This week’s Wednesday Reading List selections bring a few additional viewpoints to the recent New Yorker feature written by Michelle Goldberg.
[blockquote source=”Aoifeschatology”]Goldberg gives legitimacy to debate validity. Not to be outdone the accused plagiarist and apologist for Israel Margaret Wente — Canada’s smash and grab journalist of anti-intellectual conservatism — followed up Goldberg with an op-ed, basically a rehash of what she wrote back in February. Wente, like Goldberg, directly puts to issue the legitimacy of trans identities, which she casually ascribes to the faddish millennialism. And, unsurprisingly, both authors cite virtually the same anti-trans sources whilst investing minimal or nil effort in ‘balancing’ the invectives with actual trans voices.[/blockquote]
Brynn Tannehill – Fighting Back Against Anti-Transgender Talking Points
[blockquote source=”Huffington Post”]Since the publication of Time’s recent cover story “The Transgender Tipping Point,” there has been a spate of conservative op-eds in retort, including ones featured in the Chicago Sun-Times and the Wall Street Journal, and online on conservative websites such as The Federalist. The attacks follow a predictable set of talking points that rely on the reader having no scientific knowledge of the issue. However, when examined from a perspective of peer-reviewed medical consensus and law, these talking points fail utterly.[/blockquote]
Julia Serano – Op-ed: An Open Letter to The New Yorker
[blockquote source=”Advocate.com”]You probably don’t remember me — I was the transgender activist who briefly appeared toward the end of that Michelle Goldberg article you ran last week. You know, the one about the “dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism.” I know, that topic sounds somewhat bizarre and potentially fascinating — I’m sure you got lots of click-throughs on it! But the thing is, it was a rather awful experience on my end, and I want to share why with you.[/blockquote]
[blockquote source=”Bitch Magazine”]The article is meant to paint a clear picture of a longstanding debate within feminist groups about whether transgender women should be accepted as women, profiling several feminists and exploring the history of current discussions about the push to exclude transgender women from “women only” spaces. But in the process, it paints trans identity as suspect, does nothing to counter the hurtful misconception that trans women are either “men” exercising entitled “male privilege” in deeming themselves female or sexual fetishists acting out “erotic compulsions,” and holds up authors who’ve written book-length academic works delineating these ideas as noble, aggrieved scholars.
While this may sound like speculative fiction set in a world where trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) theories have conquered queer and gender studies communities, it’s not. Instead, it’s something more disheartening: a one-sided profile that’s sympathetic to writers and activists who’ve spent their careers working to marginalize and persecute the already-oppressed transgender community.[/blockquote]
If you enjoy Park That Car, and you’d like to see more content, please consider supporting the site via my Patreon profile. Thanks!