The Liberals response to TRAs shows why Brexit/Trump won

[cista]

At least I think so....

All this #nodebate, "transwomenarewomen", "terfblocker", "bigot", "transphobe", "penisphobe", "transistor", "lalalala! I can't hear you"...

Is quite similar to how some liberals were in the run-up to Brexit/ Trump.

"If you vote leave, you're racist."

"If you don't vote Hilary, you're a misogynist!"

"I refuse to debate with anyone that supports Trump/ Brexit"

And what happened? People voted how they wanted and the ring-wing won.

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

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 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.....

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.

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.

I think it’s more complex than that but there is certainly some truth in it.

Being on a different side of this issue has made me think about the way some left wingers dismiss the views of others in a different light.

Yes, I'd agree wholeheartedly that the Transactivism splits other groupings very effectively.

That's why it's so attractive for disruptivists - who may have no interest either way regarding actual transsexual people, or may be actively antipathetic to trans rights but find the subject a useful vehicle.

I disagree that Bannon has any qualms about destabilizing identities though. There's his core group – white, male-centred, Christian-ish – to be validated and upheld; then there's The Others. Details for The Others are unimportant except where they can be used as weaknesses to divide and undermine the enemy.

(I say Bannon, but I mean the alt-right project as backed by Mercer.)

(I can dig out some material on the Mercer project later, if anyone's interested. Might be wandering a off-topic for this thread, though.)

Brexit was not a landslide

Neither did Trump win by a landslide

So I would not be complacent or naive about “the left”, or “liberals”.

Theresa May made that mistake and lost a huge majority as a result.

the way some left wingers dismiss the views of others in a different light

Is that a tenent of being left wing though? I would argue that’s an issue on all side street.

I'm finding what you have to say about destabilisation fascinating, Perking.

I think there is some truth in what the OP says.

One example is "basket of deplorables". I absolutely cringed when I heard that I wondered how many votes that was going to cost Hillary Clinton.

@cromeyellow0 who are the other billionaires bankrolling trans activist and how do you know that they are? I'm curious as I've been totally perplexed by the money going into this

Naomi Klein's articulation of disaster opportunism made a big impact on me, thecatfromjapan, and I now notice it in a lot of arenas.

And if you don't get a natural disaster, make your own.

In particular, we keep hearing about "disruptive" technology and business practices. Ie break down existing structures, chuck as many chips in the air as you can, in the hope that well-placed (often well-funded and powerful) bodies can seize as many of the chips as possible on the way down.

Sometimes a disruption can be, say, WWI and the bodies seizing benefit from it are women, who get the vote; or WWII, and the country getting universal healthcare.

Sometimes the disruption is Uber claiming it's not a taxi company, so regulation doesn't apply to it, and it can therefore undercut rivals who obey the regulations.

Sometimes it's Facebook claiming it isn't a news organisation, and therefore laws about political advertising don't apply to it, making it vulnerable to being used as platform by the Internet Research Agency, ie Russian troll-house.

SeaChanges, I don't which specific named billionaires crome is referring to, but there's Russian government money going into this too.

I have to do dinner, and may not be able to get back to this tonight, but will try to dig out refs tomorrow.

@PerkingFaintly how ironic considering being gay in Russia lands you jail. And with all their "anti homosexual" laws you would think they would on the side of binary genders

Well absolutely. It's not that they're pro trans people. They're just pro Russia, and this is a convenient wedge for them to drive.

BTW (sorry, have a mo while it's in the oven), someone mentioned George Soros above.

Soros' Open Society Foundations has had a Women's Rights Program for years.

www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about/programs/women-s-rights-program
The past several years have seen women’s rights set back by the global economic crisis, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and a surge in political conservatism. Increasingly, women all over the world are denied access to power, resources, information, and basic rights. The Women’s Rights Program works to improve the lives of women by advancing women’s rights, equality, and participation in decision making, particularly in places where the forces rolling back these rights are most severe.

Through grant making, advocacy, capacity and coalition building, and organizing meetings and exchanges, we support efforts to strengthen access to justice, protect women’s sexual and reproductive rights, and promote economic advancement.

He is deeply hated by some on the right by this. Surprise surprise.

I don't know what the claim about Soros funding TRAs is about. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there's some trans stuff in the Foundations' health programs or rights programs (especially considering what happens to trans people in some countries). But he's given millions over the years to actively promoting women's rights internationally, so doesn't seem the most likely person to be funding TRAs as a deliberate attack on women.

George Soros is a Holocaust survivor, someone who is keen on human rights, and a multi-billionaire. It is possible his support for trans people is something that he thinks is the right thing to do. Even if he's misguided.

Well, the Angry People, who hated Liberals making them feel stupid (a narrative I question, frankly) seem to have what they wanted with regard to Brexit, anyway. Which the government's own figures now suggest will impact most strongly in the North East (16% hit to GDP there with a No Deal scenario), 20% price rises across the board, and an £80 billion hit to public finances. That's quite a bill for hurt feelings.

Frankly, I think the whole narrative of "I voted Leave because the Remainers made me do it" is utter bollocks. I hear it repeated on MN all the time, but I have yet to see a MNer actually say that's why she voted Leave. It would, of course, be genuinely silly to vote for such economic devastation for whole regions of the UK for those regions.

As for the Trans debate, I think it is far more nuanced than a Lib Fem/Rad Fem split, or a conservative/Liberal split. It's fascinating to see an OP trying to forge the analogy between pro-Trans progressives and Remainers. A somewhat unlikely analogy, I'd say.