…I’d get the sense that Robert didn’t really need to be told. But it’d be unfair not to “extend intentionalism” to him, so I’ll just take his comment at face value.
From a comment on earlbecke’s post on a blowup that I was actually planning to post on:
Translation: you’ll extend the courtesy of accepting intentionalism to people you like.
Nope! It means that in a different context, the words will be read in a different way. It’s the difference between Janice Raymond titling her anti-transsexual screed, The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male, and Sandy Stone titling her rebuttal essay, “The Empire Strikes Back.”
See? Straightfaced, sarcastic. Hateful language, reclamation of hateful language. Sandy Stone’s intention is clearly different; there isn’t ambiguity that requires the benefit of the doubt. Now, if she’d used “empire” in some other sense, such that she seemed to seriously imply the existence of a tranny cabal, then it would not be reclamatory and it’d make as much sense to challenge her as Raymond. And if Raymond used the term in an ironic sense, her likely intent would be factored into the interpretation as well.
“Bitch” works the same way. Bitch magazine? Bitch/lab? Bitch ‘n’ Animal? A challenge to the common meaning of the word. “That stupid bitch!” uttered by a member of either sex? Probably straight-up misogynistic.
Some other examples:
“Hothead Paisan: Homicidal Lesbian Terrorist”
“That Colored Fella’s Weblog”
“Dykes to Watch Out For”
“That’s Mr. Faggot to You”
“Knife-Wielding Feminists”
…etc.
Now, some people argue that there is no way to reclaim this language, but that’s a different discussion.