After Adichie's criticism for implying that trans women are not “real women”, she defended her comments during a public appearance in Washington saying, “This is fundamentally about language orthodoxy. There’s a part of me that resists this sort of thing because I don’t think it’s helpful to insist that unless you want to use the exact language I want you to use, I will not listen to what you’re saying" (via).
“From the very beginning," she continued "I think it’s been quite clear that there’s no way I could possibly say that trans women are not women. It’s the sort of thing to me that’s obvious, so I start from that obvious premise. Of course they are women but in talking about feminism and gender and all of that, it’s important for us to acknowledge the differences in experence of gender. That’s really what my point is . . . if we can acknowledge there are differences, then we can better honestly talk about things" (via).
In an interview with The New Yorker, Adichie explains why this sort of behavior is so dangerous: because it's cannibalism.
The Left is creating it’s own decline . . . it doesn’t know how to be a tribe, in a way the Right does. The Left is Cannibalistic . . .
In the quest for inclusiveness, the Left is willing to discard a sort of complex truth. And I think there is a quickness to assign ill intent . . .
The response is not to debate, the response is to silence, and I find that very troubling.
After Adichie's criticism for implying that trans women are not “real women”, she defended her comments during a public appearance in Washington saying, “I don’t think it’s helpful to insist that unless you want to use the exact language I want you to use, I will not listen to what you’re saying" because " . . . if we can acknowledge there are differences, then we can better honestly talk about things" (via).
Arthur Brooks, a political independent, takes it a step further. In his discussion with Guy Raz, he argues that we need to need people who think (and talk) differently than ourselves in order actually do what is best for ourselves and, more importantly, the world.
Republicans and Democrats today, he argues, "suffer from political motive asymmetry. A majority of our people in our country today who are politically active believe that they are motivated by love, but the other side is motivated by hate. Most people are walking around saying, 'you know, my ideology's based on basic benevolence. I want to help people. But the other guys, they're evil and out to get me.' You can't progress as a society when you have this kind of asymmetry. It's impossible" and a little like cannibalism - eating those who think and talk differently than ourselves.
However, Brooks thinks this type of diversity is exactly what we need because within our seemingly irreconcilable differences, there is the best and perfect solution.
"When we talk in this country about economics," Brooks continues, "if you're on the right, conservatives, you're always talking about taxes and regulations and big government. And on the left, liberals, you're talking about economics, it's always about income inequality," which is good, because these are really important things. "But when it comes to lifting people up who are starving and need us today," he says, those things become distractions.
Instead of helping the needy or educating the poor, we argue over how, when, and where it should be done.
"We need to come together around the best ways to mitigate poverty using the best tools at our disposal. And that comes only when conservatives recognize that they need liberals and their obsession with poverty and liberals need conservatives and their obsession with free markets" because the problems of our country and of our world are a sort of complex truth. We are all too quick to assign ill intent or shaky motives to those on the other side, silencing any chance of conversation, debate, or growth. All the while, the needy die in our streets and nearby homes.
While the Left and the Right devour each other and eat their own, children starve, freeze, and lose hope.
But it doesn't have to be this way. We just have to change, accept diversity, and be the kind of person "who blurs the lines, who's ambiguous, {and} who's hard to classify."
"If you're a conservative," Brooks argues, "be the conservative who's always going on about poverty and the moral obligation to be a warrior for the poor. And if you're a liberal, be a liberal who's always talking about the beauty of free markets to solve our problems when we use them responsibly. If we do that, maybe - just maybe - we'll all realize that our big differences aren't really that big after all" (via).
For more on . . .
-N- Stuff : Dangers of a Single Story : Diversity makes us smarter
BE SURE TO SCROLL DOWN AND SUBSCRIBE - THANKS FOR READING!