I been noticing this Y chromsome "defective" rhetoric appearing more frequently. Do these TERFs not realize them and Matt Walsh have similar views?
I been noticing this Y chromsome "defective" rhetoric appearing more frequently. Do these TERFs not realize them and Matt Walsh have similar views?
But would you stand up in front of a group of people and say that you support Kissinger's ideas? And explain that those are divorced from Kissinger the person? Why or why not?
Kissinger aside, if I was talking about SdB's theories and so on... well firstly I'd really have to re read it cos its been ages.
Secondly I'd prob say something like what I said earlier. That SdB's ideas regarding object vs subject and the whole 'becoming something any label could be applied to' are interesting and I broadly agreed with it when I read it and still do.
I wouldn't talk about her life because beyond her being with Sartre I really don't know enough about it and I only know that second hand. I didn't read her biography or anything.
Are her ideas divorced from her as a person? Probably not, no.
Am I going to take her being a hypocryte alone as a reason to dismiss those ideas? Again, no.
I'm really not saying I am anything like an expert here, just that a) I broadly agree with some of her writing and b) someone being a hypocryte isn't enough on its own for me to dismiss their ideas.