I didn’t leave the left. The left, left me.

[GenerativeAIBot]

Stop me if you have already heard this the last few days, I am trying to make sense of how I feel about Trump and other right leaning wins:

“Woke” issues being pushed to where they have been, has empowered the right by giving them something real and legitimate to campaign against. Something more than their usual transparently false bogeymen.

In general, Authoritarianism, compelled speech, no debate. Specifically men in women’s sports, in women’s changing rooms, unfettered immigration, being asked to ignore the evidence in front of our eyes.

This is happening across the world, Italy, France, Germany, USA, UK.

I remain entirely committed to progressive taxation, a social safety net, collective bargaining, workers rights, public schooling and health services as well as the rights of everyone to live contented, unmolested lives.

I reject identity politics in their entirety. For example, I consider terms like “Woman of colour” to be the epitome of divisive, racist, sexist thought patterns that seeks to infantilise people and move their locus of control from internal to external. Disempowering people and making them victims.

I didn’t leave the left. The left left me.

Reasonable?

It really is this kind of over simplistic reasoning - and the formation of strong and prejudicial ideas around it - that leads to the election of fascists like Trump.

I am interested in what you mean by the “social manifestations of our biological heritage”? Can you give an example?

“Gender identity” however is absolutely a theory. As such I prefer the phrase “trans identified male”, for a biological male.

If you don’t think humans are just as much animals, with instincts and drives, as every other animal, I do wonder what you were taught at school.

we’re really clever animals. With thumbs and phones. But animals none the less.

You usually begin with a big blob of Newspeak, doublethink and fallacy, shake in some argument by assertion, add a dab of attempted emotional blackmail and finish with a touch of deflection. Have you finally realised it doesn't work?

Edit: Ah, I see you edited. I see you've started with the fallacy this time, pretending that you've no idea biology exists and demanding everyone waste their time explaining the concept of sex as if it isn't well established. My bad...I did forget time wasting, obtuseness and obfuscation.

What do you mean by “gender identity”.

As such I prefer the phrase “trans identified male”

yes which is an extremely othering use of language and deeply hurtful to trans people . It also does not accurately describe their experience in any way.

That’s the usual but not unsurprising bullshit from TRA’s.

The issue is men. The issue is erasing language. Pregnant ‘people’ isn’t inclusive. Only women can become pregnant, people implies those other than women, which leaves men. If a trans man uses their female body to birth a child they shouldnt be surprised when the words ‘women’ and ‘female’ are used. As that’s what they are despite feeling differently.

Like all ideologies, you can believe anything, you can’t make others believe it too, or change law, policy and medical terminology to suit a minority.

Nobody is trying remove their access to healthcare. Another wild stretch that does more harm to the trans community than anyone who doesn’t believe in gender ideology.

It’s the most accurate descriptor and correct use of language.

What do you mean by “gender identity”.

Wait. So you don't have a definition of this either? But you know it trumps sex, which you also can't define? So you don't know what a man is, you don't know what a woman is, and you don't know what a gender identity is, but you know a man who wants to go into a women's area is a woman?

I think even O'Brien's head would explode on this one.

What you are doing here is entirely erasing trans experience . The left aren’t willing to erase trans experience because it is real.

Not Ideology- reality.

This is the problem.

Wow, did you really say 'coloured', OP? I see you now.

MN has become an odd place.

I'm saving this one 🤭

No one is being erased. Wear a dress. Call yourself Sandra.

you’re not a woman.

you’re not coming into my daughters changing room.

you’re not coming into women’s sports.

Exactly. This faux naivety is really sus.

The entire concept of gender is a theory, a belief, one that the vast majority of people do not agree with. It’s as much fantasy as religion.

“trans women” are men. Trans identified men. But still men. I refuse to call them women.

you said “gender identity is a theory”. Could you please explain what you mean by this?

In what way hasn't immigration worked? I mean, if it genuinely provided more problems than benefits why did the Tories allow it to increase for the last decade and a half?

Wear a dress. Call yourself Sandra

this is not what being trans is about. You do not understand or recognise what being trans is- you are simply determined to dismiss and ridicule what you perceive to be an artificial “concept”.
This is trans erasure.

You usually begin with a big blob of Newspeak, doublethink and fallacy, shake in some argument by assertion, add a dab of attempted emotional blackmail and finish with a touch of deflection. Have you finally realised it doesn't work?

It's not helping the pp, but I guess it's a particularly hard ideology to sell in otherwise

“Trans erasure” 😂😂👌

No, I didn't say that. Find the person who did. Look at the usernames. It becomes simpler once you accept that words mean things and that to mean one thing, they have to not mean other things. So the person who said this has one username, I have another, and that means we are different. Do you see how this works?

As an aside, though, full lol at you demanding definitions from people...

Social manifestation of biological heritage:

Ablesim - the belief that someone with a physical disability is a cost to society and that we can't/shouldn't afford that cost

Racism - the belief that people who look different are not 'one of us', and should be kept separate, outside our group

Ageism - the belief that someone who is aged is a cost to society and that we can't/shouldn't afford that cost, and/or that they are outdated and no longer of any use to society

Misogyny - a fear or hatred of women, mostly rooted in the fact that women are the ones who give birth

Patriarchy - the belief that women are inherently inferior to men and their primary purpose is/should be to serve the needs of men

(other definitions are available)

For each of these, I'm sure you can think of many specific examples.
Here's one: a person who can be sociable with a work colleague of different skin colour, but who would be horrified at their sibling marrying them.
Or: a man who refuses to ever clean the bathroom because that is 'woman's work'.

I refuse to call them women.

yes we know. And so does trump. And that is why you vote for him. That and because you share a desire to deport foreigners. We all fully understand. The majority of the left do not share these desires or behaviours which hurt trans people and immigrants. Hence your departure from the left,

I'm sympathetic to much of what you say., and agree the left have gone a bit mad. Where I think your argument is weaker is around terms like Women of Colour. In your first post explaining it, you said that it inevitably labels people as victims. In your second post, you say: - "Women of colour" is the phrase used to make you think and feel a certain way and behave a certain way about a particular type of person, thats the authoritarian part."

Both posts imply that a fixed, even forced, set of thoughts come with the label. This is not true. These are your and society's stereotypes, and you should own them. And indeed using these labels is one way to make those stereotypes more visible. When I think 'women of colour' I don't think victim, I think instinctively of beauty, pride, cultural richness and consciously challenging structural disadvantage and racism. And yes, I realise these descriptors may irritate you, because you may ask 'well aren't the rest of us?' But that's not the point. The point is you should not assume that your judgements have to go along with the label, but rather examine those judgements, challenge them in yourself, and be willing to reinvent them.

Being able to name yourself is a very important step in being able to say you are not invisible. It allows you to form coalitions (rather like the collective bargaining you support!). It asserts that other people don't get to name you and decide what you are and what is important for your experience. ("Coloured women" by the way is a label others have imposed in the past, including in South African apartheid, rather than "women of Colour" which is owned by many of those women and has a much more self-assertive ring to it. That is why the former is no longer welcomed by many).

Indeed, you could apply all the same thinking to our need (and right) to name oneself 'women' overall, which you do appear to approve of. This is the identity politics you seem to want to otherwise eradicate. Using this subdivider of the human race allows you to talk about women's issues. And say that being a woman is part of your identity and politics. That sex (just like race) matters. The fact that there is a huge diversity within the group doesn't matter (yes there are all kinds of women just as there are all kinds of women of colour). The fact that some people outside the group sometimes also experience some of what we experience (eg men being victims of domestic abuse or rape) doesn't mean you are not allowed to talk about and focus on women. (This is your argument about white women also experiencing racism, in your view invalidating the label of 'women of colour'.) The fact that people hold negative stereotypes about women (hysterical, pathetic, kind, soft, victims...) doesn't mean you shouldn't use the label, as you imply it does for 'women of colour'. And people telling you they despise the use of the word 'woman' because they want it eradicated it or see it differently to you, would be most objectionable, wouldn't it? So why are you doing it for 'women of colour'?

And before you say but 'women' are biological facts, while Women of Colour is just a societal construct, this is not true. Women of colour have highly diverse beauty, skin and hair needs- but they are united by not needing or wanting what white women want, which is still the majority/default supply in many countries. Finding suppliers that cater for women of colour is much harder if you can't look for that label or similar. And the issues go way beyond beauty. For example, Black women are far more likely to get triple negative breast cancer than white women (the most severe kind). They are also more likely to get it younger (so need Mammogram screening earlier - they are currently badly let down by the age guidelines in the UK and US, which cater better for white bodies. Their symptoms can also show up differently, leading to ill-trained doctors educated only about white bodies, to misdiagnose. The medicines are also less well suited, because white women are disproportionately represented in medical trials, (just as they used to test women's drugs on male bodies!) All this, plus socio-economic difference correlating with race, and the institutional racism they face in care, means Black women in the USA are 42% more likely to die of their breast Cancer than their white counterparts, for example. These inequities are mirrored for many women of colour. Being able to talk about Black women and their unique health needs - to educate doctors and enable more empowered self advocacy is hard to do without dipping one's toe in the identity politics you despise.....we need to be able to say 'women of Colour exist, matter, and sometimes have specific histories or needs that deserve attention.'

It sounds like you are saying it's ok to advocate on the basis of sex, but not race. If so, ask yourself why.

Because it artificially improved productivity and GDP. The real answer was to boost birth rates but that takes 25 years to have an effect and politicians think with a 5 year timeline.

In what way is gender identity a theory? Come on now. Gender is a useful tool to crowbar space between sex and the expectations that society thrusts upon people to keep them in the right lane. Boys don't cry, girls can't do maths, boys are frogs and snails and puppy dog's tails and girls are sugarplums and spice and all things nice.

Deciding that gender then is the inherent self, that it's actualisation is the goal is not only a theory but incredibly regressive.