[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)

[Pickman's model]

Yes and winnners inclided Playboy, Richard Branson, MI5, and a few people who work for banks and other corporates, and a few LGBTQ activists and celebs (I am actually disappointed in Laverne Cox accepting an award (sponsored by Natwest) because I thought she had decent politics which included a class analysis but then again she wasn't actually there to accept the award, so maybe its all done through agents and that and she knows nothing about it). Its also utterly bizarre but almost certainly deliberate that MI5 sponsor the "outstanding contribution to LGBT+ life" awards but its an indication of the recipient not having decent politics that would cause them to refuse such an award rather than being an MI5 asset. The whole awards are disgusting - and so far removed from the lives of most LGBTQ people. Like Helen Steel said, its mostly benefiting rich white men.

But its classic recuperation. However lots of LGBTQ people - including trans people (sometimes leading on it) - have protested this process of recuperation in the past, which she seems to have missed from her analysis. Its the jump Helen makes from criticising the awards or even analysing what aspects of LGBTQ activism are most easily recuperated by capital and to what purpose to asking "Why has the relatively new ‘trans' ideology made so many gains so fast? Much faster gains than ever achieved by those fighting sexism and racism. Why is this new ideology splitting so many progressive movements with its demands for absolute adherence to that ideology and total intolerance of any debate or critical thinking?" - she seems to be saying that capital (though she concentrates on bankers which y'know is a small step down a very wrong road) and MI5 are driving trans ideology and its "successes" - its conspiracy nonsense.

I'd argue that she's not really even right with that though - trans rights (and as a political 'movement') has always been ten years behind Lesbian & Gay rights, it's just that trans visibility has broke mainstream in the last five and is, at present, seeing a quicker pace of public awareness and discourse and trans people have found a stronger voice. But, also comes the backlash as we're partly seeing now too. And why 'play' feminism, anti-racism, etc. off against trans people and rights? I did grant Steel with a bit more of an analysis and awareness of this, given her political history, and regardless of her personal opinions on some of this, but some of what's she's been saying and other people she's been retweeting is very disappointing.

Ten years ago, capital and state institutions were already exploiting LGB people in a big way, Pride became commercial, every bank was selling it's 'gay friendly' credentials - at least, and I think this is important too, to middle class LGB people. Trans stuff was still struggling to get even basic name changes with banks sorted properly without any draconian crap. I don't understand, therefore, why, trans rights are now being singled out especially. Not only that, but in the longer time period which we've had black liberation, a number of waves of feminism, lesbian & gay liberation and now trans rights coming to the fore, this country (and the World) has massively shifted to a neoliberal one. And so mainstream liberation/rights end up sitting inside capital and liberal structures (as do a lot of what we see with BAME rights too - look at the current stuff about Oxbridge - just about improving diversity of intake not why such institutions are a problem). But, trans rights for years had to fight against state structures. Again, it's about class primarily.

if a minority group gains rights quickly, people shouldn't ask 'who is pushing their rights to fuck with mine?', they should be congratulating them on the rapid advance. who gains if conspiracy is submitted as an explanation of things?

 

[Pickman's model]

off the top of my head i would say things like: socialist, feminist, anti-fascist, trade union activist, anti-racist campaigner

yeh. and you suggest above that you see transgenderism as progressive sexual politics. for what reasons?

 

[Athos]

the point of that statement is surely that one cannot separate class politics, anti-fascism and trans rights struggles into separate struggles, they are all part of the same thing. that is, presumably, what they mean by supporting intersectionality.

I think it's more accurate to say tht they can be (and in my opinion, should be) part of the same thing. But, equally, they needn't be; there's a lot of liberal anti-fascism that's nothing to do with class politics. (Which isn't to say that, even then, liberals and those on the left can't find common ground to work together, and some solidarity.)

 

[frogwoman]

. Fuck it cba.

 

[Athos]

yeh. and you suggest above that you see transgenderism as progressive sexual politics. for what reasons?

Whilst I can't see how an anti-trans position could ever be progressive, it doesn't follow that a pro-trans position is necessarily progressive. It depends on how it's done.

The most progressive way would be within a theoretical framework of class politics (n.b. I'm not saying trans liberation should be postponed until the class war is won, or anything like that), and through practice that builds class solidarity.

An obvious example would be for women, trans people and the working class (accepting the enormous overlap) to recognise that we are all harmed by 'gender' (to differing extents), and to recognise the crucial role that system plays for capital.

And that's something that can happen notwithstanding some quite profound differences of opinion. For instance, it wouldn't be necessary to consider a trans woman a woman to recognise a mutual interest in ending gender roles. But, it would require people to listen to one another and respect differences of opinion, rather than refusing to engage positively (or, worse, seeking to silence) anyone who refuses to accept one's position 100% (e.g. by repeatedly attempting to provoke trans people through pronouns, or ' no platforming' those whose use of pronouns reflects a view you don't share).

Eta: sorry, meant to post that one the other thread!

 

[Pickman's model]

Whilst I can't see how an anti-trans position could ever be progressive, it doesn't follow that a pro-trans position is necessarily progressive. It depends on how it's done.

The most progressive way would be within a theoretical framework of class politics (n.b. I'm not saying trans liberation should be postponed until the class war is won, or anything like that), and through practice that builds class solidarity.

An obvious example would be for women, trans people and the working class (accepting the enormous overlap) to recognise that we are all harmed by 'gender' (to differing extents), and to recognise the crucial role that system plays for capital.

And that's something that can happen notwithstanding some quite profound differences of opinion. For instance, it wouldn't be necessary to consider a trans woman a woman to recognise a mutual interest in ending gender roles. But, it would require people to listen to one another and respect differences of opinion, rather than refusing to engage positively (or, worse, seeking to silence) anyone who refuses to accept one's position 100% (e.g. by repeatedly attempting to provoke trans people through pronouns, or ' no platforming' those whose use of pronouns reflects a view you don't share).

Eta: sorry, meant to post that one the other thread!

thank you for your answer, which i welcome while i await nice one's thoughts on the subject.

 

[Athos]

thank you for your answer, which i welcome while i await nice one's thoughts on the subject.

Always a pleasure.

 

[Wilf]

Yes and winnners inclided Playboy, Richard Branson, MI5, and a few people who work for banks and other corporates, and a few LGBTQ activists and celebs (I am actually disappointed in Laverne Cox accepting an award (sponsored by Natwest) because I thought she had decent politics which included a class analysis but then again she wasn't actually there to accept the award, so maybe its all done through agents and that and she knows nothing about it). Its also utterly bizarre but almost certainly deliberate that MI5 sponsor the "outstanding contribution to LGBT+ life" awards but its an indication of the recipient not having decent politics that would cause them to refuse such an award rather than being an MI5 asset. The whole awards are disgusting - and so far removed from the lives of most LGBTQ people. Like Helen Steel said, its mostly benefiting rich white men.

But its classic recuperation. However lots of LGBTQ people - including trans people (sometimes leading on it) - have protested this process of recuperation in the past, which she seems to have missed from her analysis. Its the jump Helen makes from criticising the awards or even analysing what aspects of LGBTQ activism are most easily recuperated by capital and to what purpose to asking "Why has the relatively new ‘trans' ideology made so many gains so fast? Much faster gains than ever achieved by those fighting sexism and racism. Why is this new ideology splitting so many progressive movements with its demands for absolute adherence to that ideology and total intolerance of any debate or critical thinking?" - she seems to be saying that capital (though she concentrates on bankers which y'know is a small step down a very wrong road) and MI5 are driving trans ideology and its "successes" - its conspiracy nonsense.

This is me speaking my braynes or, at best, blurting a random thought out: there's obviously a big issue around recuperation and the way bosses have claimed multiculturalism, diversity and equality as their own - and in doing so either recruited former progressives onto their side or simply blunted/confused the issue for workers/campaigners. That certainly seems to be happening around trans 'inclusion' in the workplace, at least at the level of the public sector and other big employers.

In terms of this recuperation, I wonder if employers superficially becoming trans friendly and sponsoring awards is an easy win for them? With regard to other social divisions such as gender and race, it's relatively easy to counter their claims, with stats on unequal promotion and pay and the like. But with the relatively smaller number of trans men and women working for an employer it's a bit more difficult to use definitive figures to prove they are not equal/inclusive. It becomes a case of individual stories, something less visible at the collective level (which is a point at which the interface between identity politics and recuperating bosses has its greatest potential).

Crucially, none of that actually means it necessarily becomes any easier for trans men and women in the workplace, just as state/employer led equality policies more generally are not really a weapon in the hands of women, the disabled, black workers etc. Anyway, suppose I'm just making the obvious point that if you want equality or to wrestle a bit of power back in the workplace, don't look to your boss (or his equality committee) to do it for you*.

*Though of course there's always a pragmatic issue about using these structures to some extent and in certain circumstances.

Edit: same issues (pretty much) covered better by stethoscope

 

[Fozzie Bear]

This is good:

LGBMI5? More on pinkwashing and guilt by association

 

[butchersapron]

LDMG shut down.

 

[chilango]

LDMG shut down.

and quite possibly

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Fuck sake. Any idea why, or have they just had enough?

 

[Pickman's model]

LDMG shut down.

Yeh echo chilango's and

 

[TopCat]

Fuck sake. Any idea why, or have they just had enough?

They supported the guilty party at Hyde Park and people protested this was not on.
Their professed reasoning for the support was child like.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

They supported the guilty party at Hyde Park and people protested this was not on.
Their professed reasoning for the support was child like.

Just as Robinson becomes a household name we’re witnessing the destruction of the already minuscule autonomous left. Maybe it’s a good thing. A change needs to happen but it doesn’t strike me as positive presently.

 

[ska invita]

I gather a new legal group will form from the ashes of this one... Less some members

 

[bimble]

Why did they get involved in that Hyde park case?
eta oh: http://ldmg.org.uk/files/HydeParkCornerCaseStatementApril2018.pdf

 

[winjer]

They supported the guilty party at Hyde Park and people protested this was not on.

LDMG supported plenty of "guilty" parties throughout its existence, that's how anarchist legal support works

 

[winjer]

Fuck sake. Any idea why, or have they just had enough?

Only of each other.

 

[TopCat]

LDMG supported plenty of "guilty" parties throughout its existence, that's how anarchist legal support works

This though was akin to providing support to one party in a domestic punch up.

 

[Edie]

Yep, the abusive man.

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[winjer]

This though was akin to providing support to one party in a domestic punch up.

Utter bollocks.

 

[TopCat]

Utter bollocks.

Its not utter bollocks at all. They decided to support one side in a beef and the side they picked was in my opinion the wrong one.

 

[winjer]

Its not utter bollocks at all. They decided to support one side in a beef and the side they picked was in my opinion the wrong one.

They supported the person arrested at a demonstration over a scuffle at a demonstration. "a beef"? have a word with yourself.

 

[TopCat]

They supported the person arrested at a demonstration over a scuffle at a demonstration. "a beef"? have a word with yourself.

Have a word? You are being deliberately obtuse. To support one side in the Hyde Park debacle was a political choice and the wrong choice. Now they pay the price as will those people who wont get support because of the demise.
Ps if you use the face palm smiley at me again I will be most pissed with you.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ps if you use the face palm smiley at me again I will be most pissed with you.

 

[Pickman's model]

Its not utter bollocks at all. They decided to support one side in a beef and the side they picked was in my opinion the wrong one.

don't think there was a right side. hard pushed to see how ldmg could have supported the other side anyway, as none of them ended up in court.

 

[Athos]

They supported the person arrested at a demonstration over a scuffle at a demonstration. "a beef"? have a word with yourself.

"A scuffle"? Have a word with yourself. It was sex-based violence perpetrated by a biological male who was raised and socialised as a boy/man, against a woman, where even the most cursory glance at the publicly-available footage revealed that to be the case.

I think it was a mistake to think my enemy's enemy is my friend, on the basis that the prosecution was an exercise in bourgeois law on behalf of the state. Presumably, they wouldn't defend e.g. fascists arrested at demonstrations, even if they purported to 'identify as' anarchists?

It was a poor decision, as a matter of principle and practical consequences. At most, they should have taken a neutral stance, in my opinion.

 

[bimble]