from ugly-terf from the freedom collective comment thread

I highly recommend people read-around this issue for themselves before being emotionally blackmailed and bullied into embracing a movement, the central premises of which are homophobic and sexist, damaging to children and demand an end to sex based rights, protections and spaces for women. For anarchists and radicals, i particularly recommend the video linked below 'The End of Gender - Revolution Not Reform' By Deep Green Resistance. Peace <3

Websites and Blogs


-‘The End of Gender- Revolution Not Reform’ – Deep Green Resistance –

-‘On Contact- Female Erasure with Mya Dillard Smith and Mary Lou Singleton- RT News –

–‘Women- Decide for Yourselves’ –

Youtube Channels

Magdalen Berns –

Julia Long –

Rya Jones –

Sly V –

Peach Yoghurt –

Carey Callahan –

Charlie Rae-

Cari Stella –

Crash Chaos Cats –

Casey Jean C-


Female Erasure: What You Need To Know About Gender Politics War on Woman, the Female Sex and Human Rights Anthology edited by Ruth Barrett –

Delusions of Gender Cordelia Fine

Gender Hurts Shelia Jeffries

Download FREE PDFs of all yr favourites at the online Radfem Library! –


Womans Place UK –


‘Sex Matters’ Kiri Tucks –

‘The differences between Mainstream and Radical Feminism’ Charles Rae –

‘Disappearing Lesbians and the need to preserve Dyke Culture” Bonnie J Morris –

Synanon, The Brainwashing ‘Game’ And Modern Transgender Activism Jen Smith

‘The Transgender bathroom debate is Rape Culture in Action’ Alicen Grey

Isn't the action taken based on these different theoretical positions the real issue? One of "enforcement"?

I accept the theoretical problems laid out in that infamous quote by Lierre Keith but I also accept that most transpeople are extremely marginalized and/or targeted, etc. Class, power and context should all be taken in to account before you focus in on what actually happened.

Is a transperson insisting they should be given access to a rape shelter filled with women who don't want that?
Is somebody grabbing your pamphlets or books and attempting to destroy them?
Is somebody physically assaulting you because they don't like something you published or distributed?
Is somebody dismissing your perspective because they refuse to accept the basis of the identity that resulted in you being attacked/marginalized/whatever?

These are almost completely unrelated incidents once you isolate them from abstract debate and appropriate reactions and responses vary widely...

Is a transperson insisting they should be given access to a rape shelter filled with women who don't want that?

there are very few shelters for sexual assault survivors or homelessness for trans women. In many parts of the US there are none within a day's drive. Its clear that one group has a relative abundance of resources.

What if trans women don't want cis people in a shelter? Should they be kept out?

I'm from a city where there was a lot of media about this years ago and I'm not trying to get drawn in to an old debate here.

The point is, it's a very specific scenario.

I think most of the violence directed at people is because of patriarchy, taken to its current extremes with the use of technology and militarism. I don't believe that the hierarchy of gender is man against woman, but "man" against "non-man."

I believe this explains why transwomen are attacked with such violence. They "have rebelled," they are "traitors" of the man-class. And bless every single one of them for it!

Genderloos examines hierarchies within hunter-gatherer societies in order to break away from the materialistic interpretation of civilization-origin. P.G. finds two types of hierarchies present in non-agricultural society: 1) patriarchy and 2) gerontocracy.

I also recommend the following work. A man friend of mine was very moved by it; perhaps it will...resonate with others.

"“Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. When my older brother and I were born with a year separating us in age, patriarchy determined how we would each be regarded by our parents. Both our parents believed in patriarchy; they had been taught patriarchal thinking through religion.
At church they had learned that God created man to rule the world and everything in it and that it was the work of women to help men perform these tasks, to obey, and to always assume a subordinate role in relation to a powerful man. They were taught that God was male. These teachings were reinforced in every institution they encountered– schools, courthouses, clubs, sports arenas, as well as churches. Embracing patriarchal thinking, like everyone else around them, they taught it to their children because it seemed like a “natural” way to organize life.”

The ideological side of patriarchy is an outdated paradigm, and I'm sure you know it. Of course it's still alive in areas like the Deep South, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc, and also among some parts of the capitalist moneymakers, but it's been suffering major drawbacks.

What I think we should be more worried about is that type of gender subversion which -like in some useful links posted above- attempts to make the feminine disappear, by becoming the feminine. Destroying the female principle and the female sex especially is sheer ideological rape that's at least as bad as the rape culture itself. No fuckers with a dick between their legs is entitled to call "herself" a women on a same ground than a female. It is a trans person, but definitely NOT a woman.

I broadly sympathise more with the trans position than the terf position, because I believe gender is a social construct and trans people are oppressed. But, I dislike both sides because of the way they subordinate everything to identity (i.e. a spook) and wage the social equivalent of total war against anyone who they deem threatens this identity.

In my view, this isn't really a fight about gender at all.

It's a fight between two groups who are both oppressed, about whose oppression is more important. It's therefore a fight about validation, social power, and patronage.

And it's a fight by both groups, to import into anarchist spaces the dominant logic of Third Way, post-Washington Consensus politics.

Anyone who's studied politics outside the global North, in any detail, will recognise the pattern in this kind of identity politics. Its the same pattern that manifests - for instance - in conflicts between sedentary cultivators and nomadic herders in northern Nigeria, or Ijaw vs Itsekiri in the Niger Delta, or between different sects (Sunni, Druze, Maronite Christian, Shiite...) in Lebanon, or between different castes or social groups in India (Meitei vs Naga vs Kuki in Manipur for example). We're looking at situations where everyone involved is oppressed, but where their frustrations are channelled into struggles to outbid or dominate or even exterminate one another, on the basis that one group is *more* oppressed, or their oppression "counts" more.

I daresay most anarchists in the global North don't know about these kinds of conflicts. But you'll probably have heard of the more extreme episodes: the Rwandan genocide, the Somalian civil war, the Syrian civil war, the Rohingya pogroms, the Darfur conflict, the Iraq insurgency. There's near-consensus in the academic literature on the causes of these kinds of problems, but they continue to be elided in the western media.

What's easy to miss, is that this is the normal form of politics in most of the world.

What's also easy to miss, is that it is not a case of "primal archaic tribalism" but a product of a particular, *contemporary* political and economic structure.

The structure where these conflicts arise is often characterised by:
1) a decline of left-right and anti-systemic politics (including leftism/Marxism, anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, and anti-statism);
2) transnational capital which is barely integrated in the local context, and which extracts most of the wealth without accountability and without much local benefit to anyone;
3) a state which can't or won't satisfy all social groups, and which depends mainly on transnational capital for its income and survival;
4) as a result of the above, a lack of choice at a political level over economic models (capitalism vs socialism, neoliberalism vs Fordism, old vs new economy), and the displacement of political conflicts onto secondary, "identity", "cultural" and "moral" issues;
5) a patronage machine in which elites (within and outside the state) consolidate power by selectively distributing resources to individuals and/or groups which support them;
6) and a resultant uneven but shifting distribution of scarce resources among identity-groups, where (due to scarcity, concentrated power, and the patronage system) the state validation of particular identities is experienced as a zero-sum, life-or-death issue.

This structure and its conditions (uncontrollable transnational capital, authoritarian state, identitarian displacement of social problems) is the main problem. The identity question, whether Hutus have it worse than Tutsis or Pashtun got to Afghanistan before Hazara, whether Kashmir is a colonised nation or whether Asians in Fiji are colonisers, is in many ways a secondary issue - an issue which leaves the structure intact, which is primarily a way of leveraging claims *within* the patronage structure - though at the same time, it may well be a life-or-death issue for the people involved. Generally one side is "more right" than the other (Hutus are poorer than Tutsis, Kashmir was forcibly absorbed in India...) but both sides have legitimate grievances. But the root problems are neoliberalism and the state.

Where there are pre-existing ethnic or religious identities, these are usually the hooks on which identity/patronage politics latches. Where there aren't, the same phenomenon happens through political factions or gangs (Mexico, Jamaica, Colombia, Brazil...)

We are currently witnessing an importation of this model into America, Europe, and the other "developed" countries, as the conditions prevalent in the global South since the 1980s are similarly replicated. In fact, right-wing politics in America and Europe has had these features since at least the 1980s.

First we are seeing anger and frustration which are effects of *neoliberalism* and *precarity* (which affect everyone to some degree), being taken out horizontally, downward, or against proximate "oppressors" - rather than against the biggest oppressors or the system. All the rage and frustration and desperation and trauma, being taken out on another anarchist or a leftist or a random internet target, or one's partner or neighbour. Idpol is the form of this we see most often in radical spaces. But ultimately, anti-crime bigotry and criminalisation of nuisance, alt-right neo-fascism and misogyny, ethnic conflict, gang violence, even random spree-killings, all have a similar structural nexus.

Second we are seeing a deadly confluence of securitisation, behaviourist psychology, zero tolerance policing, cybernetic control via exclusion as a social sanction (democide/social death), and Third Way "inclusion" (patronage/enforced conformity) politics, with certain tendencies in academic identity-politics and poststructuralism, and with the aesthetics and rhetoric of anarchism, Marxism and other radical social movements.

What is the answer?

This style of politics becomes less forceful and pervasive where abundance exists or feels possible, where anti-systemic or anti-capitalist politics (of any variety) has more force than inter-group conflict, or where everyday autonomy becomes more important than competition for state/capitalist patronage.

Anything which builds everyday autonomy, subsistence, resilience, universal rights based on the satisfaction of everyone's needs, undermines identity-politics.

Anything which demands or achieves inclusive provision for everyone - even if only through "reformist" state measures - undermines identity-politics.

Anything which unites people *across identities* in struggles against the state, the elite, corporations, or capitalism, undermines identity-politics.

In the meantime, it is very important, either *not* to take sides, or only to take sides in a cautious, conditional way.

" broadly sympathise more with the trans position than the terf position, because I believe gender is a social construct and trans people are oppressed. But, I dislike both sides because of the way they subordinate everything to identity (i.e. a spook) and wage the social equivalent of total war against anyone who they deem threatens this identity."

This claim that 'TERFS' are gender essentialist that do not believe that gender is a social construct is largely false. it's a narrative pushed around by those with an agenda against terfs for sure but actually talking to people i've never seen that this is the case with women worried about the issues that will have them classified as terfs. often they understand gender as a set of socially learned behaviors.

I'm sorry if this was a pointless reply, i'm just tired of seeing this bullshit dichotomy again and again whenever this debate comes up. Lieing to try to coax people to your side may be fine in the liberal uni politics these people generally come from but it is not something that anarchists should be participating in, imho.

I would also say that configuring an orientation for the next generation and beyond is important whether that will be within some type of energy substituted new deal context or an early stage dark/decentralization age. Anarchist/Anarch ideas will return in both contexts free of the IDPol specter which will be killed off in either scenario.

I expect idpol to develop in the same manner as socialism/social-democracy.

In socialism, we see the following stages:
1. socialism is a subordinate strand within liberalism/civic republicanism (Shelley, Blanqui...)
2. as liberalism/republicanism is institutionalised, socialism becomes the main oppositional current
3. (liberal and conservative) states try to suppress or recuperate socialism; socialism splits into reformist and revolutionary wings; where socialism takes power (by election or revolution), it adapts to existing political structures
4. most socialists/communists become institutionalised due to recuperation
5. socialism is sidestepped by the next wave of radical social movements in the 60s.

I'm expecting this to repeat with idpol (especially in the event of successful resource substitution and neo-Keynesianism):
1. idpol is a subordinate strand within socialism/communism (Mao, socialist-feminism, etc)
2. as socialism/communism is institutionalised, idpol becomes the main oppositional current (beginning in the 60s/70s)
3. (liberal, conservative and post-socialist) states try to suppress or recuperate idpol; it splits into reformist and revolutionary wings; where idpol takes power (by election or revolution), it adapts to existing political structures
4. most idpols become institutionalised due to recuperation
5. idpol is sidestepped by the next wave of radical social movements in the (possibly) 2030s-40s.

So far I think we're still roundabout stage 3, at about the parallel point to when the First International split. And we could see a similar split soon: if there's a big global war or crisis, and someone like Trump demands loyalty and sacrifices for the western side, which way will idpols jump? I think 75% at least will jump Trump's way, end up like social-democracy, and the rest will become equivalent to the Bolsheviks. They'll be "revolutionary" (but authoritarian) for awhile, and then eventually go the way of the Eurocommunists.

If "new dark age" then I'll instead expect idpol to evolve further towards the global South "patronage politics" model (probably developing state-within-a-state regimes in particular areas associated with its constituencies), and also to become a reactionary force, seeking to maintain concentrated power so as to protect the state's capacity to enforce progressive laws (we see this already with idpols' positions on informal sector markets and FGM). I can imagine idpols eventually becoming the next Byzantium, the last outpost of the US empire, claiming but failing to exercise "civilising" power over the entire world.

I don't believe in the New Dark Age theory at this point... What's called the Dark Ages was a rather interesting period in Europe with colorful political diversity and experiments, no matter the violent politics of the warlords.

The Medieval society was a much freeier world than the imperial despotism that came after (known as the times of the Renaissance and the Modern Era), as people usually weren't told what to do by limitless power-hungry bureaucracies, down to the micro-scale. We're rather going down the path of totalitarian Absolutism, or a reverted, perverted version of Enlightment philosophy as applied to technocracy. I may be wrong on this, but the whole ID pols leads us straight back to the heydays of the rules of "civility" developed and spread by the nobility in the 16th-17th century.

I'd see hope in the widespread political corruption at all levels in society, if that wasn't to safeguard collective privileges between hordes of greedy, power-hungry dogs who keep running after a bone. So not sure where's the end -or line of rupture- in this downward spiral to the shithole.

Suggesting reading of the year: "The Religion of Capital" by Lafargue. (I know I suggested it before, but it's way too obscure to not having been read by ANY anti-cap or anarchist on the planet!)

Hey fauvenoir. It's an interesting interpretation of the "dark ages", I like its irreverence for historical narratives but of course, power was mostly concentrated in the church instead.

That said, no doubt there was more places in Europe where the influence of church or state couldn't find you but it seems like a crapshoot whether your local, minor despot would have cut you a better deal or an even worse one?

I'm a sucker for noticing patterns in history, your own projections of things that could come are very interesting.

I suppose the momentum that has led up to IDPol thus far won't just dissipate over night historically. There's definitely a storm coming soon in less then a decade, something akin to a 7 year tribulation period like what WW2 roughly was. If you entertain Strauss and Howe's(albeit Westerncentric) cyclical theory then we're right on the 4th turning coming right at the end of this decade.

It's also interesting to speculate what the themes of the next radical epoch might be come 2048 or so. Could there be a return to a more 19th century style(preferable to the 20th for sure) radicalism where progress and management is rejected for libertarian/anarchist ideology. Could the further dialectical maturation of identity lead to the need for concrete existential zones to go with ideological identity? I'm thinking of Neal Stephenson's Phyles in the book The Diamond Age. The machineolgy and information is currently in place for something like that to exist. I could see something like that come about as a point of discussion simply due to the fact that sooner or later the issue of identity, association and preference will force itself as an issue. Xianity Noah's Arced a lot of people togetether but when Xianity finally fades a divorce is inevitable. This is in the context of a non-contraction of course. In either a contraction or even non-contraction I see the possibility of a libertarian aided decentralization drive as fairly likely UNLESS some type of energy force multiplayer comparable to oil happens which might create the surrogate activities that will make humans want to continue massing into some global governed society(which would suck).

There's also who the successor subjects to 1968 will be. Women, Blacks, Gays, Colour ect were essentially post-1945 group constructs. I wonder if adolescents might force the issue of liberty and autonomy in the future, that would be fun. Anyway, here's hoping for a century better then that god awful 20th century at least.

Well, what we saw with social-democracy was an attempt at state-managed implementation of those aspects of radical politics which are vaguely compatible with capitalism. So, in a non-contraction scenario, we might see an attempt at a state-managed, pared-back bolo'bolo, with local identity/lifestyle-focused hubs encouraged as nodes in a diversified cultural/virtual economy. Some trends in progressive urbanism are already headed this way - basic income, legalised ex-squats and property guardianship, state-built eco-villages, people being paid to move to remote locations and so on - as well as not-so-progressive neoliberal policies such as NGO-isation and "free schools". Also/alternatively, I'd expect to see something like tripartite governance under Fordism (the state-business-unions carve-up), except with identity-groups as well as/instead of unions as the popular representatives. The Third Way version of this is far too tokenistic and unrepresentative; I'd expect the full version to be more representative (e.g. elected figures representing groups), but also bureaucratic and reformist. Alternatively, marginalised groups might be directly represented instead of geographical constituencies. There's already precedent for this kind of thing in post-conflict power-sharing arrangements in ethnically divided societies (Lebanon, Rwanda, Northern Ireland...) and it wouldn't take much to modify this model to (for example) women. It's also possible that it will be China implementing this stuff as world hegemon, rather than America. In which case, the Party organisation of subsidiary bodies (women's groups, devolved ethnic governments...), the tradition of local autonomy under an appointed representative, the segmentary cellular arrangement of social life into distinct groups with limited interconnection, and the "mass line" participatory governance model might provide an overarching structure.

In contraction scenario, I'd expect something on a continuum with bolo'bolo at one end and Kaplan's "Coming Anarchy" at the other. Primmies have already thought through a lot of the possible scenarios if civilisation "collapses", though it may be a slow decline rather than an outright crash. One of the issues we've not really dealt with yet (at least in the rich countries) is that, when the state and market can't meet people's needs, local factional and group-based organisations or networks often fill the void. This in turn gives these groups immense power and popularity within particular groups.

"I wonder if adolescents..."

Hey, what is a generation? Why are you expecting a different "whatever" to be able to get anything done without you? ESPECIALLY a younger generation? All that stuff that you're watching in the news? You want kids to do that alone? To rescue the world?

Did you know that there's a joke out there making fun of older people that goes: "Thanks For Climate Change, Pops?" Do you think that you, an individual, are responsible for climate-change? I don't. I think it's "the system."

So you're idea that young folks are going to rescue the world might feel good, but young people are actually really fucking broke, getting shoved into ALL THE GODDAMN PRISONS THAT ARE BUILT ALL THE GODDAMN TIME and you thought Taylorism was "clock-life?"

We don't have unions, retirement plans, well-fare, foodstamps only come if you work, cash assistance (in the few states that even have it) is FEDERALLY limited to FIVE YEARS per lifetime. Oh, and you have to be working/ going to school / or show up at a center to fill out job applications for the equivalent amount of hours. THEY ARE ALREADY LOCKING-DOWN CITIES. There will be a "crime" and the military (let's face it) enclose a FUCKING CITY so that no one can leave. There was a food-security survey at my school. The school has a food-bank now and teachers are nicer.

I couldn't get a job in one state, because the WAIT-LINE for daycare-assistance was 6 months to a year.

You LOSE your DRIVER'S LICENSE if you fall behind in student-debt payments.

So, you think young people are going to.... what? Throw our bodies at the machine? Cannon fodder?

Are you responsible for CLIMATE-CHANGE?

"The Aloof and The Bitter"



also, we are fucking stressed. Have you been on Twitter? Kids are in fucking agony, tweeting about how they have value SOMEONE PLEASE PICK THEM UP. This was not MY TWEET. I saw a tweet where this kid was saying that SHE COULD READ A MAP so please SOMEONE pick her up before the zombie/something apocalypse.

I don't even think the young have a language to talk about it. I DIDN'T.


-fucking stressed, but fine.
my school if mostly US Brown and International Asian and Africans. Going on campus is like walking through tears. Voices are cracking. My teacher told me to go to Canada. GUESS WHY. I'm not fucking kidding.

A short reading list of trans people against identity.

Terfs wish to have identity be based on the idea that they are the only ones who are harmed by gender and therefore the only ones who can claim the title 'woman'. It is not an abolition of identity, but a materialist approach that denies the material conditions of others.

What is Gender Nihilism?

Gender Nihilism: An anti-manifesto

Dangerous Spaces: Violent Resistance, Self-Defense, and Insurrectional Struggle Against Gender

Xenofeminism: A Politcs of Alienation

terfs are counter-revolutionaries and do not belong in any anarchist space

Easy comment to make.

Care to explain why believing in cis-women-only spaces is incompatible with anarchism (or revolution) as such?

"cis-women-only spaces" lol, the argument makes itself. Dis-including people based on their immutable characteristics, such as assigned sex at birth, is pure fascism, in real terms distinguishable in no way from dis-inclusion by other immutable characteristics, such as race, sexuality, etc. Would you advocate for white-man-only spaces, too?

It's bigotry and hierarchy, and is not compatible with any form of anarchism.

disallowing self-organization is way authoritarian dude. that kind of ideological absolutism has no place among anarchists

Explain "disallowing self-organization".

Are TERFs preventing trans people from self-organizing their own spaces?

Also, are anarchists allowed to disrupt self-organization by Nazis?

my comment was directed at the other anon. declaring terfs to be counterrevolutionaries is idiotic, which was what i referred to as absolutism. cis-women only spaces are highly problematic for me, but deciding that this form of self-organization is off-limits is, as i said, authoritarian. no, terfs are not preventing trans* folk from self-organizing, and anarchists cannot prevent nazis and other real counterrevolutionaries from self-organizing either. the contestation for public space is where the conflicts arise

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.