Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

d4m10n said:
It's not so much an assumption as an observation. Have you spent much time around progressive activists? From what I've seen, they tend to accept the validity of an intersectional OmniCause without question.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that a rather large number of gay people, as well as black and hispanic people, are not progressives?

You're right - progressives of any type tend to go all in on intersectionality. But progressives are still a minority among most population cohorts. Even most registered democrats aren't progressives, even though the politicians don't seem to have caught on to that yet. A really high volume of black and hispanic people are fairly conservative about a lot of topics, and have less tolerance for the trans and queer crap than white people do.
 
d4m10n said:
Are you counting the ACLU among those who condone the use of violence to promote trans rights? They are one of the most well-resourced groups out there doing trans rights work, and I'd be surprised to learn that they've made this turn.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not outright violence, but at this point, ACLU has lost the plot entirely. They were already going downhill several years ago when they blocked an FOIA request on how many transgender identified males were housed in female prisons in WA.
 
Emily's Cat said:
But progressives...
Click to expand...
Well, for one thing, you're going after entirely the wrong group. Progressivism is about economic policy, not identity groups. It's not "progressives" that harp on identity politics. They might pay it lip service now and again by talking about which groups have it the worst, but that's not what progressivism is about.

Progressivism is mostly about having a minimum wage that covers the minimal cost of living and finding a way to end what "investment income" fads are currently doing to rent prices. It's not about creating racial and sexual tensions, and then profiting from it (politically) through their nonprofits. That's something else entirely, although I'll admit that the latter is also popular on the left.

Oh, and it's also about taxing rich people at an appropriate rate.

Bernie ain't no civil justice warrior. Neither is AOC, nor Robert Reich. (at least not WRT identity group politics). They might mention relevant topics in passing to bring people angry about such things on board, but it's not exactly their core message. Their core message is about the economy and specifically worsening income inequality. It's also meant to be a reawakening of the labor movement.

I dunno... maybe those other groups also call themselves progressives nowadays. I don't listen to them enough to know, I guess. If so, they've been around since at least the 1960s and progressivism was a bit passé at that time... so it's a bit of a rebranding at the very least.

Yes, the left will pay lip service to any group that tends to vote for them to form a larger coalition (kind of necessary in a 2-party system), but they aren't always appealing to the same people with these very different topics. I'd consider the SJW's to be mostly just a type of liberal, personally... freedom to be who you are without undue consequences sort of thing, with a dose of occasional exaggeration and a helping of unintended consequences.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not (usually) against these groups or their message. I just want to clarify that it's not "progressives" per se. That element was there long before progressivism came back into fashion, and they haven't really changed in a way that justifies a new political label.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Are you counting the ACLU among those who condone the use of violence to promote trans rights? They are one of the most well-resourced groups out there doing trans rights work, and I'd be surprised to learn that they've made this turn.
Click to expand...
Even if this was true (which most certainly is not), it would simply be whataboutism.
d4m10n said:
That really clears things up, thanks.
Click to expand...
Thank you, but its about time. I have been making this clear ever since my first entries into this thread... everyone else here got the memo, but it has taken until now for you to get it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not anymore.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you don't get to make up the definitions of groups you oppose. The word "progressive" actually does mean something. You may not be the first to botch the definition, but that changes nothing. The fact that a few unrelated liberal groups decided to jump on the bandwagon to take advantage of the popularity of the term also changes nothing (if that's even the case).

Progressivism historically refers to the labor movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s. That's where the term comes from. It was mostly in response to The Gilded Age... which is exactly what makes it an appropriate theme today. We're basically in another gilded age. It's not even an FDR era concept. Progressivism was more of a Teddy Roosevelt thing (but there was also a Progressive Party -- very popular here in Kansas, of all places). It was actually associated more with Republicans than Democrats the first time around.

And I do realize that this has nothing to do with the trans issue. That's my point, actually. "Progressive" has absolutely nothing to do with what you're whining about in this thread. If you're going to name an enemy, at least be precise.

Politicians may have to pay lip service to all sorts of interest groups that support them. But I don't. We're not a hive mind, and if you're looking for a special term to describe LBGT activists, "progressive" ain't it. That's not what that term means.

That said, I'm distantly supportive of their human rights. It's just not a cause I'm personally interested in enough to have much to say about it. I have no desire to get in their way either, though. It's just not an issue I tend to think about much.

But if you're looking for a progressive to argue with, I can do that. But that would be off topic in this particular thread.

If you weren't trying to paint us all with the same brush, I'd still be lurking today instead of posting.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Progressivism is about economic policy, not identity groups. It's not "progressives" that harp on identity politics.

Progressivism is mostly about having a minimum wage that covers the minimal cost of living and finding a way to end what "investment income" fads are currently doing to rent prices.
Click to expand...
That might have been the case 20 to 30 years ago, but its not the case now.

I am politically centre-left. In New Zealand, that makes me a lifelong "Labour" voter. If I were an American, I would be voting Democrat (which puts me politically at odds with a LOT of posters on this forum whom I agree with on this topic - @Ziggurat , @theprestige, @Emily's Cat are some examples...there are others.

Progressives are the branch of my political cohort who I wish would just ◊◊◊◊-off. They cause my "side" to lose a lot of votes because their extremist, unpalatable viewpoints frighten off people who would otherwise vote centre-left. The Progressive part of my cohort supports the following ideas...

- Transgender ideology
- Transgender Self-ID
- Transwomen are women
- Biological women do not have exclusive rights to access sex segregated spaces
- Biological women MUST accept TIM's in their safe spaces (evidence Progressives supporting Upton in his case v Sandie Peggie)
- Biological women cannot exclude transwomen from their chat rooms (evidence Progressives supporting Tickle in his case against Giggle)

There are numerous other example, but this is enough, for now, to make the point.

Progressives are NOT the people you imagine them to be!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Progressives are NOT the people you imagine them to be!
Click to expand...
Well, maybe not in New Zealand. I guess the terms can indeed vary a bit by location. "Liberal" doesn't mean the same thing in the US that it means in the rest of the world, either.

The term progressive pretty much skipped half a century or so for us here. It just wasn't a term we used from WWII or so until sometime in the 2000s.... other than in the historical context, of course. Populism wasn't particularly popular here during that period and it's definitely considered a form of populism here. And championing the causes of minority groups is definitely NOT a populist topic. Such topics don't fit the types of campaigns that populists run.
 
Last edited:
UK: Porton Down scientist wins employment tribunal case for constructive dismissal after experiencing a hostile work environment for expressing gender critical beliefs. "An employment tribunal has found there was a “clear hostile animus” towards gender-critical beliefs at the top-secret Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL). It found that an intimidating atmosphere resulted in the harassment and discrimination of Wilkins, 43, who was forced to leave as a result."
 
Manopolus said:
Such topics don't fit the types of campaigns that populists run.
Click to expand...
Just to be abundantly clear, there are two elements absolutely necessary to qualify as populism:

1. An "us vs them" attitude towards a perceived "elite" class.
2. There are more of us than there are of them.

Without the second, there's no hope of victory in a democratic system. It's absolutely crucial. When you drive a wedge between groups in this fashion, you pretty much have to do it in a fashion that empowers your own side or you're just a lost cause. Various forms of idealism can theoretically overcome this, but populism relies on numbers by including as many people in the wronged group as possible.

Running a populist campaign against the actual majority just doesn't make sense. You have to outnumber the "villains" by quite a bit because not everybody you seek to represent is going to accept your message.

And yes, if this sounds familiar... it was the right side of the aisle which brought populism back into vogue. A version of it was already there with The Tea Party, and it has been the absolute bread and butter of FOX News. The new(ish) Progressive movement, at least in the US, is mostly an attempt to turn the same tactic back against them.

So basically, both ends of the spectrum think that they're fighting an elitist villain represented by the other group at this point. And they're arguably right... they just differ on what to do about it and have trouble realizing that the "elites" almost completely control all sides at the top end. You can't rise to the top of a successful movement without possessing some skills and advantages. And once you get there you are, by definition, the new elite.

The hypocrisy that results is rather hilarious sometimes. Like hearing FOX whine about the "mainstream media" when they're actually the most "mainstream" media currently in existence. It sort of made sense when they were the dwarfed by the big 3, but they're way bigger than any of them now, and thus are the ones completely in control of the dialogue. To change the "mainstream media" now, all they have to do is change themselves. You'd think that you can't use those arguments anymore when you've become the de facto elite, but they still do, and it even still works. It'll theoretically wear off eventually, though.... a generational shift will do it if nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Have you considered that a rather large number of gay people, as well as black and hispanic people, are not progressives?
Click to expand...
As an Hispanic non-progressive, it occurs to me every time I hear "Latinx" on NPR.

Not sure why you think this matters, though. No one is forcing us to team up with the rainbow people.
Emily's Cat said:
...progressives of any type tend to go all in on intersectionality. But progressives are still a minority among most population cohorts.
Click to expand...
Less so amongst corporate HR departments, so far as I can tell. We've still got the DEI unlike the federales.
Emily's Cat said:
Perhaps not outright violence, but at this point, ACLU has lost the plot entirely. They were already going downhill several years ago when they blocked an FOIA request on how many transgender identified males were housed in female prisons in WA.
Click to expand...
AFAICT they've decided to go all in on progressive values whenever they conflict with liberal values, as in that case.
Manopolus said:
Sorry, but you don't get to make up the definitions of groups you oppose.
Click to expand...
I think it is just fine to go by self-i.d. when it comes to political labels.

The reason why most visible LGBTQ Americans are progressive is not just about actual politics of Democrats and Republicans on queer issues, but partly is a self-fulfilling prophecy: After a gay, bi, or a trans* a young person became estranged to their conservative family, this person allied themselves with the mainstream LGBTQ community, who could reject him if it didn’t share their ideas.​

That's from an article about why it's hard to be queer and non-progressive, which could have easily been about any other identity which is actively marginalized by social conservatives, e.g. atheists & agnostics.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Trump freezes $175 million in funding to Penn over Lia Thomas:


Virtue signalling ain't free of consequences.
Click to expand...
In both directions, or just one way?

Eta: in fairness, I agree that a male shouldn't be competing with females, no matter what they identify as. But Trump is virtue signaling just as hard as anyone else. He never indicated that he thinks of women as anything more than... let's say receptacles, so any pretense of fairness and good will is some bull ◊◊◊◊, right there. He's doing it to be an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I think it is just fine to go by self-i.d. when it comes to political labels.
Click to expand...
I don't. That just leaves you targeting the wrong group... or a bigger group than the ones you actually have a beef with. It makes it impossible to find allies within that larger group. It's for your own good, really... it's a question of not biting off more than you'd like to chew. It also makes constructive criticism impossible.

I do realize that it gets confusing when older interest groups embrace the new term in the confusion, and the newer group wants to pull them in, anyway. Part of that has to do with the righty campaign to make "liberal" a dirty word... but they're doing the same thing with progressivism, anyway.

The only thing it's good for is tarnishing the terminology, itself. It leaves you fighting against a freaking word, for crying out loud... as opposed to an actual political concept.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
In both directions, or just one way?

Eta: in fairness, I agree that a male shouldn't be competing with females, no matter what they identify as. But Trump is virtue signaling just as hard as anyone else. He never indicated that he thinks of women as anything more than... let's say receptacles, so any pretense of fairness and good will is some bull ◊◊◊◊, right there. He's doing it to be an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
Click to expand...
I'll take doing the right thing for the wrong reason over doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
 
Manopolus said:
I don't.
Click to expand...
Too bad, I guess. When I say "progressive activist groups" everyone else here knows what I mean, and you can PM me if you find it confusing.
Manopolus said:
The only thing it's good for is tarnishing the terminology, itself. It leaves you fighting against a freaking word, for crying out loud...
Click to expand...
Given my stated approach of taking one issue at a time instead of fighting for or against all of them, I think I'll be okay.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Too bad, I guess.

When I say "progressive activist groups" everyone else here knows what I mean, and you can PM me if you find it confusing.
Click to expand...
Okay. Keep the earplugs in and keep shouting at phantoms. None of my business, really. I'll just see my way out. If we can't agree on what language we're using, a meaningful conversation is impossible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom