Echo Fortune has written a sharp theoretical companion piece to this article for Anti*Capitalist Resistance, asking what kind of socialism is actually capable of winning trans liberation — and giving a clear answer. She cites the opening of this piece and takes the argument further, grounding trans liberation in the Combahee River Collective, Fanon's analysis of colonial identity formation, and the Marxist tradition of struggle from below against imposed "solutions." Her central point — that the reactionary left's assault on trans life effectively hands ground to the right by erecting barriers to solidarity — speaks directly to the organisational dynamics this article analyses. The piece also makes a pointed observation about Your Party as a site where this fight is actively being contested. Recommended reading alongside this: https://anticapitalistresistance.org/transgender-socialism/
very disingenuous argument. If 20 out of 41 people voted that I should be sacked for being a bigot I would probably resign too. People should read about how the left succumbed to the extreme demands of PIE in the 1980s. Exactly the same dynamic now aligning the left with some of the worst men in society.
Some on the far left were defending PIE because some on the far right were picketing their meetings. That is well documented. Even though it happened a decade before the internet became commonplace there is plenty of stuff on line that will verify that. The same dynamic that dismisses anyone concerned about transgender ideology as being motivated by far-right dog whistle politics. Sterilising unhappy or mentally ill children (or those confused about their emerging sexuality) through drugs and experimental surgery is far worse than campaigning to lower the age of consent. I can see how you think it is something progressive but it really isn't.
Who on the far left are you referring to? Do you mean the National Council for Civil Liberties? If the far right is threatening the mosque, is countermobilising the same as succumbing to the extreme demands of radical Islam?
If this is well documented, then please point to the documents because I can't find anything to suggest the far left (IMG, IS, MIlitant, WRP etc) did wehat you suggested.
there are some documents from the Gay Liberation Front that are online. Don't have time to dig all the links I found about his some years ago. There was a liberal atmosphere at the time in which some on the left advocated lowering the age of consent as part of a sexual liberation agenda. It is interesting you bring up the distinction between defending a mosque from physical attack and adopting extreme demands of radical Islam. We should make the same distinction about trans issues. Of course people should not be physically attacked or discriminated against. But advocating life altering drugs and surgery for minors is extreme. If a child is not mature enough to consent to sex, then how can you argue they are mature enough to consent to being sterilised or made impotent (to say nothing of the side effects on cognition, bone development etc)?
Lowering the age of consent, at the time a demand raised by young people and supported by figures such as Clare Rayner - a very well-known and respected “agony aunt" - had nothing to do with PIE. It was a question of young people's rights.
many of the 'treatments' are being reconsidered as it has been shown there is no evidential basis for them. The medical profession once thought lobotomies were a great idea just a few decades ago. Psychiatry is especially prone to fads. Remember all the kids with fictitious recovered memories or taken from their families for supposed Satanic abuse.
We encourage readers to read Materialist Left's statement by Valerie Coultas in full alongside this article. Those who do will find little in her statement that contradicts what we have written here: the vote sequence is confirmed, the "witch hunt" framing is hers directly, and her description of what she said at the hustings is consistent with the "reconcile" framing discussed above.
Maaaate it is the whole basis for your article that I am labelling disingenuous bollox! “This article argues that gender-critical politics in the UK socialist left is not a separate phenomenon from the conservative left. It is its connective tissue, simultaneously exhibiting class reductionism, social democratic capitulation, campist logic, and identity politics backlash. Counterfire’s record, the YPML’s programme, and the CEC election results are the evidence.” It is this take, and the ridiculous amount of words that you use to justify shoehorning men into the sex class that is FEMALE. That & how you frame a socialist feminist’s right to an opinion regarding lawful women’s rights which is a load of disingenuous bollox because when it comes down to the bare bones of your argument.. you are a MAN trying to use your platform to SILENCE women around their rights and their life experiences. You could write a thesis about how men who id as women are part of the class struggle.. no one is denying that .. they are just not women, no matter how many articles you write to say they are! The day you actually list EXACTLY what “trans liberation” entails is the day your arguments lose all credibility because women’s oppression is because of their sex and the patriarchy uses gender to ensure that oppression. Men (no matter how they ID) are a part of the patriarchy therefore they instantly benefit from the power dynamics said patriarchy offers to those born male. I am so over purported left wing men telling left wing women that they need to move over for men who ID as women because they are not a threat & they are the most vulnerable! How would you as a man know what is and isn’t a threat to women. I call misogyny 101!
The article doesn't argue that trans women's oppression is identical to cis women's oppression, or that biology is irrelevant to understanding how capitalism organises reproduction. It argues that dividing oppressed groups against each other in the name of the "real" working class is a conservative political move with a consistent history on the left — and that the coalition defending Coultas demonstrates exactly that pattern. Whether or not you accept the theoretical case for trans liberation, the political analysis stands: the same people, the same arguments, the same organisational logic. That's what the article is about. The accusation that this constitutes silencing women gets the situation precisely backwards: the branch that prompted this piece voted 35-5 to affirm trans liberation. It was Coultas who declined to implement that democratic decision.
No one is arguing that we divide oppressed groups against each other in the name of the “real” working class 🙄What materialist feminists argue is that (as you point out in your response) men, no matter how they ID, are not women so most definitely are not oppressed in the same way as women and that women’s sex specific rights are just that - sex specific. These rights didn’t just appear out of thin air - they were hard fought for by women for women. Women are still very much fighting for equality and whether you like it or not .. statistically speaking, male violence against women & girls in all its ugly forms has exponentially increased over the last decade. Men who ID as women do not get a free pass to enjoy women’s rights/spaces/facilities/services just because they ID as women. No man does. And again I challenge you to be clear about what trans liberation entails then we will see how voting pans out.
The article's argument isn't that trans women's oppression is identical to cis women's, or that sex-specific forms of oppression don't exist. It's about the political function gender-critical positions serve within socialist organisations: providing the theoretical cover for a conservative drift that consistently draws the same coalition of allies. You can disagree with that analysis, but it's a different argument from the one you're making.
On male violence statistics: trans women are disproportionately the victims of male violence, not its perpetrators. The evidence on this is consistent. A materialist politics that begins from who is actually being harmed would start there.
On "what trans liberation entails": the Your Party founding conference voted on it explicitly, with the highest member participation of any vote at conference. The Trans Liberation Group's founding statement grounds it in class struggle and collective rather than individual liberation. The answer is available. The article links to both.
The idea that men identifying as women are disproportionately affected by male violence, not its perpetrators has been debunked many times over the years. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ That you would argue that a materialist politics would start from male on male violence involving a demographic that is 0.1% of the population rather than centring male violence against women and girls, 51% of the population, demonstrates the little regard you place on the disgraceful statistics around rape & femicide And as to the Your Party founding conference voting on “trans liberation” ..again.. why would any socialist vote against such an ill defined, nebulous term which at a glance appears progressive. Drill down and share exactly what “trans liberation” means & have a proper discussion as to the impact on women’s sex-specific rights. That did not happen at conference .. far from it. Had a proper conversation been facilitated at conference, I would argue that all who support hard fought for women’s rights, would not have voted for such misogyny. Many are unaware that trans liberation centres the rights of men identifying as women over the rights of women! Last but not least the idea that socialist women & men advocating for a materialist analysis regarding women & their rights are in some way providing cover for a conservative drift within socialist organisations.. give your head a wobble.. challenging the neoliberal, post modern, sexist, regressive nonsense that is gender identity politics is anything but conservative. It is sound socialist politics which are grounded in class, sex and race.
I've not silenced anyone. I've given you and Phil a platform, and I am amplifying and linking to the mistaken views of Counterfire and Valerie's defenders on Tariq's post. I'm unsure who you think is worried about rainbow infiltration, but I assumed you were referring to Phil.
PS I'm not in the US, so no idea why you think the FBI would be paying me. But the real joke is the idea you need to pay me to write a post like this.
Echo Fortune has written a sharp theoretical companion piece to this article for Anti*Capitalist Resistance, asking what kind of socialism is actually capable of winning trans liberation — and giving a clear answer. She cites the opening of this piece and takes the argument further, grounding trans liberation in the Combahee River Collective, Fanon's analysis of colonial identity formation, and the Marxist tradition of struggle from below against imposed "solutions." Her central point — that the reactionary left's assault on trans life effectively hands ground to the right by erecting barriers to solidarity — speaks directly to the organisational dynamics this article analyses. The piece also makes a pointed observation about Your Party as a site where this fight is actively being contested. Recommended reading alongside this: https://anticapitalistresistance.org/transgender-socialism/
This is a bloody marvellous account of what is happening with tranphobia and the Left, and I thank you for it.
A really useful account that helps me to think about next steps in relation to YP, thanks
very disingenuous argument. If 20 out of 41 people voted that I should be sacked for being a bigot I would probably resign too. People should read about how the left succumbed to the extreme demands of PIE in the 1980s. Exactly the same dynamic now aligning the left with some of the worst men in society.
This is both untrue and a vile comparison. [a] The British left did not succumb to PIE's demands. [b] Trans rights activism seeks legal protections for transgender individuals' gender identity and expression, while PIE advocated for legalising adult-child sexual abuse. These are not comparable. I have added a note about this here: https://substack.com/profile/280750647-duncan-chapel/note/c-227178237?r=4n5gl3&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Some on the far left were defending PIE because some on the far right were picketing their meetings. That is well documented. Even though it happened a decade before the internet became commonplace there is plenty of stuff on line that will verify that. The same dynamic that dismisses anyone concerned about transgender ideology as being motivated by far-right dog whistle politics. Sterilising unhappy or mentally ill children (or those confused about their emerging sexuality) through drugs and experimental surgery is far worse than campaigning to lower the age of consent. I can see how you think it is something progressive but it really isn't.
Who on the far left are you referring to? Do you mean the National Council for Civil Liberties? If the far right is threatening the mosque, is countermobilising the same as succumbing to the extreme demands of radical Islam?
If this is well documented, then please point to the documents because I can't find anything to suggest the far left (IMG, IS, MIlitant, WRP etc) did wehat you suggested.
there are some documents from the Gay Liberation Front that are online. Don't have time to dig all the links I found about his some years ago. There was a liberal atmosphere at the time in which some on the left advocated lowering the age of consent as part of a sexual liberation agenda. It is interesting you bring up the distinction between defending a mosque from physical attack and adopting extreme demands of radical Islam. We should make the same distinction about trans issues. Of course people should not be physically attacked or discriminated against. But advocating life altering drugs and surgery for minors is extreme. If a child is not mature enough to consent to sex, then how can you argue they are mature enough to consent to being sterilised or made impotent (to say nothing of the side effects on cognition, bone development etc)?
Lowering the age of consent, at the time a demand raised by young people and supported by figures such as Clare Rayner - a very well-known and respected “agony aunt" - had nothing to do with PIE. It was a question of young people's rights.
I'm not sure if the GLF is the far left you are referring to, Phil.
It's not extreme for medical professionals to treat children.
I think you are making mistaken claims.
many of the 'treatments' are being reconsidered as it has been shown there is no evidential basis for them. The medical profession once thought lobotomies were a great idea just a few decades ago. Psychiatry is especially prone to fads. Remember all the kids with fictitious recovered memories or taken from their families for supposed Satanic abuse.
What a disingenuous load of bollox! For any who are interested in what actually unfolded in the Lambeth proto branch I suggest you read this statement from the socialist feminist who resigned as Deputy Chair https://substack.com/@materialistleft/note/p-190816486?r=1ceh4r&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
We encourage readers to read Materialist Left's statement by Valerie Coultas in full alongside this article. Those who do will find little in her statement that contradicts what we have written here: the vote sequence is confirmed, the "witch hunt" framing is hers directly, and her description of what she said at the hustings is consistent with the "reconcile" framing discussed above.
Maaaate it is the whole basis for your article that I am labelling disingenuous bollox! “This article argues that gender-critical politics in the UK socialist left is not a separate phenomenon from the conservative left. It is its connective tissue, simultaneously exhibiting class reductionism, social democratic capitulation, campist logic, and identity politics backlash. Counterfire’s record, the YPML’s programme, and the CEC election results are the evidence.” It is this take, and the ridiculous amount of words that you use to justify shoehorning men into the sex class that is FEMALE. That & how you frame a socialist feminist’s right to an opinion regarding lawful women’s rights which is a load of disingenuous bollox because when it comes down to the bare bones of your argument.. you are a MAN trying to use your platform to SILENCE women around their rights and their life experiences. You could write a thesis about how men who id as women are part of the class struggle.. no one is denying that .. they are just not women, no matter how many articles you write to say they are! The day you actually list EXACTLY what “trans liberation” entails is the day your arguments lose all credibility because women’s oppression is because of their sex and the patriarchy uses gender to ensure that oppression. Men (no matter how they ID) are a part of the patriarchy therefore they instantly benefit from the power dynamics said patriarchy offers to those born male. I am so over purported left wing men telling left wing women that they need to move over for men who ID as women because they are not a threat & they are the most vulnerable! How would you as a man know what is and isn’t a threat to women. I call misogyny 101!
The article doesn't argue that trans women's oppression is identical to cis women's oppression, or that biology is irrelevant to understanding how capitalism organises reproduction. It argues that dividing oppressed groups against each other in the name of the "real" working class is a conservative political move with a consistent history on the left — and that the coalition defending Coultas demonstrates exactly that pattern. Whether or not you accept the theoretical case for trans liberation, the political analysis stands: the same people, the same arguments, the same organisational logic. That's what the article is about. The accusation that this constitutes silencing women gets the situation precisely backwards: the branch that prompted this piece voted 35-5 to affirm trans liberation. It was Coultas who declined to implement that democratic decision.
No one is arguing that we divide oppressed groups against each other in the name of the “real” working class 🙄What materialist feminists argue is that (as you point out in your response) men, no matter how they ID, are not women so most definitely are not oppressed in the same way as women and that women’s sex specific rights are just that - sex specific. These rights didn’t just appear out of thin air - they were hard fought for by women for women. Women are still very much fighting for equality and whether you like it or not .. statistically speaking, male violence against women & girls in all its ugly forms has exponentially increased over the last decade. Men who ID as women do not get a free pass to enjoy women’s rights/spaces/facilities/services just because they ID as women. No man does. And again I challenge you to be clear about what trans liberation entails then we will see how voting pans out.
The article's argument isn't that trans women's oppression is identical to cis women's, or that sex-specific forms of oppression don't exist. It's about the political function gender-critical positions serve within socialist organisations: providing the theoretical cover for a conservative drift that consistently draws the same coalition of allies. You can disagree with that analysis, but it's a different argument from the one you're making.
On male violence statistics: trans women are disproportionately the victims of male violence, not its perpetrators. The evidence on this is consistent. A materialist politics that begins from who is actually being harmed would start there.
On "what trans liberation entails": the Your Party founding conference voted on it explicitly, with the highest member participation of any vote at conference. The Trans Liberation Group's founding statement grounds it in class struggle and collective rather than individual liberation. The answer is available. The article links to both.
The idea that men identifying as women are disproportionately affected by male violence, not its perpetrators has been debunked many times over the years. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ That you would argue that a materialist politics would start from male on male violence involving a demographic that is 0.1% of the population rather than centring male violence against women and girls, 51% of the population, demonstrates the little regard you place on the disgraceful statistics around rape & femicide And as to the Your Party founding conference voting on “trans liberation” ..again.. why would any socialist vote against such an ill defined, nebulous term which at a glance appears progressive. Drill down and share exactly what “trans liberation” means & have a proper discussion as to the impact on women’s sex-specific rights. That did not happen at conference .. far from it. Had a proper conversation been facilitated at conference, I would argue that all who support hard fought for women’s rights, would not have voted for such misogyny. Many are unaware that trans liberation centres the rights of men identifying as women over the rights of women! Last but not least the idea that socialist women & men advocating for a materialist analysis regarding women & their rights are in some way providing cover for a conservative drift within socialist organisations.. give your head a wobble.. challenging the neoliberal, post modern, sexist, regressive nonsense that is gender identity politics is anything but conservative. It is sound socialist politics which are grounded in class, sex and race.
We've been over this before, in your previous whining about how the real socialists are finally waking up to the rainbow infiltration.
People like Phil were warning us about excessive feminism in the 1970s, and excessive openness to Jewish migrant workers in the 1890s.
Don’t know/care who’s Phil and neither I care to waste more time with your gloating about how you silenced a veteran comrade. Enjoy your FBI bonus
I've not silenced anyone. I've given you and Phil a platform, and I am amplifying and linking to the mistaken views of Counterfire and Valerie's defenders on Tariq's post. I'm unsure who you think is worried about rainbow infiltration, but I assumed you were referring to Phil.
PS I'm not in the US, so no idea why you think the FBI would be paying me. But the real joke is the idea you need to pay me to write a post like this.
have a look at this website if you are interested in the issues I have raised
https://segm.org/