It's not the far left though. Genderism is peak liberalism.

I’ve said it million times, at no damn far left in America. We got right and center right and people who think they’re leftists because they put a hammer and sickle in their twitter bio.


The Overton window is so far to the right in the US, they have no clue what “far left” even is.

Thank you. It gets tiring everyday to see people refer to an idealist, consumerist ideology as “leftist.” Most users here even do it.

But the politically organized left is pushing transgenderism. Probably 85% of self-identified leftists are pro-trans. The actual existing left and right are both bourgeois and patriarchal.

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas. – Karl Marx

To right wing men, we are private property. To left wing men, we are public property. In either case, we are not considered to be humans: we are things. – Andrea Dworkin

If you consider leftists “those who refer to themselves as leftists,” then I guess you’re right. But we should evaluate people not based on how they self-identify, but on what views they espouse.

Leftism/socialism/communism/anti-capitalism more broadly has nothing to do with transgender issues one way or another. It’s primarily focused on economic relations and these “leftists” never talk about economics beyond, “I want free health care.” For that, they shouldn’t be considered leftists. The way in which leftism can be related to transgender issues is by the fact leftists understand the world has to be analyzed materially, and transgenderism is anything but materialist.

On the other hand, neoliberalism is an ideology based on consumerism, consumption, and constructions. Post-modernism (which is closest to what these people believe in) specifically is an ideology based on deconstruction of long-held narratives and a lack of objective truth. The TRAs fall into one of those two camps, never minding the hammers and sickles in their Twitter bios. Anecdotally, I’ve even seen a few express fears that a communist society wouldn’t permit sex-reassignment surgeries because they would be seen as unnecessary and a waste of communal resources.

Andrea Dworkin was not wrong in her assessment of some left-wing men’s misogyny. However, she didn’t attribute misogyny, as such, to the left. The two just aren’t related. Marx and Engels, on the other hand, wrote about women’s sex-based oppression, tracing it back from the exploitation of reproduction to the transformation of society from mother-right to father-right.

I agree with this. This IS coming from the Left, even if some of us think, well, they're not REALLY proper leftists. I think denying this fact is not taking the responsibility those of us on the left (of whatever stripe) need to take for this shit. We need to own up to the fact that it's our (perhaps now former) side pushing this -- through every captured institution of the state. That really is depressing and confusing. It's hard to know what to do with it. (I spend a lot of time pondering, uh, 'where did we go wrong'?)

I mean, sure I might be a real proper lefty because I consider myself a socialist -- a commie even, economically -- but so what? It's still our broad leftist tent behind it. Liberal feminism came out of the left, and has a huge hand in this.

Yes it is obnoxious. I expect it from other places but I really hate people on Ovarit calling this trend 'leftist'. It is absolutely not. It's basically a religion built on capitalism.

Or when they call it "progressive"... UGH. Telling little girls they have to get their bodys chopped up for playing with the "wrong" toys ain't progress.

Maybe we should call them the delusional left. Regardless if these people are actually on the left, they believe themselves to be, which means any framing of trans criticism as right wing will just make them dig their heels in.

A lot of people are going along with it only because of the current climate polarization and the insistence that this is what people on the left are supposed to support. That's why it's really important that we stress that this is not a leftist ideology. It's a far right ideology.

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 0 points

It's not the far left though. Genderism is peak liberalism.

Um how about no? Bringing 100-year-old revanchist sex roles and actual urinary leashes roaring back from the undead and reifying male privilege at every fucking turn in the road is NOT, in fact, "peak liberalism". Or any-other-adjective liberalism.

If your actual intended meaning here is "late-stage liberalism"—like ((future historian voice)) and the year is 2022, just as 'Decline' starts slipping into 'Fall'—then, maybe. Maaaaaaayyyyybe.

Liberalism is neither inherently sexist nor feminist - the same is true for leftism.

But what's liberal about genderism is: the idea that everyone has the most freedom possible - including the freedom to be sexist and "decide their gender" for themself.

Including the freedom to go into the changing room they want to, to watch porn, to get genital surgeries as minors because kids should have all the freedoms as well. That's very simplified, but that's basically what is liberal about this ideology.

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 0 points Edited

That's not liberalism at all, though.

That's libertarianism. And "libertarianism". in turn, is an illusory luxury belief belonging to whoever holds the most power. The reality of "libertarianism" is that it maximizes liberty for one group—whoever is the hegemon—and abridges the liberty of everybody else in ways that are zero sum.

Poetically, libertarianism doesn't and can't work because my right to swing a fist will clash with your right to have your face there, and then what?
In a "pure libertarian" system, the answer to every single question of that sort is "might makes right"'. From that point, devolution into outright authoritarianism is a pretty short throw.

But yeah wait, what?

The irony of calling that liberalism is pretty deep, actually. Maybe you've got #MahsaAmini and Iran on the brain? Because THAT kind of freedom—and only that kind, from oppression purely for oppression's sake—is a touchstone of liberalism. (Sodomy laws and other Big Brothers inside your bedroom are the same type of tyranny purely for tyranny's sake, which is why it's been liberals who have historically backed LGB.)

But guuuuuuuuuuuurl

In North and South America at least, apart from that one specific type of increase in freedom (breaking the hold of coercive control), the whole entire rest of liberalism is about, carefully and tactically, LIMITING various "freedoms" in the name of safeguarding (from physical dangers, exploitation of labor, etc) and ensuring that everyone can at least live at minimum standard that frees them from grinding poverty or insecurities at the level of basic needs.

••• Conservatives focus on freedom TO DO things •••
where the major problem is that this tends to entrench inequality (the most powerful have by far the most freedom to do stuff, so you see the problem with focusing on increasing that even further)

••• Liberals focus on freedom FROM having things done to you •••
and this lends itself naturally to a politics that focuses on protecting the most vulnerable among us.

That's what liberalism is, and what it's been, for AT LEAST 150 years. Since early robber baron days, around when Carnegie founded US Steel in the 1870s.

Consider the labor movement. The entire labor movement has consisted of REDUCING the freedoms of employers to exploit workers, and COMPELLING employers to provide at least X wage, and for full-time workers at least Y benefits.
The labor movement has literally never negotiated an increase in anybody's freedom, because exploitative robber barons already had WAY too much freedom to swing their fist, and workers couldn't put their faces safely anywhere.

Consider child safeguarding. What is child safeguarding?
Chald safeguarding has NEVER EVER increased anybody's freedoms. (The closest it's gotten has been increasing children's safety and security in taking advantage of theoretically existing freedoms.)
The whole-ass complete entirety of child safeguarding consists of REMOVING or LIMITING 999,999 smallish increments of 'freedom' from 77,777 different kinds of child-adjacent adults.
Trading off some excess freedom, in exchange for safety for the vulnerable. Is liberalism.

Liberals realize that capitalists will exploit positions of power, so liberals legislate regulation; labor laws; supply-chain inspections (to root out human trafficking and other abuses); OSHA standards and periodic safety inspections; proper training on mechanical equipment; work schedules that respect the human body at a minimum amount; product QC and recalls; etc etc etc. Again, every single one of these things is an abridgment of capitalists' freedom, and consumers don't gain any freedoms in exchange. What consumers gain is safety; standards of living; minimum human decency on the job; and so on.

When someone is damn fool enough to think "libertarianism" is a good idea, or even that it can actually exist for more than one hegemonic group at the expense of all the others... you get shit like the 1900s-1910s work schedule at Carnegie's US Steel.
That schedule was:
7 days (Sun-Sat) midnight-noon
7 days (Sat-Sun) noon-midnight
Lather rinse repeat
Exactly 2 days off per year (1/1 and 7/4)

That's an 84-hour work week, 363 or 364 days on and 2 days off per year. Also note how the scthedule flips upside down every week—pretty much exactly how long it takes to adapt to jetlag, so, fucking with the schedule as soon as workers' bodies got used to it, over and over and over in perpetuity forever and ever.
Don't miss the 24-hour-long shift that happens every two weeks when the schedule turns over from noon-midnight to midnight-noon, etiher. Fun stuff! Oh, and, if you got gobbled up into the guts of an industrial machine at 5AM, starting the 18th hour of your 24 hour shift, and became crippled, no insurance—you were just fucked and so was your whole family, who would be on the streets soon enough.

That's what life looks like if you think you can give "everybody" as much "freedom" as possible. There's no everybody. There's swinging fists and there's faces, and THE WHOLE POINT of western liberalism—above and beyond freeing people from pure oppression, false imprisonment, slavery, sexual compulsion, and so on—is to summarily remove enough freedom from the fist-swingers to make the situation approach fairness.

idk if matt walsh will ever admit to that because he hates "man hating feminists" as much as he hates men and women fulfilling the wrong gender role


Matt Walsh is no ally to women. He’s just another run of the mill lame male misogynist who aggrandizes himself at every opportunity

It's so frustrating. This is a huge open goal for conservative right wingers and those who claim to speak for the left are basically napping at home while woman haters like Matt Walsh score point after point on obvious shit like "Women don't have penises".

I wish we had a left wing in the USA. I wish we had "man hating feminists", or really "feminists" of any variety. Libfems should be called FINOs (feminist in name only) at this point, their goals and actions seem almost laser point precision levels of eradicating women's rights.

You're giving Walsh too much credit. He's just a grifter riding on Ben Shapiro's coat tails. But he's not as smart as Shapiro. So he compensates by stealing the work of GC feminists and passing it off as his own

I'm not giving him any credit since I think it's good when men and women fulfill opposite gender roles as well. hahaha

Heartens me to see people here understanding that this idiotic movement is not left-wing at all.

Leftism is political materialism. "Far left" would be so materialist the whole group's made up of atheists and anti-superstition thinkers. It certainly wouldn't be gender lunacy.

Hell must have frozen over--I actually agree with misogynistic Andrew Sullivan.

I've never heard of this guy but he must be quite the misogynist

He's the type of gay man who deep down thinks women are inferior.

Reminds me of Stephen Fry - who is generally quite lovely and quite interesting 😜 and his quip that upon his birth, while in the “birth canal”, he said to himself “this is the last time I go down one of these”. Or something along these lines.

It’s funny, but it felt somewhat misogynistic.

I used to completely disagree with Andrew Sullivan (even following a blog called Smarter Andrew Sullivan in the early noughts). He changed his mind on Iraq and a number of issues these days.

I actually enjoy his takes these days.

Thank you!!

Any chance Matt Walsh will listen to a man? I mean a fellow jar opener?

Any chance Matt Walsh will listen to a man? I mean a fellow jar opener?

The guy deflated his precious ego. So no

he was generally correct with this but I will always side eye him because he's one of those "well I DO support abortion rights in some cases, but you women need to be willing to COMPROMISE on your right to body autonomy" guys.

He’s saying not to make it a left vs right issue while criticizing a supposed “far left”?

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 2 points Edited

Okay can we, like, knock it off with the whole "let's try to place our hugely diverse nation of 334,000,000 people under 57 distinct sets of state and territorial laws in exactly one place on the left to right spectrum" thingo?
Unserious nonsense.

...where "unserious nonsense" isn't even a slur actually.
The thing with unserious nonsense is that it can say or mean whatever the hell you want it to. You can alws find some angle that lets you reach absolutely any conclusion your little heart may want from it.
This is the reason why unserious nonsense is such a great catalyst for making new friends. Whether it's a Ouija board, a horoscope, or a conversation about "I think the entire US economy and society as an aggregated whole all belongs right [[squinting]] HERE!", if you and a new friend want to agree, you can agree. If you and an old friend feel like picking a stupid mean-girls fight, you can disagree. Because anybody can justify any interpretation at all, pretty much.

If you actually want the discussion to objectively mean something, then you have to place countries or their Overton windows one issue at a time, separately from other issues.
and with some issues you're still in la la la la la la things-don't-mean-stuff land unless you also split up the country in the right ways.
e.g., for gun control or purchase restrictions, you gotta separate out all the urban aggregations (cities and burbs)—which, collectively, meaningfully belong somewhere decently far over to the left—and then rural America is way the fuck over towards the right hand pole.

because the thing is, if you take any reasonably diverse and sizable country, you WILL be able to find various issues where that country lies anywhere from the left pole to the right one.
That's why this exercise for an entire body politic and all its issues is horoscope-style unserious but fun nonsense. The answer is whatever you want it to be.

For example, on the issue of maternity/parental leave, the U.S. sits ••ON•• the right hand pole. We are literally THE most rightwing country on all of planet earth on this issue, because the extent of legislated family leave in the United States is nada, wala, SFA, figa z makiem. None at all.
(Technically, tied with two other countries for first worst: Papua New Guinea and Suriname, the other two earth places where the extent of maternity leave is hahah who are you fucking kidding?. If that makes you feel any better. It shouldn't.)

But in terms of free speech protections, we're way way left.
There's no criminal hate speech in the US at all, which is quite a departure from other purportedly liberal near-utopias. (all of the countries with "leftist" reputations jail people for several different types of inflammatory speech—if this isn't chilling AS FUCK on the same timeline where the transgenderist censorship & doublespeak brigade is also considered "leftist" then you're just not paying attention).
Also, you really have to try in order to get nailed for defamation (libel, slander) in the US, where defamation is, thank fucking god, quite narrowly constructed.
The difference from the UK, where both libel and slander have such a scandalously broad scope that a good lawyer could string up most totally random people on a couple counts, is palpable.
This is one reason why there isn't much shade-throwing at the British upper class btw. The royalist clown car luvs to pat its own back about stiff upper lips, keeping calm and carrying on, etc etc.... but honestly people just kinda know that free speech is something that rich people have a lot more of. That's not how the US works at all.

In terms of access to rx drugs, the US sits on the left hand pole—the range of potentially available meds here is the broadest in the whole world by a long long long shot.
Go to a handful of doctors here, say the right pretty words and you can get basically any prescription you want—including some that are absolutely not available in any other place on earth (e.g., Desoxyn® which is very very literally pharmaceutical-grade meth). And furthermore, the US medical system doesn't even have unified record keeping, meaning you get infinity number of tries to get that Rx you reallyreallyREALLY want. The doc who writes you the rx won't even see the previous 78 docs who told you no!
Some of these drugs will cost you a small fortune—or even a big fortune (cancer drugs)—if you have the wrong insurance or no insurance, but financial access is another totally different issue with a totally different left to right spectrum, which tends to be the inverse of this one (more available choices goes with less cheap universal access) for pretty basic reasons.

But you get me. Using ↑↑those issues↑↑ we've just proved that the US is earth's most leftistest country and also it's most fascistest uh, farthest right country (Had to cross out "fascism" because, ironically, actual Fascists LOVE family leave and neonatal care and shit, considering how Fascism is obsessed with breeding lots and lots of little bundles of patriotism).

Same thing with Brazil... one of the world's worst places for Women's reproductive liberty (far far right), but!
some Brazilian states are 1st place in the all planet earth standings for family leave. (a few states give as much as 90 days per male parent per child or 180 days per Female parent per child of paid time—where yes that's "per child". Pop out some twins in the right parts of Brazil, and dad gets half a year and mom gets a full year of paid leave. Lesbian moms would both get the whole-ass year.)
Also, all of Brazil is 1st place in the planet earth standings for Deaf accommodations and inclusion. It's so different from "disability culture" that it feels exotic and weird. Sign language interpreters are everywhere, and if one isn't available then some random Girl two tables over—who probably isn't even Deaf and definitely isn't a "disability advocate"—can probably pinch hit. Deaf ppl are so well mainstreamed in Brazil that random people on the street are fluent in libras (Brazilian sign language) because they took libras as their foreign language in high school.
It's almost like actual... oh what's the word for it... inclusivity😳 or something

Looking at how the comment section has exploded on this whole “left vs right” issue, I just wanted to add one late disclaimer:

I did now share this because I agree with Sullivan’s definitions of “(far) left”.

What I wanted to highlight was actually just his first sentence: that feminists were the first ones to oppose gender ideology.

Not conservatives / right wingers as both people like Matt Walsh and your average TRA would like people to believe.

Is it about anything else? I guess women weren't important enough to even mention.

Huh? He literally mentions in his very first sentence that feminists were the first ones to oppose gender ideology.

[–] nopenottoday 8 points Edited

" this is about sanity and protecting children" couldn't be bothered to throw in a little line about how women are affected? But yeah men not getting sex is a crisis...

Yeah, he doesn't care about women on this issue. He thinks TIMs in women's sports is "complicated" and supports forcing people to play along with TIPs' fictional identities.

He knows feminists were onto it first, but can't seem to figure out why.