The Liberals response to TRAs shows why Brexit/Trump won

PerkingFaintly By "Progressive" (maybe Leftist-Identitarianism would be better) I just mean the cluster of liberal attitudes around sex/gender/nationality, distinguishing this from more traditional left-wing attitudes on spending/inequality/redistribution. Of course the two can coalesce, as in Corbyn--indeed Labour is coalition between the two components. But the average Labour voter cares more about NHS than Madigan's ladyfeelz or refugees in Calais.

Transactivism is fascinating because it splits Progressivism down the middle, dividing feminists into libfems and radfems, and likewise supporters of homosexual rights into (now that I'm on a roll let me invent entirely new terms!) homofundamentalists (esp. lesbians) and queers.

Bannon wants to shake up political system, but he sure doesn't want to destabilize identities, he wants the opposite: to reinscribe whiteness as the foundation of American polity. Likewise I assume he has traditional views on male/female difference.

Bannon has certainly been drawing on some interestingly diverse sources.

BTW, can you expand on your meaning of the word "progressive"? It's one I see used by Americans to apparently mean something very specific (from context: left wing, feminist or anti-racist), but to me only has a lowercase meaning.

Or rather, I don't know whether the claim "transgressing categories... undermines power and is therefore progressive " is actually yours, but it's the meaning intended there, that I'd like to grasp.

Because it's very clear that Robert Mercer, for example, is embarked on a project of undermining power, in order to replace it with his own power. But he appears to have white supremacist views and to want deregulation (which usually means removal of employment rights, environmental protections). Undermining of power by him would not be "progressive" – for the meanings of progressive I've described above. But such undermining of power would of, course be, change.

I have to agree with Cromeyellow0

Never in my life did I think we would be in a position where the leader of the Labour party would openly state on TV that a woman is anyone who says they are.
Or that a woman who states that ' the penis is NOT a female organ' will be accused of transphobia.
And that I am actually hoping that this appalling government has noticed this lunacy and will roll back their promises to sanction self ID.

Because the left has totally shut down democratic debate and left many women politically homeless. If it wasn't for Mumsnet.....

cromeyellow0

Brilliant points. Ideological reality-denial is not exclusive to the left (as some factually-averse Brexiteers demonstrate), but in recent years the left has set a new standard in how to ignore or dismiss facts that conflict with its utopian visions.

I'm not sure where the idea that "leftwing progressives can't debate"

Guardian, Independent, Labour Party, universities.

Mumsnet is the exception. Arguably without Mumsnet, subjective gender identity would be passing through parliament with overwhelming support from all parties (except DUP).

PerkingFaintly That's one of tenets of postmodernism, Derrida, Foucault, Butler, et al.

Categories have no real existence except insofar as they are inscribed through power (Foucault's power / truth nexus). Implication: transgressing categories (or as Butler says "subverting identity") undermines power and is therefore progressive.

Of course this isn't the way that the average Labour voter thinks (!), but it is (consciously or not) the logic informing a young university-educated adherent of Momentum.

Aren't TRA's 'liberals'? I'm surprised they are considered as separate entities in the OP.

BTW, I'm not sure where the idea that "leftwing progressives can't debate" is coming from.

MN has been superb at debating trans issues in particular (and others although sadly much displaced by trans stuff at the moment).

Are left-wing, progressive MN feminists who are debating these issues, supposed to cease calling themselves left-wing or progressive? Because trans?

Rather than being left-wing, progressive and in disagreement on an important issue with other people, some of whom are left-wingers?

It's extremely successful trolling, too, because we can't NOT put in the work to articulate and defend women's rights, and find where the balance is for transsexual people (men and women). And MN feminist boards are doing a magnificent job of this.

But at the cost of being diverted from other issues, and of division from those who haven't hacked as far through tangled web and understood the full import of eg the GRA.

the underlying intuition is that it's progressive to destabilize boundaries.

That's interesting, because although that doesn't strike a chord with me wrt the left, it seems like a spot-on description of the new far-right agenda, where destabilization is an aim in itself.

Hence the fake "BostonAntifa" pages calling for support for trans cheerleaders, for example. There's debate about whether that mob were really a troll-factory in Putin's Russia or were US right-wingers in Oregon (and there's anyway a lot of co-operation between Russian cyberwarfare and the alt-right, eg Jack Posobiec), but they're certainly disruptivists, using trans issues to troll feminism and divide people. To fake a "left-wing" identity while doing so is a win-win for them.

Steve Bannon is very explicit that destabilization is an important part of the alt-right project.

Fake antifa Twitter account fools media on right and left
Right-wing actors appear to have taken their trolling game to another level.
thinkprogress.org/boston-antifa-russia-tweet-adb3b2ab4918/

Steve Bannon, Trump’s Top Guy, Told Me He Was ‘a Leninist’
www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-trumps-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist

Ah, I'm thinking Hopkins...

Can anyone shed light as to what a "Mumsnet Katie" is?

Sadly not. Is it like an American "Becky"?!

Can anyone shed light as to what a "Mumsnet Katie" is?

I have said this before on here, but I also think there are parallels to be drawn between the liberal/progressive methods of opposing Brexit and their attitudes towards gender identity.

In both cases, the liberal/progressive reaction is to brand anyone who disagrees with them as thick, uneducated bigots.

If Brexit hasn't shown the liberal/progressive commentariat and campaigners that this is not the way to win the argument, I don't know what will.

When and where were Leavers 'No-platformed'?

That vast - unregulated, illegal injection of cash and services bought exposure and dissemination of the 'Leave' viewpoint - quite the opposite of 'No-Platforming'.

It bought armies of trolls to spam social media.

What it didn't, and couldn't buy was armies of experts to tell people that voting 'Leave' was an economically sound decision.

What it could buy was a well-funded campaign to discredit experts.

The illegal funding bought the ability to swamp social media, to ensure there was a well-funded, extensive and targeted marketing campaign.

That was the absolute, direct opposite of 'no-platforming'.

The analogy is utterly ridiculous.

thecat obliges and provides a perfect example of what the OP is talking about.

Lots of truth in this OP, although I think among voters the vote was not split left v right and there was some interesting analysis of this.

I voted Leave but could quite understand why some people would vote Remain. The favour was returned by many Remain voters but others voices I felt very demonised by.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that people have very different life experiences and that it is perfectly reasonable that these will influence their politics and how they vote.

Actually I do understand the demonisation if it comes from someone who felt their opinion was satisfactorily informed at the time by the Guardian alone. Because look at how how impartial their reporting has been over the transgender prison hunger striker.

So, yes, the trans lobby's polarising and demonising does feel very familiar.

This thread is turning into quite the dogwhistle for Mumsnet's Katies.

And the Guardian's approach to reporting Muslim grooming gangs or the Cologne NY's eve sexual assaults follows a similar logic to covering transgender issues: trans and Muslims/refugees are more oppressed than women, and so it's crucial to avoid any news coverage that portrays them negatively.

I think there’s some truth in this. I have to say that, as a lifelong lefty liberal who had drunk the koolaid until about a year ago, peaking has given me a whole new respect for, and humility towards, people whose views I might previously have dismissed (on subjects like multiculturalism) as ‘nasty right wing bigotry’. I still don’t agree with them but I now know what it’s like to feel threatened and unheard and dismissed by the virtue signallers of this world.

I don't understand your post at all Brown

Are you seriously suggesting that Trump's win and Brexit were, in part, caused by safeguarding training?
Or have you posted on he wrong thread?

In a narrow sense, there is an elective affinity between two aspects of Left Progressivism: (1) borders are evil, immigrants (and especially refugees) are morally superior to natives; (2) sex is an illusion, trans is morally superior to cis.

In both cases, the underlying intuition is that it's progressive to destabilize boundaries.

As George Soros says, boundaries are the problem, refugees are the solution. Likewise, binary sex is the problem, transgender is the solution. And of course Soros is one of the three billionaires bankrolling transactivism.

This is in part due to middle-class professionals training. Trained like soldiers in safeguarding. Robots who no longer question when safeguarding basics are not recommended.

Do you not find that a bit condescending in itself though?
The idea that brexit voters were swayed so easily to vote a certain way because of"frequent shouts" from "the liberals".
There was plenty of shouting from both sides, and twats on both sides too.
Those already inclined to vote remain are going to notice bad behaviour from the brexit side more than from their own.
Those already inclined to vote leave are going to notice bad behaviour from the remain side. (Confirmation bias.)

I don't really believe that enough people to make a difference made their mind up because of a perceived slight from the other side. They may think they did, but really they had already decided and only noticed the comments that confirmed their existing pre-conceptions about "the other side". How else would you explain the fact that they were so able to ignore the unpleasantness coming from the leave side? There was far worse than shouts of "racist".

Ah, okay, a lack of liberal debate; whilst I agree there may have been an air of liberal complacency in all cases I also don't think we can downplay the unprecedented weight and impact of the opposing side in each case.