Gramsci wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 9:30 am I think I’ve repeated my opinion of the importance of intersectionality in this thread enough. I appreciate that comment might look callous but I mean in the wider political context of things that impact the average person’s lives from a purely “winning votes so you can do the good stuff”. The “good stuff” that we want done would disproportionately positively impact the lives of minorities. You win by presenting these ideas as good for everyone, which they are. This is a “yes and” strategy not a narrow focus that conservatives dickheads can easily turn into a media circus culture war. Do people want things done, or do they just want to present externally how progressive they are for showzies?

No one is excluded just because you don’t talk about everything.

… yes, they are. By definition.

Gramsci wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 9:30 am No one is excluded just because you don’t talk about everything.

People are dying while children's lives are being upended. I'm of the mind this should be part of our political discourse. I don't mean to pin you down I'm just trying to understand your point: do you believe that the trans community should silence themselves until a later date because we're approaching the end of a volatile election cycle?

No. I made a pretty long post clarifying this a while back in this thread.

But to summarise. You help trans people the same way you help everyone, through mass politics. Trans people are disproportionately impacted by problems around social housing, healthcare including mental health etc. This applies to all minorities. But it also impacts the very large majority of workers that don’t wake up and face issues of minority discrimination. To get those good policies implemented you need to motivate and mobilise those people because there’s more of them. You do that with universal positions that those people see in their lives, this creates solidarity with minority groups through common cause. The art of politics is “learning how to count”. Just because the number one policy in a political platform isn’t trans rights doesn’t mean there’s some ranking system. That doesn’t mean not talking about issues like trans rights.

Honestly I try to stay patient discussing this but the level of bad strategic thinking I see around this is incredibly frustrating. And again I’m sure my point here will get misunderstood again as being exclusionary. As I said, this is a “yes and”.

The Yeoman Ghost wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2024 4:26 pm

zorg wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2024 1:39 pm

Frankie99 wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2024 1:05 pm

FWIW, to use your words exactly, this statement is fucking bonkers. My mom couldn't get a fucking credit card unless someone with a swingin' dick allowed it while I was alive. You want to reach the end of the race on the backs of those running it. Fuck that.

oh dude, that is not the right card to play (no pun intended). Women (and everybody) were better off when you didn't have the option of buying groceries and getting into a lifelong debtors prison. Very much what I was getting at that legitimate suffragette and civil rights efforts were quickly co-opted by capitalists into new targets for "easy credit rip-offs" to quote Good Times. I'm sure you're right though and some good things have happened along the way.

Surely you’re not saying that voting for Lincoln was no different than voting for Stevens, because emancipating the slaves simply meant that the capitalist machine was able to take advantage of them the same as white people?

My American history is admittedly crap, but who is Stevens? It's worth remembering that Lincoln never ran as an abolitionist, and his subsequent change of heart only came about due to public sentiment and to punish the secessionists. However, it's hard to argue that the freed slaves and their descendants did not face disenfranchisement and exploitation ever since. But those were heady days indeed, and in 1860 you had no less than 4 candidates to choose from!...unless you were a woman of course.

Gramsci wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 10:28 am the level of bad strategic thinking I see around this is incredibly frustrating.

Ha ha ha, welcome to America, we vote with our cajones here.

zorg wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 11:06 am

Gramsci wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 10:28 am the level of bad strategic thinking I see around this is incredibly frustrating.

Ha ha ha, welcome to America, we vote with our cajones here.

I wish that mass politics created solidarity, but the historical record is mixed. (It’s why I reject the Marxist “class first” approach to politics, at least as a be-all, end-all approach.)

Wood Goblin wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 12:24 pm I wish that mass politics created solidarity, but the historical record is mixed. (It’s why I reject the Marxist “class first” approach to politics, at least as a be-all, end-all approach.)

I can see that. I would probably still fit in the worker first as the widest bucket, because that’s something that unites everyone. Then you add more buckets. There’s a myth perpetuated by liberals (I mean centrists here) that claim mass workers movements in the past were “racist/sexist” etc but that is absolutely baseless. I can’t pull it up here but I read a piece recently that showed attitudes of white working class people from after the war. Universally unionised workers were less racist and sexist and more critical of militarism than ununionised workers. In essence they were more inclined towards more rights for minorities than other groups, even in a broadly socially conservative society. This is because they understood that rights are only a zero sum game against the capitalist class and could see that liberals and conservatives use rights as a zero sum strategy to divide workers.

Gramsci wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 10:28 am That doesn’t mean not talking about issues like trans rights.

I'm trying to understand: so we the people can talk about these issues or we can't? It's healthcare, care that the privileged can navigate with ease as if the barriers are non-existent because they are.

Honestly I try to stay patient discussing this but the level of bad strategic thinking I see around this is incredibly frustrating.

Imagine what it must feel like to those going through it!

I'm not calling you or anyone else heartless, but when I read things like hysteria surrounding trans issues is crazy, or it's a niche of a niche issue, those perspectives are worrying to me.

rsmurphy wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 1:01 pm when I read things like hysteria surrounding trans issues is crazy

I think originally this was referring to Republicans and Faux News saying shit like "the schools are turning your kids trans!" and not that trans hate is insignificant.