#exclusionary tactics

[loumauve]

to the people trying to put the possessive hat onto Hawk and Thrush, please don't. you've ruined enough fandoms, we don't need that shit here

[eregyrn-falls]

[ID: A series of tweets from "Jessica Ellis" @baddestmamajama on Twitter, replying to a tweet by Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy), in which he says, "This whole 'they're weird' argument from the Democrats is dumb and juvenile. This is a presidential election, not a high school prom queen contest. It's also a tad ironic coming from the party that preaches "diversity and inclusion". Win on policy if you.. (tweet cuts off).

Ellis replies: "No, it's not. It is important to point out that the tenor of conversation from Republicans has changed over the last 15 years. We're not just disagreeing about taxes and small business. They want to know what my genitals look like and when my last period was. It's fucking weird."

"Part of the reason the Democrafts' messaging has been garbage for the last decade is that establishment Dems kept insisting that these are people we could reach across the aisle to, that it's all just minor differences of opinion. It's demonstrably untrue and has been a while.

Acknowledging that their fascist oppressive party identity is not a norm of democracy is an important forward step. We would like them to be opponents, but they aren't -- they're something much more invasive and dangerous and I'm delighted to see Walz lead the charge on saying so.

Also let's be real. They have been calling us Lesbian Poetry Fairy Soy latte-drinking arugula-eating polyamorous deviants since the beginning of time. One week of calling them weird for undermining privacy and democracy and suddenly it's so mean and juvenile? I see." End ID.]

[royaibigbang]

assuming me (writer) and my friend (artist) both make it in, can we request to be paired up together?

nope

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

Just saw an angry biphobe insisting that pointing out a lesbian's biphobia is a rape tactic (because it's forcing them to have sex with bisexual women somehow) so I went to block her, as one does if one wants to keep angry exclusionary bullshit off one's dash, and wouldn't you know it her entire page was a mix of either yelling at people with identities she doesn't like or supportively reblogging TERFs. Free block list I guess but just once I'd like something less predictable. They're all the same group of fucking people, it's all the same circle.

At least she was far enough back from the middle of it that her page wasn't full of nazi shit yet.

[spaceysoupy]

So apparently it’s that time of year again where I have to post about this.

On lesbianism, white queerness, and 2S identity

Text below readmore

I am a two-spirit. My identity is specific to my Tribe and Clan, and even more specific to my family. I am not a man, I am not a woman, and I am not nonbinary; I am not defined by what I am not.

I am a two-spirit and I am a lesbian. That's not debatable.

But I am not a non-man.

There's an idea of two-spirits that we are just the ethnic version of non-binary

We're not. The reason you're so comfortable calling us nonbinary is because your idea of queerness is centered around the binary&what you are not: you're not cishet, you're not the oppressor, etc

White queers like to speak about 2S identities constantly as if we are monolith. "It's just a gender" "it's not a gender"

"they're not trans" "they're not queer" "they don't belong here"

The community tries to decide for the individual and that's so weird to me.

So much of white queerness is inherently about exclusion.

You need strict labels to exclude the people you fear. You write your definitions around your fear of intruders and by consequence you exclude the people that need your support the most.

You need people to "prove" they are queer before you let them in. You're like a fortress and you let vulnerable people drown in the moat; ignoring that the real oppressors don't need to be a Trojan horse to do damage, ignoring they are actively burning down the castle.

It's very sad to me, because it's ultimately tearing the community apart even further.

I've never felt very welcome in white lesbian circles and they've never understood my experience of gender, but it's gotten worse in the past 5 or so years.

As TERFs start to revive gold star lesbianism and center hatred of men as their definition of lesbianism, you start to get these younger lesbians that don't know history that start to parrot the rhetoric. First it's "non-men loving non-men" then it's "you're too close to Man™"

For many two-spirit lesbians like myself, this is very concerning. White lesbians are historically not the ones targeted by radfems.

Now we've gotten to the point that there are people denying that lesbian is an spec (multispec) identity while including (white) nonbinary people

White nonbinary people (usually AFAB nonbinary people) are seen as woman lite and are welcome in white lesbian spaces while queer Indigenous people are considered dangerous because white lesbians can't understand their gender.

When did understanding become a requirement?

We're getting very dangerously close to "lesbianism is ONLY attraction to women" and very close to "lesbianism is only attraction to *a very specific type of (white) woman*" and I really need young white lesbians to read about political lesbianism so they can see this

I don't want to hear "not all lesbians" or "well then they aren't welcome" because every time this rhetoric goes unchallenged you are actively welcoming these people to continue it and make it more and more extreme. Yes, even the kind that seems to have nothing to do with racism

Almost all of your exclusionary rhetoric is based on the racist ideas of political lesbianism and I do not know why you all cannot see that they want to move goalposts. It wasn't just bi lesbians, it wasn't just he/him lesbians, it wasn't just nonbinary lesbians. It's a tactic.

It really feels like young lesbians are not only letting us go backwards, but encouraging it. And that's thanks in part to the historical racism of political lesbianism, but many of these people ARE old enough to think critically and talk to people who've been through this.

So far I've seen this in younger lesbian spaces; the ones with older generations (the ones that don't welcome TERFs) have been pretty welcoming even if not totally understanding, because they at least recognize that you don't need to understand someone's experience to validate it.

But I'm really concerned for the young Indigenous lesbians who don't feel comfortable around older people and are going to these younger lesbian spaces only to be indoctrinated with thinly veiled TERF rhetoric. It makes me very concerned for our spaces as well.

So I'll say again

I am not a non-man and I am not a non-woman. I'm not defined by what I am not. I do not ascribe to your binary-centric definitions of queerness. I experience queer attraction to women. I'm a lesbian. You do not get to use community to decide my individuality.

Thread by ~Alitsanosga

Pronouns: hi'a/vsgina/utseli/uwasa

[imhoser]

Instead of calling baeddels TERFs, I think it’s better to add one more letter in—TMERFs.

Transmasc Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

That’s who they literally are, they deny any discussion on how transmascs are affected by misogyny by stating we experience “male privilege.” That’s denying us a chance to better our lives through feminism, as they deny the effects of misogyny on our lives after we begin to transition. They repeat the same tactics as TERFs, whittling down every complaint of ours as us simply being men who want to butt into their space.

The exact same abuse so many transfemmes face, some turn it around on us because people don’t inherently “learn” from suffering. Suffering people can perpetuate further abuses onto others.

[critical-skeptic]

"Why Is It Always Children And Not Elderly Or Homeless?"

Why is it that every time we see someone doing meaningful community outreach, like trans people reading books to kids, the knee-jerk reaction of some folks is to clutch their pearls and conjure up the most grotesque, baseless insinuations about "sexual deviancy"? You want to know why people aren’t lining up to read books to nursing home residents or the homeless? Simple: nursing home residents and homeless adults don’t need to be introduced to basic human decency and inclusivity lessons—they’ve already lived their lives with all the prejudices, biases, and social mores they’re going to carry to the grave. Children, on the other hand, are still forming their worldview, and maybe, just maybe, they could benefit from seeing that gender-diverse people exist in the world and can be mentors, caregivers, and guides just as easily as anyone else. This isn’t about some dark, deviant agenda; it’s about building a kinder, more understanding generation that, ideally, won’t grow up to perpetuate the same hateful rhetoric you’re so fond of spouting.

Then there's the redirection tactic of "But why don’t they go help the homeless instead?"—as if the people griping about drag queen story hours are suddenly overcome with a burning passion for solving systemic poverty. Please. Most of the time, these very same people wouldn't lift a finger to help marginalized adults unless they thought it could score them points in some twisted moral competition. This brand of armchair outrage doesn’t come from genuine concern for the homeless; it comes from a narrow, knee-jerk discomfort with seeing trans and queer folks visible in society. It’s the classic “I’m totally okay with the existence of marginalized people—as long as they stay out of sight and don’t interact with my kids.” The irony is rich: the people complaining the loudest about moral decay and deviancy are the ones obsessed with what others are doing with their bodies, projecting their own insecurities and narrow definitions of "normalcy" onto everyone else, while offering no meaningful solutions to the actual problems they claim to care about.

And let’s address the thinly veiled accusation that reading books to kids in an educational setting is somehow a predatory act. This is nothing more than projection, plain and simple. Those spewing these accusations are often the same ones who have internalized a culture that sexualizes and polices everything they don’t understand, reducing every act of goodwill to some perverse ulterior motive. It’s a classic smear tactic: if you can’t actually criticize what someone is doing on the merits, then conjure up the specter of “protecting the children” to justify your own discomfort and ignorance. Never mind that the vast majority of crimes against children statistically come from close family members or trusted adults in traditional community roles (particularly those traditionally most sanctimonious about gender and sex preferences)—let’s conveniently ignore that and demonize the people promoting inclusivity instead, because that’s easier and fits the narrative you’ve been fed.

The reality is, people in marginalized communities engaging in public service, especially around kids, is about as far from “virtue signaling” as it gets. It’s not performative; it’s an act of resilience and generosity that exposes kids to perspectives beyond the narrow, exclusionary views they might otherwise inherit. If you’re so concerned about the moral guidance of children, maybe consider what they’re learning from you: fear of the unknown, contempt for differences, and a complete inability to approach the world with empathy. Maybe, instead of wasting your time policing the identities of people volunteering to make a difference, you should be figuring out how to channel your energies into something actually constructive—like addressing the societal issues driving homelessness or pushing for better elder care. That would be “virtue” worth signaling. But, of course, that wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of othering people who are different from you, now, would it?

[bonefall]

You mentioned that each Clan's dogwhistles sound and look a little different-- would you be willing to elaborate/give some examples?

WindClan

NEVER talks openly about their beliefs and is the best example of Thistle Law doublespeak. Tigerstar and Brokenstar are unpopular for obvious reasons, and the Clan as a whole leans towards Soft Traditionalism. On one side of their mouth, they'll talk about how they won Heatherstar's Campaign and how they rightfully conquered that land, but then turn around and frame the turn of the war as ShadowClan's underhanded snakery (in Clanmew it's literally "adderness").

"Fear" is a lot more common in their rhetoric. Fear of outsiders diluting their Clan, fear of wasting time and prey, fear of having things taken and stolen. The WindClan Massacre is invoked a LOT, because it's useful for making cats too emotional to think straight.

Here, we'll walk through BB!Mudclaw as an example. I'm going to mark every weasel word with an asterisk, let's see if you can figure out what's weird with it before the end.

Mudclaw speaks to Tallstar, claiming that the trading with BloodClan is opening up WindClan to being betrayed. "Scourge turned* on Tigerstar in the end, how can he be trusted now*? There was bounty for a while, but leafbare is coming* and we already* have so many mouths to feed. Snapper and Leo* arrived and now we're having troubles with the humans*. I'm just worried, I never want to lose so many Clanmates ever again*."

Scourge was acting in self defense

The trading is part of filling the deal that Tigerstar did not intend to honor

Starvation rhetoric

Sudden pivot to exclusionary language, Us vs Them

Refusal to use new names

Implying it's their fault

Massacre allusion

ShadowClan

Much more openly violent. A LOT of talk of glory, you could use these guys as a social case study. Crusades, winning the war with WindClan, the beauty of TigerClan, re-framing Ripplestar not as someone who wanted to help SkyClan but as a simple conqueror. They have lots of moments to invoke from their Great History.

The cost of that violence is downplayed. Like the Snowtuft example, they won't bring up the mother and children he slaughtered, just boast about their glorious ancestors fighting in the Crusades. They won't mention how they ripped kittens out of their nests, just how they bolstered ShadowClan's numbers. They'll frame the WindClan massacre as a final battle they triumphed over, leaving out how they ambushed and poisoned elders and apprentices.

RiverClan

"Glory talk" is downplayed in RiverClan, probably because they didn't actually take part in the Crusades. Instead, they focus on negative traits of mixed-blood cats (which they made up), accuse other Clans of being underhanded, and demand to be "heard."

And what THAT means is that they want to be able to derail any conversation they want. Interruptions of clanwide discussions, dismissing critique of Tigerstar and co, intentionally saying things that are divisive to cause fighting. They will prevent ANYTHING from being done unless it's the thing THEY want to happen.

I actually write Thistle Law supporters in RiverClan to be like... incredibly annoying. They don't say what they mean, they bring the Clan to a screeching halt, they literally dismiss the lesson of TigerClan. You cannot pin them down, they never admit to anything, you will only waste your time talking to them.

They also act on their bigotry in ways that are 'deniable'. Reedwhisker fell into the water? Must have been his thick ThunderClan blood pooling in his paws. A RiverClan cat should be able to pull themselves out. Of course you're listened to, Mistyfoot, you're deputy after all, what more do you want? Gaslighting. Making you doubt your own senses towards your unfair treatment.

ThunderClan

A sort of 'mix' of ShadowClan and WindClan tactics. ThunderClan is THE Fire Alone Clan, you could count the Thistle Law supporters and the Hard Traditionalists on one hand, but has a battle-centric history they tend to tap into.

Listen for "glory," talk about 'avoiding humiliation,' starvation rhetoric. ThunderClan has an absolute bounty with their forested territory, that last one is almost always code for wanting to exclude or eliminate people like Daisy and Purdy.

When Thornclaw became deputy under Bramblestar, he was very, very careful about his escalations, and mostly focused on manipulating Bramble himself. He was VERY aware that the Clan wouldn't take another Mixed Clan Meeting like the stunt he pulled in TNP.

Even the impostor in TBC overplayed his hand, the rebellion was born out of ThunderClan itself.

[the-feminist-philosopher]

Damn. TERFs really do see themselves as white nights fighting on behalf of black & brown women against an aggressive hoard of black and brown men. I cannot go into the #feminism tag without seeing some of the wildest takes…

Because a TERF will really get on the Internet and say some shit like,

“Trans-exclusionary ideas are globally popular ideologies” and fail to see how public discrimination against a group is maybe a symptom of the current power structures, structures like the patriarchy, white supremacy, and colonialism.

and then follow that up with,

“Because the global majority isn’t white, my activism for those women isn’t white. Also because the women fighting against the patriarchy globally aren’t majority white, my brand of feminism can’t be white,” and fail to see how this is white-night activism and an attempt to co-opt other feminist movements globally, many of which actively resist their country’s neo-colonial resource exploitation and imperialist extraction of their country. But positioned in argument alongside the take that trans-hate is globally popular, it’s also an attempt to make non-white people look uniquely or predominantly hateful compared to those within their lofty country.

Which is exemplified by the fact that when a trans person—regardless of location—shows support for any cause in the global south, the popular response is to tell that trans person the people of that country would behead them or throw them from a roof. Because in addition to believing the brown other is uniquely “backwards” and “brutish,” they also believe that any oppressed group’s “salvation” is contingent upon good behavior. Whose salvation? Theirs, of course. These people will freely repeat talking points about things that don’t happen in whatever foreign country of their picking to support their argument because the intention is to show they have credible reason to believe “those people” are not the perfect model of “(western) civility,” and as such, are in need of the TERF’s ideas, resources, and “activists.” It’s a reframing of “The White Man’s Burden” to center women.

(I’ve always found the “defenestration threat” a particularly disingenuous take. There’s the apparent racism on one hand, but clear pink washing, too. I—a gay—cannot care about the suffering of others in another country if gay rights in that country is not on par with that of its imperial oppressor? Are these trans-exclusionary radicals disagreeing with the existence of transphobia in another country? Or are they disagreeing with the purported tactics? “My enlightened policies that mass incarcerate, push children to suicide, and strip strangers of bodily autonomy; their barbaric policies that do much the same, oh, and defenestration.” They do realize that they, the trans-exclusionary radical, are more of an existential threat to me in *my own country* than a stranger half a globe away, no?)

And this worldview becomes ever so apparent when, after pointing out their attempt to co-opt feminist movements led by black and brown women, the usual comeback is to ask the person who disagrees with their take if they think that black and brown men are “too stupid” to “know” to or how to oppress women. “Do you think it’s not worse in other countries?”

Not only is this an attempt at purple washing; an attempt to benefit from purported support for women’s rights as a way to distract from the issue at hand: Western paternalism and chauvinism, this is also an attempt to turn it back around on the other. The TERF could not avoid being critiqued for supporting imperialistic ideas that downplay the significance of white supremacy and the struggles of black and brown women by arguing that because the majority of women aren’t white, any advocacy for women couldn’t possibly be racist. And they couldn’t avoid being critiqued for supporting imperialistic ideas that downplay the significance of white supremacy by deflecting with a “what-about’ism” about the state of affairs in a foreign country. And now they’re faced with the fact others may think that they think black and brown people are uniquely brutish. So, their last hope is to argue that no, actually you 🫵 are downplaying the oppression that other women in other countries face at the hands of “their men” and engaging in the “noble savage” trope.

(Of course, this ignores how such a trope refers to positioning Indigenous people as people uniquely removed from societies—when in reality they had complex societies, social structures, and politics—who live in harmony with nature. Suggesting that someone’s ideas and characterization of other peoples is influenced by Western Imperialism and white supremacy is in no way the same as suggesting there is “innate goodness, pureness, and moral superiority” among an “uncorrupted” “primitive” other, but a TERF’s ideology often depends on equivocation, usually as a means of distraction.)

But, when someone points out that this is in no way what they said; the TERF is attempting to create a strawman to argue against, the final play in the book is to literally @/ the one brown TERF they know of on this site or conclude by saying “well, my brand of feminism has had Black and Jewish thinkers, so…,” fully blind to how this is quite literally tokenism.

All this because “I can’t be racist; I’m a feminist” really isn’t the argument they think it is.

[genderqueerpositivity]

On a Saturday afternoon in August 2019, South Dakota Republican state Rep. Fred Deutsch sent an email to 18 anti-trans activists, doctors, and lawyers with the text of a bill he planned to introduce that would make it a felony for doctors to give transgender children under 16 gender-affirming medical care. “I have no doubt this will be an uphill battle when we get to session,” Deutsch warned the group. “As always, please do not share this with the media. The longer we can fly under the radar the better.”

The message was one in a trove of emails obtained by Mother Jones between Deutsch and representatives of a network of activists and organizations at the forefront of the anti-trans movement. They show the degree to which these activists shaped Deutsch’s repressive legislation, a version of which was signed into law in February, and the tactics, alliances, and goals of a movement that has sought to foist their agenda on a national scale.

More people need to know that this happened...and is happening. This explosion in anti-trans bills is not an accident and it isn't not a coincidence...it is the very deliberate work of a small group of Christian fascists, detransitioners, and trans exclusionary feminists. They collaborate behind the scenes to write the bills, coach each other on which specific words and talking points to use, and travel to meet with legislators in hopes of convincing them to support anti-trans laws.

I'm glad that these emails were leaked. Everyone deserves to know how we've ended up with things as they are right now, and honestly the people responsible for these attacks on the trans community fully deserve to have their role in it made public and they shouldn't be forgiven.

The full text of these emails is available online, if you know where to look, and if you have ever wanted to see how these people talk about us amongst themselves. The constant creepy culty religious language sprinkled throughout is simply a bonus.

Under His Eye Wings, I guess.

[probablyasocialecologist]

There is a point — and an obvious one at that — to the ongoing demonization of trans identity, one that requires a full view of the organized Right’s goals, tactics, and coalition-building to see. From a political economic vantage, we might assess how and why trans people have become such a useful scapegoat — an object of blame and scorn — in what are ultimately efforts to insulate business interests from public accountability and to dismantle democracy’s ability to redistribute wealth to the many from the few. Unlike past essays for the Law and Political Economy Project and Boston Review in which I delineated the various economic incentives that drive capitalists into a mix of pro and anti-trans political projects (my next book tackles this subject further), this essay focuses mainly on those forces which consistently find trans scapegoating useful — even lucrative. The right-wing power bloc here has deep roots in fossil fuels, “dirty” manufacturing, large-scale family firms, and the usual array of financial and real estate interests and draws significant electoral support from small business owners and disaffected conservative Christian voters. Although my perspective is somewhat parochial, many of the coalitional dynamics and authoritarian aims are far from unique to the US. To the contrary, these appear to be an international phenomenon. Similar reactionary movements against gender-nonconforming people from Europe to South America to Africa (where US-based groups have been active for decades) dot the global landscape. The fight in Germany over gender recognition legal reforms has also brought together a similar coalition of far-right politicians, trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), and religious parties and institutions. Accordingly, it is absolutely crucial to begin with asking questions about who benefits from the present assault on trans lives.

[concretecrisiscompatible]

tldr: Let's stop calling things 'demonic'.

When we as Christians start labeling anything any one of us could possibly disagree with as 'demonic' it takes away all the power that word has and reduces spiritual warfare to something only weirdo conspiracy theorists believe in. It's even more insidious when people use it as a marketing tactic.

"Secular music is demonic, so you should listen to my song out on Spotify!" Are there destructive artists out there? Absolutely. There are artists who write hateful songs and do horrible things outside of their music, too. Does that mean all secular music is bad? No.

"[Insert brand here] is demonic, so you should buy this thing I sell!" Do brands do immoral stuff sometimes? Absolutely. Sweatshop labour, exploitative working conditions, environmental impacts, etc. are all very real things. Does that mean that only Christian brands are good?

Boiling everything down to 'Christian vs non-Christian' is super destructive. When it comes to brands or music or behaviors it assumes that every person in the world has no ability to discern good and evil for themselves. It's never black and white.

Not everyone is able to consume alcohol in a healthy and safe way, so not everyone should have alcohol. Does that mean we should ban it altogether? No. We should empower people to make their own decisions in life.

This 'Christian vs non-Christian' mindset is also super exclusionary and divisive. Who is a "real Christian" and who isn't a "real Christian?" Does this mean that we should treat people of other faiths differently?

There are absolutely forces of evil in the world, just look at systemic racism and poverty, the prison industrial complex, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, etc. Not any one person started that, and not any one person will fix it by making Christian sweatshirts and guilting people into buying them. (And I have SO much more to say about using guilt as a marketing tactic, but that's for another day. And even more about treating evangelism like marketing, again for another day.)

Jesus speaks about lifting up the marginalized, loving your neighbor, and creating a healthy community through which injustices rectified.

The Beatitudes:

“'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

'Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

'Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

'Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

'Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

'Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.'" - Matthew 5:3-12

And from the rest of Matthew 5:

“So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison." - Matthew 5:23-26 NRSVUE

"But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matthew 5:44-48

That's all I have to say for now.

Happy pride month! 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️⚧

[tyote]

since politics has been on my (and probably everyone's) brain a lot lately i took a shit-ton of political compass tests and averaged them all together, then fed them to a LLM (running locally) to specifically create a profile of people i probably wouldn't get along with politically, lmao.

and wouldn't ya know, me being true neutral once again means many people (at least on the internet) would probably not like me too much, ha

full report of my nemeses under the cut, 'cause it's thorough

"Tyler, with his unique blend of political philosophies, would likely find himself at odds with individuals who hold extreme or uncompromising views. Here's how he might view these perspectives:

Far-Left Extremists: Tyler respects the desire for equality and fairness that drives many on the far left. However, he believes that radical socialism or communism often overlooks the importance of personal property and small businesses, which he sees as vital for a healthy economy. In Tyler's view, these extreme ideologies can lead to the concentration of power in the hands of the state, stifling individual initiative and innovation. He worries that such systems can result in economic inefficiency, a lack of personal freedom, and even oppression, ultimately harming the very people they aim to help. Tyler sees these systems as potentially leading to authoritarianism under the guise of equality.

Far-Right Extremists: While Tyler understands the importance of national identity and community values, he strongly opposes the exclusionary and xenophobic policies promoted by far-right nationalists or supremacists. Despite his nativist tendencies, Tyler believes that a thriving society benefits from a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. He sees extreme nationalism as a dangerous ideology that fosters division, hatred, and violence. Tyler's brand of nativism is about valuing community heritage and ensuring that immigration policies are compassionate, economically viable, and practical, balancing the nation's capacity to accept immigrants with the need for a straightforward, fair, and legal process.

Authoritarians: Tyler appreciates the need for strong leadership, but he firmly believes that power should be distributed and checked to prevent abuse. He opposes authoritarian figures like Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot because they centralize power and suppress individual freedoms, which contradicts his commitment to representative democracy and the rule of law. Tyler believes that a healthy democracy requires transparency, accountability, and the active participation of its citizens to prevent the rise of tyranny. He sees checks and balances as essential to safeguarding freedom and justice. Authoritarian regimes, in his view, are oppressive and detrimental to human rights.

Libertarian Extremists: Tyler recognizes the appeal of minimal government intervention and personal freedom championed by extreme libertarians. However, he believes that a completely laissez-faire approach can lead to economic inequality and social disparity. Tyler supports a balanced economic system that combines individual freedom with ethical principles and community responsibility. He thinks that some level of regulation is necessary to protect the vulnerable and ensure that everyone has a fair chance to succeed. In his view, a mix of personal liberty and social welfare creates a more equitable and just society.

Populists: Tyler understands the frustration that drives populist movements and the desire for change. However, he is wary of leaders who use divisive rhetoric and offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. Figures like Bernie Sanders and Hugo Chavez, who appeal to broad, sweeping changes, might clash with Tyler's centrist and pragmatic approach. Tyler believes that effective governance requires nuanced policies and thoughtful deliberation, rather than quick fixes and polarizing tactics. He values evidence-based decision-making over populist promises. Populist leaders, in his view, often exploit people's emotions and fears for political gain, leading to instability and poor governance.

In essence, Tyler values moderation, a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints, and ethical governance. He believes that extreme, uncompromising, or authoritarian views, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, often fail to address the complexities of society in a balanced and fair manner."

[mallloryrowinski]

I just saw your post about the tiktok video by Trashling and turns out she's a Cambridge law graduate.

Had a look at the comments and this was her response to someone saying: "Trans is gender essentialism. To feel like another gender, you need to associate certain attributes with it."

@ashling:Gender essentialism is ascribing innate, universal values, including moral values (described here) to all members of a specific gender. Which is bs, you can’t say ALL 4 billion women on earth have the same moral, physical, or psychological characteristics

A different person commented about feminists falling down this so-called pipeline as "horrifying" which received this response:

@ashling:they take advantage of our fear and uncertainty, easier to sell something to be scared of than encourage openness

She's also liked comments such as:

@yaoimothman:Excluding men from activism leads men who otherwise wouldn’t have becoming right wing

Thank you for this! I suppose a Cambridge law degree doesn’t automatically grant sound critical thinking skills.

Her response on gender essentialism seems to miss the point of the critique entirely. As feminists, one of the issues with trans ideology is the reinforcement of stereotypes as a way of 'identifying' with a gender, which is inherently rooted in essentialist thinking. After all, if gender is about associating certain traits with either ‘woman’ or ‘man,’ then claiming to feel like another gender relies on precisely those stereotypical, essentialist ideas of what it means to be male or female.

The ‘pipeline’ argument is 🙄. Framing feminists' critique of gender as a form of fear-mongering not only dismisses valid concerns but suggests that women are irrational, susceptible to propaganda instead of capable of developing their own deeply-considered ideas. It’s a tactic to delegitimize feminist perspectives, casting them as reactionary rather than substantive. And the comment she liked about ‘excluding men from activism’ leading them to ‘become right-wing’ is classic. It’s similar to the common argument that restricting men's access to porn or prostitution would drive them to violence. It’s a veiled form of intimidation: essentially, 'Let men have their way, or else they’ll turn against you.' Feminism doesn't exist to appease men or prevent them from lashing out; it exists to advocate for women's rights and liberation on our terms.

This push for openness and inclusion often seems to demand that women sacrifice their own safety and spaces, catering to male fragility under the guise of ‘progressive’ values. And I am tired of it!!

Also that screenshot of that article she has behind her at the beginning of the video? "Trans-exclusionary movement is the new gateway to fascism, racist ideologies" what???????

And by the end of the video she's yapping about how we're trying to convince other women that cis men are pretending to be trans women to get in our bathrooms and, according to her, 'men don't need to be doing all that'. When 1. that's not what we're saying and 2. there is a real issue lmao (a real issue that she's discrediting by also talking about how 'trans women are our sisters, they're allies, and a world where a trans woman is free and safe to express herself and her gender presentation as she wants to is a world where all women get to do that' - again, WILD!)

(source) weirdly enough or "sisters and allies" criminally behave like men

(source) Alex tried identifying his way out of a male-prison sentence by claiming he's a woman.

(source) Yeah we're totally fear-mongering huh this isn't real, women's safety isn't at risk

Yeah it's clearly us who don't know what they're talking about

[rosszulorzott]

Reading Journal

After reading Why Civil Resistance Works, The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan (2011), I'm now on to the update from 2021, Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know by Erica Chenoweth. This link is from the author's page and you will find many more resources there.

"Written by leading experts in their fields and with over 100 subjects to explore Oxford University Press's acclaimed What Everyone Needs to Know® series offers authoritative discussions of complex contemporary issues from gender to sustainability to robots in a lively question-and-answer format."

I'm now halfway through this book and I thought to share some quotes and commentary.

I have evolved from being a detached skeptic of civil resistance to becoming an invested participant in nonviolent movements. I now study the history and practice of resistance with much greater urgency, for the sake of my own democracy and in solidarity with human rights defenders around the world.

Although many cases don’t make headline news, the past decade—2010 to 2020—has seen more revolutionary nonviolent uprisings around the world than in any other period in recorded history. In fact, there have been more such campaigns in the first two decades of the twenty-first century than there were during the entire twentieth century. ... Even though nonviolent resistance is now ubiquitous as a leading strategy for creating change worldwide, the data also suggest that governments are defeating revolutionary nonviolent movements more often than in prior decades ... since 2016, far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Germany have been relying on the work of nonviolent resistance scholar Gene Sharp to better understand how to build and wield people power to pursue their racist and exclusionary aims. ... Just because people are protesting in the streets does not mean they are engaging in civil resistance. Spontaneous, improvised street actions that are not coordinated across various civic groups as part of a broader strategy rarely have staying power or capacity for long-term transformation. ... Few if any civil resistance campaigns have succeeded using protest alone. ... The first known feminist rebellion in North America was a sixteenth-century civil resistance campaign by Iroquois tribal women to end unregulated warfare within the Iroquois nation. Men exclusively controlled declarations of war, along with other political powers. Iroquois women coordinated a sex and childbearing strike, refused to harvest and prepare crops, and refused to produce moccasins necessary for war-making. Ultimately Iroquois women won the power to veto war declarations. ... Since World War II, very few civil resistance movements that excluded women at the front lines succeeded. ... No movements have failed after getting 10% of the nation’s population to be actively involved in their peak event. Most succeed after mobilizing 3.5%. ... successful movements do not necessarily need to turn mortal enemies into active supporters. Civil resistance is not about converting the opponent or melting the hearts of brutal dictators. It is about pulling their supports away in key moments—and taking away their options. ... Digital technology makes it easy to skip the critical steps of building relationships, developing ongoing coalitions, planning strategies, building alternative institutions, and preparing a population for a long struggle. With the convenience of social media, many movements may fall into the trap of organizing only in the short term, moving from one event to another, while failing to absorb their base of supporters into long-term movement adherents. Every movement faces the temptation to put tactics before strategy. Social media dramatically increase that temptation. ... Civil rights organizer Bernice Johnson Reagon once said that if you’re comfortable with everyone in your coalition, you’re not in a coalition. Maintaining a winning coalition is much more difficult than selecting a clear and concrete objective; it often requires skilled mediators and a movement-wide willingness to resolve conflict through some accepted process. ... we know from historical studies that people tend to be more willing to put themselves in harm’s way than to actively hurt others. ... even more important than tactical discipline may be narrative discipline

I have grouped some of these quotes by topic, because the book is written in a very detailed and recursive style, repeating key findings in different contexts and in varying depths. No matter what question the reader wants to explore first, they will find the answer substantiated by research and other background info. This also makes the book hard to read, more like a study course - but one we desperately need to take. Maybe when translating it we could create a shorter version from the essentials (localized for each region's own political environment) and referenced back to the full text. This way we could have a format better suited for general education and organization needs.

[the-frosty-mac]

The concept of the modern imperialist labor aristocracy has really made a lot of things clear for me. It explains, in great detail, exactly why America is where it’s at in 2024. The rise of the alt-right and the calls for Bernie-style social democracy are both fundamentally rooted in the desire to maintain the benefits imperialism imparts on the average American. The former through (nonsensical) nationalism and exclusionary tactics. The latter through a more equal distribution of the boons of the exploitation of the third world. Neither is acceptable, nor is the current status quo. And all three are built on fear and desire. The desire to prevent the benefits of superprofit from withering away. The fear of being proletarianized. We have a lot more to lose than our chains, all of which comes from the exploitation of the third world. We won’t be truly proletarian until that is no longer the case. And the failure to confront this fact and accept it as it is, like the scientists we are supposed to be, has been one of the greatest failings of western communists.