Anyone else GC and left wing in their politics?

[mids2019]

I am finding the conservative party conference difficult in some sense as I agree with some of their GC policies and attitudes yet would describe my self as a working class died in the will leftie. I really don't like this assumption that being for women's rights automatically means people associate you with right wing politics in general. For me it's simply not the case.

Why is it that poor now associate left with trans rights????

If you are GC and to the left I can see it’s hard to vote for parties you used to

At the same time you want to actually vote I’m sure

I’ve never been tribal in voting and couldn’t give a crap if Labour finally learn that women are not dinosaurs

I’ll happily say you can have my vote, maybe, if you drop it for good bit until then nada

Ok, so we have the Tories.

And we have Labour, who believe that women shouldn't be allowed to have a word for ourselves, any single sex spaces or our own sporting categories and if we want these things we are "dinosaurs who hoard rights".

And we have the Lib Dems who believe the same as Labour.

I can't vote for any of them, can I?

So who are feminists supposed to vote for?

Because I don't think there is a single party in the UK which doesn't want to throw women under a bus.

And that means democracy has basically failed.

Who are feminists supposed to vote for?

Whichever candidate they think is best. And then we fight and campaign whatever government for the best deal for women. Such is feminism. Today we fight the TRAs in the Tory government. Next year we fight the TRAs in the next government.

Sorry there isn't one easy answer.

'Best' in which way? Best at having the foundations upon which any policy which protects women will need to be built?

'Best' at collecting data which genuinely allows us to see if/ how much women are disadvantaged?

'Best' at modelling how they value women by their treatment of their own MPs?

'Best' at recognising there are TRAs in their own party?

I think this is a bit of a simplification tbh.

It is anything but simple or easy, as I said.

Yes I get that. I am astonished that any feminist would vote for labour, lid dem or the greens. It is a very bad time for women with so many male supremacists in power/ vying for power.

“SerafinasGoose · Today 20:08

Gender Ideology is nothing approximating 'the left' that I've ever known.

How could it be? It's male supremacism.”

It’s not male supremacism, it’s individualism. It’s people wanting society to let them be whatever it is they want to be, it’s everybody just getting to be whatever they want and not being constrained by their biology, society, or anything else. It’s just the next wave of feminism. You are probably just still on the previous wave.

This.

@Duffdee

Gender critical feminists don't believe we should be constrained by our bodies, quite the opposite: we feel that just because we have a woman's body we shouldn't have a layer of superficial rubbish imposed on us.

But thanks for being confidently incorrect while you were being so patronising.

And not just here. There aren’t many options left

And no I wouldn’t vote for them

everybody just getting to be whatever they want and not being constrained by their biology, society, or anything else.

Can you see any potential issues with unfettered individualism?

Is that what you’re for?

What about safeguarding, what’s stopping a male 61 year old wanting to act as a female 7 year old

Don't confuse identity politics with civil rights issues, they are absolutely not the same. Gender id pol is very much the same as any other form of id pol.

Male rights activism is not 'feminism'. Not of any wave. It does what it says on the tin.

I started from a standpoint pretty much to the letter of 'be who you want to be without discrimination'. That was before the question seriously arose as to what happens when the rights of two groups conflict, and the answer to that question was 'women should roll over, capitulate, and be punished or threatened should they refuse'.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts.

If it's individualism why are the so vile to women who won't play along? They've got a name for us and everything. Why are they so poisonous to detransitioners?

Hmmm.... the 'next wave'. Assuming that we're all on a pathway of inevitable progress and the thing that's popped up is the next thing and inevitably better is very Whig and quite dangerous.

Consider the mess that some left feminists managed to get themselves into when PIE popped up. And no, I am not equating trans identity with PIE, just saying you can't assume that the next thing is a logical and beneficial progression, you have to analyse it.

Because some individuals are more equal than others.

It's not letting women be people whose identities and personality are not defined by their body though is it? women only have bodies in common so it can only make sense to segregated by bodies. It's dressed up male supremacy. You're probably just falling for the lie that you're even in a feminist wave at all.

it’s everybody just getting to be whatever they want and not being constrained by their biology, society, or anything else.

@Duffdee that's easy to say but isn't true in reality. We are all constrained by the effects we have on others. TRAs, as the high priesthood of gender ideology, just don't care about the effects on women's rights of free association, single sex spaces, and fairness.

Fully paid up LibDem member here who was kicked out of the party when I questioned whether Baroness Featherstone's comments represented official party policy (she said that those who believe they can exclude transwomen from women-only spaces are not welcome in the Lib Dems). So it turned out she was right! I wasn't welcome in the party.

I find gender ideology a very easy thing to accomodate in my life and my politics if I think of it as a religious belief - I have structures and frameworks to deal with other people's strongly and sincerely held religious views because as a society basically since the Enlightenment we have lived as a pluralistic society (to greater or lesser extents depending on the country, the religion etc). Gender ideology as a religious belief is simple enough to respect and accomodate this way. The problem is the compelled speech, compelled belief, and the changes to areas of life where we have single-sex rules because they are areas where women are vulnerable due to sex-based differences or sex-based discrimination.

In the recent ONS survey about 90,000 people answered that they identified as a transman or a transwoman. This is about the same as the Haredi Jewish community, who keep strict kosher and separate men and women in public spaces. But we don't change the structure of our society to the detriment of 50% of the population because of the beliefs of the Haredim. And in addition, the Haredim don't require respect by forcing our whole society to share their beliefs in kosher cooking and sex segregation, the way that we are expected to parrot TWAW or be labelled as bigots and full of hate, get fired, get constructively dismissed and have to go to employment tribunals, or lose our friends, careers and political parties.

With race, I think we have moved from "equality" to "equity" as the new progressive goal.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/15/portland-schools-equitable-grades-will-fail-kids-who-need-help/

Because one school district in America is "toying with proposals"? (that have to do with a bunch of other stuff besides race anyway).

Hardly one, as the article said, these kinds of policies are all over the place in the US. And it is primarily about racial "equity," that's the justification. It's a problem at universities too.

It's the nature of id politics, which is about equity of identity groups, whatever the cause of disparity, not giving individuals a fair chance whatever groups they are in.

it’s everybody just getting to be whatever they want and not being constrained by their biology, society, or anything else.

I'll remember that one next time I can't reach the top shelf of the supermarket that DH reaches with ease. Instead I shall magically levitate, because I am not constrained by my biology and if I want to reach then I will be able to.

I'll remember that one next time I worry about getting pregnant and the physical effects of pregnancy, because obviously this is a concern that all of equally have to worry about. It's all in my head and if I believe I can't get pregnant, I just won't.

I'll remember that one next time I try and lift a very heavy object. I will be able to lift the same as my partner, because naturally there is no difference between our biology and I am not constrained by it. I will be able to lift it without doing myself a serious injury and without assistance purely through the power of belief and wanting to be whatever I want.

Good god, some people spout some utter shite, don't they?

The idea that you can escape where you come from is the biggest load of crap going on - its delusion. You might not like what you are and where you come from, but you will NEVER find peace within yourself until you come to terms with it. You will forever be in a state of internal conflict trying to pretend you are something you aren't. And all this has an impact on everyone else.

"I want to be the sexist women in the world and I am not constrained by my biology and if I want something I get it", quickly turns into something thats a lot more sinister if you start to push at the concept. And thats what we are ACTUALLY taking about.

The "I want, I get" culture of it. Who does this disadvantage most? And what is it really about?

I'll leave you to ponder that and why women are pushing back about it. We see it. Its not nice.

Helen Pluckrose on "identity politics":

https://areomagazine.com/2018/09/25/identity-politics-does-not-continue-the-work-of-the-civil-rights-movements/

The problem with individualism is that the strongest come out on top and the more vulnerable are disadvantaged.

So all women are disadvantaged by one man's individual decision to identify as a woman and use women's spaces.

Feminism is outward looking. It's about liberating all female people.

Gender identity theory is inward looking. It's about the individual saying, "This is what I want and I'm the most important so screw everyone else."

And whatever the actual issue at stake, whether it's single sex spaces or sports or language or political representation, the first rule of gender identity theory is that whatever you apply it to, it benefits people born with penises and disadvantages people born with vaginas, regardless of how any of the people concerned identify.

So no, it's not any kind of wave of feminism. It's the opposite of feminism.