If engaging with a complex issue makes it "mine," then every political commentator, activist, and thinker throughout history must personally own every topic they discuss. How absurd. I engage because I care about fairness—for everyone.
That said, I deeply regret my grievous offense of acknowledging reality in all its complexity. In the future, I will strive to suppress any nuanced thoughts that fail to conform to a binary, pre-approved narrative. Your ideological purity is truly an inspiration.
How silly of me to assume that reason, evidence, or moral consistency had any bearing here. I’ll be sure to check my unacceptable subject position before daring to engage with reality again. Thank you for your valuable contribution to the public discourse.
So, by your logic, does merely discussing an issue mean I must be personally invested in one side of it? Fascinating. I suppose historians are all closet monarchists for acknowledging the existence of kings, and meteorologists secretly worship the rain.
Interesting. By that logic, does a trans woman acknowledging biological differences between trans and cis athletes—as many do—have an interest in maintaining transpobia? Or is it possible—just possible—that engaging with reality doesn’t always map neatly onto self-interest?
Look, I’ve read my Foucault, my Gramsci, my Butler. I’m well-acquainted with the idea that power structures shape knowledge production. But here’s the problem: not everything is reducible to power. Sometimes, an observation is just an observation.
Comments
you don't get to play things both ways
If you're bringing this up, then you've definitely got some belief in this "acknowledgment" of yours.
trans women do not benefit from cissexism by simply upholding it