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 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.

It isn't a single article though, there have been a series of such postings in recent weeks. And yes, we are free to agree with some things and not others, but if the 'others' we don't agree with are seriously egregious issues like homophobie, racism and misogyny, we should be asking ourselves how closely we wish to align ourselves with the people who hold such views. The writer of an article like this might seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet as us, but they are not! If we are posting these links and agreeing with them we are to all intents and purposes endorsing not just one article, but the other views the writer holds, and I think that is a very dangerous path to go down.

We should not be linking to, or endorsing, or in anyway associating ourselves with racist, misogynist homophobes. If other posters are happy to do that, knock yourselves out, but I will not follow you.

Funkyfunkybeat12 No, you shouldn't have to put up with homophobia for the greater good, and anyone who suggests you should is a massive hemorrhoid who has nothing of value to add to feminism.

Saskia
The problem is that the people who we should be agreeing with, and with whom we agree on many other issues, are fighting against us on this one. Liberal, left wing publications which I would expect to be on our side are full of anti-woman rhetoric.

We should not be linking to, or endorsing, or in anyway associating ourselves with racist, misogynist homophobes.

I totally agree. But the left has aligned itself with the misogynistic and homophobic trans narrative. So should we avoid linking to any article in woman-hating papers like the Guardian?

And what about right wing sites, which are more likely to print articles critical of the trans agenda? Should we link to the Telegraph? The Daily Mail? The Spectator? Where do we draw the line?

Sorry! I haven't been deliberately ignoring this: I had an exam today and again tomorrow. I do wish to add further, and haven't disappeared with my tail between my legs (sorry to disappoint).

The articles about US border controls stating that Trump's wall is a 'necessity'

Ack. Trumpist wall enthusiasts are pretty unpleasant, yes.

Agreed EJennings, there is a remarkable tendency of ‚the Left‘ to wake up to and criticize problematic developments only now cause Trump is doing it. For all the bipartisan drama one easily overlooks the continuity of subsequent administrations (also surveillance).
I actually think, communicating across a sometimes huge ideological abyss can make sense. If you look at Zerohedge, with their focus on financial market analyses mixed with doomsday articles they are certainly right wing (and some comments on there, wow. Racism surely is no deal breaker in that comment section), plus a noninterventionist slant. But occasionally they‘ll publish Glenn Greenwald and other progressives who criticize the Washington consensus.
Tulsi Gabbard is popular in these circles since she vocally rejects interventionism. many of those guys would vote for her ‚‘even though she is for ‚free stuff‘ (medicare for all) and other ‚commie‘ policies But she is critical of war and the huge military spending, a former soldier who gets the vets and not afraid to go against establishment consensus. That trumps it all‘.
Now, some think the mere fact that for Trump voters and ‚deplorables‘ are ready to vote for her disqualifies her as a presidential candidate. But I think this is a great strength. How else are you going to win an election?

The problem is that the people who we should be agreeing with, and with whom we agree on many other issues, are fighting against us on this one. Liberal, left wing publications which I would expect to be on our side are full of anti-woman rhetoric.

Sorry to be repetitive, but this does not mean we should ally ourselves with other groups who have an anti-women, anti-gay, anti- BAME agenda.

And no, I don't think we should be linking to the Guardian, they have made their position perfectly clear. The Mail is equally dubious. The other publications you have mentioned are in no way similar to Illinois Family Action.

The actions of other presidents is irrelevant, the issue is that this organisation promotes racism, along with other bigotries. If certain other posters genuinely cannot see the problem with their endorsement on a feminist forum then I'm wasting my time replying.

Sorry to be repetitive, but this does not mean we should ally ourselves with other groups who have an anti-women, anti-gay, anti- BAME agenda.

I've given this a bit more thought, and I think the problem for me in understanding this group's viewpoint is that we don't really have such vocal Christian conservatives in the UK - certainly not openly racist ones.

There are non religious groups that have very strong anti-gay and racist agendas though, and I wouldn't link to anything they have said, or even click on a link that someone else posted, even if they wrote something that I agreed with.

So if I replace 'Illinois family action' with 'Britain First' in my head, I think I understand where you're coming from. It's not the same as sometimes agreeing with mainstream right wingers.

If certain other posters genuinely cannot see the problem with their endorsement on a feminist forum then I'm wasting my time replying.

I don't think you're wasting your time - you've made me think about where I would personally draw the line between sources I'd quote and those I wouldn't.

I agree that there are cross-pond nuances about conservative organizations that are lost in translation to the UK, yes. I do think you would need to know a lot more about those nuances and be able to dig around that website with those in mind.

The OP gave a note of caution in her first posts anyway, and said she was posting specifically the article she did because she agreed with it, not because she agreed with the whole site.

I know there are some new posters coming here with agendas recently, so I do appreciate the caution about some sources, and yes, everyone has lines about what they will link to, and quite right too.

But I don't think the OP needs to be dragged as a homophobe and a racist because of linking to this article.

Sorry to be repetitive, but this does not mean we should ally ourselves with other groups who have an anti-women, anti-gay, anti- BAME agenda

So basically GC women should not ally themselves with anyone at all (including in many cases other GC women) as their views may be problematic.

Agreeing with a set of ideas put forward does not means that you agree with everything the proposer says, it does not mean you agree with everything the proposers friends say, it does mean you agree with everything the publication says. This sort of tribalism and lack of critical thinking is very worrying.

To cite a very overused trope. It is said that Hitler was vegetarian. This does not mean that all vegetarians are Hitler...

Ok, thinking of it, there is probably a difference whether some extremist right winger happens to agree with you, or whether you link to their blog or so.

Agreeing with a set of ideas put forward does not means that you agree with everything the proposer says, it does not mean you agree with everything the proposers friends say, it does mean you agree with everything the publication says. This sort of tribalism and lack of critical thinking is very worrying.

I mean, yeah, someone once accused me of being in cahoots with David Duke, because I said arming the Islamist rebels in Syria is a bad idea. Duke had apparently said the same. (But so had academic experts like Joshua Landis).
But I still would not link to David Duke's blog making the case against arming the rebels (if such a thing indeed ever existed). I would link to an analogous essay of, say, Ron Paul, though (even though I disagree on so many things with him). So there is a line somewhere for all of us, I guess, and if you don't know the specifics of some website, that line may be hard to draw.

This sort of tribalism and lack of critical thinking is very worrying.

This is what worries me. The idea that you have to agree with everything someone says or nothing. I'm sure it's why so many on the left are on board with the trans agenda.

I started looking into the trans issue because I was mystified as to why anyone would think that being a woman was anything other than having a female body. Why any man could think that he could 'live as a woman', when to me 'living as a woman' was simply living as a human being who happens to have a female body.

I was surprised that the left seemed to support this. One of the problems is that so many others on the left, instead of saying 'why are they supporting this?' seem to be thinking 'the Guardian says it's OK so it must be.'

I agree that it is the instinctive, reactive tribalism that is the main issue for me here. That tribalism itself just seems so bigoted and judgmental. Any tribalism or rigid group identity is a problem for me - no matter where it be found.

The demonisation of Christians, just because some, in some groups in some places adhere to some views or beliefs that others might find objectionable - does not mean that all Christians do the same, or are the same.

I've had personal experience many years ago, identifying as a Christian ( for me Christ was the ultimate radical) - and it was a deeply healing experience. At the same time I baulked at some of the group politics of the particular church I attended ( which subsequently caused me to leave). At that time I also had friends, and experiences, within buddhist and various new age circles.

Most of them had an automatic fear and repulsion whenever the word 'Jesus' or 'Christ' was spoken. It was odd. They could only associate Christ with group politics and man made laws associated with various traditional groups. They were unwilling, or unable, to be open to the truth of my experience ( as I had experienced it).

Likewise, there was no way I could be open and honest with people at the church about my experiences and perspectives - as they would have instantly rejected me - on impulse, just as my meditating and buddhist friends had.

I have always been suspicious of tight groups and ideological organisations - as people end up conforming to the group ideology rather than to their own conscience or heart. For many people, belonging to the acceptable social group is the most important factor in their life. And to do this they will submit, quite often, the wisdom or truth of their own experience.

It’s not a question of having to agree with everything someone says at all. It’s about not endorsing a group of people who hold abhorrent views. I might have the odd view that chimes with Britain First (I think they support euthanasia for instance) but hell would freeze over before I posted a link to anything they say. Is that really so hard to grasp? Also, if you join forces with the religious right you do realise that they are very anti-feminist, so nothing they stand for would produce a better world. So there is no point joining them. Being principled matters.

With newspapers I do appreciate that lots of different people contribute to these so I might link to a guardian article I agree with even if they have a history of posting woke stuff because they have a lot of interesting and good stuff in lots of other areas eg poverty.

Extremely good post, EJennings.

I hope this part pans out: "And when the right turns against me on abortion and birth control, I'll stand with, I hope, a left that finally realizes that female biology matters."

It has been so depressing being in Democratic online spaces for many years and then finding out starting about 2016 just how many "leftist" men really don't give a fuck about women and girls.

PS Mitch McConnell just fast-tracked another anti-abortion bill. Yay!

At this point, I'll take ANYONE who even notices women have rights. I'll stand with the right, if that's what it takes, to preserve what I and my sisters fought for and built, since the left won't stand with me.

Political coalitions are uncomfortable things, but I too am happy to fight for single sex spaces by the side of social conservatives if that’s my only option.

It’s also, as EJennings fantastic post notes, remarkably plucky and unusual to find any political group that openly challenges the validity of the Pritzker family’s billions in politics.That stance is also one that I support.

I've been pissed off with the Left in this country since Cologne. Really opened my eyes. There are men at all points on the political spectrum who don't like women.

I think there are quite a few posters on FWR who are still quite shocked to find themselves cast as a baddie on the trans issue and cast out of what they thought was their natural political tribe.

When did people on FWR stop saying 'sorry it's a Daily Fail link' Every Single Time so that we didn't all shout racist at them btw?

I do see the wisdom of checking sources though so I take funky's point.

EJennings I very much agree with you. The parallels to what happens in the US and in continental Europe (including in terms of interventionist foreign policy) is remarkable and I feel so lost sometimes. It feels like the Left is emptied of all content and dead and all there is left is a choice between relativist, technocratic and militaristic neoliberalism and 'women stay home in your kitchen with your children so no migrant will rape you' xenophobic conservativism/populism. I despair.

(Also, I saw only now your very informative and detailed answer on my Bader Ginsberg post about what you do in the US to help women whose reproductive choices are under threat, get access to clinics..., and yes, Steve Keen rocks!
Sorry, it all got lost in the Christmas holday preparation chaos, so I never responded and read it only now).

Just one point from earlier in the thread: family action as an organisation name doesn't provide the same clue/dog whistle about agenda in the UK as it does in the US. Unless you were familiar with such US groups as a Brit, you wouldn't notice or think to check further if you saw an article you liked.

This article may have been posted before, but since the author uses the Pritzker family as her main example of a funding source for transgender ideology, I thought it might contain some useful information for this thread.

thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

I did a bit of browsing on the internet and found these articles.

The last link is to a book Transgender Children and Young People:Born in Your Own Body, which has a contribution from Miranda Yardley I was delighted to see.

medium.com/@sue.donym1984/inauthentic-selves-the-modern-lgbtq-movement-is-run-by-philanthropic-astroturf-and-based-on-junk-d08eb6aa1a4b

4thwavenow.com/tag/jennifer-pritzker/

books.google.co.nz/books?id=OPlVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=world+professional+association+for+transgender+health+pritzker&source=bl&ots=xyWqfru3Im&sig=ACfU3U3K-ccv_MfBxaum9EVqYreDjkSmyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWjrmwyPbfAhXRV30KHau3A5s4ChDoATALegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=world%20professional%20association%20for%20transgender%20health%20pritzker&f=false