DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

'Anarchism and sex' article

319 posts / 0 new
Last post
ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Nov 28 2006 12:36
madashell wrote:
You mean besides the fact that it's a phrase used by some rad feminists to imply that transgender is a political position?

It's used in two ways. Transphobic radfems (which isn't all of them, by the way, although there tends to be a deafening silence from those that don't support it) do use it to suggest that trans identities are fundamentally political in that they attempt to squeeze queer identities into a gender binary. Essentially they argue that all transwomen are repressed gay men and all transmen are repressed lesbians. Which is complete bollocks refuted by even a passing conversation with any transperson (my favourite quote from a trans friend 'I stopped sleeping with men about the same time I stopped being one').

Trans activists do, however, use the term themselves to talk about a broader defence of transpeople who face some very specific problems. Quite often this politics is in a very confrontational relationship with radfem, for instance, over the Michigan Women's Festival.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 28 2006 12:38

Hang on a minute ticking fool - there's plenty of rubbish done by people who declare themselves "anarchist", are you suggesting that the unique action of a couple of individuals is representative of the whole group? Nearly all attacks on transwomen and transmen, whether the attacks are physical or sexual in nature or attacks on their rights, come from heterosexual men, so I'm not really getting why radical feminism is being targeted here as the big evil?

There are women only spaces that include trans people and women only spaces that dont. Each group makes its own decisions on that, and in fact many trans activists understand the requirement that some WBW have for their own space. Also, as far as I'm aware most domestic violence shelters do in fact offer their services to transwomen. The controversy comes more from whether transwomen are able to work at the shelters and in what capacity.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Nov 28 2006 12:46
arf wrote:
are you suggesting that the unique action of a couple of individuals is representative of the whole group?

These are all things that have been actively pushed by radical feminists and defended time and time again, by Jeffries in particular, who is one of the lauded figures in radical feminism. They also follow logically from a position that transwomen aren't really women and transpolitics is anti-feminist. Not the same as Bakunin's anti-semitism or some lifestylist muppets calling themselves 'anarchists'.

So I'll turn the question round. Why then are these things unacceptable and incompatible with radfem?

Quote:
Also, as far as I'm aware most domestic violence shelters do in fact offer their services to transwomen.

After sustained and bitter campaigning from transpeople. Hardly a ringing endorsement of radical feminism.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 28 2006 13:02

ticking fool - Radical feminists have worked long and hard to open the shelters in the first place and to keep them open. Many radical feminists have devoted years to voluntarily setting up and running and working at those shelters. Battered women's shelters tend to be very small and extremely underfunded and it is well known that they do not have the space to offer most of the women who need it and ask for it, trans or not, priority is nearly always given to women with children and even then the resources are tiny.

I wasn't part of those battles between those groups and as an outsider all I can think really is how much better it would have been if they had worked in solidarity to demand proper funding for the shelters to be able to offer better services and facilities. I can see why people were angry on both sides, but I think its worth at least looking at the position at those radical feminists who turned transwomen away. Many of them have been abused themselves, they struggled and worked hard to build these shelters, and whilst they were struggling to provide the services they came under attack for not doing enough for a diverse enough group of people.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Nov 28 2006 13:16
arf wrote:
I can see why people were angry on both sides, but I think its worth at least looking at the position at those radical feminists who turned transwomen away. Many of them have been abused themselves, they struggled and worked hard to build these shelters, and whilst they were struggling to provide the services they came under attack for not doing enough for a diverse enough group of people.

Not an excuse. I'm quite aware of what radical feminists achieved but the simple fact is that transpeople were not turned away because the resources weren't there, or because the staff were overworked. They were turned away because they 'weren't really women'. They were turned away because they did not fit the ideological dichotomies set up by radical feminsim. When an ideology is used to justify fucking over someone in pain when they're right in front of you, then I think we have every reason to reject it.

Radical feminism's treatment of transpeople rises out of some of its central assumptions. If those assumptions cannot deal with real problems of day to day solidarity then they fail and have to be rejected. There's plenty that's useful to be rescued from radical feminism but as a structure of ideas it has to be abandoned because it cannot deal with the complexities of helping someone in pain right in front of you.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 28 2006 13:24
Quote:
It's not even worth my time to argue, knowing that tomorrow you'd just carry on repeating what would be disproved today.

So your saying that, if you explained, everyone would agree, but as soon as you had gone evryone would go back to normal. Another nutter point, ime.

Eta: James, are you saying that radical feminists ought to supported no matter what. Because that where you seem to be moving towards. I mean, with no dialogue, isn't that what you are suggesting?

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 28 2006 16:54
ticking_fool wrote:
James Woolley - read something that's not fucking Dworkin or Jeffries for christ's sake. The sort of feminism that you're expounding exploded in a mess of bile, government grants and bigotry in the early eighties. It is wholly inadequate for any kind of broad struggle and inevitably collapses into elitist bullshit of one kind or another, which it has proved time and time again. Its apparent revival at the moment, whilst initially attractive to someone not knowing the history and dissatisfied with the way gender is dealt with in the broader anarchist/left mileu (which was me a year ago - check my post record if you want), is a profoundly retrograde step and is repeating the same pattern of twenty years ago almost step by step.

I suggest that you talk to queer and trans activists about exactly how supportive the 'sisterhood' has been over the years. If you're feeling very strong try wandering around this site (http://www.questioningtransgender.org/) and watch how radfem and bigotry hit each other in an ugly, ugly but very tight embrace.

Read up on wages for housework and the real problem of the intersection of gender and class, and realise just why so many feminists felt they had to reject radfem in order to move forward.

Try dipping in to sex positive feminism and realise that, actually, we're not talking about 'pimpettes', we're dealing with a whole range of opinion, the best of which is trying to deal with the genuine complexity of sex and gender, seeing oppression and liberation as multifaceted and difficult, not a matter for an elite sisterhood that knows better.

When you come back, and actually know what you're talking about, then you can say 'tsk...'.

lol... you have put forward no argument and no reasoning. All you've told is that how it failed, how people have rejected it etc. with nearly all sentences of your's begging the question 'why'?

I didn't say that it was a matter for the 'elite sisterhood'. Really, it is trying my patience having to correct so many people with egregious comprehension skills.
Also the fact that you suggest I 'try dipping in to sex positive feminism' implies that I have a negative attitude towards sex, which, again, you have completely fabricated out of thin air.

A tip: ascribing arguments to me which I have actually not put forth is a straw man argument. It's also a waste of time.

If you are not a radical feminist (I take anarcha-feminism as an umberella term which includes radical feminism) then you're a liberal feminist.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 28 2006 16:58
James Woolley wrote:
If you are not a radical feminist (I take anarcha-feminism as an unberella term which includes radical feminism) then you're a liberal feminist.

:eek grin
Well it seemes to me that one cannot viabley be a communist and a radical feminist (if the stuff you are saying (e.g. no networking with non-women, working with bourgeois feminists) is representative of the whole), so you've managed to destroy Communism with your logic.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Nov 28 2006 17:08
Quote:
A tip: ascribing arguments to me which I have actually not put forth is a straw man argument. It's also a waste of time.

Right - you're either an idiot or a troll, but I'd suggest that no one bothers with this any more.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 28 2006 17:44
ticking_fool wrote:
Quote:
A tip: ascribing arguments to me which I have actually not put forth is a straw man argument. It's also a waste of time.

Right - you're either an idiot or a troll, but I'd suggest that no one bothers with this any more.

Recourse to ad hominem. A further sign (after many) of a lack of a cogent argument.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 28 2006 17:52

What is your argument for this:

Quote:
no networking with non-women, working with bourgeois feminists

being communist? Isn't that what your contrasting liberalism with?

Its clearly a stupid thimg to say: if you don't agree with working with bougeois feminists then you are not a communist.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 28 2006 17:56
lem wrote:
What is your argument for this:
Quote:
no networking with non-women, working with bourgeois feminists

being communist? Isn't that what your contrasting liberalism with?

Its clearly a stupid thimg to say: if you don't agree with working with bougeois feminists then you are not a communist.

Radical feminism and anarcho-communism are not mutually exclusive. All I did was compartmentalise issues, and added that perforce the bourgeois women would have to be radicalised.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 28 2006 18:05
James Woolley wrote:
the bourgeois women would have to be radicalised.

It doesn't matter how "radicalised" the bourgeoisie are, do you actually understand class at all?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 28 2006 18:20
lem wrote:
Quote:
It's not even worth my time to argue, knowing that tomorrow you'd just carry on repeating what would be disproved today.

So your saying that, if you explained, everyone would agree, but as soon as you had gone evryone would go back to normal. Another nutter point, ime.

No, I'm saying that some people have made their minds up without actually bothering to research the subject first, but they arent going to accept any opposing view as a valid one, and so it's a waste of time even having the discussion with them.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 28 2006 18:23
arf wrote:
No, I'm saying that some people have made their minds up without actually bothering to research the subject first, but they arent going to accept any opposing view as a valid one, and so it's a waste of time even having the discussion with them.

which is an excellent way to conceal your own immovability. i for one have offered the most plausible hypothesis i can muster for ultra-diluted potions working, even though i don't believe they do.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 28 2006 18:33
Quote:
If you are not a radical feminist (I take anarcha-feminism as an unberella term which includes radical feminism) then you're a liberal feminist.

Quote:
All I did was compartmentalise issues

You assigned your own arbiatry labels to things, and did so as provactively as possible. I mean, radical is not the (atronyme?) of liberal, as one can have radical liberals. Why should I not infer that you are taking the piss?

I think the onus on you is to show that radicalizing bougeois feminists is communistic.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 28 2006 18:36
Quote:
No, I'm saying that some people have made their minds up without actually bothering to research the subject first

Thats communism for you. Sorry mate grin

You start posting on communist forums that bougeois feminists must be radicalized (depsite admitting that the w/c needs no help from the bougeois) and you *don't* expect people to have already mad their mind up?

roll eyes

Eta:

lem wrote:
are you saying that radical feminists ought to supported no matter what. Because that where you seem to be moving towards. I mean, with no dialogue, isn't that what you are suggesting?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 28 2006 18:56

Are you mistaking me for someone else?

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 28 2006 19:09

Maybe. If what I said doesn't apply then its adressed to James.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Nov 28 2006 19:41
James Woolley wrote:
Recourse to ad hominem. A further sign (after many) of a lack of a cogent argument.

No an ad hominem would have been me rubbishing your argument by attacking you personally. What we have here is a personal insult entirely unconnected to your argument, which is full of holes entirely without your help.

A tip: using long words in latin and picking people up on the fine points of debate society ettiquette without dealing with what they're saying doesn't make you look clever.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 29 2006 12:54
ticking_fool wrote:
James Woolley wrote:
Recourse to ad hominem. A further sign (after many) of a lack of a cogent argument.

No an ad hominem would have been me rubbishing your argument by attacking you personally. What we have here is a personal insult entirely unconnected to your argument, which is full of holes entirely without your help.

There would be little point within the context of a debate to insult someone without the intention of this undermining their argument.

ticking_fool wrote:
A tip: using long words in latin and picking people up on the fine points of debate society ettiquette without dealing with what they're saying doesn't make you look clever.

Damn.

...

...

roll eyes

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 29 2006 13:12

I was ignored, again. What an oppurtunity wasted, James. Lol.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 29 2006 14:15
revol68 wrote:
i see the cheerleaders for radical feminism have shown their usual inability to see out a discussion.

off they flounce, safe in the knowledge that peoples unwillingness to accept their incoherent arguments and sweeping generalisation is further proof of phallic reasoning and and so vindicating their victimisation.

Typical self-satisfied, sanctimonious, smug, self-ingratiating triumphalism from a liberal.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Nov 29 2006 14:17

What a satisfying debate roll eyes

sad

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 29 2006 14:18
lem wrote:
Quote:
If you are not a radical feminist (I take anarcha-feminism as an unberella term which includes radical feminism) then you're a liberal feminist.

Quote:
All I did was compartmentalise issues

You assigned your own arbiatry labels to things, and did so as provactively as possible. I mean, radical is not the (atronyme?) of liberal, as one can have radical liberals. Why should I not infer that you are taking the piss?

I think the onus on you is to show that radicalizing bougeois feminists is communistic.

Inevtiably all humans are going to have to become radicalised if an anarchist society is going to come into frution. Unless we intend to kill all the reactionaries.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 29 2006 14:29
James Woolley wrote:
Inevtiably all humans are going to have to become radicalised if an anarchist society is going to come into frution. Unless we intend to kill all the reactionaries.

The thing is, when the bourgeosie become radicalised, they don't tend to become revolutionaries so much as viscious, cruel reactionaries.

And while killin' 'em all isn't viable, a revolution probably would involve a pretty large ammount of death. Who're the liberals again?

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 29 2006 14:36
madashell wrote:
James Woolley wrote:
Inevtiably all humans are going to have to become radicalised if an anarchist society is going to come into frution. Unless we intend to kill all the reactionaries.

The thing is, when the bourgeosie become radicalised, they don't tend to become revolutionaries so much as viscious, cruel reactionaries.

And while killin' 'em all isn't viable, a revolution probably would involve a pretty large ammount of death. Who're the liberals again?

Well this discussion was about radical feminism and I my point was that if you don't support radical feminism, it by definition makes you an adherent of liberal feminism.

When I mentioned the radicalisation of the bourgeoisie, it was as anarchists. And besides, reactionism is dichotomous to radicalism, so I have no idea how you could interpret my comment that way. roll eyes
To your last question: I have already said who the liberals are. I feel sorry for you if you think a revolution would involve a large amount of death. I find that idea repugnant.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 29 2006 14:52
James Woolley wrote:
I feel sorry for you if you think a revolution would involve a large amount of death. I find that idea repugnant.

That's the reality of it, what do you expect, the workers rise up and take away power, wealth and privilege away from the bourgeoisie and then the bourgeoisie...what? Go home for dinner? Take up basket weaving?

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Nov 29 2006 16:13
James Woolley wrote:
if you don't support radical feminism, it by definition makes you an adherent of liberal feminism.

Well no because liberal feminism is about making women more equal to unfree men within capitalist society. Its not a choice between that and your 'battle of the sexes' approach, there are many other strands of feminism such as anarcha- and socialist.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 29 2006 16:37
revol68 wrote:
i see the cheerleaders for radical feminism have shown their usual inability to see out a discussion.

off they flounce, safe in the knowledge that peoples unwillingness to accept their incoherent arguments and sweeping generalisation is further proof of phallic reasoning and and so vindicating their victimisation.

Perhaps people have better things to do than waste their time listening to you.

In a nutshell, revol68, this is what it's like having a discussion with you around.

Revol68: Radical feminism is shit
q. Why?
Revol 68: Because it is
q. why?
Revol68: Because i say so and anyway Andrea Dworkin said (false propaganda), so its all shit
q. Actually, no she didnt.
Revol68:Yes she did
q. No she didnt, check it for yourself.
Revol68: whatever,that doesnt count, and anyway feminism is identity politics and identity politics is shit
q. You don't know what you're talking about do you?
Revol68: Yes I do
q. Read much about it have you?
Revol68: I dont need to
q. So.. your argument against radical feminism then?
Revol68: It's shit.
q. Why?
Revol68: because i say so

Is it really any wonder that people can't be bothered to waste their effort?