This is a cool way to protect a belief, narrowing the scope so that the refuting data do not apply anymore. Perhaps I can write a fucking essay about it, but do you have data to support this narrowing move? There is like a ton of data that the West has been invasively spying of possible threats to the status quo (from Cointelpro to undercover UK cops like recently), not just people “acting on it”. Furthermore, actions can fall under protected free speech as well, like putting up a poster, demonstrating, and protesting. So your proposal is inherently undemocratic if you roll back freedom to only protect oral expression, quite similar to a “Don’t ask don’t tell” attitude towards gay people. What you just said is simply counter-factual. Blanket surveillance is a staple of Western societies in the 21st century, and it blows my mind that there are still people oblivious to what is more or less spelled out clearly in the Patriot Act and all laws modeled after it across the globe.

You’re not making yourself clear though.

This tirade against language use written in Anglish leaves room to the interpretation that you paint a picture of linguistic purity by whom exactly (very white people from Northwestern Europe?) against whom exactly? The Roman Empire? Medieval post-Roman institutions? The French?

The very idea that there is some loss power for English speakers in using a Germanic-Romance hybrid language is possibly problematic.

I have commented elsewhere on constructed languages, and I hold Anglish as one mental experiment that is mildly interesting. For linguists maybe. Because this is some wildly white shit I wouldn’t care much about when there are so many Southeast Asian and African languages we can look to when talking about opening our minds to other worldviews and intellectual traditions. I personally find Gaelic more interesting than Anglish in that effect, but that is just my opinion.

Your essay makes some points similar to discussions that many scholars have developed about how language shapes thinking. But it also has a twist that is only too common in nationalist (and before those, romantic) movements, a view that projects huge loads of magical thinking onto the “purity of our ancestors language”. Just throwing the word anarchist in there does not change this.

Now community-wise, I believe that your choice of language to address an international community using English as a common language was in bad taste, similar to using a jargon or an obscure slang to address a non specialist crowd.

Acting in good faith, I will refrain for now from moderating this post, but I will leave this criticism here instead. If you, however, come out with views that more explicitly clash with this community’s standards and ideological foundation, have no doubt that immediate action will be taken.

In good faith, folk: Is this the most suitable community for your content?

Of course, this goes without saying. People fight for prisoners’ conditions right here and now in the belly of capitalism. People support improvement of working conditions and compensation right here and now.

This is in fact in the heart of anarchosyndicalism. I don’t remember when it was the last time I heard that “I do not support X (worker unions, incarcerated rights, homeless people, etc) because they are reformist, and X’s (workers’, prisoners’, homeless people’s) problems will automatically vanish when we reclaim the means of production”.

This is like the quickest way to lose your friends in the anarchist movement. But replace those terms with “women/black/gay/trans” rights and the same incredibly void argument suddenly gains traction lmao. Then there are the edge cases, like trans people are more likely to be unemployed, homeless, and/or incarcerated.

So this is outright hypocrisy, because if you frame the question as “anarchist support for prisoners” they go “yay!”, but if you frame it “anarchist support for trans women” some go “meh”. Well assholes, a trans woman is more likely to become a prisoner, and at that she is more likely to get stripped of her humanity and dignity. So, although there are so many other problems scourging the anarchist movement, I believe in the 21st century an intersectional analysis is essential, an analysis according to which being multiply classed into oppressed groups has a cumulative effect, that can lead to extreme marginalization and even loss of health, and life.

Compared to that even the unskilled blue collar worker of the “ethnic majority” (as per the linked articles terminology) can be seen as privileged, in other words let’s make sure that all human beings can have at least the standard of living that they can be exploited for their manual labor, before we say that all issues are labor versus capital dialectics.

And that having been said, better not get started on American exceptionalism and privilege extending to trans issues as well. There are trans people in Africa, Middle East, South America, and everywhere else, where the stakes are life or death, not whether you get hormones before or after puberty. There are so many people who will just say “this is just so fucked up, there is no point in discussing it, say, about trans rights in Egypt, for instance”.

All these headlines we read about the christian nationalist crackdown on trans rights have a silent part that reads “in America”. There have been tragic crackdowns on trans people in other places and even the trans-focused media won’t write much about.

Don’t get me wrong folks. The intersectional analysis is essential to include feminist, POC, Indigenous, and LGBTQIA+ voices into anarchism and unionism. But it also has to be internationalist, and have less of a First World constitutional democracies bias. This fits in well with an internationalist humanist understanding of anarchism, that sees human dignity as inalienable, regardless of national borders. At least this is the version of anarchism I grew up with.

It reminds me something Noam Chomsky said in an interview. The media are designed so the principles of the system never gets questioned. The so called liberal media, which Trumpists nowadays consider as “radical left”, are just the most left extreme of an extremely right-wing landscape, which is entirely manufactured. In other words, criticizing exploitation is left out of the discussion completely. “Identity politics” and “equal opportunity” is the only way the media will discuss about minorities, because it perpetuates the myth of individual merit and achievement. Collective oppression and collective action are deliberately outside the public discourse, because it challenges the cornerstone of system justification. This is the long and short of it. If you go back to the roots of racism, you will find exploitation. If you go back to the roots of sexism, you will find exploitation. When too many people in legal studies look too deep into this type of thing, it is time to move the window further right: they then crack down on academia.

Oh snap. Fixed it.

https://www.desmog.com/jordan-peterson/

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/12/06/jordan-peterson-we-who-wrestle-with-god/

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

I personally cite Jordan Peterson as a red-flag interest for new people I meet, but that’s just me.

The. Burn.

The fact that while many look to flee the US fearing a Holocaust, and this guy is yet another fossil-fuel backed right-wing anti-trans manosphere guru touring the world whining about his free speech getting cancelled.

Criticizes gatekeeping of science by showcasing it shares the premise of the very laws that were used in 1934 to bar Jewish people from citizenship in Germany. The table used for the adaptation is from Wikipedia, a summary and breakdown of an actual 1930’s poster explaining the new rules to Germans.

This is such a good analysis. It sets the record straight on so many fundamental issues of American global politics.

Sure, I think the Chomsky article you cited clears things up.

This is some great feedback. I got a hunch something was off about this video, but I posted it anyway. At least now I learned something.

A very interesting take I read recently:

Trans rights are reproductive rights if you focus on trans men.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/opinion/trump-trans-denationalizing.html

It is still the patriarchal state trying to control its citizens wombs.

And trans misogyny is essentially misogyny, so there’s that.

Taken together these two insights leave no doubt that TERFs are a chauvinist movement.

AI slop and my ML instance-ship? Ok dude, whatever…

First things first, the 66% is not reliable when you clearly see that the data is segregated along party lines. Nevertheless, there is a rise in favor of restrictions among Democrats and Democrat-leaning respondents. I have explained in the above and I will reiterate here that this can be explained in the network structure and dynamics of MAGA propaganda.

Since you make clear that you do NOT argue for a concession but in pursuit of a convincing argument, I respond below. But you make clear that you are not support watering down trans rights, so that none of the devastating arguments I presented is relevant to your position. Let’s examine that then.

The “convincing argument” you are talking about is a lost cause, because you forget that the right does not listen to reason. If you follow the link I have linked at the word “sports” you will see that there are several arguments about it. It doesn’t matter at all. There are great arguments out there, for the whole range of transphobic fascist propaganda. The problem is that it does not reach critical mass. In comparison, transphobic propaganda is obscenely funded and organized, as the rest of the links suggest. Specifically those links:

Right wing domination of the online media ecosystem

Racist propaganda

Nazi propaganda

Wartime propaganda tactics

Who the fuck funds so many anti-trans hate groups?

Democrat’s media outlets spewing transphobic prejudice

Democrat media outlets 2

Gender critical “leftist” intellectuals

See if you cared about putting forward a convincing argument, you would take links such as this, and this includes my own posts, and would push them to a wider and wider network of ambassadors and online/offline propagandists, to reach as many people as possible. Agitating in left-wing forums, bordering on concern-trolling, crying there is no convincing argument for trans women in women’s sports, does not cut it. It is defeatist and achieves exactly one thing: to out you as a person who is not individually persuaded by a single argument in favor of trans people. I will not make assumptions about your precious individuality as to why is that. For the majority of people it is just SELF-CENSORED cis-genderism.

The plethora of right wing propaganda agents and the substantial amount of center-left cisgenderist apologists gives a sufficient explanation as to why public discourse has regressed more and more to more primitive and dehumanizing stereotypes and truism, no matter how many great arguments trans advocates have put out there.

Additionally:

• Because mainstream platforms amplified hate speech, failed to moderate harassment, shadow banned, echo-chambered, and eventually pushed out advocates and turned into nazi bars.
• Because the ever-growing right wing propaganda network became more and more interconnected and overlapping, that successive cycles of outrage and backlash allowed them to prevail in mass culture, by pushing more and more reactionary points.
• Because this all went down without a shred of a response from Democrats.

Even the data you present reveal the most important thing about them: their TIME RANGE. There is no other explanation than the insane reach of transphobic fascist propaganda. I don’t have the tools as an individual to break down how the content has regressed from “legitimate concerns” to raw, primal, animus against trans people. But this is what was done:

They went from “We are NOT saying trans people ARE perverts and predators, BUT that real predators MIGHT exploit self-identification to wear dresses and attack women in segregated spaces”, all the way to “trans people are groomers, rapists and pedophiles” in a span of a few short years.

The arguments were right there, like Zinnia Jones had debunked the bathroom thing as soon as 2015. Same goes for detransition rates and effectiveness of transition. The issue here is not the message but the network of information flow that is entirely controlled by the platforms and the racist and nazi funds that are backing them and manipulating them.

Relevant research also shows (in the propaganda firehose article I have linked in the text) that responding to organized propaganda is futile. The response to this is to GROW SUPPORT for trans people, which is consistent with years and years of insight that transphobes DON’T listen to reason. The rare EXCEPTION is this dude. What changed his mind? Listening. That is what changed his mind.

If you care about trans issues, you should see to the available information to reach as many people as possible, both in quantity as well as information flow patterns in the network.

I would add, a proactive strategy for dismantling platforms and suppressing hate-speech are also part of the solution.

Since you insist that you never said that the left must concede on trans sports and condone segregation on the basis of gender identity, I will take it that my previous argumentation does not apply to your take, and you subscribe that eroding the rights of any protected group is out of the question, as far as your suggested strategy is concerned.

As per your own statements, you only think that there is not a convincing argument for trans women participation in sports, I have linked to a number of scientific arguments, and I added the moral in-feasibility of segregation on top of that. Is there anything else?

It should be taken for granted at this point, that centrists are fascist enablers, as their very systemic function. Social-issue centrism is essentially open to dehumanize some group, and accept go-slow-ism, keeping people oppressed. This is not about having moderate opinions on economic equality or free enterprise. They can have fucking their opinions on that part, that I don’t agree with. But the social part of centrism is unintelligible: Finding a middle of the road solution with nazis, deregulating hate speech, at the same time eroding freedom of speech and expression for trans people and everyone else. Social centrists are a plague we will soon have to deal with.

Trigger Warning: Get a pack of Kleenex and load your favorite Daily Wire playlists to have handy, because this is not going to be a light read for a self-proclaimed intelligent centrist.

The left is getting killed on the trans sports issue

Do you have any data backing this? And what analysis goes with the data?

Don’t let me be misunderstood: Rights are not defined by majorities, otherwise you could have a white majority voting on the humanity of black people, and wolves voting on the right of sheep not to be eaten.

On the other hand, the public’s views are heavily conditioned by misanthropic, anti-democratic propaganda, that shifts the window of acceptable discourse, and excludes people from a set of fundamental freedoms that cisgender people take for granted. As a consequence, the ubiquitous genocidal discourse against trans lives, if left unchecked leads (and this is by now not a prediction but a historical fact) to erosion of rights of women, blacks, indigenous, disabled, and every other citizen. Because these freedoms are not “special” to trans people, but are mere extension of legal scholarship and the rule of law. The ongoing American fascism is not an overreach of “legitimate concerns” but it is profoundly, structurally embedded in challenging the legitimacy of trans people. This is why TERFism was initially deemed “unworthy of respect” by British courts: because it goes against TONS of legal precedent.

Long story short, in the times of “Der Stürmer” you could have said that the majority of German did not think Jews should be married to Germans. So what? So much for the argument that we should sacrifice human rights of ANY group because they are unpopular.

ALL protections exist so that UNPOPULAR groups enjoy the rights that the majorities take for granted. Outside that logic there is only fascism.

It is much like segregation (which, surprise, is coming back again) and apartheid: The Feelings of uneasy white people sharing bathrooms and sports with black people, are of no importance whatsoever, because, simply, segregation is dehumanizing and unjust.

By extension, what you suggest is morally corrupt and inhumane, and it is deeply fascist in its very conception.

Now, we are arriving at the data. Bear with me.

You people hand-wave a fucking lot when you suggest that trans rights are so unpopular that they have lost you elections, when there have been multiple arguments that Democrats barely touched on the topic, apart from being loosely against killing trans people in pogroms and LUKEWARM at that. So your argument amounts to little more than “Fascist discourse is more trendy so let’s do that instead”, which is not JUST the Ratchet effect: it is “being complicit to actual genocide”.

So you HAND-WAVE about an IMAGINARY regular person (who is that fucking nazi?) to whom we must bow under all circumstances? Fuck that populist tactics, and fucking educate people.

But does this IMAGINARY nazi-enabling regular Joe even exist?

And what studies you cite for him not being able to revise being a shit person

Views differ even more widely along party lines. For example, eight-in-ten Democrats say they favor laws or policies that would protect trans individuals from discrimination, compared with 48% of Republicans. Conversely, by margins of about 40 percentage points or more, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to express support for laws or policies that would do each of the following: require trans athletes to compete on teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth (85% of Republicans vs. 37% of Democrats favor); make it illegal for health care professionals to provide someone younger than 18 with medical care for a gender transition (72% vs. 26%); make it illegal for public school districts to teach about gender identity in elementary schools (69% vs. 18%); require transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth (67% vs. 20%); and investigate parents for child abuse if they help someone younger than 18 get medical care for a gender transition (59% vs. 17%).

Which is from Pew which others like you like to point to as a general “trans rights unpopular with our voter base”, but if you actually read you will see that you can even find a small percentage of Republicans that are not vehemently against trans rights. And let’s not forget that the percentage of Democrats against trans rights would be very much different if Democrat’s media outlets weren’t fucking complicit in amplifying genocidal “gender critical” misanthropy, and there weren’t a score of fucking “leftist” intellectuals adopting their talk points, when there was ZERO voice given to the marginalized trans scholarship. So, this consent you talk to is manufactured by complicit Democrats to start with.

You would not make this argument unless you wanted to appeal to the Republican voter base, but doing so only shows that it is voter trends that guide your politics and not principles, and in fact, you are willing to enable crimes against humanity to appeal to a fascist voter base. This is unscrupulous and misanthropic.

Instead of succumbing to extremely well-funded racist and nazi propaganda, a principled political advocate with such means and resources as the Democrats could help alleviate what is a systematic attack to decent society and inclusive democracy. Therefore, your advocacy ultimately paints the Democrats as a manufactured opposition, and essentially a fascist party, once it does not stand for human rights, as it never were.

Centrists should be actively considered agitator agents for fascism at this point. Like, have you clowns even considered that your voter base might want you to grow a fucking spine and stand up for human rights, with trans rights front and center? Because I only see your democratic voter base being alienated by your flirt with fascism.

“We did not feel rewarded at the end of the Hackathon,” said Xun. “Because we tested it so much, we were both so diseased from vaping.”

https://lemmy.ml/post/27285771/17347137