Like the other commenter, locke besse, I have a different perspective on James Finn's article.

FYI, I'm a Jewish transgender man, and I've written a bit on the intersection of antisemitism and transphobia. That of course doesn't make my opinions on antisemitism automatically correct (since Jews ourselves can fail to spot antisemitism and also perpetuate it), but it may help explain why I am making an effort to share my perspective here. Also, James's late partner was Jewish, they lived in Manhattan and spoke Yiddish together, and he's written articles on themes of antisemitism. His identity/experience/work doesn't make him immune to error either, but again, it's relevant. Trying to cast him as a "skinhead" seems quite unfair and not at all reflective of his life experiences that he shares here on Medium, nor of what he writes against violent white nationalist groups like the Proud Boys.

Your original message to James said that his "article" implied that Jews have some "advantage," "control," or "privilege." You didn't point to a particular sentence. The only part of his article that seems at all relevant is: “What if three anti-Jewish laws passed? … Would people finally admit that genuine fascism is gaining ground in America?” (His article headline also paraphrases this point.) But I don't think this sentence does imply Jewish advantage, control, or privilege. Thus, I understand why James did not spot what you tried to point out, because I don't really see it either. You didn't flag what you saw as the problematic sentence (the headline) until your second message to him, so I'm not sure how he was supposed to see it the first time around. The interaction might have gone better—I'm not being sarcastic, I'm trying to make a real observation/suggestion—if you had pointed to the actual sentence you were concerned about before giving your interpretation of it. If someone genuinely does not comprehend an overall interpretation of their own words, they will have a hard time selecting a sentence into which to retrofit the interpretation.

In partial agreement with you, I too usually try to avoid writing a sentence of this type: X group's mistreatment would be obvious, so why can't more people see this as mistreatment when it happens to Y group? I avoid doing so simply because it's a hypothetical statement that might be false and there's no way for anyone to prove or disprove it. (Three anti-Jewish laws haven't passed in a single day in 2023, and I don't know exactly how USAmericans would react to that.) I'm also aware that sentences like this may suggest that one group generally gets more sympathy than another, which in turn may suggest they shouldn't get that sympathy, an interpretation that moves from possibly untrue to actively harmful. Thus I personally do try to steer away from these kinds of compare/contrasts when possible—or else, I try to be careful in how I phrase whatever I really need to say.

But, to agree with James, indeed I'd imagine that many USAmericans (including many Jews) would object to overtly antisemitic laws (even if I might not have chosen such a headline for one of my own articles). I don't think making this claim or rhetorical flourish (though the statement is unprovable) amounts to a suggestion that Jews have unearned social privilege or are running a cabal. I just don't think that's quite the right interpretation of exactly what his headline was intended to mean or is likely to mean to most people. Because I know James has been close to many Jews in his social/activist circles in New York, I understood his headline to be written for a Jewish, Jewish-inclusive, or Jewish-sympathetic audience, rather than for people who might think that Jews have too much power. The likely audience affects how we understand the likely meaning.

This is a disagreement on an interpretation. You and I can disagree on a matter without either of us "gaslighting" the other, especially if it's the very first time the disagreement is expressed. Nor do I think expressing disagreement always means that someone is "fragile."

I'm bald because I'm over 40. I don't think that saying someone "looks like a skinhead" is, well, kind, nor is it constructive. James appears to be bald. So am I. I am old, and when I have to point this out, I feel more tired.

Nor is it kind to make a clown-emoji collage of someone's photograph. The only people I've ever seen using clown emoji are right-wingers on Twitter who use the clown as an anti-transgender or "anti-woke" signal (i.e., to say that trans people like us are all crazy clowns). Once, a transphobe on Medium private-messaged me a clown emoji. I perceive that as a hate symbol, and when it's used to convey anti-trans sentiment, it gets an insta-block from me. When you create and post an image like that of someone's face, it's on the internet forever, and it makes it easier for anti-LGBTQ and antisemitic bigots to find the person or to reuse the meme to target them. Homophobes and antisemites are not going to use that image in an intersectionally liberating way. They are going to use it to tear everyone down.

I realize that, by offering a different perspective, I expose myself for you to say bad things about me. You might even make a collage insulting my baldness, or put clown emoji of me on the internet so transphobes can find me. I'm taking that risk, because you seem to be open to long messages in which people explain their perspectives on intersectional topics, and maybe you will not try to hurt me.

It is a hard moment in which to be Jewish and nonbinary/trans, as we both know. We are trying to survive. Transphobia and antisemitism are essentially conspiracy theories, and they are linked, and we have to fight them both. On that I agree.