I'll bite. What is postmodern theory to YOU

There's a lot of terms used in this thread which I'm not 100% sure what is meant, especially as some comments refer to the USA which is different to the UK (they have a very pro LGBT President for starters although life is horrific in the red states) In the UK, it's obvious that progressive people who look after minorities do not have the raw numbers and more importantly the power (in terms of money, media outreach - trans or trans friendly voices are hardly ever in the media and in terms of getting their votes to count, they build up extra votes in big cities, university towns but that leads loads of 'red wall' towns with socially conservative views). If by liberals we mean centrists, it's pretty clear that they are not going to go out on a limb for trans people (Starmer has made that adamant) and some are down right hostile. Anyhow even if people did care, hardly anyone protests in the UK anyway (and if they try now they'll end up in jail). Scotland and Sturgeon was the shining outlier but that's all gone now.

Again I don't know what the answer is. I read India Willougby (who ironically was fairly right leaning a few years back, she was originally on GB News) tweets and often regularly tweets stuff like this Now is the toughest time in history to be trans. They are trying to make life SOOO uncomfortable for us that we stay in the closet. They genuinely want to legislate trans people out of existence. And yes, it is scary. Sending ❤️ to your daughter xxx

What with Rishi Sunak's ghastly 'Send back the boats' lectern, it's fascism happening in real time whilst the rich get even richer.

Basically,
liberal = freedom comes first, pro-science, pro-objectivity
postmodern = everything is about power, speech/discourse/knowledge is power relations, science/medicine skeptical (because of the power thing), also skeptical of objectivity (again due to the obsession with power)

Sometimes, you just have to take a 'what you see is what you get' attitude to life, and stop thinking that power and oppression are hidden everywhere. Science and medicine, in particular, are not out to oppress anyone. There is no such thing as Biopower (as Foucault described). The very idea is an attack on science and medicine. It sounds similar to anti-vax theories to me.

My take is, the next few years are crucial, but the 'progressive left' won't have the numbers to block bad things from happening. The liberals and centrists are the swing vote here, and winning them over is crucial.

In the US, Biden is pro-LGBT, so as long as he wins in 24, nothing bad will happen federally. The red states are probably beyond saving at this point, and trans people might have to flee. By 28, hopefully the moral panic will have subsided, or at least the Republicans will have stopped nominating people like Trump and DeSantis. If not, then we just have to continue to fight.

In the UK, the conservatives probably won't have enough time and capital to do anything bad before the election. As long as Starmer wins, nothing bad will happen for 5 years. However, it could be a stalemate for a while. The moral panic should die down within Starmer's 1st term. This means there might be room for trans rights reforms to begin again in Starmer's 2nd term in the early 2030s (most governments get a second term).

In Canada, trans rights guarantees are pretty strong, so less worry there. However, the conservatives might win the next election, so a little bit of worry there. Similar situation in NZ.

In Australia, the topic seems to not be part of the general political consciousness yet. Therefore the future is uncertain. But the current PM is generally pro-LGBT.

By the way, is India Willoughby right-wing? From what I see, I don't think so. I think Caitlyn Jenner is a Republican and she is the only prominent example of a right-wing trans person I know of. Are there any others (besides YouTubers that 99% of the general public don't know anyway)?

For a pertinent example that goes with this thread, applying postmodern theory to trans people is actually pretty damn relevant because it allows for an easy rejection of 'traditional culture', that trans people are valid according to their own identity. So if transphobes get a hold of postmodernism, which does sound like the sort of scary academic theory to unjustifiably put a scapegoat on, they can (and do) blame it and trans people as part of the 'rejection of truth'. But I would counter that, on a postmodern bent, with 'does 'your truth' have any validity to it? If so, substantiate it with the claims of the world around you and you get institutionalised transphobia and rejection that validates the argument that it isn't trans people who have power'. And then any claims about a 'trans lobby' are meaningless.

I actually have to disagree that postmodernism has been helpful for trans people. The case for trans acceptance can rest on medical science alone. Postmodernism has only served to confuse things and allow the right wing to trivialize trans issues and paint trans identity as unscientific.

Trans people were doing fine before people started arguing whether gender is a social construct (which is not necessarily relevant to trans people).

More generally speaking, postmodernism is bad for social justice and good for right wing propaganda against necessary reforms.

The fact is, you have to look at what's effective at changing things in real life, and old school liberalism still has the best track record. It was an old school liberal coalition that got marriage equality done, for example. Postmodernism would have made a mess of it.

As a supporter of social justice and reformism, I feel like postmodern theories have often stood in our way, and provided ammunition for the right.

I don't use 'postmodern' to attack the left like right-wing people do. I differentiate between postmodern leftists and economic (class focused) leftists, for example. I tend to call the former postmodernists and the latter socialists. In the context of the 21st century West, socialists generally aren't involved in cancel culture, but postmodernists are, for example.

I don't dismiss ideas because the right will attack them. Postmodernism is uniquely bad because its anti-science and anti-objectivity (which are bad things anyway) makes it an easy target for the right. Therefore if advocacy for a minority group is sometimes wrapped in postmodernist rhetoric, it is essentially an own goal.

The marriage equality example wasn't specifically meant to refer to the UK. The movement was also led by liberals in America, Canada and Australia. Indeed, the far left almost put it in danger towards the end in Australia (which didn't get it done until late 2017).

As for why there are so many TERFs across the political spectrum in Britain, I don't know. It doesn't appear to be that way in America, Canada or Australia. Keep in mind that most Blairites didn't turn out like JKR, though. And many Corbynites are really transphobic too, meaning it's not a left vs centrist thing. Perhaps it means that trans rights must be achieved through a broad coalition across the political spectrum in the UK (rather than relying on one party as in the US). This means the British trans rights movement actually has to be more moderate than their American counterparts in practice, as a result. A change of tactics is certainly needed for trans rights in the British context, given the recent failures.

Sir Keir Starmer knows he has a “women problem” — or at least the perception of one.

The Labour leader has been accused by some within his party of being captured by a vocal minority over his stance on the thorny issue of biological sex and transgender rights.

Speaking about Sturgeon’s gender recognition bill, which proposed self-identification for those wishing to change their legal gender, Starmer says: “The lesson from Scotland is that if you can’t take the public with you on a journey of reform, then you’re probably not on the right journey. And that’s why I think that collectively there ought to be a reset in Scotland.”

However, Labour’s troubles don’t end there. For months Starmer and his shadow cabinet have tied themselves in knots attempting to answer what appears to be a rather basic question: can a woman have a penis? Starmer’s failure to articulate a simple position has put him on a collision course with feminist groups and his own MP Rosie Duffield, who has claimed that the party has a “women problem”. In their view this represents a lessening of the importance of biological sex in the debate and opens up issues around safeguarding in single-sex spaces.

Asked again on a train journey home from a visit to Plymouth on Friday, in an interview to mark the third anniversary of him winning the Labour leadership this week, he says: “For 99.9 per cent of women, it is completely biological . . . and of course they haven’t got a penis.”