I feel genuinely sorry for people who feel they need to engage with @/janeclarejones lack of understanding of gender dysphoria and unwillingness to engage with trans accounts of our experiences.

I feel like people who need to debate her arguments still are stuck in a mental trap

The reason JCJ has blocked so many careful and respectful debaters who've challenged her worldview is because her long rambly threads about gender identity and the nature of sex are not designed to actually engage with trans knowledge.

They are narrative building for a rapt audience, alternative knowledge production for the sustenance of an alternative episteme that does not require trans knowledge to be a part of it and actively excludes our knowledge and experiences as illegitimate, degenerate and unfaithful.

This isn't limited to JCJ. The GC movement as a whole rarely engages on a serious level with its opponents, academically or otherwise. Instead they cultivate a range of alternative expertise, medical, sociological, psychological, etc.

You have sociologists with PhDs who's expertise in trans issues was built running sock puppet accounts to harass and abuse trans people. You have psychoanalytic theorists who've never treated a trans patient before they took up conversion therapy.

You have feminists and social theorists who wax lyrical about trans ideology and queer theory but only seem to be (and even then barely) aware of Mermaids and Stonewall but have never read Namaste, Feinberg, or Koyama let alone Snorton, Binaohan, or Haritaworn.

These are not serious people. They don't want your engagement. They aren't undertaking serious engagement with us. They are world building, story telling about the trans menace, creating a narrative for an audience that doesn't know any trans people (or often LGB ppl).

Literally this, many of them couldn't get as far as actually reading what Butler had to say about gender construction before rubbishing it as proof of factional loyalty to the rejection of a worldview they find impermissible. https://twitter.com/pennyb/status/1344371908826034180?s=19

The pseudonymous Dr Em who holds forth on queer theory paedophilia and the rainbow Reich is in her actual academic background a scholar of medieval Catholic eschatology for fucks sake. These ppl don't read us (especially the work of our better intellectuals), and they don't care.

Actually I should say they do occasionally read us, but the very few limited times they do it's only ever to undertake the sort of paranoid reading designed to inform their audience about how to trash us.

What I really mean is they are not engaged in a dialectical process of knowledge production with us or our work/arguments.

The Butler example is perfect:
* Butler had some bad takes about incest taboos
* The only thing they're willing to discuss about Butler is the comments about incest taboo and they attach full culpability for the worst possible interpretation of it to anyone influenced by Butler.

(nevermind that many trans theorists are instead drawing upon radical feminist theorists or others not particularly driven by aButlerian perspective, given that Butler was accused in the 90s/00s of being transphobic by a number of people over Gender Trouble)