Accidental Death Of A Manarchist — The idiots guide to transgender ideology.
Pt 1 — Tragic in theory and praxis.
One of the most disturbing trends that has arisen recently within the anarchist movement and the liberal left is what is generally termed ‘transgender ideology’. This collection of ideas has been subject to a lot of criticism, particularly from feminists. In this piece I am going to concentrate on how this transgender ideology has gained traction within certain sections of the left.
The basics — Skip it if you know already
First a bit of background in case you are new to this. If you know it already, feel free to skip it.
There are a couple of terms, which have been subverted and conflated ad nauseam, that are necessary for any discussion of this subject — these are SEX and GENDER
Sex and gender have very specific meanings in social theory and it is absolutely vital not to confuse the two.
SEX, well, everyone knows what this is right? It’s a human being’s biological status as being a man or a woman. It is a physical set of attributes. It’s BINARY (even amongst intersex people) and has been unchanged since the dawn of time.
GENDER is the social construct around sex. These are generally termed ‘masculine’ and’ feminine’ They are simply groups of characteristics that human beings have — for example, forcefulness would be termed a masculine quality and gentleness a feminine one.
The reality is that human beings exhibit a wide range of behaviours, taking some parts from one gender category and other parts from another, depending on character, situation, or culture. These categories are not necessarily fixed either (that in itself is a huge area of study)
Gender is NON BINARY, so despite certain people waving the ‘I’m non binary’ flag, they are mistaken about the basic definition of gender, as we are all ‘non binary.’
People with gender dysphoria - ‘born in the wrong body’- feel that they have a gender identity that doesn’t match their physical body. This was once seen as a form of mental disorder, although transgender activists (TRA’s) have managed, through persistent lobbying, to get the DSM5 definition changed, so that gender identity disorder is no longer a pathology, but a legitimate variant. The ‘problem’ is now the distress caused by the mismatch between physiology and identity.
Pretty straightforward, huh? Well, you would have thought so.
Postmodernism and queer theory — The demolition of reality
Central to the transgender ideology is the concept of gender identity. This is the a person’s internal feeling of their masculinity or femininity. In Transgender ideology (TI) for short, Gender Identity (GI) is independent of biological sex and is merely a state of mind. So whatever your physical body, being are a man or woman is completely detached from any kind of material basis.
TI draws heavily on 60’s post modernism and 90’s queer theory.
Simply put, these theories state that all human thought and activity is a social construct, all ideologies are simply ‘discourses’, each having equal validity. Thus the world is completely plastic and things are only there because ‘thinking makes it so.’
Post modernism is meant to be a social theory, although it fails to be one, and has been debunked many times. Queer theory is a focussed on sexual behaviour, particularly homosexuality. It purports to be derived from women’s studies, but as we will later find out, they have little in common.
It is obvious that the deconstruction of reality, represented by post modernism, which came up with some corkers like ‘the Gulf War never took place’ (Baudrillard), denies the validity of an external reality and chooses to see everything as a discourse. I like to think of it as ‘the software without the hardware’
This is particularly important when it comes to transgender ideology as it attempts to put this nonsense into practice.
Enter the Dragon — Feminism and post modernism.
Feminism seeks to explain why men have power over women in society. This necessarily involves the study of why some gender roles are privileged over others.
Physically, men and women are different. These biological differences act a marker around which gender is constructed. The gender construct in which women are subordinated is termed ‘patriarchy’
As someone so succinctly put it — “Sex denotes who is oppressed and gender is how they are oppressed”
Men and women are also subject to what is called gender stereotyping. Girls like to play with dolls and work at the hairdressers, boys like to play with toy trucks and work on a building site etc (this is so obvious, its barely worth mentioning, and also a bit of a generalisation, to be fair). Women care about their appearance and go into crisis if they break a nail, men like to sit around in a string vest with a can of Fosters, scratching their balls while they watch the footy and so on.
One of the aims of women’s struggle is to break down these gender stereotypes.
So why is this important?
Post modernism rejects the idea that the material base is important in forming a social theory.
The only definition of woman is adult human female, this is a material description of reality, but under post modern theory, this is merely ‘text’. Once you dispose of this definition and reframe it as a discourse then ‘woman’ can mean whatever you want.
This is where the mantra ‘Trans Women are Women’ derives from. Anybody can self define as a woman simply by thinking they are (or purporting to) There is no way of questioning the validity of this claim as it only exists subjectively in someone else’s head, unless of course, you are telepathic.
However under the current trend of Transfascism, everyone else has to believe it too.
If a man can become a woman simply by thinking they are, then the whole of feminism becomes null and void. In fact any distinction between the sexes ceases to exist, as biology is tossed aside in favour of ‘gender identity’ — which as stated earlier, is merely a set of variable human characteristics.
Falling down the rabbit hole — Anarchism, transgenderism and postmodernism.
First I’m going to make a few notes as to why I think that anarchists are falling for this dogshit.
Then, if I can stand it, I’m going to deconstruct the Freedom Press statement on transgender politics.
1 — Udopia —“I’m not a bastard, so that means that no one else should be. If only everyone was like me”
Anarchism is based on a flawed, but extremely simplistic view of human nature which is virtually identical to the post modern ideas of Foucault and his fellow travellers.
It’s sheer simplicity is what makes it attractive .
In a nutshell, all the evils of the world are down to the capitalist system in which people conform to a hierarchical, dog eat dog society. Of course there is a certain amount of truth to this.
However, in a hopeless utopian twist, it is posited that with correct socialisation all the evils of the world from war to poverty to greed to patriarchy, can be eliminated.
Underpinning this vision, is the assumption that personality is completely fluid, society is a construct and there is no fixed human nature — this is the same idea that is promulgated by the post modernists, which is why po mo (although most anarchists will have never heard of it) has been adopted with such ease.
The assertion that socialisation creates gender identity is a key plank in both feminist thought and post modernism. Where they diverge is that one sees woman as a biological definition, the other as a total social construct. This is why there is a huge effort in TI to stand reality on its head and assert that physical biology does not matter.
Once biology is rejected as a means to describe sex class, women cease to exist, as does feminism, and patriarchy is reduced to a discourse. No wonder women are pissed off.
2 — ‘I can do what I want’ — Anarcho individualism for dummies.
I have heard anarchism described as the freedom to do what you want, hence -
“Well if they want to wear a dress then let them you oppressive TERF bitch.”
That doesn’t make them a woman, in the same way you can’t self identity as a cat, dog or turnip (unless you’ve taken military grade hallucinogens, which many have)
The whole idea of untrammelled freedom is an illusion anyway, as humans are social animals and necessarily rely on each other for survival. It is necessary to curb your selfish base impulses in order to have any kind of society, and this necessitates a shared value system of some sort.
“There is no authority but yourself” — which is all well and good if everyone plays by the same rules.
I think conformist anarchist groupthink probably deserves its own chapter, which it will hopefully be getting later, in all its glorious self contradiction.
3 — Liberation For All …. errr …. except people who don’t agree with me,
This is a classic Trojan horse which I have seen many times.
There is an illusion that TG politics is all about liberation. Sound good, innit? Who could possibly disagree with that, apart from you radfem vagina fetishist nazis?
I have met quite a few TG people and I don’t deny that they have a right to exist and express themselves. Not all are on board with TRA, and those voices are rarely heard. In fact they are relentlessly bullied by the new trans community, despite having been living as TG and fighting for acceptance for many years. (if you want to know more about this, read Miranda Yardley’s blog)
The problem with male trans activism, and the appropriation of womanhood that it entails ,creates a situation where they are demanding the rights to invade women’s spaces (refuges, prisons, crisis centres, sports facilities, changing rooms etc) despite not being members of that sex class.
This is oppression, and opens the door to the abuse of women and children.
4 — It’s raining men — Time to put the umbrella up.
Trans has become an umbrella term to describe anyone who self identifies as the opposite sex.
Once you argue this for any length of time you will notice a shift of focus. It soon becomes clear that transmen (i.e. born female) soon get dropped in the debate and all of a sudden it’s all about the dudez.
The most vocal TRA’s Shon Faye, Paris Lees, Aimee Challenor, Riley Dennis, India Willoughby, (and so forth) are all born men — all of them — this should ring alarm bells, straight off,
Also there is no distinction between genuine dysphoriacs, with a diagnosis, crossdressers, autogynephiles, drag queens. assorted fetishists and men who use TG to game the system and gain access to women’s or girl’s spaces. These all come under the umbrella term ‘trans.’
If you follow the TI, you have to believe verbatim, everything that comes out of their mouths. How are you going to tell who has what agenda ? Answer — you can’t.
There is no gatekeeping and no means of doing so. Identity is purely subjective and immune to moral judgement…. until it’s too late of course.
In the touchy feely world of anarchist politics, I doubt that people are even aware of these distinctions. Even the slightest transgression from this sloppy norm is likely to get you labelled a transphobe.
Anarchism shares many basic ideas with post modern social theory. I’m sure a lot of anarchists wouldn’t even bother denying it. With its emphasis on the fluidity of social norms, which are a precursor to any form of social change, it is fertile ground for the current wave of trans activism.
Unfortunately they are championing a vicious men’s rights movement, without even realising it.
PT2 — Manarchy In The UK.
Designed to fail — The politics Of obscurity.
One of the things that I’ve noticed from my years on the underground is the dominance of single issue politics and the lack of any organisational continuity. Certain issues never go away, but they never get followed through either.
There are a few reasons for this — one is that anarchism is “politics without the boring bits”.
Who wants to plough through Das Kapital, when you can skin up a bifta and watch ‘V For Vendetta’ instead ? Unfortunately for you slackers, it’s the boring bits (meetings, drafting manifestos, maintaining websites, research) that give consistency, continuity and coherence to a movement.
There is a suspension of the normal rules when you enter the magic land of temporary autonomous zones. All the things that someone would do as part of their everyday business — even the most basic things like writing down minutes, keeping accounts, or delegating, only ever seems to happen on an ad hoc basis.
I have been at gatherings, where people looked on with astonishment as I took a pen out and started making notes (this was especially useful when people tried to bullshit me later about what they had said.)
Anyway, I digress. There seems to be a new cause every year, and few of them are particularly effective, because due to a rejection of ‘the system’ anarchists are disengaged from the levers of power and their philosophy has little resonance with the general public.. The refusal to engage in any kind of party politics, or even to join unions, which although they have their problems, have been the vehicle of the class struggle for over a century, has led to a disempowerment of the anarchist movement.
Fucking the system — Why transgender?
Transgender Ideology is different in this sense, as it isn’t a grass roots movement, but is a top down propaganda campaign by an extremely powerful and wealthy lobby, originating in the US and backed by certain sections of the privatised medical system in league with big pharma. It looks like a non conformist movement, but it isn’t. It is all about creating a new market in lifestyle accessories and medical interventions.
Transgender ideology has no intention of overthrowing the system. The most high profile proponents such as Paris Lees, Caitlyn Jenner and Munroe Bergdorf, are models, pundits and celebrities. not politicians. They want to be part of the establishment, because there’s big bucks in it for them. They are selling snake oil. This is not a rebel culture, but part of a long tradition of repackaging rebellion for consumption by the gullible.
The destruction of gender norms and pushing of the idea that your gender identity is the most important thing about you, is central to what is basically an ad campaign.
This is the opposite of the class struggle, as far as I can see, because it is an particularly individualistic and arid form of identity politics.
You can dress any way you want, have any bit chopped off or attached that you like, but at the end of the day you are still Jane or John Doe fucking nobody.
Transgenderism is a movement that has been recuperated before it has even started.
In the same way that gay rights have been largely depoliticised (well, for men, anyway) and is no longer the exclusive preserve of the left, vegetarianism, which was once a radical lifestyle choice, is now commonplace and a lot of the pioneers did ok out of it, creating a market and eventually selling off their little businesses to bigger companies. I don’t have much of a problem with this, as everyone has to make a living, but don’t tell me that this is radical politics any more.
Transgenderism looks like a progressive movement at first glance, but that’s exactly what it isn’t.
It looks like it is breaking down gender norms, but in order to identify as the opposite sex, transgender people adopt dress and mannerisms associated with their chosen gender identity, and by doing so engage in gender stereotyping.
No Gods No Masters — Conformity and Anarchist groupthink.
The first thing to note about anarchism in the UK is that it is primarily a cultural and social movement rather than a political one. Numbers are small and there is only a vague agenda, which is impossible to put into practice in the current situation. Thus political action tends to cluster around single issue and temporary causes. There are a few exceptions to this such as hunt sabbing, and animal rights, which have run for years. These aren’t really class issues in the purest sense.
The state is very powerful, ubiquitous and , when it comes down to it, most anarchists have very little in common with average working class people, so they tend to retreat into the ‘anarchist bubble’, where a lot of ideas are simply taken for granted and debate can be pretty limited.
Campaigns will tend to change from year to year in what can only be described as fads.
Once an underdog is identified, there will be a ‘pile on’ as everyone gets on board with the latest craze, usually with very little analysis.
It will be refugees one year, palm oil, the next and so on.
The glue that holds this together is largely personal relationships, which are termed ‘affinity groups’
This is extremely powerful and certainly a factor in the longevity of the scene. It is human nature for people to gather in groups with perceived common interests and to seek relationships, emotional support and, let’s face it, have a good time. In this situation fear of ostracization is a powerful tool in ensuring compliance.
These social bonds create a tendency towards groupthink and self censorship. Anarchists might be on board with some parts of the philosophy and not other parts, but will tend to ignore disagreements, rather than confront them.
Some voices in the community are louder than others and these tend to dominate the discourse. The way they gain power in this situation is manifold. The deconstruction of this is for another day, I’m afraid. The end result is that nobody wants to be seen to be ‘off message’
The new sexual politics — Everyone gets an easy ride.
Having described how ideas spread so quickly within the anarchist movement, I would like to ask the question ‘Why Transgender?’
There are 4 main points here — one is simply knee jerk support for the (purported) underdog, which is more of less a given amongst anarchists. Often there is little analysis of what you are actually supporting. The most glaring example of this is has to be the left’s support of the Islamic fascists of the Afghan mujahedeen, in the war against Russia.
There is also the question of what is considered ‘right on’ sources of information.
The reporting of the case of ‘Karen White’, a Trans Identifying Male, who was moved to a women’s prison and then proceeded to sexually assault some of the inmates there, was covered widely in the right wing press. The importance of these types of crimes become diminished simply because they are in the Sun or the Mail. The debate then goes on to ‘not all trans’ and accusations of ‘misgendering’ and ‘ hate speech’ and the fact that a convicted rapist has gamed the system is glossed over.
I think it’s self evident that rape and paedophilia are not a good thing, whatever your political stripe.
The conflation between transgender and gay rights. This is largely the fault of campaign groups such as Stonewall.
The acronym LGBT has been around for years and the unthinking assumption has been made that this is represents a monolithic movement. Lesbians and gays are now generally accepted and it’s pretty common to come across them in everyday life.
However, transgender is actually a different category from LGB. LGB denotes a sexual orientation. Transgender is a form of identity, not a type of sexuality. The key difference here is that others have to validate a TG person’s identity or be labelled a transphobe. TRA’s use the gay rights argument constantly, to paint opponents as reactionaries, even though it is a false analogy. Nobody is going to label you a homophobe if you don’t want to make love to someone who’s the same sex as you.
The other is much more important — support for trans rights is a deflection from doing proper sexual politics.
The anarchist punk scene, which is where I’m going to draw my experiences from, is a male dominated scene. It doesn’t intend to be, but by default it is. Men are more visible and there is a sexual division of labour. You will see fewer women up on stage and more of them doing the bar, running the band merchandise stall, or doing low visibility activities such as art and decor and research, when they’re not just ‘the girlfriend’ These are all valuable contributions, but some have more status than others.
There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, who I have the utmost respect for, but they are few.
So why have so many people, especially women, got on board with trans activism?
It’s new, it’s progressive, it’s non threatening to men. Why should they care who uses their toilet, they can handle themselves, what’s the problem? I see this said over and over again, in response to the internet question ‘Would you be comfortable with a trans person using your toilet?’
Of course not. I’m a geezer, innit, I wouldn’t want to look like a transphobe and it’s only talking about the gents, not the ladies, so why should I give a shit?
This post that I have seen going about, is a softcore guilt tripping trojan horse of the worst kind.
Trans activism gives everyone an easy ride. Women no longer have to challenge sexist behaviour amongst their mates, which is always going to be difficult. They’ve got a soft target now — the TERFS, so they can shame the bad girls and claim solidarity with the boys. Phew, what a relief …
As for the guys, maybe you’ve got a bit of a kink that needs validating, you can look ‘woke’ and who gives a fuck anyway, because sexual politics is now dead in the water and you are off the hook. Self examination… why bother?
What is missing here is the simple fact that by supporting trans ideology you are all taking away protection from women to please a small group of trans people, when you don’t even know their agenda.
This is a huge deflection from the class struggle and real feminism.
“I’d never hit a woman” — When is progressive not progressive?
Certain groups have decided that it is open season on 50% of the population and violence against women is just fine and dandy. How have they achieved this?
Firstly by the use of misogynistic language to dehumanise women. We are of course talking about the word TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist). Once language is used to invalidate a person, then all sorts of guilt free abuse can follow. TRA’s will claim that this is merely a descriptor, but it is obvious from the context in which it is used, that it is not. This is the tactic of fascists (and anti fascists), everywhere. “Punch a Terf — that’s ok then, they’re not really women after all, not like a real woman with a cock and balls.”
You only have to spend a short amount of time on Twitter to see that most of the debate consists of abuse from self entitled dudebros and misogynistic incels.
Disappointingly, I have seen TERF enter the anarchist lexicon, without anybody actually bothering to look into what it means.
It is a classic example of wedge driving, where feminists are divided into ‘nice’ and ‘nasty’ ones.
Surely anarcha feminism and radical feminism have a lot in common — to destroy the patriarchal system through the creation of a new type of society. So why the TERF?
Does no one see the contradiction here?
There is a theory that alternative culture is a precursor to the next stage of capitalism — I’ll just leave you to figure that one out for yourself.
Conclusion — Anarchist and Left wingers need to look beyond the idea that this is about ‘liberation’, it’s not. It’s about the oppression of women, the denial of reality and the creation of new markets.
Read the Equality Act, read the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition act — educate yourselves, don’t follow the herd, think for yourself — because at the moment you’re not.
FRA D & SOR XX