ta-ra*el~la

Serious question: why do people hate Starmer? He seems decent. And you'll get a Tory government if he doesn't win.

Twitter really feels more biased towards the right overall these days. I guess the problem is that too many left and center people quit when Elon Musk took over. I think that was a mistake.

Gay marriage was at 25% around 2000. Trans rights are certainly past 25% now. The theory is obviously wrong for politics. In fact, the magic number for politics seems to be 60%, rather than the 51% normally assumed, because of the inertia for change. Gay marriage only started to pass in many countries when the general level of support was around 60% in the West (which was around the mid 2010s). The goal therefore is to get trans rights to 60%. Which tells us what kind of people need to be convinced, i.e. moderate conservatives. It won't be easy, and it will require a massive change in strategy. We're certainly far from 60% on trans rights. So it's time to work hard to change people's minds. We can't afford to just preach to the converted.

Perhaps look at Australia, where anti-trans forces have developed a bad reputation since April last year, when they forced the trans issue into an election where it had no relevance. Letting the transphobes destroy themselves could be a good strategy indeed.

Don't believe the 'progressive' media hype. Things have only gone downhill for trans people since ten years ago.

Basically these are the problems with trans activism as it currently exists: 1) too much philosophy, too little practical reality (and this is an issue with what I call the 'theory left' in general too) 2) too much cancel culture, too little negotiation 3) too little focus on actually educating people about trans issues 4) failure to represent the whole spectrum of views within the trans community 5) too much weird jargon, too few attempts to find common ground with regular people 6) too often represented by radicals who are trying to sell something more unpopular alongside trans rights This might sound harsh, but change is certainly needed. (Just imagine if Labour or the Democrats lost an election, and this was the post-election review)

How long have you been following this issue, and how closely? (Also, while I respect your socialist politics, please don't lump this issue in with capitalism. It has nothing to do with capitalism, and this distraction is not needed.)

As someone who actually fought for marriage equality (in the US and Australia it was a very hard fight unlike in the UK), and now wants to advance trans rights, my concern is the activists are doing it very wrong at the moment. The trans rights narrative looks nothing like the gay marriage narrative did, and I'm concerned that it is harming the cause. We have a proven successful model (almost every Western country has gay marriage now) but we are not following it. If Keir Starmer is right about something, it's that trans rights needs a reset. The whole movement probably needs to be rebuilt, from the ground up. The leadership probably needs to be completely changed too. I'm increasingly convinced that things went very wrong ever since the so-called trans tipping point (2014). Whoever is actually pro-trans, but said no to the current model back in 2015-18 or so (and there are many trans people in this category actually), should be given a chance to lead the movement out of its current wilderness. I think it would be best if the new leadership was solely made up of people who were already involved in trans issues in some way before 2013, to get rid of the recent baggage.

I'm still not convinced that Starmer isn't pro-trans (or that Corbyn or anyone else would be any better). The problem here is this is a Times interview, and the Times is a transphobic paper.

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.

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.

Why is everyone so upset about Meghan Trainor?

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)?

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.

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.

Let's not start a fight over liberals vs leftists. My point was that leftists should not see liberals as the enemy, and liberals should not see leftists as the enemy, because we have a real enemy in the authoritarian culture warrior Right. For example, while I criticize postmodern theory, I don't see leftists as the enemy. I accept that leftists will criticize the liberal worldview too, but please don't see us as the enemy.

Honestly it was because of Bernie's supporters. Bernie wasn't into postmodern theory but many of his supporters were, and I was a bit worried. Postmodern theory isn't compatible with free speech and freedom of conscience, and is therefore a dealbreaker for me. If the left would drop the postmodernism, I think us liberals (at least those not too keen on capitalism) would have a better relationship with the left.

Look, I'm sincere about wanting liberals and leftists to be able to work together, at least to some extent. Without this happening, we will all get destroyed by Ron DeSantis and others like him. There's a lot at stake here. And liberal doesn't mean neoliberal. I'm not too keen on capitalism, to be honest. I just don't like postmodern critical theory. In other words, I don't have a problem with Bernie Sanders. I have a problem with the ideas of Foucault.

If you're frustrated, let me offer this honest opinion: progressives should not have alienated liberals (broadly speaking, people who put freedom first) in the first place. Now's not too late to mend the relationship. Only with the support of liberals can LGBT rights be protected.

As I see it, many 30-somethings are economically left leaning (due to being poor), but they increasingly dislike the cultural politics that is popular on university campuses, and find Gen-Z activism alien. Many also report being more small-c conservative in many ways. However, they also don't like the anti-climate, anti-LGBT culture warriors on the Right. This, plus the economic stuff, means they won't be voting conservative anytime soon. I've come across many people who are saying things like 'if the left dropped the cultural stuff they would become more popular'. I suspect this is true. I mean, Bernie almost won on that formula, after all. I mean, the left should still push back against right-wing culture politics, but they shouldn't start culture wars of their own.

Having read some discussion on this topic today, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps Millennials are becoming more conservative, but they are not attracted to the brand of 'conservatism' practiced by the Republican Party and the Conservative Party right now. After all, it's more like reactionary culture war politics than real conservatism. But outside of electoral politics, the average 36 year old is still clearly more conservative than the average 18 year old. Therefore, the Millennials are behaving normally, and the Republican/Conservative Party are the source of this apparent abnormality.

As I said, those are fake centrists, and I'm not that kind of centrist. I do not support poverty, homelessness, terrible working conditions, bad social security, neoliberalism, and endless wars etc. I hate people identifying as centrist to advance right-wing politics. I guess my differences with 'the left' are more philosophical. I mean, I support the 'left' candidate most, if not all, the time (as in e.g. US Democrats vs Republicans, UK Labour vs Conservative, Australian Labor vs LNP). I support Democrat/Labor type policies generally. But my philosophy is not actually 'left'. That is why I identify as a 'centrist'.

I identify as a centrist (among other things) and I think Biden is a good example of a centrist president. As for those who think DeSantis is centrist, they are probably delusional. DeSantis is to the Right of Trump, in my opinion, so in no world can he be thought of as a centrist. Fake centrists (who are almost always right-wing) give us a bad name. We should call them out.

Deplatforming is bad because it leads to polarization and radicalization. This means more regular conservatives get turned into far right people. Anyway, if Twitter collapses, and we need something else to replace it, I suggest one major objective of the new platform should be to prevent echo chambers from forming. This will lead to less polarization and radicalization.

I think I need to remind everyone that religious fundamentalists and gender critical feminists are a prominent part of the Twitterverse (even before Elon Musk bought it).