Skip to main content

The Labour of Political Irrelevance

Great Britain has been called TERF Island by Trans Rights Activists (TRAs) for a number of years now. TERF means Trans Exclusionary Reactionary Feminist. It's used to refer to women who recognize that sex in humans is binary and immutable. They are accused of excluding males from being women, when it's reality that excludes males from being women. The word 'woman' means nothing if it's applied to both people born female and male. That's the nature of words. Few words continue to have meaning while simultaneously holding a concept and its opposite. British feminists were among the first to recognize the conflict between the rights of women and the desire of males to be considered women expressed as a right.

As someone only waking to the madness behind gender ideology in the last few years it's due to the constancy of British women and a growing number of men fighting gender ideology. Reading the incredibly 'bigoted' open letter from "Queen TERF" JK Rowling crystalized for me the reality of the conflict. Rowling wrote a long letter in which she took great pains to note her personal relationships with people who have transitioned. She was attempting to make clear that she was not unsympathetic to trans people, but that her concern was the impact on women and women's safety. There is this dynamic in this discourse in which women feel they must share their past trauma with male violence to highlight the danger men may pose to women. This trauma is always dismissed by TRAs who insist that transwomen are women and belong in women's spaces. The potential danger of placing males in women's single sex spaces like domestic violence shelters and women's prisons are dismissed even in the face of examples of the prediction being fulfilled. The British women called TERFs have been resolute in proving the conflict between trans and women's rights they're told doesn't exist.

This year's Labour Conference has made clear that their years of challenging the entrenchment of gender ideology has had an impact. Labour MP Rosie Duffield received condemnation and threats for saying, "only women have a cervix." She was advised not to attend the Labour Conference over fears for her safety. This struck a number of people who have not thought through the conflict as incredibly absurd. A female member of the party appeared to be endangered for stating a fact. Facts about women are considered transphobic or bigoted against trans people. Rather than push back against the threat to a member of their party a number of Labour officials seemed to double down on the idea that stating facts about women is anti-trans. 

Starting with party leader Keir Starmer, journalists repeatedly asked some version of, "Is it transphobic to say that only women have a cervix?" His answer assured that the question would be asked repeatedly. His answer also highlighted the way in which people accept 'transwomen are women' as fact without considering what that means.

Depending on how Labour deals with this issue going forward, in the next election we may have an idea of which commitments engender the most votes in this conflict: the health and safety of over half of voters or the desire of people to be considered the opposite sex. I'm taking bets now if you're interested.


Popular posts from this blog

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

The Stories That Break Us, The Stories That Bind

Remember the mass shooter who planned and executed an attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando possibly because of his own unreconciled sexuality? It never happened. The mass shooting at The Pulse nightclub definitely happened, but the narrative around it was wrong from the start. I'm a poor consumer of mainstream news and still I was left with the erroneous impression that the sexual orientation of the victims was central to the event. It's understandable that even without consuming media one would conclude that this was an anti-gay hate crime. The victims were gay it happened in a gay nightclub. The story , like most of reality, is more complicated than the narratives we use to contain it. This illustrates the problem with a media more concerned with getting out the first just-so story that confirms our impressions and prejudices. It's worth pondering the ways in which this damages us. In the wake of the shooting, the media and public focused on certain details, many of which