I'm not that much older than most of them," Mae said. "But they don't seem to know anything about the history of the gay rights movement. Queer history, except Josie says queer is a slur despite it being reclaimed and used to push for greater awareness. And so they're trying to force out anyone who isn't a gay man or a good enough lesbian. Peter had a lot of opinions on the right kind of trans people who should be allowed to participate. The group has become increasingly exclusionary."

"So you quit?"

"Yes. I will not gatekeep," Mae said. "I will not tolerate bihet being thrown around to try and exclude bisexuals, or cishets to exclude asexuals, or get involved in the dysphoria debate to try and debate the rights of trans people. Josie doesn't want LGBT let alone Q, I, and A. Josie and Peter want L and G and screw everyone else."

Roger sighed. "Maybe there's another group you can join. A more inclusive one."

"Maybe." Mae let go of Roger's hand and got to her feet. "I'm making coffee, want one?"

"Please."

Roger knew Mae had found kinship, friendship, and purpose over the last six years she'd worked with the LGBT+ community group. She'd miss it. But he also knew she was principled and wouldn't regret quitting rather than supporting exclusionism.

"Did you talk to Maggie about this?" he asked when Mae returned with their drinks.

"I told her I quit, apologised that she'd probably have to pick up my role in organising the Halloween party."

"What about Peter? Is Maggie the right kind of trans woman according to him?"

Mae shrugged. "Maggie can take care of herself," she said. "My only regret is that if Peter talks out of turn like I heard him doing with Josie is I won't get to watch Maggie rip him a new one."

Notes and further reading

A lot of this gatekeeping takes place online; people say they've only experienced being excluded from online spaces and not groups in real life. However there are some people reporting being harassed at Pride for being seemingly straight while being bisexual, trans, or nb in a heterosexual relationship. The people who say the A in the LGBTQA is for ally not asexual to gatekeep are probably the same ones trying to gatekeep anyone who doesn't look 'gay' enough from participating in Pride.

"With the advent of queer theory and the launch of Queer as Folk, “queer” became used online as a more concise umbrella term than the full LGBT+ acronym (which, depending on who you ask, is LGBTQQIP2SAA). Today, interpretations of “queer” go a step further, and its acceptance generally splits along generational lines. Many young people — myself included — view “queer” as a term defining all nonstraight, nonbinary identities. “Queer” addresses the fluidity of gender and sexual orientation" - https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2017/8/02/21-words-queer-community-has-reclaimed-and-some-we-havent#media-gallery-media-2

3 Differences Between the Terms ‘Gay’ and ‘Queer’ — and Why It Matters - https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/difference-between-gay-queer/

"The word "queer" has only recently been identified as a slur because of TERFs and exclusionists. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERF) and radical gender/sexuality bianarists are flooding social media and blogging sites with propaganda smearing the word queer in the hopes of silencing all of us who don’t identify with their hate politics. Queer is the one word that doesn’t worship exclusion." - https://aminoapps.com/c/lgbt-1/page/blog/history-of-the-word-queer/BQ4p_GxRHwu5Xz35RWB31oKMLp8XJ8r7Ybo

Tumblr repsonse to "What does bihet mean" - https://bisexual-community.tumblr.com/post/93798259302/this-probably-sounds-stupid-but-what-does-bihet

On ace discourse and exclusionism on the internet vs in real life - https://medium.com/@meganhoins/the-rhetoric-of-digital-ace-discourse-4a690792f0bc

"According to 2013 Pew Research Center data, about 84 percent of bisexual adults who are in “committed relationships” are with “opposite-sex partners.” Within a broader LGBT community that too often guesses someone’s sexual orientation based on who they happen to be with at the moment, that statistic means many bisexual people get read as “straight”—or, at least, something less than fully queer." https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-bisexuals-feel-ignored-and-insulted-at-lgbt-pride

"Transmedicalism is a term for a wide range of beliefs in the transgender community that are critical of transgender people who haven't medically transitioned and/or don't experience major dysphoria. Many transmedicalists (or "transmeds" for short) focus on gatekeeping....Although the debate has been going since the '60s, it has gained more notoriety in the Internet age, particularly on Tumblr. Transmedicalists may be called "transmeds" or "truscum," while anti-transmedicalists may be called "tucutes" or (often erroneously) "transtrenders." " - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transmedicalism

[villaincousland]

As some of you may know, I recently left a Discord server centered around swtor and kotor.

I did this for many reasons, but the two main ones were thinly veiled lesbophobia, specifically in intra community discourse, and lack of mod transparency, specifically regarding how one of the other server members were kicked, and the mods refusing to provide example or evidence of the behavior they accused said member of, as well as low key mocking them by exaggerating their statements.

These things made me feel unsafe which took away the fun of participating on there, and I left with a message in the general chat that detailed this. As it turns out, a lot of other members of this server had felt the same, but had been too afraid to speak up, and when they did speak up about their own discomfort and experiences with lesbophobia on there, it was treated as a personal attack against the mods and derailed into something it was not.

I wasn’t going to bring this drama to tumblr aside from the occasional vent post that didn’t name-drop anyone, but it’s come to my attention that one of the former mods has made a callout post about me and several other people who came forward during the discussion sparked by my leaving, as well as they person who got kicked. I’m not going to sit around and let someone spread lies about me and people I care about on a public platform, and I’m certainly not going to leave the accusations in her callout go unresponded to.

I also want to let you know that this is the last time I’ll address the drama related to the discord server. It’s stressful to me. It’s stressful to everyone else involved. It’s not productive, and everyone gets hurt.

I’ll put my response under the cut as it’s going to be long and screenshot heavy, but for transparency’s sake, this is the callout post in question.

I’d like to start my addressing my distaste for the abuse analogy Irene chose to use in her post. It’s incredibly manipulative, especially considering that several of the people she has chosen to mention have talked to her about their experiences as abuse survivors in the past. As a survivor of relationship abuse (as well as other kinds of abuse), I take offense in being compared to an abuser for standing up for myself and bringing attention to something that’s made me feel unsafe. It’s cruel, it’s a low blow and I’m incredibly angry that she thought it appropriate to make.

I’d also like to point out that she mentions in her post that a lot of people who agreed with her left the server. I’d like to remind everyone that the debate she’s referring to was, in fact, sparked by me leaving due to feeling unsafe, and that a lot of specifically lesbians who felt the same way chose to leave as well because they were being continuously spoken over when discussing their concerns about lesbophobia.

This was painted as derailment of a conversation about biphobia in the server and as well as Irene’s callout post, despite taking place in an entirely different channel, at an entirely different time, without any references to that conversation whatsoever.

This is the message I left with, and I’d also like to point out that this is the only time I’ve addressed any intra community discourse on the server, and that Irene thought that that was enough to name-drop me in a callout post. That said, I do agree with the other people name-dropped on there. 

For the same reason, I’m really confused as to why Irene chose to name-drop Dani in her post. Dani too hasn’t participated in intra-community on the server before I chose to leave, and after I chose to leave, she agreed with me in an incredibly polite and diplomatic way, expressing her own discomfort with the lesbophobia happening in the server.

This is Dani’s reaction to my leaving, as well as the message that she left the server with.

Irene claims in her callout post that we (the people name-dropped) engaged in “the derailing and targeting of a transgender woman with rhetoric and arguments taken from trans-exclusionary radical feminism.”

It’s important to me to point out that the discussions she’s referring to was not about gender, but about the concept of monosexual privilege and why it makes people uncomfortable. That she neglected to mention that in her post, and that she chooses to compare someone asking her not to call them monosexual to terf rhetoric once again strikes me as incredibly manipulative.

I will, however, for transparency’s sake post screenshots of the part of the conversation that any of us actually participated in in full, because I don’t expect anyone to take my word for it.

I’ve also chosen to censor certain members’ names and icons. This is done because I do not wish to place the transgender woman in danger in case this post ends up being read by the wrong people. Her statements are the ones censored with black. The other names censored are censored about they aren’t actually related to this drama, and I don’t wish to bring them into it if it can be avoided. Last I’ve censored Shannon’s icon, because it’s art not created by her, and she doesn’t wish to drag the artist into this either.

Here’s the conversation.

I’m sorry that this is rather long, but I don’t want to be accused of taking anyone’s words out of context, and frankly, I wouldn’t put that beside her.

Next, I’d like to address another claim in her post. She said that, and I quote:

The conversation evolved to the point where a cisgender lesbian told the transgender lesbian woman who was targeted, quoting, “Do you know what it’s like to be shoved to the sidelines of the lgbt community!?!? Do you!!?” And, really, that needs no further elaboration from me here.

Not only does she misquote that someone, she also misgenders them. The person in question, Mac, isn’t cis, and while I’m not sure that Irene is aware of this, speaking on things that she doesn’t actually know is really harmful. This is the conversation that she’s referring to. I’ve chosen to cut out the parts that weren’t the exchange between Mac and the trans woman they were accused of saying that to because there was multiple conversation going on at once, and the others aren’t relevant to this particular point.

Here’s what they actually said.

Irene has also chosen to name-drop Leilukin in her post, which strikes me as very suspect. Leilukin has only addressed intra community discourse in the lgbt+ community to talk about her experience as a lesbian in a country where gay sexuality is illegal. It’s also important to note that she was promptly ignored, and that Irene never addressed what she had to say, and then went to name-drop her in a post about biphobia and terf rhetoric.

This is what she said.

I mentioned my distaste for how Appo got kicked in my leaving message as well. I’d like to clarify what I mean by that, for anyone who weren’t involved in the server or weren’t aware of it happening. Kicking a non-binary person from a server with the accusation of terf rhetoric without clarifying what was meant by that for several days, without providing examples, without consulting the community and without talking to them about it first feels very strange to me.

It felt very clique-y, vindictive and based on a personal dislike for Appo rather them actually having done something wrong.

This is what was said about them in the server after they were kicked.

There were no examples provided of any behavior on their part that had actually been problematic. We were supposed to take the mods’ word for it, without any clue as to whether it was true or not. It’s also important to point out that they never actually said that calling a character hot or declaring a desire to date them was inappropriate, rather, they’d raised concern about the idea of discussing things of a sexual nature in the sfw in general after it was revealed to us that one of the server members was 14.

After several people expressed their discomfort with the liberal use of “terf rhetoric” outside of discussions about gender, this statement was posted.

Despite this, Irene directly correlated “terf rhetoric” (once again, due to a discussion on monosexual privilege) with another member of the server’s lesbianism in private messages to said lesbian (Shannon), while being incredibly condescending. It’s also worth noting, since Irene brought age into her original callout post that this lesbian only recently turned 20 and that Irene is 26.

These are examples of messages that she sent Shannon.

It’s worth nothing here that Irene is a cisgender bi woman, and is here talking over a non-binary lesbian about lesbophobia.

I’d also like to provide a couple of examples as to what the several people felt uncomfortable with in regards to lesbophobia. Unfortunately, a lot of the issues brought up don’t make sense without the context or the fact that they were repeated constantly, but here are some that absolutely do. It’s also important to note that there are several examples of similar behavior in the screenshots from the conversation of monosexual privilege as well as the messages Irene sent to Shannon. Qionnuala is Irene in this case.

Here they are.

As a closing statement, I’d like to say that I haven’t enjoyed making this post. It’s been stressful, it’s been aggravating and it’s been sad. It is, however, important to me to address an attack made on my person by someone with no proof or motivation other than me and others being lesbians daring to speak up about lesbophobia on a discord server.

[valakobama]

Giving Visibility to Women to Better the Movement for Racial Justice

America has a long history of relying on the fruitful labor of women, whilst simultaneously rejecting their existence. The roots of this dismissiveness can be traced to the very systems and values that this country was founded on and are upheld by this country: capitalism, racism, ableism, the patriarchy, to name a few. Yet, it remains to be a surprise to many when this oppression is brought to light in the context of existing oppressed groups, specifically black people. There was a sentiment that was expressed during the class discussion of Black Feminism that centered around the fact that it is common to view infringements on one’s multiple identities can be a attacked only one at a time. This mindset is harmful but unfortunately has been the tone set by preceding movements organized to better the conditions of black Americans in regards to dealing with the oppression of identities besides race. It is important to make note of the very issue that oppression is not only limited to the traditional actor, the rich white male, but can take many shapes and forms, which is inclusive of those who are traditionally stigmatized to a certain extent. It remains, though, that black women have historically always been the ones to take up the laborious task of effectively organizing for their interests, yet their efforts have constantly been appropriated for a man to occupy the leadership positions and they fade into the backdrop. The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin is a very good example of this sentiment in the sense that while it is a beautifully composed narrative of the troubles of being a black person in the US, there is a noticeable lack of women in the book which is strikingly similar to the previously explained themes of black women lacking visibility.  It signals that the pattern of  denying black women roles in which their efforts can be attributed back to them, is rare in terms of history; but can be beneficial in finding successes through unity. Black women should not have to resort to infrapolitics within the movement for black lives, as movements like the black feminist movement arose to show that women’s rights are everyone’s rights, therefore need visibility to maintain an inclusive movement.

As it is rather unsurprising that black women have been left out of discourses that apply to their identities as black and women, in The Fire Next Time  it can be argued that the

illustration of the experiences of a black woman are minute but also relegated to traditional gender roles. This statement is divisive in a sense, but it also holds a lot of truth when considering that there are very little instances, in comparison with the various mentions of the black male experience, where the reader will find Baldwin take the black woman’s experience into account. This is not to say that there is no mention of women at all in the book, but that their roles besides being caregivers and needing protection are not simply enough. Take the meeting with Elijah Muhammad into account, where he is cognisant of the division in gender when he is at Muhammad’s house.Upon arrival to the residence, he notices that the women are sitting on the opposite side of the room and playing with a baby and the men are sitting with him having a discussion, until Muhammad walks into the room. He mentions how Muhammad acts a little flirtatious towards the women and they are responsive to it. The way he portrays this is interesting because while it is evident that he is knowledgeable of the simplistic role of the woman in the Nation of Islam, he doesn’t really expand on the experience as a . This is in stark contrast to the time that he spends expanding on the tumultuous experience of being a young black man. It is interesting to compare his dear regards for his nephew, in his letter My Dungeon Shook, where he takes the time out to speak on the transitional experiences of growing up as a black man, but he doesn’t pay much mind to the women that exist around him,  what he does tell him to do is reiterate the amount of love his mother and grandmother have for him. This is a constant theme throughout the book, in which the portrayal of women in this book are loving but also somewhat patronizing. One could argue that it could be that there is a difference in experiences, that the absence of the female characters could be attributed to the fact that men had more visibility to Baldwin. That lack of visibility, however, does not reflect on the amount of agency practiced by black women in the past.

Looking at the actions of black women through an infra-political lens may be helpful in understanding the not visible but powerful roles that black women have played in the movement for black lives. As discussed in class, infrapolitics was introduced as a concept of examining resistance tactics of oppressed individuals acting within their means, which often was a method used by women who were confined to repressive jobs and could not participate in other organizing methods. Robin D. G. Kelley’s We Are Not What We Seem explains the spaces dominated by infrapolitical action as, “the social and cultural institutions and ideologies that ultimately informed black opposition placed more emphasis on communal values and collective uplift than the prevailing class-conscious, individualist ideology of the white ruling classes.” This draws on a sentiment voiced during our class about the women’s era, in that the organizing model that these working class women embodied focused on what could be done in the confines of their positions rather than a traditional model that had centralized authority. Black women looked for more reform, rather than political rights. They did not seek to overturn hierarchies because they were barely recognized because of persisting gender roles. Although there was a move to during the progressive era to tried to change language from strict gender roles. Another common theme during this period was the aspiration of a level of respectability to achieve racial equality, which was gained significant participation by black women. While there were many black men that championed this ideal and created the “Talented Tenth”, women adhered to this hierarchy but also took the ideal a step further by using the idealism of respectability as a motivation to promote the theory of racial justice through furthering education. This is a widely touted solution to many problems, that was championed by women by the likes of Anna Julia Cooper and the motives were to get an education, move to south, challenge respectability politics (unfortunately not the level they were perpetuating) and challenge white womanhood morality through different representations of womanhood. While this provides an opportune framework for upward mobility, it was arguably limiting to those who did not have the resources to pursue this course of action. This was also  inherently exclusionary of the working class women who were already organizing within their positions of marginalization and disregarding to the contexts in which they already existed within, whether it was class, family life, geographical location, etc.

This exclusionary behavior has persisted regardless of recognition of the exclusionary themes that have existed in organizing in the movement for black lives. While the root of problem could be attributed to being socialized in systems that inherently oppress people. In attacking this issue, one can draw from Audre Lorde’s Age, Race, Class, and Sex to understand that without able to acknowledge that relying on traditional lines separating certain identities is weak, there is an inherent discord in a resistance movement. Audre argues that rejecting difference denies one the ability to be able to be apart of an effective movement that is inclusive of all because it is led through the perspective of the higher ups .  This is true for the many walks of lives that are covered in the movement for racial justice in the US, because with a traditionally male leadership, it has shown that many of the interests of women were disregarded. It can be argued that while using this perspective provided more unified and streamlined framework  to draw objectives from, but is exclusionary of the many people that benefit from this movement.

It is imperative that to continue an effective movement for black lives, that there is a move to be more inclusive not only of the laborious community of women that have been building the movement since the beginning. Black women have gone on to create more inclusive spaces and movements, such as the Black feminist movement and the womanist movements to organize. However if these perspectives are not recognized on a leadership level,

[queernuck]

Trans-Inclusive Radicalism and Contemporary Feminism in Postmodern Feminist Thought

If one wishes to rescue a concept of political lesbianism, one must recognize both the lesbian phallus as a part of certain lesbian political ideologies, and must further engage in a process of understanding the many differentiated flows of lesbian desire, flows that absolutely must include trans women, flows that take on a radical character in defiance of materialist feminism and not directly as a form of proletarian feminism, and accepting this as part of accepting a certain postmodern posture. There is a fear among certain feminists of the postmodern, of poststructural acts of signification, specifically because of how the ideological structures they depend on are repetitions of an Oedipal burden, are part of a means by which sex is codified and essentialized in order to understand it as a central aspect of oppression separate from conventional historical materialism. 

The definition of these terms: political lesbian, radical feminism, and the lesbian phallus as a demarcation of exactly what goes on in political lesbian acts of filiation, affection, identification is a difficult task specifically because so many of these terms have changed not only in assemblage with one another, but as independent structures of realization, as part of larger assemblages of identity and community. The importance of realizing this, realizing that radical feminism was not and need not be so singularly associated with trans-exclusionary ideology, that the “trans-exclusion” at hand is itself a misnomer, that it in fact welcomes certain realizations of transition as a process and uses them as a means of increasing precarity for trans women both in feminist spaces and in larger communities, as part of making trans women acceptable targets. The presence of a lesbian phallus, that is, the specific conceptual “lack” of a phallus that is filled through the reinvention of Lacanian flows of exchange between women, when previously such flows were conceived of strictly as heterosexual, is discussed by Judith Butler specifically in order to critique the means by which lesbianism becomes clear, becomes that which it is most readily identified as. Frequently, identities such as “butch” or “femme” are understood rather shallowly as mere resignifications of heterosexuality, in the same way that top and bottom are for gay men. Penetrative acts become central in a fashion that first demands the crudely-manufactured phallus become clear, the insertion of discourses of penetrative acts into a voyeuristic understanding of sexual intercourse, sexual intimacy, before the subtler flows of phallic desire are able to exist between two women. The apparent refusal of this by denying any penetrative act, by acting as if penetration cannot be a lesbian act, a process that is frequently realized by admonishing trans women for their heterosexuality even if they are involved in sex with another trans woman, is central to certain notions of political lesbianism that merely resignify feminist action, acts of feminist concentration on womanhood and building community with women over men as not only a substitute for any sexual act, but in fact far greater than it, a more meaningful realization of lesbian identity. 

This is not to say that all “political lesbians” make this distinction: certainly, a bisexual woman who specifically concentrates on building community with women in a fashion that involves an exclusively woman-oriented character in her attraction, expression of desire, expression of her most immediate senses of community could be described as engaging in a certain sort of political lesbianism, but moreover doing so in relief of bisexuality as an identity and a structure of identification. Political lesbianism as a distinction that dictates not the lack of a phallus (that knowingly invites its resignification) but rather a new series of schizophrenic affinities, desires that form along new lines of flight and specifically act in an Anti-Oedipal fashion, thus becomes a potential singularity of identification. This would include recognizing womanhood as a contingent structure, as one that involves both sexing and gendering of the body, in a fashion that implies the two as singular yet separate, a kind of univocality of the body that trans women are far too familiar with. For trans women who are unable to pass, who have features that are commonly understood as markers of maleness, the apparent-privilege they enjoy seems an especially ironic sort of joke: it is those features which mean they are not enough of a woman, and yet those exact features which mark them as a woman especially deserving of violence, a woman who must be tested and observed and studied in order to find possible moments at which she is unbecoming of a woman, a kind of becoming-transgender, becoming-transsexual, becoming-tranny that is not the molecular becoming that belongs to a man, but in fact a far different status akin to the revelation of the “real” seen time and time again in comedies where a trans woman is undressed against her will and made to stand naked, her sex revealed and thus her gender resignified in an instant. For trans women to concentrate on the well-being, safety, happiness of other trans women in a fashion that may involve sexual intimacy but is far more focused on a network of attachment, a rejection of the suturing of the stunted phallus to the body of the trans woman attempted by a kind of reversal seen in the popular discourses around the vaginoplasty that describe it as dead, always bleeding, as the sort of wound the vagina is often imagined to be.

The deeply physical, sex-based language combined with an ontology of performativity often used in radical feminism means that transness is impossible to conceive of except as a sort of degeneracy, akin to most other reactionary notions of it, always coming from an impossible “other” that cannot be truly met, in numerous different discourses coming from an Orientalized Other, a decadent Western influence, the collapse of an arboreal and Oedipal concept of the family as bound through the taboos surrounding the traumatic formation of family bonds, the way in which one creates a transhistorical notion of sex and sexual identity through the colonial resignification of structures of knowing and naming the body as ontically bound to sex and gender, as part of a kind of rhizomal resignification where sex and gender were not only always one another even in difference, but in fact present the sole and singular point at which transhistorical convergence can be noted. There is, thus, a kind of transcendence of the body but moreover a transcendence that is bound to an ascension of the supposed female body into something that cannot be critiqued specifically because it lies beyond coloniality, despite the profoundly colonial character of many discussions of gendering of the body and the attempts to realize the language of gender as inadequate but the most readily available means of expressing certain knowledges of the body in a context of decolonization. Effectively, the sort of desire that radical feminism claims to reject is imposed specifically through a radical feminist epistemology. This is not comprehensive over radical feminist thought, and indeed one can read even explicitly transmisogynist works against themselves in order to develop a kind of trans-focused radical feminism: the example of deconstructing and admiring the SCUM Manifesto as a trans woman is a particularly pertinent one given the way in which it describes a kind of abolition of manhood and makes cast-off remarks about men transfigured into women, men who have become women in order to avoid this cleansing and who instead admire, love, wish to be women. The eventual outcome of this, then, is a refusal to recognize the rather obvious means by which one finds shifting, flowing schizzes and breaks in the manifestation of gender not as genuine changes that can be deconstructed, approached materially, or even affirmed: instead one finds them all as a singular, monolithic whole, gathered into an arboreal singularity of gendered nightmares.

The move away from a strict materialist approach to gender should be one that benefits women of all sorts, including trans women: so much of what is considered “material” is developed out of a range of epistemic holdings that are influenced by an ontology of phallogocentrism, that exclude women by their very conception, are intentionally ignorant on the matter of women and their experiences. Even adapting these frameworks in order to offer a properly historically materialist understanding will be marked by this lack, just as the phallus and its lack are signifiers of the same affinities, same concepts of desire. Postmodernism, as a means of developing through dialectic methodologies a new understanding of deconstruction and its application past traditional notions of textuality, of exactly what a text constitutes, toward the same openings necessary for postcolonial scholarship, critical theory as a vector for decolonization, eco-deconstruction as a part of realizing these potentialities, and numerous other sorts of critique. The importance of gender to these, given the way that postmodernism has so often been driven by women, by women looking through a queer lens at texts, leads to not only the origins of condemnation by supposed-radical theorists, but the reversal of this, the potential for reaching toward radical critique through a specific evocation of reactionary strains of radical feminist thought. By comparing them to other feminisms, attempting to enter into critique that does not presuppose any singular one as an incorruptible source of knowledge-making, privileging any single feminism at the risk of privileging a remaining and lingering ontology of biological essentialism borne out of capitalist and colonialist violence, one seeks to then allow for a genuine process of restorative communal knowledge making which expands phenomenology beyond its primacy as a male way of knowing the world. 

The maleness of phenomenology, the apparent antifeminism of an author such as Merleau-Ponty, is specifically due to a certain lack in their own work, one that Sartre admits about his classic lecture “Existentialism is a Humanism”: the frame of reference specifically involves certain points of privileging, certain relationships within one’s material situation that then go on to become realized in one’s phenomenological interfacing with the world at a level below any understood threshold, as a part of the phenomena of life itself. Feminist application of Merleau-Ponty has borne this out: when girls, due to an ontology of biological essentialism, are taught from a young age to behave in a way they are by necessity prevented from understanding, acting in a fashion restricted by pedophilia as a cultural norm, sexualization of unknowing subjects driving restrictions on what girls may wear, how they may participate in valuable spaces of community from sports fields to preschool classrooms, seen as subjects of interest for their male peers in a way their gaze cannot return, girls are refused childhood, are eternally moving toward a teleology of womanhood which is beyond them. That trans women are not understood in the exact same fashion, that their experience is differentiated, does not prevent it from becoming realized in the exact same fashion. Rather, it is expressed in different traumatic realizations, the waves of Oedipal becoming-woman washing across the body in the same way they wash across other women, the acts of restriction and ontological determination forced on the body from birth becoming clear. The notion of “male socialization” as an unbreakable and fundamental aspect of trans womanhood when, in fact, this represents a source of trauma, a specific and important point at which trans women first realize their location as a specific sort of woman, even before being able to name themselves as women, begin becoming-woman, is far more similar to the childhood that reactionary feminists describe girls as having than to the male socialization they imagine.

Thus, in understanding these structures of desire, terms such as “lesbian” and “political lesbianism” one must eventually reach a point at which certain basic assertions are questioned simply because as categorical markers, rather than individual identities, they lead to certain violent acts of demarcation and separation that bear no resemblance to the material or hyperreal processes of encountering gender, becoming-woman, becoming-gendered, becoming-sexed, becoming-trans, becoming-trans-woman that shapes trans womanhood. This is not at all meant to deny the critique that desirability as a singular paradigm eliminates the potential of ugliness, undesirability, community founded in fostering a kind of gleeful embodiment of such qualities and that a desire to be desirable is largely about colonial and capitalist acts of making the body worthless that are repeated violently upon mirrored, desired bodies. It is not a claim that any specific organ, specific woman, specific description of desire is to be ignored, rejected, is to be examined specifically due to trans women. Trans women, rather, are a single group within the larger structure of encounter that forms desire, and the presence of colonial ontologies in founding and maintaining exactly what desire must mean, must present itself as, is part of what exactly makes desire such a precarious point of identification. That is why, then, lesbianism must be extended in a fashion that resembles political lesbianism in some fashion: it is a specific choice regarding how one understands men, chooses to express oneself in relation to the notion of manhood and the phallogocentric necessity of such, to identify as a lesbian. That trans women are prevented from becoming even subjects of encounter unless made undesirable, unless restructured through the same sorts of flows of violent desire derided by so many radical feminists, that trans women are treated in such a specifically ironic fashion, is one of the fundamental inadequacies of certain sorts of radical feminist thought and the point at which radical feminism must thus change dramatically.  

[therealtraderhos]

Giving Visibility to Women to Better the Movement for Racial Justice

America has a long history of relying on the fruitful labor of women, whilst simultaneously rejecting their existence. The roots of this dismissiveness can be traced to the very systems and values that this country was founded on and are upheld by this country: capitalism, racism, ableism, the patriarchy, to name a few. Yet, it remains to be a surprise to many when this oppression is brought to light in the context of existing oppressed groups, specifically black people. There was a sentiment that was expressed during the class discussion of Black Feminism that centered around the fact that it is common to view infringements on one’s multiple identities can be a attacked only one at a time. This mindset is harmful but unfortunately has been the tone set by preceding movements organized to better the conditions of black Americans in regards to dealing with the oppression of identities besides race. It is important to make note of the very issue that oppression is not only limited to the traditional actor, the rich white male, but can take many shapes and forms, which is inclusive of those who are traditionally stigmatized to a certain extent. It remains, though, that black women have historically always been the ones to take up the laborious task of effectively organizing for their interests, yet their efforts have constantly been appropriated for a man to occupy the leadership positions and they fade into the backdrop. The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin is a very good example of this sentiment in the sense that while it is a beautifully composed narrative of the troubles of being a black person in the US, there is a noticeable lack of women in the book which is strikingly similar to the previously explained themes of black women lacking visibility.  It signals that the pattern of  denying black women roles in which their efforts can be attributed back to them, is rare in terms of history; but can be beneficial in finding successes through unity. Black women should not have to resort to infrapolitics within the movement for black lives, as movements like the black feminist movement arose to show that women’s rights are everyone’s rights, therefore need visibility to maintain an inclusive movement.

As it is rather unsurprising that black women have been left out of discourses that apply to their identities as black and women, in The Fire Next Time  it can be argued that the

illustration of the experiences of a black woman are minute but also relegated to traditional gender roles. This statement is divisive in a sense, but it also holds a lot of truth when considering that there are very little instances, in comparison with the various mentions of the black male experience, where the reader will find Baldwin take the black woman’s experience into account. This is not to say that there is no mention of women at all in the book, but that their roles besides being caregivers and needing protection are not simply enough. Take the meeting with Elijah Muhammad into account, where he is cognisant of the division in gender when he is at Muhammad’s house.Upon arrival to the residence, he notices that the women are sitting on the opposite side of the room and playing with a baby and the men are sitting with him having a discussion, until Muhammad walks into the room. He mentions how Muhammad acts a little flirtatious towards the women and they are responsive to it. The way he portrays this is interesting because while it is evident that he is knowledgeable of the simplistic role of the woman in the Nation of Islam, he doesn’t really expand on the experience as a . This is in stark contrast to the time that he spends expanding on the tumultuous experience of being a young black man. It is interesting to compare his dear regards for his nephew, in his letter My Dungeon Shook, where he takes the time out to speak on the transitional experiences of growing up as a black man, but he doesn’t pay much mind to the women that exist around him,  what he does tell him to do is reiterate the amount of love his mother and grandmother have for him. This is a constant theme throughout the book, in which the portrayal of women in this book are loving but also somewhat patronizing. One could argue that it could be that there is a difference in experiences, that the absence of the female characters could be attributed to the fact that men had more visibility to Baldwin. That lack of visibility, however, does not reflect on the amount of agency practiced by black women in the past.

Looking at the actions of black women through an infra-political lens may be helpful in understanding the not visible but powerful roles that black women have played in the movement for black lives. As discussed in class, infrapolitics was introduced as a concept of examining resistance tactics of oppressed individuals acting within their means, which often was a method used by women who were confined to repressive jobs and could not participate in other organizing methods. Robin D. G. Kelley’s We Are Not What We Seem explains the spaces dominated by infrapolitical action as, “the social and cultural institutions and ideologies that ultimately informed black opposition placed more emphasis on communal values and collective uplift than the prevailing class-conscious, individualist ideology of the white ruling classes.” This draws on a sentiment voiced during our class about the women’s era, in that the organizing model that these working class women embodied focused on what could be done in the confines of their positions rather than a traditional model that had centralized authority. Black women looked for more reform, rather than political rights. They did not seek to overturn hierarchies because they were barely recognized because of persisting gender roles. Although there was a move to during the progressive era to tried to change language from strict gender roles. Another common theme during this period was the aspiration of a level of respectability to achieve racial equality, which was gained significant participation by black women. While there were many black men that championed this ideal and created the “Talented Tenth”, women adhered to this hierarchy but also took the ideal a step further by using the idealism of respectability as a motivation to promote the theory of racial justice through furthering education. This is a widely touted solution to many problems, that was championed by women by the likes of Anna Julia Cooper and the motives were to get an education, move to south, challenge respectability politics (unfortunately not the level they were perpetuating) and challenge white womanhood morality through different representations of womanhood. While this provides an opportune framework for upward mobility, it was arguably limiting to those who did not have the resources to pursue this course of action. This was also  inherently exclusionary of the working class women who were already organizing within their positions of marginalization and disregarding to the contexts in which they already existed within, whether it was class, family life, geographical location, etc.

This exclusionary behavior has persisted regardless of recognition of the exclusionary themes that have existed in organizing in the movement for black lives. While the root of problem could be attributed to being socialized in systems that inherently oppress people. In attacking this issue, one can draw from Audre Lorde’s Age, Race, Class, and Sex to understand that without able to acknowledge that relying on traditional lines separating certain identities is weak, there is an inherent discord in a resistance movement. Audre argues that rejecting difference denies one the ability to be able to be apart of an effective movement that is inclusive of all because it is led through the perspective of the higher ups .  This is true for the many walks of lives that are covered in the movement for racial justice in the US, because with a traditionally male leadership, it has shown that many of the interests of women were disregarded. It can be argued that while using this perspective provided more unified and streamlined framework  to draw objectives from, but is exclusionary of the many people that benefit from this movement.

It is imperative that to continue an effective movement for black lives, that there is a move to be more inclusive not only of the laborious community of women that have been building the movement since the beginning. Black women have gone on to create more inclusive spaces and movements, such as the Black feminist movement and the womanist movements to organize. However if these perspectives are not recognized on a leadership level,

[inside-sport]

The Paralympics ‘medal obsession’ and its impact on grassroots sport

The Rio Paralympic spectacle excels expectations in the inspirational tally of 147 medals won during the summer of 2016, broken down this included 64 golds, 39 slivers and 44 bronzes. Yes, this is a world record achievement in medals won, but what is happening behind the medals? Are these medals a distraction from what really counts, and what the Paralympics should really stand for?

This obsession in winning medals focuses on the most abled bodies within the spectrum of disabilities and their elite performances (Jones and Howe, 2005). So, what about those Paralympians that position lower on this spectrum/ further away from the norm (individuals with Cerebral palsy, blind and intellectual disabilities), these individuals are excluded as they are seen to be less able (Howe 2008; Jones and Howe, 2005). This isn’t what the Paralympics initially represented… what happened to a Sport for all philosophy? And the international Paralympic Committees (IPC) aim to create a more inclusive society. Yes, this aim is a little over ambitious and not something that can be achieved solely on the back bone of the Paralympic movement (Howe & Silva, 2016), but more could be done to be more inclusive.  

There is also a misconception influenced by government, that because the Paralympics seem to be excelling when just focusing on the obsession of medals, grassroot sport also reflects this…  However, ‘Paralympic sport is not synonymous with the spectrum of disability sport opportunities’ (Howe & Silva, 2016:2). This is extremely problematic, as it is a missed opportunity to promote more equality and increase participation at grassroot levels. Due to the misguided view that the Paralympics are responsible for grassroot sport, very little is being done. How is this fair? That the Paralympics have an impossible task to manage both sport for the elite and sport for the grassroot level. When this isn’t the case with the Olympics, Olympic sport and grassroot participation are managed separately… they both symbolise one of the world’s most popular mega events, so, why isn’t this the case for the Paralympics?      

The Paralympics in its self, through the increase in medals won seems to have little effect on grassroot level participation as well, as there is no valid evidence that supports the assumption that increased medals influences an increase in sport participation. In fact, statistics in accordance to the Active People Interim Factsheet, indicate that there has been a decrease in sport participation since 2011 when compared to the sport participation in April 2015- April 2016.

So, what does this mean for grassroot sport? As it is clear from these statistics that the Paralympics don’t motivate individuals with a disability at the grassroot level to participate in sport/ physical activity. This is influenced by the fact that there is a paradoxical between Paralympic sport (most able) and grassroot sport (participation) (DePauw, 1997). So, many individuals with a disability cannot relate their personal situations and experiences to Paralympians. Influenced by the hierarchy of ‘acceptable impairments’ within the Paralympics (Schell and Rodriguez, 2001), which favours the stories and heroic achievements of ex solders and terror victims and marginalises individuals that were born with their disability, as they are furthest away from the stereotype of the supercrip (Purdue & Howe, 2013).    

From this it is obvious that the phenomenon of the Paralympics is exclusionary and is very much based on the ableist ideology, which privileges certain bodily traits (Garland Thomson, 1997) that conform closet to normality. This is influenced by the fact that the Paralympics are run by non- disabled people (Peers, 2009), which is reinforcing ableism. So, there needs to be a shift in power to overcome deeply embedded ableism, in which difference becomes the norm. This needs to start at grassroot levels by creating more diverse opportunities in sport for disabled people, as this would influence an increase in sport participation (Nixon, 2007).

N0643437

References:

DePaux, K. P. (1997). The (in)visibility of disability: Cultural contexts and “sporting bodies”. Quest, 49(4), 416-430.

Garland, Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.

Howe, P.D. (2008). The Cultural Politics of the Paralympic Movement: Through the Anthropological Lens: London: Routledge.

Howe, P.D. and Silva, C.F. (2016). The fiddle of using the Paralympic Games as a Vehicle for the expanding dis ability sport participation. Sport in Society, pp. 1-12.

Jones, C., and P.D. Howe. (2005). “The conceptual Boundaries of Sport for the Disabled: Classification and Athletic Performance.” Journal of Philosophy of Sport 32: 133-146.      

Nixon, H. L. (2007). “Constructing Diverse Sports Opportunities for People with Disabilities.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 31 (4): 417- 433.

Purdue, D. E. J., & Howe, P. D. (2013). Who’s in and who’s out? Legitimate bodies within the Paralympic Games. Sociology of Sport Journal, 30, 24-40.

Peers, D. (2009). (Dis)empowering Paralympic histories: Absent athletes and disabling discourses. Disability & Society 24 (5): 653- 665.  

Schell, LA and Rodriguez, S. (2001). Subverting bodies/ ambivalent representations: Media analysis of Paralympian, Hope Lewellen. Sociology of Sport Journal 18: 127- 35.