Zen Venn Sequel: When These Are Your Allies, &c.

[Tiassa]

The Crying Game: Odyssey Critics Complain About Transgender & Other Notes

"And you simply cannot fly without wings."​

"Most of us just don't get it: Why are you so afraid of fellow human beings? What terrifies you about 'trans persons'? Seriously. No one is going to force you to 'transition' any more than they will force you to read, visit museums, take a university course, 'improve your mind.' No one will harm you! It's all right."

― Joyce Carol Oates​

Here's a way of saying it: We try to ignore them as much as we can.

It's something that comes up when the politics of hatred rear their ugly head, but the white supremacist tantrum about Christopher Nolan's adaptation of The Odyssey has grown beyond the boundaries of shock and horror at imagining ancient Greeks weren't all Anglo, Germanic, and Nordic white people. And perhaps that sounds like a harsh assessment of the film, but even the Babylon Bee↱ is mocking the complaint for its stupidity.

Moreover, in addition to fuming over the ethnicity of the actors, prominent misogynyist↗ Matt Walsh is absolutley furious↱ that Nolan toned down the misogyny; reporter Nikki McCain Ramirez↱ remarked, "Walsh fuming that he didn’t get to see a bunch of sexually abused slave women be tortured and hanged for his entertainment is a little too on the nose even for him."

Once upon a time↗, I asked certain people if they would hear a certain truth from an actual woman, and an eighty-six year-old woman¹, at that, and of course the answer is no, they won't.

Moreover, in a world so given to social media, it is an interesting proposition to ignore them as much as we can; they go out of their way to demand attention.

Consider an almost generic complaint↱ that "The Odyssey was the Trojan Horse that ended any hope regular folk had that Hollywood would once again make movies for the people." And, who knows, maybe they're thinking of Griffith's Birth of a Nation, or, more recently, the Kaslow-Aglialoro Atlas Shrugged trilogy.

Thus, enter the politically homeless anti-leftist lesbian complaining↱, "This movie proved to me that brainwashing really can reach the masses. The woke freaks were going to defend this movie like the little brave 'Elliot' Pages they aspire to be…but the normies?"

Conservative author Cathy Young↱ even turned up to knock that one: "Not everyone is into your obsessions, you know." But the shift into anti-trans discourse found its algorithmic way to Joyce Carol Oates↱, as well, and her response remains consistent:

most of us just don't get it: why are you so afraid of fellow human beings? what terrifies you about "trans persons"? seriously.
no one is going to force you to "transition" any more than they will force you to read, visit museums, take a university course, "improve your mind." no one will harm you! it's all right.
suggestion: go out, meet more people including "trans" people. expand your experience. you will be pleasantly surprised. you will not be harmed! you might even make more friends & become a less hate-filled person.​

Perhaps, eighteen months later, she is a little less sparing in her presuppositions, but putting it gently, as Oates did then↱, didn't work.

†​

There are a number of issues to consider, along the way. For instance, remember who brings anti-trans policies to bear, and how they do it. Like a judge in Texas who thinks he has jurisdiction in Rhode Island↱, or a Secretary of Defense initiating a gender-affirming regimen for men in order to increase masculine lethality.

Similarly, socmed↱ commenters focus on misgender in order to invoke "male pattern violence", which one explains↱, "means they are as much a danger to women and girls as other males so should be kept out of single sex spaces". Note the misandry underpinning the argument. It's easy to observe the misogyny of constraining womanhood to traditional patriarchal definitions, but consider how the argument views men:

Judith Butler wrote in Who's Afraid of Gender? that "a specter-infused hypothetical" has been used to stoke panic about trans women: Someone who has a penis, or once had a penis, will rape, because either the penis, or the socialization of people with penises, is the cause of rape. This is the argument for putting trans women in men's prisons. A dick will inevitably rape. Or a man's dick could drive him to become trans so it can rape. These hypothetical men and hypothetical crimes are enough to justify a trans woman's suffering, and her possible rape, in a men's prison, because she is violent by virtue of her birth.

(McCall↱)​

This isn't new.²

†​

An American thing that doesn't necessarily translate: Even knowing youth advocates exist in jurisprudence, it doesn't necessarily occur to mind that there is a chief advocate who runs the advocates' office, and then one day it does, and of course it make sense that there would be. But it's true, compared to an attorney general or a district attorney, you don't often hear about the Advocate. And then, one day, it occurs to wonder what someone must have done to make that Advocate come out and play↱.

The answer, of course, is the people who would bring these anti-trans arguments to bear. That is to say, these are your allies, whether you want them or not. And what makes you think that applies to you?
____________________

Notes:

¹ see also, "Ms. Rowling: insightful critic … or myopic [insult]" #101↗, "because Joyce Carol Oates made an important point that people keep forgetting"; #289↗, "Ten years later, there's a reason why I asked if these people will hear it from the eighty-six year-old woman"↗, and the reason they won't↗ hasn't changed over the last decade"; #301↗, "It is unsurprising that they won't hear it from the eighty-six year-old woman in 2025; they wouldn't hear it from a thirty-something mother back in 2016."

² see "Ms. Rowling …" #477↗ (June, 2025) for prior consideration, e.g., McCall—

「If trans women are mentally ill, and dicks are dangerous rape objects, a trans woman in the bathroom is a lunatic with a gun. No evidence to the contrary can cast away faith that that threat is real.

But even dick is just a symbol for an even deeper belief that sex is immutable and that our bodies seal our fates and futures. Penis is just the crass, physical shorthand for gender essentialism. Men are from Mars and women are from Venus, and in this universe, interplanetary travel is impossible.」​

—and also "On bigotry and the censorship of bigotry" #61↗ (2025); for the sympathizers, in this politic "these are your allies, whether you want them or not." Including the people like Gruber, who fantasize about how to groom children, and the people who presume so much about dick.​

Castro, Alexander. "Office of Child Advocate fights to block DOJ subpoena for trans youth private medical records". Rhode Island Current. 4 May 2026. RhodeIslandCurrent.com. 27 July 2026. https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/2026...oena-for-trans-youth-private-medical-records/

McCall, Vivian. "It's All About the Dick". The Stranger. 4 June 2025. TheStranger.com. 27 June 2026. https://www.thestranger.com/queer-issue-2025/2025/06/05/80088309/its-all-about-the-dick

Weizenbaum, Miriam, Kevin Love Hubbard, Amy R. Romero, and Lynette Labinger. "Emeregency Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, Request for Expedited Relief Pursuant to LR CV 9". In Re: Administrative Subpoena 25-1421-032 to Rhode Island Hospital. United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. 4 May 2026. RhodeIslandCurrent.com. 27 July 2026. https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/wp-c...Motion-to-Quash-Subpoena-to-RI-Hospital-1.pdf

https://twitter.com/x/status/2081396215619408326

 

[Sarkus]

Come on, everyone knows that the film industry isn't ever about backing the vision of a proven Director in an attempt to make vast amounts of money, and making thought-provoking interpretations of classical stories, but is instead only about catering for the mass market of dumb America by repeating the same mind-numbing "rah rah rah! Isn't right-wing America great!" drivel, or otherwise only catering to my personal tastes and proclivities! How dare they make films that other people might like and that I might not!! Sue them!!

And, well, you know, given that The Odyssey is a commercial flop, I guess they should have stuck to what I like...
Wait? It's not a flop? It's a huge commercial and critical success?? Already? But... but it's got a well-known trans actor in it!! How dare they make me watch this!! Wait... I don't have to watch it?? But the film offends me!! Wait... I don't have a right to not be offended?

 

[exchemist]

ZZZzzzz.........

 

[TheVat]

Helluva movie. Goes farther into the emotional lives of those times and the deep archetypal stuff than previous adaptations I'd seen. Helen was pretty foxy, at least 800 millihelens. And Elliot Page, nice job. RW whiners be damned.

Helen (unit) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheVat]

Also, on the ethnicity tampering that seemed to get maga panties in a twist: funny, but nobody seemed much bothered when "Troy" populated the ancient Hellenic world with a bunch of pale blue-eyed actors of Brit, Aussie, and German ancestry.

 

[sculptor]

Ok
I saw the movie yesterday
and
Given that is difficult to create modern media from the words of the rhapsodes:
The movie was not altogether unentertaining.(The fact that the theater had very comfortable seating helped)
It seemed that, by and large, the attempt to add historical context failed miserably.
However, given the requisite suspension of disbelief, the attempt was satisfactory.

 

[TheVat]

It seemed that, by and large, the attempt to add historical context failed miserably.

I'm not sure how much one can fail when the work is allegorical and mythical fantasy with one-eyed giants, men turned into pigs, dead people bursting out of the ground, etc. What historical context were you looking for, in all this?

 

[Tiassa]

And We Make Them Like This, We Make Them Just Like This

American icon, Joyce Carol Oates↱:

no one cared in the slightest that an Irish-born actor played a Jewish physicist in "Oppenheimer." this controversy over "Helen of Troy" (born of an egg! a mythical figure!) is just embarrassing.
yes, be incensed over life-threatening, important issues in the US right now. be incensed over the war in Iran, or soaring costs, imprecise data about public health issues, the data center being built near your property.
all this outrage over a (frankly silly) few minutes in a movie in which Jon Bernthal is cast as King of Sparta (!) must just be revealing what fools Americans are in the eyes of the world.​

Okay, let's back up for a moment. Someone posted a photo of Lupita Nyong'o and commented↱ on "The face that launched a thousand MAGA meltdowns." Oates observed, "The joke is, Helen (of Troy) & twin sister Clytemnestra were hatched from a single egg. Yes: an egg." She goes on to suggest, "Fretting over whether a mythological figure should have the white skin of a Texas cheerleader or Fox Newsgirl is so, so Trump/MAGA." And as the hullabaloo continued, she expressed↱, "The surprise of the summer is that many Americans seem genuinely incensed that a mythological figure ("Helen of Troy") who never actually existed is depicted as having dark skin in a wholly fictitious film of no profound or enduring significance apart from its controversy."

Someone chose to disagree↱, and argued that "the irritation is worthy of some notice since it's just one instance among many of identity issues being injected where they appear designed solely to provoke."

If we intend to erase identity issues, Helen of Troy should be played by a man of some sort of western Turkish descent, which means he could look pretty much like any number of olive, brown, and even black people, and was probably less likely to be Brittonic or Nordic.

But this idea that the casting decisions are "identity issues being injected where they appear designed solely to provoke" is entirely self-inflicted.

Thus, Oates: "No one cared in the slightest that an Irish-born actor played a Jewish physicist in 'Oppenheimer'."

She's not wrong.

Spoiler

https://twitter.com/x/status/2081874926349287472

 

[foghorn]

I'm not sure how much one can fail when the work is allegorical and mythical fantasy with one-eyed giants, men turned into pigs, dead people bursting out of the ground, etc. What historical context were you looking for, in all this?

It would be like going to the movies for a 'good read', if you can't understand ancient Greek or 'Trojan'

 

[Tiassa]

But... but it's got a well-known trans actor in it!! How dare they make me watch this!! Wait... I don't have to watch it??

One thing about Oates' discussion is that the setup led with Elliot Page, a transgender man, and, as noted, the retort to Oates' response switched to complain about transgender women. For those more accustomed to bulletin board discussions, this is hardly new. For some advocates, the point is simply to complain; for some supporters, it's good enough as long as someone is putting in the mean spirit.

In that way, for instance, the socmed commenters focused on misgender, "male pattern violence", &c., are playing a role formerly occupied by racists and misogynists who, knowing they can't actually win, just tried to be offensive as possible in order to fill the room with it and take satisfaction in being mean to the people they hate. If this was actually the argument about race, they would be―... okay, so: It's kind of like #WhatAboutTheMen and when men are the real victims, here, and look at which feminists¹ are victimizing them, the terfs.

And, I don't know, maybe it's just my fuzzy memory, but I feel like one of the landmark societies of western civilization, like the ancient Greeks, perhaps, had men dress up to play women's roles onstage. Then again, that would be an example of males in "single sex spaces"; women were customarily prohibited from performing onstage, so what's a good man to do.

Such a paradox matters none to the focus on misgender, "male pattern violence", and why males are so implicitly dangerous², or, as McCall reminds, "No evidence to the contrary can cast away faith that that threat is real."

†​

The zen venn, here, is a common intersectionalism. Here's a line, ca. 2019↗: Birds of ominous feather will, in sympathy, eventually gather together.

But here's a thing to consider, the basic idea of a mitigating story, i.e., sure, there's something awry, but it's not what it looks like³, &c. For my generation, there is actually a mitigating story for certain errors, omissions, and misunderstandings, but it's been a long time, and there are reasons those who still remain aloof have chosen to hold out. And scattered throughout the spectrum of stories, these birds of common feather will eventually and inevitably gather. To wit, for all we might describe as other reasons motivating certain results, history makes a compelling argument that it actually was supremacism, conspiracism, and superstition driving those people's decisions, and there are reasons why this happens, so, sure, the bit about remembering or repeating history is in play; but, toward the tricky part, it's just really hard to empathize with others according to what has gone wrong if we are supposed to pretend nothing ever happened.

The the intersection of historical supremacist elements is unsurprising, and something more like a weave. Its imagined fabric of society bears a tapestry of untenable privilege beleaguered and besieged by the unjust necessities of sociality. The tenuous mythopoeic strands endure as long as they might, but the story they tell must constantly be repaired, refurbished, restored, and renewed in pretension that nothing has changed.

The common element is empowerment, or perhaps agency⁴; the thing is, what these ominous birds want is something they cannot have; that is what makes them ominous, notorious, and even dangerous. And, yes, there is an inevitable long discussion about what it means to call it all off, but, sure, we already know, per the Oklahoma↗ experience↗ (ca. 2014-15) they've long been willing to at least consider it.⁵ And it's not like conservatives didn't tell us they wanted to revolt↗.

And if part of the problem is trying to describe something to people who say they can't see it even when it is right there in front of them, it's a bit complicated and distracting to do their thinking for them in order to understand what they're missing. Or, maybe that's the point. It's kind of like the part↗ about having no indication whether or not something is understood. For instance, the idea of what is "woke", and being unable to recognize the significance of what it meant to protect and legitimize the purpose of "anti-woke" discourse. For the rest of us, the intersection of racism and misogyny are like the warp and woof of this certain social fabric. And if we paid attention along the way, no, that we found the radical feminists who would accuse all men isn't new, nor the fact of men willing to endure it because this time it's just that important, or something. I don't know, maybe they'll just blame it on liberals, like pretty much always.

And nor is it new that their context of originalism isn't.

What binds these diverse bigotries, their common element, is bigotry. Oh, right: It's about pretenses of empowerment, and how it feels. Their cruelty isn't just a result of their dissatisfaction, but also the reason for it. What they want is to inflict; sociality itself obliges their disappointment.

(Flipside: Who would bothsides that?)
____________________

Notes:

¹ see "Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]" #191↑ (2025) recalling the British "terf wars"↗ arriving in my social media, ca. 2019: "There is a reason why such feminism should be popular among the British, as it strives to help women achieve their proper place and potential under a man."

² Here's a twist on that part: The fact of sex-segregated bathrooms in and of itself similarly depends on presupposition of male sexual violence. No, actually it's not really a twist, but, rather, something people forget to think about before accusing all men in order to "stoke panic" about a "spectre-infused hypothetical". Y'know, the E&O of anxious bigotry. It's one thing to consider McCall and Butler↑, but before partisan critics dismiss that feminist take, consider that trans-excluding radical feminists are the ones who keep actually making the point: These anti-trans arguments require a presupposition of male sexual violence.

³ see "Presidential predictions for 2024?" #194↗ (2024); see also, "Trump 2.0" #2509↗ (2025), "It's like a mitigating story. As none of us are perfect, we all have our mitigating stories". And from the thread that keeps on giving, "Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]", #802↗ and 828↗ (2026; int. links omitted): "And there are any number of ways someone might fall into that hole, but it's not ours to write mitigating explanations for uncertain stories we can only project", and, "To the other, if some people missed that the discussion of antisemitism that caused such consternation actually lent toward a mitigating explanation, neither can we ignore that mitigation might have come at too high a cost according to some other principle or measure." Toward that, see the other Rowling thread, "Ms Rowling and her Harry Potter books: antisemitic?" #82↑ (2025), which in turn is a bit long for this note; because, more directly, there is also "American Pogrom (#WhatTheyVotedFor)" #29↗ (2026; notes omitted):

「Again, the past is the past but we can leave markers for the future: Yes, there are some people who took part in that deplorable false equivalence who should probably feel at least a little awkward or embarrassed, because certain things have long been clear, and what remains unclear this time later is why we should ignore the obvious. One way to work through that, of course, is for the well-intended to explain what they saw and heard along the way; the thing about a mitigating story, though, is that it must first acknowledge something went awry, so they won't tell us. And, sure, maybe that in itself is telling.」​

⁴ Again, 2025 looking to 2019; in fact, the next paragraph after the joke about British radicalism and traditional power:

「The thing is that the world is scary, the future unknown, and new concepts, influences, and outcomes alter people's understanding of how the future should go. As more of the world around a person seems harmful, and as individuals perceive dwindling empowerment, some will reach or lash out in order to establish a reference point; the empowerment or authority to leave that mark, sometimes, is all they feel they have left. This becomes the measure of their empowerment.」​

A more conservative take↗ (2025) would suggest, "the short answer is 'agency' … One person argues for agency and another says 'what about Trump' or 'school children urinating'. It's silly."[/i]

⁵ It's impossible to not recall a would-be "libertarian solution"↗ from the same period, but as PJdude1219↗ explained, the whole pretense was "missing the point", so it is its own almost unique relic, unless it's not.​

 

[Tiassa]

¿The Whatnot in the Hownow?

It's a point we've considered before↗:

Arguments about how to define "woman" and the meaning of "sex" more generally have become a proxy of sorts for the culture wars currently animating disagreements between conservatives and liberals with respect to the rights of sexual minorities and the role that gender identity plays in society more generally, whether in education, sports, marriage, or reproduction. The general assumption by those on the political right is that "sex" has traditionally meant biological sex—that a determination of whether one is male or female, a man or a woman, could be easily resolved by resorting to the science of biology. By contrast, those on the political left have argued for a more inclusive definition of "sex," one that embraces difference in terms of gender identity and that places importance on an individual's own understanding of identity. It is generally assumed that this broader definition of "sex," one that considers aspects of sex or gender beyond issues of biology, is of relatively recent vintage, a product of progressive or "woke" thinking.

This Article, by reviewing legal authority on the meaning traditionally given to the term "sex," under both the anti-discrimination laws and the United States Constitution, challenges the notion that the broader understanding of that term is of recent vintage, at least as a legal matter. Instead, although some courts and some individual judges and justices have declared that "sex" meant only "biological sex," the way in which that term was interpreted, from the earliest court decisions, casts doubt on those assertions. Instead, the term "sex" has traditionally been defined to include traits and characteristics beyond biological sex, to the extent that biological sex is understood to be determined by chromosomes or anatomy.

Next, this Article challenges the notion that the science of biology defines "biological sex" as a binary classification, defining who is a woman and who is a man simply by reference to chromosomes and anatomy. Instead, the science of biology does not support binary classifications, and gender identity itself appears to have a biological basis. The simplicity that social conservatives seek with respect to the definition of "woman" by resorting to biology is not supported by current understandings of biology itself.

These insights, while important for determining the appropriateness of extending protection of the anti-discrimination laws to gender identity, and perhaps to sexual orientation, are also important in determining the general scope of the anti-discrimination laws and the nature of the protection that those laws provide against all forms of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and sexual stereotyping. That is, an insistence that protection against discrimination on the basis of "sex" is limited to aspects of sex determined by chromosomes or anatomy serves not only to deny protection to sexual minorities but also risks limiting the protections provided generally to all individuals with respect to sex- and gender-linked traits or characteristics.

(Hébert↱, boldface accent added)​

But then there is the detail. The first paragraph includes two footnotes, numbers three and four; the fourth explains on two different pages (328-29):

Although the term "woke" is used as a pejorative by the political right, its common meaning is "alert to injustice and discrimination in society." … The term was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017 … See Perry Bacon, Jr., What We Really Mean When We Say 'Woke,' 'Elites' and Other Politically Fraught Terms, Wash. Post (Sept. 19, 2022) … (noting that the term 'woke' was once largely used by Black people, invoking the idea to stay mindful of racism in America, but is now used "by political figures on the center-left, center-right and right as a kind of epithet against those they view as too left-wing on racial, gender and LGBTQ issues"), for a discussion of the use of the term "woke" by the political right.​

But that bit of history isn't actually surprising. I mean, y'know ... right? It's not news why the right is so angry at the woke.

And, sure, it's at least a little more complicated than that, but, no, we don't get here without it.
____________________

Notes:

Hébert, L. Camille. "Defining 'Woman': Biological Sex and Gender". The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, v.27, i.2. 2024. JGRL.Law.UIowa.edu. 5 August 2026 https://jgrj.law.uiowa.edu/sites/jgrj.law.uiowa.edu/files/2024-05/Defining women.pdf