US Government rules on Gender Identity

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby American Dream » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:32 pm

I have strong doubts about the original strategy of trying to force through the borders of (cis) "women only" spaces as a vehicle for trans liberation. While there certainly was a huge need for visibility and forward motion around non-cis people generally and in lefty or subcultural spaces also, it seems like an unhelpful strategy in so many ways.

Why pick on the radfems who cling to notions of gender essentialism and separate spaces in particular? Are they really the primary enemy? It seems like the "Terf Wars" that followed were rather predictable- and too narrowly identitarian. They generated too much heat and too little light to be the best strategy, in my view.

Also, it is very, very important to point out again that gender is a spectrum. There is much more than black and white. If a person radically shifts their gender presentation they can experience more and more of the patriarchal violence that is reserved for those who are one-down and targets.

That said, I don't personally have a problem with there being "women only" spaces where woman is defined in cis terms. I do think Gender Essentialism is fading in popularity as new generations of feminists come up but I think that older iteration deserves its due.

Really though, all the "women only" spaces I am aware of have a very different level of acceptance towards trans men and others in that ball park, so a truly cis-exclusive place is hard to find.

Also, it should be clear that not even biological sex is a strict binary and that intersex people really do exist...
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama’s HUD department rules that ‘Gender Identity’ dete

Postby Project Willow » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:56 pm

Heaven Swan » 28 Sep 2016 05:39 wrote:
She's also autistic. Another deeply troubling aspect of transgender is the high percentage of people on the spectrum (I think I read 12%) that transition. This smacks of eugenics.


I'm sorry about your friend as well. The sterilization issue is frightening. I also agree with critics who assert that in many cases the transing of children is new form of gay conversion therapy.

.................

Luther Blissett wrote:I am concerned for the well-being of all marginalized people. I can see both sides of the argument and the case for nuance. I just don't understand what anti-trans people want to do.


No one here is anti-trans, certainly not in terms of reducing violence and discrimination towards people perceived as gender non-conforming. Radical feminists, in wishing to abolish gender, intend to end the policing of its conformance, which is a major cause of violence against trans people. As Sounder pointed out, there are plenty of trans women who are gender critical, but their voices are drowned out. As to what to do, I see no reason why trans people can't operate within their own protected legal class. Trans activists balk at this however, comparing it to racial segregation, but this analogy fails upon further analysis. What we have instead is a social/political movement to linguistically erase biological classifications, but it is only being enforced against women's groups and our legal protections. This smacks of an MRA campaign, rather than an attempt to liberate a marginalized population.

Luther Blissett wrote:Are the majority of trans women really autogynephiles? I have spoken with feminists of all stripes, trans men, and trans women about this and in about 8 out of 10 cases am told that this is not true.


There's a reason that belief exists. Trans activists and their allies have shut down the research, with direct attacks on people like Michael Baily, whose career they pretty much destroyed. Academia, as the scene of liberal authoritarian impulses such as safe spaces, trigger warnings, and de-platforming, is generally closed to this field of inquiry. So the answer to your question is, what research that does exist says yes, but we are no longer allowed to know. The truth is we are no where near understanding what causes sex dysphoria, or developing diagnostic tools and protocols to determine what portion of the population claiming trans status has it, as opposed to a plethora of other complicated, co-morbid conditions and social factors. Its diagnosis is highly subjective, yet extreme and profitable medical intervention is offered as cure, with devastating, permanent consequences for an ever expanding group of people—detransitioners. I can say however, that if you frequent forums where trans women congregate, you will occasionally see honest discussion about arousal at the thought of transition, arousal that is dependent on pretending to a submissive, passive role in social and sexual encounters, and that role equated with woman/female. That equation is exactly what feminists have been trying to destroy.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:13 pm

Thanks for that. I agree that the political thrust does target women's rights specifically and feels like a men's rights tactic.

There are anti-trans people here, but not you. I'm talking about the st0rmer-type MRAs who have landed here.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Project Willow » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:22 pm

American Dream » 29 Sep 2016 10:32 wrote:
That said, I don't personally have a problem with there being "women only" spaces where woman is defined in cis terms. I do think Gender Essentialism is fading in popularity as new generations of feminists come up but I think that older iteration deserves its due.


You've used "gender essentialism" to describe the view of rad fems more than once in this thread. This is, and please excuse me, utter bullshit, the opposite of truth. Rad fems are gender abolitionists. Gender is a social construct. Women are oppressed not because of the social construction of our identities, but because of our biology, our reproductive power, the very material fact that we have ovaries and uteri and vaginas. This is called sex, not gender. If you wish to argue that women are oppressed based upon the fact that many of us wear dresses and make-up (gender), rather than our reproductive capacity (sex), you are free to do so, but you'd be wrong.

This is gender essentialism, brought to you by trans activism:

Image

Shall I refer to you henceforth as a non-menstrator, how about sperm producer? Would you find that humanizing, liberating?
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby OP ED » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:35 pm

sounds kinky
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:59 pm

That's not a gentle parody? That's meant as a serious guideline?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:14 pm

Pretty sure that's 100% serious, with some genial humor involved to make it more palatable.

It's par for the course though, the level of linguistic gymnastics involved in the trans cult (or ideology, if you want to be kind) is breathtaking, bordering on 'Newspeak' for how it goes about using language to redefine material reality.

Another thing that RadFems and the Christian Right have in common? The shared understanding that humans are bipedal animals. I know, shocking, right?
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:45 am

Luther Bisstt wrote:
Are the majority of trans women really autogynephiles? I have spoken with feminists of all stripes, trans men, and trans women about this and in about 8 out of 10 cases am told that this is not true.


Can I make a suggestion?

Since, as PW explained, the research into this is blocked...well, you know trans people, you could conduct your own personal informal research. But instead of asking point blank questions like ' are the majority of transwomen autogynephiles?' try hanging out and paying close attention to things. People involved in cult-like groupthink won't give you the kind of info you're looking for straight out.

Like most people who care about human rights, when I first heard about transgender my immediate reaction was unconditional support. And some of that support I now regret.

Friends do listen to friends and I wish I had had the courage or awareness of the issues to voice my fears about for example, a trans woman's decision to get SRS surgery. Due to PC dictates I felt bound and gagged around the subject. She went through with it and now my conscience is not clear. I wish I had voiced the fears I had for her and maybe she would have not gone through with mutilating her body in such an irreversible way. And if she still had gone through with it a least I would have felt that I hadn't been complicit through silence.

Back to the research into autogynephilia, if you hear for example, something like 'my husband and I used to have sex but now all I do is lay out frilly underwear on the bed for him' you can check off the autogynephilia box on that one. (but maybe women wouldn't reveal something like this to a man).

Look under the surface. One thing that convinced me that there was something not right was that among the trans people I knew the sex privilege aspects of sex roles stayed intact after transition. IOW the transmen were still shouldering the work and the supportive role that women would normally do and the transwomen were running the show. And transmen were victimized in the same old ways.

Pay attention to deeds more than words. Hone your intuition and notice the subtext. You can do it!
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:27 am

I wouldn't ever ask point blank, this was just something I started thinking about after I read that most trans women are autogynephiles the last time we had a major thread on the subject. It didn't jive with my experience of living in a neighborhood known to be queer, being friends and collaborator with gender nonconforming people, and organizing with many people in leftist and activist organizations who identify as trans men or women or genderqueer. I have at least some form of social graces and know enough not to be concerned with another person's genitals (I believe I mentioned this before - to this day I have no clue if some friends were born biologically a man, biologically a woman, or intersex. They seem happy).

So the majority of people with whom I've had this conversation are cis feminists. I still hear a majority of the time that it's not true (sometimes this information is offered without any prompt as something some people believe). I feel like I've tried what you are suggesting but did not come out with that same impression.

Could it be a generational thing?

I don't have the same experience with observing traditional gender roles staying the same after transition. I observe a lot of external oppression that continues to happen to trans and gender nonconforming people. Sometimes I see trans women enjoying a privilege in work or in organizing spaces. Sometimes I see trans men enjoying a privilege in work or in organizing spaces. But those are excessively rare cases.

I will say this though, I never ever meet trans women of color over 40. When I was a young art student I knew many trans women of color in my peer group. I have no idea where any of them are now even though the remainder of the social circles are still intact. I have to assume they are already dead.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby American Dream » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:54 pm

This may be helpful:

http://libcom.org/library/not-your-mom’s-trans-101-asher’s-trans-101-asher

Not Your Mom’s Trans 101 - Asher

There is a huge problem with the way that people are taught about gender in this society. Children are indoctrinated early to believe that there are two sexes, corresponding with two genders, which are both immutable and non-voluntary and completely beyond our control. This worldview is called the gender binary, and it has no room in it for us.

Trying to teach a new perspective to the victims of this extremely aggressive brainwashing can be daunting. In fact, the task can seem downright impossible. The temptation, therefore, is to “dumb things down” for the benefit of a cisgender audience. This situation has given rise to a set of oversimplifications collectively known as “Trans 101.” These rather absurd tropes, such as “blank trapped in a blank’s body” cause confusion among even well-meaning cis folks, feed internalized transphobia among us trans people, and provide endless straw-man fodder for transphobic ‘radical feminists,’ entitled cisgender academics, and other bigots.

Near the beginning of my transition, I myself taught “Trans 101” this way. Because I didn’t know any better. Because I had been taught to think of myself in terms of these same useless tropes, as an “FTM,” as a “female man,” as somebody who was “changing sexes.” Eventually, through a lot of intense discussions and a lot of tough love from people who were more knowledgeable, more radical, and more politically sophisticated than myself, I came to see things very differently.

I haven’t tried to teach Trans 101 since extracting my head from my rectum. But I think the time has come for me to tackle the problem of explaining and defining what it means to be transgender without resorting to cissexist language. It strikes me as I contemplate this task that Trans 101 is generally not only dumbed-down, but also declawed. There are truths that I must speak here that are incredibly threatening to a cissupremacist worldview, that attack its very foundations. But I for one am willing to do that. I am not here to make cis people comfortable or to reassure them that they are still the center of the gendered universe. In fact, I am totally fine with doing the opposite.

Without further ado, let’s begin.

Gender Assigned at Birth

Let’s start at the beginning. A baby is born. The doctor says “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl” based on the appearance of the child’s genitals. If the genitalia cannot be easily categorized according to binary standards– that is, if the child is intersex– the doctor makes a decision. Surgery is then generally performed on the unconsenting infant to render its body more socially acceptable.

Whether the baby is intersex or not, the child is then raised as whatever arbitrary gender the doctor saw fit to assign.

“Cisgender” is the term for people who have no issue with the gender that they were assigned at birth. For whatever reason, they are able to live somewhat comfortably within the gender in which they have been cast. No one really knows why so many people are capable of fitting into such arbitrary categories.

Transgender people cannot accept our assigned genders. We know ourselves to be something different than what we were told to be. We do not see the random gender scripts we were given by society as relevant to us. We know that there is a different way, a way of autonomy, self-creation, and self-definition, and that this is the way we must follow, because we can never be happy with the parameters that have been mandated for our behavior and our bodies.

The Binary

All cis people and many trans people are binary-identified. Given the options of “man” or “woman,” we who are binary-identified are able to be comfortable with one, even if it is the opposite of what we were assigned. For example, I am a man who was assigned to live as a woman, therefore I am a trans man. My father is a man who was assigned to live as a man, therefore he is a cis man. Both of us are binary identified, both men, even though he is cis and I am trans.

It is a mystery why so many people are comfortable being categorized in just one of two ways. Just as nobody knows why there are so many cis people, nobody knows why there are so many binary identified folks.

But there are many trans people who are neither male nor female. They cannot be categorized as “either/or.” These people may use terms for themselves like genderqueer, androgynous, agender, or neutrois. They often use gender-neutral pronouns such as “ze/hir/hirs” or “they/them/their/theirs.” They can be both male and female, or none of the above, multi-gender, genderless, or something else completely.

In typical trans 101 discussions, right now I would probably be explaining to you that “gender is a spectrum” and drawing a cute little line graph labeled “m” at one end and “f” at the other. But this would be fallacious, as well as total bullshit. Gender is not a line, it is a huge three-dimensional space too big to be bounded by the concepts of “male” and “female.” Being trans is not always about falling “in between” binary genders, and as often as not, it’s about being something too expansive for those ideas to have meaning at all.

Self Identification

The language of self-identification is often used to describe trans people. “George identifies as a man.” “I respect Judy’s identification as a woman.” “Chris just told me that ze identifies as ‘genderqueer.’ Oh dear, that pronoun is going to take some getting used to.” An organization I know, in an effort to be trans friendly, as posted little signs on their bathroom doors, underneath the “MENS” and “WOMENS” signs that we know so well, saying “Self-identified men welcome” and “Self-identified women welcome” and “please be respectful of diversity.”

This co-opting of the language of self-identification is not only condescending, it completely missed the point.

Cis people seem to think that self-identification is only for trans folks. They don’t have to “identify” as men and women– they just ARE! Their gender isn’t “self-identified,” it’s “self-evident!”

What they fail to understand is that self identification is the only meaningful way to determine gender. Any other method is wholly dependent upon what that doctor said way back when we were still wrinkly, writhing, screaming newborn messes, completely unformed as individuals and without any identity at all to speak of, too bloody and scrunchy-faced to even be called cute. The fact is that cis people self-identify too– they just happen to agree with what the doctor said all those years ago. Anybody who answers the question of “are you a man?” or “are you a woman?” with “yes” has just self-identified.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking “but what about bodies? What about genitals? What about chromosomes? What about hormones? What about SEX? Doesn’t that have any bearing on gender?”

Be patient, my darlings. I’ll get to that in just a moment.

Bodies

Almost every Trans 101 will contain the truism “Sex is between your legs, gender is between your ears.”

Gag.

Or they may say “Sex is physical, gender is socially constructed.”

This simply isn’t true.

Sex is no more an immutable binary than is gender. There are intersex people who are born with non-binary genitalia, as I have already mentioned. There are people with hormonal anomalies. In fact, hormone levels vary wildly within the categories of cis male and cis female. Chromosomes, too, vary. If you thought “XX” and “XY” were the only two possible combinations, you have some serious googling to do. In addition to variations like XXY, XXYY, or X, sometimes cis people find out that they are genetically the “opposite” of what they though they were– that is, a ‘typical’ cis man can be XX, a ‘normal’ cis woman can be XY.

The fact is that the concept of binary sex is based on the fallacious idea that multiple sex characteristics are immutable and must always go together, when in fact many of them can be changed, many erased, and many appear independently in different combinations. “Female” in sex binary terms means having breasts, having a vagina, having a womb, not having a lot of body hair, having a high-pitched voice, having lots of estrogen, having a period, having XX chromosomes. “Male” means having a penis, not having breasts, producing sperm, having body hair, having a deep voice, having lots of testosterone, having XY chromosomes. Yet it is possible to isolate, alter, and remove many of these traits. Many of these traits do not always appear together, and before puberty and after menopause, many of them do not apply.

And what about women who get hysterectomies? Or who have had mastectomies for reasons related to breast cancer? Are they not women?

What about a soldier whose dick gets blown off by a mine? Is he not a man?

The fallacies of binding identity to bodies, which are fragile, changeable things, subject to injury, mutilation, maiming, decay and ultimate destruction, should by now be clear.

Sex is as much a social construct as gender, as much subject to self identification, and besides all that, quite easy to modify. Surgical and hormonal techniques are only becoming more sophisticated. If there ever was a need to consider biology destiny, that time is surely past.

The entire concept of “sex” is simply a way of attaching something social– gender– to bodies. This being the case, I believe the most sensible way to look at the question of sex now is this: a male body is a body belonging to a male– that is, someone who identifies as male. A female body is a body belonging to a female– that is, someone who identifies as female. Genderqueer bodies belong to folks who are genderqueer, androgynous bodies belong to androgynes, and so forth, and so on.

This is why I question the value of phrases like “man in a woman’s body” or “male to female.” Who is to say we ever were the “opposite sex?” Personally I will never again describe myself as “born female.” I was born a trans male and my years of confusion were due to being forcefully and repeatedly told that I was something else. This body is not a woman’s. It is mine. Neither am I trapped in it.

None of what I say here is to minimize the necessity of surgery. Many trans people do experience body dysphoria. Many of us do seek hormones, surgery, and other body modifications. But the point is that, while such modifications may be necessary for our peace of mind, they are not necessary to make us “real men” or “real women” or “real” whatevers. We’re plenty real right now, thank you.

Oppression

This brings us, I think, the most important topic of all, and the topic which is most commonly left out of any Trans 101: transphobia and cissexism and how to avoid them.

“Cissexism” can be defined as the system of oppression which considers cis people superior to trans people. Cissexism is believing that it is “natural” to be cis, that being trans is aberrant. Cissexism is holding the genders of trans people to more intense scrutiny than the genders of cis people. Cissexism is defining beauty and attractiveness based on how cis people look. Cissexism is prioritizing cis people’s comfort over trans people’s ability to survive. Cissexism is believing that cis people have more right to have jobs, go to school, date and have sex, make decisions about their bodies, wear the clothes they want, or use public restrooms than trans people do.

Transphobia is irrational fear and hatred of trans people. Transphobia is Silence Of The Lambs. Transphobia is referring to transgender surgery as self-mutilation. Transphobia is believing that trans people habitually “trick” or “fool” others into having sex with us. Transphobia is believing that we are out to rob you of your hetero-or-homosexuality. Transphobia is trans people being stared at, insulted, harassed, attacked, beaten, raped, and murdered for simply existing.

If you want to be a good ally, you need to start taking cissexism and transphobia seriously right now. That means getting our goddamn pronouns right and not expecting a cookie for it. That means learning our names. That means not asking invasive questions or telling us how well we “pass.” (Passing generally means “looking cis.” Not all of us want to look like you, thank you very much.) That means deleting the words “tranny” and “shemale” from your vocabulary. That means understanding the immense privilege you have in your legally recognized, socially approved, medically assigned gender.

That means realizing that this is just the beginning. and that you have a lot to learn. That means realizing that it would be intrusive and importunate to ask the nearest trans person to explain it all to you, as if they didn’t have better things to do. That means hitting the internet and doing all that you can to educate yourself. And once you’ve done all that, maybe you can call yourself an ally, that is, if you’re still genuinely willing to join us in the hard work of making the world a less shitty place to be trans.

This will be a work in progress. I expect to receive a lot of commentary on this piece. I expect that it will be edited and possibly revised almost beyond recognition. I am OK with that. As always, there is more work to do. Trans 101 is a huge deal. Revising the way that it is discussed and taught is not a task for just one person. It’s something the entire community must take on.

This is only a first step. But I still hope we learned something today.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Searcher08 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:28 pm

I like lesbian Londoner Magdalen Berns and her very dry, direct takes on .

Special Snowflakeism


and Non-Binary Bullshit


and


BTW Being called transphobic is turning into the 2016 version of being called a "virulent anti-Semite" by Likudniks.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby tapitsbo » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:56 pm

Pretty sure most of us have been exposed to materials like "Asher's" in high volume for over a decade.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby OP ED » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:56 pm

Quite so.

I find it difficult to even discuss the topic due to all the devaluation of language inherent.
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore.

:: ::
S.H.C.R.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby identity » Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:44 am

shorter lines.jpg

“I identify with shorter lines.”
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
We should never forget Galileo being put before the Inquisition.
It would be even worse if we allowed scientific orthodoxy to become the Inquisition.

Richard Smith, Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal 1991-2004,
in a published letter to Nature
identity
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:00 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby American Dream » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:35 am

Imagel


SKY PALACE
“to be liberated from them (or through them)”
a call for a new approach


This is a call for a collective conversation about new approaches to theorizing and practically organizing around the complex relationship between identity, liberation, and revolution. Finding the existing framework of intersectionality inadequate, we wish to move beyond stale debates over the priority of either class or identity-based oppression whose form either subsumes political economy into an undifferentiated mass of oppressions or pushes analyses into “pro” or “anti” identity positions. We list some shared starting points that could inform a new mode of inquiry, and pose questions that might lead us to more fruitful ways of thinking about how ascribed identities might be organized autonomously in order to attack the racial, gender, and sexual hierarchies which hold these identities in place.
Oakland, May 2012


I. FRAMING WHAT’S AT STAKE

We are looking for a position that is not available in the current landscape of theoretical and political positions. We are trapped in a field of competing political tendencies within which the only intelligible locations are wholly inadequate to our needs. Our choices are limited to a reformist politics of diversity (inclusion of all identities makes the revolution!); a politics of false and violently imposed unity (unite for the class fight!); an ahistorical and idealist insurrectionism (make total destroy!); a class-reductionist communization (the value form is the key!); and so on.

We refuse to set aside the oppression - both brutal and tacit - of queers, women of color, trans* people, women, Black, Brown, Asian-American, Chican@, Muslim, fags, and dykes as something to be dealt with later, after the revolution. We refuse to treat these struggles as mere springboards for the more central and fundamental struggle of the proletariat. These oppressions and violences are not derivative, secondary, or epiphenomenal to class. There is no more opportunity to abolish patriarchy or racism within capitalism than there is opportunity to abolish class exploitation within capitalism.

Because these oppressions are denied, pushed aside, imagined as incidental; because we experience our conditions as intolerable in the present; because one attacks a structure from one’s location within it: because of all of these things there is a real and immediate need to organize around these categories. There is a real need to establish autonomous spaces and groupings according to specific oppressions of capitalism. Autonomy is a means by which we develop shared affinities as a basis for abolishing the relations of domination that make that self-organization necessary. And yet, even as we do this, we want to be freed of the social relations that make us into women, queers, women of color, trans*, et cetera. We want to be liberated from these categories themselves, but experience teaches us that the only way out is through.

One model for understanding autonomous organizing as necessary for revolution has been the theory of communization as articulated by a host of groups recently publishing together in the journal SIC. The French group Theorie Communiste have written “self organization is the first step of the revolution. It then becomes an obstacle that the revolution has to overcome.” Theirs is primarily a critique of communist tendencies that affirm working class identity and view revolution as the ascendance of the working class to power. As an alternative they posit the self-abolition of the working class through the destruction of the labor/capital relation. The term “self-abolition” is key, for it locates the power to abolish relations of exploitation within the collective body of the exploited group. It points to the tension inherent in the revolutionary process: a process in which the material bases for the collective affinities that make struggle possible are themselves violently destroyed through conflict and revolutionary movement, leading to the eventual dissolution of those affinities as relevant descriptors of any kind of shared experience. Autonomy is a step toward abolition, not the end goal.

We are looking for the points where communization theory’s critique of working-class identity and its necessary relationship to capital converges with anti-essentialist critiques of raced and gendered identities — gender abolitionist feminism, queer insurrectionism, and afro-pessimism, to name a few. We move to place these recent anti-essentialist but identity-based movements and theories in conversation with theories of communization, with their critique of working-class self-affirmation. As separate modes of inquiry each of these tendencies falls far short of providing us with the necessary tools to attack the totality of capitalist relations. Within the communization cohort, only a few pieces on gender have emerged, and nothing on the questions of race, sexuality, or struggles around trans* and non binary bodies and gender identities. The texts of the communizationist canon [cf. SIC; Communization and its Discontents; Endnotes; Riff Raff] are highly eurocentric and lack historical specificity. Feminist theory has either ignored or capitulated to class analysis, and has been riddled historically with white- and cis-supremacy. This is not to mention the consistent presence of a gender essentialism which balks at the notion of abolishing gender altogether. In positioning itself in opposition to a vulgar class-reductionism, anti-racist theory has rejected a serious study of political economy and has frequently flattened the question of gender and sexuality if not outright supported male supremacy and/or hetero/cis normativity. Queer theory’s embrace of idealism and postmodernism typically renders it incapable of describing structures rooted in material social relations, and its often implicit or explicit rejection of the concept of patriarchy, at times veering into misogyny, neutralizes many of its potential critiques.

All of this shows that no amount of autonomy and identity-centric analysis can ensure a revolutionary theory or praxis, and this is why we must develop a shared critical vocabulary and understanding of the structural totality of capital. Racial hierarchies, gendered violence, and exploitation are not epiphenomenal; they are immanent relations at the same level of abstraction as class. We strive toward a systemic analysis of gender and race relations, the divisions of labor which base themselves in these relations, and the material sites and institutions which continually reproduce subordinated raced and gendered identities. It is this kind of analysis that we feel has the potential to strengthen our struggles as we face choices about what to attack, what lines to draw, what to fight for, what to fight against, and how to become stronger.


http://www.liesjournal.net/volume1-13-t ... rated.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 178 guests