I corrected my pronouns to someone publishing something I wrote
My pronouns are they/them/theirs and the reply was basically:
"How about we just leave your pronouns out so that people don’t tell us we have bad grammar."
That’s cool. Just casually leave out my transness. That’s fine. It’s not like they’ll then just incorrectly assume my gender. Oh, wait.
Singular they isn’t even bad grammar so their point was invalid tbh
NETFLIX IS HERE
WHY DID THEY HAVE TO DO THIS THE WEEK BEFORE I GO BACK TO UNI
UGH the timetables have still not been put on the internet when we go back to uni just next week.
as a survivor, why do you feel like rape victims and conversations about them do not belong in spaces meant for, and owned by, rape victims? why do you feel like mentioning rape victims is dismissive of other rape victims or even silencing them?
as a vegan, how do you justify elevating human suffering above that of nonhumans based solely on arbitrary species membership?Why is it that when something is ‘different’ it’s suddenly either not worth mentioning or too different to include?
I never said it’s not worth mentioning, I said it’s not helpful or appropriate to bring it up in certain situations. As to why some things being different sometimes will mean that they will be too different, that seems obvious to me by virtue of what it means for things to be different.
So what is this ‘rape norm/standard’ you have in mind when you say that what animals endure is so vastly different from what humans face.
Some of what animals endure is similar to what some humans face. Some of it isn’t. When I say that what happens to animals as a part of socially sanctioned commercial institutions such as factory farms is incredibly different, I am saying that most humans aren’t treated as commodities in socially sanctioned commercial institutions. That is a very different experience from what most humans face. Yes, there are some human experiences that are more similar to what happens to those animals, but when people are having conversations about “rape” without qualifiers, they usually aren’t speaking of these situations unless that context has already been made explicit. In most cases, conversations about rape default to being about adult women who have not been commodified and are capable of consent. You can tell because they will talk about things like consent and patriarchy in ways that are specific to that experience (see the previously given link as an example). I absolutely think that there are problems with that, and I think that we should have conversations about how many experiences are erased or ignored in most conversations like these about sexual assault. However, that does not mean that conversations specific to that group shouldn’t happen or should be turned into conversations about different experiences.
Cause that also implies rape that happens to humans is all the same. So that means child sex trafficking (that happens everywhere in this world) is the same as date rape in western cultures.
My entire point is that not all rape is the same. Not all human rape is the same, and not all nonhuman rape is the same.
Would you ever even dare say that the rampant gang-rapes that always end with murder of the often young victims in India that currently go through all the media is the same as martial rape in America?
No. Would you ever even dare say that it’s okay to enter a conversation about rampant gang-rapes in India and start talking about marital rape in America? Do you think that would always by 100% appropriate, or do think that there are some cases where it would be and other cases where it wouldn’t be due to the many differences between these two situations? If someone who was a survivor of a gang-rape in India said that someone bringing up marital rape in America in that conversation was distressing to them, would you claim that they must not care about Americans? Because that’s the stance people seemed to be taking when different species became involved.
And that is exactly why I question why you say it’s taking anything away from human survivors when we take into consideration what happens to non humans. I want to have discussions in which I can talk about everything that is happening to non humans so I can portray the reality of what they go through, and there is absolutely no reason to exclude rape from these discussions.
I have never said that we shouldn’t take what happens to nonhumans into consideration or that discussions about what happens to them should not portray the reality of what they go through. I don’t, however, want those discussions to run over other marginalized and oppressed groups. I don’t think it’s productive to come at this from the stance that it’s impossible to hurt one group of survivors no matter how or when you bring up the rape of someone else. People can and do invoke the spectre of rape all the time in ways that erase or trivialize the experiences of human survivors. The idea that AR activists are immune from participating in that is dangerous. There’s a post here, by the-vegan-in-blue, that explains how one person’s advocacy was not only supporting human oppression, but is approaching the topic in an anthropocentric way that erases much of nonhuman animals’ experiences, as well. There is another conversation here, between vegan-diezo and myself where we discuss some of the dangers of making thoughtless comparisons between atrocities. I hope those links help to explain where I’m coming from a little better.
No one of us has said that because non humans are raped, too, they need the same solutions to these problems as humans do.
The post linked was discussing consent as a solution to human rape, so why should nonhumans be included in that discussion if that same solution won’t work for them?
I know the reason for you to not want these discussions is your anthropocentric POV
Again, I haven’t said that I don’t want conversations about nonhuman rape to happen. In fact, I expressly stated that there should be conversations that focus specifically on them and talk about their particular experiences. I have also repeatedly said that there are times when broader conversations that include the experiences of all are appropriate. I am simply saying that every conversation about rape is not and should not be about every rape experience, regardless of species.
that you have the guts to excuse with the bigoted notion of ‘having been raised this way’
That wasn’t an excuse, that was me pointing out that I’m not the only human in the conversation.
Especially since you’re claiming animal’s suffering and their traumas aren’t taken serious while also making the assumption that when one group is too marginalized (non humans) we should focus on another marginalized group (humans) first/instead.
I never said we should focus on humans over nonhumans. I’m saying that we shouldn’t focus on nonhumans to the extent that we ignore how our actions affect oppressed humans. I am also saying that if a conversation about oppressed humans is already happening, we should not attempt to shift the focus away from that group onto another.
I find it really laughable, though, that you think rape is a ‘human trauma’ (gatekeeping much?)
I think that the way that many humans experience rape, and much of the emotional and social trauma that accompanies much human rape is specific to the ways that human cultures have conditioned most of us to think of sex and genitals in ways that most other species don’t. When I used the term human trauma, I was attempting to refer to those things. For many people, the term rape includes those things in its definition. But you are right, not all rape, human or nonhuman, has all of those components, and it’s wrong of me to say the word should not be used in those cases for that reason.
Rape happens in other animal species as well, especially with birds.
Do you think that responding to that post about digital rape and consent to bring up birds raping each other would be appropriate or relevant in any way? I’m going to guess not, and that you agree that there are sometimes important differences between two different situations and that not all conversations about rape need to be about all rape. That is the argument I’m trying to present.
And please, do me a favor and actually reply to what I write this time, cause you have not touched any of the issues pukexskywalker showed with your reasoning. So far you’ve only argued the same stuff, making this convo go in circles. And I’m really tired of this.
I honestly haven’t felt like anyone has actually been engaging with my main points. I was attempting to further clarify my position since the replies I’ve gotten haven’t seemed to engage with much of my reasoning and I’ve instead been bombarded with strawmen and ad hominems. I’ve also admittedly been refining my position as I think about things more thoroughly. The word rape is something that I struggle with on a personal level in regards to myself and my own experiences. I have trouble using that term to name my own experiences, and I know that there are plenty of others who would also say that what I experienced wasn’t rape and I don’t know that I can say that they’re wrong. I was originally trying to limit the use of the word to specific experiences in ways that kept it from being used for certain experiences of nonhumans. I agree that’s due partially to my own anthropocentrism, but it also stems from my personal fear of the word coupled with people brandishing it like a weapon in a culture that does not respect human survivors.
I do want to stress that I never said we shouldn’t talk about nonhumans’ experiences, and it was only the word I shied away from. I am willing to admit that there are more times when it is appropriate to use than I believed when this conversation began, but it is also still very obvious to me that it is used in many ways that are harmful without actually doing a damn thing to help nonhumans. That word has a lot of baggage behind it for human survivors and I do think we need to be careful when and how we use it. No one has addressed the fact that AR activists absolutely do use nonhuman rape to derail conversations about and for human survivors, or how using it like that is unfair to both groups, erasing differences on both sides. Many use the word for its shock value because of the significance the word has in the minds of humans, regardless of whether the things they are invoking apply in all circumstances. In this very thread, someone refers to rape as something that cows would KNOW was “the worst way possible” to have their boundaries violated. I think that is a very human idea, and I don’t think that we have any right to pick that one experience and assume we know that cows would agree with us on its significance over any and every other boundary violation they experience, up to and including the taking of their very lives.
I hope that more directly addressing your points in this manner makes my position clearer. My main goal has always been that I want us to be able to talk about nonhuman experiences without furthering human oppression.
So, you know, you entered this discussion that was using broad terms and many examples of non human rape, and was not talking over personal experiences of human survivors, to say “what non humans face in institutionalized settings is too different to call it rape/has no place in discussions about rape,” to later accuse us of being too focused on specific cases, solely on the assumption that human experience is superior and that rape is a “human trauma” (both have been debunked by now), you also keep repeating yourself that there are too many discussions focusing on institutionalized settings when we were specifically not talking about them, only to then go on to claim we also can’t have these discussions because non humans have no concept of “consent,” therefor the advice for human survivors can’t be applied to this convo as well.
If non humans have no concept of consent, then how can you violate their consent?
If there is no concept of consent between animals (no matter if they belong to the same or to another species), all sex is rape.
This point is again completely anthropocentric, seeing as non humans have many ways to verbally and non-verbally communicate consent (Read Biological Exuberance for more details, it’s a great book to show you just how little humans actually know about non human animals).
Furthermore, you go on to say humans don’t know if cows (you’re being specific here) experience rape as the worst violation of their boundaries, I agree so far as that I cannot rate what each individual find the most disturbing based on my limited experience and mind, but I take the stance to say it is a very bad experiences, measured on the verbal and non-verbal signs of PTSD found in rescued farmed animals.
To deny that on the basis that worse things could happen to them (again, who is the judge here?) is anthropocentric, yet again. Their emotional state is under no judgement of human emotion to be valid.
Also, please refrain from Slippery Slope arguments like when I use birds as example to illustrate a point of how rape is happening in ALL of the animal species, I’m not trying to enter specific personal discussions of human rape experiences and therefor not talking over victims.
The same way I am not entering discussions about gang-rapes in India to talk about martial rape in America and vice versa. I was again illustrating the point of how different human rapes can be, so naturally I’m using examples of different kinds of human rape.
If I was to say digital rape happens due to these specific mechanisms (e.g. inserting a finger or object into the vagina) in martial rape, and someone else was to say that digital rape functions in gang-rape due to the same mechanisms that’s hardly taking anything away from one group of victims. Neither is it dehumanizing them or shaming them or talking over them.
So when I say animals are subject to this kind of rape too, how is that:
1. dehumanizing to human survivors?
2. taking anything away from human survivors?
3. shaming human survivors?
4. talking over human survivors?
The answer is simple: All of humankind sit on this “human superiority” throne and just to bring up animals, someone beneath them, is “hurting survivors” because it’s hurting their status as “superior humans” (or anyone really, often non-survivors get upset too, so yeah).
Let’s be very clear here, humankind is the oppressor, we are the ones hurting non humans, and because we are the (retired) perpetrators we love to blame animals for their victim status. The truth is, like any other abuser (since oppression is actually macro-abuse), we twist the truth to everyone around us so we can further abuse our victims, render them invisible and voiceless and put the blame entirely on them.
There will never be justice for them unless we dismantle the human superiority and human entitlement that most humans have got going (even vegans). This means that survivors have to be held accountable just like any other person for their problematic views and even bigotry. Your survivor status is not untouchable, it is no free pass to being an otherwise oppressive human.
I’m wondering why you needed to show me links to the feminist discussion or the holocaust one since I have not even stated my POV on both topics yet. It’s very clear to me, also from what you wrote before, that most of what you answer here is based on your assumption of what I’m talking about (when I’m actually just saying, over and over, that you have a very problematic anthropocentric POV that you should question).
But let’s get into these points anyway. Both points aren’t in favor of your comment, really. For one, I’m no one to claim feminists aren’t ‘real’ feminists if they don’t advocate for animal rights/liberation since feminism is human women movement and fails animals by default.
It’s true that women and animals are both subject to male human dominance, but the ways in which they are oppressed by them have changed over the decades, and esp with growing women rights movements, the root of their shared oppression has been forgotten.
To just say “you’re not a feminist” is often nothing more than a scoring point against women, when most don’t go around telling anarchist they aren’t anti-hierarchy is they eat meat, or that white people who consume animal products aren’t really anti-white supremacy since most of the money made by animal agriculture ends up in the hands of white men.
I would accuse any social justice aware person of being a fauxgressive person, though, when they focus on as much human issues as they know and are open to be called out but have no heart for animal oppression and make “but bacon” jokes if confronted with their ignorance.
As for the Holocaust comparison, I’m not using that one either, because what the average person knows about the Holocaust is entirely wiped off animal involvement, tho there are many aspects of animal abuse, esp. through agriculture, that factor into the development of the Holocaust.
Also, all Holocaust survivors are painted as being against animals rights while there have been plenty who became animal rights activists BECAUSE they were victim of the Holocaust (We know this mechanism from rape survivors already, as I said in my first reply).
The reality is, however, that Henry Ford designed concentration camps based on slaughterhouses, impressed by their effectiveness in killing. Also, another thing no one talks about is that each concentration camp had it’s own slaughterhouse (mind you, the meat was mainly for the concentration camp staff, not the prisoners!)
But now let’s get to the root of your problematic, anthropocentric POV:
Human rape is specific to their emotions and cultures and therefor has priority to be taking into consideration first (or as it is now, only).
So you’re saying non human rape is not specific to their emotions and cultures, which is absolutely no human-centric standard, you’re totally not assuming the suffering, emotions and culture of humans is richer and more worth than that of non humans although you have a limited view of both ALL of human and non humans cultures and emotions.
On which basis do you make the claim animals have such different concepts of sex and genitalia than humans (but unsurprisingly, you make no such claims for gender… did you know that transsexualism as well as homo- and bisexuality is a thing in many animal species?) while also stating their culture and communities are lesser than those of humans (again saying this as if all humans belong to the same cultures and communities which is such a western centric bullshit…) and therefor are less important when it comes to the violence they face?
It’s astonishing that you see no problem in holding humans as standard to them, and that you actually don’t seem to know much about animals behaviour or else you’d know what male animals of many species also dominate their female counterparts in ways that are very similar to humans.
And to top that you use your own personal experience to justify your anthropocentric behaviour. I mean, sorry you had to go through that shit, but I don’t use my own experience to justify having bullshit as opinion either. I have used the term rape for my own experiences only three times now, and right now my life is 95% focused on recovery, some days are utter shit and I can’t do anything I planed, I’ve had insomnia for 1 ½ years now and my eating habit is fucked up for more than 10 years now, but I still have responsibilities. I can’t just go around and speak about what happens to non humans as if it was lesser because I’m a human.
Maybe this discussion is too triggering for you, I know it is for me and I always need to rest a few hours before I’m able to respond, but you really need to take responsibility for the shit you do. You’ve only explained your behaviour away, esp. when you’ve said “I’m anthropocentric, like everyone else I was raised this way” you never actually said that you’re sorry and want to change that which is why I told you that you’re making it an excuse and why we’re still having this conversation. Like I said, I’m steps ahead of the people who still cry ~dehumanization~ and it’s time you start walking.
boom, just boom.