Okay, I’ll try again. Should transwomen have access to women’s change rooms, sports, health services and jails based only on self id and against the wishes of natal women?
Split Thread Philosophical musings about trans rights
- Thread starter shuttlt
- Start date
Okay, I’ll try again. Should transwomen have access to women’s change rooms, sports, health services and jails based only on self id and against the wishes of natal women?
Oh, by the way, I don’t usually waste time on you tube videos. If you can’t make a compelling point in your post, perhaps supported by a link to a document, I’m not interested in looking at a partisan video probably produced by a loony.
I don't know. I don't care about the label. I'm mostly going off histories and books of theory written by people who supported these ideas or were involved in originating them or pushing them. Call it what you will. It's the process whereby, after the shock of the Russian revolution not going how they expected, the failure of other Marxist revolutionary movements and then the denunciation of Stalin by Khrushchev, the left, who had previously been looking to class struggle changed focus onto culture and seizing the means of cultural production. The new proletariat were to be women, homosexuals and racial minorities. They wrote about this extensively, it's not a secret. Marxist theories were then mapped onto sex, sexuality, race etc...
That's what you believe, not what other people believe. Other people don't share your ideology.
In the case of the gender critical feminists, it is because they see the problems of society being the result of the domination of males, and the organisation of society by males, and their goal is to free women from male domination. You are asking them to accept males as women. None of this is a mystery when you look at it through their ideological lens rather than your own. It undermines the whole distinction that their movement and understanding of the world is based on.
Religion has very little to do with this. The same battle is playing out in irreligious England. You seem to see religion in much the same way that they see men. Would you be onboard with washing away the distinction between religion and non-religion such that separation of church and state went away? Something like that is what you are asking them to do.
Last edited:
In summary ... this world is screwed because we have gotten too civilized... I am so glad I do not have much left to stay in it.
Even my daughter's dog is having a species identification confusion... he thinks he is a cat... he caught and swallowed whole a bird the other day...
Oh wow, you really have nothing to say about this issue, do you?
I do not give a rat's dropping about it... there are a lot more dangerous and pernicious and nasty and despotic fascists out there who are harming my life-style a gazillion times more than any whatever is the latest acronym soup.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
I've heard this kind of stuff being espoused a few times, I have never once heard any evidence or argument to.suggest that any of it is even remotely true.
Now there may be some miniscule rump of academics who try to map Marxist concepts onto gay activism, I wouldn't know about such things, but so what? They have no influence.
The gay movement was never party political. Back in the eighties we had Thatcherites working alongside Labour voters.. Hell, our politician hero back then wasn't Peter Tatchell, it was Matthew Parris. It was never a left right thing, it was a "free/unfree" thing.
This idea that it has something to do with Marxism is fantasy fiction dreamed up by right wing fabulists. It really is.
Last edited:
And yet you are posting here. Well it takes all types.
Have you looked? Where are you getting this impression from?
Where in the world do you think all the stuff the activists, and ultimately ordinary people think comes from? The redefinition of racism didn't rise from the masses. It wasn't a brickie in Merthyr Tydfil who came up with all the language of gender roles and the idea that everything was socially constructed. That's like saying who cares about the ideas of Tom Paine, Locke, Rousseau.... their ideas had practically no influence.
The exitance of Matthew Parris doesn't contradict what I said.
The academic underpinnings of all of this stuff is Marxist. Queer theory is derived from Marxism. Academic, gender critical feminism is derived from Marxism. Matthew Parris I'm sure had completely unrelated reasons for helping these ideas along, that doesn't mean that the ideas and people he was helping in to power didn't have these beliefs.
Last edited:
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
And you may notice that the people actually whining about being oppressed are people like Kathleen Stock, JK Rowling, Elon Musk (apparently the "woke" are stopping him going to Mars), Dave Chappelle, Candace Owens, Peter Boghossian etc.
This has nothing to do with what I said. I'm not going to Gish gallop with you. Stick to the point.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
As I say, the people who espouse this codswallop never even try to provide any sort of evidence that what they are saying is true.
Not from academics. Back in the early eighties academics supporting gay rights were as rare as hen's teeth. Bad for their careers in those days you know.
We ordinary folk did pretty well without them.
Wow, did you really just compare the word salad merchants of the useless areas of academia to Paine, Locke and Rousseau???
And as I said this just a load of codswallop dreamed up by right wing fabulists who have completely lost touch with reality.
And to be clear, I'm not accusing you of being such a right wing fabulists. But as many of us have done throughout our lives you have bought a pup.
Last edited:
No, indeed... because they have a totalising philosophy that gives post hoc rationalisations for all events. Their ideology is unfalsifiable. Their ideology is always the answer.
You had the famous petition in France against age of consent laws being pushed by academics in the 70s. There was some pretty radical stuff floating around. I agree with you that there was nonetheless homophobia on the Marxist left. Back in the 60s and 70s the feminists who were incorporating Marxism complained about how sexist it all was. The same with black liberation movements. The revolution moves forward. Currently trans-activism is in the position that gay activism and feminist activism was back in the day. If you go back 100+ years you find the Fabians and others treating the poor as a client group that they both pity and despise.
Yes. These are the people who create the intellectual environment of the age, create the language and concepts used to understand the age, come up with the defining questions of the age. If you'd been an 18th century monarchist, you'd have viewed Paine, Locke and Rousseau in the same terms you perhaps view the likes of Foucault, Kendi, Peggy McIntosh... I could point to late 18th/early 19th century reactionary authors saying more or less exactly this.
It's a deep cover project then where the Right spent entire careers pretending to be leftists and publish books and papers about this stuff? Have you actually read the authors the Right bang on about? One of the best books I've found, that certainly nobody in the Right is pushing is Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain by a leftie academic. I know some of the people mentioned in the book.
I have been reading old books written by people on the Left because I am interested in the history of ideas! There are no end of Left authored histories where they talk about the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, Althusser, Foucault etc... I'm not relying on some Daily Wire piece. Any history of the New Left will cover this stuff.
Are quite a different crowd to who?
I am posting to try and see why you care so much about it while the country is about to become a fascistic theocracy???
As Leumas points out, it has only been a handful of decades since womens’ opportunities were severely limited due to broad assumptions and cultural momentum about what women were supposed to do and what they were capable of. To you, it seems, changing this was all downside, because it was part of culture changing to the point we are at now where raising kids has a lot more basic hurdles like how to take care of the lil tyke when we are a two person household and we both have to go to work. To you, it would be better if we had never let that genie out of the bottle, because it seems you want to operate on a rose colored glasses & numbers game. Many women were happy that way and the rest were stuck, and among the stuck, those who were abjectly miserable were a perfectly acceptable sacrifice to the smooth running of the system for the people it worked well for. (And a few really bullheaded women made their own way anyway so anyone who didn’t just didn’t try hard enough or something.)
But one of the human nature things is also empathy, and when the happy women learn about the unhappy ones, the beaten ones, etc, who are constrained into their situations by those prewar, pre-genie assumptions, they feel like changing the system even if it works ok for them.
(But it seems to me that wishing we were still in the women-can’t-have-bank-accounts era ignores the idea that we as a society could find ways to make having kids attractive again. After all most people do actually want to do this, so talk to them, do studies, figure out exactly why the ones who aren’t doing it aren’t doing it and address those issues.)
Again, it’s been such a staggeringly short time since all this began to change that I’m not shocked it’s all still shaking out, that some things go too far and other things not far enough. But you did miss a third basic assumption about humans. Basically good, basically bad? You forgot “everyone has the potential for both,” which is observably drastically true. But if you want to numbers game it because the big part of the curve is the only important one? When we’re looking one another in the eye we are basically all altruistic until we are starving to actual death. Sure some of us aren’t but like you said if it’s only 2.5 percent then it would be foolish to construct society as if they existed at all.
Anyway as far as what I actually think. I think it’s foolish to construct society to expect women to be as physically strong as men. I think it’s also foolish to construct society to ignore it when women are as physically strong as men, and conversely to ignore it when men are not as physically strong as the mean. It can simultaneously be dumb to try to train all girls to be able to do 50 pull-ups and to tell the one girl who can already do 25 pull-ups not to bother trying to train. And it can also simultaneously be dumb not to try to train all the guys to be able to do 50 pull-ups and to keep on riding the ass of the one guy who can’t even do one.
I can buy the idea that you don’t build all of society expecting everyone to be an outlier. But I’m just not even slightly sold on the idea that it actually benefits society to tell outliers they might as well just **** off.
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Which country?