I am a member of Fantastic Lesbians and I wholeheartedly agree with literally everything you've just said. I went to a Sue Perkins gig last night, saw someone who looked like you, and nearly went over to say hello... then I realised she was not you and laughed about it to my girlfriend, saying "I have such weird fangirl moments these days!"
Well I dunno if the rest of the group has seen it, but I thought it was pretty clear and well expressed. Thank you for clarifying your comment though because it made a difference to my thinking, and I always appreciate that. Xx
Another thing I just thought of, whilst reading your racism article, is that a lot of the Fantastic Lesbians feel really hurt and alienated from the so-called LGBTQIA+++++ community because their (in my view, correct) idea of what a lesbian is has recently been challenged and purportedly changed, by trans ideologues and their very specific brand of victimhood babble. This has caused a split in the "community" and has really impacted lesbian spaces in particular. I think perhaps in writing to the ideologues in "their own language" e.g. wokespeak, the idea was to get some sort of in-group credit or acknowledgement for using the right terms. Either that or the use of that language was actually ironic, I'm not sure because I didn't write the post. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know that a lot of lesbians in particular feel ostracised, so you've got the whole picture. There aren't any women's only lesbian bars in London anymore, for example, when apparently (before my time) in the 90s and 00s there were loads.
Yes, I know. That was what I was worried about. That people would think I didn’t care about that if said I don’t the language is helpful. Some people did think that when I wrote the original post and that is why I expanded it into a piece.
I thought you probably did know this, yes, but wanted to say it explicitly... just so I knew it had been stated. Probably more for my own benefit than yours if I'm honest! Perhaps a misplaced emotional vent on my part. Still figuring out my feelings/thoughts about it all. (Sorry, if it was misplaced, anyway!)
Every time I think I've found my tribe, I find some way to break some unspoken and ridiculous rule, and then I'm on my tod again. I wish I knew how not to be a tribal creature, or how to be one AND have a brain. Having a tribe with all different brains would be nice. Sigh... I guess that's why I relate to your work so strongly because liberalism is the only place where actual freedom of though is encouraged. Bashing is bad. Down with bashing.
Helen, this is wonderful! I'm literally exploring this exact topic right now, as part of my overall mission to restore our universal moral TABOOS, which I shorthand as 'overt, hateful bigotry'.
As part of this project, I've developed a framework for how to distinguish between different types and degrees of speech that can be considered bigoted, and I even developed a survey to try to demonstrate that a consensus already exists for how we should treat these actual and potential expressions of bigotry, considering how the potential taboo violator responds to the initial response (which better signals intent or indifference to cause harm).
You describe beautifully in words what I tried to narrow down into a succinct and ~universal framing (which of course needs more context like you provide to bring it to life).
I guess my response to Ms. Coleman would be, “hmm, that’s an interesting way of describing a relationship. Can you say more?” (Because no one can know what she really meant by the metaphor without more information.)
But as usual it provides a good platform for Helen’s pithy analysis about better ways to think about these things.
Olivia Colman’s claim to be a nonbinary gay man is obviously retarded. By the same token, anyone who is so hurt by this retarded utterance that they write six paragraphs about it is likewise retarded. And I feel retarded for actually reading a whole article on this and commenting.
Great essay, and great points raised. I just feel a little confused on the use of the term “gender non-conforming.” Is it meant to be a synonym for “non-binary” and/or to indicate feminine men and masculine women?
The question of if something is right or not or is logically implied by something else is independent of feelings or personal hurt. In the real world, it may be independent of peoples values and beliefs as well.
And in many social spheres I find the implication that I should support something to be an improper imposition. It is reasonable to request somebody to tolerate something or stand aside, even if they personally disagree. Persuasion is good. It is not proper to attempt to impose beliefs on the basis of feelings and moral gamesmanship.
I feel hurt -- largely irrelevant
Factual and unemotional analysis can get you called a lot of unexpected names - particularily if you challenge basic assumptions.
Almost 60 years ago I was nicknamed Spock
~50 years ago I was nicknamed Dr. Strangelove
more recently I was called Vader
"How can you say that? That is a totally XXXXX thing to say." -
"What data do we have, what are the limitations of the data, and what does the data actually imply? Work from the data to the conclusions, not from your beliefs to selected data that justifies your beliefs and / or values."
The more the discussion addresses issues of identity and status, the more irrational people get.
I’m not sure saying “you’re not a gay man” would work with Olivia Colman. She’s an actor. Actors pretend to be things they’re not. It would be like telling her “you’re not the Queen.” But then maybe it doesn’t matter so much what would work with her, it’s what works with most people. I like to think that would be the principled reality-anchored arguments, at least in the long run.
What Ms. Coleman said or implied was that she felt LIKE a gay man. That's open-ended enough that anybody should be allowed to say it. Wokeness has criminalized metaphors.
But what makes someone like a gay man? What are gay men like? Metaphors have to actually make sense.
How come famous actors weren’t candidly explaining they were like gay men two or three decades ago? Why is Colman saying this now, and not at the beginning of her career?
do you really think that Robert Burns’ girlfriend was like a red red rose in any significant way? is there anything significantly in common between a red red rose and a song sweetly sung in tune? metaphors don’t make sense. That’s why they are different from categories.
I don’t know and don’t care what the answers are to your last two questions, and I’m pretty sure Coleman doesn’t know either. She said this because it popped into her head while being interviewed. And this is one time you really should’ve used the word “actress’.
Burns makes the argument throughout his famous poem that explains the comparison. Metaphors do make sense. Or, good metaphors do. Perhaps if you spend some time analyzing the poem you’ll be able to answer your own question.
So your answer to my question is that you don’t know? Really? You don’t know why it would be more common now for a famous actor or actress to say they’re like a gay man, as opposed to several decades ago?
How common would this have been in the past, when being a gay man came with social and professional exclusion and even legal consequences?
I don’t think the inability to grasp metaphor is about “wokeness”. It’s a cognition problem, and it’s also about being unimaginative. Talk to some right wing biblical literalists and you’ll see.
absolutely, I agree 100%. damage is done on both sides by people with no sense of humor or imagination, convinced that they are the ultimate moral arbiters.
I am a member of Fantastic Lesbians and I wholeheartedly agree with literally everything you've just said. I went to a Sue Perkins gig last night, saw someone who looked like you, and nearly went over to say hello... then I realised she was not you and laughed about it to my girlfriend, saying "I have such weird fangirl moments these days!"
:) Oh, good. I was afraid this one might be misunderstood, but so far, that’s not happened.
Well I dunno if the rest of the group has seen it, but I thought it was pretty clear and well expressed. Thank you for clarifying your comment though because it made a difference to my thinking, and I always appreciate that. Xx
Another thing I just thought of, whilst reading your racism article, is that a lot of the Fantastic Lesbians feel really hurt and alienated from the so-called LGBTQIA+++++ community because their (in my view, correct) idea of what a lesbian is has recently been challenged and purportedly changed, by trans ideologues and their very specific brand of victimhood babble. This has caused a split in the "community" and has really impacted lesbian spaces in particular. I think perhaps in writing to the ideologues in "their own language" e.g. wokespeak, the idea was to get some sort of in-group credit or acknowledgement for using the right terms. Either that or the use of that language was actually ironic, I'm not sure because I didn't write the post. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know that a lot of lesbians in particular feel ostracised, so you've got the whole picture. There aren't any women's only lesbian bars in London anymore, for example, when apparently (before my time) in the 90s and 00s there were loads.
Yes, I know. That was what I was worried about. That people would think I didn’t care about that if said I don’t the language is helpful. Some people did think that when I wrote the original post and that is why I expanded it into a piece.
I thought you probably did know this, yes, but wanted to say it explicitly... just so I knew it had been stated. Probably more for my own benefit than yours if I'm honest! Perhaps a misplaced emotional vent on my part. Still figuring out my feelings/thoughts about it all. (Sorry, if it was misplaced, anyway!)
What you said, to my ears, sounded caring. :)
Yes, it matters because people keep thinking tribally and bashing the wrong people.
Every time I think I've found my tribe, I find some way to break some unspoken and ridiculous rule, and then I'm on my tod again. I wish I knew how not to be a tribal creature, or how to be one AND have a brain. Having a tribe with all different brains would be nice. Sigh... I guess that's why I relate to your work so strongly because liberalism is the only place where actual freedom of though is encouraged. Bashing is bad. Down with bashing.
Helen, this is wonderful! I'm literally exploring this exact topic right now, as part of my overall mission to restore our universal moral TABOOS, which I shorthand as 'overt, hateful bigotry'.
As part of this project, I've developed a framework for how to distinguish between different types and degrees of speech that can be considered bigoted, and I even developed a survey to try to demonstrate that a consensus already exists for how we should treat these actual and potential expressions of bigotry, considering how the potential taboo violator responds to the initial response (which better signals intent or indifference to cause harm).
You describe beautifully in words what I tried to narrow down into a succinct and ~universal framing (which of course needs more context like you provide to bring it to life).
See/take the anonymous 3-minute survey (Shades of Hate & Harm) here: https://forms.gle/7UPACqmcVH3oU6fB8
Read "Lawful but Awful": A Guide to Moral Taboos (Part I) here https://elevin11.substack.com/p/lawful-but-awful-a-guide-to-moral
I'll share the framework and survey results with/after Part 3. If you're curious to learn more, provide feedback, or partner, please reach out!
Just say NO to X.
I guess my response to Ms. Coleman would be, “hmm, that’s an interesting way of describing a relationship. Can you say more?” (Because no one can know what she really meant by the metaphor without more information.)
But as usual it provides a good platform for Helen’s pithy analysis about better ways to think about these things.
Lesbians are female homosexuals. Why are the Fantastic Lesbians speaking for bisexual women?
Isn't that a standpoint epistemolgy faux pas?
Mr response to Ms Colean would have been how do you, a woman, know what it feels like to be a gay man?
Olivia Colman’s claim to be a nonbinary gay man is obviously retarded. By the same token, anyone who is so hurt by this retarded utterance that they write six paragraphs about it is likewise retarded. And I feel retarded for actually reading a whole article on this and commenting.
It's retarded turtles, all the way down.
🔥
Hilarioue comment, good laugh, thanks.
Great essay, and great points raised. I just feel a little confused on the use of the term “gender non-conforming.” Is it meant to be a synonym for “non-binary” and/or to indicate feminine men and masculine women?
To indicate feminine men and masculine women.
I love the gays. They’re just great. The gays don’t say bad or do bad. They’re great and I want to be great like them. Ya know? Accepting?
I mean I’m straight and white and rich and I love the gays. Plus, I say it loud and proud!! Coz that’s the way I roll. I roll like the gays.
The question of if something is right or not or is logically implied by something else is independent of feelings or personal hurt. In the real world, it may be independent of peoples values and beliefs as well.
And in many social spheres I find the implication that I should support something to be an improper imposition. It is reasonable to request somebody to tolerate something or stand aside, even if they personally disagree. Persuasion is good. It is not proper to attempt to impose beliefs on the basis of feelings and moral gamesmanship.
I feel hurt -- largely irrelevant
Factual and unemotional analysis can get you called a lot of unexpected names - particularily if you challenge basic assumptions.
Almost 60 years ago I was nicknamed Spock
~50 years ago I was nicknamed Dr. Strangelove
more recently I was called Vader
"How can you say that? That is a totally XXXXX thing to say." -
"What data do we have, what are the limitations of the data, and what does the data actually imply? Work from the data to the conclusions, not from your beliefs to selected data that justifies your beliefs and / or values."
The more the discussion addresses issues of identity and status, the more irrational people get.
I’m not sure saying “you’re not a gay man” would work with Olivia Colman. She’s an actor. Actors pretend to be things they’re not. It would be like telling her “you’re not the Queen.” But then maybe it doesn’t matter so much what would work with her, it’s what works with most people. I like to think that would be the principled reality-anchored arguments, at least in the long run.
What Ms. Coleman said or implied was that she felt LIKE a gay man. That's open-ended enough that anybody should be allowed to say it. Wokeness has criminalized metaphors.
But what makes someone like a gay man? What are gay men like? Metaphors have to actually make sense.
How come famous actors weren’t candidly explaining they were like gay men two or three decades ago? Why is Colman saying this now, and not at the beginning of her career?
do you really think that Robert Burns’ girlfriend was like a red red rose in any significant way? is there anything significantly in common between a red red rose and a song sweetly sung in tune? metaphors don’t make sense. That’s why they are different from categories.
I don’t know and don’t care what the answers are to your last two questions, and I’m pretty sure Coleman doesn’t know either. She said this because it popped into her head while being interviewed. And this is one time you really should’ve used the word “actress’.
Burns makes the argument throughout his famous poem that explains the comparison. Metaphors do make sense. Or, good metaphors do. Perhaps if you spend some time analyzing the poem you’ll be able to answer your own question.
So your answer to my question is that you don’t know? Really? You don’t know why it would be more common now for a famous actor or actress to say they’re like a gay man, as opposed to several decades ago?
How common would this have been in the past, when being a gay man came with social and professional exclusion and even legal consequences?
Here's the entire poem. Where's the argument? Where are the premises and conclusion?
O my Luve is like a red, red rose
That’s newly sprung in June;
O my Luve is like the melody
That’s sweetly played in tune.
So fair art thou, my bonnie lass,
So deep in luve am I;
And I will luve thee still, my dear,
Till a’ the seas gang dry.
Till a’ the seas gang dry, my dear,
And the rocks melt wi’ the sun;
I will love thee still, my dear,
While the sands o’ life shall run.
And fare thee weel, my only luve!
And fare thee weel awhile!
And I will come again, my luve,
Though it were ten thousand mile.
Here's the original interview, in which she actually did give reasons why she was similar to a gay man. https://www.them.us/story/olivia-colman-sophie-hyde-jimpa-film-interview-nonbinary-child
Thanks so much for posting the poem. I do like reading it. What is your analysis of it?
Do you agree with Colman’s reasons?
I don’t think the inability to grasp metaphor is about “wokeness”. It’s a cognition problem, and it’s also about being unimaginative. Talk to some right wing biblical literalists and you’ll see.
absolutely, I agree 100%. damage is done on both sides by people with no sense of humor or imagination, convinced that they are the ultimate moral arbiters.
I think your revised formulation is perfect for any issue debate. A comment should apply the same against a range of contexts.
Your revised formulation is perfect for applying to any issue! Just change the issue description.