Disclaimer: even before going vegan my politics leaned about as far left as left can go, so undoubtedly my "leftist" bias will be showing in my possibly LONGEST post to date.
Also, congratulations to the many Americans (younger ones especially!) NOT voting for election-deniers, conspiracy theorists or extremists during November's mid-terms. Canadians applaud you. (But boo to Floridians and Texans who re-elected Republicans hell-bent on implementing anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-transgender legislation.*)
Note: this post was begun in late October, but the recent Club Q shooting (and subsequent response by those who helped stoke hostility towards LBGTQ+ members), only reinforce some of the reasons I give later on for writing it in the first place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alright, let's start with the one word that has helped trigger an almost world-wide (okay, UK, USA, Australia and Canada at least) moral panic (trans panic to be specific) that in my opinion could even be viewed as a social contagion of sorts given how it has spread:
WOKE
And just in case you haven't come across this term yet, count your lucky stars as it seems to have become ubiquitous both online and in media print. While the term "woke" (and "stay woke") originated in the States among black activists years ago to mean being aware of racial injustice and discrimination, it is now more often used as a pejorative insult against people, institutions and ideas perceived as too progressive, in particular when it comes to issues concerning race and gender inclusion.
Which means we now have woke as an adjective describing almost anything and everything (plus there are so many derivatives of the word, like wokeness and wokified, it's hard to keep count), and I've even seen Wokes used as a noun to refer to people. Say what?
And it wouldn't even be so bad except that you have anti-woke sites popping up everywhere (e.g., Vote Against Woke – deleted as it violated election laws, Stop Woke Activism, and the especially insidious Blueprint for Canada – sorry, I wasn’t going to amplify these sites by linking, but the Blueprint site is just so ridiculously off the mark that I couldn’t resist adding a few links at the bottom of this post**), and worse, a concerted effort during municipal elections to stack school boards with regressive anti-woke trustees. Thankfully, most of them DIDN'T get elected, but they sure tried. (Sadly, anti-woke school election candidates in the US did have more success.)
(To be clear, "wokeism" isn't only decried by those on the political right, as there's a segment on the political left – in higher education and publishing particularly – also strongly denouncing "woke culture" as illiberal.)
So, in no particular order, let the partial list (I'm sure I've missed a bunch) of knuckle-clenching words for the woke-fearing (ha, made up my own woke word) begin:
- left or leftist (but notice how you don't really see "rightist" too much)
- progressive
- politically correct (remember when this precursor term to woke was in vogue?)
- trigger warning
- victim
- Antifa (because being anti-fascist and anti-racist is a bad thing?)
- diversity
- inclusion
- identity politics (as if white, straight, Christian, etc., aren't identities used in politics as well)
- oppression
- intersectionality (tsk, tsk, as if one identity/oppression wasn't already too much)
- gender theory
- gender expression
- gender identity (yes, Virginia, there IS such a thing as gender and it IS distinct from biological sex)
- gender affirmation (and gender-affirmation care)
- transgender
- trans women (saying "trans women are women" will really set them off)
- cis or cisgender (also irrationally loathed)
- okay, basically anything containing the word gender (except for gender-critical)
- genderqueer, genderfluid, nonbinary (because heaven help us if we can't classify folk into neat confining little boxes like male, female, feminine, masculine)
- pronouns (amazing how itty bitty words like he/she/they can irrationally irritate a woke-fearing person like almost nothing else)
- trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF for short, but there is nothing radical or feminist about it, which is maybe why they prefer to sugarcoat it by using the term gender-critical instead – also, in a twisted way, the acronym TERF is considered by most who practice it not only to be a slur, but actual hate speech, even though hate is exactly the effect of what they’re promoting)
- social justice
- social justice warrior (usually SJW for short)
- equity (equality of opportunity is MAYBE okay, but NOT equity of outcome)
- inequity (because that implies that some benefit from unequal outcomes)
- racism (believe it or not, but this term is actually viewed by some as an anti-white slur)
- racist (some people consider being CALLED a racist more outrageous than someone actually BEING a racist—I know, it boggles the mind)
- anti-racism (again, a big no no, because while not being racist is one thing, actively trying to dismantle racism seems to be beyond the pale)
- systemic racism (this notion is considered especially offensive—not that it exists, but that some have the nerve to suggest it exists)
- critical race theory (or CRT for short, is SO explosive for some that apparently the only way they can deal with the notion of trying to explain racism is to denounce the theory itself as racist)
- Diversity, Equity, Inclusion initiatives or DEI for short (some prefer strategies like The Theory of Racelessness which argues that there is no such thing as race, and to think so is racist, reminding me of those who claim to be colourblind when it comes to race and who will quote MLK as if he was saying to ignore the colour of someone's skin instead of not judging a person by it)
- privilege (white privilege especially, and this may be because many of us have had the luxury of not even having to think of our skin colour while growing up)
- white fragility (say those two words together and you'll really see some people get defensive, like the professor I'll be mentioning in the why-I-wrote-this-post section below)
So there you have it: the two main topics and related words (race, gender identity) that will send the anti-woke into a frenzy these days. Use them sparingly or liberally, as you see fit. ;)
Some other terms you'll often see bandied about by these folk include the by now often-misused term freedom, freedom of speech (a borrowed American term actually, as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to freedom of expression rather than freedom of speech, which, by the way, should not incorporate hate speech under the guise of "free" speech), parental rights (in conjunction with education), anti-mandate, government overreach, tyranny, global elite, global cabal, gatekeepers (a favourite term of Pierre Poilievre's), grooming, indoctrination, virtue signalling, cancel culture, and on, and on.
TERFs in particular (if you're a radical feminist who is also trans-exclusionary I WILL call you by that name no matter how strongly you consider it to be a slur) who have become obsessed with the imaginary evils and threats posed by transgender women (yes, they ARE women) are equally obsessed with terms like biological sex (essentially positing biological determinism or essentialism arguments that feminists like myself have railed against for years), sex-based rights, and one of the more ridiculous terms, adult human female.
It can be confusing, for sure, as one of the tenets of feminism is to reject gender stereotypes, but that doesn't mean that gender, along with sex, doesn't exist. And whether gender is more socially constructed or biologically based (my take on the 'is gender based on biology or merely a social construct' debate is that it's likely a variable combination of the two with other factors thrown in that differ for everyone), every person should have the right to express their gender identity as it feels comfortable to them.
Meaning that a cisgender woman should be able to present herself in more traditionally masculine ways if she wants, a transgender woman should be able to present herself in more traditionally feminine ways if that feels right for her, and ALL women should be able to present themselves any damn way they want. In short, there's no room for anti-trans sentiment if you consider yourself to be feminist, as anti-trans IS anti-feminist. And frankly, so-called feminists picking on the most vulnerable group of women as their main (and in some cases only) target of feminist activism (including the all-the-more-reprehensible for misusing her large platform, highly privileged and powerful J.K. Rowling), is disgusting. Using feminism as a cover to exclude trans people and justify transphobia is wrong on every level.
Now you may wonder why I've gone on at length about anti-wokeness (and gender issues in particular), on this vegan blog, so let me (at length again, I'm afraid), explain. I wrote about all of this stuff because:
- I'm tired of seeing the word "woke" everywhere, especially when used as a negative signifier
- while words change over time (e.g., gay no longer just means lighthearted and carefree), it bothers me when words or slogans (e.g., My Body My Choice) get co-opted
- or worse, used to mean something entirely false, e.g., equating "grooming" with gender-affirming care for trans youth, rather than the actual process of manipulation by abusers
- and it's not just words, but anti-woke politicians actively trying to implement not only what can be taught in schools concerning race and gender, but anti-LGBTQ+ legislation that has real and devastating effects
- in fact, rather than youth wanting to transition because of social contagion as claimed, I'd argue that perhaps the real social contagion is the “trans panic” that seems to have arisen among folk who are just repackaging all the anti-gay hatred and serving it onto the transgender community instead
- the folk objecting to woke also tend to be anti-mask, anti-vaccine, anti-mandate, skeptical of climate change, prone to conspiracy theories about things like "The Great Reset," obsessed with freedom that they falsely believe has been taken away, confused about what "free speech" does and does not include, and worst of all, convinced that their rights are being taken away while actively trying to ensure that the rights of groups THEY don't like are taken away
- I'm tired of seeing these symbols in my small Ontario town on a regular basis: huge Canadian flags on (usually) black pickup trucks, F___ Trudeau flags and bumper stickers (I even saw a Confederate flag once, and a bumper sticker saying "Jesus is my saviour, Trump is my President" for Pete's sake), and the fringe freedom fighters STILL congregating downtown every Saturday with their flags and picket signs
- man-child Elon Musk (remind you of anyone?) pandering to the anti-woke crowd on Twitter ensuring it becomes even more of a cesspool than it already is
- people with real clout and institutional power whining about "cancel culture" while using free speech that actually has the potential to cancel those with much less power simply for being who they are (I'm thinking here, for example, of toxic misogynist and weirdly-afraid-of-pronouns Jordan Peterson, J.K. Rowling once again, and even Margaret Atwood, whom I'd admired, retweeting anti-trans articles and signing, along with other privileged individuals, Harper's letter lamenting their concern that they're not free to say whatever the hell they want without social backlash or consequence. In other words, their speech should be free, but heaven forbid that anyone else complain about what THEY say. Again, this from people with big enough platforms that unlike others, they'll likely never encounter the danger of being cancelled, either figuratively or literally.)
- speaking of powerful individuals, I had a fruitless email exchange with an Wilfred Laurier University professor and author of DIE and Respect are Bad (in part questioning his definitions taken from discredited self-proclaimed CRT expert/disinformation and conspiracy peddler/leading populizer of the term "groomer" as an LGBTQ+ pejorative, James Lindsay), who is also a member of an Academic Freedom Executive Committee (comprised of all male, probably white, middle-aged, straight, cis members) despising anything they claim to be woke, because boy, do they want to hold onto their power and privilege at all cost. Looking at his Twitter feed after, I realized I shouldn't have bothered.
- I'm tired of all the nonsense that gets normalized by Donald-types in the US trickling up north, and then leaving the fringes to become more mainstream
- I get scared, and sad, watching social conservative values, policies and legislation being touted and implemented across the world, and find it disheartening to see so many right-wing (some of them being very far-right) politicians being elected
- closer to home, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre as federal Opposition Leader, yikes
- misinformation and disinformation hurts everyone
- if I thought fighting on behalf of other species was difficult enough, the taking away of rights of human beings belonging to minority groups will only mean that trying to make life better for ALL beings is even more of an uphill battle
- as vegans who believe that power is at the root of all oppression, and that various types of oppression are interlinked, intersectionality isn't just a buzzword
- as intersectional vegans, we can't just say that our focus is only on animals
- finally, as vegans, the sentiment of "stop trying to force your ideology down everyone's throats" is a familiar one, and no matter what group receives that message, it's usually sent by those not liking a dominant narrative challenged
Where do we go from here? I don't know. But I'd suggest that if you're not quite sure where you stand on certain issues, it might help to see who your ideological bedfellows are. For example, if you're an anti-vax vegan (why?) parroting all sorts of alt-right nonsense (again, why?), ask yourself why you'd align yourself with individuals or groups who otherwise have very suspect views on almost everything else. How could they then be completely in the right on this particular issue?
With any issue really, ask yourself, who are the enthusiastic supporters and promoters? Who are the detractors? Who would you rather listen to? In the case, for example, of people pushing anti-trans views, would you rather listen to and respect the opinions of trans folk directly affected, or someone like J.K. Rowling who doesn’t have any skin in the game? Parse out what is fact, and what are speculation, conjecture, and fear-mongering, from reputable sources. In short, do your homework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The updated Texas Republican Party platform defines homosexuality as an "abnormal lifestyle choice" and opposes "all efforts to validate transgender identity." State Attorney General Ken Paxton tried to classify transition-related care for minors as child abuse, and Governor Gregg Abbott called on people to report parents of transgender minors if it was suspected they were receiving gender-affirming care. Meanwhile, Florida Governor DeSantis signed legislation limiting the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and discussions of gender identity and sexuality in schools. It should scare the heck out of everyone that someone who proudly asserts that "Florida is where woke goes to die," may be running for President in 2024.
** couldn’t resist these links as they’re too bizarre for words:
https://blueprintforcanada.ca/the_cult_dynamics_of_wokeness.html
one which shows how CRT is misunderstood, misrepresented, twisted and distorted:
https://blueprintforcanada.ca/what_anti_racism_in_CRT_really_means.html And I can say that having read a number of the books/authors they're particularly critical of.
and this “taxonomy” of woke religion which would actually be funny if its adherents didn’t think it was the gospel truth and it didn’t contain so many blatant untruths:
https://blueprintforcanada.ca/woke_religion_a_taxonomy.html
if you want, here's a Twitter thread debunking this entire Blueprint website: https://mobile.twitter.com/DrArendt/status/1565702149039947776
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot to read, I know, so hopefully you made yourself a cup of tea to go along with it!
p.s. I now realize that according to the anti-woke I’m likely even woker than woke—though not exactly sure what the term for that would be, snort, and that to them I've probably swallowed the woke Kool-Aid whole, but hey...
Oh my gosh....I'm definitely not going to be able to do this post justice. And I can't imagine how much work went into it! The thing I'm remembering out front without going back and re-reading to make points is that years ago when "Me Too" took off, I was on a train here in Berlin and there was a little boy with his mom or nanny (it "felt" like his mom the way they were, but that doesn't mean anything because having been a nanny who was mistaken for the mother of both girls I cared for, I know it's an easy mistake). Anyway, the woman with him was wearing a t-shirt that said "the future is FEMALE". And I just felt so sad for the little boy. It's hard to explain. I don't think she's wrong to stand up for women and girls and I "get it" what she was trying to do. But if I had a son, I personally wouldn't do that. Not because she's wrong, but ... it just felt sad to see that. I'm doing a horrible job of explaining this and why it felt sad, but the future should be everyone being correct toward everyone. Women of course should be treated much better than has been the case in the past and in some places, is still the norm. But there has been progress. And pitting genders against each other doesn't seem useful to me. It also, I believe, has that subtle influence of making things even worse for non-human animals. Not because people will treat male or female animals differently, but we still can't get it together to just be correct toward each other and that DOES affect the way other species are treated.
Ok, this may be a ramble post (like all my post/replies - snort!) but I also have recently (meaning in the past couple years) watched episodes of old sitcoms I liked years ago and, for example, on Everybody Loves Raymond or King of Queens (there are a lot more, but these two first come to mind) where women characters slap/smack male characters. And the audience laughs like crazy. No one should hit anyone unless in self defense. ... And recently in an email discussion I had to tell my mom that there is sometimes domestic violence in gay women's relationships. It's a long back story, but she was trying to figure out something someone had said and it had never occurred to her that when gay women are in a relationship, yes, sometimes domestic violence happens.
Geez, I'm getting so far off topic, but then again, I had about a hundred topics I thought I would write about as I read your post. It actually is more than a post.
I don't even know where to begin about the "cancel" thing. Because I believe that history should not be forgotten, but I also believe that glorifying people who don't deserve it (Andrew Jackson - the president who nearly succeeded in wiping out Native Americans in what is now the USA) is not ok. People will twist that to their own agenda on both sides. I'm sorry I'm doing a terrible explanation in my comment, but my comment would be longer than your post if I don't try to make it "short" and when I do that, I don't think I get my viewpoint across sometimes.
For me, I am devastated when I see things on the news that are horrible that happen to innocent human beings. The little baby girl who was born UNDER the rubble in the earthquake in Syria. Any innocent human being who gets hurt, I really do feel for them. I feel like...I don't know how to say this without it sounding "bad"...I would be torn apart having to choose between anyone in trouble. But if I saw two babies in deathly situations, one human, one another species....I have a feeling I'd save the other species, but I probably would be suicidal afterward because I'd never forget the human baby I didn't help.
And to muddy up the waters more, put family into the context of that above paragraph and then I'd save MY human family member and be suicidal about not saving the other species baby.
How did I get to this from a post about terms like "woke"???? Snort! That's what you get for making people think!! :)
Before I close this pitiful comment, I will just say this about transfolk. In the early and mid 90's I was friends with and spent all my free time with my gay friends and there were more than a few of us that were trannies (and that's the word we all used back then, it wasn't rude and it was said even by some of my tranny friends...now I can't even say tranny without feeling rude so it shows how you're describing how words change, although in a weird way)
Ok so anyway back then, a couple of my trans friends were "real" enough that when we went to the ladies room together in "straight" clubs, no one batted an eye. And on the way, we'd get hit on by straight men who had zero idea that my friend was trans. There was one place in particular in IN that one trans friend of mine and I went and we used to be "mistaken" for Gwen Stefani (me) and Janet Jackson (my friend). It breaks my heart now to think what could have happened if any of those guys would have "clocked" her and targeted her the way you see that happens when the true crime shows cover the stories. We lost touch long ago, but I don't know how her (or any of my trans friends from back then's lives turned out).
As for "who would you rather listen to"? I quit listening to almost every news outlet from the Western world years ago. Seriously, Al Jazeera has really great coverage of world news and they aren't biased. I don't look at them enough to know if they've ever covered vegan or trans stories, but I know they've covered stories about gay men being put to death in countries that outlaw gay relationships. ... I listen to my conscience. And I'm doing better lately about my misanthrope leanings. :) (But humanity still mostly makes me sad...really mad too, but mostly sad, which is a step up from hate). 👍
Thanks for this well thought out and well written, important post! I don't know if you have any way to see how many people have read it, but I hope a lot have read it!
Shining light on human beings' inhumanity toward each other is part of helping move us toward fixing our cruelty and inhumanity toward other species. Humans aren't the only animals capable of being d*cks to each other. I've seen it personally in different species even if human scientists want to limit it to chimps. ALL animals can be horrid to each other. But we have the top of the pyramid for NO reason and we abuse it worse than most other species would. At least that's my opinion.
OH MY GOSH...now I just remembered that I recently was in an email exchange with my mom and people she'd included on something and my point was that in the Bible where it does actually say anything about not letting men lay down with other men...they were talking about r*pe. It was not ok in biblical times (and still in some places nowadays) for a man or men to r*pe another man and THAT was going on a lot in Rome and in Roman territory. It made it into the Bible and modern humans have decided that it means men shouldn't fall in love with and have a relationship with other men. No. In the Bible it originally meant that men shouln't r*pe other men. Nowhere does it protect women from the same treatment!!! And if being gay is wrong, then in the Bible it would also say women shouldn't lie down with other women. It does not say that. Anywhere. Because in the Bible they were talking about r*pe and over the years people have used "polite" language when they translated the original.
Ok, before I go any further I will close now because wow...your post could keep me going on and on. Sorry for this long-winded stream of consciousness comment. That didn't even cover all of what I thought about when I read your post!
Ha ha..I'm going to try to not do this with the entire comment I just wrote, but about the boy and the t-shirt woman on the train...she was being very hard toward him and definitely projecting a "vibe" with her body language and facial expressions. I did/do that too in some cases, so no judgement. But he never smiled once and they didn't really interact, but I could see him wanting to stay physically close to her..and I'm sure emotionally. (this is what I meant about when I try to cut things short and my point doesn't come across). But I was so long-winded. I will try to not read everything I wrote and comment on all of it. Though for the lurkers who read your post and maybe the comments, I guess it's best to be as clear as possible.
Hey Krissa, finally getting around to these comments as well. Won't be able to address every point, but here are a few of my thoughts.
First, thanks! Yes, this post was a LOT of work and very time-consuming, but worth it. Just reread it (can't believe it's been half a year already!), and I still stand by my words even though I know a lot of people (especially with trans rights issues) don't and won't agree.
But, even if this was the last post I ever wrote (hopefully NOT as so much has happened that I think a follow-up post is in order), I'd be damn proud of finishing up with this one.
How many people have read it? No idea. Feedburner would give me the stats, but the system I use now doesn't. Could even be that you're the only one, haha. But it's here for anyone to read who happens to land on this site, so that's all I can do.
I agree that it's really hard to get our species to care about other animals when we can't even treat each other decently. Which is one of the reasons why I think we have to push and fight on all fronts so that it becomes more clear to everyone that all these issues are interrelated. (And yes, because of human nature, control and thus violence affects/infects? all types of relationships, even LGTBQ+ ones.)
And yes, ALL species can act in horrible ways towards each other. But also in protective and compassionate ways, so it seems that we're all capable of "good" and "evil" (if you want to use those terms), regardless of species type.
Re your comment about Andrew Jackson - see my comment on the "truth and reconciliation" post.
Luckily, we're rarely put in the situation where we have to choose between saving a baby from our species or from another one, but I've said it before, if I had to choose, say, between saving my niece or saving my cat, I'm sure I'd save my niece. Doesn't make me less vegan, or negates the work that all vegans/animal rights activists do to help other animals as much as possible.
Oh, and yes, I think it's hardwired into us to save the ones who we are most bonded to first. So no guilt, Krissa! :)
By now DeSadist (that'll be how I will refer to the hateful/hate-filled scumbag from now on) has passed and signed 4 (5?) anti-LGTBQ+ bills in his "slate of hate" campaign, including a "bathroom bill" effective July 1st that prohibits transgender folk from using bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.
I mean, other than the sheer horrible hateful awfulness of it all, how can this even be enforced for Pete's sake? A transgender person will have to leave the bathroom if someone asks them to if they suspect they have a different biological gender. Right. Given gender stereotypes I can just see how many cisgender women will be assumed to be transgender because their hair is too short or they don't wear makeup, or lesbian women presenting in a more masculine way. And what about trans men? Will they be forced to use the women's bathroom because that was their biological sex on their birth certificate?
To be honest, I hope this will end up being such a confusing and idiotic mess that the bill will be rescinded. Again, I can't see how this is going to be implemented or enforced. It's too ridiculous.
And I can see how I WILL have to do a follow-up post, especially now that it's Pride Month and THAT has had people in an uproar like I've never seen in all my years. Plus, DeSadist wanting to Make America Florida, ugh.
Okay, last point. First, see my comment to the "thanks: giving, taking, or living?" post as it's also related to the Bible.
Yes, lots of disagreement about word usage and interpretation of Bible passages. For example, Genesis 19:1–38.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
Some say "know them" means having intercourse, others say no, it's about hospitality. But I think you're right, it was condemning gang rape, not gay relationships per se. Then again, you'll always have folk cherry-picking passages. And why is NO ONE demanding that children who curse their parents be put to death? Because the Bible does!
Exodus 21:17
“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
Also, in the same passage Lot offers his daughters up: 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” Nice.
As for women not laying down with other women, I believe it DOES actually say that somewhere (let me have a quick Google), yes, one passage at least:
Romans 1:26-27a: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.
But again, interpretation, context, history... Add to that the whole debate about whether the Bible is the TRUE word of God (I would say no, written, edited, and interpreted by man), or even if God themselves (as in he/she/they) exist...
As you can tell, I could go on and on as well, snort, so maybe I'll end it here for now. Until next post!
Thanks, Krissa, for your input. So appreciated!
I finally was able to read this reply and just wanted to say that I appreciate you looking up that information.
I decided I needed a break from looking at news for a while. I don't want to be ignorant of current events, but I couldn't take it anymore for a while. The "police officer" shooting that Golden Retriever to death pretty much did it. So much suffering and hate in the world. I google "good news" and get some results, but for now, I don't really know what's going on and I don't let Nick tell me. Ha!
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply and for using your writing skills to help others! 💛
I've gone this entire week without looking at news, only searching specific items (like just now when I searched for how many fires are burning now in Canada). It's definitely helping me to not see headlines, read stories and especially helping not to read comment sections on a lot of stories.
Ha, I actually don't look at Nick's computer screen when I pass by most of the time either because he looks at a LOT of news and of course, it's mostly all either bad or at the very least unpleasant.
Someday I'll maybe start on purpose going to news sites again. Someday. 🙈🙉