Grace Lavery / Joseph Lavery & Daniel M. Lavery / Mallory Ortberg - "Straight with extra steps" couple trooning out to avoid "dwindling into mere heterosexuality"

[Risky Horse Business]

Can someone explain to me like I'm a five year STEM autist the difference between performance and performative, and is it any sort of argument about anything?

 

[FarmVille]

Joe could literally walk around in an “I am a transgender woman and my preferred pronouns are she/her.” And I would think he was an epic ironic shit poster come to life. No fat has ever passed less, legit looked more feminine back when he was a skinny dude who occasionally put on eyeliner.

Performative, pejorative whatever. Every counter argument to him is a photo.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

The "language is performative" thing is nonsense and always has been.

"Performative" functions of language require, at their root, authority. They are about power.

Consider a few of the commonly cited examples of performative speech. "I hereby revoke all previous wills." "I do" (in context of a marriage ceremony). "Welcome to our home, do come in." These are performative, so Butler says, because they actually "change reality" via their utterance. You do revoke previous wills. You are now married. The person you have welcomed is now well-defended against accusations of trespass. And so on.

What Butler (and Austin) absolutely fail to engage with is all done by a creative bit of linguistic shifting. They say the language "affects the world."

It does not. It cannot.

The language itself does nothing, it is sounds. It has an impact because of the power behind it, most typically the power of law enforced by a strong government and police.

When they claim gender is performative, this is what they are hiding. It can only exist in the way they view it by enforcing it at the point of a gun.

I don't think your point is quite accurate, or more importantly necessary, because you accept their examples. But the examples are inapposite to gender declarations on a few grounds:

Legal status is a bad reference point for gender. The will revocation and marriage are poor examples, in particular, as they are not self-executing and therefore not "illocutive" performative language: other acts must occur and, more specifically, follow, for any legal status to change. Intent also matters: If you say "I revoke my will" as a joke, even if oral revocation could change someone's legal status, the mere utterance of the words does not. Even determining if inviting someone in changes legal status would require an examination of various facts and circumstances (was there a literal or figurative gun at your head? Did the person reasonably believe you wanted them in, or did they know of your duress?). We don't typically live by vampire rules, though I'm certain there are many examples of that occurring.

In addition, legal status =/= essence. None of the examples but gender are about essential aspects of a person. Is there any other self status/essence you yourself can change with a word? "I am 6 feet tall" when I am 5-foot nothing; "I have 11 toes" when I have four; "I am a natural blonde" when I've been dyeing my hair for 30 years; "I am a free spirit" when I live by the book and believe everyone else should, too: In most cases we call these assertions "lies," "self-deception," or "idiocy."

[Joe appears to differentiate between self-statements vs other-statements, saying that "it's a boy, Mrs. Lavery" is "non-apt," whatever tf that means, whereas "I am a boy" is, presumably, full-on illocutive. This is another basis for distinction of a self-assertion from the legal examples, all of which concern status of people vis-a-vis others, but I didn't see much from him to support his contention, anyway, though maybe my eyes had glazed over by that point.]

The logical extension of analogizing essence to legal status is that gender is wholly mutable, wholly dependent on choice, which eviscerates the "my birth cert says male but I am truly a woman because I say so and I believe know it" perspective. Its only logical outcome is that whatever you feel like one day is what you are, and thus it is not an essential quality (unless, I suppose your essential gender is "changeable"). A few, but not many, trans/nb folks say this, because most want their preferred identity to be validated as real, true & honest.

[I can't think offhand what would be literally illocutive even legally other than maybe talaq (repudiation of marriage under Islamic law), but even the first repudiation had a waiting period (3 menstrual cycles) before it took full effect and during which time could be revoked, or automatically was rescinded if they had sex. I suppose you could say that even the first time triggers a change in status to "pending" rather than "married," because doing nothing further results in an automatic final, if "minor," divorce, but idk much of Islamic law so don't know what the legal/religious status is during the 3 months (though the wide does continue to receive all benefits of the marriage during that time). Third time is irrevocable, but idk if there is still a waiting period before this "major" divorce is considered final. Either way, legal status is not essence, and either way, none of the examples had this quality.]

I agree with the various philosophers who have posited that language can change reality, qualified: though this is taken to theoretical extreme by deconstructivists and their modern-day bowlerizers, but in the actual course of things, this occurs only in the sense of "agreed reality": our "reality" changes as a result of human adoption of a different idea or framework, which results in changes in the definitions of words themselves. This is half of 20th century literature and thought. And yet the objectively real world continues on, minding its business, whether we get it right or wrong.

 

[cherrysour]

Can someone explain to me like I'm a five year STEM autist the difference between performance and performative, and is it any sort of argument about anything?

"Performative" has two definitions. The first is philosophical; it describes a statement that performs an act, e.g., "I promise." The second is kind of derogatory; it describes actions done for show rather that out of any real conviction, e.g., "performative allyship."

Our favorite weak-chinned sophist is saying that "performative" only has one definition--the first one--and he's taking some potshots at Kathleen Stock for (he says) conflating the two.

 

[Dr. Butt]

It's deliberately going for a womanchild aesthetic, with heavy amounts of ironic kitsch.
View attachment 5201748View attachment 5201754View attachment 5201756

OK but why are all the models total boilers??

 

[Coo Coo Bird]

Sorry for my confusing posting, those super fat pics of Joe are from about a year ago, for some reason either Lily posted them recently or I found them recently. He definitely seems a bit slimmer these days.

From Instagram stories:
View attachment 5201831

The only models of those glasses I can find seem to be really cheap, actually:

It seems like being ugly as possible is more important than being needlessly extravagant. I do think I know his style inspiration is though:

Spoiler

OK but why are all the models total boilers??

In addition to being 'ironically' dorky, they also seem to want to be inclusive. They have sizes up to XXXXL, and every photoshoot seems to require at least one special needs kid:

 

[Dr. Butt]

I like that they've put the troon in back and he still stands out like a flashing red light. Nice meat mitts though. I'd bet on him in a boxing match.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Can someone explain to me like I'm a five year STEM autist the difference between performance and performative, and is it any sort of argument about anything?

Joe is saying that he's/Butler's rubber and Kathleen Stock is glue, anything she says bounces off of him/Butler and sticks to her.

 

[Trianon]

The "language is performative" thing is nonsense and always has been.

"Performative" functions of language require, at their root, authority. They are about power.

Consider a few of the commonly cited examples of performative speech. "I hereby revoke all previous wills." "I do" (in context of a marriage ceremony). "Welcome to our home, do come in." These are performative, so Butler says, because they actually "change reality" via their utterance. You do revoke previous wills. You are now married. The person you have welcomed is now well-defended against accusations of trespass. And so on.

What Butler (and Austin) absolutely fail to engage with is all done by a creative bit of linguistic shifting. They say the language "affects the world."

It does not. It cannot.

The language itself does nothing, it is sounds. It has an impact because of the power behind it, most typically the power of law enforced by a strong government and police.

When he talks about conditions being "felicitous or infelicitous," this is a polite fiction diverting attention. What these "happy" words deflect from is the colder, starker reality that "felicitous" exercise of "performative language" requires men with guns standing behind it. You are married or revoke your will by the power of the state. You welcome someone to your home by the power of your family, backed by the power of the state that will send an armed escort to take you off the property if your welcome status changes.

"Performative" utterances are performative through force.

When they claim gender is performative, this is what they are hiding. It can only exist in the way they view it by enforcing it at the point of a gun.

Such a good point: "performative through force." The argument for the power being in the words themselves has a lot in common with ancient thinking about incantations and wards. To name the thing is to control it, etc. Today, the same spirit appears as "manifesting" or run-of-the-mill sophistry that is elevated to some sort of spell against ye olde bigots.

But one thing about the old magicks was that they were promises backed by action, as you said. A curse was said in front of witnesses, not rearranged until the words were incoherent so that someone could cowardly hide behind the excuse that they were just being misunderstood (unless you're a genie intent on misinterpreting a wish). The idea was that you were going down, somehow or other. Someone who was willing to invoke dread powers is obviously just as capable of poison or stabbing to get the job done. And everyone knew that, because their word was their honor.

We don't typically live by vampire rules, though I'm certain there are many examples of that occurring.

Aye, exactly.

Can someone explain to me like I'm a five year STEM autist the difference between performance and performative, and is it any sort of argument about anything?

It's like how "gender" used to only refer to grammar discussions. "Performative" is a grammatical classification about sentence and verb structure (like a "declarative" sentence). Ideologues have taken both concepts and used them to create a lingo for their pet theories about sex, and when asked to explain themselves, they go back to the original definition to act like you're stupid for not understanding it.

It's all perfectly meaningless as well because Butler wants us to believe that gender is acted out by everyone without intention, that it is simply something we reinforce subconsciously but are also capable of changing and parodying. So there's enough agency and free will to change the gender performance, even subtly, but not enough agency for anyone to call the shots on who is what gender. Joe thinks people are being "assigned" (by whom?) the role of woman out of thin air, guided by the unseen hand of the market or the patriarchy, instead of the very basic, core-to-our-species'-survival idea that we can tell which mating configuration between two individuals can result in a child with 100% accuracy. Whatever additional ideas we have about the sexes are completely incidental to that core fact. A male and female couple won't get pregnant 100% of the time, but any other variation will find themselves reproducing never. "It's a boy, Ms. Lavery" is so fundamental that we probably knew it before we had language.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

People like the Laverys treat gender and sex roles as if they are simply useless, discardable.

Sex roles, which is the definition of gender that actually made sense, differ from society to society, but they all have the same major impact:

They maximize freedom of reproductive selection.

You are a medieval peasant. To survive in a household, you will need you or your spouse to have skills in, say, about 30 different things. What things those are will depend on exactly where you live, but will certainly include things like "building repairs," "cooking," "cleaning," "animal care and husbandry," "plowing," "planting," "childcare."

There is no real way for any one person to deeply learn all the skills that run a household, so you have to specialize in some and find a spouse who can fill in the gaps.

When there are heavily constrained sex roles, this is simplicity itself: all the women are the ones who do the cooking and the cleaning and the childcare and some of the animal tasks, while men are doing the plowing and planting and building repairs and the remaining animal tasks. When it comes time to choose a spouse, you (or your parents, in an arranged marriage culture) have the freedom and flexibility to consider every eligible person without worrying that the selection would create an unsustainable household with basic skills lacking.

But what if you just tell kids: "learn what interests you, pick any 15 of the 30 skills that are important to adulthood and we'll worry about the rest later"?

It might seem like this is a much freer way to live, and of course, it will take away many of the constraints of childhood.

But then you come to the age when you need a spouse (whether you're the one doing the choosing or your parents are). And suddenly, the true constraints of your childhood freedom are realized: finding a spouse who gives you all of the missing pieces needed to fill in your skillset and make a viable household is nearly impossible, with everyone having a different set of skills. Perhaps you find one or two possibilities, but your degrees of freedom in mate selection (which will impact your family for generations) have been highly curtailed.

Now, you can say, well, we've evolved past this: we have many, many more choices in the mating market now, and can find just about any combination of skills you'd like, so now you get the childhood freedom to choose focus areas without the bitter loss of freedom when it comes to choosing someone to set up a household with. But is that really true? Listen to anyone currently in the mating market talk about how profoundly difficult it is to find your "missing pieces" today, even with all the advancements allowing you to search and sort through more possibilities.

As a society, we could get through this if we were honest about what the Chesterton's Fence was that we tore down, and what it's done to our family structures and mating freedoms. But we don't even want to admit that sex roles had some purpose other than keeping women oppressed!

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

Performative (God, we need a swear jar) academics like Grace are what happens if people who aren't sexy, immortal, or even that rich try to model their lifestyles on Anne Rice vampires.

 

[mold]

Can someone explain to me like I'm a five year STEM autist the difference between performance and performative, and is it any sort of argument about anything?

performance is a noun, performative is an adjective

something is described as performative because it is being done as a performance. people could probably have made up words like "demonstrative" or "showy" except those words already have other meanings.

example: something you're in a situation where a parent has to be present with a bored and hyperactive small child, like the DMV or a medical waiting room. There is nothing that can be done to stop the child from climbing on furniture that will not be even more annoying and noisy for everyone. but the parent will frequently make *performative* attempts to distract the child. These attempts demonstrate to everyone else in the waiting room that the parent is aware of the inconvenience to them of the presence of the child. They do nothing to alter the child's behavior. This is performative parenting, you are performing being a prosocial member of society to communicate to others that that is what you are.

another example: basically everything a modern american politician says about race. they super don't care about black or brown people and their policies don't help them. they perform belief in racial equality. their statements and actions are performative.

now, as @cherrysour points out, there is a gender/critical studies use of the word that is based in the concept of the peech act theory and I guess Joe is sperging about that. I never read his sperging so I don't know the details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

 

[Trianon]

Story time! I was reading through a long collection of short essays about Barbie and what a weird, schizophrenic movie it is. I got through a few, and after a series of reviews that panned it, I got to the first positive one. Immediately I thought, "This person is trans, or runs in a very tight circle of trans writers" because of how arch and silly the writing was, like, HIGHLY Twitter-facing - and because of a gratuitous Hari Nef namedrop (Nef plays the trans Barbie).

To get the obvious out of the way: Barbie is a polemic. It probably qualifies as propaganda. And I hope it brainwashes people as effectively as the fascists on the far right seem convinced it can. I heard a cis dude describe it negatively as “didactic,” and I would have to agree. I plan to gesture toward Barbie in the future if someone happens to need the details of my campaign platform.

Every morning it’s like I wake up in the Barbieverse, where femmeness is an expression of power, domestic labor is financially well-compensated, and Issa Rae is President. Then I regain consciousness, and, like Ken, I go “everything is almost like, reversed here.” It sucks. I was hoping the movie would help with that cognitive dissonance, especially with this thing that happens, not constantly, but consistently, in my life, where, essentially, people tell me I look like a dumb annoying “jezebel” and should look and act differently if I want to be taken seriously. I think our culture still really hates femmes. Like really hates femmes. Like ragey hate.

Now, the review did say the movie gave her an "XX chromosomal high," so this person may be skirting terfdom exile if she ain't careful.

The review was signed Cecilia Corrigan. As far as I could tell from Instagram, Cecilia is probably a cis lesbian who's been bathed in trans feminism and thinks choosing to embody all stereotypes is like really radical. And then, lo and behold, what do I find?



We are reaching levels of Joe-dar not even thought possible. Next time I read some narcissistic sophistry, I'm going to be looking under every couch cushion like "WHERE IS HE?"

Cecilia also featured in this old car video with Mallory, Joe, and Lily.
https://www.instagram.com/p/COV0u6wjR04/?hl=en

And at Joe's book release party
https://www.instagram.com/p/CZ2Z2KEFGf6/?hl=en

He quit Twitter again btw after throwing up a review on Helen Joyce, Julie Bindel, and Kathleen Stock's books.


link | archive


link | archive

 

[mold]

the Barbie movie is like Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will

toxic politics sure but it's a great movie

 

[AirdropShitposts]

To get the obvious out of the way: Barbie is a polemic. It probably qualifies as propaganda. And I hope it brainwashes people as effectively as the fascists on the far right seem convinced it can. I heard a cis dude describe it negatively as “didactic,” and I would have to agree.

She might want to learn about how propaganda works first. Something "didactic" in the negative sense would likely be terrible propaganda, see those tobacco industry funded truth ads for an example.

 

[OttoWest]

the Barbie movie is like Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will

toxic politics sure but it's a great movie

Considering the punchline at the end of the movie that Barbie achieves true womanhood by getting a real vagina I’m surprised a larger “TROONS MAD” narrative hasn’t taken hold.

 

[behindyourightnow]

Joey Joe Joe has been feuding with TERFs a lot lately on Twitter. A recent highlight was when he insisted that he had never, NEVER claimed to be a woman, and was immediately provided with three separate examples of him claiming to be a woman, one from less than 24 hours before he posted:

https://archive.md/bTt9N

He is such a pathetic coward. He can't even stick to his guns about pretending to be a woman, he will back down and shout "nuh uh I never said that!" when people call him out.

He is far more of an insecure wreck than most AGPs (maybe because of his class background). He knows that the people he is arguing with really are smarter than him, and that his points are hopeless, but he can't stop arguing because you can't ever leave Troon Island once you are there, and more importantly he needs to show them that he is a very smart boy and he just has to be right. Hence, the constant engagement followed by cowardice.

A couple more for everyone's spank bank:

What in heaven's name is going on with his chin? He is not that fat, all things considered, and his chin is not weak enough to explain having his chin attached to his neck like that. Maybe poor posture?

Mallory, on the other hand, seems to have settled down comfortably into her appearance as "adult male with possible special needs" and seems to be doing pretty well, by which I mean she doesn't seem to be slowly melting like Joe is.

 

[mold]

Considering the punchline at the end of the movie that Barbie achieves true womanhood by getting a real vagina I’m surprised a larger “TROONS MAD” narrative hasn’t taken hold.

whoa you're right!

but all the kens never get wangs maybe that makes up for it?

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Joey Joe Joe has been feuding with TERFs a lot lately on Twitter. A recent highlight was when he insisted that he had never, NEVER claimed to be a woman, and was immediately provided with three separate examples of him claiming to be a woman, one from less than 24 hours before he posted:

View attachment 5262261

https://archive.md/bTt9N

He is such a pathetic coward. He can't even stick to his guns about pretending to be a woman, he will back down and shout "nuh uh I never said that!" when people call him out.

He is far more of an insecure wreck than most AGPs (maybe because of his class background). He knows that the people he is arguing with really are smarter than him, and that his points are hopeless, but he can't stop arguing because you can't ever leave Troon Island once you are there, and more importantly he needs to show them that he is a very smart boy and he just has to be right. Hence, the constant engagement followed by cowardice.

They don't torture him enough. He said that he can change his sex, because fiction can change genres, so what is he changing his sex into if not a woman?

 

[Trianon]

Joe has been feuding with Martina Navratilova nonstop. I tried to arrange them chronologically, grouped by thread.

This is truly Joe's magnum opus. I think this single post covers every Joe-ism, every tactic, every insane thought rattling around in his skull.

---

It starts when Martina responds to Joe's review on popular gender critical books. She takes issue with Joe saying that acknowledging biology is "idealizing" it.

@graceelavery: Feminists should stand up against the gender critical perspective, whose *only* political goal is to tie women’s rights to an idealized biological norm. That is fascism. There is no other word for it. And the fact that the movement claims to speak as and for “women” is dangerous.
@Martina: Nothing idealized about being a biological woman. Just a fact. I am a feminist. But do go ahead and keep calling women like me fascists…name calling is all you got.
@graceelavery: Martina Navratilova! I’m honored to be addressed by you. I don’t think you’re a fascist: I think attempts to normalize “sex-based rights”—which cannot *but* entail the surveillance and control of people’s bodies—are fascism. I encourage you—brilliant and unusual body!—to rethink.
@Martina: Nobody here is trying to control bodies. Which in fact men had been controlling women bodies for millennia and still do… asking for sex based women’s spaces is not Fascism. Thank you.
@graceelavery: The question is not whether people should be free to congregate in whatever spaces they wish—they absolutely should. The policy question is whether the state has an interest in telling people what sex they are (no) and what means, if any, should they use to surveil people (none).
@Martina: Can’t change sex. I think that part has been established.
@graceelavery: I don’t agree. There are aspects of sex that one cannot change—chromosomes. Chromosomes do not carry all genetic code for sex cells—many “sex cells” exist in every body, so trans women’s breast tissue, eg, is not exogenous to the body. Other parts of sex one can change.
@Martina: And? That means any man who says he now identifies as a woman can come into women’s spaces? Nope. Sorry. It’s not workable.
@graceelavery: Feeminists didn’t used to argue for “women’s spaces.” We want women in ALL spaces. It may be provisions need to be made for athletics. But the notion that women are so fragile they can’t use a bathroom that a man has ever been in… you’re Martina Navratilova!
@Martina: We are not fragile. Stop with that bullshit. You are asking to come into our space. And we say No.
@graceelavery: If you exclude me from anywhere, I’ll not intrude! The notion that women are fragile is on the GC side. There was a Fair Play for Women pamphlet that began “all women know what it is like to have been born in the wrong body.” Constantly talking about women as “on average weaker.”
@Martina: Men are physically stronger than women. That’s a fact. Which is why women continue to be raped. And physically beaten and assaulted. FFS. I am Done and out.
@graceelavery: I’m sorry, but I don’t think that biology is destiny or that karyotypical differences are “why women continue to be raped.” I think that’s patriarchy, and I think it can and must be confronted.
@Martina: 99% of sexual assaults are done by men. Because they are physically stronger than their victims, mostly biological women. Your use of fancy words like KARYOTYPICAL don’t change reality.

tweet | archive

@graceelavery: Feeminists didn’t used to argue for “women’s spaces.” We want women in ALL spaces. It may be provisions need to be made for athletics. But the notion that women are so fragile they can’t use a bathroom that a man has ever been in… you’re Martina Navratilova!
@Martina: Feminists didn’t argue for womens sex based spaces because they were just that.
@graceelavery: I’m not sure I follow. But the only feminist separatists before the GCs wanted refuge *from* the state, not to be given little common rooms where boys weren’t allowed. It’s infantilizing as well as patriarchal.
@Martina: It’s patriarchal for biological men to insist on the right to come into women’s sex based spaces. How hard is it for you to understand?!? It’s patriarchal for biological men to insist on the right to compete in women’s category in sports. Helloooo???
@graceelavery: We’re starting from different premises. I’m generally against anyone “insisting” on anything, and certainly on anyone insisting on a right to be where they aren’t wanted. I’m arguing, (1) “sex-based spaces” is a new and bad idea; (2) “biological men” is a simplistic formulation.

tweet | archive

@Martina: Also- Talking about locker rooms- a big difference from bathrooms.
@graceelavery: To be honest, Ms. Navratilova, you seem closer to the trans feminist position than the GC position. GCs peddle lurid fantasies about trans women masturbating in bathrooms to exclude us. If you’re fine with tw in bathrooms, and support freedom of research, you’re in the minority.
@winstane72: It's not mainly because of masturbating transwomen in bathrooms. It's because if you let non-passing transwomen into women's spaces, nobody can tell the difference between them and men - and women are the victims of violence from men constantly.
@graceelavery: [Link: Butch lesbian confronted and called 'pervert' in public toilets by anti-trans bigots]
@winstane72: I'm sure all manner of incidents have occurred in women's toilets, but the new pressure for self-ID'd, non-passing male-bodied people to be able to use women's toilets as they wish is not going to fly
@graceelavery: All gender, single-use is the answer:
@winstane72: You can pay for that.
@graceelavery: sure! as someone recently involved in conversations about refitting bathroom facilities, can confirm that the major cost was the terfs demanding floor-to-ceiling doors on every cubicle. which needs separate sprinkler systems. AGSU would have been MUCH cheaper.

tweet | archive

@graceelavery: Then there are elements of sex that cannot be changed *yet*, and scientists disagree on whether these will ever be. But the gender critical movement is calling for the suppression of research into such changes, in contradiction to the old feminist goal of gestational parity.
@Martina: Nobody I know is against these studies…
@graceelavery: I sincerely doubt that’s true. That quotation is Article 3(c) of the Women’s Declaration of Sex-Based Rights, the main manifesto of the gender critical movement, signed by every major activist in that space. Suppressing research is mainstream.
@Martina: Never heard of it
@graceelavery: I’m genuinely surprised to learn that. It’s the primary manifesto of the gender critical movement, of which you are a prominent advocate. It’s been signed by Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce, and many others. I’d encourage you to look and see if you agree:

tweet | archive

@Obstrepero21153: If i add lentils to meat paddy will it make it a vegan paddy? I added something to change something, right?
@graceelavery: sounds a bit like a one-drop rule, right? i’d say you had some meat and some lentils in there. you’d say the lentils become beef, I take it.
@Obstrepero21153: And its the same with a bloke who grows tits thanks to estrogen patches or silicon implants. Lentils will never be beef, Beef will never be lentils, Males will never be females no matter how much you add or substract to their bodies, no matter how much you lie to yourself.
@graceelavery: right. beef and lentils mixed together are beef and lentils. not beef. this has been clarifying!
@Obstrepero21153: Beef and lentils mixed together are a beef paddy with added lentils. A vegan - you - would not eat it as a vegan. And a male with tits is just a male to a human female and we don't identify them as females on the grounds of them having medically created moobs.
@graceelavery: yeah, I think you’ve misunderstood what trans women’s breasts are? but there’s enough hostility in your message that i’ll mute. be well!

tweet | archive
"one-drop rule"!!!

@sarannadam: @zaelefty Please illuminate us on transwomen’s ability to change sex.
@zaelefty: Sex is defined as the phenotype (determined by genetics) that has the function of producing sperm vs producing eggs, regardless of present functionality.

This is developed in the womb, and in mammals, it cannot be changed.
@graceelavery: thanks for weighing in. Zach. would you believe, when I was on Radio 4, the host had never heard the phrase “secondary sexual characteristics”? not you, though. you grab hold of that definition and don’t let go, “regardless of functionality”
@zaelefty: Secondary sex characteristics are traits associated with sex, but they do not define your sex.

Changing your facial hair, breasts, voice pitch, and on and on, does not change your sex, which is the reproductive body plan determined in the womb and immutable.
@graceelavery: I understand the position you’re taking. I insist on less of a firm line between primary and secondary sex characteristics. I believe that people’s interventions into their “body plan” is as much part of that plan as anything else. I don’t seek to persuade you, obviously.
@graceelavery: But let’s imagine a hypothetical trans dystopia: everybody that is born is forcibly “transed,” so that XX people have their uteri removed and placed in XY people. This may not be possible—hence hypothetical. If *only* XY people are giving birth, is XX still “female” by your defn?
@alb3rtnobbs: So you’re saying the organs that make some people female have been removed and placed inside people who are male?

Haven’t you answered your own question?
@graceelavery: I notice dear old Zach has avoided the theoretical question, hasn’t he.

tweet | archive
"What if men could become female by forcibly tearing organs out of women? Wouldn't that be something?"

@graceelavery: Truly honored to have been addressed by one of the most extraordinary lesbian athletes in history. I wish that she would see how the movement she would support would 100% have required her to prove her womanhood before they’d allow her into the women’s bathroom. Abolition now.
@graceelavery: Not that anyone I know would be, but I stg if anyone is rude to Martina Navratilova I will lose my shit. I disagree with her passionately on this issue but she has earned everyone’s respect through surviving a lifetime of lesbophobia, misogyny, and—yes—transphobia. An icon.
@graceelavery: I sent a screencap of the above to an older queer afab friend of mine and this was their response: "I do. disastrous she is a terf. She was called a monster for building those thighs. She should have embraced that!!"

tweet | archive

Lily jumps in.

@graceelavery: Martina Navratilova! I’m honored to be addressed by you. I don’t think you’re a fascist: I think attempts to normalize “sex-based rights”—which cannot *but* entail the surveillance and control of people’s bodies—are fascism. I encourage you—brilliant and unusual body!—to rethink.
@Martina: Well, I disagree.
@skateintraffic: That's all you can add because you're a bigot who wants to use police force to enforce your worldview, one shared with other fascists.

Stop being mad about being accurately described as a fascist, the easiest solution is to stop being one.
@graceelavery: I hear your frustration, and I agree with your position, but i’d encourage you to speak more respectfully to someone who has been through a very great deal because of misogyny, lesbophobia, and—yes—transphobia.
@Martina: And you are not a lesbian… nope. You definitely can’t have that one.
@lilywoodruff: Grace’s girlfriend here! She might be something like bisexual, but my own lesbianism confirms that she’s not a man, if that’s what you meant to imply by saying that she can’t have lesbianism
@Martina: Not a lesbian, by definition
@graceelavery: Martina Navratilova just told my girlfriend that she isn’t a lesbian. Strange, surreal day here in Brooklyn.
@Martina: I Never Said that- I was talking about you. I have no idea who your girlfriend is. You were born a male. Therefore you cannot be a lesbian, no matter how you identify and no matter who you have sex with. #notalesbian
@graceelavery: I don’t identify any particular way. I don’t believe in gender identity, either. But the person you to whom said “not a lesbian, by definition” above was my girlfriend Lily. I wish that you hadn’t said that—she used to admire you, as so many of us did.

tweet | archive

Joe then shifts to accusing Martina of "victim-blaming" by saying that women are physically weaker on average. Real rape is power + privilege, or something, but don't insinuate that power is held in place by threat of physical force. This is a classic Joe move. Pretend to be confused and pleasant until the moment he can act aggrieved on "behalf" of women, playing both sides for maximum manipulation and gaslighting.

This is victim-blaming and @Martina should know better. Sexual violence is not an inevitable function of biology, but a product of misogyny and patriarchy.

Not all rapists are strong or tall; not all rape survivors are weak or short. Not all sexual violence involves physical force.

Crazy that “women need their own sporting competitions” and “women are raped because of their physical weakness” are parts of the same argument. Debate around sports are a trojan horse for a profound reordering of society along the premise of female vulnerability.

Trans people are more likely to be raped than cis women.

tweet | archive

@AlanLevinovitz: I've been watching this back-and-forth and I feel like there's an explanation that might explain the disagreement? The cross-cultural, long-standing history of violence against females seems to me to be, at least in part, a function of the *average* physical strength of males.
@graceelavery: I dispute that the history is in any part “a function of the average physical strength of males.”

tweet | archive

@THpY72PN3PHJCH3: She never said "inevitable," did she? The fact of the matter is that far more women are raped by men than the other way around. Therefore, it behoves us all to guarantee women only space, period.
@graceelavery: she said that “males are physically stronger, which is why women continue to be raped.” I disagree passionately with that claim and so should you.

tweet | archive

This is victim-blaming. Rape does not occur because rapists are “physically stronger than their victims.” Many forms of rape do not entail the exertion of any physical force. Putting words in all-caps doesn’t change reality.

tweet | archive

@tamsintalks: "Many forms of rape do not entail the exertion of any physical force" this is true because men hold power over women financially, emotionally, psychologically, legally... but ultimately it all begins with the fact that they are PHYSICALLY STRONGER!
@graceelavery: no, it doesn’t.

tweet | archive

@castle_roogna: Criminal defense attorney here! I would go so far as to say that THE MAJORITY of sexual assaults, including rape, do not involve anyone PHYSICALLY overpowering someone else. And stating otherwise invalidates the experience of many sexual assault and rape survivors.
@WritersFreeto: Even if that was true, it wouldn’t be relevant. Threats might be enough, and unless men were typically stronger than women (they are) the threat of force wouldn’t work, would it? Women could go round threatening men with physical violence but the threats wouldn’t work.
@graceelavery: this is truly insane. not all rape involves either physical violence or the *threat* of physical violence.

tweet | archive
"Yooooo they didn't even pull a gun on you when they mugged you, they just had their hand in their pocket, broooo why are you scared, why'd you let it happen, broooo?" Dumb fuck shit.

@For_XXs_Sake: Why are you such a liar?

She didn’t say anything of the sort.

Why can’t you address the actual issue without misrepresenting what’s been said?
@graceelavery: “stronger” there, “bigger” elsewhere. both equally gross ideas.
@RodentWild: It's even more vile than I imagined. No mention of violence against women being a contributor to and result of systemic misogyny.

Nope, it's all about strength and size, thus small thin men can't rape and tall strong women can never really be victims.

It's rape apologism.
@graceelavery: it is, in fact, rape apologism. I had one of her supporters referring to rape as “a function of nature” on one of these threads, and the terfs were all sealioning away like always.

tweet | archive

@EliErlick: According to @martina’s logic, women wouldn’t be raped if we were just physically stronger. How is anyone confusing this blatant misogyny for feminism?
@Martina: That’s not according to me. It’s according to facts. Misogyny is denying those facts. 88% of sexual assault victims are female; go ahead and call me names as if I were the problem rather than the facts that by an overwhelming margin, women are victims of sexual assault and rapes

tweet | archive

Martina eventually blocked Joe, but this is the tweet Joe is quoting below. Someone gave Martina the "sexism is vitality" quote.

@Martina: Again- is this you?

tweet | archive

Here is where people start finding examples of him claiming to be a woman, including in a published essay.

@graceelavery: as i have said many times, yes that totally inoffensive passage printed on a picture of me looking cute is indeed me. i have said so many more offensive things, work harder
@Marpassion: Looking cute with a stubble .
@graceelavery: yep! i have stubble! “we love effeminate men” yeah right
@Ian99572584: Being effeminate is not the problem calming to be a woman is.
@graceelavery: and yet. i have never. claimed. to be. a woman. so?
@huwigs: https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/essays/grad-school-conversion-therapy/

“While my family, my friendships, and my romantic life have all had to make emotional adjustments in light of the news that a person they had known as an agreeably effeminate lad was, in fact, a woman that looks like a man…”
blog.lareviewofbooks.org

tweet | archive

@wolfgang_flur: That's him 1200 donuts ago
@graceelavery: ^^ there you go, lean in on the fat thing. i'm so much less hot than that now!
@wolfgang_flur: touched a nerve, did I?
@graceelavery: i mean, i know i'm fat and i'm hardly ashamed of the fact, but i do think it's weird that in order to make me look bad, people consistently share an image of me looking much better than i usually do!
@becklaxton: Most of us don't find stupid and arrogant people attractive whether they're fat or thin.
@graceelavery: Really? god I love arrogant himbos. and frankly, I think some of the world's major sex symbols are stupid and arrogant, no?
@becklaxton: No.
@graceelavery: never compromise! never surrender! that's the spirit of the blitz.
@becklaxton: It's remarkable how ill equipped you are to deal with people who simply disagree with you.

tweet

@Matthew1863: Sexual violence is overwhelmingly carried out by biological males, so it can be said it's a function of biology. Gender ideology on the other hand certainly is a product of misogyny and patriarchy, as its adherents demonstrate every day.
@graceelavery: "Sexual violence is overwhelmingly carried out by biological males, so it can be said it's a function of biology."

tweet | archive

Remarkably, lesbian sporting icon Martina Navratilova is currently leading a pile-on against me in which she argues, among other things, that women are raped because they are small. I encourage people to read the essay that has everyone agitated. One huff and the house blew down.

tweet | archive

truly staggering to me that no less a figure than Martina Navratilova is doing the pearl-clutching "is it you" trick of an anonymous troll. you are better than this.

tweet | archive

where does the porn thing come from? most of it i can understand—he’s just stupid, cruel, and incentivized to keep escalating by a mountain of sunken costs—but why the porn thing? weird weird weird

I’ve got nothing against porn, and I’m definitely in favor of it in a political sense. I’m proud to count hookers among my friends and to march alongside them. But that’s about it. “Porn-damaged.” Like skin cancer, I guess is the image?

tweet | archive

Graham Linehan: "Where does the porn thing come from?" says the bloke who included sissy porn on an academic curriculum and posts photos of his girlfriend with his fist in her mouth.

tweet

I also am enraged and baffled. Why Martina Navratilova decided to say “women are raped because men are bigger than them,” I don’t know—we were talking about sport. But then to see dozens of self-IDed feminists jumping on the talking point… it really is distressing.

Please, listen to survivors before just taking this as another opportunity to have a go at me. I’m always going to be here to get mad at, so don’t worry that you’ll miss a day. Listen to the sexual violence survivors saying NO.

tweet | archive
(But don't listen to sexual violence survivors when they say NO to you being in their bathroom.)

okay. data. Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime.

50-66% of trans people suffer sexual assault or abuse in their lifetime.

Stopping trans students from using their preferred bathroom substantially increases risk of violent assault against them:

Incarcerated trans women are THIRTEEN TIMES more likely to be raped in prison than the general population:

Most trans people (women and men) are raped by cis men. Only 2% of rapes against trans people are committed by other trans people.

Trans youth are more likely to be victims of, but not less likely to be perpetrators of, sexual violence, than cis youth:

Trans women are exposed to the same types of sexual and other types of violence as cis women worldwide, are often harmed at higher rates. I will mention only two. (1) Ugandan trans women are sexually assaulted more than Ugandan cis women:

(2) In Pakistan, trans women are targeted for sexual assault, kidnapping, and murder at higher rates than cis women:

If you are interested in supporting queer and trans survivors of sexual violence, especially QT youth, please consider donating to The Trevor Project, an organization that works in survivor support and suicide prevention.

tweet | archive

Terfs using pictures of me as a teenager now. Jesus Christ. Where is the actual bottom of this barrel? Did you expect, when you got into this, that you would end up sending porn to my mother and reposting picture of me as a kid? Shame on you.

tweet | archive
nonconsensual child revenge porn!

I don’t think the fatphobia in the harassment of Grace is coincidental there either - the monstering of fat women is absolutely part of the same narrative, despite lesbians in particular historically celebrating fat women.

tweet

Gang, I said I was walking away for a bit, and my addict brain took over when I drew the attention of one of the greatest tennis players of all time. Now I’m crossing “get cyber-bullied by Martina Navratilova” off my bucket list, and reclaiming my serenity. See you in the future!

tweet | archive

Stolen revenge porn!

@WrathQueenof: You're talking to a bloke who wrote an entire book about his penis, and posted what he himself described as 'revenge porn' of his wife with his fist in her mouth and his bite marks on his face.

Sure: not a sexual fetish.
@Lauralols: And then (surprise surprise) played the victim and claimed that the pictures in question had been ‘stolen’ from a ‘private’ account (they’ve been circulating on social media for years) and used against him.
@graceelavery: they were stolen from a private instagram account; they are reposted without the consent of either of the people in them. it’s disgusting. the sex itself, which involved biting and fisting, was pretty vanilla, completely consensual, and hot as hell.

tweet | archive

Longtime readers of this thread know that the "fisting" photo, as he calls it, was always up on his public instagram. It's included in the OP.


As of April 8, 2022, the picture was still publicly available, as documented by @Potatis Salad here.

And a detailed breakdown of where each photo is from: here.

At some point since, the post has been deleted.

At the end of the day, Martina completely Joe-peaks. Join us!

@Martina: I wish I had read this before trying to engage in a respectful conversation with this Lavery character. What a sick, sick puppy …

That article once again: https://archive.li/59VU5
tweet | archive

@adhib: The difficulty with @Martina handing Lavery his arse is that he loves the attention, savours the humiliation. He'll leverage this for profile, dine out on post-match analyses for months, and devote a chapter of his next narcissistic monologue of a book to it.
@JoolsJuevans: Agree it’s part of his fetish, he gets off on it.
@Martina: Blocked that nasty asswipe

tweet | archive

@LadyLoveLDN: He is vile, the violence and abuse in the photos x
@LadyLoveLDN: This is the photo @Martina
Nothing to see all perfectly normal x
@Martina: No comment…

tweet | archive
Absolutely based.