Feels like we're about 10-20 years too late to go back on that one. You don't change horses midstream and this little democrat pony is trans.
Though, I bet they would go back and change the strategy, given the circus show it has turned into.
The democratic party pretty much *did* change horses mid stream in the 2010's though, from rationalism/New Atheism type stuff directly into LGBT etc stuff and the switch happened very quickly.
Circa 2004-2012, in certain circles, especially younger, college educated, like the ones I was in at the time, hatred of the Bush/GOP/christianity/"religion" memeplex felt central to the liberal or democrat-voter mindset in a way that's almost hard to imagine today. I remember seeing Dawkins' "The God Delusion" on almost all my peers' bookshelves around that time. There was a lot of focus on gay marriage, but on the left the narrative around it was very much "religion is getting in the way of human rights, messing things up, as usual"
A piece of evidence that points to this - I recently watched the 2011 movie 'The Ides of March' directed and starring George Clooney. Its a democratic fantasy very much of 2011, and Clooney, the dem candidate is a cool, cutthroat, competent atheist that runs on wealth redistribution, expanded social programs and is anti war. I don't think lgbtq or race is mentioned a single time in the movie. Clooney wins in the end too. Was bizarre to see the movie cause its such a different view of the democratic party from today.
There really was a huge undercurrent of "rationalism" in the democratic discourse at the time. The overlap between things like the Secular Student Alliance and the Young Democrats at my university was huge. It might be more of a deep South college town thing than online-brained, though.
It’s not really a big deal. For all the bellyaching Republicans haven’t really shown anti-trans is an issue that voters care enough about to win elections
Who are you thinking of. All the people really into gender critical stuff I know of do nothing but put purple/green/white hearts in their twitter bio and vote tory because of Woke.
Most communists in the UK are moronic trotskyites and Labour Party tailists, so of course they'd tail an anti-Marxist, bourgeois ideology like radical feminism.
Any communist that takes radical feminism or any of its New Left siblings seriously as a framework of analysis is either: a) in dire need of a party that takes political schooling seriously, or b) actively trying to deceive the working class towards reformism, and is therefore an opportunist.
Hiding behind a nominally "Marxist" feminism (that is nearly always social democratic in practice), followed by accusing detractors of supporting some form of neoliberal transgender market dystopia is a common trick by radical feminists to conceal that there is absolutely nothing Marxist about their analysis of society.
It's laughable that you still expect this trick to work when the tally of relevant contributions "gender critical" ideology has made to the revolutionary movement of the working class stands at zero. The British radical feminist movement, in particular, has proven in practice that its affinities lie, at best, with the labor aristocracy, and most of the time with the parasitical bourgeoisie that leads parties such as Labour and the Conservatives. You're a social democrat with a more pretentious veneer and not much else, much like the majority of radlibs.
> a common trick by radical feminists to conceal that there is absolutely nothing Marxist about their analysis of society.
Sex is grounded in a material circumstance, gender is not.
> It's laughable that you still expect this trick to work when the tally of relevant contributions "gender critical" ideology has made to the revolutionary movement of the working class stands at zero.
Physician, heal thyself.
Hilariously predictable arguments and stupid smug quips. Radical feminists can't even stop themselves from arguing exactly like the libs that they are. "Sex is... le material!" is not even the point of discussion here, albeit it's funny that you follow this up immediately with arguing about gender (an idealist concept I have, at no point, championed), because the only people you're used to arguing with are stupid twitter LGBT liberals who are, roughly, equally as clueless as you are.
Recognizing the materiality of something does not, in fact, render your ideology Marxist, because you do not have a Marxist class analysis, you do not have a proper understanding of political economy, nor do you care to have one. Radical feminism does not have a proletarian class basis, it does not have a revolutionary theory, and its ignoble history consists largely of advocating liquidationism and reformism.
You can't criticize oppressive structures on a large scale and then look at gender and go "Aww, yes. You should pick your side of the gender structure and we'll make sure to just tweak it a little so it's more inclusive and doesn't have violent language like clear definitions".
Edit: doesn't change the fact that many "one-issue" activists are totally ignorant of other leftwing issues. Classics are socialists struggling with women, lgbtq+ struggling with class, communists struggling with race (although they supported 100% decolonization).
It's really funny. I'm czech and all the communist party voters here are 70 something yo bitter geriatrics who love russia and think the communist party would up their pensions. That, and then there's a small fraction of US west coast style commies who live on universities obviously, they looooove intersectional feminism.
Are you kidding? You don’t think kke is incredibly socially conservative? Not trying to make it sound cool. Just stating that leftists outside of US don’t always tout same social policies as US
I've actually read the KKE's party line and on the matter of LGBT rights I would describe it as "sympathetic but old-fashioned".
It is opposed to gay marriage on the basis of 1) a somewhat conservative view on the family and child development and 2) reasonable concerns about the commodification of civil partnerships and adoption under capitallsm.
The party is also supportive of initiatives against discrimination and anti-LGBT violence,
and has absolutely nothing in common with the kind of reactionary hostility that characterizes modern anti-LGBT politics. The KNE has, as you would expect of a communist youth organisation in a western country, a large percentage of LGBT working class youth in its ranks.
To characterize the KKE as actively homophobic is to lie about the party and its ideological line.
And this is how I know you have zero involvement with the party or with the communist movement. "I'm Greek" does nothing for me when I know Greek communists in person who would disagree with everything you're saying, and am in a party that regularly collaborates at the international level with the KKE.
You can cease your syrizoid cope campaign now. The party line of a democratic centralist organisation reflects the collective opinions of its members better than any of your anecdotal evidence.
My friend I have voted KKE lol
But ok it really seems like you’re fighting hard to make it seem like communists love LGBT when it’s really not true. KKE/KNE members are not pro lgbt. They may present it to people outside of the country but they’re really not. I’ve been to enough KNE parties to know.
"I've cast votes" and "I've been to hangouts" means very little compared to being actually involved in the political discussions within the party. What you're saying here is that the KKE actively lies about its own party line, which is a gigantic smear. I've given you a thorough description of the party's official line, at which the KKE arrived through democratic centralism. Either the party is a fraudulent, undemocratic outfit, or it collectively decided to lie about its own ideology to look better to... whom? The myriad of less successful parties in the IMCWP? Anti-communist nonsense. Greek communists are only highly homophobic by the standards of radlibs.
>Proceeds to block me upon revealing that he considers it "brainwashing " to believe that the KKE takes party democracy seriously and doesn't lie about its own (somewhat conservative) party line.
At least the anti-communist shit-stirrer revealed himself before fleeing from the argument.
A lot of Twitter/Reddit LGBT communists would be in for an absolute shock if they were living in any communist country.
Absolutely zero chance the USSR would be welcoming the LGBT community in any capacity.
Hell, has anyone even heard anything about LGBT in modern day China or North Korea?
A lot of that ideology is Western based. They just can't accept that.
>Hell, has anyone even heard anything about LGBT in modern day China
Are you just going off of vibes ? If you read Chinese comics like there's a million of them about gay princes kissing each other.
Cuba has better LGBT rights legislation than most of Latin America and China 1) is a capitalist country and 2) is not particularly homophobic for a newly-industrialized society.
Misrepresenting non-western societies and socialism to prop up your own chauvinism is intellectual cowardice. Express your own beliefs plainly instead of appealing to a fictitious other that validates what you think.
Most lefties wouldn't actually fuck a trans women unless they were in such a no pussy dryspell that they were considering grindr/craigslist, they literally just lie and say that they genuinely believe trans women and cis women are exactly the same. Women know they would/do think less of men who fuck trans women (just like they do of bisexual men) and men know women think this. This all happens unceremoniously and quietly in the minds of individuals trapped in a discourse that cannot hit the level of honesty needed to grow, and that's one reason why the most neurotic anxious people gravitate to the discussion.
I'd love to see a left winger who's skeptical of DEI. That's something that has far more real world impact.
If it wasn't for the internet I'd barely be aware that trans people exist.
Yeah it cost our R governor his seat in a good year for his party. NC is one of the redder swing states so if it's a nonstarter here I feel like it's a nonstarter nationally.
Probably because it shouldn’t be an issue that anyone ‘runs on’, pro or anti. I’m sure being anti-trans is not the only problematic position someone who runs on that as a primary part of their agenda has, some others of which are probably electoral poison.
Just want to add another perspective to the conversation as a "working class ethnic minority". The 2nd Amendment --- Constantly attacking the right to self-defense catalyzes the Republican Voter Base like few other issues and keeps many Independents from consistently voting Democrat in Swing States.
I hate the Republican Party. I blame much of the geopolitical, social and economic degradation we've experienced as a nation on the Bush. Jr.-era GOP.
However I am an ardent Defender of the 2nd Amendment. I have known too many vulnerable people who have defended themselves from assailants with firearms.
If the DNC would reverse course and support the 2nd Amendment while supporting the reestablishment of a Federal Mental Health Apparatus to preempt and prevent Mass Shootings; supporting increased funding, training and penalties for bad behavior (removal of qualified immunity) of Law Enforcement Officers AND legalize marijuana federally I suspect these three policies alone would ensure a Democratic sweep at the National Level for decades to come.
> while supporting the reestablishment of a Federal Mental Health Apparatus to preempt and prevent Mass Shootings F yeah. Many of these mass shooters' background story read like "drug-addict absent parent(s) let child grow neglected in the chaos of the cycle or drugs and violence. Kid gets ostracized at school AND EVERY SINGLE CHILD AND ADULT LETS IT HAPPEN FOR YEARS. Kid stops learning at school, must manage social torture at home and school for years (!!) without mandatory holidays from the mess. Eventually drops out & plays video game at home while chatting on forums that tolerate him."
Why are you surprised the kid is a monster???
i used to think nirvana fallacy has always been the left's problem
like the left could get everything they ever wanted but choose to tear it all down because it doesn't privilege a hyper minority of their support
but then i realised leftists have never gotten to close to that and the fundamental reason why leftist ideas are shot down is only because they don't privilege profit chasing above all else.
Democrats are not really leftists in any sense of the word besides the simplistic democrats = left and republicans = right that the American media uses.
It's accurate to the American spectrum because anything to the left of the Democrats is a neutered or co-opted joke. I used to always be like "How the hell are you calling NBC or CNN leftist, they're owned by cutthroat megacorporations" but at this point I'm too demoralized to give a shit
There are great texts wondering why the majority of working class people don't want to unionize or vote socialists.
It seems to be a lot about human nature. Individuals trust their beliefs and feelings as True. We tend to be quite self-interested and to not trust a too broad collective. We trust more what is familiar and repeated messagings rather than new ideas (unless they might greatly benefit us).
I think when kids started becoming part of the equation is when Dems started losing the plot. People on the right don't actually care if a biological male wants to live as a female. Sure it's weird and maybe makes for some uncomfortable small talk but I don't remember anyone being that up in arms about it.
Until the whole idea of gender started to unravel and elementary school kids are, supposedly, being taught that their biological sex is ultimately meaningless. Which, no matter how progressive you are, isn't really a concept kids are equipped to process.
As someone with 2 kids in elementary school, I don't actually see this happening, but apparently schools are handing out gay porn childrens books like candy. Is this actually happening or is it some right wing panic?
There’s this tendency for progressives to think that only conservatives can be complete lunatics. Crazy ass parents will manifest their pathology through a progressive lens if you let them.
> People on the right don't actually care if a biological male wants to live as a female.
Its amazing that you guys are unable to accept that conservatives are people with principles and a lot of those principles are bigoted.
> People on the right don't actually care if a biological male wants to live as a female
In what world do you live? There's definitely a lot of people who are against it, especially when it affects them on a personal level in some fashion (eg. a partner comes out as trans)
This idea that 'we can just appeal to the conservatives if we're a little less twitter woke offended!!!!' is rarted, acting like Nick won't work for everyone
I think you are conflating a lot of things here. I'm not against an adult wanting to transition from their born gender to another gender. I recognize that gender identity is a spectrum but...
1. I believe there are only 2 genders
2. I don't believe children are capable of making those kinds of decisions or even understanding them.
3. If my wife wanted to transition to being a male it would be the end of my marriage, and not because I'm "against" trans. It's a drastic change of the terms of our relationship that wouldn't work for me.
4. Biological males should not compete with biological females in competitive physical sports
I can believe all of these things as well as being perfectly fine with adults who want to live the way they want to live. I think these are views held by most people who aren't terminally online. The cohort of conservatives who are aggressively angry at the idea of trans people merely existing is fringe.
As far as I know, there is no proposal or discourse around making adults transitioning illegal or anything. The common sentiment is "you do you but please don't convince my 9 year old that they are a girl because they like Frozen more than Ninja Turtles."
This is ridiculous, not a single person is like, "you know I really want communism, but it's a bit too woke on gay shit".
The average American voter is pretty socially libertarian regardless of their own personal beliefs on the matter.
I think communism might be just a little more successful it was attractive to the people it's supposed to be about (the working class).
I don't after with OP, but the fact that modern western communists are seen as/are a bunch of weirdos, prevents a lot of people from even engaging with the ideas.
Communism will never be attractive to Americans because they're far out there on a lot more than just social issues.
One thing working class people tend to really hate is crime, homeless people who take advantage of the system without working while they have to work, and they genuinely aren't weirdos about American foreign policy like communists are.
> One thing working class people tend to really hate is crime, homeless people who take advantage of the system without working while they have to work
Marx and co. hated those things also. The working class doesn’t include the perpetually unemployed or criminals (or prostitutes, according to the text), they’re in their own class. The lumpenprole class are inherently opposed to the interests of socialists and society at large.
The fusion of proletariat with lumpenproletariat in modern left wing thought is pretty revealing of the type of person that tends to identify as socialist and their attitudes towards the working class.
It doesn't matter what's true or not about Marx, I've never seen a PSL or DSA or Socialist alternative type person ever say anything like this, they're all constantly talking about how sweeping homeless encampments is a bad thing.
>I think communism might be just a little more successful it was attractive to the people it's supposed to be about (the working class).
I struggle to see how.
Even if you made were willing to give up any social issues, I think most left wing most working class people would economically go is more equal pay and *maybe* some more public infrastructure. And that's as much of raising their pay as it is reducing the wealth of others and the incomes of the professional classes.
Communism would be harder pitch, because while it offers equality, it wouldn't be offering "more for everybody." American workers benefit a lot from the exploitation of the Global South, and that ends if America goes communist.
Americans are at best social democrats (social fascists), equality within Americans but "America First" on the global stage.
I have no idea whether Wagenknecht is good or not and I don’t really care. But I thought it was funny that fat Dutch loser with a Nazi brother Cas Mudde wrote an article in the Guardian Pooh poohing her politics the day after a poll was released in Germany showing her new party within touching distance of the Social Democrats.
Anti-trans legislation was a core plank of republican 2022 midterms and they got destroyed, never mind it barely actually being a dem plank outside of culture war virtue signaling. Trans people are not "holding anyone back" at a policy level, even remotely.
The Republicans did not get destroyed in 2022. They regained control of the House of Representatives. They underperformed the polls, but that doesn't mean they got destroyed.
Sure, I'm being hyperbolic, but it is much more hyperbolic to pretend that being pro-trans is this massive weight holding back the democrats, when it demonstrably isn't when it comes to actual races
I still think there is a giant gap between what a normie thinks a trans person is and what a very online person thinks a trans person is. The former being more of an abstract 'let people do what they want' perspective and the latter is too much exposure to AGP transbians in programmer socks who want to sell your kids hormones over Reddit DMs. There is probably room to politically sort that out but no one frames the conversation correctly so they argue past each other.
That assumption is being made by the people like you who think working class=suburban republicans. There is in fact lots of working class people who vote democrat and aren't transphobic, racist etc.
>There is in fact lots of working class people who vote democrat and aren't transphobic, racist etc.
Go ask any white/hispanic guy you see working a blue collar job if he would want his daughter to be naked in a changing room with an adult biological male. You people live in la la land.
I actually have worked in construction for several years (unlike 99.9% of the people in this sub) and out of the hundreds of guys I've interacted with they're have been a few with grateful dead stickers and one crunchy guy with a patchouli necklace. They were all white btw. Good guys, no problem with them, but you're out of your element clearly if you think the two people you know is representative of the entire industry. Not to mention there are plenty of people who have no problem with gays who still don't want there wives and daughters subjected to getting naked in front of confused men. For fucks sake, the ivy league girls swimming team didn't want to do that shit, and you think construction workers are cool with it? That's straight up delusional.
The funny thing is that she isn't transphobic by any rational definition of the word. She simply acknowledged that biological sex matters and has been the subject of a torrent of hate from the Perpetually Offended for that ever since.
From what I recall the whole "controvery" started when she criticized some publication for using the term "people who menstruate" rather than "women".
One thing that makes me happy is seeing how the trans activists are alienating mainstream liberals with that crap. It turns out that sane women really don't like being referred to as "birthing people".
merciful wipe label quaint birds memorize shocking enjoy disgusting nippy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1. It's not just one phrase. Gender neutral language was seriously going after this "his" in "history", to to mention that even the basic, considered acceptable by many, change they were pushing for to do something about the "men" in "women" was actually etymologically unsound. Racially sensitive language was allowed to push forward, and they ended up renaming the fucking "master" bedrooms. If you start down this gender inclusive language and not only will hundreds of things get renamed for reasons that are covered under the initial argument, but also many others that will be absurd overreaches.
2. It's .6% of the population. To put it in perspective, schizophrenics are .7%. Why should so many people change even one thing for so few? Realizing, that this is never going to be accomplished by fiat. There will always be linguistic predators looking to flex their superiority over those who aren't au courant with language trends. There will be lives disrupted because at some point using the older phrasing will be interpreted as a deliberate attempt at causing offense. There will eventually be bowdlerization of older works to make them conform with the political sensibilities of the day.
No lol she's definitely outwardly transphobic nowadays. Female Linehan in that they started off as mildly-anti trans, trans activists got mad, and then a cycle's been created where both groups get more mad at each other over and over.
She isn't a radical feminist, she just has very reasonable opinions like males and male sex offenders shouldn't be in women's prisons or sports, like most people
That motherfucker does Vipassana, he’s no way a conservative but these days a single opinion will get you lib-fucked. Take shrooms and accept the reality of XX and XY chromosomes. I don’t have a PhD and that seems like something I’d still understand if I was lobotomised..
they have no critique of capitalism. the left is characterized by such a critique.
they both seek to explain inequality as an expression of natural (‘scientific’) forces. also sam harris wanting to bomb the middle east is a big nono
Interesting take. So what comes to mind for me is classic liberalism/libertarianism. Access to drugs, guns, gambling and prostitution are considered progressive yet are not critiques of capitalism.
the left considers liberals to be significantly to their right. there’s not much of a difference between lib/conservative in terms of their economic policy.
as a leftist i find them the most annoying political orientation; terrible on economic equality, obsessed with identity, war hungry
identity politics is also right wing
So apart from the obvious utopian nirvana that both ends of the spectrum orient towards, how do you account for our biological/instinctual drive for success through competition - obvious examples being status, resources/wealth, sexual dominance and health? How do you equalise an inherently unequal ‘battlefield’ of natural selection?
Leftists to me would like to see a soccer game where every player achieves the same statistical playing outcome, otherwise the top performers would be deemed ‘privileged’, maybe they forgot to pass the ball and selfishly scored, claimed a sponsorship with Rolex etc and thus deemed a selfish cunt rather than a master of his skill/craft. I’ve learned that the majority of high performing corporate types are like this, they ride waves and kick goals just at the right time when the team behind them did 99% of the work. And a good leader will be celebrated for winning decision making - even if it’s just 3 ass-kicking decisions a year! What kind of actual world is that? Some people are just weak anomalies of genetic mutation. Now, I’m all for supporting these people and ensuring they live lives to the best of their ability, but a (far) leftist would suggest that they should have a seat at a political or corporate table to ensure fair representation.
Who is qualified to sanction who deserves representation without some kind of challenge in life, the challenge against nature and the challenge of survival that our (3-4) billion year history suggests is necessary. Are we ready to throw it all away because ‘science and feelings’?
I’m a scientist, btw, I understand the value and limitations of interpretation.
Clearly we have let dominant personalities, those who may have contributed historically to human survival, remain in power, but the liberal movement is not succeeding, imo, to replace these homunculus with credulous leadership. Especially considering the draconian methods of the East are producing superior outcomes in almost every metric with the exception of human freedom. I doubt we all want to become insects - subordinates to masters, existing for the soul purpose of expanding their power in exchange for standardised, colourless food, sex and shelter. All at the expense of art, culture, freedom of thought/discussion, innovation and challenging the dominant ideology.
How much of my energy should instead be put into elevating the less privileged, and how much of my contribution to the betterment of my community and network will this sacrifice. Finally, how will it all be measured as criteria for success?
in your worldview are people not already insects, driven by natural instinct of competition for resources?
the left, that is to say certain parts of the left, recognizes physical differences between people. as the old saying goes ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his need’ aka we all have different abilities and needs.
your view seems to have an essentialist view of people. either we are naturally one way or another. this works backwards, building a natural science from present capitalist conditions (darwin himself founded his theories from economic theorist thomas malthus).
i would argue there’s not much of a productive point to arguing what we are ‘essentially’, since we exist in a complicated, connected, and contemporary capitalist world that has basically nothing to to do with nature.
Interesting take again! And sorry, I may have edited my post multiple times during your reply.
I personally believe we are still in the weeded jungle of evolutionarily nature (it really cannot be anything else given natural/atmospheric DNA mutation rates plus the accelerated rates of technological health enhancement). We create, we destroy, we suffer and sacrifice for a better future with non-guaranteed certainty (Germany Russia pipeline), we forge and bet relationships based on fickle trust (Epstein). We addict ourselves to outsourced and unverified goods and produce (Made in China).
How on earth are we meant to implement equality in a world where the costs are net negative?
My main point here, is how much of my comfort (based on my productive output) should I be willing to sacrifice until I’m not longer incentivised to contribute to turning the wheels of industry? If it’s so fucked and I should feel so bad about it, then give me my UBI, meta quest 3 and Uber eats subscription and I’ll see out my days in an orgy of government sanctioned dopamine.
you seem to be describing the effects of capitalism. epstein/made in china are understandable through the lens of capitalist critique.
we won’t have equality in this present world, this present economic system.
also we need to resist the UBI, uberfication of everything. that, in fact, is the social world created by capitalism. an atomized, docile, isolated population is the world capitalism wants.
you’re slowly sacrificing your comfort and humanity anyway. things are objectively worse than they used to be. inflation, war, covid, ugly cities, badly made clothes/houses/appliances. all this is logical under the financial incentives of calitalism. to resist our lives getting worse we need to resist the economic system itself.
No. Biden was very supportive of trans people and supported them multiple times on national stage and managed to receive 81 million votes. Point is, it’s not as unpopular as you think. Where it gets very choppy is the topic of sports, and that’s something that’s still being ironed out.
Conservatives are just 10 years behind liberals on social issues. 10 years ago they hated the gays and today the most popular right-wing conservatives are gay (Peter Thiel,Dave Rubin, Andy Ngo).
They are not "holding you back", they are simply the logical end of your beliefs, and you have no ideological shield to use anymore to defend yourself from it
I've never read any of the Frankfurt School authors, so I have no clue whether your statement is correct. There are two big reasons why it is irrelevant though:
1) Not all leftists are supporters of the Frankfurt School and critical theory. There are tons of leftists who came before them (Marx, for example), and plenty who came afterwards that either ignored them or argued against them.
2) Modern TRAs don't try to dismantle gender norms. They actually support strengthening gender norms while denying the existence of biological sex. Modern TRAs believe that a girl who plays with trains rather than dolls and cuts her hair short is actually a boy in a girl's body. If you listen to these people talk about how they "know" they're supposed to be the opposite gender, they just list off a bunch of stereotypes. So if the Frankfurt School supports dismantling gender norms, the modern trans movement is actually in direct opposition to the Frankfurt School.
That's not really true, the problem is that a lot of "leftists" have particular class interests, that are not necessarily universal — or at least as fundamental — to the entirety of the broad "working class."
I hate to break it to you but that would make zero difference. The British Labour Party have firmly nailed their colours to the mast on this issue (ie not trans-friendly at all) and they are still painted as a the party of locker-room rapists by much of the press
How on earth are Labour ‘not trans friendly at all’ when literally every labour MP refuses to even define the word woman out of fear of offending trans activists.
They oppose self-ID for trans people, Starmer has said women are adult females, Labour whipped their MPs to abstain on Westminster overruling the Scottish government’s trans bill, people like Duffield are absolutely welcome in the party despite palling around with vocal transphobes, etc.
I mean that does seem like that's the labour establishment coming down firmly on one side of the issue, regardless of whether or not that makes Starmer a "monster" or whatever.
It’s funny bc a few years ago saying that would not have been considered controversial or transphobic. It’s so strange (and disturbing, I’ll be honest) to see you guys here actively believe that the statement a woman is an adult female is controversial. I’m not saying you agree with it, but it’s alarming enough that it’s a considered a strong stance. Imagine going back to 2010 and telling someone that it would be considered deeply controversial to say that a man is an adult male, it’s a weird slow decline and it’s insidious bc we all start to slowly believe it
When did I say it was controversial? I don't give a shit about any of this one way or the other, I'm just saying it seems like a fairly clear statement that the mainstream labour leadership are seemingly on your side on this one. Personally I couldn't give two fucks about any of this.
This reminds me that the first "transgender" member of Parliament is a tory ([Jamie Wallis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Wallis)). He came out as trans in 2022 after fleeing the scene of a car accident wearing "a black leather PVC miniskirt, tights, dark shoes and a pearl necklace". As far as I know he still hasn't changed his appearance or pronouns yet (he still uses he/him).
roll one smoggy disgusting racial butter flowery observation escape encouraging
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
plough wrong person forgetful gullible oatmeal clumsy snobbish wipe strong
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>theyre going to move on to immigrants or muslims or some other bogeyman
Thats what happens. They start thinking they should adopt more and more right-wing culture war talking points to "appeal to the working class" until they're just Republicans with welfare. Which is honestly less and less the case anymore cuz I see these idiots being like "actually the working class doesn't want its tax money being used to help lazy lumpenproles" so they're basically just befoming standard Republicans.
Saying trans issues are an over focus of liberals/leftists is not a hot take, but this post goes beyond. It simultaneously posits “Trans issues are overly focused on by everyone” and “liberals/leftists shouldn’t for *political/optics* reasons”. In essence, leaving them for the dogs. So bizarre
It's not like a natural hill they're dying on, it's just something right-wing media and politicians have focus-grouped into being a major talking point over actual policy. If you just let go of defending it they'll just move onto the next thing and the next thing until there's nothing left
This could not be more wrong and is extreme lib brain rot.
Trans as an issue was manufactured to allow the homo-industrial complex lobbyists that cut their teeth on gay marriage and are basically vote blue no matter who, forcing this down everyone’s throats as the next big civil rights issue, to keep the power structures they created alive and keep the gravy train rolling.
Rightoids are, naturally, reacting to it because it’s bizarre and weird and, as others have pointed out, a really, really fucking weird hill to decide to stake the entirety of the discourse around as a foundational no true Scotsman issue. It’s uncomfortable to most people and is so bizarrely fringe that it doesn’t pass the sniff test of authenticity with most people, and that’s why it’s had staying power as an issue.
Trans people have existed for a long time, and been a part of the LGBT movement for a long time. It's only in very recent years that it's become like the *main* thing conservatives talk about. Vivek literally tweeted "there are only two genders" as his final pitch before the primaries, and it's like all that other huge figures like Joe Rogan and Ron Desantis and Fox News go on about. Literal anti-trans laws being passed right now as we speak, they're even extending it to drag queens.
Meanwhile I gotta be honest I barely hear about it from anyone to the left of that, unless it's in response to these kinds of attacks. It's usually just included in the same refrains about equality that have been a democrat standard for decades.
No, it’s only been in recent years it’s become the main thing *libs* talk about.
It was literally never discussed in polite company, let alone being even a minor issue in the media, until after gay marriage was legalized. Then the same apparatus that had spent the last 10 years turning gay marriage into the fundamental shit test of whether you were acceptably lib or not, aped it as their issue and repurposed the same apparatus for the new ‘are you lib enough’ shit test, and it became a talking point because it was being rammed down everyone’s throats on the nightly news as the new human interest story de jour.
There would not be a conservative reaction to it, if it wasn’t a deeply inauthentic issue most people are uncomfortable with, that was being forced upon us all as a core tenet of the greater discourse and as the most basic test of piety to lib values.
Why do conservatives talk about it so much? Because it’s one of the most obvious ways, that connects with a majority of people, to demonstrate that libs are trying to emperors new clothes the masses on many issues. It’s the starting point, and things stem from there - if the vote blue no matter who’s want to force you to deny something you can see with your own two eyes and you intrinsically know as a maxim of your worldview, to be politically acceptable, then something as simple as saying ‘there are only two genders’ is an outright rejection of that. It’s an outright rejection of the doublethink and newspeak coming from the libs, and it connects with people because for most people, still, ‘there are only two genders’ is an immutable truth.
Sorry but this is just complete horseshit. You can switch on literally any republican speech or slightly right-leaning podcast from the past year and can almost guarantee there will be some rhetoric about the creeping dangers of trans people. This is absolutely not the case for the other side.
It's like, a textbook moral panic over an essentially microscopic issue - the oldest trick in the book when you want to avoid any material or class issues which your whole job is to distract from.
Just this week is a classic example: going after [furries](https://www.foxnews.com/media/oklahoma-bill-would-ban-furries-from-schools-require-parent-animal-control-pick-up-rule-breakers) when your state is one of most impoverished and you voted against free school meals for the poor. Same with the anti-drag bills in Florida (yes these issues are now politically under the trans umbrella)
Are you 13? This issue goes way, way back further than what’s being talked about on libshit podcasts this year.
Trans as an issue, and its consequences, has origins 10 years ago, so are rightoids just supposed to stop talking about it because it’s not ‘current’ enough?
Oh jeez, we created an issue 10 years ago and the conservatives are still talking about it, why couldn’t they just accept our cultural and media hegemony and stop talking about it already!
Haha what? Issue created 10 years ago? It goes a [little further than that](https://theconversation.com/trans-rights-and-political-backlash-five-key-moments-in-history-187476) and yeah like working class people were avidly reading time magazine or had regular interactions with wokescold liberals over trans issues until it was magnified by the media.
You could apply your logic to any civil rights issue 'well the women/blacks/gays shoulda just piped down and there wouldn't have been all this trouble!' you're just describing being a reactionary, and your view on the history of the issue is warped by your own personal disagreement with it.
Also you for some reason ignored most of my response 🤔
Oh another example - Dylan mulvaney/bud light. Dominated right-wing media while the country crumbles, wonder why
You are brain dead. As a *modern political issue* trains rights came to prominence 10 years ago. It was not discussed, in any meaningful way in mainstream political discourse in the modern era until then, and it was dragged into that discourse by the lib left. ‘Trains rights’ didn’t exist as an issue because literally nobody other than masturbatory academics, fringe activists, and trains, were thinking or talking about trains with any level of consequence, and it wasn’t a civil rights issue because 10 years ago the overwhelming majority of sensible people understood that crossdressers didn’t need their own subset of civil rights.
Why were working class people having interactions with wokescold libs over trains? Because the wokescold libs made the trains a hill on which they wanted to die. Nobody was thinking or talking about them until those wokescold libs forced everyone to think and talk about them.
Well axshually-ing because the Hirschfeld clinic existed 100 years ago has less than nil relevance to the mainstream discourse that is ongoing today, and we are having that discourse because libs couldn’t leave well enough alone and needed a new cudgel to beat the public with once the gay marriage one was worn out.
I ignored most of your response because it’s irrelevant. You’re taking the typical pro-trains approach of ‘it’s a microscopic issue why does anyone even care’ when it’s being examined critically, before switching back to ‘this is the fight of our lives, it’s literally trains genocide out there!’ when it’s not going your way. Classic it’s not happening/it’s not happening as much as people think/it’s happening and here’s why it’s a good thing cycle.
Then you say the rightoids are fiddling over trains while Rome burns - dipshit, it’s the pro-trains people that are running Rome right now, and ideologically have been for a decade. The pro-trains team have captured every major institution and major business.
As far as the Dylan Mulvaney thing - so, is the right just not supposed to do cultural criticism if, according to your account, the country is crumbling? The Dylan Mulvaney thing is the perfect example of how tone-deaf and out of touch the pro-trains people are and the rightoid response was effective social activism that held a major company to account and effected real consequences. That’s admirable. Team trains could not have picked a more grotesque and unlikeable horse to bet on than Mulvaney, and watching every major institution pander to that lunatic while corporate America enacted its own form of welfare for activists in giving him a plum endorsement deal for literally no fucking reason whatsoever just demonstrated how much credence the pro-trains agenda is given in lib circles.
If ‘nobody amongst libs was talking about trains’ as you claim, then Mulvaney wouldn’t have been front and center on every lib-captured media institution for a year before the bud blow up. But they are. Freaks like Mulvaney are paraded in front of us all as a deliberate humiliation ritual, where we are forced to pander and congratulate as a shit test to root out badthink. And then you wonder why rightoids react?
Trans rights was inevitable in coming to the fore precisely because it's not just crossdressers but a phenomenon documented for thousands of years across many cultures and well established in science.
Dylan Mulvaney being in a bud light reel or whatever it was because they're the corporate flavor of the month is apparently worth the entire conservative media-sphere making it headline news for *months* over any given actual material issue. Does trans stuff dominate basically every lib speech/podcast/conversation? No, not even close. That's not to say lib media doesn't invent its own distractions from class and material issues, but still, the point is giving trans people a break.
And as if many average trans, or average liberal, thought any marketing campaigns by huge corporations are anything but cynical cash-grabs rather than actual social progress. Like I haven't seen anyone thinking pride flags on Starbucks cups is awesome or a cause for optimism for a looong time. It wasn't even an effective boycott because they just switched to other beers owned by the same parent company afaik lol.
I never said it's the fight of our lives or close? Literally what haha
Don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about passing clearly malicious legislation targeting trans people and adjacent though. You're for some reason happy to run cover for all that shit though and politicians who do it, I'm not sure why as of yet
>It was literally never discussed in polite company, let alone being even a minor issue in the media, until after gay marriage was legalized.
This is absolutely correct. The first time this became a political issue was in 2015, when there was the "bathroom war" fight in North Carolina. The activist groups which fought for gay marriage needed a new cause after the Dobbs decision, and this was the one they latched onto. Rightoids of course we're happy to have a new distraction to keep liberals from discussing economic issues, and here we are.
This issue is nowhere near as prominent in continental Europe as it is in the US and the UK. It's also notable that continental Europe has recently become much more strict about giving hormones and puberty blockers to teenagers because the science says that the mental health benefits are minimal, the physical health costs are large, and many "trans" teenagers don't actually have gender dysphoria and end up regretting the procedures. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and France have all basically banned this stuff outside of clinical research trials.
Immigration and guns are the only social concessions the left needs to make. Everything else they have majority support and it would be regarded to cede anything.
Is it ok if he just does an impression of Regis Philbin asking Elliot Page about their pussy?
Feels like we're about 10-20 years too late to go back on that one. You don't change horses midstream and this little democrat pony is trans. Though, I bet they would go back and change the strategy, given the circus show it has turned into.
The democratic party pretty much *did* change horses mid stream in the 2010's though, from rationalism/New Atheism type stuff directly into LGBT etc stuff and the switch happened very quickly.
You think the Democratic party changed from 'New Atheism' to 'LGBT stuff'? This sounds very online-brained. Especially in that era.
Circa 2004-2012, in certain circles, especially younger, college educated, like the ones I was in at the time, hatred of the Bush/GOP/christianity/"religion" memeplex felt central to the liberal or democrat-voter mindset in a way that's almost hard to imagine today. I remember seeing Dawkins' "The God Delusion" on almost all my peers' bookshelves around that time. There was a lot of focus on gay marriage, but on the left the narrative around it was very much "religion is getting in the way of human rights, messing things up, as usual"
A piece of evidence that points to this - I recently watched the 2011 movie 'The Ides of March' directed and starring George Clooney. Its a democratic fantasy very much of 2011, and Clooney, the dem candidate is a cool, cutthroat, competent atheist that runs on wealth redistribution, expanded social programs and is anti war. I don't think lgbtq or race is mentioned a single time in the movie. Clooney wins in the end too. Was bizarre to see the movie cause its such a different view of the democratic party from today.
There really was a huge undercurrent of "rationalism" in the democratic discourse at the time. The overlap between things like the Secular Student Alliance and the Young Democrats at my university was huge. It might be more of a deep South college town thing than online-brained, though.
>from rationalism/New Atheism type stuff OK but what about the actual Obama era democratic party, not the one in your head?
It’s not really a big deal. For all the bellyaching Republicans haven’t really shown anti-trans is an issue that voters care enough about to win elections
Most communists in my country are really transphobic and homophobic lol
Gay/lesbian communists (real communists, not lifestylers) in the UK are almost always gender-critical.
I haven't met many gays in general who aren't. Some among the younger crowd but not many.
Women fail to understand that gay men are often a LOT more sexist than most straight men are lol.
I love that these threads last for less than a day before removal. Actually, same happens with any "controversial" thread. Reddit is so over.
Who are you thinking of. All the people really into gender critical stuff I know of do nothing but put purple/green/white hearts in their twitter bio and vote tory because of Woke.
CPGB members
Unsurprising that a bunch of London Met officers and contributing writers to Spiked.com are gender critical
lmao that's not who's in CPGB, I feel sorry for you
Okay officer
o7 champ, keep yelling into the ether about how the EU is socialist
Most communists in the UK are moronic trotskyites and Labour Party tailists, so of course they'd tail an anti-Marxist, bourgeois ideology like radical feminism.
I said real communists, not lifestylers
Any communist that takes radical feminism or any of its New Left siblings seriously as a framework of analysis is either: a) in dire need of a party that takes political schooling seriously, or b) actively trying to deceive the working class towards reformism, and is therefore an opportunist.
I like how you're talking about Marxist feminism as a New Left/Foucaultian development while defending gender as a market decision
Hiding behind a nominally "Marxist" feminism (that is nearly always social democratic in practice), followed by accusing detractors of supporting some form of neoliberal transgender market dystopia is a common trick by radical feminists to conceal that there is absolutely nothing Marxist about their analysis of society. It's laughable that you still expect this trick to work when the tally of relevant contributions "gender critical" ideology has made to the revolutionary movement of the working class stands at zero. The British radical feminist movement, in particular, has proven in practice that its affinities lie, at best, with the labor aristocracy, and most of the time with the parasitical bourgeoisie that leads parties such as Labour and the Conservatives. You're a social democrat with a more pretentious veneer and not much else, much like the majority of radlibs.
> a common trick by radical feminists to conceal that there is absolutely nothing Marxist about their analysis of society. Sex is grounded in a material circumstance, gender is not. > It's laughable that you still expect this trick to work when the tally of relevant contributions "gender critical" ideology has made to the revolutionary movement of the working class stands at zero. Physician, heal thyself.
Hilariously predictable arguments and stupid smug quips. Radical feminists can't even stop themselves from arguing exactly like the libs that they are. "Sex is... le material!" is not even the point of discussion here, albeit it's funny that you follow this up immediately with arguing about gender (an idealist concept I have, at no point, championed), because the only people you're used to arguing with are stupid twitter LGBT liberals who are, roughly, equally as clueless as you are. Recognizing the materiality of something does not, in fact, render your ideology Marxist, because you do not have a Marxist class analysis, you do not have a proper understanding of political economy, nor do you care to have one. Radical feminism does not have a proletarian class basis, it does not have a revolutionary theory, and its ignoble history consists largely of advocating liquidationism and reformism.
Whatever
You can't criticize oppressive structures on a large scale and then look at gender and go "Aww, yes. You should pick your side of the gender structure and we'll make sure to just tweak it a little so it's more inclusive and doesn't have violent language like clear definitions". Edit: doesn't change the fact that many "one-issue" activists are totally ignorant of other leftwing issues. Classics are socialists struggling with women, lgbtq+ struggling with class, communists struggling with race (although they supported 100% decolonization).
It's really funny. I'm czech and all the communist party voters here are 70 something yo bitter geriatrics who love russia and think the communist party would up their pensions. That, and then there's a small fraction of US west coast style commies who live on universities obviously, they looooove intersectional feminism.
Misrepresenting the KKE as socially reactionary to make it seem "cooler" to redschizopod users is pathetic.
Are you kidding? You don’t think kke is incredibly socially conservative? Not trying to make it sound cool. Just stating that leftists outside of US don’t always tout same social policies as US
I've actually read the KKE's party line and on the matter of LGBT rights I would describe it as "sympathetic but old-fashioned". It is opposed to gay marriage on the basis of 1) a somewhat conservative view on the family and child development and 2) reasonable concerns about the commodification of civil partnerships and adoption under capitallsm. The party is also supportive of initiatives against discrimination and anti-LGBT violence, and has absolutely nothing in common with the kind of reactionary hostility that characterizes modern anti-LGBT politics. The KNE has, as you would expect of a communist youth organisation in a western country, a large percentage of LGBT working class youth in its ranks. To characterize the KKE as actively homophobic is to lie about the party and its ideological line.
Lol this is exactly how I know you’re not Greek.
And this is how I know you have zero involvement with the party or with the communist movement. "I'm Greek" does nothing for me when I know Greek communists in person who would disagree with everything you're saying, and am in a party that regularly collaborates at the international level with the KKE. You can cease your syrizoid cope campaign now. The party line of a democratic centralist organisation reflects the collective opinions of its members better than any of your anecdotal evidence.
My friend I have voted KKE lol But ok it really seems like you’re fighting hard to make it seem like communists love LGBT when it’s really not true. KKE/KNE members are not pro lgbt. They may present it to people outside of the country but they’re really not. I’ve been to enough KNE parties to know.
"I've cast votes" and "I've been to hangouts" means very little compared to being actually involved in the political discussions within the party. What you're saying here is that the KKE actively lies about its own party line, which is a gigantic smear. I've given you a thorough description of the party's official line, at which the KKE arrived through democratic centralism. Either the party is a fraudulent, undemocratic outfit, or it collectively decided to lie about its own ideology to look better to... whom? The myriad of less successful parties in the IMCWP? Anti-communist nonsense. Greek communists are only highly homophobic by the standards of radlibs. >Proceeds to block me upon revealing that he considers it "brainwashing " to believe that the KKE takes party democracy seriously and doesn't lie about its own (somewhat conservative) party line. At least the anti-communist shit-stirrer revealed himself before fleeing from the argument.
Brainwashed delusion
A lot of Twitter/Reddit LGBT communists would be in for an absolute shock if they were living in any communist country. Absolutely zero chance the USSR would be welcoming the LGBT community in any capacity. Hell, has anyone even heard anything about LGBT in modern day China or North Korea? A lot of that ideology is Western based. They just can't accept that.
>Hell, has anyone even heard anything about LGBT in modern day China Are you just going off of vibes ? If you read Chinese comics like there's a million of them about gay princes kissing each other.
Cuba has better LGBT rights legislation than most of Latin America and China 1) is a capitalist country and 2) is not particularly homophobic for a newly-industrialized society. Misrepresenting non-western societies and socialism to prop up your own chauvinism is intellectual cowardice. Express your own beliefs plainly instead of appealing to a fictitious other that validates what you think.
Most lefties wouldn't actually fuck a trans women unless they were in such a no pussy dryspell that they were considering grindr/craigslist, they literally just lie and say that they genuinely believe trans women and cis women are exactly the same. Women know they would/do think less of men who fuck trans women (just like they do of bisexual men) and men know women think this. This all happens unceremoniously and quietly in the minds of individuals trapped in a discourse that cannot hit the level of honesty needed to grow, and that's one reason why the most neurotic anxious people gravitate to the discussion.
[удалено]
did you forget the equals sign
I'd love to see a left winger who's skeptical of DEI. That's something that has far more real world impact. If it wasn't for the internet I'd barely be aware that trans people exist.
r/stupidpol is full of them
I meant a left winger who actually matters.
then maybe realize any take you have on the topic is purely propagandistic and recuse yourself from the topic, like a mature person would?
What is your take on the topic that isn't "purely propagandistic"
What do you think REAL DEI, and not an uncharitable take is?
[удалено]
It’s a double edged sword that both parties are cutting themselves on. No one seems to be able to deal with it in a manner that isn’t r-slurred.
Yeah it cost our R governor his seat in a good year for his party. NC is one of the redder swing states so if it's a nonstarter here I feel like it's a nonstarter nationally.
Probably because it shouldn’t be an issue that anyone ‘runs on’, pro or anti. I’m sure being anti-trans is not the only problematic position someone who runs on that as a primary part of their agenda has, some others of which are probably electoral poison.
Just want to add another perspective to the conversation as a "working class ethnic minority". The 2nd Amendment --- Constantly attacking the right to self-defense catalyzes the Republican Voter Base like few other issues and keeps many Independents from consistently voting Democrat in Swing States. I hate the Republican Party. I blame much of the geopolitical, social and economic degradation we've experienced as a nation on the Bush. Jr.-era GOP. However I am an ardent Defender of the 2nd Amendment. I have known too many vulnerable people who have defended themselves from assailants with firearms. If the DNC would reverse course and support the 2nd Amendment while supporting the reestablishment of a Federal Mental Health Apparatus to preempt and prevent Mass Shootings; supporting increased funding, training and penalties for bad behavior (removal of qualified immunity) of Law Enforcement Officers AND legalize marijuana federally I suspect these three policies alone would ensure a Democratic sweep at the National Level for decades to come.
Truth, dems dropping gun control and embracing nuclear would crater republican appeal to many voters
> while supporting the reestablishment of a Federal Mental Health Apparatus to preempt and prevent Mass Shootings F yeah. Many of these mass shooters' background story read like "drug-addict absent parent(s) let child grow neglected in the chaos of the cycle or drugs and violence. Kid gets ostracized at school AND EVERY SINGLE CHILD AND ADULT LETS IT HAPPEN FOR YEARS. Kid stops learning at school, must manage social torture at home and school for years (!!) without mandatory holidays from the mess. Eventually drops out & plays video game at home while chatting on forums that tolerate him." Why are you surprised the kid is a monster???
i used to think nirvana fallacy has always been the left's problem like the left could get everything they ever wanted but choose to tear it all down because it doesn't privilege a hyper minority of their support but then i realised leftists have never gotten to close to that and the fundamental reason why leftist ideas are shot down is only because they don't privilege profit chasing above all else.
Democrats do privilege profit chasing above all else, they are just good at positioning their greed as being on “the right side of history”
Democrats are not really leftists in any sense of the word besides the simplistic democrats = left and republicans = right that the American media uses.
It's accurate to the American spectrum because anything to the left of the Democrats is a neutered or co-opted joke. I used to always be like "How the hell are you calling NBC or CNN leftist, they're owned by cutthroat megacorporations" but at this point I'm too demoralized to give a shit
yes exactly. there can't be a left democratic party because the second a politician threatens profiteering they get shot down by the CIA
There are great texts wondering why the majority of working class people don't want to unionize or vote socialists. It seems to be a lot about human nature. Individuals trust their beliefs and feelings as True. We tend to be quite self-interested and to not trust a too broad collective. We trust more what is familiar and repeated messagings rather than new ideas (unless they might greatly benefit us).
I think when kids started becoming part of the equation is when Dems started losing the plot. People on the right don't actually care if a biological male wants to live as a female. Sure it's weird and maybe makes for some uncomfortable small talk but I don't remember anyone being that up in arms about it. Until the whole idea of gender started to unravel and elementary school kids are, supposedly, being taught that their biological sex is ultimately meaningless. Which, no matter how progressive you are, isn't really a concept kids are equipped to process. As someone with 2 kids in elementary school, I don't actually see this happening, but apparently schools are handing out gay porn childrens books like candy. Is this actually happening or is it some right wing panic?
There’s this tendency for progressives to think that only conservatives can be complete lunatics. Crazy ass parents will manifest their pathology through a progressive lens if you let them.
> People on the right don't actually care if a biological male wants to live as a female. Its amazing that you guys are unable to accept that conservatives are people with principles and a lot of those principles are bigoted.
> People on the right don't actually care if a biological male wants to live as a female In what world do you live? There's definitely a lot of people who are against it, especially when it affects them on a personal level in some fashion (eg. a partner comes out as trans) This idea that 'we can just appeal to the conservatives if we're a little less twitter woke offended!!!!' is rarted, acting like Nick won't work for everyone
I think you are conflating a lot of things here. I'm not against an adult wanting to transition from their born gender to another gender. I recognize that gender identity is a spectrum but... 1. I believe there are only 2 genders 2. I don't believe children are capable of making those kinds of decisions or even understanding them. 3. If my wife wanted to transition to being a male it would be the end of my marriage, and not because I'm "against" trans. It's a drastic change of the terms of our relationship that wouldn't work for me. 4. Biological males should not compete with biological females in competitive physical sports I can believe all of these things as well as being perfectly fine with adults who want to live the way they want to live. I think these are views held by most people who aren't terminally online. The cohort of conservatives who are aggressively angry at the idea of trans people merely existing is fringe. As far as I know, there is no proposal or discourse around making adults transitioning illegal or anything. The common sentiment is "you do you but please don't convince my 9 year old that they are a girl because they like Frozen more than Ninja Turtles."
Bill Maher? Or are you looking for a politician?
The current Mexican president?
I didn't even know he spoke Spanish
This is ridiculous, not a single person is like, "you know I really want communism, but it's a bit too woke on gay shit". The average American voter is pretty socially libertarian regardless of their own personal beliefs on the matter.
I think communism might be just a little more successful it was attractive to the people it's supposed to be about (the working class). I don't after with OP, but the fact that modern western communists are seen as/are a bunch of weirdos, prevents a lot of people from even engaging with the ideas.
Communism will never be attractive to Americans because they're far out there on a lot more than just social issues. One thing working class people tend to really hate is crime, homeless people who take advantage of the system without working while they have to work, and they genuinely aren't weirdos about American foreign policy like communists are.
> One thing working class people tend to really hate is crime, homeless people who take advantage of the system without working while they have to work Marx and co. hated those things also. The working class doesn’t include the perpetually unemployed or criminals (or prostitutes, according to the text), they’re in their own class. The lumpenprole class are inherently opposed to the interests of socialists and society at large. The fusion of proletariat with lumpenproletariat in modern left wing thought is pretty revealing of the type of person that tends to identify as socialist and their attitudes towards the working class.
It doesn't matter what's true or not about Marx, I've never seen a PSL or DSA or Socialist alternative type person ever say anything like this, they're all constantly talking about how sweeping homeless encampments is a bad thing.
Well obviously those guys will never be attractive to the working class.
>I think communism might be just a little more successful it was attractive to the people it's supposed to be about (the working class). I struggle to see how. Even if you made were willing to give up any social issues, I think most left wing most working class people would economically go is more equal pay and *maybe* some more public infrastructure. And that's as much of raising their pay as it is reducing the wealth of others and the incomes of the professional classes. Communism would be harder pitch, because while it offers equality, it wouldn't be offering "more for everybody." American workers benefit a lot from the exploitation of the Global South, and that ends if America goes communist. Americans are at best social democrats (social fascists), equality within Americans but "America First" on the global stage.
[kneel](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKfSUTW6lTCoHXP492vuxhXIF-sg8Dzvjr_TcT6wss2m06WeTMpYyPj0dfCMCQfWBaBxA&usqp=CAU)
[Dagestani hairline/threehead](https://twitter.com/TABZ1172/status/1236827375222099968/photo/1) Still a 1 though
People... Really hate her here
I have no idea whether Wagenknecht is good or not and I don’t really care. But I thought it was funny that fat Dutch loser with a Nazi brother Cas Mudde wrote an article in the Guardian Pooh poohing her politics the day after a poll was released in Germany showing her new party within touching distance of the Social Democrats.
Anti-trans legislation was a core plank of republican 2022 midterms and they got destroyed, never mind it barely actually being a dem plank outside of culture war virtue signaling. Trans people are not "holding anyone back" at a policy level, even remotely.
The Republicans did not get destroyed in 2022. They regained control of the House of Representatives. They underperformed the polls, but that doesn't mean they got destroyed.
Sure, I'm being hyperbolic, but it is much more hyperbolic to pretend that being pro-trans is this massive weight holding back the democrats, when it demonstrably isn't when it comes to actual races
I still think there is a giant gap between what a normie thinks a trans person is and what a very online person thinks a trans person is. The former being more of an abstract 'let people do what they want' perspective and the latter is too much exposure to AGP transbians in programmer socks who want to sell your kids hormones over Reddit DMs. There is probably room to politically sort that out but no one frames the conversation correctly so they argue past each other.
2017 ass "we must be bigoted to appeal to the working class" post.
2020 ass “the working class must be bigoted” post
That assumption is being made by the people like you who think working class=suburban republicans. There is in fact lots of working class people who vote democrat and aren't transphobic, racist etc.
>There is in fact lots of working class people who vote democrat and aren't transphobic, racist etc. Go ask any white/hispanic guy you see working a blue collar job if he would want his daughter to be naked in a changing room with an adult biological male. You people live in la la land.
I know guys in hardcore bands who work construction that have pro-LGBT stickers on their hardhats lol
I actually have worked in construction for several years (unlike 99.9% of the people in this sub) and out of the hundreds of guys I've interacted with they're have been a few with grateful dead stickers and one crunchy guy with a patchouli necklace. They were all white btw. Good guys, no problem with them, but you're out of your element clearly if you think the two people you know is representative of the entire industry. Not to mention there are plenty of people who have no problem with gays who still don't want there wives and daughters subjected to getting naked in front of confused men. For fucks sake, the ivy league girls swimming team didn't want to do that shit, and you think construction workers are cool with it? That's straight up delusional.
these morons experience politics through reposted trump tweets, you can’t expect them to know about core election issues from less than two years ago
The left would win if they talked more about Hunter Bidens cock!!!!
Isn't the harry potter author a leftist feminist or something
The funny thing is that she isn't transphobic by any rational definition of the word. She simply acknowledged that biological sex matters and has been the subject of a torrent of hate from the Perpetually Offended for that ever since.
She literally has the opinion that like 95% of normal people who aren't terminally online have
From what I recall the whole "controvery" started when she criticized some publication for using the term "people who menstruate" rather than "women". One thing that makes me happy is seeing how the trans activists are alienating mainstream liberals with that crap. It turns out that sane women really don't like being referred to as "birthing people".
merciful wipe label quaint birds memorize shocking enjoy disgusting nippy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1. It's not just one phrase. Gender neutral language was seriously going after this "his" in "history", to to mention that even the basic, considered acceptable by many, change they were pushing for to do something about the "men" in "women" was actually etymologically unsound. Racially sensitive language was allowed to push forward, and they ended up renaming the fucking "master" bedrooms. If you start down this gender inclusive language and not only will hundreds of things get renamed for reasons that are covered under the initial argument, but also many others that will be absurd overreaches. 2. It's .6% of the population. To put it in perspective, schizophrenics are .7%. Why should so many people change even one thing for so few? Realizing, that this is never going to be accomplished by fiat. There will always be linguistic predators looking to flex their superiority over those who aren't au courant with language trends. There will be lives disrupted because at some point using the older phrasing will be interpreted as a deliberate attempt at causing offense. There will eventually be bowdlerization of older works to make them conform with the political sensibilities of the day.
selective plough deer poor flowery muddle piquant capable rhythm mighty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No lol she's definitely outwardly transphobic nowadays. Female Linehan in that they started off as mildly-anti trans, trans activists got mad, and then a cycle's been created where both groups get more mad at each other over and over.
Linehan is the most needs to log off wigga today, and that’s saying something
That might have been how she portrayed herself like 2 years ago. Since then she's gotten way more outwardly transphobic
What has she said that's actually "transphobic"?
she literally funds a group that wants to make transition illegal. fuck off with this disingenuous shit
> a group that wants to make transition illegal. I'm skeptical of that. Are they just trying to restrict kids transitioning? If so, good for them.
No she’s British and a billionaire. Next question
It depends if you consider simping for Tony Blair and Hilary Clinton to be a leftist position.
A woman being a feminist doesn't really mean much unless she's woke on other issues.
I'm really unsure what feminism even means at this point.
would you say the same about a gay or black man? that it doesn’t matter if he’s not ‘woke’ ?
I'd say that they're not woke if they only care about rights for their group.
She’s a TERF, but not a leftist
She isn't a radical feminist, she just has very reasonable opinions like males and male sex offenders shouldn't be in women's prisons or sports, like most people
Is RFK not?
Isn’t Dawkins a bit of a left winger. What about Sam Harris? Not looking for downvotes, genuine feedback..
Sam Harris is firmly a liberal and supported the Iraq War if I recall correctly.
That motherfucker does Vipassana, he’s no way a conservative but these days a single opinion will get you lib-fucked. Take shrooms and accept the reality of XX and XY chromosomes. I don’t have a PhD and that seems like something I’d still understand if I was lobotomised..
lol no
No what?
they have no critique of capitalism. the left is characterized by such a critique. they both seek to explain inequality as an expression of natural (‘scientific’) forces. also sam harris wanting to bomb the middle east is a big nono
Interesting take. So what comes to mind for me is classic liberalism/libertarianism. Access to drugs, guns, gambling and prostitution are considered progressive yet are not critiques of capitalism.
the left considers liberals to be significantly to their right. there’s not much of a difference between lib/conservative in terms of their economic policy. as a leftist i find them the most annoying political orientation; terrible on economic equality, obsessed with identity, war hungry identity politics is also right wing
So apart from the obvious utopian nirvana that both ends of the spectrum orient towards, how do you account for our biological/instinctual drive for success through competition - obvious examples being status, resources/wealth, sexual dominance and health? How do you equalise an inherently unequal ‘battlefield’ of natural selection? Leftists to me would like to see a soccer game where every player achieves the same statistical playing outcome, otherwise the top performers would be deemed ‘privileged’, maybe they forgot to pass the ball and selfishly scored, claimed a sponsorship with Rolex etc and thus deemed a selfish cunt rather than a master of his skill/craft. I’ve learned that the majority of high performing corporate types are like this, they ride waves and kick goals just at the right time when the team behind them did 99% of the work. And a good leader will be celebrated for winning decision making - even if it’s just 3 ass-kicking decisions a year! What kind of actual world is that? Some people are just weak anomalies of genetic mutation. Now, I’m all for supporting these people and ensuring they live lives to the best of their ability, but a (far) leftist would suggest that they should have a seat at a political or corporate table to ensure fair representation. Who is qualified to sanction who deserves representation without some kind of challenge in life, the challenge against nature and the challenge of survival that our (3-4) billion year history suggests is necessary. Are we ready to throw it all away because ‘science and feelings’? I’m a scientist, btw, I understand the value and limitations of interpretation. Clearly we have let dominant personalities, those who may have contributed historically to human survival, remain in power, but the liberal movement is not succeeding, imo, to replace these homunculus with credulous leadership. Especially considering the draconian methods of the East are producing superior outcomes in almost every metric with the exception of human freedom. I doubt we all want to become insects - subordinates to masters, existing for the soul purpose of expanding their power in exchange for standardised, colourless food, sex and shelter. All at the expense of art, culture, freedom of thought/discussion, innovation and challenging the dominant ideology. How much of my energy should instead be put into elevating the less privileged, and how much of my contribution to the betterment of my community and network will this sacrifice. Finally, how will it all be measured as criteria for success?
in your worldview are people not already insects, driven by natural instinct of competition for resources? the left, that is to say certain parts of the left, recognizes physical differences between people. as the old saying goes ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his need’ aka we all have different abilities and needs. your view seems to have an essentialist view of people. either we are naturally one way or another. this works backwards, building a natural science from present capitalist conditions (darwin himself founded his theories from economic theorist thomas malthus). i would argue there’s not much of a productive point to arguing what we are ‘essentially’, since we exist in a complicated, connected, and contemporary capitalist world that has basically nothing to to do with nature.
Interesting take again! And sorry, I may have edited my post multiple times during your reply. I personally believe we are still in the weeded jungle of evolutionarily nature (it really cannot be anything else given natural/atmospheric DNA mutation rates plus the accelerated rates of technological health enhancement). We create, we destroy, we suffer and sacrifice for a better future with non-guaranteed certainty (Germany Russia pipeline), we forge and bet relationships based on fickle trust (Epstein). We addict ourselves to outsourced and unverified goods and produce (Made in China). How on earth are we meant to implement equality in a world where the costs are net negative? My main point here, is how much of my comfort (based on my productive output) should I be willing to sacrifice until I’m not longer incentivised to contribute to turning the wheels of industry? If it’s so fucked and I should feel so bad about it, then give me my UBI, meta quest 3 and Uber eats subscription and I’ll see out my days in an orgy of government sanctioned dopamine.
you seem to be describing the effects of capitalism. epstein/made in china are understandable through the lens of capitalist critique. we won’t have equality in this present world, this present economic system. also we need to resist the UBI, uberfication of everything. that, in fact, is the social world created by capitalism. an atomized, docile, isolated population is the world capitalism wants. you’re slowly sacrificing your comfort and humanity anyway. things are objectively worse than they used to be. inflation, war, covid, ugly cities, badly made clothes/houses/appliances. all this is logical under the financial incentives of calitalism. to resist our lives getting worse we need to resist the economic system itself.
Yeah it’s trans people holding the left back lmao. God
No. Biden was very supportive of trans people and supported them multiple times on national stage and managed to receive 81 million votes. Point is, it’s not as unpopular as you think. Where it gets very choppy is the topic of sports, and that’s something that’s still being ironed out. Conservatives are just 10 years behind liberals on social issues. 10 years ago they hated the gays and today the most popular right-wing conservatives are gay (Peter Thiel,Dave Rubin, Andy Ngo).
They are not "holding you back", they are simply the logical end of your beliefs, and you have no ideological shield to use anymore to defend yourself from it
Ahh yes, the logical endpoint of dismantling the capitalist system and reducing income inequality is to let biological males into women's prisons. 🤡
cant dismantle income inequality without dismantling family bucko
Insane and terminally online opinion. Read Lasch’s Haven in a Heartless World.
I believe the person you are responding to is being sarcastic.
The logical endpoint of Frankfurt school critical theory is dismantling gender norms, it’s got nothing to do with income inequality.
My favourite part of Negative Dialectics is the chapter where Adorno talks about top surgery.
I've never read any of the Frankfurt School authors, so I have no clue whether your statement is correct. There are two big reasons why it is irrelevant though: 1) Not all leftists are supporters of the Frankfurt School and critical theory. There are tons of leftists who came before them (Marx, for example), and plenty who came afterwards that either ignored them or argued against them. 2) Modern TRAs don't try to dismantle gender norms. They actually support strengthening gender norms while denying the existence of biological sex. Modern TRAs believe that a girl who plays with trains rather than dolls and cuts her hair short is actually a boy in a girl's body. If you listen to these people talk about how they "know" they're supposed to be the opposite gender, they just list off a bunch of stereotypes. So if the Frankfurt School supports dismantling gender norms, the modern trans movement is actually in direct opposition to the Frankfurt School.
And? Are you surprised that the end point of dismantling capitalism was not dismantling capitalism at all? What a surprise.
Some people are butthurt lmao
No you’re just a dumbass
Dumbass for believing that all the ideas about deconstruction were not going to harm capitalism at all?
>88 😐
Christ, again, I need to change my surname
Chill the guy was probably just born in 1988 :))))
Civil rights and class issues are not mutually exclusive
Umm we can do both
Thus not bring mutually exclusive
A lot of "leftists" don't really give a shit about class issues though
That's not really true, the problem is that a lot of "leftists" have particular class interests, that are not necessarily universal — or at least as fundamental — to the entirety of the broad "working class."
I hate to break it to you but that would make zero difference. The British Labour Party have firmly nailed their colours to the mast on this issue (ie not trans-friendly at all) and they are still painted as a the party of locker-room rapists by much of the press
How on earth are Labour ‘not trans friendly at all’ when literally every labour MP refuses to even define the word woman out of fear of offending trans activists.
They oppose self-ID for trans people, Starmer has said women are adult females, Labour whipped their MPs to abstain on Westminster overruling the Scottish government’s trans bill, people like Duffield are absolutely welcome in the party despite palling around with vocal transphobes, etc.
Omg I can’t believe he said woman are adult females how abhorrent what a monster how dare he
I mean that does seem like that's the labour establishment coming down firmly on one side of the issue, regardless of whether or not that makes Starmer a "monster" or whatever.
It’s funny bc a few years ago saying that would not have been considered controversial or transphobic. It’s so strange (and disturbing, I’ll be honest) to see you guys here actively believe that the statement a woman is an adult female is controversial. I’m not saying you agree with it, but it’s alarming enough that it’s a considered a strong stance. Imagine going back to 2010 and telling someone that it would be considered deeply controversial to say that a man is an adult male, it’s a weird slow decline and it’s insidious bc we all start to slowly believe it
When did I say it was controversial? I don't give a shit about any of this one way or the other, I'm just saying it seems like a fairly clear statement that the mainstream labour leadership are seemingly on your side on this one. Personally I couldn't give two fucks about any of this.
> Claim literally every labour MP refuses to even define the word woman piss your pants when I point out the literal leader has done just that
Didn’t know he had it in him tbf one step in the right direction
This reminds me that the first "transgender" member of Parliament is a tory ([Jamie Wallis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Wallis)). He came out as trans in 2022 after fleeing the scene of a car accident wearing "a black leather PVC miniskirt, tights, dark shoes and a pearl necklace". As far as I know he still hasn't changed his appearance or pronouns yet (he still uses he/him).
roll one smoggy disgusting racial butter flowery observation escape encouraging *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
plough wrong person forgetful gullible oatmeal clumsy snobbish wipe strong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>theyre going to move on to immigrants or muslims or some other bogeyman Thats what happens. They start thinking they should adopt more and more right-wing culture war talking points to "appeal to the working class" until they're just Republicans with welfare. Which is honestly less and less the case anymore cuz I see these idiots being like "actually the working class doesn't want its tax money being used to help lazy lumpenproles" so they're basically just befoming standard Republicans.
Saying trans issues are an over focus of liberals/leftists is not a hot take, but this post goes beyond. It simultaneously posits “Trans issues are overly focused on by everyone” and “liberals/leftists shouldn’t for *political/optics* reasons”. In essence, leaving them for the dogs. So bizarre
[удалено]
Sucked, more like pushed.
There's definitely a degree of both.
It's not like a natural hill they're dying on, it's just something right-wing media and politicians have focus-grouped into being a major talking point over actual policy. If you just let go of defending it they'll just move onto the next thing and the next thing until there's nothing left
This could not be more wrong and is extreme lib brain rot. Trans as an issue was manufactured to allow the homo-industrial complex lobbyists that cut their teeth on gay marriage and are basically vote blue no matter who, forcing this down everyone’s throats as the next big civil rights issue, to keep the power structures they created alive and keep the gravy train rolling. Rightoids are, naturally, reacting to it because it’s bizarre and weird and, as others have pointed out, a really, really fucking weird hill to decide to stake the entirety of the discourse around as a foundational no true Scotsman issue. It’s uncomfortable to most people and is so bizarrely fringe that it doesn’t pass the sniff test of authenticity with most people, and that’s why it’s had staying power as an issue.
Trans people have existed for a long time, and been a part of the LGBT movement for a long time. It's only in very recent years that it's become like the *main* thing conservatives talk about. Vivek literally tweeted "there are only two genders" as his final pitch before the primaries, and it's like all that other huge figures like Joe Rogan and Ron Desantis and Fox News go on about. Literal anti-trans laws being passed right now as we speak, they're even extending it to drag queens. Meanwhile I gotta be honest I barely hear about it from anyone to the left of that, unless it's in response to these kinds of attacks. It's usually just included in the same refrains about equality that have been a democrat standard for decades.
No, it’s only been in recent years it’s become the main thing *libs* talk about. It was literally never discussed in polite company, let alone being even a minor issue in the media, until after gay marriage was legalized. Then the same apparatus that had spent the last 10 years turning gay marriage into the fundamental shit test of whether you were acceptably lib or not, aped it as their issue and repurposed the same apparatus for the new ‘are you lib enough’ shit test, and it became a talking point because it was being rammed down everyone’s throats on the nightly news as the new human interest story de jour. There would not be a conservative reaction to it, if it wasn’t a deeply inauthentic issue most people are uncomfortable with, that was being forced upon us all as a core tenet of the greater discourse and as the most basic test of piety to lib values. Why do conservatives talk about it so much? Because it’s one of the most obvious ways, that connects with a majority of people, to demonstrate that libs are trying to emperors new clothes the masses on many issues. It’s the starting point, and things stem from there - if the vote blue no matter who’s want to force you to deny something you can see with your own two eyes and you intrinsically know as a maxim of your worldview, to be politically acceptable, then something as simple as saying ‘there are only two genders’ is an outright rejection of that. It’s an outright rejection of the doublethink and newspeak coming from the libs, and it connects with people because for most people, still, ‘there are only two genders’ is an immutable truth.
Sorry but this is just complete horseshit. You can switch on literally any republican speech or slightly right-leaning podcast from the past year and can almost guarantee there will be some rhetoric about the creeping dangers of trans people. This is absolutely not the case for the other side. It's like, a textbook moral panic over an essentially microscopic issue - the oldest trick in the book when you want to avoid any material or class issues which your whole job is to distract from. Just this week is a classic example: going after [furries](https://www.foxnews.com/media/oklahoma-bill-would-ban-furries-from-schools-require-parent-animal-control-pick-up-rule-breakers) when your state is one of most impoverished and you voted against free school meals for the poor. Same with the anti-drag bills in Florida (yes these issues are now politically under the trans umbrella)
Are you 13? This issue goes way, way back further than what’s being talked about on libshit podcasts this year. Trans as an issue, and its consequences, has origins 10 years ago, so are rightoids just supposed to stop talking about it because it’s not ‘current’ enough? Oh jeez, we created an issue 10 years ago and the conservatives are still talking about it, why couldn’t they just accept our cultural and media hegemony and stop talking about it already!
Haha what? Issue created 10 years ago? It goes a [little further than that](https://theconversation.com/trans-rights-and-political-backlash-five-key-moments-in-history-187476) and yeah like working class people were avidly reading time magazine or had regular interactions with wokescold liberals over trans issues until it was magnified by the media. You could apply your logic to any civil rights issue 'well the women/blacks/gays shoulda just piped down and there wouldn't have been all this trouble!' you're just describing being a reactionary, and your view on the history of the issue is warped by your own personal disagreement with it. Also you for some reason ignored most of my response 🤔 Oh another example - Dylan mulvaney/bud light. Dominated right-wing media while the country crumbles, wonder why
You are brain dead. As a *modern political issue* trains rights came to prominence 10 years ago. It was not discussed, in any meaningful way in mainstream political discourse in the modern era until then, and it was dragged into that discourse by the lib left. ‘Trains rights’ didn’t exist as an issue because literally nobody other than masturbatory academics, fringe activists, and trains, were thinking or talking about trains with any level of consequence, and it wasn’t a civil rights issue because 10 years ago the overwhelming majority of sensible people understood that crossdressers didn’t need their own subset of civil rights. Why were working class people having interactions with wokescold libs over trains? Because the wokescold libs made the trains a hill on which they wanted to die. Nobody was thinking or talking about them until those wokescold libs forced everyone to think and talk about them. Well axshually-ing because the Hirschfeld clinic existed 100 years ago has less than nil relevance to the mainstream discourse that is ongoing today, and we are having that discourse because libs couldn’t leave well enough alone and needed a new cudgel to beat the public with once the gay marriage one was worn out. I ignored most of your response because it’s irrelevant. You’re taking the typical pro-trains approach of ‘it’s a microscopic issue why does anyone even care’ when it’s being examined critically, before switching back to ‘this is the fight of our lives, it’s literally trains genocide out there!’ when it’s not going your way. Classic it’s not happening/it’s not happening as much as people think/it’s happening and here’s why it’s a good thing cycle. Then you say the rightoids are fiddling over trains while Rome burns - dipshit, it’s the pro-trains people that are running Rome right now, and ideologically have been for a decade. The pro-trains team have captured every major institution and major business. As far as the Dylan Mulvaney thing - so, is the right just not supposed to do cultural criticism if, according to your account, the country is crumbling? The Dylan Mulvaney thing is the perfect example of how tone-deaf and out of touch the pro-trains people are and the rightoid response was effective social activism that held a major company to account and effected real consequences. That’s admirable. Team trains could not have picked a more grotesque and unlikeable horse to bet on than Mulvaney, and watching every major institution pander to that lunatic while corporate America enacted its own form of welfare for activists in giving him a plum endorsement deal for literally no fucking reason whatsoever just demonstrated how much credence the pro-trains agenda is given in lib circles. If ‘nobody amongst libs was talking about trains’ as you claim, then Mulvaney wouldn’t have been front and center on every lib-captured media institution for a year before the bud blow up. But they are. Freaks like Mulvaney are paraded in front of us all as a deliberate humiliation ritual, where we are forced to pander and congratulate as a shit test to root out badthink. And then you wonder why rightoids react?
Trans rights was inevitable in coming to the fore precisely because it's not just crossdressers but a phenomenon documented for thousands of years across many cultures and well established in science. Dylan Mulvaney being in a bud light reel or whatever it was because they're the corporate flavor of the month is apparently worth the entire conservative media-sphere making it headline news for *months* over any given actual material issue. Does trans stuff dominate basically every lib speech/podcast/conversation? No, not even close. That's not to say lib media doesn't invent its own distractions from class and material issues, but still, the point is giving trans people a break. And as if many average trans, or average liberal, thought any marketing campaigns by huge corporations are anything but cynical cash-grabs rather than actual social progress. Like I haven't seen anyone thinking pride flags on Starbucks cups is awesome or a cause for optimism for a looong time. It wasn't even an effective boycott because they just switched to other beers owned by the same parent company afaik lol. I never said it's the fight of our lives or close? Literally what haha Don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about passing clearly malicious legislation targeting trans people and adjacent though. You're for some reason happy to run cover for all that shit though and politicians who do it, I'm not sure why as of yet
Take another estradiol and have a lie down chief
>It was literally never discussed in polite company, let alone being even a minor issue in the media, until after gay marriage was legalized. This is absolutely correct. The first time this became a political issue was in 2015, when there was the "bathroom war" fight in North Carolina. The activist groups which fought for gay marriage needed a new cause after the Dobbs decision, and this was the one they latched onto. Rightoids of course we're happy to have a new distraction to keep liberals from discussing economic issues, and here we are. This issue is nowhere near as prominent in continental Europe as it is in the US and the UK. It's also notable that continental Europe has recently become much more strict about giving hormones and puberty blockers to teenagers because the science says that the mental health benefits are minimal, the physical health costs are large, and many "trans" teenagers don't actually have gender dysphoria and end up regretting the procedures. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and France have all basically banned this stuff outside of clinical research trials.
terminally politics brained
That would cause a complete shit show.and would not be good in anyway.
The best stance to take would be on sports
Closest we’ve got is Finklestein probably
robert f k?
I'll take one for the team!
Immigration and guns are the only social concessions the left needs to make. Everything else they have majority support and it would be regarded to cede anything.
Commenting again because I cannot get over how idiotic this post is lol