The problem is that they make up a noteworthy chunk of the core, so the progressives are kinda exploding from the identitarians conflicting with the extremist equality drivers.
Not really. Among young progressives, TERFS are barely present. Most TERFS are old second wave radical feminists, and thus aren't a noteworthy chunk of the core. And could please what you mean by "extremist equality drivers"?
And it's kinda forced the closet-supremacist and cultural marxist factions to go at each other's throats.
As an aside, this is the sough of stuff that gets other people to call you an alt-righter. If you believe in female supremacists and cultural marxists are an accurate model of your opponents, rather than slurs, you prob. Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory that doesn't refer to any real ideology and a definition beyond "Frankfurt School Spinoff". Heck, Marxists and Postmodernists had an
actual ideological conflict that split the academic left. (
Link)
Essentially, the trans movement is causing a bunch of tensions in the progressive left to erupt because a number of groups draw the line at normalizing men calling themselves women. It undermines the supremacists, it alienates the moderates, utterly confounds some of the marxists and is generally an enormous conflict point, causing coherent groups to be ejected from the Social Justice monolith for not being intersectional enough.
The ultra-radical feminist fringe is not a key part of the progressive movement, and nobody listened to them anyway. So who cares if they were undermined. Tankies already viewed the progressive movement as fools for not focusing on starting a communist world revolution to overthrow capitalism, so confounding them isn't a big deal.
Your argument against alienating moderates is a valid point. But that's more one of approach. Because if your going to let the fear upsetting social conservatives upset you, you wouldn't have gotten same sex marriage passed.
As for causing coherent groups to be ejected from the Social Justice Movement, that's probably a lot more complex than you give it credit for. Strangely, Black Lives Matter and Trans Right activists seem to be able to work together just fine. Strangely the majority of blacks now support same sex marriage despite that being equal divide not so long ago.
And because those groups are coherent, there's now conflicting radical leftists actually organizing to try and tear out a group from the monolith, with rhetoric that fits IdPol quite well that simultaneously convinces relative moderates to join on (as well as garnering support from an otherwise-opposed group of extremists), thus causing the progressive left to fracture further.
Citation Please.
You're demonstrating the problem quite well, actually. Your group of the left, the intersectionality monolith, is ejecting these people... But you have no authority to say they're not progressives.
You have just described almost every political label and political movement.
And once again, Communist want to overthrow mainstream society. Radical Feminists want a separatist movement. Neither group is a core part of the progressive movement because they view improving mainstream society as impossible.
You're a subset of that label, and quite unfortunately for you, TERFs fit the entire definition but one thing that makes them massively more palatable to relatively moderate groups and a very different set of groups of extremists. Everyone against normalizing trans people is more attracted to the TERFs than the intersectional monolith, cut stuff anti-Trans content
TERFs are Radical Feminists. Believing gender is biological determined isn't going to make moderate groups approve of their other beliefs. They are a small fringe group utterly cut from mainstream society, not a believable countermovement. Can also explain who this other set of extremists are?
The actual medical classification fits every necessary characteristic to qualify as an anxiety disorder and only got declassified as such due to political pressure to normalize people most would call delusional were it not for politeness, you've got people genuinely concerned for the health of trans people jumping away from the primary movement to support them.
Look, I'm a transhumanist with no problems with body modification. Bioconservatives are idiots. And to needlessly oversimplify that is debate, Homosexuals were once treated as if they had a mental illness, the definition of mental illness are extremely mutable, other societies have non-binary recognised social groups, and Iran of all places allows people to transition.
Because trans people, real trans people with gender dysphoria, are being treated as no different from homosexuals. They aren't.
While the treatment is very different and much costlier, so there are differences, they should be treated with the same respect as everyone else, which indlucdes homosexuals.
They're not merely abnormal, they are people with a genuine mental illness, people who either genuinely believe they are what they physically aren't or suffer from severe anxiety based solely on feeling like they don't belong in their own body. To normalize them is to enshrine and promote a major suicide risk, to open the floodgates of psychosis. Give them support, yes, but let it be understood and accepted that they are not healthy, remove the ostracism, but keep the understanding that they are not alright. The refusal to do this just leads to more people taking their own lives because they literally can't accept what they are. They're psychologically incapable of it, in some way.
Here's the problem. There are other societies with third gender concepts that allow individuals to cross dress and socially be treated as a member of the other gender. Meanwhile an aspect of our society says Trans Panic allows a man to get away with murdering a transwoman because she had made him feel icky. So, maybe we should try accepting them and not treat them like mentally ill freaks?
And unlike homosexuality, this isn't something fixed by social acceptance.
Considering other societies exist that handle this better, nope. Heck, the existence of transitioning makes this invalid since you can remove the biological mismatch the bioconservatives find so appealing.
Gender dysphoria inherently requires that a person be uncomfortable in their own body, it's a non-negotiable symptom.
Because that's how the medical disorder is defined. Not the actual cause which is a human universal due to evolving independently in both Eurasia and the Americas.
Enshrining this, promoting it as acceptable, just means they'll deny themselves treatment because there's a group that thinks it's okay. And then they kill themselves because they're suffering almost every moment of their life by living what feels far too much like a lie. And rather than accepting this fact, accepting the fact that there's an element of this group who are fundamentally fucked in the head, in a way that makes them suffer regardless of acceptance... The intersectional monolith just blames it on ephemeral power structures that they relentlessly use factually incorrect terms for (this is actually what pisses me off the most about them, as a whole) that almost certainly don't exist, and are actively illegal already, and often have been for decades.
Trans Panic was a legal defence, trans people who can't pass are treated like garbage, and there are societies with exceptions to the gender binary that avoid this problem. I reject your thesis.
...You completely glossed over the bit about how unlike homosexuality, the potentially-suicide-inducing anxiety of trans people isn't something that can be fixed by social acceptance, meaning that I'm all abord the end of things that has the anxieties of being homosexual as something that social acceptance can fix.
Except other societies have reduced the problem with social acceptance. And our society has the actual technology to let them transition.
Or the fact that I very much emphasized that the actual bloody medical condition is an anxiety disorder,
Because it was defined this way. If it's not causing the person a problem, it's not a mental disorder by definition.
while the other sort of potentially-medically-recongizable trans person would, in literally any non-identity politics sphere, be called fucking delusional for flat-out believing they are something they factually are not. You are the abhorrent standouts by normalizing these people considered mentally ill for damn good reasons. Seriously, do you have any idea what the suicide rate for transgender people is?
Except other societies do acknowledge them and treat them better ours does. Our society treated crossdressers who tried to live as the other gender horribly for centuries. And the suicide rates will almost certainly be improved by treating them better and letting transition. The suicide rate for gay people improved as people stopped treating them the same way we treat trans people so I'm going to advocate treating them humanely
(Their parents throwing them from their homes, the government looking aside when individuals murder them for being different, not prosecuting people who rape them and condoning police violence against them, ect.).
STATISTIC SNIP.
What does correlate very heavily with suicide risk is mental illness, and guess what transgender people fit so many definitions for, so extremely consistently?
There's also another solution to gender dysphoria. It's called transitioning. Why don't we give that try instead? From a utilitarian perspective it's probably better than the therapy bills.
Oh, you also completely refused to respond to the first two paragraphs covering the fact that the intersectional monolith has no authority to eject people from the left as a whole, or even it's dominated subset of progressivism,
Grassroots political movements are allowed to eject people who believe different things from them. That's kind of how they have to work. And the intersectionality movement has the right to disavow transphobes and to pursue trans rights.
so a lot of people join up with the TERFs from the start at this point over the divergence issue that is trangender "rights" (it's not a fucking right to choose your goddamn public restroom). And you also didn't address the point about transgender people generally screwing with identity politics in a way that fractures intersectionality around the subsets of its proponents.
Who is joining up with Terfs over this. What's your evidence of a large scale conflict among progressive about this?
Yes, people do have the right to choose their own restroom.
Once again, provide evidence that transgender people are screwing with the identity politics movement. I haven't read any, and I'm disinclined to believe someone who things cultural marxists and female supremacists are active factions in the progressive movement.
And you're lumping me in with the right wing for... Being worried about the trans suicide rate?
You use leftist as an insult and believe in cultural marxism. You believe identity politics are a bad thing and oppose equality drivers. You also don't understand why calling transgender people traps in country where killing someone who you found out has wrong genitals is a bad thing.
Seriously, I hate the progressive left because of identity politics. They're not liberals, because they're collectivist authoritarians.
Congratulations. You have realised that progressives and liberals are not the same things. And people who want to improve society with soft power are willing to use soft power as weapon to remodel society. And even when they're not using the government to this and just creating social consequence for speech they view as socially negative you still view this authoritarian.
I oppose them on the basis of a different axis to the standard left/right, because I'm very much all for equal rights. Rights being the key, not adding a pile of privileges to cover every little divergence in priorities.
You do realise that socially conservative libertarians are typically considered part of the right and disliked by leftists? And lumped into the right wing by them?
A fair and level playing field, regardless of how badly some people take to it (I'm pretty sure I dodge the "ablest" label by proper definition because I don't care if a person is disabled, as long as they can still do their work. If they can't, give 'em the boot, just like anyone else. Just enough support to get the chance to genuinely try).
Once again, this is a rightwing belief.
If you view the physically disabled who fails to compete in the job market as being welfare parasites and want the government to let them starve rather than spend tax money subsidising them, I am reviled by you. I would also very strongly aside you to cease identifying with the left since that is the start of idea that is only welcome on the far right.