I think you're absolutely right. This is a men's rights movement. A beta men's rights activism. We can see that very clearly in sports. Actual athletes can't think of competing against women: winning would be too easy for them, hence there would be no merit or glory in their victory. Only beta males, the underdogs, are changing categories, like Lia Thomas. They are not good enough to compete with the best men in sports, plus they resent women and want a comeback. It's the revenge of the incels.
The idea of transgenderism conferring instant social / political capital is absolutely essential to understanding this regressive and frankly batshit crazy ideology. I really enjoyed this, thank you Jo.
Fascinating. I’ve been banging my head over the very issue you open with: how on earth do self-proclaimed Marxists support such a wildly anti-materialist movement as gender identity activism? I figured the collapse of the Soviet Union and “death of communism” demoralization basically drove them cuckoo, but you’ve provided so many other ways to think about why this misogynist movement appeals to the left. Brilliant.
they are not left and the right are not conservative - the 2 ends are bookends - all blame working class middle class aspirations and use women as fodder - they are also homophobic and sexist violent zealots
Thanks. Very though provoking essay. But I wonder is it right?
I would have thought in general transgenderism is an ideology of progressives, especially younger progressives of middle class backgrounds (I liked Rowlings 'luxury belief' quip the other day), more or less irrespective of whether they are whether male or female.
It's striking to me just how many young women are involved in this.
Being a mostly middle class movement, no matter how much they deny it, it's understandable social justice is not the greatest concern of these people. They may not be at the top of the economic system but for most it works reasonably well enough, giving them at least adequate assurance of being adequately well-off either now or at least prospectively in the future, such that for all their ritualistic complaining there is little genuine priority or agency accorded to discussion from this part of the left about really trying to change the current economic system.
But if they don't really crave more money, they do crave status. And in this day and age and for people in their socio-economic position that mostly involves garnering peer approval by signalling virtue.
We're all familiar with how this plays out across echo chambers across the piste, left and right, from Corbynism to Brexit ideology to MAGA devotees:
1. Construct your ridiculous Aunt Sally 'Evil Other' (TERFs want to literally erase all Trans People! TERFs want to strip trans people of all rights! etc etc)
2. Endlessly and tediously denounce your creation to your fellow echo chamber inhabitants
3. Thereby prove your virtue to yourself and your fellows, and garner upticks and likes from your fellows to feed your insecure, childish and needy personality.
All these movements involve people who are or who believe themselves to in some sense insecure and marginalised - be they adolescents, Brexiteer pensioners in the suburbs and countryside of 'Middle England', MAGA devotees in flyover country. etc.
When it comes to transgenderism, adolescents are of course particular needy when it comes to peer group approval, swapping parental control for sheep like conformity to peer group nostrums, so it is not surprising just how strong the movement is in that age group, especially when clustered in progressive values group environments like higher education.
Likewise, when it comes to older supporters of transgenderism, it is not hard to see why it should appeal to persons with a strong identity as self-styled progressives, and a constant need to prove and demonstrate that identity, both for personal and sometimes professional reasons (think 'progressive' journalists, career academics, etc) - or to HR departments engaged in bureaucratic Empire building.
And for all these people it is absolutely not a problem that the ideology may be ridiculous. In fact that's a plus! There is little cachet to be had in just believing things that are moderate and common sense and everyone else agrees with anyway. Even, heaven forbid, Tory voters! That would never do! Believing loopy stuff however, well, wow, you really must care. That marks you and your group our from the mainstream as truly radical, truly caring, in just the way you wish!
That's also why GC feminists are singled out for attack rather than conservatives or male opponents - more points in the virtue stakes. Taking on a stale male Telegraph columnist? Ho hum. Taking on someone like Bindel or Rowling or a defenceless female student guilty of wrongthink though? Wow, what a radical you are! How very brave!
I'm not denying the particular benefits for particular Beta males identifying as trans (e.g. getting to win in your sport).
I'm not denying it is good cover for violent male mysogynists to indulge their hatred of women.
I'm also not denying that for insufferably pompous male newspaper columnists wearing their virtue on their sleeves, it provides a heaven sent opportunity to talk down to women and override their views without being accused of male condescension. .
It's clearly all these things and thus holds broad appeal.
But in terms of locating the centre of gravity of this phenomenon it's obvious that there are vastly more transactivists than there are trans people, and it has a very large female component. And I am saying the relationship between the two, between transactivism and actual trans rights, is essentially one of parasite and host. The underlying issues re trans rights are simply a convenient platform for many transactivists for what Judith Butler might call 'a performative creation of identity' that satisfies a genuine psychological need on their part, a craving for group belonging and acceptance and the acquisition of status through demonstrated virtue.
And that's why while it's often possible to have perfectly sensible conversations about how to deal with clashing rights with actual trans people, with trans activists that is never, ever possible, and you are simply wasting your time trying. Reaching a reasonable agreement or practical solution would negate what's in it for them.
As for the social base for this, I guess we look at the massive expansion of higher eduction and the middle class progressive values communities that has created with their attendant identities and psychological needs.
In one form or other these look set to persist so these platform issues will as well.
Thus in the UK Corbynism offered one such platform for a while to demonstrate virtue. With its demise another platform had to be found to fulfil essentially the same role. Just like Stonewall needed something after gay rights was (more or less) done. Probably when transgenderism disappears another will be found as well. The need persists.
If you're interested you'll see this argument developed much further and much better than I can in Will Storr's recent 'The Status Game'.
Anyway, I really liked your piece, I agree a lot of it, but I'm just not sure it's at the heart of this phenomenon.
I agree partly with this. I work as a couselor for a Dutch municipality, dep, of social services which pays out social security money. If transpeople would really be such a vulnerable category, that should be reflected in the numbers of clients we have that receive these benefits. It doesn't. But I also definately think Jo is on to something, and I think it's a combination of both.
Jo makes a bold sweeping attempt to place Transgenderism in the context of socialist history. She is mostly successful.For a jaded lefty feminist such as me,the essay gives a lot to chew on.Her argument is tethered to a materialist world view,which I would say is “correct”,while also pointing to the homo erotic undercurrent of male groupings. I particularly enjoyed her siting of football in the culture of male separatism.But I still instinctively support my local team,and feel affinity!
Brilliant. I've been wrestling with the sense that Marxism does not really explain our current moment well -- for all its incisive analysis of capitalist dynamics -- and this is hugely helpful for thinking through that feeling.
I don't see transgenderism as a beta male movement. I'm not a socialist, so there's a lot I don't know about socialist history. I also think that trans women are quite different from all the other current transmutations of gender identity. The Woke movement and the gender movement give lip service to anti-Capitalism, but they're also closely connected to the corporate world, and don't seem to have a firm connection to socialism. As I understand transgenderism, there are 2 kinds of m to f transgenders: those who identify as transgender and transition very young, and are primarily male-sex attracted; and autogynephilic (AGP) men who are primarily attracted to women, and who usually progress through transvestism to identifying as female, often in middle age, after marrying and having children. Transwoman activists tend to be AGP. AGP men, who transition later, are often men who have experienced male privilege, accumulated it throughout life, and have no intention of giving it up once they transition. Olympic gold medalist Chris Jennings and Admiral Rachel Levine (current U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health - first "woman" to hold this position) are good examples of AGP trans women, who are often high achievers. They often eschew bottom surgery, call themselves lesbians, and seek female partners. Trans women of this type sometimes have money, and some are billionaires and big funders of the movement. Jenifer Pritzker, a billionaire transwoman is often mentioned as this type of big donor, but there are others. There is also a huge lobby of medical and pharmaceutical interests that stand to benefit financially from transgenderism. This all seems very far from socialism to me, and a very different sort of movement from the original LGB movement, or from the gender spectrum community of the non-binary and 1000 different genders. Transwomen (m to f transgenders) are anything but non-binary. For them, it's all about sex stereotypes and sex. Transmen (f to m) are often non-binary however (however much that may not make sense). And a lot of trans activism is anything but Socialist, even though the left has co-opted and makes full use of the transgender movement.
What seems consistent over time is that the left ends up undermining feminism. Women make up more than half the population, and, unified, women could be very powerful. Socialism, which has always so far been controlled by male activists, must see the potential political power of women as something to strictly control, and to move in directions that benefit socialism.
Interesting. There are lots of ways to look at this. Lots of perspectives. I think you are correct in how you describe it, but thinking about the structural similarities with Socialism (centre's men saviour/victims) can be useful.
"It is also bemusing that the Left, the supposed champion of women’s rights, has now chosen the support the demands of men who say they are women over the rights of women who say transgenderism undermines our rights. In fact, they go further - they are actively attacking feminists"
The left is not the champion of women's rights it is the champion of feminist ideology. That's not the same thing.
They are not attacking feminists, they are attacking a small minority of feminists from the PREVIOUS waves who are not on board with the current wave of feminism (AKA 'gender ideology').
Every wave of feminism has had members who become outraged and offended at the subsequent wave that they helped to spawn. This wave is no different.
" has now chosen the support the demands of men who say they are women"
Your argument falls apart when you include the fact that the majority of trans identified people are FTM and they are also being supported. You seem to have left them out of your thesis deliberately.
Very good points. Perhaps I should say they are attacking radical feminists, which distinguishes us from the current wave. And the point about there being lots of FTM who are supported is good. I will need to refine or clarify that. I guess I left them out of this because for this thesis, they are not the drivers of why the left like it imo. They are there, but not the point. Thanks.
I guess I would call TERFs 'conservatives' (of a sort) because they wish to 'conserve' the concept of sexual dimorphism and not let humanity be pushed any further towards transhumanism (genderless cyborgs).
TERF's are a bit frustrating because they refuse to admit that feminism's 'social construct' theory of gender, together with feminism's dismantling of the family and traditional gender roles and feminism's championing of more masculine identities and lifestyles for women, paved the way for modern day 'gender ideology'.
It was the feminists who first made the claim that we are born as a 'blank slates' and that gender roles and gender identities are imposed onto us arbitrarily by men ('the patriarchy') rather than by biology. Feminism's 'blank slate' theory of gender is the foundation of modern day 'gender ideology'.
Also, everything feminism has done has atomised society, de-gendered society and thrown children to the wolves (daycare/ state education) where they have been indoctrinated with even more feminism. Many detransitioners have expressed how feminism's definition of women as 'powerless victims' made them believe that transitioning to men was the only way to self actualise, because (according to feminist theory) only men are people (women are just powerless, inert 'acted upon' objects). After transitioning/ detransitioning the TERFs are waiting to pick up those young women and indoctrinate them with more anti-male/ victim identity propaganda.
Without being exposed to feminism these young women would have probably done what women have done for centuries which is to wear baggy clothing until they got older and became more comfortable with their natural but arduous TRANSITION from child to 'adult human female'.
So the TERFs, rather than admit that they were duped into pushing a transhumanist agenda under the banner of 'women's lib' (which would be an empowering admission), just carry on pretending this is all men's fault because playing the victim and blaming men has become their primary identity and world view.
This is a shame because TERFs seem to be taking up most of the bandwidth when it comes to criticising 'gender ideology'.
I'll frankly admit to nor having a firm grasp of the philosophical nuances and history of the various waves of feminism (I'm a 69 yo male living US, recently retired and just starting to read more about this), but I was struck by this comment suggesting that one of the waves provided the underpinning of the current gender ideology craze, as it resonated with what I had begun to hypothesize. And I don't see any recognition and reflection on this by current feminist thinkers.
My experience with feminism and women's rights here in the US has been pretty pragmaitib
pragmatic. Went to college, grad school in a bio science, couple years as post doc, career then in scientific based industry. Saw an increasing number of women in biology science academia (close to sex parity now) and also in industry. So in my small world men and women were working together to achieve goals with mutual respect and were not thinking about gender matters.
I've not known that many people are open about identifying as Marxists, but of those I've known pretty even split between M and F. The ideas put forth by the OP seemed like a typical academic discourse that was an entertaining read over a cup of coffee but of no particular pragmatic value.
Found the football and golf references bit strange by a US perspective. US football fandom is definitely enjoyed by both men and women together. And during to a bad back I gave up golf several years ago, and while I enjoyed many rounds on weekends with men, also enjoyed many mixed couples rounds (including tournements) - we all just loved the game.
This whole essay is nonesense. The Left are not, 'an interest group for oppressed, beta male'. There's scientifically, no such thing as alpha and beta males in human beings. That idea has been debunked by research over and over again: link for a summary of why it doesn't apply to human behaviour here: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_myth_of_the_alpha_male
Even using 'beta male' in the context of the incel, internet meme... to describe all working class men in industrial society as 'betas' is just snobby and judgemental.
Also the phrase' they bet of the wrong horse in 1917 and aren't about to do that again...' What the hell are you talking about? 1917 was over a century ago? That was before our grandparents were born. Why would that have the slightest bit of impact on the motivations of any one on the Left today?
And transgender feminism doesn't let capitalism off the hook - Shon Faye's The Transgender Issue is the best illustration I can think of that. It basically comes to the conclusion at the end of the book that you have to tackle capitalism first, before you can have trans liberation or women's liberation ( I actually don't agree with her on that, but there's no escaping it's an anti-capitalist book.)
I am a woman and a feminist, I think women's issues and rights are important. I will also agree that sometimes, allogations of transphobia where none exist, can be used to silence women and distract from the actual issues or derail the discussion. That said, this essay is just nonesense. There's no such thing as beta and alpha men.
1917 is a reference to the Russian Revolution, which established communism as an alternative to capitalism. It was a key moment for the left and politically an important attempt to run things differently.
I felt sorry that you had to go through that kind of experience when speaking for women's prisons. I get the same feeling that men tend to think that everything public belongs to them, not to women. For example, men truly believe that we women cannot decide whom can access women's toilets, women's pools, women's sports...and every thing public and single-sex. We need to speak louder and let them know they should fix the problem of toxic masculinity and feminine men by themselves instead of forcing us to open our own spaces.
That is not working class nor socialism ; it is not feminist to place aesthetic post conceptualistand performative stereotypes who fancy and mutilate body parts and wear cos play above "natural woman" our Mothers are being scrapped - it is the most right wing regressive muck-- All the while the captured sexist media and self serving dullards are shtoop- the dumbed down imagery of the medical big pharma data industrial estate neo- feudal stock farrm horror show - look at women, children dead in the East and Afgan girls in full shrouds buried alive ; Englands stealth attempt erasure of women and girls by medieval marauders ; Aust/ NZ/Canada Spain Germany - all at once no less -Top down ; it is orchestrated by moguls in pharma medical profits labs - in ivory towers using their captured dissasociated social messengers trying to be relevant - and handpicked and paid -up handmaidens and bought up paid up politicians or just bland misfits with a gripe
I'll admit to not knowing much about UK labor history, but this is deeply insulting to US women labor leaders, organizers, and socialist thinkers. "Socialism was popular not because it worked, but because it worked for men. It centred them. While the socialist brothers told women to make cakes to raise money for the strike fund which would bring on the revolution and a better future, the men were getting what they wanted there and then, which was to be the hero, he who must be supported in the struggle. The women were to focus on, look to, dream of a future paradise." Men have "centred" themselves for millennia - whether in socialism, capitalism, mercantilism - you name it. But you have here invisibilized the history of the struggles, sacrifices, and triumphs of working class women to organize for better pay and conditions on the job. How very feminist.
I agree with a poster below that lays the Genesis of this at one of the waves or offshoots of feminism. And that wave won't own it and make the correction that women can exist in a variety of flavors (as females) and men can exist in many flavors (as males) and just accept each other and live cooperatively together.
This analysis fails because it only takes into account trans women. Transgenderism is not solely about males who identify as women. The rest of the transgender story is ignored. If it really is about beta males, why do people also support females who identify as men?
I think you're absolutely right. This is a men's rights movement. A beta men's rights activism. We can see that very clearly in sports. Actual athletes can't think of competing against women: winning would be too easy for them, hence there would be no merit or glory in their victory. Only beta males, the underdogs, are changing categories, like Lia Thomas. They are not good enough to compete with the best men in sports, plus they resent women and want a comeback. It's the revenge of the incels.
Criminals in prisons are another example.
The idea of transgenderism conferring instant social / political capital is absolutely essential to understanding this regressive and frankly batshit crazy ideology. I really enjoyed this, thank you Jo.
Fascinating. I’ve been banging my head over the very issue you open with: how on earth do self-proclaimed Marxists support such a wildly anti-materialist movement as gender identity activism? I figured the collapse of the Soviet Union and “death of communism” demoralization basically drove them cuckoo, but you’ve provided so many other ways to think about why this misogynist movement appeals to the left. Brilliant.
they are not left and the right are not conservative - the 2 ends are bookends - all blame working class middle class aspirations and use women as fodder - they are also homophobic and sexist violent zealots
Thanks. Very though provoking essay. But I wonder is it right?
I would have thought in general transgenderism is an ideology of progressives, especially younger progressives of middle class backgrounds (I liked Rowlings 'luxury belief' quip the other day), more or less irrespective of whether they are whether male or female.
It's striking to me just how many young women are involved in this.
Being a mostly middle class movement, no matter how much they deny it, it's understandable social justice is not the greatest concern of these people. They may not be at the top of the economic system but for most it works reasonably well enough, giving them at least adequate assurance of being adequately well-off either now or at least prospectively in the future, such that for all their ritualistic complaining there is little genuine priority or agency accorded to discussion from this part of the left about really trying to change the current economic system.
But if they don't really crave more money, they do crave status. And in this day and age and for people in their socio-economic position that mostly involves garnering peer approval by signalling virtue.
We're all familiar with how this plays out across echo chambers across the piste, left and right, from Corbynism to Brexit ideology to MAGA devotees:
1. Construct your ridiculous Aunt Sally 'Evil Other' (TERFs want to literally erase all Trans People! TERFs want to strip trans people of all rights! etc etc)
2. Endlessly and tediously denounce your creation to your fellow echo chamber inhabitants
3. Thereby prove your virtue to yourself and your fellows, and garner upticks and likes from your fellows to feed your insecure, childish and needy personality.
All these movements involve people who are or who believe themselves to in some sense insecure and marginalised - be they adolescents, Brexiteer pensioners in the suburbs and countryside of 'Middle England', MAGA devotees in flyover country. etc.
When it comes to transgenderism, adolescents are of course particular needy when it comes to peer group approval, swapping parental control for sheep like conformity to peer group nostrums, so it is not surprising just how strong the movement is in that age group, especially when clustered in progressive values group environments like higher education.
Likewise, when it comes to older supporters of transgenderism, it is not hard to see why it should appeal to persons with a strong identity as self-styled progressives, and a constant need to prove and demonstrate that identity, both for personal and sometimes professional reasons (think 'progressive' journalists, career academics, etc) - or to HR departments engaged in bureaucratic Empire building.
And for all these people it is absolutely not a problem that the ideology may be ridiculous. In fact that's a plus! There is little cachet to be had in just believing things that are moderate and common sense and everyone else agrees with anyway. Even, heaven forbid, Tory voters! That would never do! Believing loopy stuff however, well, wow, you really must care. That marks you and your group our from the mainstream as truly radical, truly caring, in just the way you wish!
That's also why GC feminists are singled out for attack rather than conservatives or male opponents - more points in the virtue stakes. Taking on a stale male Telegraph columnist? Ho hum. Taking on someone like Bindel or Rowling or a defenceless female student guilty of wrongthink though? Wow, what a radical you are! How very brave!
I'm not denying the particular benefits for particular Beta males identifying as trans (e.g. getting to win in your sport).
I'm not denying it is good cover for violent male mysogynists to indulge their hatred of women.
I'm also not denying that for insufferably pompous male newspaper columnists wearing their virtue on their sleeves, it provides a heaven sent opportunity to talk down to women and override their views without being accused of male condescension. .
It's clearly all these things and thus holds broad appeal.
But in terms of locating the centre of gravity of this phenomenon it's obvious that there are vastly more transactivists than there are trans people, and it has a very large female component. And I am saying the relationship between the two, between transactivism and actual trans rights, is essentially one of parasite and host. The underlying issues re trans rights are simply a convenient platform for many transactivists for what Judith Butler might call 'a performative creation of identity' that satisfies a genuine psychological need on their part, a craving for group belonging and acceptance and the acquisition of status through demonstrated virtue.
And that's why while it's often possible to have perfectly sensible conversations about how to deal with clashing rights with actual trans people, with trans activists that is never, ever possible, and you are simply wasting your time trying. Reaching a reasonable agreement or practical solution would negate what's in it for them.
As for the social base for this, I guess we look at the massive expansion of higher eduction and the middle class progressive values communities that has created with their attendant identities and psychological needs.
In one form or other these look set to persist so these platform issues will as well.
Thus in the UK Corbynism offered one such platform for a while to demonstrate virtue. With its demise another platform had to be found to fulfil essentially the same role. Just like Stonewall needed something after gay rights was (more or less) done. Probably when transgenderism disappears another will be found as well. The need persists.
If you're interested you'll see this argument developed much further and much better than I can in Will Storr's recent 'The Status Game'.
Anyway, I really liked your piece, I agree a lot of it, but I'm just not sure it's at the heart of this phenomenon.
Thanks again.
I agree partly with this. I work as a couselor for a Dutch municipality, dep, of social services which pays out social security money. If transpeople would really be such a vulnerable category, that should be reflected in the numbers of clients we have that receive these benefits. It doesn't. But I also definately think Jo is on to something, and I think it's a combination of both.
Socialism had the traditional working class and the middle class as well, even though the ideology was about the working class.
Jo makes a bold sweeping attempt to place Transgenderism in the context of socialist history. She is mostly successful.For a jaded lefty feminist such as me,the essay gives a lot to chew on.Her argument is tethered to a materialist world view,which I would say is “correct”,while also pointing to the homo erotic undercurrent of male groupings. I particularly enjoyed her siting of football in the culture of male separatism.But I still instinctively support my local team,and feel affinity!
I'd say I'm putting it in the context of feminist political philosophy. Thanks so much for reading it!
Brilliant. I've been wrestling with the sense that Marxism does not really explain our current moment well -- for all its incisive analysis of capitalist dynamics -- and this is hugely helpful for thinking through that feeling.
Thanks for reading it! If it's true, it's a pretty explosive insight imo
I don't see transgenderism as a beta male movement. I'm not a socialist, so there's a lot I don't know about socialist history. I also think that trans women are quite different from all the other current transmutations of gender identity. The Woke movement and the gender movement give lip service to anti-Capitalism, but they're also closely connected to the corporate world, and don't seem to have a firm connection to socialism. As I understand transgenderism, there are 2 kinds of m to f transgenders: those who identify as transgender and transition very young, and are primarily male-sex attracted; and autogynephilic (AGP) men who are primarily attracted to women, and who usually progress through transvestism to identifying as female, often in middle age, after marrying and having children. Transwoman activists tend to be AGP. AGP men, who transition later, are often men who have experienced male privilege, accumulated it throughout life, and have no intention of giving it up once they transition. Olympic gold medalist Chris Jennings and Admiral Rachel Levine (current U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health - first "woman" to hold this position) are good examples of AGP trans women, who are often high achievers. They often eschew bottom surgery, call themselves lesbians, and seek female partners. Trans women of this type sometimes have money, and some are billionaires and big funders of the movement. Jenifer Pritzker, a billionaire transwoman is often mentioned as this type of big donor, but there are others. There is also a huge lobby of medical and pharmaceutical interests that stand to benefit financially from transgenderism. This all seems very far from socialism to me, and a very different sort of movement from the original LGB movement, or from the gender spectrum community of the non-binary and 1000 different genders. Transwomen (m to f transgenders) are anything but non-binary. For them, it's all about sex stereotypes and sex. Transmen (f to m) are often non-binary however (however much that may not make sense). And a lot of trans activism is anything but Socialist, even though the left has co-opted and makes full use of the transgender movement.
What seems consistent over time is that the left ends up undermining feminism. Women make up more than half the population, and, unified, women could be very powerful. Socialism, which has always so far been controlled by male activists, must see the potential political power of women as something to strictly control, and to move in directions that benefit socialism.
Interesting. There are lots of ways to look at this. Lots of perspectives. I think you are correct in how you describe it, but thinking about the structural similarities with Socialism (centre's men saviour/victims) can be useful.
I think Pritzker and Levine have something in common. Something in common with Marx and Butler as well (mentioned in the article).
TRUTH.
"It is also bemusing that the Left, the supposed champion of women’s rights, has now chosen the support the demands of men who say they are women over the rights of women who say transgenderism undermines our rights. In fact, they go further - they are actively attacking feminists"
The left is not the champion of women's rights it is the champion of feminist ideology. That's not the same thing.
They are not attacking feminists, they are attacking a small minority of feminists from the PREVIOUS waves who are not on board with the current wave of feminism (AKA 'gender ideology').
Every wave of feminism has had members who become outraged and offended at the subsequent wave that they helped to spawn. This wave is no different.
" has now chosen the support the demands of men who say they are women"
Your argument falls apart when you include the fact that the majority of trans identified people are FTM and they are also being supported. You seem to have left them out of your thesis deliberately.
Very good points. Perhaps I should say they are attacking radical feminists, which distinguishes us from the current wave. And the point about there being lots of FTM who are supported is good. I will need to refine or clarify that. I guess I left them out of this because for this thesis, they are not the drivers of why the left like it imo. They are there, but not the point. Thanks.
I guess I would call TERFs 'conservatives' (of a sort) because they wish to 'conserve' the concept of sexual dimorphism and not let humanity be pushed any further towards transhumanism (genderless cyborgs).
TERF's are a bit frustrating because they refuse to admit that feminism's 'social construct' theory of gender, together with feminism's dismantling of the family and traditional gender roles and feminism's championing of more masculine identities and lifestyles for women, paved the way for modern day 'gender ideology'.
It was the feminists who first made the claim that we are born as a 'blank slates' and that gender roles and gender identities are imposed onto us arbitrarily by men ('the patriarchy') rather than by biology. Feminism's 'blank slate' theory of gender is the foundation of modern day 'gender ideology'.
Also, everything feminism has done has atomised society, de-gendered society and thrown children to the wolves (daycare/ state education) where they have been indoctrinated with even more feminism. Many detransitioners have expressed how feminism's definition of women as 'powerless victims' made them believe that transitioning to men was the only way to self actualise, because (according to feminist theory) only men are people (women are just powerless, inert 'acted upon' objects). After transitioning/ detransitioning the TERFs are waiting to pick up those young women and indoctrinate them with more anti-male/ victim identity propaganda.
Without being exposed to feminism these young women would have probably done what women have done for centuries which is to wear baggy clothing until they got older and became more comfortable with their natural but arduous TRANSITION from child to 'adult human female'.
So the TERFs, rather than admit that they were duped into pushing a transhumanist agenda under the banner of 'women's lib' (which would be an empowering admission), just carry on pretending this is all men's fault because playing the victim and blaming men has become their primary identity and world view.
This is a shame because TERFs seem to be taking up most of the bandwidth when it comes to criticising 'gender ideology'.
So that would be my take on it :)
I'll frankly admit to nor having a firm grasp of the philosophical nuances and history of the various waves of feminism (I'm a 69 yo male living US, recently retired and just starting to read more about this), but I was struck by this comment suggesting that one of the waves provided the underpinning of the current gender ideology craze, as it resonated with what I had begun to hypothesize. And I don't see any recognition and reflection on this by current feminist thinkers.
My experience with feminism and women's rights here in the US has been pretty pragmaitib
pragmatic. Went to college, grad school in a bio science, couple years as post doc, career then in scientific based industry. Saw an increasing number of women in biology science academia (close to sex parity now) and also in industry. So in my small world men and women were working together to achieve goals with mutual respect and were not thinking about gender matters.
I've not known that many people are open about identifying as Marxists, but of those I've known pretty even split between M and F. The ideas put forth by the OP seemed like a typical academic discourse that was an entertaining read over a cup of coffee but of no particular pragmatic value.
Found the football and golf references bit strange by a US perspective. US football fandom is definitely enjoyed by both men and women together. And during to a bad back I gave up golf several years ago, and while I enjoyed many rounds on weekends with men, also enjoyed many mixed couples rounds (including tournements) - we all just loved the game.
This whole essay is nonesense. The Left are not, 'an interest group for oppressed, beta male'. There's scientifically, no such thing as alpha and beta males in human beings. That idea has been debunked by research over and over again: link for a summary of why it doesn't apply to human behaviour here: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_myth_of_the_alpha_male
Even using 'beta male' in the context of the incel, internet meme... to describe all working class men in industrial society as 'betas' is just snobby and judgemental.
Also the phrase' they bet of the wrong horse in 1917 and aren't about to do that again...' What the hell are you talking about? 1917 was over a century ago? That was before our grandparents were born. Why would that have the slightest bit of impact on the motivations of any one on the Left today?
And transgender feminism doesn't let capitalism off the hook - Shon Faye's The Transgender Issue is the best illustration I can think of that. It basically comes to the conclusion at the end of the book that you have to tackle capitalism first, before you can have trans liberation or women's liberation ( I actually don't agree with her on that, but there's no escaping it's an anti-capitalist book.)
I am a woman and a feminist, I think women's issues and rights are important. I will also agree that sometimes, allogations of transphobia where none exist, can be used to silence women and distract from the actual issues or derail the discussion. That said, this essay is just nonesense. There's no such thing as beta and alpha men.
1917 is a reference to the Russian Revolution, which established communism as an alternative to capitalism. It was a key moment for the left and politically an important attempt to run things differently.
There's a lot of beta males out there.
Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
They fuel lots of what happens online--specifically the "trans" nonsense.
what is the optimum or acceptable level of identity politics the left should embrace? presumably enough to liberate women...
I felt sorry that you had to go through that kind of experience when speaking for women's prisons. I get the same feeling that men tend to think that everything public belongs to them, not to women. For example, men truly believe that we women cannot decide whom can access women's toilets, women's pools, women's sports...and every thing public and single-sex. We need to speak louder and let them know they should fix the problem of toxic masculinity and feminine men by themselves instead of forcing us to open our own spaces.
totally agree.
That is not working class nor socialism ; it is not feminist to place aesthetic post conceptualistand performative stereotypes who fancy and mutilate body parts and wear cos play above "natural woman" our Mothers are being scrapped - it is the most right wing regressive muck-- All the while the captured sexist media and self serving dullards are shtoop- the dumbed down imagery of the medical big pharma data industrial estate neo- feudal stock farrm horror show - look at women, children dead in the East and Afgan girls in full shrouds buried alive ; Englands stealth attempt erasure of women and girls by medieval marauders ; Aust/ NZ/Canada Spain Germany - all at once no less -Top down ; it is orchestrated by moguls in pharma medical profits labs - in ivory towers using their captured dissasociated social messengers trying to be relevant - and handpicked and paid -up handmaidens and bought up paid up politicians or just bland misfits with a gripe
I'll admit to not knowing much about UK labor history, but this is deeply insulting to US women labor leaders, organizers, and socialist thinkers. "Socialism was popular not because it worked, but because it worked for men. It centred them. While the socialist brothers told women to make cakes to raise money for the strike fund which would bring on the revolution and a better future, the men were getting what they wanted there and then, which was to be the hero, he who must be supported in the struggle. The women were to focus on, look to, dream of a future paradise." Men have "centred" themselves for millennia - whether in socialism, capitalism, mercantilism - you name it. But you have here invisibilized the history of the struggles, sacrifices, and triumphs of working class women to organize for better pay and conditions on the job. How very feminist.
I agree with a poster below that lays the Genesis of this at one of the waves or offshoots of feminism. And that wave won't own it and make the correction that women can exist in a variety of flavors (as females) and men can exist in many flavors (as males) and just accept each other and live cooperatively together.
This analysis fails because it only takes into account trans women. Transgenderism is not solely about males who identify as women. The rest of the transgender story is ignored. If it really is about beta males, why do people also support females who identify as men?