Recent comments in /f/anticiv

ratratratrat wrote

i think it depends on the person, personally i am fine without hormones it’s just my chest that i can’t deal with, while others would want more done, but that also has a lot to deal with the expectations put on us by society. my chest is not just gender related, but so much of ‘passing’ and surgery is just confirming to gender roles, and i feel like a lot of gender dysphoria wouldn’t exist if the concept of sex/gender didnt exist either. i believe trans liberation can only come when we accept that as trans people we should not try to conform to cis standards of gender but abolish them instead.

11

Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

I'm not going to go into detail about it now, but here's an inadequate summary:

The entire notion of a gender binary is an effect of reductionist, segregationist, excluding tendency inherent to state-thinking.

A trans woman who has had surgery is no more or less a woman than a cis woman who has had surgery. But it's our completely socially-constructed invented idea of what a woman should be that creates the dysphoria in both women that causes them to desire to change their bodies in the first place. A practice of anarchy would include destroying any kind of fixed abstract notion of a binary (or trinary, or whatever) as the base for anybody's sense of lacking something in relation to a notion of gender.
Destroying civilisation is inseparable from destroying the infrastructure that creates these desires. It is part of the feminist notion that there is nothing wrong with our bodies, nothing lacking at all in the first place.

There's more to say about it on many levels, but this is how it reflects what I've said in this post.

14

kin wrote

Sorry the shit question and I don't want to be tone deaf. How much weight do you think modern hormones and surgical procedures have in trans wellness and quality of life? I agree with you but it's not my place to have this opinion or even debating this - the argument you have also toucha how other non-white or non-western cultures have about queerness/gender nonconformity and etc -

And if many of us are on board of gender nihilism and radical anarchoqueer theory.. those questions are already answered if don't want to fall behind liberal wokeness or leftist prociv discourse (prociv or antiAnarchist, not sure what worste)

Anyway people like you should have more weight on this discussion and your voice heard

9

ratratratrat wrote

as a trans person, surgery and medication also exist without civ, hormones can be synthesized from animal and plant sources and surgery can also be performed, tbh i would trust the cavemen that performed trepination on people during the ice age to do my top surgery over a modern surgeon.

12

Bezotcovschina wrote

A common critique of anarcho-primitivism and other anti-civ theory is that civilization and agriculture were practiced by indigenous people before colonization.

How can it be a legit critique? Even if indigenous people practiced agriculture before colonization?

Tangentially related, but small rant:

In some places indigenous people practiced agriculture, in other ones places they did not. In some places the hierarchy of indigenous groups was created by colonizers in other ones it existed before. Don't need to put all the different indigenous people all around the world under one one umbrella, pretending all of them have been lived free from oppression in a true harmony with the nature, unhierarchical societies without gender binaries and roles, without hierarchy-forming religions. Looks like some sort of fetishisation.

5

Majrelende wrote (edited )

Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed gives an indication of which kinds of cultivation are able to be best exploited by authorities: legible monocultures, easily recognisable as such, and which can harvested all at once, stored, and transported. In SE Asia, that meant padi cultivation. States actually tried to mandate it so as to squash the more ungovernable types of cultivation, which included swiddening, with crops such as upland rice, maize, barley, and root vegetables. When pressure from states was high, anarchic people might switch totally to foraging to escape.

I don't agree with the traditional primitivist stances on agriculture and think they are excessively inflexible. We could restate them, not as stances but as statements. For instance, foraging for one's food (including perennial cultivation) can increase personal freedom and independence, and is less easily appropriated by states.

Death to ideology!

10

mjem wrote (edited )

though i have only insufficient knowledge about the contemporary political movement, i'm pretty sure that "authoritarian back to nature" ideas have been around for a very long time.

tao te ching is a fair example of this; written in a distinctly lobbyist tone, the collected essays argue that the philosopher king (treated as a given) can "rule better" when the death penality, the border, the weapons and armed force (all as givens) are kept "minimal/tranquilized", while property, politeness, civil order are upheld as sacred

2