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.