6 ms·

The hard left is not a place, it's a movement that exists to move further to the left, to the point of insanity. The hard left is offended with the definition

by fwungy 4y ago

The hard left is not a place, it's a movement that exists to move further to the left, to the point of insanity. The hard left is offended with the definition of a woman as someone born with female reproductive organs. As a feminist liberal man I do find it amazing that we fought for women's rights for over 100 years only to make the term "woman" meaningless. I still enjoy some NPR shows, but they've gone way past what I'm comfortable with ideologically.

malermeister 4y ago
The left has nothing to do with the definition of women. That's identity politics and those are a liberal thing. Liberalism is a right wing movement. The left is concerned with public ownership of the means of production.
arghnoname 4y ago
The problem is these terms are basically undefined and current 'left' and 'right' trends don't match historic left and right trends. Actual communists (e.g., Stalinist USSR) have had periods that were socially traditional in many ways, up to and including prosecuting homosexuality. The truth is what we call 'the left' and 'the right' is some kind of attempt to cluster a bunch of orthogonal belief systems that in our contemporary time tend to cluster. You then also have things like post-modernist ideas that in some sense reject the idea of an objective reality and are idealist, whereas orthodox Marxism is solidly materialist and modern. People don't know what the hell any of these terms mean. Even Marx himself, in comparison to some self-proclaimed Marxists, said something like, "if they are marxists then surely I am not a marxist." Most orthodox Marxists I know do not consider themselves liberals by the way and many wouldn't call themselves feminists because they may disagree with a bunch of baggage there, while being stridently in favor of equality between the sexes. A common struggle among "the left" (e.g., the "new left" in the 60s) is whether or not it is an intra-liberal struggle and whether or not class is the primary or even only determinate and other 'identities' should be subsumed. It's complicated. Personally I try to not take on a label that defines for me a set of beliefs that are orthogonal. Someone can disbelieve in the trans movement you identified entirely and also want a workers revolution. It's not actually uncommon.
pessimizer 4y ago
> The hard left is offended with the definition of a woman as someone born with female reproductive organs. "The hard left" is something British people call other British people in order to dismiss them. Americans who are calling out the hard left need to stop reading the Spectator.
themitigating 4y ago
You fought for rights and are now upset because the word "woman" is more inclusive? How does that negatively affect you? You mock people for being offended then get offended.
gcanyon 4y ago
If I were standing in Times Square with you and I asked you to point out the women as they walked down the street, would you reply "I can't, I can't see their vaginas"? There's more to being a "woman" than having female reproductive organs. That doesn't render the term "woman" meaningless. It just means there are a large number of characteristics that define "woman" and each woman exhibits a varying set of them. And unless you're planning to mate with them, their vagina is none of your business.
- worthless-trash 4y ago
  > There's more to being a "woman" than having female reproductive organs. What is it then ? Edit: I'm sorry, i realise that this is a troll-leading question, that ensures no good answer, because we can't give a good answer that doesn't offend someone. It shows that we're as a group intentionally ignoring basic reality, which is a shame but it is what it is.
  - gcanyon 4y ago
    It seems fairly obvious. I'm not an expert, but: If a person has longer hair, no facial hair, is wearing a dress, has a higher voice, wider hips, and the appearance of breasts, I'd assume they are a woman. BUT: if a person with all of those traits says they're a man, I'm going to nod, file it away for future reference, and -- most importantly -- move on with my day. And likewise, if a person with none of those traits tells me they are a woman, again, I will nod, remember it, and move on. It's not hard.
    - worthless-trash 4y ago
      I didn't ask what makes you believe/accept someone is a woman, anyone can accept anothers perspetive.
      - gcanyon 4y ago
        If that's not what you're asking for, then it seems you're asking for a flowchart that determine's someone's gender. Gender being a social construct (as opposed to sex) there is no decisive flowchart other than: ask them; accept the answer. If you want something generally accurate, I stand behind what I said above.

by fwungy 4y ago

malermeister 4y ago

The left has nothing to do with the definition of women. That's identity politics and those are a liberal thing. Liberalism is a right wing movement. The left is concerned with public ownership of the means of production.

arghnoname 4y ago

The problem is these terms are basically undefined and current 'left' and 'right' trends don't match historic left and right trends. Actual communists (e.g., Stalinist USSR) have had periods that were socially traditional in many ways, up to and including prosecuting homosexuality. The truth is what we call 'the left' and 'the right' is some kind of attempt to cluster a bunch of orthogonal belief systems that in our contemporary time tend to cluster. You then also have things like post-modernist ideas that in some sense reject the idea of an objective reality and are idealist, whereas orthodox Marxism is solidly materialist and modern. People don't know what the hell any of these terms mean. Even Marx himself, in comparison to some self-proclaimed Marxists, said something like, "if they are marxists then surely I am not a marxist." Most orthodox Marxists I know do not consider themselves liberals by the way and many wouldn't call themselves feminists because they may disagree with a bunch of baggage there, while being stridently in favor of equality between the sexes. A common struggle among "the left" (e.g., the "new left" in the 60s) is whether or not it is an intra-liberal struggle and whether or not class is the primary or even only determinate and other 'identities' should be subsumed. It's complicated. Personally I try to not take on a label that defines for me a set of beliefs that are orthogonal. Someone can disbelieve in the trans movement you identified entirely and also want a workers revolution. It's not actually uncommon.

pessimizer 4y ago

> The hard left is offended with the definition of a woman as someone born with female reproductive organs. "The hard left" is something British people call other British people in order to dismiss them. Americans who are calling out the hard left need to stop reading the Spectator.

themitigating 4y ago

You fought for rights and are now upset because the word "woman" is more inclusive? How does that negatively affect you? You mock people for being offended then get offended.

gcanyon 4y ago

If I were standing in Times Square with you and I asked you to point out the women as they walked down the street, would you reply "I can't, I can't see their vaginas"? There's more to being a "woman" than having female reproductive organs. That doesn't render the term "woman" meaningless. It just means there are a large number of characteristics that define "woman" and each woman exhibits a varying set of them. And unless you're planning to mate with them, their vagina is none of your business.

worthless-trash 4y ago
> There's more to being a "woman" than having female reproductive organs. What is it then ? Edit: I'm sorry, i realise that this is a troll-leading question, that ensures no good answer, because we can't give a good answer that doesn't offend someone. It shows that we're as a group intentionally ignoring basic reality, which is a shame but it is what it is.
- gcanyon 4y ago
  It seems fairly obvious. I'm not an expert, but: If a person has longer hair, no facial hair, is wearing a dress, has a higher voice, wider hips, and the appearance of breasts, I'd assume they are a woman. BUT: if a person with all of those traits says they're a man, I'm going to nod, file it away for future reference, and -- most importantly -- move on with my day. And likewise, if a person with none of those traits tells me they are a woman, again, I will nod, remember it, and move on. It's not hard.
  - worthless-trash 4y ago
    I didn't ask what makes you believe/accept someone is a woman, anyone can accept anothers perspetive.
    - gcanyon 4y ago
      If that's not what you're asking for, then it seems you're asking for a flowchart that determine's someone's gender. Gender being a social construct (as opposed to sex) there is no decisive flowchart other than: ask them; accept the answer. If you want something generally accurate, I stand behind what I said above.