Tags
I did a quick check, and it’s been four months since L’ffair Benson, and nearly three months since my last post on the subject. As I predicted in that post and another, it was in Benson’s best interest to continue fan the flames of outrage. This would shift the focus from what she’s said and done to the behaviour of the people calling that out. Any bigotry on her part, potential or actual, would get a free pass.
For my part, I wrote myself into a corner with that last post. “Ophelia Benson is transphobic” became a “dog bites man” story, there wasn’t anything new or notable about it. The best evidence was on the table, people had entrenched in their opinions, and there seemed little point in flogging that horse further. So I hate-read Benson for a few weeks or so, then got bored and stopped caring. Maybe twice in that time she’s been mentioned in my circles, I checked back in, asked myself and others “does this qualify as noteworthy?,” then after some deliberation decided it wasn’t.
But what I predicted came to pass. A narrative had to be constructed, about me and others.
Chris Clarke: [Note to H.J. Hornbeck: I suggest you alphabetize this one under “G” for “goldfish” rather than D for “Do”. HTH.]
Lady Montegreen: 😀
Patrick G: Partner now wants to know why I almost knocked over my desk laughing so hard. But on a more serious note, does HJ Hornbeck (Hjornbeck?) still “monitor” you? Really?
BarbsWire: I’m pretty sure that HJH, and others (mainly the blockbot crew), now monitor us all. I know for a fact they are/were monitiring facebook groups. Most of us have done some major fb blocking… but I’m sure that there are some who are still storifying, whatever they consider to be “terfy” comments, like crazy.
Ophelia Benson: Hmm, I’ve been assuming they’ve all moved on…as reasonable people do. I see the problem with my arithmetic there.
Chris Clarke: I suspect that stalking a cis male like myself doesn’t provide HJ the frisson that stalking women might. But I suppose keeping track of ideologically errant men might be an amusing sideline.
Her latest entry in this narrative-building is why I’m writing the post. As is her pattern, she’s been inserting herself into posts by her former colleagues at FreethoughtBlogs. In this case, Greta Christina wrote a generic rant about social media usage. Benson had to add this:
Christina: People make assumptions about shifting alliances, secretly-held opinions, behind-the-scenes machinations — based entirely on this friending and unfriending, this blocking and un-blocking, these likes and dislikes. I’ve started calling it “reading the Facebook tea leaves.”
Benson: Like, for instance, the way they did that about me, just three short months ago – the way they went trawling through a large busy Facebook group to record the few comments I had made there, and even what I had Liked there, and used that as items in long wordy prosecutorial venomous accusations against me. Why, even some of Greta Christina’s very own friends and colleagues at Freethought Blogs did that. Greta herself blocked me on Facebook at that time, presumably partly because of that very trawling through my Facebook activity. Greta was vocally and explicitly happy to see the way our colleagues were trashing me on their blogs, partly on the basis of that creepy intrusive secret-police-like trawling through my Facebook. So this post strikes me as very funny – and, of course, disgusting.
But what turned this into man-bites-dog is that after Benson repeated another narrative about what happened on the FtB back-channel, Alex Gabriel hit his limit.
It’s one thing to leak private information from the list, another to leak misinformation. For those of us who take the rules and our own privacy seriously, this isn’t just one security breach — it’s a set of claims we can’t counter without publishing what we did say, and eroding our privacy further. I’d tell Ophelia to stay classy and get on with my life, but I believe she’s had too long to monopolise the story of what went on here, so that’s what I’m going to do.
And so Gabriel gathered up permission from multiple people on the back-channel to share their actual words, and then did so. Compare…
Ophelia Benson: On the back channel. I think I blogged about it shortly before I left the network. Lilandra had the bright idea of starting a thread with my name in the subject line suggesting we all discuss me, so several people jumped at the opportunity to rip me to shreds. Ed said let’s not do this this is a really bad idea, but they ignored him.
… and contrast:
Alex Gabriel: If Ophelia wants to talk about that on-list, I’m happy to do that (and if a thread like that is unavoidable, which, I don’t know, maybe it is by now, I hope it can be collegial), but since this argument is already all over people’s blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter feeds . . . I think you can probably find out what people think about this by checking what they’ve said online.
Miri: Just chiming in to agree with Ed and Alex.
Zinnia: Agree, I don’t see this going anywhere productive in this venue.
Greta: Agreed. If individuals want to discuss this in private email rather than in public, go ahead. That might be a good idea, actually. But I think it’s a bad, bad idea for this conversation to happen on the FtB backchannel. It drags everyone into it, including people who may not want to be dragged.
Aoife: Yup. This is not the place.
Lux Pickel: I’m actually interested in hearing what Ophelia has to say about it without worrying about the public audience. Would you please explain what your actual opinions are on the subject and what led you to writing, for example, the post asking why ‘trans’ as a modifier is needed if trans women are just women?
Now of course, Alex Gabriel is a very bad person according to Benson’s narrative, part of a cabal of white males hoping to ostracise her. Gabriel might have manufactured those quotes, with permission, in the hope of further ostracising her from [UNKNOWN]. Benson’s named me as part of that cabal, so I’d be obliged to share his construction far and wide.
It’s a nice and tidy story, which just so happens to deflect away from the evidence of what Benson has done and said. A convenient coincidence, I’m sure.
AlexanderZ said:
You’re still doing this? It’s so last week.
AlexanderZ said:
On second thought strike that. I find it hilarious that you’re hate following her blog and she and/or people on her blog are hate following you. I bet the traffic between your blogs is like the Bridge of Spies.
Which everyone should watch.
hjhornbeck said:
Eh, I’m not a Tom Hanks fan. You also need to read closer:
If memory serves, I stopped by while writing this post to see if Benson had linked to any of Rebecca Reily-Cooper’s work on her blog (nope); and an acquaintance linked to one of her posts, and I decided to read the comments (which contained the bizarre conversation I quote in this piece). I also remember being shocked Benson still pulled posts from that TERF Facebook group, but I’m not sure if that happened around the time of the RRC post or was a separate thing.
But of course, that’s also what someone from the Cis White Male Cabal would tell you.
oolon said:
Hope you don’t mind me using the thread as a dumping ground for a conversation in Alex’s thread that broke the rules there? SilentBob still stanning for OB despite her being overtly transphobic since leaving FTB!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2015/11/22/what-happened-on-the-back-channel-when-ophelia-benson-left-freethought-blogs/#comment-20307
So, Bob, are you saying that for instance your assessment of the transphobic “joke” Ophelias friend made that you called out on her blog could be “not transphobic” if you knew the person? You are saying that someone who knows the teller of a racist, sexist, transphobic joke or comment can veto women, PoC, trans people when they call it “-ist”?
That sounds utterly ridiculous to me, so I’m just clarifying if that is really what you mean here. As it sounds like it!
Lukas Xavier said:
In an odd way, I’m actually happy to see the incident at Pharyngula mentioned again (in Alex’s thread). It was never really settled in any satisfactory way and I was wondering if I was the only one who had a strike against PZ over it.
On the other hand, it’s annoying to have to trawl over this same territory again. I doubt much productive conversation will result from this.
Nate Carr said:
I’m not entirely sure that “productive conversation” is the goal. Ophelia lied and Alex has called her out on it. Until she is able to honestly address what she’s fine, all we can really do is note just how far down the rabbit hole her supporters are willing to follow her.
Same with PZ. At some point he’s going to have to take his blinders off and realize that just because people are nice in person to a straight white cis man doesn’t mean they can’t be bigoted to other people.
AlexanderZ said:
hjhornbeck
Right you are. I just found the mental image of people donning trench coats and dark shades to read blogs too funny not share.
—
As for this round of the controversy: I appreciate that you and Gabriel are trying to clear your names and set the record straight, but it’s pointless. You won’t convince anyone on her blog and she won’t convince anyone here or at Gabriel’s.
M. A. Melby said:
“Now monitors us all”…..we don’t.
Some how keeping eyes on a public Facebook group that was started by Hungerford (someone who used to work with Cathy Brennan and helped write the UN letter and also routinely forwards misinformation about medical studies) turns into “monitoring us all”.
Ripe considering that Benson was ripping screen shots of my twitter RTs for use on her blog after she blocked me. That was a trick.
At least it was public information.
hjhornbeck said:
Apologies, all; it looks like Steersman forgot he was banned from this side of the blog, and mashed out a bunch of comments. I’ve taken care of that, but in the interests of intellectual honestly I feel I should offer up some sort of TL;DR so that you get his gist.
hjhornbeck said:
Oh yes, and while I’m here:
Alexander Z:
Honestly, I don’t much care for my name. I’ve lost friendships arguing over feminism and social justice, I’ve been videotaped by anti-choice groups, a quick Google reveals some rather nasty words aimed at me, and none of it bothers me. I’ve seen others get dragged through the mud for being outspoken feminists, and I’m willing to risk that price.
I care more about setting the record straight in the face of lies, and pushing back on bullshit arguments. After several months and blog posts aimed at doing just that, it’s very unlikely I’d suddenly change the mind of anyone entrenched in their view.
I might have some luck with people wandering into this from the cold, however. By looking at the blog stats I can also tell that Benson and/or her commenters are popping by to read these posts. And back when I did drop by her “new” digs, I spotted a few people who were starting to question some of what Benson had been sharing.
Very unlikely? Sure. Impossible? Oh no.
M.A. Melby:
I think it would be a safe assumption that volunteers who manage a Twitter bot wouldn’t be interested in also snooping on Facebook pages. Hell, why would you even monitor Twitter accounts? The assholes usually come directly to you, and if not some acquaintance of an acquaintance will flag you down. This “monitoring” nonsense is just a convenient boogeyperson to toss out, as it’s impossible to prove wrong but provokes a strong emotional reaction.
Benson’s shift to blaming “white men” has me a bit unsettled, though: either it erases several trans* women who’ve been arguing against her transphobia for much longer than I or most of this “cabal” have… or, it doesn’t.
Silentbob said:
@ oolon
Oh FFS oolon are you still banging on about that Rachel Dolezal thing?! I’ve got no more to say to you about that than I already did last friggin’ August on Lousy Canuck.
I don’t know what Hornbeck is referring to when he says, “when I did drop by her ‘new’ digs, I spotted a few people who were starting to question some of what Benson had been sharing”, but it could even have been me. Sure, many people who comment at B&W don’t agree with all Ophelia’s thinking about gender (and it has always been so, it’s not “starting”).
But it’s a funny kind of “TERF” who, when I posted something trans-inclusive by Catherine MacKinnon, thanked me and promptly promoted it to a top-level post. Why would a TERF do that? (To save Hornbeck the trouble of inventing some implausible conspiracy-minded rationalisation I’ll give you the obvious, parsimonious answer: They wouldn’t.)
AMM said:
Lukas Xavier:
It’s definitely made me less trustful of PZ. There have been a number of his posts which I give a side-eye to which I might not have before, particularly ones in which he seems to think Freeze Peach might trump the interests of marginalized groups (the Mizzou protesters, Germaine Greer at Warwick come to mind.) I’m beginning to sense a little of that old “love me, I’m a liberal” vibe.
Nate Carr said:
Shorter silentbob: “she can’t be a TERF she has a trans friend”
anteprepro said:
Alexander Z: ” You won’t convince anyone on her blog and she won’t convince anyone here or at Gabriel’s.”
Yup. Both sides. Of course.
Silentbob: “But it’s a funny kind of “TERF” who, when I posted something trans-inclusive by Catherine MacKinnon, thanked me and promptly promoted it to a top-level post. Why would a TERF do that? (To save Hornbeck the trouble of inventing some implausible conspiracy-minded rationalisation I’ll give you the obvious, parsimonious answer: They wouldn’t.)”
And what do you say to ALL of the fucking evidence to the contrary? One counter example and she can’t possibly be a TERF or sympathetic to TERFs or constantly sharing the inane arguments of TERFS? Because if one piece of evidence was all that is needed for “proof”, perhaps that was the problem all along! We just needed one thing, instead of dozens, to show that Benson was transphobic. I am sure that’s it.
I honestly can’t believe you are still playing Benson apologist and pretending she isn’t transphobic. I mean for fuck’s sake, for a few posts she inexplicably started mocking “cis privilege”, using it as a punchline on posts completely unrelated to trans issues. Do you care to defend that shit or is that also something a TERF obviously would never do?
AlexanderZ said:
anteprepro
Of course. Unless you’re ready to convert to OB’s side at the drop of hat, that is.
Mind you, I’m talking about attitudes here, not who I’m agreeing with (and the fact that I’m writing here and not there might give you some clues).
anteprepro said:
Alexanderz: That’s fair enough, I suppose.
hjhornbeck said:
SilentBob:
People contradict themselves all the time, we’re not perfect robots. In the same way a racist can “have a black friend“, as Nate Carr pointed out, one act doesn’t wipe you clean of all bigotry. The balance of evidence is key.
And based on what I’ve read, the most parsimonious explanation is that Benson doesn’t think trans* women are women, but recognizes that’s rather immoral and would get her called out, so she tries to rationalize and justify. Hence the political/ontological dodge, the attempts at or endorsement of obfuscation, shifting the debate from what she’s said to what others do, and so on.
When I said Benson hadn’t linked to Rebecca Reilly-Cooper’s work earlier, I should have qualified that: on FtB, where she shared a space with a number of trans-inclusive bloggers, that’s quite true. On her own blog, where she has the place to herself, it’s not. My post on RRC’s “trans-inclusion is thought control and brainwashing” article was inspired by Zvan’s, and the connection between RRC and Benson got me curious enough to pop over to Benson’s blog and see if the latter had endorsed the former. That led to this hot mess:
That’s not how you’d expect someone who genuinely thinks trans* women are women to behave; that is consistent with the behaviour of a bigot trying hard to rationalize their belief. When combined with the other evidence, it’s safe to conclude Benson is a TERF even if she has never explicitly stated that trans* women are not women.
Sami said:
So… How exactly do her defenders explain the ‘a trans woman calling themself a woman is like a white person calling themself black’ comments she made?
I love a good show of mental gymnastic. Someone explaining how one of the most worn out and blatantly transphobic arguments, claiming that we’re no different than a white person who thinks they’re black or a human who thinks they’re a dolphin, isn’t transphobic at all would be an impressive show indeed.
Silentbob said:
@ hjhornbeck
The confirmation bias is indeed strong with you, Hornbeck.
hjhornbeck said:
You’re more than welcome to share more evidence, Silentbob, or explain why what I’ve presented does not conform to my theories.