Jennifer Pritzker strops

[gcscience]

Oh I know "family action" sounds a bit traditional and so on, but put your prejudices aside and you might find yourself, like me, agreeing with every word of this most refreshingly phrased article!

illinoisfamilyaction.org/2019/01/the-trans-identifying-pritzker-issues-ultimatum-to-gop/

I still don’t understand saying “put your prejudices aside”. If the didn’t ring any alarm bells for you then what prejudices are you talking about?

OldCrone that is exactly it! I've often seen posters on these boards described as part of the religious right, when the truth is, many/most posters are probably to the left of the person who is saying this.

With this, and Brexit, we're living in a time when the predictable divides between political 'factions' can no longer be assumed.

But I'm still not prepared to get into a metaphorical bed with religious fundamentalists.

I think we are all free to read pretty much what we like, regardless of whether or not we agree with every point that is being made. Otherwise you just have pointless factionalism and virtue signalling - no matter what your political identity.

For many people these days fixed political identities are dissolving, as people from all spectrums unite around issues that are no longer rigidly ascribed.

I agree with every word in that piece. It matters not who wrote it.

The difficulty with blanket dismissals of the article that you entirely agree with based solely on the source is that those views that you entirely agree with are still shared by that group.

So, whether you find it a comfortable place to be or not, there are groups with whom you disagree profoundly who are campaigning for the exact same things as you.

Now, I appreciate that it is everyone's right to operate in this movement as they feel they must. This is a given. But if you don't understand and deal head on with the fact that there are many ostensibly on your side in it that you find objectionable, it will become a fatal weakness. And the next time Owen Jones or whoever comes along with their accusations of you being an alt-right fundamentalist who all decent people should reject, a lot of people are going to buy it.

Now, you can deal by eschewing everyone who you disagree with about other things and only sharing from sources you entirely approve of. It's a tactic, yes. But you will still spend a lot of time explaining why you share some views with people you despise, because it will be brought up.

Or you can say up front, 'Look, I don't agree with everything these people think, by any means, but this particular thing is spot on.'

That meme about two very different people agreeing the sky is blue seems appropriate at this point, but I don't have a copy.

Nobody needs to justify, or apologise, for agreeing with anything, if they agree with it.

Women used to think that gay men were friends, and that most left-thinking people understood what was at the roots of women's liberation and feminism. Alas, this is no longer the case - as old loyalties break down and people re-align in places they feel, or think, best represent their specific interests.People of all colours and persuasions rub shoulders these days - as old certainties pas away. Just look at the whole Brexit issue.

A lot of left leaning men, and women, are these days aligned against women's best interests - in supporting the sex industry in the name of liberalism, and in their belief that one can change sex, and that women's boundaries are irrelevant.

The things is, they don't believe exactly the same thing. At a basic level, they may appear to be against the TRA agenda, as are we. But when you dig deeper, they actually believe something very different. We oppose the TRA because we understand that their agenda is dangerous to the rights and dignity of women. They oppose it for the same reason they oppose gay rights, or the Black Lives matter movement: because they are fundamentally opposed to the rights (and the humanity) of anyone who isn't a white, right-wing fundamentalist. They aren't against self-id, they are against trans people having rights at all. And they certainly are promoting the rights of women, they are campaigning to have them reduced.

If we align ourselves with them on the basis that superficially we are fighting the same battle, that is when we open ourselves up to criticism from the like of Sanctimonious Morph. If we keep our distance, keep plugging away with the message that we are fighting against what is basically misogyny, then we can hold our heads up and criticise the misogyny coming from both factions.

Sorry, if this is garbled, I've got to go and do some work so typing in a hurry, but basically, it is not in our interests to ally ourselves with bigoted people who would remove our rights just as happily as they would remove trans rights. They are not fighting the same corner as we are, they have a very different agenda. For us, this is not about taking someone else's rights, it is about protecting our own.

And they certainly are promoting the rights of women, they are campaigning to have them reduced.

Aren't promoting

Many Christians do believe exactly the same thing as many women here, though, and certainly on the issue of transgenderism. The Christian church is broad and deep - as are most groupings in society. To castigate and reject out of pure prejudice is not the way to go.
I've know plenty of Christians who are deeply loving and accepting people, and who also have critical intellect.

I still don’t understand saying “put your prejudices aside”. If the didn’t ring any alarm bells for you then what prejudices are you talking about?

I was talking about possible prejudices that people may have regarding religion in general. I took it to be a sort of Waltons type of christian group. So not alarm bells, no, a bit of eye rolling, yes, as, like most, I'm not religious.

Several posters almost seem to want me to be an evil bigot. It reminds me a bit of Tras tbh. I've done nothing wrong in my opinion.

gcscience - you are feeling the need to defend yourself here - and I understand that. It is true that there is much prejudice towards anyone who identifies as a Christian. All sorts of people have a personal faith - and they come from all walks of life. In moving towards a secular society we have completely rejected our own religious tradition.

Steve Coogan in 'Alpha Papa' : " You must never criticise Muslims; you can criticise Jews a little bit; but you can criticise Christians as much as you like"

We need to ask ourselves can we or should we ever align ourselves with those who share our viewpoints on some issues but not on others?

We have to. We have to get away from this idea that certain ideas 'go together'. It's what has got us into this mess in the first place - the idea that trans rights are similar to gay rights, so you either support both or neither. The adding of the T to LGB has made them all part of the same thing in most people's minds.

And of course you can support trans people's right to equal human rights with everyone else without believing TWAW.

I am concerned about financial Astroturfing including the Pritzkers. But am also concerned about the sheer nastiness of gender and other cultural wars in the US.

I think GCscience has posted similar links in the past.

Sex is pretty universal so people will come to the debate from different places. We will find common ground. However this does not stop me disliking the tone of the article. Nor from being wary about using it as a source for anything. There are other, better and less emotive, 'follow the money' stories.

GCscience is welcome to continue sticking links on here. I just wish he/she would be more open about where they are coming from.

I've just had a look at the website. I'm obviously seeing plenty of traditional Christian positions, but what are we terming racism here, for clarity? They've got a page criticising Islam, but that's not terribly surprising given that Islam and Christianity are essentially in competition as religions.

And sure, people who are GC are not exactly the same in motivation as those who are critical of the AWAs from a more traditional starting point. I'm not sure that materially effects the benefits of the current battle - it perhaps points to future necessary conversations if we prevail.

If we align ourselves with them on the basis that superficially we are fighting the same battle, that is when we open ourselves up to criticism from the like of Sanctimonious Morph. If we keep our distance, keep plugging away with the message that we are fighting against what is basically misogyny, then we can hold our heads up and criticise the misogyny coming from both factions.

I don't agree that agreeing with the content of a single article is 'aligning ourselves' with the writers of the article - although the bit I quoted in my previous post might have looked as though I was doing that. What I meant there was that we should be free to agree with some things and not others.

What GCSocScientist said sums up what I feel:

I personally think that one of the reasons that TRA has been so successful is that we exist within the comfort of our echo chambers too much, and rather than listen to the content of what is said, assume that an argument will be valid because of who is saying it.

I think many people have got used to thinking left = progressive, liberal. Right = regressive, conservative. Not enough people are thinking and making up their own minds, they're just going with what the leaders of their 'tribe' tell them, whether that be a political party or a religious group.

To be clear, Pritzker sees women who don’t want to share restrooms with men as persecutors

I may not like the source, but there was nothing in the article I disagreed with. The U.S. situation is interesting. I had been wondering how a country where some areas appear to be staunchly Christian would cope with the incredible surge in transition.

As for the statement above - well it’s surely the crux of the matter and Pritzker is a wonderful example of someone shrieking persecution whilst wielding enormous power.

I think GCscience has posted similar links in the past.

Such as?

GCscience is welcome to continue sticking links on here. I just wish he/she would be more open about where they are coming from.

Oh thanks!

Open about where they are coming from wtaf I posted it as a webpage not a pdf.

Again I am being accused of something nasty not sure what. Others have agreed on here about the articles content.

Thanks Saskia and Riddley and others for your insightful views. I don’t agree I should apologise and for those who think the source doesn’t matter, then I don’t know what to say. I will say this though- in my personal experience from reading this, when you post things from sources that dislike people because they are different from the norm, then you are alienating those who are the target of that. I am afraid I am not one of those who believes that a broken clock is right twice a day.

gcscience first you said it was just the name, now you say you knew it was religious (which is not actually clear from the name) so I doubt you had no idea what sort of website it was.

Saying that a group " dislikes someone just because they are different from the norm" is a bit of an over-generalised statement. Especially when you yourself are being so dismissive of a piece ( which most people are in agreement with) simply because you think you know what everyone from a particular religious faith believes to be true or acceptable.

You seem determined to 'pin' something on on gcscience. I'm not sure why?

It's a good idea to check exactly who or what you are endorsing when you share a link you wholeheartedly agree with.
Exactly! Loads of TRAs claim that GC feminists are somehow shills or puppets of US conservative groups like this one, simply because one of us has unwittingly shared an article or tweet from them. British feminists who tried to fight porn in the 90s got slagged off then, because some of them were unwise enough to team up with fundamentalist religious groups.
So remember, my enemy's enemy is not always my friend.

So remember, my enemy's enemy is not always my friend.

I agree, and I'm not sure anyone here has disagreed with that. But do you think there can ever be a reason to join forces with other groups to defeat a common enemy?

Justhadathought no, you’re right. I am being unreasonable. I should put up with homophobia for the greater good. It’s not that I think I know either- they make it very clear from their website what they think of me and my sort.

No, you shouldn't put up with homophobia, and damn right you should challenge it, as should we all.

But that doesn't make reality any different, and in a world where there are significant shifting lines where saying a man is not a woman gets you shunned, it's not unreasonable to make use of everything that says clearly that reality is reality.
Nobody says you have to accept bad things without a murmur. The point of our current struggle is being able to speak out clearly when we are being told to shut up, so yes, it's important to be honest about where we significantly differ.

As I've said, if you can't work in some alliances, I get it. But the AWAs won't stop using the fact that you have similar goals even if you do make a very concerted effort to be as separate as possible.

^but what are we terming racism here, for clarity?but what are we terming racism here, for clarity?

The articles about US border controls stating that Trump's wall is a 'necessity', and defending the shutdown of the US government which has resulted in people who provide essential services being forced to work for no pay because Congress won't pay for the wall:

illinoisfamilyaction.org/2019/01/a-wall-is-an-absolute-necessity/

illinoisfamilyaction.org/2019/01/government-shutdown-money-money-everywhere-but-not-a-drop-for-a-wall/