Camille Paglia: The Modern Campus Has Declared War on Free Speech
heatst.com
heatst.com
"In my Anglo-Saxon class one day, the otherwise very affable young WASPy professor did a crass sexist stunt, also involving an ethnic slur against working-class Italian-Americans, that still shocks and disgusts me after all these years."
"... political correctness has gone from a good idea, which is let's not be mean, particularly to people who are not able to look after themselves. That's a good idea. To the point where any kind of criticism of any individual or group can be labeled cruel ..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U
We made progressed when political correctness was used to combat nasty falsehoods, but digressed when it "over corrected" and suppressed valid criticism of observable phenomenon.
I would check out some of the ideas from Slavoj Žižek as well.
19th century science proved that native americans, the irish, ... well basically everyone but the scientists themselves were inferior beings. The people who held those views didn't secretly believe that everyone was equal and they were making up lies for political advantage. They geniunely thought they were documenting objective facts about the inferior races according to science even though we can see from our perspective that it was all self-justifying nonsense.
But if you'd asked them they'd say, yes, fine don't be mean, but this is valid criticism based on observable phenomenon.
The article, of course, doesn't just give an opinion. It tells an historical story---partly from her own experience as a social justice activist---and makes an argument that a wrong turn was taken. You could well disagree with her conclusion, some premises, or think she left out key facts, but I think her grounds are a bit less flimsy than whatever biases she happened to inherit.
FWIW, I didn't know who this person was, but I googled out of curiosity and she appears to identify as trans herself? (but, sure, this doesn't matter inside this dialectic since she could still have "cis privilege").
One of her recent criticisms seemed to be parents subjecting their children to sex reassignment surgery before they are old enough to give informed consent. And that the explanation for this---obviously, right?---involves the prominence of gender and sexuality in our cultural zeitgeist and as technologies for self-identification. She also points out that sex change is now being misleadingly presented as a solution to deeper problems that would really remain unaddressed.
A Twitter-inflaming interview had some interesting remarks on a connection between sexuality and cultural decadence---which she has apparently written a book on the history of---but she seems to be actually well read and was working with a much more complex structure than bloggers picked up on ("decadence" is used as a technical term, the link isn't causal, a richer concept of self-identity is assumed, the objectification of bodies is placed in a more complex network, etc).
But again, this is just my impression from procrastinating for a bit!
no, she doesn't. she's a cis-gendered lesbian. she was born female and still identifies as female nor has she ever done otherwise as far as I know.
I'm surprised its your first time hearing about Camille Paglia though. She's moderately famous (in my circles anyway). Has been stirring the pot in the academia/inteligentisa scene for decades now.
She's a very iconoclastic and contrarian thinker and has made enemies on both the left and the right. Her ideas are fairly deep and well thought out though and a lot of the controversy she finds herself in is basically the media trolling their audience with inflammatory out-of-context quotations.
Not to say Paglia isn't sometimes deliberately inflammatory. She can light it up with the best of them.
Problem is there's no one actually doing GRS on trans kids. Unless she's confusing the violent act of GRS for intersexed/ambiguous-genitalia kids which is a wholly separate issue. Because I don't know of a single case of a transgender teenager undergoing GRS or even plastic surgery for facial feminization or breast augmentation.
"She also points out that sex change is now being misleadingly presented as a solution to deeper problems that would really remain unaddressed."
She hasn't demonstrated that there's over diagnosis of adults or children with gender dysphoria. It's for her to actually show through evidence that there's such a trend that's beyond mere correlation. If she can't produce it then she's acting unethically by virtue of the fact that her claims will be sourced as an "expert opinion" by medical professionals who aren't willing to dig deeper.
Also, her remarks regarding Chaz Bono shows she's definitely not trans in any capacity. The fact she tries to conflate her experiences with that of Chaz's is the typical nonsense that certain people do when trying to empathize with a stranger they scarcely know. It's easy to try to overlay your experiences from afar but if you honestly didn't live with that person through those experiences you can't make any assertion that you know or have the ability to know what they're thinking or if their thinking is incorrect. I can tell you that for years I thought what people told me about myself was accurate despite the fact the vast majority of these people (two being my parents) were more interested in projecting what they wanted me to be and not what I was or what I really needed to do to find out who I was in the first place. So, Paglia's comments in this regard insult me greatly since they're that of a nosy neighbor that should learn to never intrude in that of the affairs of neighbors who didn't ask for their opinion.
That's why I'm insulted by your characterization of Ms. Paglia. You haven't lived her experience. You don't know what it is like to be her, yet you consider yourself competent to judge based on your assumptions of her knowledge - and they are assumptions. You simply don't know.
> So, Paglia's comments in this regard insult me greatly since they're that of a nosy neighbor that should learn to never intrude in that of the affairs of neighbors who didn't ask for their opinion.
Indeed.
She never asked for your opinion of her or your assumptions.
Is she a licensed therapist? If not, then she needs to kindly STFU about issues she has no expertise in. Dunning-Kruger is definitely in full effect with her when it comes to psychology. Especially since her expertise largely revolves around literature and art. Not psychology, not biology, not neurology: art. Think about that for a moment. An Art major is telling trans people they're "deluded" when she doesn't even have the chops to deal with the basics of developmental psychology. So why should anyone that's trans listen to her, exactly?
"She never asked for your opinion of her or your assumptions."
And I didn't ask for her bigoted opinions to be treated as factual currency for how to mistreat trans people. Her words can affect and harm trans people because she's touted as an "expert" where as my words are that of a stranger, a nobody, a nada, thus they're not given the same weight or affect on policy. She knows this and that's why she says the things she says. Both to get seen in print and to possibly gain the favor of the powers that be that are sympathetic to her views.
2. This sort of prejudicial dismissal is the kind of intellectual isolation and censorship that Paglia is actually warning about. You're proving her point.
As for "intellectual isolation," she's not owed a hearing. If she wanted a hearing from little old me then she shouldn't be a bigot towards my kind (trans). It's not my job to listen to bigots. It's also not my job to coddle intellectuals that get snubbed online. It shows some great insecurity if people like her are so concerned about people just ignoring her ilk by not going to their lectures, read their essays, and so on. I wish they would admit that freedom of association cuts both ways. Don't like trans people? Then don't expect trans people to associate with you. You can't demand our minds and ears for your use. The audience isn't passive. It's a give and take. I guess her in mind, and the mind of folks like her, it seems as if the very idea the audience can/will push back by not accepting their ideas is lost on her.
Also, I want some real examples of actual censorship. I don't want this bull dung where a private association decided to not invite her or her friends to a lecture series. You're not owed an audience as I stated before. It's annoying that people are getting looser with the word censorship these days. Unless you're getting death threats, have been put on a black list (illegal in the US last time I checked), or otherwise having people actively block any/all venues of expression you're not being censored.
All these articles seem to smack of entitlement to a hearing from people of my generation and demographic. Guess what? She ain't owed that hearing like I've stated before. When she can show me a bill for services rendered then she can get my mind and ears. Until then she can stuff it.
I wanted to understand your perspective, which so brashly denies Paglia her own experience, so I watched the Youtube clip. Unfortunately the easy to find one cut off mid-word, right before she was apparently about to explain her provocation. She wasn't eloquent, and I guess I can imagine how the 30 seconds might be mildly upsetting. But transphobic? A bigot? As just one expression of an inner darkness so vile that all she might ever say is poisoned?
I think a more charitable interpretation of what she was trying to get at is that we should be careful that media attention doesn't encourage some troubled people---who are troubled for whatever reasons---to make a huge commitment which, for whatever reasons, they later regret. And that in some cases maybe other "solutions" would be preferable. Or perhaps her opinion might be contingent on the current state of technology? Or perhaps---IDK---she's even wanting to challenge the framing of the condition as a problem in need of a solution. The point is just it's not really obvious to me why we should rush in with the pitchforks and righteous anger just yet.
There's plenty of room to disagree with her here and lots of needed expansion, but surely she gives a reasonable enough start to a conversation? Maybe you personally don't want to have it. That's fine. Me neither. Everyone who participates comes off as a dick or an ass or just can't be heard over the yelling.
That still don't give her a pass for saying a bigoted crap. She can be Uncle Ruckus all day but that don't take away the Uncle Ruckus crap she's done. I think you need to accept that and move on.
"She wasn't eloquent, and I guess I can imagine how the 30 seconds might be mildly upsetting. But transphobic? A bigot? As just one expression of an inner darkness so vile that all she might ever say is poisoned?"
She misgenders Chaz. She deadnames Chaz. Yeah.... that's Transphobia 101. Denying the actual gender identity of Chaz or any trans person _is_ transphobia and you can't wave a wand to make it into something else. The fact you're defending deadnaming and misgendering is hilarious to me. Do you often deadname and misgender trans friends? Or do you even have any?
"There's plenty of room to disagree with her here and lots of needed expansion, but surely she gives a reasonable enough start to a conversation?"
Unless you're a family member or a _licensed therapist_ which someone has come to for advice you and her have zero say in the lives of trans people. You and her have no moral nor legal right to interfere in our lives and to treat our lives as some sort of academic exercise in my opinion is the lowest most base thing you can do.
And if you were to do it to me personally (if we knew each other) that would definitely end whatever relationship (acquaintance or friendship) we had. If that seems extreme understand that I and many other trans people have endured this sort of thing for _years_ and we get tired of justifying and explaining ourselves when it's pretty clear we're not going to change. So being patronized, belittled, armchair psycho-analyzed, and so on is just not welcome. That's exactly what people like Camille Paglia do.
She's just one tiny example out of millions of jerks that's done the same or worse. IMO, she's the least offensive of the jerks that think they know best for trans people, but none the less she's a vocal one. And she deserves every little bit of criticism and mockery that comes her way. When she admits once in her life that maybe she's wrong when it comes to criticizing trans people's mere existence then we can talk issues respectfully. But that's a non-negotiable condition. Human dignity and common courtesy should not be negotiated, ever.