#class identity and solidarity!

[daebelly]

i have a theory as to Why this sort of thing happens. it's a long post and i don't want to make out like this post is addressed to me, so it'll be under the cut.

shaun (the skull guy on youtube) made an excellent point in his video "The Fate of the Frog Men" where white men in the us, especially cis, straight, christian white men, sort of lack a 'narrative' for lack of a better word. oppression has a sort of "allure" to them because it casts them as the righteous underdog fighting the system, where they are the system more often than not, in reality. so they seek out a group to give themselves a narrative.

in the video, shaun uses this as a segue into gamergate, but i think this "search for a narrative," i'll call it, applies outside of that.

(and if you'd like to watch the video, it's here. it's a good watch)

my parents tried to raise me to be a straight, cis, white, chistian man (the only thing that ends up applying out of that is 'white' btw), and my family is of Irish, Scottish, and Welsh descent, so i have a bit of insight into this phenomenon(i do not speak for Irish, Scottish, or Welsh people). my family has almost no cultural practices beyond the most bare-bones holidays, going to church on rare occasions (usually when it was least convenient for me), and a tradition of an annual week-long vacation, so there wasn't a whole lot for me to feel attached to or much to base my self-perception off of(so, basically, i've lived the 'lack of a narrative' that shaun proposed). this is, i suspect, because generally, us american whiteness tries its best to be a monolith, so to speak--to erase anything different within itself to become homogeneous. and, because so much has to be removed to make everyone the same, you end up with the bare minimum(and, asking my grandmother, her grandmother actively went out of her way to not discuss the family's history. the culture vacuum runs deep in the us).

i know for a fact that i was not the only person in the entire united states to be in that same situation, and that many people in that situation were not so fortunate to have met incredibly kind, patient and willing-to-educate friends like i was. i was extraordinarily lucky. so you have a rather large population of people of Irish descent in a highly conservative and white environment without a "narrative" or really much of anything to anchor themselves to.

and in come republicans and, especially, nazis.

one thing that unites people of Irish descent in the us is, of course, being of Irish descent. and nazis are all about being 'racially superior,' co-opting imagery and cultural symbols, and emphasizing that the person they're trying to recruit is, has been, or could become a victim. introduce a vaguely conservative cishet straight white christian man to the idea that, because he is of Irish descent, he is superior, and he might just latch onto it as a facet of his identity. without having any connection to the culture, politics or history of Ireland besides that his great-great-great-grandmother that he never met had parents from Ireland. hell, if his recruiter is particularly savvy, he might walk away believing himself truly disenfranchised because of his race. in the us. while being white.

his idea of Irishness might even be entirely founded in stereotype, especially English anti-Irish propaganda that wormed its way into the states("Irish people get drunk all the time and they're all alcoholics" is not an uncommon sentiment, unfortunately). he's probably never even met an Irish person, or even really considered Irish people to be... yknow, real people, who are more than just stereotypes and cultural symbols divorced from their original context and meaning. and he won't care, either, because why should he? it fulfills a base need to feel a sense of belonging to an ingroup, especially one populated with victims rather than oppressors.

so you get shirts like this. they're a wearable monuments to the desolation and apathy of white culture with another country's flag crudely painted on.

Irish people, I NEED to know: What do you think of these weird shirts that rednecks in my home town wear?

[trans-axolotl]

some of Eli Clare's writing about diagnosis feels very relevant to discussions on tumblr right now:

"It’s impossible to grapple with cure without encountering white Western medical diagnosis—ink on paper in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Classification of Diseases, a process in the hands of doctors, a system of categorization. I want to read diagnosis as a source of knowledge, sometimes trustworthy and other times suspect. As a tool and a weapon shaped by particular belief systems, useful and dangerous by turns. As a furious storm, exerting pressure in many directions.

Simply put, diagnosis wields immense power. It can provide us access to vital medical technology or shame us, reveal a path toward less pain or get us locked up. It opens doors and slams them shut.

Diagnosis names the conditions in our body-minds, charts the connections between them. It holds knowledge. It organizes visceral realities. It draws borders and boundaries, separating fluid in the lungs from high blood pressure, ulcers from kidney stones, declaring anxiety attacks distinct from heart attacks, post-traumatic stress disconnected from depression. It legitimizes some pain as real; it identifies other pain as psychosomatic or malingering. It reveals little about the power of these borders and boundaries. Through its technology—x-rays, MRIs, blood draws, EKGs, CAT scans—diagnosis transforms our three-dimensional body-minds into two-dimensional graphs and charts, images on light boards, symptoms in databases, words on paper. It holds history and creates baselines. It predicts the future and shapes all sorts of decisions. It unleashes political and cultural forces. At its best, diagnosis affirms our distress, orients us to what’s happening in our body-minds, helps make meaning out of chaotic visceral experiences.

But diagnosis rarely stays at its best. It can also disorient us or de- value what we know about ourselves. It can leave us with doubts, questions, shame. It can catapult us out of our body-minds. All too often diagnosis is poorly conceived or flagrantly oppressive. It is brandished as authority, our body-minds bent to match diagnostic criteria rather than vice versa. Diagnosis can become a cover for what health care providers don’t understand; become more important than our messy visceral selves; become the totality of who we are.

...

It is impossible to name all the ways in which diagnosis is useful.

It propels eradication and affirms what we know about our own body-minds. It extends the reach of genocide and makes meaning of the pain that keeps us up night after night. It allows for violence in the name of care and creates access to medical technology, human services, and essential care. It sets in motion social control and guides treatment that provides comfort. It takes away self-determination and saves lives. It disregards what we know about our own body-minds and leads to cure.

Diagnosis is useful, but for whom and to what ends?"

-Eli Clare, Brilliant Imperfection pg 41-42, 48.

[william-s-churros]

what is not dividing the working class along racial lines, according to tumblr: white people being incredibly disrespectful of black people and their boundaries all the time, every day, feeling entitled to use the activism of black people to further their own goals (while, again, disrespecting this activism and black people in general all the time) constantly acting like its black peoples fault whenever anything bad happens, treating them like neonazis for asserting incredibly reasonable boundaries, large swathes of "progressive" white people declaring that black people make up accusations of racism for no reason all the time

what is dividing the working class along racial lines, according to tumblr: being politely reminded of black peoples boundaries while they politely ask us to not use certain activist phrases that typically relate to violence that white people dont experience due to our privilege

[our-trans-punk-experience]

FAR RIGHT RIOTS

REBLOG THIS PLEASE!!

shit is bad in the UK but obviously it is immensly confusing and I know some people wouldn't want to search up the news given how volatile it is, so here is a timeline of events. warnings for talk of violence, child death, racism, police ect

Monday 29/07: mass stabbing occured in Southport at a kids dance class, three girls died on scene, several others were hospitalised. An at time unnamed 17 y old boy was arrested on suspicion, and a knife was seized. later

Tuesday 30/07: having read false news suggesting that the attacker was a muslim immigrant who had arrived on a small boat, far-right groups with links to the EDL their leader Tommy Robinson took to the internet to imply the attacker was Muslim attacked a mosque in Southport, and after being declared a public disturbance, the police showed up and started trying to disperse them. This very quickly spiralled into a riot in which 39 police were hospitalised. Also on this day, Nigel fucking Farage, leader of far-right party Reform UK tweeted a video in which asked if the police were lying that the attack was not "terror related", furthering belief that the attacker was Muslim

Wednesday 31/07: violent anti immigrant protest continued, and there were mass riots in London. The PM spoke out denouncing the far right rioters as "violent thugs who would feel the full force of the law"

Thursday 01/08 : to try and curb the spread of misinformation, the police released the identity of their suspect - Axel Rudakubana, born in Cardiff to Rwandan parents in hope that the confirmation that he is not a Muslim immigrant would stop the rioting. It has not. PM Starmer released a statement saying that these were "coordinated attacks by the far right. " and that "this is not a protest that got out of hand these are individuals bent on violence"

Friday Night 02/08: Riots started in Sunderland late at night with reports of "serious violence". Starmer announced he had a plan to tackle far right violence.

Saturday 03/08: New far right mob action started in Manchester, Bristol, Hull, Belfast, Stoke, and Nottingham. Nottingham saw the first counterprotest, and as I write this, clashes between antifacist protestors and the far right is on going. The racists are setting fire to migrant housing buildings and attacking both police and counterprotestors countrywide. Dispersal orders have been issued for every city centre and major town centre across the UK.

Sunday 04/08: a "nick em quick" approach is to be used against the rioters in a hope to remove the far right mob from the street as soon as possible. There have been over 100 arrests. There are no plans to bring in the army, say ministers. There is a current attack on a migrant housing building in Rotherham.

I will keep posting updates as this unfolds so watch this space. This is obviously terrifying, so I want you to focus on actionable points.

stop the spread of misinformation. i can cite all my sources on a different post if you would like, but know that i visited ten different news sites, and also watched all the live news coverage to make this post. if you see any new information, fact check it. if you see someone spreading misinformation anywhere, DO SOMETHING. call them out and correct them and if they don't fix it, report them.

take care of any of your friends who aren't white, or if you aren't white, consider not going anywhere alone. racists don't discriminate in their discrimination. they are violent, deranged, and several are armed.

unless you are attending a counterprotest, stay the fuck out of town and city centres!!!!

STAY SAFE OUT THERE!! always in solidarity

[t00thpasteface]

someone else already said this in their own post but the problems that got us here can't just be magically voted out in a single coin toss. nothing is going to change if all you do is sit around crying on the internet about whatever. and unfortunately putting your money where your mouth is regarding community togetherness and working-class solidarity means you're going to have to reach out to low-income uneducated trump voters too. they're going to get crushed under the steamroller the same as you are. you and your neighbor with the trump yard sign living in houses with the same property value in the same mismanaged city are identically disposable little peons in the government's eyes. you two will be poisoned by the same well and suffocated by the same smog. the last thing we need is further divisiveness. no one's going to want what you're selling if you won't offer them anything. isolation leads to radicalization. you cannot just excise yourself and others from society and expect everything to magically work out via yet another coin toss

[juju-or-anya]

It's hard not to find irony in the criticisms directed towards Eloise Bridgerton and the elevation of Penelope Featherington as a more genuine and hardworking figure in contrast with Eloise's supposed privileged circumstances and her discourse on feminism. Indeed, some voices have pointed out Eloise's feminism as something white and privileged, and while this is not without merit, it's akin to rediscovering what others have already noticed, akin to Christopher Columbus "discovering" America.

Understanding the context in which "Bridgerton" unfolds is essential. The series is set in Regency England, between 1813 and 1825. This historical period is marked by a highly stratified and conservative society, where women, especially those of the upper class, were relegated to traditional roles and lacked basic legal rights. In this context, any discussion of feminism must consider the unique limitations and challenges of the time.

It is true that Eloise Bridgerton, being part of a respected family in English nobility, embodies many of the characteristics associated with the white and privileged feminism of the time. However, this should not diminish the value of her role in advancing feminist ideas in her historical context. It is thanks to women like Eloise, who challenged social expectations and dared to question the status quo, that doors were opened for future, more inclusive feminist movements.

On the other hand, when analyzing Penelope Featherington's role in contrast with Eloise Bridgerton's, intriguing nuances worthy of a more detailed critical exploration are revealed. Although both come from upper-class families, Penelope's experiences differ significantly from Eloise's. In the society depicted in "Bridgerton," Penelope is portrayed as a more marginal figure, overshadowed by the prominence and glamour of the Bridgerton family. She is often seen in the background, struggling to find her place in a world where her social status does not put her at the center of attention.

Throughout the series, Penelope exhibits a distressing lack of empathy and solidarity towards other women. Instead of fostering unity and support among her peers, her writings are propelled by feelings of envy, resentment, and desires for revenge. Striking examples of this include her actions to publicly reveal Marina Thompson's pregnancy, intending to undermine her relationship with Colin Bridgerton, or defaming individuals such as Daphne, Edwina, and Kate Sharma, often with no apparent reason other than personal gain.

Penelope's behavior as Lady Whistledown sheds light on her complex nature and motivations. While it may represent an attempt to find her voice in a world dominated by more powerful figures, it also reveals a tendency towards manipulation and selfishness. Ultimately, her role as the mysterious chronicler is more than just a quest for identity; it is a reflection of the moral and ethical complexities underlying the society of "Bridgerton."

In summary, asserting that Penelope is more feminist and hardworking than Eloise due to her role as Lady Whistledown is, at best, simplistic and, at worst, deeply misleading. Both women, while privileged in their own right, have chosen different paths in life and have faced their own challenges. However, the narrative of Penelope as a morally superior and more genuinely hardworking figure should be questioned in light of her actions and motivations, which often reveal a lack of integrity and empathy towards her peers.

It's important to note that when Theo confronts Eloise, questioning her understanding of the real world and her privileged position, Eloise doesn't reject this criticism but uses it as a catalyst to seek greater understanding. Recognizing the validity of Theo's observation, Eloise actively seeks to broaden her horizons. She engages in conversations with Theo and John, seeking to break free from the bubble of privilege in which she has lived so far.

On the other hand, Penelope takes a different stance towards her own privileged position. Instead of acknowledging her situation and seeking to understand the realities of those less privileged, Penelope vehemently denies any suggestion that she also benefits from the system. Rather than accepting her position of privilege, she portrays herself as a victim, despite her actions suggesting otherwise. Ultimately, this divergence in attitudes between Eloise and Penelope highlights the complexity of individual perceptions of privilege and personal responsibility in an unequal world.

PS: The comment: "Penelope saved Eloise by writing that she hung out with radicals, she doesn't know what it's like to be grateful" is shit. Whose fucking fault is it that the Queen is on a crusade with torches and pitchforks, looking for blood and a rolling head? From Penelope because she doesn't know when to keep her hand still and stop writing, if it weren't for Penelope, the queen wouldn't think that Eloise is Lady Whistledown, Penelope wasn't looking to help Eloise, she was looking to save her skin.

[doberbutts]

Tbh I think the comparison to white people might be some simple us vs them thinking (maybe not all the time, though). White people complaining about oppression = nonsense/overeaggeration (if you're myopic), therefore comparing transmascs to white people is a way to call what they say nonsense. Or, if you're under the impression oppression=good person points, then white = bad/wrong, therefore transmascs are bad/wrong. Idk. Lots of these folks have some black/white thinking.

I think the answer is much easier than that.

The majority of people I see using the race analogy to draw a parallel of white vs black racism and trans man vs woman oppression are white themselves. Not everyone, but I would say my casual scroll of Bad Take Havers usually reveals whiteness here.

It does not surprise me at all that the very same white people doing this do not have the nuanced racial understanding to be able to reflect how, for instance, both black communities and latine communities experience racism in different yet similar ways, and how there is both bad blood and also shared history and solidarity between both communities, with many people who exist somewhere in between (afrolatinos) and people who exist completely outside of this equation (other marginalized races of color) or on the fringes (other mixed people of color but with only one of the involved races in this venn diagram) that also may experience their own oppression.

And so, they don't even think to use the comparison of black and Latino understanding, instead choosing to reach for white vs black racial dynamics. They don't have the understanding necessary to get why that's neither a good comparison nor is it a fair one to use especially when this particular conversation was started by trans mascs of color and how prior conversations regarding trans men and mascs occupying a marginalized gender were started by both (cis *and* trans) women of color and trans men and mascs of color.

It also does not escape my attention that those insisting that not only do trans men and mascs have privilege (something I do not completely disagree with, although I think as always it is more nuanced than "have" vs "have not") but also that trans men and mascs are specifically an *oppressor class* are also largely white, and show an inability to understand that "privilege" does not always equally translate to "oppressor". This comes to a head when discussing trans men in powerful positions- teachers, doctors, politicians, business owners, religious leaders, even celebrities- and whether they are pushing harmful rhetoric or if they are holding the line and refusing to budge.

And, while not true in all cases and certainly no one is perfect, because people are people and thus imperfect at the best of times, the majority of all trans people in power hold the line and refuse to budge regarding harm to our community. We can all think of examples- usually celebrities- of otherwise, but those pushing for laws and change are generally hand-in-hand with each other keeping step and refusing to leave their fellow siblings behind.

This does not mean that we cannot *contribute to* or even *lean on* transmisogyny- remember, there were cis women on the Supreme Court gleefully voting away abortion rights even though it directly affects them. There is no identity that makes you immune to bigoted bias, and no identity that protects you from doing harm to others. That is on each of us to do better, to each out in fellowship and solidarity to our fellow humans, and to lift each other out of the pit.

Much like how a Latino friend of mine may experience privilege in that he does not experience the antiblackness I do, and much how I may have privilege that I speak English as my mother tongue and he doesn't in this largely English-language-dominated country, neither of us are inherently each other's oppressors unless we are acting on oppressive bias. Intentionally or otherwise.

Oppression is action, not existence.

But again, I am not surprised a group of largely white people do not understand nearly enough of this nuance as it applies to race to then be able to apply it to gender.

[handweavers]

"‘Trans man’ remains the preferred identity for Malaysian individuals who were Assigned female at birth but live their adult lives as men. The jettison-ing of pondan, pak nyah, wanita keras, tomboy and pengkid in favour of ‘trans man’ likely serves as a ratification of personal-communal empowerment and a repudiation of derision. It is even more likely that ‘trans man’ reflects a deep-seated desire to imitate and participate in ‘collective identifcation’, notably that which is cultivated in North American (and European) contexts, ‘in order to demand rights, equal citizenship, and welfare’ among other goals in Malaysia. This is hardly surprising. Technological advances facilitate unprecedented accessibility to copious resources on transgender issues and imagine a global transgender community in borderless solidarity. Travis S. K. Kong points out however, that ‘globalization is an uneven process that reproduces spatially uneven development, and the flow of capital, commodities, people, images, and ideas is never equal among locations’.

The Malaysian trans man thus experiences unequal and unstable access to the bounty of globalisation due to local limitations in education, economic means, social and cultural capital, class, ethnicity, religious affliation, educational levels, infrastructure and health services. He continues to be experience ‘disjunctive modernities’ which exhibit ‘irreducible plurality and local specifcity’, thus dispelling the myth of trans(national) homogeneity in transgender identity. The trans men I interviewed interpret their life stories through the rubric of local contexts that dispel any suspicion of a mere mimicry of western-styled transgender identities. Malaysian re/mouldings of ‘trans man’ speak to ‘experiences of multiplicity in gender identifcation … embedded within specifc social, cultural, and interpersonal contexts [that] create altogether new, emergent forms of experience and identity'."

— J. N. Goh, Becoming a Malaysian Trans Man

[vaspider]

TERFs stop appropriating the writing of a trans person challenge: IMPOSSIBLE.

Reminder, y'all, Leslie Feinberg (z''l) was a trans person. The first sentence on the "self" page of hir website begins:

Leslie Feinberg, who identified as an anti-racist white, working-class, secular Jewish, transgender, lesbian, female, revolutionary communist...

If you are anti-trans, and you find yourself with Feinberg's words resonating with you, maybe this is a chance for you to think about that. You don't get to take hir words out of context and continue pissing on the trans people who have outlived hir.

Stone Butch Blues emphasizes class solidarity & zie/she was an outspoken opponent of anti-trans propaganda within the queer and lesbian communities. Moreover, in hir own words:

Discrimination against hir as a transgender person made it impossible for hir to get steady work. Zie/she earned hir living for most of hir life through a series of low-wage temp jobs, including working in a PVC pipe factory and a book bindery, cleaning out ship cargo holds and washing dishes, serving as an ASL interpreter, and doing medical data inputting.

...

She/zie attributed hir catastrophic health crisis to “bigotry, prejudice and lack of science”—active prejudice toward hir transgender identity that made access to health care exceedingly difficult, and lack of science due to limits placed by mainstream medical authorities on information, treatment, and research about Lyme and its co-infections.

You and people like you, people pushing the bullshit you are pushing, are part of why zie/she is "of blessed memory" and not here still doing the work zie/she loved so much.

Fuck.

[f-identity]

[Video description: TikTok reply to @/bad_boys_pistons_'s comment: "What is womanist? Respectfully, never heard of it. And does it include trans people?"

Commentary by @/lyvonnebriggs:

Excellent question. A womanist is a Black feminist or a feminist of color. The term was coined in 1979 by the illustrious writer, poet, and activist Alice Walker. And then, in 1983, in her seminal text "In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens: Womanist Prose", Alice Walker proffers an exquisite four-part definition of womanist. Now definition #3 is my absolute favorite, and I highly encourage you to Google the term "womanist" so that you can read it. But in the interest of today's conversation, since I'm introducing the concept of womanism, I wanna use definition #4. The fourth definition of womanism states "Womanist is to feminist as purple is to lavender". Let's unpack that. If we're honest with ourselves, feminism was created for and by white women. And what Alice Walker is saying is that lavender-hood is insufficient for the liberation of all Black women and femmes. And what we need is what Dr. Stacey Floyd-Thomas calls "a deeper shade of purple". We need a liberation model and a framework of an ethic that centers the experiences, perspectives, and vantage points of Black women. Because in the words of one of my comrades: "Black women have never wanted a freedom that did not include everyone." And so, to answer your question: Yes, womanism absolutely includes trans people. In fact, I would say if we really wanna know the way to freedom, we need to listen to poor, Black, trans women. So, to recap, a womanist is a Blackity Black Black Black feminist [chuckles] or a woman of color who is a radical, intersectional feminist. Um, you would never say "intersectional womanism" because that's inherently redundant. And I cannot say the word "intersectionality" without citing Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw. And so this politic and this lived ethic, this praxis, is absolutely centered in this space here. I am a womanist creator, and so I center the experiences, the voices, the stories, the sacred texts of Black women. I center our light, our love, and our liberation. So since this space is for Black women and femmes, and those that support us - if that's you, you are more than welcome to be here. And one more thing: if you are not a Black woman or a woman of color, you can't be a womanist, but you can absolutely center womanism, which I highly recommend. Womanism saved my life, and womanism will save us all. Like and follow for more.

/end video description]

Transcript needed please! On the basics of womanism and if it includes trans women.

[girlfishes]

I know that with Trump returning to office next year international relations will irreparably change.

Every woman needs to know that whatever nationalist movement exists in your country does not care about you. They will not fight for you. Nationalism is another way the patriarchy severs the class-solidarity between women. By convincing you that your national identity is more important than your identity as a woman.

You have more in common with another woman from any country than any man in your own. When countries go to war, crimes against women alway skyrocket. The nationalist does not care. To him, the women of an enemy country deserve what happens to them.

Reject nationalism.

[trans-axolotl]

one of the reasons it's really hard for a lot of intersex people when intersex topics are on the news cycle is because the public's reaction reveals how little anyone knows or cares about intersex people, including people who call themselves our allies. almost every time intersex topics are trending, the discourse surrounding them is filled with misinformation. people who only learned today what the word intersex means jump into conversations and act like an authority. endosex/dyadic/perisex people get tripped up over things that are basically intersex 101, with tons of endosex people incorrectly arguing about the definition of intersex, who "counts," DSD terminology, and so much more. i've seen multiple endosex people say today that they've been "warning intersex people" and that we should have known that transphobia would catch up with us eventually, which is an absolutely absurd thing to say given the fact that consistently over the past ten years, it has often been intersex people sounding the alarm on sex-testing policies and also the fact that many, many intersex people are also trans, and already are facing the impacts of transphobia. there is an absolute failure from the general public to take intersex identity seriously; people seem not even able to fathom that intersex people have a community, history, and our own political resources. instead, endosex people somehow seem to think they're helping by bringing up half-remembered information from their high school biology class which usually isn't even relevant at all.

and this frustrates me so fucking much. not because i want to deny the impacts of transphobic oppression--i'm a trans intersex person, trust me when i say i am intimately aware of transphobia. this frustrates me because there is no way we can achieve collective liberation if our "allies" fail to even engage with basic intersex topics and are seemingly unaware of the many forms of intersex oppression that we are already facing every fucking day. if you are not aware of compulsory dyadism, if you are not aware of interphobia, if you are not aware of the many different ways that intersex people are directly and often violently targeted--how the fuck do you think we're going to dismantle all of these systems of oppression?

if you were truly an intersex ally, you would already KNOW that this is not new, and would not be surprised--interphobia in sports has been going on for decades. you would know that we do have a community, an identity, a history--you would have already read/listened/watched to intersex resources that give you the background information you need for allyship. you would know that although there is a really distinct lack of resources and political education, that intersex people ARE developing a political understanding of ourselves and our oppression--Cripping Intersex by Celeste Orr and their framework of compulsory dyadism is one example of how we're theorizing our oppression. It's absolutely fucking wild to me how few people I've seen actually use words like "interphobia" "intersexism" "compulsory dyadism" or "intersex oppression"--endosex people are seemingly incapable of recognizing that there is already an entrenched system of oppression towards intersex people that violently reshapes our bodies, restricts our autonomy, and attempts to eradicate intersex through a variety of medical and legal means.

you cannot treat intersex people like an afterthought. not just because we're meaningful parts of your community and deserving of solidarity, but also because intersex oppression impacts everyone!!! especially trans community--trans people will not be free until intersex people are free, so much of transphobia is shaped by compulsory dyadism, the mythical sex binary, all these ideas of enforced "biological sex" that are just as fake as the gender binary.

it makes me absolutely fucking livid every time this shit happens because it becomes so abundantly clear to me how little the average endosex person knows about intersex issues and also how little the average endosex person cares about changing that. i don't know what to say to get you to care, to get you to change that, but we fucking need it to happen and i, personally, am tired of constantly being grateful when i meet an endosex person who knows the bare minimum. i think we have a right to expect better and to demand that if you're going to call yourself our ally, you actually fucking listen to us when we tell you what that means.

okay for endosex people to reblog.

[thedreadvampy]

Hello! Are you organising with white abled leftists with suspiciously plummy voices who seem to be at the centre of every organising space but also surrounded by a constant maelstrom of interpersonal drama? We've provided a handy translator to help you navigate the complexities of the situation.

"I'm great at conflict resolution" - I make it so profoundly uncomfortable to disagree with me, however gently, that people tend to either acquiesce or leave.

"I'm good at reading people" - I have decided what I think you should feel.

"I'm led by my anti-ableist beliefs" - if someone's disability is inconvenient to me I will literally get SO MAD, it's ableist to ask me to think about that much stuff cause if I was disabled I'd probably find it really hard????

"you have a really unique perspective, would you be up for joining our accessibility/antiracism/inclusion committee?" - somebody has pointed out that it's a bit fucked up that we're taking a position of authority on something we do very badly, and you're literally the only person I know with the relevant marginalised identity.

"We're trying to build a safe space, but there's a lot of anger in the room" - I have spent a decade running workshops about how rape culture is bad buuuuuut it would be really upsetting for me if my friend had done something wrong so he didn't and all the people who say otherwise need to shut up or get out.

"I'm always working to hold myself accountable" - I have come prepared with a 3-page manifesto on why it's actually abusive and gaslighting for you to ask me to stop doing something harmful.

"I'm middle-class" - I went to a £15k a year public school but my parents only had a Rolls Royce and not a helicopter so I knew I was the school povvo 🥲

"I'm working-class" - as above, but in a high-deprivation region, and with a regional accent and/or an Irish Catholic background.

"It doesn't matter where we come from, it's about class solidarity" - please do not ask me where I went to school, what my parents do, or how I bought this 3 bedroom flat working part time in a community cafe.

[female-eren]

If a woman walks into a feminist group and the focus is more on whether she has given up men or not rather than what the group can accomplish for women at the moment, that would seem to me like an ineffective feminist group focused less on female class solidarity and more on identity discourse and personal small-scale choices/actions. Keep in mind that I totally agree that individual action, like never dating men, is never wasted (in fact, it's something that men as a class are very afraid of) and women should be encouraged to stop dating men. But why is it the most important? Does the y chromosome in her vicinity impede her ability to organize a protest for abortion, or a pornography boycott campaign, or an abortion fund, or writing an email to her university about period equality for students and staff?

[doberbutts]

I remember reading a post that men are the oppressor class so why would they bother to dismantle systemic patriarchy when they actively benefit from its existence? And as I read it, I thought, Damn, so an entire half of the population can never conceivably help us, and the people who love men in their lives are doomed. It wasn't a helpful post. It basically felt, here's some actual material analysis on feminism and said, That trying to educate and make men be part of feminism is fundamentally a flawed effort, because again, they are the oppressor class, why should they care about uplifting the oppressed?

And it made me think about this very good pamphlet I read, explaining how the white worker remained complacent for so long because at least they weren't a Black slave. And that the author theorized the reason labor movements never truly created exceptional, radical change is because of internal racism (which I find true) and failure to uplift black people. And the author listed common outlooks/approaches to this problem, and one of them was: "We should ignore the white folks entirely and hold solidarity with only other POC, and the countries in the Global South. Who needs those wishy-washy white fragile leftists who don't care about what we think or want?" (roughly paraphrased.)

And the author said, This sounds like the most leftist and radical position, but it's totally flawed because it absolves us of our responsibility to dismantle white supremacy for the sake of our fellow marginalized people, and we are basically ignoring the problem. And that blew me away because this is a position so many activists have, to just ignore the white folks and focus entirely on our own movements. I wish I knew the name of the actual pamphlet, so I could quote entire passages at you.

But I feel this is the same for men. Obviously, we should prioritize and have women-led and women-focused feminism. But saying that men are an oppressor class so they can't reliably be counted upon in feminist activism--it's such a huge oversimplification. And mainly, I'm a Muslim, and I've been treated with plenty of misogyny from Muslim men. And also plenty of misogyny from Muslim women. And I love my male friends, I want men to be part of the movement, and I dunno. Thinking about communities, movements, and the various ways we fail each other and what it means to be truly intersectional keeps me up at night.

I don't know the pamphlet you're talking about but I've read and been taught similar. There's a reason much of my anti-racism is so feminist and most of my feminism is anti-racist. Many people coming at this problem from a truly intersectional angle have seen that there is no freedom to be had without joining hands across the community. Not picking and choosing our allies based off of identity but off of behavior.

As used in a previous example, a white abled moderately wealthy man saying "wow Healthcare sucks in this country, why does this system suck so bad" should be told "hey, this system sucks so bad because it's built off of sexism, racism, classism, and ableism. You want to improve the system? Fix those things and it will be much better in the long run" and not "shut up you're a man. Healthcare is always going to be better for you". The second response doesn't fix that Healthcare is still a problem even if you are at the "top" of the privilege ladder. If we want true change, we have to dismantle the entire system at it's core and build it up without the yuck, otherwise you're gunna get to the top and realize this place sucks too.

Something something if the crabs worked together to hold each other up, they could all get out of the bucket and be free.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The riots in Southport are just the latest flashpoint in a long history of British reactionary politics. In Fractured, Michael Richmond and Alex Charnley move away from the ahistorical temper of the identity politics debate, exploring how historical class struggles were formed and continue to determine the possibilities for new forms of solidarity in an increasingly dangerous world. In this edited excerpt the authors explore the relationship between street racism and the modernisation of policing and immigration controls.

31 July 2024