Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9

BigGeorge moderator wrote (edited )

The multiple instances of TERFing in there directly violate this site's ToS re: transphobia. A disclaimer has been added before the link can be clicked due to this.

Anyone whining about divisiveness while defending TERFs is full of shit.

  1. It also amazes us that obvious parallels with right-wing politics are not seen, not least in the way feminists dismissed as ‘feminazis’ is reflected in the current use of the word ‘fascist’ against radical feminists by trans rights activists, as well as slogans calling for ‘terfs’ to be killed regularly cropping up in anarchist spaces both online and real world. It is shocking that the violence of this misogyny is being celebrated, not condemned.

  2. the creation and use of loaded terms intended to provoke an emotional response (‘triggering’, ‘feeling unsafe’, ‘Terf’, ‘fascist’);

-1

squattable wrote

hi moderator

1 if the discussion of the term TERF leads to articles being censored then i think you really have to think a bit about what you are doing. the terms of service state:

Content is prohibited if it: Promotes white supremacy, homophobia or heterosexism, transphobia or cisgenderism, misogyny or patriarchy, classism, ableism, body shaming, antisemitism, Islamophobia, colonialism or age discrimination.

is this article really defending TERFs? i feel like i must be reading this text with different goggles on. i honestly would not post it if i thought it was promoting transphobia. the only bit that caused me concern was the diss of Freedom.

2 i linked the original text by the authors (who i'm not connected to by the way, i just found it an interesting read) - you've now linked to a repost on 325, that seems a weird way to deny attribution

3 cheers for at least communicating your reasons even if i don't really agree with them

2

BigGeorge moderator wrote (edited )

1

if the discussion of the term TERF

This isn't a discussion about the term TERF. It's a TERF writer claiming that trans people that oppose TERFs are misogynistic i.e. they are saying that trans women aren't women, and in the same breath are accusing trans women of violence towards cis women. It's the very definition of transphobia.

2 I was on mobile. After I deleted the link, I decided to add it to your post with a disclaimer for transparency. I searched for the title to find the link and that 325 site is what came up. The text is the same so I don't think it matters.

since this has 8 downvotes and not a single upvote other than your own, maybe you should reconsider your viewpoints.

If you have a complaint about this moderator action, you can voice it in f/meta.

-1

squattable wrote

wowzers i think you are kinda proving the point of the article

1 you have seriously misunderstood this piece if you think it is a transphobic article written by a TERF

2 errr ok maybe better to reinstate the original link instead of a repost but indeed it's the same text

3 LOL i don't base my viewpoints on upvotes but that is an amusing thought

1

BigGeorge moderator wrote (edited )

1 you have seriously misunderstood this piece if you think it is a transphobic article written by a TERF

Consider yourself warned for transphobia and gaslighting. One more incident equals a ban from f/anarchism.

2 errr ok maybe better to reinstate the original link instead of a repost but indeed it's the same text

Give me your wordpress link and I'll replace the other link. Makes no difference to me. No one here has shit enough politics to buy what you're selling.

0

squattable wrote

Haha wield your banhammer if it helps you.

There's the link again. https://wokeanarchists.wordpress.com/2018/11/25/against-anarcho-liberalism-and-the-curse-of-identity-politics/

FYI i took up your invite to discuss this on /meta

1

BigGeorge wrote (edited )

That wordpress doesn't have any other content on it, it's brand new. How did you even find that blog if it's not yours? If you wrote it, why not just own up to it instead of pretending you're somehow impartial?

2

GaldraChevaliere wrote

What's with the wave of reactionaries? Just say you hate minorities and go.

2

0819181222 wrote (edited )

My interest in identity politics means that, for example, I care a little more about a brown or Black worker’s fights for rights more than a white person’s, as a white person is likely to get a fairer opportunity under a white supremacist system. My interest ends when people of marginalized groups get elected or employed in positions of power over others. Is it better than some old white guy in power, yeah probably but I’m not interested in anyone being in power over others. I don’t know why this is so hard for some anarchists.

Also engagement with class is still engaging in identity politics.

1

Freux wrote (edited )

The only liberalism about identity politics is white people saying that non-voting anarchists are responsible for the suffering inflicted by a political party they didn't vote for but they refuse to take responsability for electing "the lesser evil".

I still don't understand how identify politics supposely hurt unity, it prones understanding between different fights and the interconnection between them. Also if poor people can be racists toward other poor people then surely if there is no more class, racism will still be there.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote (edited )

So how do you engage in a political debate as someone against identity politics in a meaningful way?

If someone says, "Everyone is oppressed by capitalism and its economic class system, and in addition X are further oppressed because of ______" what is the appropriate response?

Right in the text of the article the writer states they are feminist and anti-racist. Isn't feminism itself one of the many brands of identity politics? Isn't anti-racism one of the other many brands of identity politics? To be clear, I'm a feminist and anti-racist. I'm not against either one. I'm just trying to understand how one identifies as against the status quo and in support of any group of oppressed people without inherently having some element of identity politics in their position.

(Edit: Or to put it another way, I think maybe the best we can do is support but openly de-emphasize identity politics. "I am a feminist anarchist, but I think it's more useful and more important to address the evils innate to our entire current system that are addressed by anarchism than to focus specifically on mistreatment of women." Can we do better than that?)

1

squattable wrote

hiya i suppose it depends where you are coming from, but in the UK there is definitely a problem with the way that identity politics is being mobilised as an instrument of power within activist communities. it's always made me feel quite sad to see people demand space and equality and occasionally then when they get it repeat the cycle of oppression and repress someone else. it's the postcolonial issue in microcosm and it is having a devestating effect on activism where i am.

that is what this article is addressing in my opinion (i didn't write it). having said that, i don't think anyone wants to get away with identity politics completely. i don't think that's what the authors are arguing at all, so perhaps that explains a bit how they can be feminist, anti-racist and so on but still ranting. but to deny the problem exists would not get you very far in the UK context at least.

so what gets you out of the predicament? anarchism! it's very clear that if people concentrate on mutual aid and solidarity they can build their struggles and help others whilst being helped out in turn without repressing a new victim.

"I am a feminist anarchist, but I think it's more useful and more important to address the evils innate to our entire current system that are addressed by anarchism than to focus specifically on mistreatment of women."

yeah sure i think we can do better than that since that seems to allude to the classic manarchist saying baby womens rights come after the revolution, which is obviosuly fucked. i would prefer:

"i am a feminist anarchist and i try to understand the various interlocking way in which my comrades are repressed. i show solidairty to them, they show solidarity to me and together we are working to set up a better world "

1

mouse wrote

you shouldnt hang around here if youre against idpol. we're all really into intersectionality, most of the community even more so than I am.

1

squattable wrote

LOL did you even read the text?

3

mouse wrote (edited )

yes i did and its pretty much typical "class is all that matters" tankie bullshit

1

squattable wrote

ummm even when they say "We do get it, it’s not all about class, but if we can’t rally together to even recognise who really holds the reigns of power then we haven’t a hope in hell of getting anywhere."

maybe you skim read it? if we can't even debate things like this here then i wonder what the point is