Who is the driving force behind the Trans agenda?

Wait, you mean Bannon is behind the weaponization of intersectional feminism and the transagenda?

Frankly, I think that is bollocks. He may have hopped on the bandwagon driving the poliarization further online or so, in order to galvanize support for the 'anti bathroom bill' GOP, but th undermining of title IX and the bathroom bill clearly came from the Obama administration and Hillary made no noise she would reverse course.

But even that would be taking a too short view on things. 3rd wave feminism with its porn&prostitution positivity which always seems to center anything but women (usually men). has sure been around since the 90's.

The account @3rdWaveLessons (I suppose by a Radfem) does a good deal exposing the absurdity of 3rd wave feminism, mocking it relentlessly.

ShinyThingsAreDistracting
I remember reading the Guardian article too which included Bannon & feminism:

‘I made Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool’: meet the data war whistleblower
For more than a year we’ve been investigating Cambridge Analytica and its links to the Brexit Leave campaign in the UK and Team Trump in the US presidential election. Now, 28-year-old Christopher Wylie goes on the record to discuss his role in hijacking the profiles of millions of Facebook users in order to target the US electorate'

by Carole Cadwalladr
(extract)
"A few months later, in autumn 2013, Wylie met Steve Bannon. At the time, he was editor-in-chief of Breitbart, which he had brought to Britain to support his friend Nigel Farage in his mission to take Britain out of the European Union.

What was he like?

“Smart,” says Wylie. “Interesting. Really interested in ideas. He’s the only straight man I’ve ever talked to about intersectional feminist theory. He saw its relevance straightaway to the oppressions that conservative, young white men feel.”

Wylie meeting Bannon was the moment petrol was poured on a flickering flame. Wylie lives for ideas. He speaks 19 to the dozen for hours at a time. He had a theory to prove. And at the time, this was a purely intellectual problem. Politics was like fashion, he told Bannon.

“[Bannon] got it immediately. He believes in the whole Andrew Breitbart doctrine that politics is downstream from culture, so to change politics you need to change culture. And fashion trends are a useful proxy for that. Trump is like a pair of Uggs, or Crocs, basically. So how do you get from people thinking ‘Ugh. Totally ugly’ to the moment when everyone is wearing them? That was the inflection point he was looking for.” (cont)

www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

comment from the Reddit post linked above:
"To be honest, the thought only occurred to me when I read a particular line in the Cambridge Analytica whistle blower's account. He said that Steve Bannon was "really interested in ideas...[he's] the only straight man I've ever talked to about intersectional feminist theory. He saw its relevance straightaway to the oppressions that conservative, young white men feel. This meeting took place in 2013. Notice something about this exchange - Bannon is interested in intersectional theory because of its usefulness in highlighting the oppression of conservative, white men. He sees intersectionality as a tool, a tool that can be used against feminist aims.

And this isn't the first time we've heard of Bannon's interest in feminism. Bannon was reported to be deeply concerned by the metoo movement, which he calls a 'wave' of 'anti-patriarchal' sentiment. He's deeply concerned that "10,000 years of recorded history will be overturned." Obviously, Bannon doesn't want that. He doesn't want women to organise. He's full aware that women organising will be "bigger than the tea party...it's the end [of male supremacy]." This is a man who is deeply fearful of women's potential political power, and would, presumably, quite like to stop it."

.

I’m not so sure. The group’s newly under the umbrella yes. The smaller proportion of gender dysphoric people? Maybe not...

I think one group who could lose out a lot if there’s a backlash is people with diagnosed gender dysphoria. They also stand to lose from demedicalisation in some ways.
They’ve already lost a fair amount of the gentleman’s agreement type attitude that used to exist between them and women as more aggressive parties with different agendas associate under the umbrella.

Bespin

Transpeople are certainly protected by having the mighty Stonewall covering their ass.

here's a radical thought for you maybe it's trans people driving this. I know how crazy is that and of course I'm just saying that to protect big pharma.

Geez Turph, you are brave delving there! But very interesting to find out what they are saying.

Also, to add (because I'm not scared and I go look) the alt right aren't as accepting of this as you think. Their anti-semitic theories on this include the notion that transgenderism along with feminism is designed to limit the reproductive chances of young white men in order to speed up the replacement of said white men with immigrants. That's genuinely the most popular strain of thought on it, although anime fans do seem to enjoy trans porn and sissification porn. They battle amongst themselves on this one.

FlorisApple agreed on all points.

It reinforces traditional roles, it provides new and exciting sex opportunities for men, it is a cash cow for pharma (and the industry around gender clinics) and best of all, it's untouchable! No wonder they love it.

I think it's been a confluence of factors, many of which have been mentioned here; pharma, porn, gay charities needing new causes, etc. But I also think trans ideology has been so successful because it has been able to sound progressive, while being actually deeply conservative or even regressive. It cloaks itself in left-wing identity rhetoric, but actually it promotes rigid gender stereotypes, and wants people to conform to them. This is why the Tories could so easily get on board; because actually it's quite a conservative idea. And why so many prominent transwomen seem to have backgrounds or careers that were very masculine; eg army chiefs etc. They seem to have gone from one extremely rigid gender identity to another. So although it feels like it's been a quick revolution, I see it rather as a counter-revolution, reacting to the gains of feminism in recent decades. Unfortunately, so many of the woke young people think they are somehow confounding gender stereotypes by buying into this. In short: good marketing!

hmmm, I'm a bit suspicious of the yogy principles as if that is a reason for anything. It's circular, without an actual beginning. "Trans rights are trans rights are trans rights". I keep looking for the base principle, and there isn't one.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place or reading the wrong thing?

Shiny - blimey, that post is convincing. (Either that or I'm going full tin-foil hat here - but the more I think about it, the more I think... "no". I keep coming back to that fucking clownfish meme and the way it went viral, with even very intelligent, very scientifically minded friends sharing it.)

I've thought for a while that Steve Bannon is linked in to this. The Cambridge Analytica whistleblower talked about how he had conversations with Bannon about intersectional feminism.

I did a quick Google search and this Reddit post sums it up pretty well:
www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/85vlpg/cambridge_analytica_steve_bannon_and_liberal/

On the neo-liberal experiment in Russia and Putin...

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/01/bill-browder-interview-i-found-way-take-on-putin-hes-really-sore

Guardian article on Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act, organised crime in Russia, and why the Russian kleptocracy relies on being able to spend its cash abroad (hence why the Magnitsky Act hurts so badly).

But yes, the stuff Michael Briggs writes about is also important.

Turph - interesting points.

And it relies on the entire worldwide supply chain agreeing to legalise drugs, so countries destroyed and destabilised by drug cartels legitimise the kingpins (oligarchs, anyone) and permanently destroy the social fabric and political life of those countries - to satisfy rich western liberals. Yes, precisely. I had a fascinating conversation with a Keynsian economist once (yes, there are a few still out there in the wild) saying "well, of course Reagan and Thatcher didn't actually turn the US and UK into free market economies - they paid lip-service to libertarian free market economics while actually retaining a huge number of rules governing proper behaviour within the marketplace. But they did unleash a huge libertarian experiment - on Russia, post collapse of the USSR. And it turns out that unfettered libertarianism just leaves organised crime free to do whatever the fuck it wants."

Are you arguing against having a moral framework because it could be hijacked by the far right? Surely moral relativism is the crux of the issue? No (though I may have expressed myself badly). It is a good thing to have a moral framework, and moral relativism leads to an absolute shit storm. But the problem with pushing moral absolutes is that they can create a climate which can be hijacked by the far right. In the same way, liberalism has many strengths - its focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual, free speech, leaving people alone to get on with their lives in peace and quiet. But it too can be hijacked by brain-dead wokies (the "so open minded their brains have fallen out" brigade) creating a climate which can be hijacked by, well, for want of a better word, anarchists. But not anarchists in the political philosophy sense, anarchists in the "smash everything up for the hell of it" sense.

Professor Michael Biggs' article (Oxford Sociology):
'The Open Society Foundations & the transgender movement'
(extract)
"The transgender movement has transformed cultural norms and social institutions at breathtaking speed. Most of us, becoming acquainted with the trans issue for the first time, are astonished to discover the extent of the gender revolution. The movement has accomplished in a few years what the movements for women’s and for gay and lesbian rights took many decades to achieve.

Part of the explanation is the amount of money behind transgenderism. The Gender Industrial Complex, as we may call it, has many components. Lucrative sponsorship comes from pharmaceutical companies and medical providers. Charities originally established to fight for homosexual rights (like Human Rights Campaign in the United States and Stonewall in Britain) wield large budgets. Last but not least, three American billionaires have bankrolled the transgender movement on a global scale: Jennifer Pritzker, whose activities were detailed in another blogpost, Jon Stryker, and George Soros.

This blogpost focuses on the Open Society Foundations (OSF), funded by Soros. This is not easy to discuss because he is vilified by right-wingers, whose criticism sometimes degenerates into anti-semitism (Williamson 2018). Therefore those of us who are liberal or progressive tend to react instinctively by dismissing any scrutiny of Soros out of hand. This is unjustified, as I will show by providing some facts about how OSF has funded the transgender movement..."(continues)

4thwavenow.com/2018/05/25/the-open-society-foundations-the-transgender-movement/

Michael Briggs has also written about free speech:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3257819-Michael-Biggs-Sociology-Dept-Oxford-Free-speech-at-Oxford-Do-women-have-the-right-to-meet-to-discuss-legislation

My mum said "you're coming at this from a backdrop of being a university teacher whose nice middle class students dabble in drugs but could give them up as soon as a better offer came along; I'm coming at it from a backdrop of being a school teacher in sink inner city schools, where my kids have nothing in their lives, and once they're on drugs, there's nothing to pull them back from the brink."
And it relies on the entire worldwide supply chain agreeing to legalise drugs, so countries destroyed and destabilised by drug cartels legitimise the kingpins (oligarchs, anyone) and permanently destroy the social fabric and political life of those countries - to satisfy rich western liberals. Look at drug and people trafficking offences in Holland - still high. Look at the state of Mexico - complete lawlessness in huge swathes, almost a failed state.

a liberalism which ignores the role poverty and inequality play in constraining choice, and and on the other hand a moral framework which tries to inject moral judgement into debates about porn, sex, the drugs trade, but a moral framework which can all too easily be hijacked by the far right
Are you arguing against having a moral framework because it could be hijacked by the far right? Surely moral relativism is the crux of the issue?

This is interesting on the sort of money associated with dissemination of puberty blockers, especially if you could persuade insurers or socialised healthcare systems to fund them.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/136/6/1029.full.pdf

(Not my subject so can't speak for its accuracy)

I sound like such a conspiracy theorist tonight! 🤦🏻‍♀️

sometimes there's a sort of zeitgeist which goes one way - towards rationality; or the other way - towards irrationalism and the darker side of human nature. The Enlightement spends a century pushing us in the right direction/ the Inquisition/Salem witch trials/McCarthyite paranoia spend decades or centuries pushing us in the opposite direction. I think we're entering one of these periodic historical eras of unreason.

Yes. I agree - maybe there isn’t a single driving force it’s ‘just’ a series of threads. Identity politics, white male backlash, austerity, environmental degradation, porn (oh god, porn.,, I mean where do we even start with how utterly awful modern porn is?)
Historically what brings people together again is an external threat big enough to threaten existence. So unless Aliens, the andromeda strain or a nice war pitch up, I think we’re a bit doomed. We are currently living in peaceful times on a global/historical perspective. Perhaps humans aren’t civilised enough to appreciate that. The last big social improvement was post war. That’s been fairly swiftly contained and is starting to be reversed.

Russia

My enemy's enemy is not my friend.

That is true. I don’t doubt for a second that the extreme right is anti feminist. As is the extreme left.

The right think women are private property and the left think they are public property.

We know that and we know that virtually NO party, movement or news outlet has women’s interests at heart. We are not aligning with any specific news outlet due to one article. Sometimes a good article is published in a surprising place. We don’t need to divide everyone into goodies and baddies and not listen to anything the baddies say. Women have, for millennia, been aware that no bugger has our back and that the entire political spectrum, left to right, wants us on our backs or in the kitchen. We don’t trust any of them.

Glad to have you on board!

Bowl I thnk that's a good point about porn. As I've mentioned before, I'm keen on fanfic. There's a kind of slogan on there (bit like TWAW) which goes "your kink is not my kink and that's okay." I've always been very dubious about that - some kinks are clearly NOT okay. I've been interested to watch a good friend of mine go from my position to a totally "anything goes" position, largely driven (she's American) by her reaction to Trump: if the people she sees lining up against extreme porn are right wing, then anything goes must be the correct position for a liberal to defend (even if she herself does not like extreme porn). (Kind of an inverse of 3mmy's point above).

It's taken me right back to an debate I had with my mum back in the past about drug decriminalization. I was a liberal who thought decrim would pull the rug out from under organised crime, and in any case what adults put into their own bodies was their business. My mum said "you're coming at this from a backdrop of being a university teacher whose nice middle class students dabble in drugs but could give them up as soon as a better offer came along; I'm coming at it from a backdrop of being a school teacher in sink inner city schools, where my kids have nothing in their lives, and once they're on drugs, there's nothing to pull them back from the brink."

I suspect that this tension - between on the one hand liberalism adopted from the best of motives, but a liberalism which ignores the role poverty and inequality play in constraining choice, and and on the other hand a moral framework which tries to inject moral judgement into debates about porn, sex, the drugs trade, but a moral framework which can all too easily be hijacked by the far right - this tension is a kind of smokescreen. It's a false dichotomy being pushed to distract us while we're all being played. But played by whom, and to what end?

Anyway, rambling a bit. But I think you're right. Not sure it's even an explicit conspiracy - just that sometimes there's a sort of zeitgeist which goes one way - towards rationality; or the other way - towards irrationalism and the darker side of human nature. The Enlightement spends a century pushing us in the right direction/ the Inquisition/Salem witch trials/McCarthyite paranoia spend decades or centuries pushing us in the opposite direction. I think we're entering one of these periodic historical eras of unreason.

If you're concerned that women are referring to too many articles from suspect publications then work on getting those publications that you do consider legit to cover this issue, rather than telling women not to refer to the little media coverage that currently exists.

Sorry, I changed my user name immediately after my first posting, so this is not sock-puppetry.