Weird Logic Re: LGBT Liberation

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If a revolutionary leftist says we should only take reformist positions on LGBT issues rather than take radical ones just because *some* misguided gay liberationists decades ago had ties to the NAMBLA pederasts, that person is taking a conservative position, and one without any logical justification.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What's all this about?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm kind of curious too, as it seems to come out of the blue somewhat.

I don't think working towards say, equal marriage is a reformist thing, as long as it's done with the realisation that, as a matter of function or intent, it's not going to fundamentally change the capitalist system.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Just an argument I had with a supposed revolutionary the other day. I just can't wrap my head around his logic. He really believes that we should only support reformist positions re: LGBT issues because of what some gay liberationists in the '70s did.

"Gay liberationists were radicals, so supporting radical positions on LGBT issues now is supporting pederasts" is his entire argument.

He even thinks the bourgeoisification of LGBT activism and the commodification of LGBT identities are good things, because that shifted power away from radical liberationists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just an argument I had with a supposed revolutionary the other day. I just can't wrap my head around his logic. He really believes that we should only support reformist positions re: LGBT issues because of what some gay liberationists in the '70s did.

"Gay liberationists were radicals, so supporting radical positions on LGBT issues now is supporting pederasts" is his entire argument.

He even thinks the bourgeoisification of LGBT activism and the commodification of LGBT identities are good things, because that shifted power away from radical liberationists.

That is some bizzare logic. I mean I support many current reform efforts in terms oppression, but the whole point for me would be to try and support those existing efforts as a way to begin to help mobilize a radical liberationist effort!

And any revolutionary who thinks that bourgoise domanance over LGBT struggle is a good thing for fighting oppression should take a trip to the gentrified Castro - once a refuge for people, now rich homeowners complain that services and shelters for homeless LGBT youth are "blight" on the gayborhood!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just an argument I had with a supposed revolutionary the other day. I just can't wrap my head around his logic. He really believes that we should only support reformist positions re: LGBT issues because of what some gay liberationists in the '70s did.

But what does it mean exactly to be a "reformist" vis-a-vis LGBT struggle? Does this person not support equal marriage?

[blake 3:17]

I've was really impressed with a talk by Dean Spade last year who turns the LGBTQ thing a bit on its head and uses trans experience as just element of building a new radicalism.


But what does it mean exactly to be a "reformist" vis-a-vis LGBT struggle? Does this person not support equal marriage?


I believe that same sex marriage is the be all and end all for many gay reformists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I believe that same sex marriage is the be all and end all for many gay reformists.

Really? Because even if equal marriage was a global thing, that wouldn't be the end of the matter.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Really? Because even if equal marriage was a global thing, that wouldn't be the end of the matter.

But to bourgeois reformists it would. Equal law = equality, in their minds. The well-off "middle-class" consumer-friendly gay demographic, to which many of those LGBT-reformists belong, do not care much for their poorer cousins, and certainly will shun away from anything that threatens the economic and cultural niche which they have erected, as any true liberation would. They become partial to the repressive system by developing a sort of dependence upon it.

[Luís Henrique]

If a revolutionary leftist says we should only take reformist positions on LGBT issues rather than take radical ones just because *some* misguided gay liberationists decades ago had ties to the NAMBLA pederasts, that person is taking a conservative position, and one without any logical justification.

What would be a "revolutionary" position on LGBT issues, as opposed to a "reformist" position?


"Gay liberationists were radicals, so supporting radical positions on LGBT issues now is supporting pederasts" is his entire argument.

And are "radical positions" the same as "revolutionary positions" to your interlocutor? Or by "radical" he simply means "edgy"? Or is he trading one thing for the other, to arrive at an illogical conclusion?

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

First off who is this gay libertationist that was exposed as a NAMBLA member? How does that abolish what anything the liberationist movement ever said in regards to LGBT rights?

Crap, if people are really thinking this then it really pains me to see that this is the image the bourgoise LGBT movement is painting of the former liberationist movement.

[The Feral Underclass]

The GLF was supportive of paedophile liberation groups in the 60's and early 70's.

[RadioRaheem84]

The GLF was supportive of paedophile liberation groups in the 60's and early 70's.

Ooooh. :( Yes, that might put a damper in the new generation's view of the past movement. In essense they might just see themselves as being the outlier and heterosexuality as the neutral orientation. Questioning staight america might just be going too far into radical territory and might be deemed as going against the natural order.

[MarxArchist]

And any revolutionary who thinks that bourgoise domanance over LGBT struggle is a good thing for fighting oppression should take a trip to the gentrified Castro - once a refuge for people, now rich homeowners complain that services and shelters for homeless LGBT youth are "blight" on the gayborhood!

Welcome to the future of "equality".

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But what does it mean exactly to be a "reformist" vis-a-vis LGBT struggle? Does this person not support equal marriage?
He supports marriage equality, but that's as "radical" a position as he's willing to take.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is what happens when liberals define equality, it ends up looking not much different from the libertarian's version of equality. Under the law there is equality, per se, (considering if one can afford equal representation) but in the sphere of economics it is still dog eat dog.

These liberals see the market, electoral politics and conforming to straight America morals as the only in road to progress. They will incorporate what ever company and whatever politician be they Republican or Democrat. They would accept a reactionary war hawk and economic right wing nutcase just as long as they were on the right issue on LGBT marriage equality.

But much of the left single issue politics is like this anyways.

[RadioRaheem84]

He supports marriage equality, but that's as "radical" a position as he's willing to take.
I'll repeat what I said before:
In essense they might just see themselves as being the outlier and heterosexuality as the neutral orientation. Questioning staight america might just be going too far into radical territory and might be deemed as going against a natural order (an order they might only differ with right wingers on when it comes to homosexuality being wrong).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What would be a "revolutionary" position on LGBT issues, as opposed to a "reformist" position?
For me, I'd say:

1. Full sexual and gender liberation for all people can only happen if existing social institutions are abolished and the archaic values they represent are swept aside with them, i.e. LGBT liberation can only occur in the context of a successful class struggle.

2. Marriage and family reflect existing property relations. Under socialism, family relationships will reflect new social relations.

3. The social pressures placed on people to conform to narrowly defined gender roles must be combated and eliminated, to advance the liberation of all people.

The person I was arguing with seems to now hold up the bourgeois model of family as the ideal, and believes the state should define family relationships, while on all other issues he's resolutely anti-bourgeois and believes socialism will abolish existing social structures.

[Manar]

The GLF was supportive of paedophile liberation groups in the 60's and early 70's.
Yeah, a shameful chapter in LGBT history. Thankfully the LGBT movement has mostly gotten rid of the pedophile parasites, although those degenerates still try to exploit LGBT successes in some places. Not for much longer, hopefully.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah, a shameful chapter in LGBT history. Thankfully the LGBT movement has mostly gotten rid of the pedophile parasites, although those degenerates still try to exploit LGBT successes in some places. Not for much longer, hopefully.

Were they as prominent in the movement enough as to have left a big stain on the liberationists?

[RadioRaheem84]

The person I was arguing with seems to now hold up the bourgeois model of family as the ideal, and believes the state should define family relationships, while on all other issues he's resolutely anti-bourgeois and believes socialism will abolish existing social structures.

Is he LGBT? I mean when I talk to LGBT, youth or not, they tend to have a similar world view as straight conservatives regarding family and such. They just disagree that homosexuality is wrong, and they believe they're just different, i.e. outliers in a perfect hetero-normative world.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'll repeat what I said before:
In essense they might just see themselves as being the outlier and heterosexuality as the neutral orientation. Questioning staight america might just be going too far into radical territory and might be deemed as going against a natural order (an order they might only differ with right wingers on when it comes to homosexuality being wrong).
This is certainly possible, but he didn't seem to take this position before he learned there had been links between some gay liberationists and pederasts in the past. He seems so stuck on that point that he can't think logically.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is he LGBT? I mean when I talk to LGBT, youth or not, they tend to have a similar world view as straight conservatives regarding family and such. They just disagree that homosexuality is wrong, and they believe they're just different, i.e. outliers in a perfect hetero-normative world.
No, he's hetero.

[Leftsolidarity]

No, he's hetero.

Then would gives a damn about what he says the LGBTQ community should pursue? His view is worthless.

[Lucretia]

Then would gives a damn about what he says the LGBTQ community should pursue? His view is worthless.

Yeah, and who cares about what those petty-bourgeois theorists Marx and Engels had to say about what the working class should pursue?

[Leftsolidarity]

Yeah, and who cares about what those petty-bourgeois theorists Marx and Engels had to say about what the working class should pursue?

A non-LGBTQ person doesn't have the ability to tell LGBTQ people how to wage their struggle or for what end goals. Just like a male doesn't have the ability to tell women how to struggle against sexism or a white person tell a person of color how to struggle against their national oppression.

I don't know if you are an LGBTQ person but as one myself I don't give a damn what a heterosexual person has to say about how we should struggle.

This is part of the whole "self-determination for oppressed nations" thing.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yeah, and who cares about what those petty-bourgeois theorists Marx and Engels had to say about what the working class should pursue?

Not analogous. Classes are material relationships which derive their meaning from an economic structure. The interactions of the classes can be analyzed easily in a scientific method (Das Kapital). Race/gender/sexuality/etc... are social phenomena which derive their meaning from arbitrary ideological identifications and cannot be analyzed in any one method as both the topic of analysis and those doing the analyzing affects the very analysis. The context of race/gender/sex/etc... is always changing - it is an evolving condition within which we live. The context of capital is always the same at it's root.

Leftsolidarity is absolutely correct that straight men (like myself) have no place telling LGBTQ folk how to liberate themselves. I damn sure support their progress and struggle but I'm not going to go out and 'organize' a community which is clearly not my own any more than I'm going to walk onto an American Indian reservation (as a white person) and 'organize' their liberation.

[MarxArchist]

A non-LGBTQ person doesn't have the ability to tell LGBTQ people how to wage their struggle or for what end goals. Just like a male doesn't have the ability to tell women how to struggle against sexism or a white person tell a person of color how to struggle against their national oppression.


Ya, black nationalism is great. If you criticize it you're racist and trying to control black people.

[Leftsolidarity]

Ya, black nationalism is great. If you criticize it you're racist and trying to control black people.

I find it funny that you pull that from everything I said. I never even mentioned Black nationalism so why did you pick that to criticize particularly over anything else that I talked about? Your comment seems to come from a racist and condescending part of you, I would say,

But yeah, if you try to tell Black people what to do and how to do it you're a racist and you are trying to control them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Not analogous. Classes are material relationships which derive their meaning from an economic structure. The interactions of the classes can be analyzed easily in a scientific method (Das Kapital). Race/gender/sexuality/etc... are social phenomena which derive their meaning from arbitrary ideological identifications and cannot be analyzed in any one method as both the topic of analysis and those doing the analyzing affects the very analysis. The context of race/gender/sex/etc... is always changing - it is an evolving condition within which we live. The context of capital is always the same at it's root.

Leftsolidarity is absolutely correct that straight men (like myself) have no place telling LGBTQ folk how to liberate themselves. I damn sure support their progress and struggle but I'm not going to go out and 'organize' a community which is clearly not my own any more than I'm going to walk onto an American Indian reservation (as a white person) and 'organize' their liberation.

I agree with this but what if you see a movement being usurped by bourgoise interests? Can you critique it and the course it's going without being a member of that community?

Isn't there a Straight Ally thing going on within the gay community too? I am very interested in LGBT issues not only because it's a movement that is happening in my lifetime and I am witnessing the co-opting it, but because from a liberationist standpoint I think it's a major component to further understanding class struggle.

[MarxArchist]

I find it funny that you pull that from everything I said. I never even mentioned Black nationalism so why did you pick that to criticize particularly over anything else that I talked about? Your comment seems to come from a racist and condescending part of you, I would say,

But yeah, if you try to tell Black people what to do and how to do it you're a racist and you are trying to control them.

Yes, as an Anarchist you should quietly accept a nationalist ideology which is opposed to multiculturalism.

[Leftsolidarity]

Yes, as an Anarchist you should quietly accept a nationalist ideology which is opposed to multiculturalism.

You have only sidestepped anything I've said with vague (and what I see as) racist remarks.

[MarxArchist]

You have only sidestepped anything I've said with vague (and what I see as) racist remarks.
I'm making a point that's escaping you, I haven't said anything racist in the slightest. When you said :


A non-LGBTQ person doesn't have the ability to tell LGBTQ people how to wage their struggle or for what end goals. Just like a male doesn't have the ability to tell women how to struggle against sexism or a white person tell a person of color how to struggle against their national oppression.I used black nationalism as an example of an ideology I think white people should "have the ability" to criticize, just as men should "have the ability" to criticize specific feminist theory. So essentially what you're saying is you think black nationalism can't be criticized by white people. That if I did such I would be racist and would be "trying to control black people". Never mind that some black nationalists attack multiculturalism as a 'failed experiment' in the same way white nationalists do. Their theory is untouchable because they're black so as a white person I should sit quietly as people advocate separate nation states for each race. Maybe we can work that into the communist program. Communism, you know, a system where each race has it's own nation state! don't criticize Louis Farrakhan, if you do you're racist!

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm making a point that's escaping you, I haven't said anything racist in the slightest. When you said :

I used black nationalism as an example of an ideology I think white people should "have the ability" to criticize, just as men should "have the ability" to criticize specific feminist theory. So essentially what you're saying is you think black nationalism can't be criticized by white people. That if I did such I would be racist and would be "trying to control black people". Never mind that some black nationalists attack multiculturalism as a 'failed experiment' in the same way white nationalists do. Their theory is untouchable because they're black so as a white person I should sit quietly as people advocate separate nation states for each race. Maybe we can work that into the communist program. Communism, you know, a system where each race has it's own nation state! don't criticize Louis Farrakhan, if you do you're racist!

Oddly enough, it it you who has missed the entire point.

We are not claiming that there isn't room for critique from outsiders. We are claiming there isn't room for appropriation.
So, as a simple example:
As a leftist I can critique black nationalism on the grounds that it involves nationalism and nationalism itself is bunk. But at the same time, as a white person, I need to acknowledge that often times 'nationalism' involves carving out a space for a group within a dominant hegemony, and hence might be necessary as a step towards liberation. What I ought not do, as a leftist who is white, is appropriate the black nationalist movement as my own when it is anything but.

EDIT: I think this answers RadioRaheem84's questions as well.

[Lucretia]

A non-LGBTQ person doesn't have the ability to tell LGBTQ people how to wage their struggle or for what end goals. Just like a male doesn't have the ability to tell women how to struggle against sexism or a white person tell a person of color how to struggle against their national oppression.

I don't know if you are an LGBTQ person but as one myself I don't give a damn what a heterosexual person has to say about how we should struggle.

This is part of the whole "self-determination for oppressed nations" thing.

Except gay people aren't a "nation" by any reasonable definition anymore than workers are a "nation." To claim that there is this monolithic thing called a "gay community" is to fall into the trap of the bourgeois "leaders" who are itching to pronounce themselves the heads of this thing that doesn't actually exist. Along with their fictions regarding dichotomous sexual preferences. What? You think so-called "straight" people have never had a gay sexual encounter before, are incapable of having homosexual desires and thoughts? One wonders how many such feelings one has to have before one can earn the esteemed privilege of being able to critique a gay-identifying person's sexual politics without being accused of "telling them what to do."

[Lucretia]

I'm making a point that's escaping you, I haven't said anything racist in the slightest. When you said :

I used black nationalism as an example of an ideology I think white people should "have the ability" to criticize, just as men should "have the ability" to criticize specific feminist theory. So essentially what you're saying is you think black nationalism can't be criticized by white people. That if I did such I would be racist and would be "trying to control black people". Never mind that some black nationalists attack multiculturalism as a 'failed experiment' in the same way white nationalists do. Their theory is untouchable because they're black so as a white person I should sit quietly as people advocate separate nation states for each race. Maybe we can work that into the communist program. Communism, you know, a system where each race has it's own nation state! don't criticize Louis Farrakhan, if you do you're racist!

It's identity politics taken to a ridiculous extreme by people on this forum who really should know better.

[RadioRaheem84]

How has or how would the past liberationist movement stance on pedophilia hurt incorporating liberationist pov in talks of class struggle in the current LGBT movement? Would it be seen as good or a detriment to introduce LGBT youth to the theories, not necessarily of the old liberationist movement but radical LGBT writers today?

How well known or accepted are radical gay writers in the LGBT community? What is the opinion of them in the LGBT press and whatnot?

[Leftsolidarity]

It's identity politics taken to a ridiculous extreme by people on this forum who really should know better.

I find it humorous that a non-oppressed person who calls themselves a leftist would say that the struggle for liberation of oppressed people and that those oppressed people would be in the forefront of that struggle is "identity politics". What garbage.

[MarxArchist]

What I ought not do, as a leftist who is white, is appropriate the black nationalist movement as my own when it is anything but.

EDIT: I think this answers RadioRaheem84's questions as well.

That's not what I was quoting. What I quoted in my post implied "we ought not tell people how to wage their struggle". If I criticize black nationalism I am by default telling them how to wage their struggle. I'm not talking about white people co opting black nationalism. What he said implies we should either accept or be quiet about racial segregation and nationalism if it's coming from a black person because they are oppressed by white people and me being white (of the oppressor race) criticizing their black nationalism would be me oppressing black people. You should know many white and black nationalists agree on a great number of things.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

How has or how would the past liberationist movement stance on pedophilia hurt incorporating liberationist pov in talks of class struggle in the current LGBT movement?
Technically, it was a stance on pederasty, but I don't think the general liberationist perspective is tied to that in the least. A lot of liberationists were anti-capitalist, anti-sexist, anti-militarism, anti-racist, etc., while critiquing heteronormativity. Liberationists haven't gone away, and I even know some in their early 20s, but the bourgeoisification of the LGBT movement made the liberationist perspective a very definite minority.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's identity politics taken to a ridiculous extreme by people on this forum who really should know better.
Identity politics is an overused and often misused term.

[blake 3:17]

Technically, it was a stance on pederasty, but I don't think the general liberationist perspective is tied to that in the least. A lot of liberationists were anti-capitalist, anti-sexist, anti-militarism, anti-racist, etc., while critiquing heteronormativity. Liberationists haven't gone away, and I even know some in their early 20s, but the bourgeoisification of the LGBT movement made the liberationist perspective a very definite minority.

Thank you. I didn't want to have to do the sum up.

Some of my dearest friends -- quite a few dead now -- were the founders of Pride day in Toronto in the early 80s. They were mostly gay men, but there were some dykes, and they were as much about solidarity with the Nicaraguan and South African freedom struggles, or often more local labour/union solidarity, than they were about about celebrating any "gayness" or whatever. Shit got heavier with the AIDS crisis.

We've one of the biggest Pride parades/parties in the world and most anyone from the beginning doesn't go it or gets threatened with trespass (at a million people plus event!!!!!!!!) for being part of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

The only thing my friends are going to is the political stuff where they might get arrested or the groovy spaced raves. I'll prolly just blaze and check out some punk or hip hop shows that have nothing to do with it.

[blake 3:17]

And the straightest hetero male friend I have just got trans rights into a union agreement -- guess who tried to fuck it up??? -- a bunch of gay men.

I tried to explain to him that LGBTQ wasn't a bloc -- but these assholes tried to get the language out of the agreement. Fuckers.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And the straightest hetero male friend I have just got trans rights into a union agreement -- guess who tried to fuck it up??? -- a bunch of gay men.
That sounds familiar. There are some gay men and lesbians who don't see the T in LGBT, and often not the B as well. Usually, they're assimilationists who think trans people make the movement look bad.

[blake 3:17]

That sounds familiar. There are some gay men and lesbians who don't see the T in LGBT, and often not the B as well. Usually, they're assimilationists who think trans people make the movement look bad.

It's not so much a problem of seeing it -- they're fucking haters.

[RadioRaheem84]

That sounds familiar. There are some gay men and lesbians who don't see the T in LGBT, and often not the B as well. Usually, they're assimilationists who think trans people make the movement look bad.

Why do trans people embarrass gay men? I don't get these A Gays? Why do they insist on owning and steering the LGBT movement to fit hetero-normative standards?

Just what is their problem?

[blake 3:17]

Why do trans people embarrass gay men? I don't get these A Gays? Why do they insist on owning and steering the LGBT movement to fit hetero-normative standards?

Just what is their problem?

Ask them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ask them.

I feel as though if I do I would be criticized for meddling in LGBT affairs or something akin to that. And I don't mean all gay men, just conservative bourgeois types.

[Leftsolidarity]

I feel as though if I do I would be criticized for meddling in LGBT affairs or something akin to that. And I don't mean all gay men, just conservative bourgeois types.

The only anti-trans stuff I've heard of from LGB folks has been these pseudo-feminist types who say that transwomen are part of the oppression of women. I've never heard their criticism of transmen (but I think it's "normal" for transwomen to be targeted more so than transmen). It's all shit.

[Lucretia]

How has or how would the past liberationist movement stance on pedophilia hurt incorporating liberationist pov in talks of class struggle in the current LGBT movement? Would it be seen as good or a detriment to introduce LGBT youth to the theories, not necessarily of the old liberationist movement but radical LGBT writers today?

How well known or accepted are radical gay writers in the LGBT community? What is the opinion of them in the LGBT press and whatnot?

A lot of these questions about what gay liberationists were about can be understood by reading Carl Wittman's "A Gay Manifesto" (in full, not the adulterated versions posted in various places).

[Lucretia]

I find it humorous that a non-oppressed person who calls themselves a leftist would say that the struggle for liberation of oppressed people and that those oppressed people would be in the forefront of that struggle is "identity politics". What garbage.

No, you seem to have reading comprehension issues. I said nothing about oppressed people not being in the forefront of their own struggle for emancipation. I said that it is ridiculous to claim that a person who doesn't identify as gay can not take independent positions on the direction of so-called "gay politics," as if they had "no business" commenting on it. Which is precisely what your smart-ass reply to a previous poster suggested. By this metric, it is unacceptable for a straight-identifying revolutionary socialist to criticize the bourgeois gay lobby for co-opting the movement. Your position is analogous to the idea that workers cannot possibly be wrong about class-related issues because of the position they occupy as the exploited. Marx wasn't a worker, so why the fuck should workers listen to him? Workers, like self-identified gay people, have a choice regarding how to struggle for their own emancipation, and the question of how should not be closed off from people who aren't a member of the identity club.

[RadioRaheem84]

A lot of these questions about what gay liberationists were about can be understood by reading Carl Wittman's "A Gay Manifesto" (in full, not the adulterated versions posted in various places).

I'll be at work most of the day and do not want to pull up anything that might get me in trouble so could please just give me the skinny. Does this manifesto include, and I mean even in the smallest detail, any reference to pedophila or pedastry? Because that I cannot support even if all the other things ring true. I just think that something like that ruins a perfectly good movement. Just my two cents.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Here's another item worth reading: Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto; London, 1971, revised 1978 (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And the straightest hetero male friend I have just got trans rights into a union agreement -- guess who tried to fuck it up??? -- a bunch of gay men.

I tried to explain to him that LGBTQ wasn't a bloc -- but these assholes tried to get the language out of the agreement. Fuckers.

Well, I'd criticize this transphobic move, but what do I know about the queer movement? I'm just a straight man. I have no place intervening and telling those gay men that what they did was fucked up and discriminatory


:rolleyes:

@ leftsolidarity - people who are not in an oppressed minority should give people in that minority priority, but that shouldn't lead to the kind of atomistic movement for liberation which you seem to be suggesting.

[MarxArchist]

The only anti-trans stuff I've heard of from LGB folks has been these pseudo-feminist types who say that transwomen are part of the oppression of women. I've never heard their criticism of transmen (but I think it's "normal" for transwomen to be targeted more so than transmen). It's all shit.

They're not "pseudo" feminists they're mostly second wave sex negative radical feminists but the criticism of trans women in general comes from the theory that gender is a social construction and people "dressing like and acting like" women is the problem. That they're reenforcing negative socially constructed gender roles. The theory on gender being a social construction isn't a second wave sex negative radical feminist theory but they take it and run with it straight into some deplorable anti-trans positions which pull back the veil on their general bigotry, idiocy and overall theoretical approach. Most anything questionable concerning feminist theory can be traced back to these people who coincidentally call all other feminists "pseudo feminists". I think of them as the "tankies" of feminism and to dovetail into an earlier discussion we had in this thread- I'm a male and I criticize this branch of feminist theory but according to you I shouldn't. Even you, in calling them pseudo feminists, criticized them and thus, by your own definition, are trying to control women (which is a tactic they employ when criticized).


I think here is where you apologize for calling me racist? The last two days on this site I've been called racist and a rape supporter. That sort of thing kinda exposes a problem on the left. I wouldnt nessesarity call it "identity politics" as another poster labeled it but it's problem non the less. Something that happens often, not just to me, so I won't take it personal if you don't apologize but understand I'm not going to embrace the label.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

They're not "pseudo" feminists they're mostly second wave sex negative radical feminists but the criticism of trans women in general comes from the theory that gender is a social construction and people "dressing like and acting like" women is the problem. That they're reenforcing negative socially constructed gender roles.
The problem with that is they don't hold cis women to the same standard, and there are more of them reinforcing negative socially constructed gender roles than there are trans women (and, yes, some trans women do this).

[MarxArchist]

The problem with that is they don't hold cis women to the same standard, and there are more of them reinforcing negative socially constructed gender roles than there are trans women (and, yes, some trans women do this).

This is because sex negative second wave radical feminists don't like anything even remotely to do with men. In theory and practice (unless the man is in full support of their questionable ideas).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This is because sex negative second wave radical feminists don't like anything even remotely to do with men. In theory and practice (unless the man is in full support of their questionable ideas).
I know. And if trans women point that out, we're called "Men's Rights Activists" by radfems. :confused:

[MarxArchist]

I know. And if trans women point that out, we're called "Men's Rights Activists" by radfems. :confused:
I'm called a rapist. Or I'm trying to control them by "mansplaining" and dominating women's space. The "manarachist" label has been used against me as well. Welcome to the sex wars.

[blake 3:17]

I feel as though if I do I would be criticized for meddling in LGBT affairs or something akin to that. And I don't mean all gay men, just conservative bourgeois types.

Aw well when you're a revolutionary anti-capitalist you get criticized. From some idiots but also people with money and power.

Deal with it.

[blake 3:17]

Was trying to figure out my FB Pride message. Lots of folks posting very positive cool stuff.

Stopped going to Pride in 1998 -- was threatened for arrest for participation in a peaceful but rowdy picket of an extreme right wing homophobic (as far as I knew he just hated fags) Member of the Provincial Parliament.

This was the shit head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Palladini

[Red Flag Waver]

Was trying to figure out my FB Pride message. Lots of folks posting very positive cool stuff.

Stopped going to Pride in 1998 -- was threatened for arrest for participation in a peaceful but rowdy picket of an extreme right wing homophobic (as far as I knew he just hated fags) Member of the Provincial Parliament.
On a barely related note, there were Avakianites demonstrating at San Francisco Pride the other day. Kind of weird, given their history.