'a certain kind of sex is vanishing from the internet'

[agender]

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/30/congress-online-sex-trafficking-bill-impact-sex-workers-craigslist

One of the Guardian's euphemisms. They repeat it " a particular genre of online sex, it seems, is vanishing from the internet."

They are referring to prostitution.

Why do they use euphemisms?

I think Lisa is right in her analysis - the mediating class as she calls it, of liberal commentators, journalists, policy makers and politicians is now completely dominated by bourgeois identity politics and cannot even see the impact of policy on ordinary people, especially women and children, let alone begin to formulate policy that will benefit them.

I think its time to be honest about where we were wrong about politics. Its every bit as important as being right.

I am not always right, and I was utterly blind to it.

It is not weak to u-turn if that's based on an epiphany or an acknowledge of the need to compromise even if that's not our ideal outcome.

We all need to do more to encourage this when we talk about politics. Make it easier to backtrack and think again without negative political consequences.

I think we need to get better at backing down from arguments on social media for this reason, as the confrontation is unhelpful. The goal is to encourage critical thought not 'win' an argument.

Move the goal posts and I think it will help the quality of debate in social media.

Do more listening and questioning, rather than simply trying to 'win' an online argument.

Yes please! This is exactly what I have been thinking after getting drawn into the trans debate very recently. It's like a pitched battle with TRAs yelling "transwomen are women" while we repeatedly make the same points about men in bathrooms that are dismissed as scaremongering and irrelevant - and tbh I do find some of the arguments feel like scaremongering - despite being based on legitimate concerns- and I can perfectly understand how they are perceived as such by those with opposing views. That's not going to help to persaude someone who believes they are defending the rights of an oppressed minority of the issues for women. Having said that, these sort of examples (male nurse claiming to be female when a woman asks for a smear done by another woman) are likely to get through to people who haven't thought about the implications of self-I'D.

For example this from the thread above

Liberalism is the natural home for anyone with a sexual kink, whether that be the more dodgy kind of trans or paedophilia

If I were on the TRA 'side' of the debate. I would be appalled at the blatant connection drawn between trans and paedophilia and start ranting about how homosexuality was similarly attacked not so long ago. I know that isn't what you meant, but if we genuinely want to persaude people of the issues, we need to be less polemic than that.

I am genuinely trying to understand both sides of the argument. I don't accept the 'transwomen are women' mantra. I think it's offensive and dangerous, but I am still listening to anyone making cogent arguments, rather than hurling abuse.

I think its time to be honest about where we were wrong about politics. Its every bit as important as being right.

I am not always right, and I was utterly blind to it.

I was quick on the uptake regarding the implications of austerity for women but miles behind in realising the same implications of transactivism. Like many hereabouts, I was stuck in the belief that the movement was all about transsexuals like my friend and read all the Grauniad pieces through that prism. Did not invoke critical thinking processes at all and simply did not notice that a men's sexual rights movement had hijacked transactivism and was now dominating it.

Similarly, I can understand how people who saw the financial collapse of 2008 and felt that the nation's finances needed retrenchment and read all the some cuts are necessary Grauniad articles through that prism, without thinking through how the way austerity was being applied would impact on vulnerable women (but not the article-writing middle classes).

Victoria Peckham's point today about Corbyn making things worse by continually picking aside instead of building bridges was, I thought, extremely perceptive.

If I were on the TRA 'side' of the debate. I would be appalled at the blatant connection drawn between trans and paedophilia and start ranting about how homosexuality was similarly attacked not so long ago.

I think what we need to do is draw a distinction between transactivism (which most certainly is advocating for the dropping of safeguarding protocols and will most certainly enable paedophiles and abusers) and trans people, who individually may be for or against what transactivism is proposing. It's an exact parallel of the promotion of PIE during the struggle for gay liberation. Opposing PIE doesn't mean you were against gay liberation. Opposing extreme transactivism doesn't mean you hate transsexuals.

This is the cycle of leftist politics, notice how they rarely, if ever solve problems? However that isn't really the object of the excercise the purpose of all of this is to provide the powerful with more power, and yes that usually means men.

All of this is designed to set group against group, be it women vs men, race vs race or religion vs religion. By being divided it's easier to control a population. Feminism I'm sad to say has been a major handmaiden to this whole endeavour. Which is a shame as it's quite clear in practical terms there is still a long way to go for women.

The first great lie is that wealth just somehow exists as if deposited as mana from heaven, and all that happens is the evil wealthy through privilege and exploitation hoover up way more of it than is their fair share. If you swallow the lie that wealth is not created it just exists as if by magic the whole socialist agenda becomes not only right but desirable. After all who doesn't want a more equitable and fair world? However it's through that fundemental quality of empathy and compassion that they get you and manipulate you.

Women have effectively been married off to and made dependant on the government. Which is the antithesis of empowering women. I'd like to see a feminist analysis of economics that isn't just regurgitated Marxism. I notice we attach little actual monetary value on the labour that only women can do that if they didn't the whole of society would just die out. In fact to my eyes every economic system actually penalises women economically for this rather than reward them. Socialism included.

Is transactivism the right word then? If I were an activist campaigning for the rights of trans people I would probably call myself a transactivist and could perfectly well just be campaigning for rights, not seeking to legalise abuse surely?

And the liberal democrats have just totally lost the plot when they don't understand the origin of their own bloody name.
Totally this^^

CritEqual can you explain to me how wealth is created that doesn't involve the exploitation of the labour of others (i.e. basic socialist/Marxism?) Genuine question. I have spent the last 20 years thinking hard about molecular biology and only a little bit about politics /economics

Is transactivism the right word then? If I were an activist campaigning for the rights of trans people I would probably call myself a transactivist and could perfectly well just be campaigning for rights, not seeking to legalise abuse surely?

If you are an activist campaigning for the rights of trans people, would you consider increased risk for women and children as acceptable consequences/collateral damage? If so, you are simultaneously campaigning for abusers and paedophiles. If you refuse to accept this, you are a misogynist and a paedophile apologist.

If, on the other hand, you are an activist campaigning for trans rights and accept that rights are often in conflict with each other and solutions must be sought that balance those conflicts with as little collateral damage as possible, you are neither a misogynist nor a paedophile apologist.

Ask yourself which of these characterises current dominant transactivism centring on GRA reform for self-ID (hello Shon, hello Jane, hello India, hello Owen) and you have your answer.

I notice we attach little actual monetary value on the labour that only women can do that if they didn't the whole of society would just die out.

What would the shape of the economy look like if unpaid reproductive and care labour was assigned a notional monetary value and included in GDP? This is a question I often ask myself since this labour is the most reliable labour in the country.

quillette.com/2018/03/30/plea-trans-activists-can-protect-trans-rights-without-denying-biology/

LangCleg okay got it - I am learning. Still not sure calling people paedos is going to help change their mind. ..

Sorry just on my way out. The link above by deborah hayton is the exact sort of thing we need more of.

Still not sure calling people paedos is going to help change their mind

Nobody's calling anybody paedos. You're falling into the bear trap laid by the TRAs. People are saying that TRA demands opens the door not only for trans people but also for abusers, including paedophiles. And when they say that, TRAs are saying that's the same as calling all trans people paedos.

They are saying this because they think vulnerability to paedophiles is an acceptable consequence of expanding trans rights via self-ID. And they want you to shut up pointing this out because they know 99% of the population will agree if they realise this is one of the consequences. So they misrepresent the point to force you to stop making it.

It's gaslighting on a societal scale.

LangCleg Yes, all the things you are saying are true I think. But what I am saying is that, from the perspective of someone who believes they are defending genuine trans people, feminists drawing parallels between them and paedophiles appear to be scaremongering in a nasty way. It won't help to persaude them of your point of view.

LangCleg Yes, all the things you are saying are true I think. But what I am saying is that, from the perspective of someone who believes they are defending genuine trans people, feminists drawing parallels between them and paedophiles appear to be scaremongering in a nasty way. It won't help to persaude them of your point of view.

But they are irredeemable. Who's trying to persuade someone who's willing to advocate for dropping safeguarding for women and children? We're trying to get the general public to understand that self-ID involves the dropping of safeguarding for women and children and that there are huge consequences to that.

Try this thread today from Lisa M, the same person Red Tooth Brush quoted earlier:

twitter.com/lisamuggeridge3/status/980018065487343621

CritEqual can you explain to me how wealth is created that doesn't involve the exploitation of the labour of others (i.e. basic socialist/Marxism?)

Your question is based on the false premise that paying an employee for their labour is always exploitation. It is not- there is the potential for exploitation but that potential is severely constrained , certainly in western Europe, by a raft of employment and health and safety legislation.

It is not- there is the potential for exploitation but that potential is severely constrained , certainly in western Europe, by a raft of employment and health and safety legislation

Won by trades unions. Arguing that their labour was being exploited. My DH is self-employed and thinking of employing staff. Hopefully the relationship would be mutually beneficial. But he will still be exploiting the labour of the employee to some extent, to 'create' wealth for himself.

Succinctly put.

But he will still be exploiting the labour of the employee to some extent, to 'create' wealth for himself.

He will also be taking a risk that it could all go tits up and leave him with nothing. Businesses do fail - often. There is nothing to stop the people he employs to make his wealth deciding to go self-employed themselves and remove themselves from being"exploited".

This (promotion of incest) is yet another descent Into the post Christian swamp. The examples are coming thick and fast as every last moral decency is being stripped away from society- as outdated, prudish, bigoted- It's not hard to see what direction this is going. Every day there's something being pushed- polygamy, incest, transgender. The undoing of civilised society.

There is nothing to stop the people he employs to make his wealth deciding to go self-employed themselves and remove themselves from being"exploited".

There may be many things stopping them. DH (and myself actually, but i'm not at the stage of considering staff) both went self-employed after being made redundant. We were lucky to have had good educations, to have one another to rely on financially when starting up, to have good credit ratings. Not everyone is in that position.

MissyMoo you've lost me there..
How tf are "polygamy, incest, transgender" equivalent? They're not.

LangCleg your arguments make sense, but I find the idea that all trans activists are irredeemable too pessimistic. Surely some can be persuaded that they've swallowed a dangerous lie.

Arguing that their labour was being exploited. My DH is self-employed and thinking of employing staff. Hopefully the relationship would be mutually beneficial. But he will still be exploiting the labour of the employee to some extent, to 'create' wealth for himself

What a bizarre way of looking at things. Exploit can have a neutral meaning make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource) but that is lost when used in the sense of "exploiting people" /"exploited people"

If your husband thinks he will be exploiting his future employees perhaps he is not cut out to be an employer.