It was a very heated discussion but I stand by my contention that yeah there are black male privileges. Those privileges aren't nearly anywhere as advantageous as White Male Privileges and Black Male Privileges may not on balance outweigh the black male disadvantages but that doesn't mean they don't exist even if its just, for example, that white people are less likely to fuck with you in some instances because they are physically afraid of you (and it also doesn't mean all black men enjoy the same privileges).

The irony here is that in all other instances (and including in this very discussion) people would say that you can't tell an oppressed people that you know their experience and you should defer to them when they tell you about their experience.

Except for here where a black woman is being argued down for saying that people who were born men don't experience the world the same way as a woman because they've experience male privilege; an experience that a cis woman would never experience. Imagine another scenario where anyone not a woman can tell a woman what it means to be a woman?!? We've come full circle in an Orwellian way when we have reached the point that rich Trump-supporting Caitlyn Jenner gets to define what being a woman is to an African Woman.

"Her detractors are saying she's wrong because they were never men and were always women"

Here is the paradox of this statement. A person born as a man is in no position to define what it means to be born a woman (and vice versa). And not even other ally women are in a position to tell a woman she is wrong to say a trans woman doesn't know what it means to be born a woman because ally women don't know what it means to be born a man.

If you take a step back and look at it is silly to think that this is all a matter of finding the right labels to solve the problem. Black people do it every generation going from Negro to Colored to Black to African American to whatever is next as if finding the right label will somehow alleviate the problems black people face in any regard. But I that can easily be a whole nother post.

I bring up labels to say that it seems it would be more important to look at what she actually said and mean than to try and force her to use certain terminology.

The internet always fines the dumbest ways to discuss these complex issues.



>I agree with her overall point, but she says 1 problematic
>thing in the explanation (and of course, that's what her
>detractors are hanging on).
>
>Here's what I agree with most:
>
>"I think the impulse to say that trans women are women just
>like women born female are women comes from a need to make
>trans issues mainstream. Because by making them mainstream, we
>might reduce the many oppressions they experience.
>
>But it feels disingenuous to me. The intent is a good one but
>the strategy feels untrue. Diversity does not have to mean
>division.
>
>Because we can oppose violence against trans women while also
>acknowledging differences. Because we should be able to
>acknowledge differences while also being supportive. Because
>we do not have to insist, in the name of being supportive,
>that everything is the same. Because we run the risk of
>reducing gender to a single, essentialist thing."
>
>
>^^ That's brilliantly put
>Where it gets dicey is where she's saying trans women
>experienced male privilege while they lived as men. Her
>detractors are saying she's wrong because they were never men
>and were always women. But her detractors are on some BS,
>because that's not what the point is about. The point is how
>they were perceived and treated by the world around them. Her
>detractors could have a point if they'd take their heads out
>of their asses and actually respond to what she's saying.
>That said, my contention here would be that "male privilege"
>often has a lot to do with appearing or exuding tradional
>maleness. People born male who aren't completely cis and have
>trouble hiding it, often find themselves in a space where they
>experience oppression from the same entities that bestow
>privilege to cis males. It's a little more nuanced than
>"you're male so you have male privilege." Both she and her
>detractors are being too simplistic with regard to this
>particular point... but naturally so, since the male
>perspective is somewhat automatically devalued in such
>discussions these days.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"