spmatich

@spmatich@ioc.exchange

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨As a trans man, Max Simensen says he has unique insights everyone could learn from⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  @Zagorath it's a fairly common usage. Though 'male privilege' has the same problem. Referring to a category of privilege as if maleness is it's only attribute, is generalised and problematic. It's quite different from saying "privilege that men tend to have". Calling it male privilege, has an implicit catch-all. The term is describing social categories, as if they are discrete groups, where as in reality what each person is aware of forms more of a spectrum. I think it's problematic because it diverts from the intent of the distinction, which is to highlight the privilege, rather than who necessarily has it. Anyway, like I say it's a fairly common usage, I'm not singling you out. I just reacted to that form of language.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨As a trans man, Max Simensen says he has unique insights everyone could learn from⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  @Zagorath @Nath when your language switched from describing "a woman" to "female", I found myself reacting to those terms. It's none of my business really. Though I want to say two things. One, that a woman can experience privilege, but a female not so much. That is, female is an attribute, and as such is completely inadequate to describe a woman, who has much more than just one attribute. The second thing is that privilege relates to the experience of life, where the subject of the privilege does not encounter a particular struggle. Not only that, because they never encounter it, they aren't even aware that someone else might do. Tall people know they are tall. How can you know what someone has experienced, unless you know them well? How many privileged people can you say you know that well? Not only that, it's probably likely perceived as a pejorative, because it points out what someone else doesn't know. I don't necessarily agree with the academic containment bit. Though I think you make some good points.