Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

4

[deleted] wrote

4

ziq wrote (edited )

i've heard some talk about them being anti-trans

It's most often a misunderstanding that stems from ancoms not understanding individualist anarchism. Critiquing civilization or industry and the mass destruction it's responsible for doesn't mean anticivs want to outlaw medication and surgery. Individualist anarchism doesn't aim to restructure society in its image like communism does.

Henry David Thoreau withdrew from civilization to live alone in the woods, but at no point did he try to force others to join him.

2

happy wrote

They obviously aren't going to call themselves anti-trans, but the reason that they are called anti-trans is because the ideology is against technological instruction that is going to allow trans people to get the treatment they need to transition.

An argument to this is that the desire to transition stems from the pressures of civilization. I think this is a misunderstanding of what goes on in a trans persons mind and could also be seen as transphobic.

2

tnstaec wrote

I'm not trans myself, but I've interacted with anti- and pro-civ trans people online. However, I haven't really seen a specifically trans anti-civ position elaborated yet. The thing is, many non-civilized societies have recognized we would call LGBT. I've posted a bit about it here: https://raddle.me/f/anticiv/7324/civilization-and-gender

A lot of the trans discourse is couched in a highly medicalized language. And to be honest, I find some of it to be a little bit creepy and gatekeeper-ish ("if you don't have dysphoria, you're not trans"). As a non-trans person, I haven't involved myself in these debates, but I have been keeping an eye on them.

Also, there's the DGR who are sometimes mistaken as anarcho-primitivist and they are virulently tansphobic.