Smegg Wallace

There are plenty of socialist anti-trans and also Christian (which isn't even 100% right wing as such) anti trans. Don't let anyone make you think it's only a select particular ideology that are anti- trans; it definitely can be people across the whole spectrum of political beliefs and none.

I'm a bible-believing Catholic and that's where I get my positions about how society should be run from.

So I have to be anti-trans and pro-refugee, for instance.

People try to portray Christians as right wing (or even some right wing commentators are professing Christians but only stick to right wing topics.)

But the condemnation of Christians as 'right wing' is all due to the modern 'progressive left' being all about moral relativism and self-indulgence.

After all, if he was truly acting just as an individual without wider societal backing, he'd be immediately ejected from the ladies loos by other guys if the women themselves didn't do it. But trans movement has big (perceived) societal acceptance so he isn't.

Two things.

One - 'other guys' aren't in the women's loos, so how would they know if there was a man in there? They'd have to actually see him going in, so they have a second or two at that point to notice. I think plenty of men, if they saw an obvious male following their daughter/wife/mother into the ladies would say something, but they have to be watching at that precise moment.

Two - a lot of men have a pretty weird take on this. They see men who masquerade as women as 'not real men'. I remember a thread on here a couple of years ago, where a poster said that a colleague turned up at work one Monday morning wearing a dress and saying his name was Diana (or something), and the men turned round and told him if he was a woman he should use the women's loos. Not because they believed in genderism and thought he was actually a woman, but because they didn't want him in the men's, which was for real men. Homophobia may have played a part, even though it's more likely that a middle-aged male transitioner is heterosexual.

I think a couple of people reading my post and thinking 'but women are a group, the transperson is not, therefore trans is individual rather than group' are not understanding my point. Women are a group but to mistake that for being representative of Society is, well, optimistic. And this argument takes place in the context of general social consensus. GC women aren't remotely representative of all women (at least in the West). I probably know of more women who are on board with the TWAW/Be Kind/LGBTQWTFBBQ than I do men. The trans movement is enforced on individuals like GC women (and men) as the approved beliefs of society. No point in denying that. If it was all about freedom of expression, the situation would be nothing like this. And again, for all the theory crafting the observable fact is that the trans movement is by far the most backed by Leftist organisations and politicians and the gender woo crowd for the most part in my experience lean heavily Leftist / Democrat / Momentum, etc.

@OldCrone
"In transgenderism, the right of the individual to free expression is paramount."

And broadly speaking the Right doesn't want to prohibit that, it is true. But the transgender person isn't seeking free expression, they are seeking validation from the society around them and boy do they pursue those who deny them it. The problem with transgenderism isn't the individual claiming they are X. It is the socially determined value system that affirms it and punishes those who go against it. That's not an Individualist attitude. That's a group-minded attitude.

(Note, Right = Individualist, Left = Collectivist is a simplification. But these are the traits that tend to draw one to this end or the other).

I think you gave a better take on it than I did. I like your explanation of why IdPol aren't individualistic. They never felt it to me - very much the opposite. It's an assigned identity, or in the case of queer and trans a socially approved identity, in place of the actual individual characteristics in play. A transwoman has male genitalia but the social role of being a "woman" takes precedence over any actual facts about the real individual. Same principle applies in other social identities. They matter more to the Left than the actual real attributes and behaviour. I'm trying to remember where I saw some person or guidance that said White women shouldn't report rapes if the perpetrator was non-White because it played into Right Wing narratives, or maybe it was reinforced White privilege. Something like that. Leftism is essentially Society > Individual. And whilst I can see how someone sees "women" as a group and "the transwoman" as the individual, I think the reality is that the latter is the socially protected role. After all, if he was truly acting just as an individual without wider societal backing, he'd be immediately ejected from the ladies loos by other guys if the women themselves didn't do it. But trans movement has big (perceived) societal acceptance so he isn't.

Yes, even the idea that they were "assigned" at birth. What does the midwife base her assignment on I wonder? The colour of the mums nightie? The day of the week? I've only just started the podcast and it's truly brilliant, but I can see there's a trans episode coming up and I'm betting its not about gender dysmorphia being a mental illness.

In transgenderism, the right of the individual to free expression is paramount. A man has the right to declare himself to be a woman regardless of the effect on the rest of society. Everyone who objects to this is labelled a bigot. The social good (the effect on the rest of society) is not considered at all.

I think this is why the communist party (in the UK as well as other countries) tend to be against the 'I am what I say I am' of transgenderism. Because one person being allowed to declare that they are what they say they are, in conflict with reality, affects the whole of society. It is an extreme form of individualism, which doesn't really fit with socialism.

And far from privileging the view of 'do not cause offence', men masquerading as women (Dylan Mulvaney, Eddie Izzard), cause great offence to many women. Those men are allowed freedom of expression. Women who object are not.

Transgenderism is extreme individualism. It is not left wing.

I think identity politics is a bit of a weird one in terms of where it fits in.

It's certainly used by the economic libertarians and corporate capitalists as a way to feel moral without looking at things like poverty or whatever seriously. The modern anti-racist analysis, for example, is zero danger to the super rich, so long as they can make sure there are super-rich people who aren't white.

On the other hand, id pol comes out of a lefftist group/class analysis lens that has moved away from economic class and role, and now uses groupings based on identity. And it has some of the other features of left politics, like a tendency to utopianism that doesn't really care about reality, a tendency to be willing to sacrifice individuals to the good of the group - I think we all know that the left has long had issues with certain kinds of social engineering.

I am not sure that I really do think gender ideology or id pol are individualistic as such. They truly think people are defined by their identity category, hense the vitriol towards those they see as race or class traitors. They do however have some very weird ideas about subjectivity.

Hang in there. You don't need to throw out everything you value or believe in some Damascene conversion. You can still support unions or high progressive taxation or whatever else you consider part of your political identity. And you most certainly have not become any less compassionate or caring. What you are realising is that your movement has been captured. It doesn't mean it was wrong.

You've actually done a very brave thing in breaking from the beliefs of those around you to choose your own. Though you may blame the TRA movement, the fact is once you've seen you can never unsee. But would you want to go back to where you were anyway?

Yup, I have to fast forward the intro on ADAD AF. I mean it's a great idea to have a podcast for women, it's just sad that they don't feel they're allowed to without "of course we only know about being AFAB, all genders are welcome" disclaimer.

I mean whoever wants to can listen to a podcast, of course. It's just cringy to hear all the women doing podcasts etc for women but they feel they have to use "inclusive language" at all times, instead of owning the fact that ADHD affects women so much differently, for example.

My mp voted in favour of clarifying the definition of sex in the EA last week. I’ve written to my mp numerous times on these issues and been out protesting but I don’t hold much faith in our power to change things through voting.

If we all made our feelings known through our rights to peaceful protest and bombarding our representatives with our evidence backed concerns I think that’s a more effective way forward.
boycotts have also been very successful, vote with your feet, write to your mp, don’t comply in your own behaviours and support other women who are struggling under the pressure to comply.

I should have added that whatever theorycrafting is fun, the empirical reality is that the trans movement is heavily backed and promoted by the current Left far more than it is the political Right. And when theory meets reality, it is theory that must adjust.

Now one can argue that the current Left is not a real Left by one's own definitions. Just as one can argue that 3rd wave feminism isn't what you may mean by feminism personally. But imo it's very unfair to put the TRA movement on the Right when far more of the resistance historically has been from that sector.

On the contrary - it privileges a social good (do not cause offense) over an individual's right to free expression.

I get it OP, it can be very disconcerting to realise you are on a different side than your tribe on certain issues. it sort of shakes your foundations a bit.

I always saw myself as a leftie liberal, and when I thought of 'right wing', I thought anti-abortion, anti immigration, against gay marriage - which I vehemently disagree with. But more and more these days I find myself veering on the more conservative side these days, I suppose because I realise so many things are not black and white but far more complex.

However, this issue is so different to me, it's not like there is a middle ground here where we can compromise. People cannot change sex, and the only people that really lose out with this shit are women and girls - it blows open so much latent misogyny that is present in everyday life.

And I'm reminded of what I was told when i was younger about always asking questions. Don't be afraid to question something, and be suspicious of anyone who wants to stop you doing so. What are they so afraid of? This movement is so terrified of questions and criticism that it lashes out - that is not normal or healthy. None of it makes sense in a rational society.

The fact that we are just expected to move aside and make room, to our own detriment, the fact that a lot of self claimed 'progressive' men get very angry when women assert boundaries. It's just blatant unfairness. But somehow we're the bad guys for pointing that out.

Left and right means nothing anymore, get over yourself.
would you like to be described as someone who cheers on paedophiles because you’re proudly on the left?

<passes OP 🍷>
You don't have to rejig everything all at once. The important thing is that you are asking the questions. Breathe deeply and take your time.

When annoyed by a policy put forward by, well, anyone, the question I try and ask myself is, 'What could you do instead, then?' Followed up by, 'How would that pan out? What other issues might it cause? How much would it cost? Will taxpayers be happy about it?'

I say try and ask myself. Mostly I just rant and fume like a small volcano.

Gender identity supports individuals to colonise and devalue community assets, to the detriment of roughly half the population

Thanks for expressing that so clearly and succinctly, Hagosaurus. When people call genderism ‘left wing’, I never fail to point out it is fundamentally right wing — privileging the individual over the community and ignoring the public good. You have expressed it better!

most powerful people are powerful people first and whatever else they label themselves as second. (And that applies to any 'wing')

Absolutely!

Many moons ago I had a neighbour who had moved out from Dagenham with her factory-worker husband into a socially mixed large village/ small town. The Labour candidate canvassed her and she told him that no, sorry, love, I'm voting Conservative.

He told her she was voting against her class and should vote Labour, at which she monumentally lost her shit (she never was a patient soul), vowed never to vote Labour ever ever again and told anyone who would listen, including my mother, what a patronising plonker he was.

I was probably about 12. It was my introduction to class analysis.

@Musomama1
"Cheryl Hole is beyond the pale for me too on teatime telly. Reminds me of Kenny Everett's Cupid Stunt, but that was post watershed adult comedy."

The thing with Kenny Everett though, is his comedy was all done in the best possible taste.

@BaronMunchausen
I enjoyed your reply to my post. Also The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is one of my favourite films! :) I owe you a proper response which will unfortunately take me a little time. What I will say in brief is that for all the theory-crafting about what you would expect from the Right based on your perception of our gender stereotyping, the reality is that the trans movement hasn't erupted from the Right. It's been very much more nursed into its current form by the right. When theory and reality don't match up, it is theory that must change. But this may read more confrontational than I intend. Your response was interesting and I want to reply properly to it in a bit. I can't resist pointing out right now in response to your comment about history that back in the day the Spectator was calling for an end to slavery in the USA and boycotting of their goods, whilst the Guardian was writing apologetics for slavery and arguing for its continuance. There were definitely female slaves. Okay, I'll stop myself until I can reply properly but I hope at least it's accepted that "right wing" =/= "bad person".

That leads me onto a more general comment about my own experience. When I was young I recall that I had a vague awareness of how people tended to become conservative or right wing with age (in my mind at the time they were probably the same thing). And I was determined that I myself wouldn't lose my principles like so many others. And indeed I don't think I have. If anything my principles are stronger now than they were back then. But what caught me off guard was not that what I valued changed, but my belief in what actually worked changed. And so my shift to being a self-described right-winger isn't a shift in values, but, imo, a shift in approach.

@Allthegoodnamesarechosen goodnamesarechosen
"Re right wing / left wing : I just want point out that the first woman MP in UK was elected on a Conservative ticket, selected and promoted by the party (not dissimilar to the first Jewish Prime Minister) ."

When Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party all the Labour members in the local council office were celebrating - quite literally celebrating. Because, word for word: "Britain will never elect a woman as prime minister". Alice Weidel leader of the AfD in Germany, the prime minister of Serbia (name escapes me) - both strong female leaders and right wing.

@lady69
"Truly “right wing” are the equivalent of anti-fa on the far left."

Hardly!

@Binturongs
Great post. Gave me a couple of things to think about. Regarding this bit in particular it reminds me of something: " think it's very easy to fall for the idea that because feminists[1] tend [2] to be left wing, then the left wing must be feminist. Which is very much not the case - the left as a whole has always had a strong strand of misogyny and 'after the revolution, love'. Sure, we'll look at women's rights - once the important things have been fixed."

For a little time in the USA the Progressive Left courted the euphoric atheists. Which was far more of an American thing than UK but people will recall lots of Richard Dawkins on TV, "The God Delusion" in bookshops, etc. Well given the influence of religion in the USA and its entwinement with the Right (not actually always the case in the USA's history - the alliance came later), this seemed like a good recruiting and media base for the Progressive Left. Which it was for a very brief period before they realised that whilst the Euphoric Atheists certainly did lay into the Christian Right in America, they were also equally enthusiastic about laying into Islam, talking about Mohammed's nine year old wife, etc. And they were promptly dropped from the Progressive Left like a hot potato. Which is not a tiny part why their movement vanished as abruptly as it appeared. My point is that there's really a couple of Lefts. There's the well-intentioned and there's the, well, other side. And I feel they use women's rights in exactly the same way. And that actually ties right back into the topic at hand because they're not getting the mileage out of that they used to. Oh, some. But not as much as they get from the new hotness of trans rights. Much like these people did a quick bit of maths and said: "Making ourselves the party that speaks for Muslims gives us more power than a bunch of atheists in fedoras", they now, I believe, make the same calculations that they can ride along on the trans movement more than they can on the women's movement which is why women are getting the worse end of the stick in any conflict between the two. It's cynical but most powerful people are powerful people first and whatever else they label themselves as second. (And that applies to any 'wing'). Plus the trans movement knows which side its bread is buttered. It's dependent on its powerful backers in a way that women simply are not. That makes them loyal.

(Footnote, I don't think anybody ever asked Muslims - who are mostly pretty conservative people - whether they wanted Left Wing politicians and talking heads to be their voice, but c'est de la politiques).

Okay. I am self-described Right Wing. My own bias is probably showing in this post and whilst I will happily debate Right vs. Left in great detail, to do so would detract from what actually matters here - that people of different general political backgrounds can come together and deal with what we all know is wrong. There will be differences - Right Wing feminism is much more focused on individual rights and old school equal opportunity. Left Wing feminism is more focused on equity and changing society. But I think some things are so basically essential to women's rights that there should be no barrier to co-operation. And I'm really pleased to see this happening more and more. All sorts of things are used to divide us because if we're fighting each other we're not fighting Them.™

OP I'm a hitherto open minded lefty too but turns out that my pretty mediocre boundaries derail me into the right wing camp 🤣🤣🤣

Cheryl Hole is beyond the pale for me too on teatime telly. Reminds me of Kenny Everett's Cupid Stunt, but that was post watershed adult comedy.

Re Kae Tempest. I'm bracing myself for Courtney Barnett declaring herself NB. My take is though that ultimately people can think of themselves as they want to, but policing of language and reality based facts of everyone else is not on.

I think a lot of us humble along reading and absorbing the politic of our group and of what we perceive to be shorthand for right actions, morality etc, by outsourcing our decisions to the leading few. Something that this subject has brought up for so many women now in such a vivid, immediate and painful way is how fickle, dangerous, stupid or creepy some of these shafter politicians are, no matter which side they are on.