Commenting on blogs can be a delight and a pain.
Feminists have all sorts of ways of shutting down conversation they choose not to engage in. There is “Mansplaining”- a man explaining condescendingly what a woman already knows, or considers silly. I have seen reference to Whitesplaining, so why not Cisplaining? You saw it here first! (Though it has been found elsewhere.) Central to this idea is that men do not treat women with respect, but expect to be treated with respect themselves; because that is the patriarchal way. Feminism seeks to level out that hierarchy of respect, though black women observe a similar inability to listen to black women in whites, even those of us who think of ourselves as allies: Read this for the anger.
Then there is “derailing”. We are talking about a particular thing, and not anything else. Do not derail.
Or “What about teh Menz”. This is a particular kind of derailing, alluding to the problems men face.
That choice not to engage is valid. My time is my own. If I want to firm up my ideas I do not necessarily want to defend them, especially not to a person appointing themself judge over me. How to deal with splaining? The splainer will rarely admit that is what they do. So it is valid to block, delete or ignore splaining, as explaining to the splainer will not achieve anything. If the splainer really wants to learn, Google is their friend. I have not set myself up as a freely available educator on trans issues.
Yet some commenters are friends. Here’s Barry’s recent comment. On this matter, we have a large area of agreement. Our slightly different perspectives may help both of us to gain understanding. The agreement pleases me, any differing perspective challenges, I enjoy the encounter. My account of Aspergers was not intended as splaining: I think I just escape that, as I was giving my own subjective responses, not claiming any objective knowledge.
Some are not. ColorStorm takes the position that the Bible is literally true and internally consistent. He mocks contrary views as ridiculous, and asserts his view, using the Bible text itself as evidence. Anyone not sharing his view will not be persuaded, yet he has a constant air of triumph: I imagine he enjoys commenting, and never sees his ridiculousness: only the emperor does not see he has no clothes. A flyting between him and some atheist describing the archaeological evidence may produce amusing insults but no other useful result.
I am unsure what Higharka attempts here. It is a long, laboured pastiche of a comment about abortion but substituting smothering a baby for aborting a foetus. I get that he finds aborting a foetus the moral equivalent of murder. I do not. If he has any idea about how to reduce the number of terminations, or even an inkling that there might be better ways of preventing terminations than making them unlawful, it might be worth listening to him. As it is, he has shown no evidence that it is worth engaging with him. He can sing his song as long as he likes.
I write about being trans, here. This is my life. I write about my feelings and experiences. I have a right not to debate trans as a concept. Sometimes I do; but writing of feelings is of itself. It might be a useful comment to share yours, but not to criticise mine. Trudy, linked above, writes far more eloquently about that than I do.