How did it all start?

[CervixSampler]

This is the question my lovely, totally baffled mum asked me today. I was talking to her about the poetry book containing poems from mumsnetters here (will shamelessly post a link) and why those poems have come about.

I can't remember how it all started. Were we boiling frogs? I came onto the boards around the time Posie Parker was putting up her billboard and have been a regular ever since. I can't remember any single event that triggered my awareness but this board and Posie were a huge eye opener.

When did women's rights become up for grabs? When did things get out of hand? I know things have always been problematic but when did it all explode?
Shameless book plug;

Under the Duvet of Darkness Volume Two Lurking Merkins: Poems written by angry women for angry women because WOMEN WON'T WHEESHT: 2 amzn.eu/d/3ucEKB7

@RayonSunrise

This is authoritarianism. Trying to squeeze it in a left/right box is a fool's errand and it makes it easier to swallow whatever politician who promises to "save" us from the bad guys.

If it's coming from sections of the political left that's just how it is.

Of course you are free to argue that the modern left has "lost its way", and is no longer representing the working class, but I can't see that it's sensible to deny that it's a left wing thing.

Or alternatively, if anyone can show that "gender ideology" is coming from right-wing thinking or groups, then again, that's just the way it is.

I get what you are saying, but once the ideology has been legitimised in law, how could it remain a secret? If the government recognised the T, companies had to legally, too.

Also, the government promoted the self id consultation, the press calling obvious men 'she' in news articles, rapists in female prisons, all gave trans higher profile.

Girls were already taking to each other about gender online, and were aware of the clinics and what to say to get referred and what to say to clinicians. Self harm and anorexia didnt need an official champion to flurish.

Stonewall adopting the T did make lots of the public think it was a sexuality like LGB, and therefore uncritically assume the born this way narrative. But, again, even mumsnet was promoting the idea of trans children and being a subset of lgb children before stonewall.

I get what you are saying, but once the ideology has been legitimised in law, how could it remain a secret?

Confused! Where was there an mention of it being a secret??

I get what you are saying, but once the ideology has been legitimised in law, how could it remain a secret? If the government recognised the T, companies had to legally, too.

If you look at the oral submissions to the Women and Equalities Committee Trans Equality Inquiry in 2015 this wasn't always happening. Key EHRC guidelines for employers and service providers were written in 2015/16 in partnership with Gendered Intelligence and other trans lobby groups. This was a sop to trans rights activists as the government didn't wish to follow most of the recommendations to change the law made by the report from the Inquiry. 2015 was pivotal, the issue was starting to come into the mainstream and Stonewall put all their support behind trans campaigns.

What's your excuse for why big Pharma is up to its neck in genderism, PorcelinaV? Because of all the commies running the global pharmaceutical trade?

Why is it so deeply embedded in U.K. institutions? Why was it introduced by a Tory government that had been in charge for years already by time they proposed it? Because of all the commies running Eton and working in the Conservative Party?

You really think we're all a bunch of mugs.

But thats my point. It's the government (labour, the coalition and conservatives) in conjunction with established lobby groups, not the queer theorists in universities.

It's stonewall responding to these developments, not the other way round. Once GRA was established everything else was going to happen.

In 2015, the government urged organisations to come forward with ideas to stamp out homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools. The asked organisations into schools to promote LGBT awareness. Of course groups were going to see an opportunity (financial and ideological) and jump into schools.

@RayonSunrise

What's your excuse for why big Pharma is up to its neck in genderism, PorcelinaV? Because of all the commies running the global pharmaceutical trade?

Do we need to say that everyone is motivated by left wing ideology here?

Something can be pushed by the left, with other motives also in play.

Why was it introduced by a Tory government that had been in charge for years already by time they proposed it?

What do you mean exactly?

The Gender Recognition Act was introduced by Labour in response to a European Court of Human Rights decision.

The Equality Act is also being mentioned and I think that was also Labour.

On a different thread, I think someone mentioned that the suggestion of self ID was under the Tories, but came from a cross party committee.

To the extent that conservatives went along with this stuff, I have suggested that they didn't think it was worth standing up to the left-wing on this type of issue because the left had the momentum after the victory over gay marriage. (Which was Tory government but split the party.)

On the other side, you have examples like the gay and lesbian charities that are now for the "T". Are they not left wing?

Is the obsession with "diversity and inclusion" not left wing? To the extent that academic theories of gender are in play, probably coming from lefties?

Also the "no platform" tactic is left-wing.

The "punch a TERF" stuff? I believe that is borrowed from the far left extremist movement of "antifa".

On a different thread, I think someone mentioned that the suggestion of self ID was under the Tories, but came from a cross party committee.

To the extent that conservatives went along with this stuff, I have suggested that they didn't think it was worth standing up to the left-wing on this type of issue because the left had the momentum after the victory over gay marriage. (Which was Tory government but split the party.)

I think you have this the wrong way round. It's not that genderism is coming from the left, it's that the left seem to be less able or willing to stand up against it. They also seem to be more prone than the Tories are to insisting that all party members and MPs should be in agreement with the party line on this.

The Tories have plenty of genderists and they also have the first trans MP, Jamie Wallis. There are also dissenting voices within Labour, the SNP and Plaid.

On the other side, you have examples like the gay and lesbian charities that are now for the "T". Are they not left wing?

Are all gay men and lesbians left wing? That seems an odd assumption to make.

Is the obsession with "diversity and inclusion" not left wing? To the extent that academic theories of gender are in play, probably coming from lefties?

Academic theories of gender come from academics. Are all academics left wing? That seems an odd assumption to make.

You also seem to be making the common mistake of having assumed that all genderists are left wing then it follows that all left wing people must be genderists.

But thats my point. It's the government (labour, the coalition and conservatives) in conjunction with established lobby groups, not the queer theorists in universities.

It's stonewall responding to these developments, not the other way round. Once GRA was established everything else was going to happen.

In 2015, the government urged organisations to come forward with ideas to stamp out homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools. The asked organisations into schools to promote LGBT awareness. Of course groups were going to see an opportunity (financial and ideological) and jump into schools.

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that I see 2015 as a pivotal point, one of the milestones if you were to draw a timeline.

@OldCrone

The Tories have plenty of genderists and they also have the first trans MP, Jamie Wallis. There are also dissenting voices within Labour, the SNP and Plaid.

OK, but are the Tories in question arguing, "these are my traditional conservative values, and they lead to supporting trans-activism for such and such reasons"?

Are there right-wing lobby groups pushing this?

Are there right-wing thinkers advocating that this is a natural extension of right-wing ideology and values?

Are all gay men and lesbians left wing? That seems an odd assumption to make.

Well no, but gay and lesbian charities and activist groups have virtually all been on the left-wing.

Maybe there are exceptions like a Republican gay organisation, but they are very much on the left.

Academic theories of gender come from academics. Are all academics left wing? That seems an odd assumption to make.

No, but gender stuff I'm guessing it's very likely coming from the left-wing.

You think theories about gender being a social construct and anyone can be a man or woman if they identify that way is going to be coming from right-wing academics? That seems strange.

You also seem to be making the common mistake of having assumed that all genderists are left wing then it follows that all left wing people must be genderists.

No, I think the polling shows that plenty of people on the left don't support it.

But that's distinct from the question of the streams that produced it.

You think theories about gender being a social construct and anyone can be a man or woman if they identify that way is going to be coming from right-wing academics? That seems strange.

No. I just think it has nothing to do with being right wing or left wing. It's queer theory. That's not mainstream left wing thinking. It's about dismantling all social norms and replacing them with whatever people want to do. That's not left wing or right wing. If I had to put a label on it it seems more like nihilism.

Dismantling all social norms, morality, and social structures is what Marxism calls for. It's literally what Marx said.

This element of queer theory is from Marxism, you see it in identity politics, it's where the push by BLM to defund police came from (and yes they explicitly labeled themselves as Marxists,) even strains of Marxist feminism which say that the only answer is to completely destroy social norms like marriage, the family, and even nature, are examples of this.

I guess you could say that "mainstream" people who vote Labour aren't usually Marxists, (although the ones embracing id pol are promoting a neomarxist ideology weather they realize it or not,) but I really don't know how you can say Marxism isn't left wing.

As for academics and gay and lesbian people being left wing.

Certainly many gay and lesbian people are not, but almost all organizations that claim to represent their voice are. This is the argument SW and others make against the LGB Alliance, it can't really be about what they say because it's not explicitly left aligned. It's very similar to the claims by some feminist groups that they represent all women, but conservative women, or especially conservative groups of women, are inherently anti-woman.

As for academics, they are extremely heavily weighted to the left, this is a change over the last 50 years, and a deeply unhealthy one. And conservative academics often feel they need to repress their views.

You seem to have completely misunderstood my post. I didn't say Marxism isn't left wing. I honestly don't know how you could have interpreted my post to say that.

You said:
theories about gender being a social construct and anyone can be a man or woman if they identify that way

I replied that "theories about gender being a social construct and anyone can be a man or woman if they identify that way" has nothing to do with being right wing or left wing. Believing that people can change sex isn't a political viewpoint, it's just insane.

I guess you could say that "mainstream" people who vote Labour aren't usually Marxists

But they're the ones who seem to have swallowed genderism in its entirety, while the Communist Party in the UK and some other countries don't believe in genderism at all. So are the UK communists even less Marxist than the Labour party?

So having decided that LGB people are all left wing, when an organisation like the LGB Alliance comes along, which isn't left wing, your conclusion isn't "Perhaps all LGB people aren't left wing after all", it's "The LGB Alliance isn't really a group for LGB people"?

Sorry @TempestTost , it was @PorcelinaV who I was quoting in my earlier post, not you, and I should have posted the whole sentence to make sense. This is the bit I was replying to.
You think theories about gender being a social construct and anyone can be a man or woman if they identify that way is going to be coming from right-wing academics?

This article shows the clash between traditional Labour-voting working class women and the queer theorist students who self-identify as left wing. (Scroll down to the bit about Lucy McDonagh and the Deptford People Project.)

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/03/23/leftist-women-uk-refuse-accept-labours-attempts-silence-critiques-gender-identity/

This movement really has nothing to do with traditional Labour voters.

I'm not sure where you got that idea, it's not what I said at all.

Possibly insane, but the reason so many people believe it is because it fits in with their underlying worldview.

For quite a few it is because they believe that it is in fact possible to change sex, because they have heard it from so many trusted scientific sources, and they are used to believing things that seem unbelievable when "science" tells them to. Most people are not scientists and do not look at data, they believe in science as a kind of dogma.

But for many of the true believers it's because they have accepted gender ideology, which is an ideology that is a subset of identity politics, and which believes that there is no fixed meaning, even in natural systems. Not only are human traditions and culture oppressive constructs, things like concepts of self are defined by language in order to oppress. The family, "sex" and ideas like man and woman being defined by biology, in this view, are actually language games. And so they can also manipulate reality with language.

The fact that a very few classical Marxists are resisting this does not mean that it can't be a Marxist movement. That is like saying the continued existence of the Catholic Church shows Lutherans can't really be Christians.

As far as mainstream left people being sucked in. Yes, the left parties have been heavily battered by identity politics. This is why we have people like Kier Starmer "taking the knee" and there was a massive BLM march in the middle of Covid. Probably many of these people are complerly unaware of the underlying origins of these ideologies, but that does not mean they aren't influencing the policies and actions of this group of people in the population.

It's also alienating quite a few of their traditional voters.

It's not some kind of chance thing this is being pushed everywhere across the world by left wing groups. Or that it came out of university departments heavily dominated by left wing thinkers.

@OldCrone

You seem to have completely misunderstood my post. I didn't say Marxism isn't left wing. I honestly don't know how you could have interpreted my post to say that.

As I interpreted TempestTost...

They didn't mean you had explicitly said that you didn't think Marxism was left-wing.

Rather, they were commenting on where you said:

"It's about dismantling all social norms and replacing them with whatever people want to do. That's not left wing or right wing."

With the comment being, that it's fairly normal left-wing to be, "dismantling all social norms".

I'm guessing the queer theorists would say something along the lines that they are, "dismantling social norms to fight injustice and evil power structures"?

They will probably dress it up as having some noble aim. I doubt they just claim to be following their own desires.

With the comment being, that it's fairly normal left-wing to be, "dismantling all social norms".

Is that what left wing means now? That's not what I understand as left wing politics.

For quite a few it is because they believe that it is in fact possible to change sex, because they have heard it from so many trusted scientific sources

Really? What "trusted scientific sources" are they?

Most people are not scientists and do not look at data, they believe in science as a kind of dogma.

This is sad. Science education must be failing. Surely most people don't think it's possible to change sex, although I know some children seem to have that impression.

The fact that a very few classical Marxists are resisting this does not mean that it can't be a Marxist movement.

But why are you so convinced that it is a Marxist movement? Do you not think it possible that it's driven by something else entirely?

Think about where most people interact with scientific material. They aren't reading scientific journals, though many of them are captured too.

They read things like National Geographic, Scientific American, they trust that the medical system is science based, they see people like Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, etc. That is the public face of science.

As far as science education, it's not what it used to be. But it's a huge mistake to think that even that will mean people are acting on a scientific basis. They might hear and understand a description of a biological process, but they have not seen it in action. They haven't done the chemical analysis. They probably don't know exactly how the experiments were run or the data collected or analyzed. That haven't seen the math and wouldn't understand it if they did. (In some subjects, the number of people worldwide who do understand the math is minuscule.) And regularly they are told things like chemicals they can't see are making them do certain things, that there are colours and sounds and forces which shape the world that they cannot see, which are waves or particles or both or neither. The world around them isn't really even solid as it appears.

People don't know any of this stuff first hand, they "know" it because someone else told them it was true. Even scientists don't really get stuff outside their own area a lot of times.

I said way back in the thread that identity politics is all Marxist. It's leaders say so explicitly. They have changed out the economic groupings as the basis of the analysis for identity groupings. Instead of the proletariat, you have any other number of names groups who are placed as "oppressed". (Which they might be in some cases, what makes the analysis Marxist is what they think that means and what is to be done about it.) So the total destruction of the old order is the only remedy, and in that the ends justify the means.

In Marxism they rely heavily on class theory.
"Within Marxian class theory, the structure of the production process forms the basis of class construction.
To Marx, a class is a group with intrinsic tendencies and interests that differ from those of other groups within society, the basis of a fundamental antagonism between such groups."
It seems that it would be very easy to ascribe this group theory as the progenitor of intersectionalism. Splitting people into different groups and then assigning relative oppression ranking to each group definition. Sex, skin colour, sexuality etc....
It seems very strongly to me the modern progressive stack is the descendant of Marxism. It is born of the political left.