>>93392 You'd think a trans woman would know better than to run for election under the Republican banner and speak out in support of Trump. It's like a Jew saying "well these neo-Nazis have a promising infrastructure plan".
>>93422 You'd think that you'd understand that when you have a two party system, it's not quite going to cover all the nuances. As is, identity politics are not integral to conservatism. Other issues, such as economic policy, are. In that vein, it's quite easy to understand why someone might prioritise economics over identity.
That said, I did see someone commenting on how her campaign would be anti-woke, and it's like...is that trans acceptance and some weird roundabout way?
She's part of a celebrity dynasty that exists solely to be celebrities. All they do is whatever will keep them famous and then crop money off that, this is just a stunt.
>>93424 >As is, identity politics are not integral to conservatism.
You'd think, but the United States seems intent on proving otherwise.
>>93424 >You'd think that you'd understand that when you have a two party system, it's not quite going to cover all the nuances.
Not sure where the nuance is in a party that is openly hostile to trans people.
>As is, identity politics are not integral to conservatism.
Yes, conservatism has a long history of failing to recognise that certain groups of people are, in fact, people.
>>93424 >As is, identity politics are not integral to conservatism. Other issues, such as economic policy, are.
While that's certainly true for the center of gravity in the Republican party, I'm not sure that's true for their base, or for Conservatism as a whole. The acceptance of Trump's protectionism (though not unprecedented) or, for a local example, our current government's willingness to hike public spending even before Covid hit, both speak to a desire for a Conservatism that's less about cutting taxes and getting the state out of the market's way and more about having the state protect local communities and preserve conservative social values from the onslaught of global markets.
Identity politics would seem more fundamental to conservatism than economic matters when you take the long view. It's really a coincidence of the 1980s onwards that it's become so deeply fused with economic liberalism, leaving the rockefeller republicans and one nation tories homeless in the process.
>>93427 there's a subrudgwicksteamshow.co.uk for grinding axes, you might prefer to go back there.
>>93428 I can see what you're saying, it's poignant that the base has somewhat shifted, but to me that seems like the identity politics stuff is more of a means to an end, ie is the current hot topic and an easy source of exposure and votes, with the end itself still being 'small government', lower taxation, etc etc.
We're not the same person. The point about the Jewish people in the nazi party was to highlight your simplistic view of a trans person running under the republican party and of identity. Could there be more to what you're seeing than sheer idiocy? Is she really a complete nut? Do you know better than her?
There are LGBT people that have right wing views, this should not be a concept that infuriates you to the point of swearing at people on the internet. It is also not illogical of them. Gay people can be against gay marriage, trans people can be against child/teen transitioning. Ethnic minorities also have this fantastic power. They are all able to do this without self-hatred or some 'internalised' bad thing.
To parrot a phrase I learnt recently, social justice warriors have a long history of failing to recognise that certain groups of people are, in fact, people.
As the other poster said, try and have a bloody discussion about things. There was a nice moment a while back when a lad found out that not all ancient Greeks were mad on bumming, but only a fraction of that period were pro-bumming. What a nice moment, I felt I was watching my son make a friend. I say this with sadness, as the reply is likely a scornful "you fool, she's simply in it for the money! She's an idiot, just like those moronic Hartlepool voters!"
>>93425 >the United States seems intent on proving otherwise
Quite. I can't find anything on it online, but on my drive home this evening NPR played a section of a state congressional meeting in (I think) Alabama where a representative was reading Bible scripture on why being trans is inherently wrong.
The ones who are are probably against marriage in general, and the institution it represents. You know, the libertarian silicon valley sorts. Lots of them are gay, and deeply conservative, just not in the traditional bibles and guns kind of way.
More broadly speaking it shouldn't be a surprise that People of Identity can be conservative. Like anything else in life, it's really a matter of pure self interest. If you're a rich bastard, it doesn't matter what colour your skin is or who you like to shag, the chances are good that your interests align more with the low tax, free market side. I mean, just look at Are Sunak and Are Patel.
A great deal of the trouble with American politics is that it relies on obfuscating that fundamental reality. Economic conservatism is essentially a bipartisan consensus, so by gentleman's agreement they draw the battle lines around culture war nonsense.
>>93453 One reason I've heard is that 'marriage' is a term for man/woman, however weddings are fine, so for them it might be a semantic issue so they can be good Christians and good gays.
People can vote against their own interests for the benefit of others, and they can also vote against their own interests based on convictions that may or not make sense to others.
>>93454 Do you remember what it was? I imagine he would have been reaching quite a bit.
>>93455 Hadn't even considered that aspect of being anti-gay marriage.
>>93433 You can also see a current example with the hispanic leader of the Proud Boys, or the proportion of black people in prominent positions at Republican events vs the number of black members. Some people want to feel special, or they have self loathing, or their convictions go against their own interests, or they think they can change the system from the inside, or they are using it as a vehicle to pursue a goal that matters more to them than their identity, etc, etc.
>>93468 >One reason I've heard is that 'marriage' is a term for man/woman
Whoever told you that was either lying or ignorant, "marriage" just means a conjunction of things. It's not even specific to wedlock.
>>93469 It's on the church just down from mine, "Marriages and Gay Weddings" are on offer. I may have conflated that with someone telling me it. Is there significance to the distinction, or have I just been a spacker?
>>93469 >>93472 I will freely confess that I never understood why they didn't just make civil partnerships the same as marriage. I asked at the time why gay marriage was such a big deal, and apparently civil partnerships are kind of a shitty deal (you don't get the military pension if a spouse dies in a war, you don't get certain tax breaks which only apply to married people, etc), but surely if you change those rules so civil partnerships and marriage are the same, then nobody who cares about the word would be offended, and the shirtlifters and lezzers would only be angry about the word and nothing else, which could surely be ignored because they've got their lifelong legal declaration of love and relationship legitimacy. It seemed like the obvious solution to me.
>>93455 >The ones who are are probably against marriage in general, and the institution it represents. You know, the libertarian silicon valley sorts.
This argument would work better were it not something you literally just made up. Nobody argues seriously for abolishing marriages apart from rudglords. Certainly nobody that seriously calls themselves a libertarian is ever going to tell you that two (or more) people shouldn't be able to voluntarily enter a union.
>>93445 > against child/teen transitioning
Is anyone actually advocating this? There's therapy and puberty blockers (in vanishingly small numbers) but that's not the same thing. The idea that children are "transitioning" is a boogeyman.
>>93476 I worry about puberty blockers a bit. It's not great being behind your peers in that stuff, regardless of their being temporary. Am I worrying about nothing?
A lot of the early gay rights campaigners did precisely that. The Gay Liberation Front weren't campaigning for acceptance, they saw themselves as part of a broader left-wing struggle against what they saw as the oppressive nature of heteronormativity; they drew support from Marxists, radical fisherpersons and anarchists. Gay marriage was antithetical to the people who first started agitating for gay rights - rather than achieving liberation, they would see it as an acceptance of the oppressive structures they sought to overthrow. Many of the people who organised the first Pride march are horrified by the way in which gay people have acceded to straight values.
From the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto (1971):
The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family, consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models.
The ultimate success of all forms of oppression is our self-oppression. Self-oppression is achieved when the gay person has adopted and internalised straight people's definition of what is good and bad."
[i]It is because of the patriarchal family that reforms are not enough. Freedom for gay people will never be permanently won until everyone is freed from sexist role-playing and the straight-jacket of sexist rules about our sexuality. And we will not be freed from these so long as each succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the patriarchal family.
Conservative sociologists have pointed out that the small family unit of two parents and their children is essential in our contemporary advanced industrial society where work is minutely subdivided and highly regulated - in other words, for the majority very boring. A man would not work at the assembly line if he had no wife and family to support; he would not give himself fully to his work without the supportive and reassuring little group ready to follow him about and gear itself to his needs, to put up with his ill temper when he is frustrated or put down by the boss at work.
The long-term goal of the London Gay Liberation Front, which inevitably brings us into fundamental conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by the abolition of the family as the unit in which children are brought up. We intend to work for the replacement of the family unit, with its rigid gender-role pattern, by new organic units such as the commune, where the development of children becomes the shared responsibility of a larger group of people who live together. Children must be liberated from the present condition of having their role in life defined by biological accident; the commune will ultimately provide a variety of gender-free models.
Puberty-blockers are reversible; puberty isn't. They give gender-questioning and trans-identifying children the time to make informed decisions about their future. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that being a late bloomer is much less traumatic than unwillingly going through puberty as the wrong gender.
