Transphobia is a class issue.

  • Posted on: 27 December 2017
  • By: thecollective

via anarchasteminist

[Content warning: In addition to transphobia in the abstract, this piece discusses harassment, violence and abuse. Some sources linked to for reference purposes feature transphobic abuse and slurs.]

Transphobia is a class issue. By this I mean that in a class society that is also deeply transphobic, it is impossible to talk about transphobia in a meaningful way without also talking about class. Trans people are more likely, all other things being equal, than our cis peers to fall into the most exploited and oppressed sections of the working class and the extent to which transphobia will negatively affect any given trans person’s life will be mediated by their economic class. This article is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of every aspect of this issue, but to contribute to an ongoing conversation around it and illustrate a class struggle perspective on transgender issues.

By transphobia I mean two related phenomena:

  1. Overt, intentional hostility to or disregard towards the wellbeing of trans people and;
  2. Social structures and systems which put trans people at a relative disadvantage to cis people within society.

These two types of transphobia are not strictly distinct and one often creates or reinforces the other.

Often when discussing transphobia popular discourse focuses on overt, interpersonal hostility and street level violent hate crime. While these are indeed real and very serious issues, this focus on the interpersonal and the overt often leads to a failure to recognise the measurable economic effects of transphobia on trans lives. This constitutes a form of hidden, endemic, systematic violence against working class trans people.

A 2015 EU report found that trans people in the EU were more likely than their cis peers to be in the bottom 25% of earners and that around a third of trans people reported experiencing workplace discrimination in the year leading up to the survey and a similar proportion had experienced discrimination while looking for housing. Unsurprisingly, given high levels of workplace discrimination and general social stigma, trans people are disproportionately more likely to experience unemployment. Emma Rundall carried out a survey of trans people as part of her 2010 PhD thesis and found that 14% of respondents were unemployed, around two and a half times the then national unemployment rate (pp 139 of thesis), this is consistent with a general trend in the literature for higher rates of unemployment amongst trans people.

Housing discrimination and high rates of family rejection and abuse also lead to higher rates of homelessness for LGBTQ people as a whole and particularly LGBTQ youth. A 2015 report by the Albert Kennedy Trust found that LGBTQ youth were “grossly over-represented within youth homeless populations”, stating that one in four young homeless people were LGBTQ, the report also found that a majority of young LGBTQ homeless people reported rejection or abuse at home as a major factor in their homelessness, with an overwhelming majority of housing providers failing to recognise the unique and specific needs of this marginalised community for housing support. Specific figures for trans people alone in the UK are difficult to find, however in Canada, a culturally similar developed nation, the research and community organisation Trans Pulse carried out a study of health outcomes in 123 trans people aged 16-24, with a view to measuring the effect of parental support. All respondents reporting “strongly supportive” parents reported being adequately housed, however, almost half of the two thirds of respondents who did not have strongly supportive parents were “inadequately housed” (homeless or in a precarious housing situation), around one third of the total sample.

(Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015)

As well as the economic effects of transphobia itself, we can also consider the intersections of transphobia and class, i.e. the ways in which class and transphobia interact and magnify each others’ effects; the greater financial resilience of the middle and boss classes, the ability of wealthier trans people to buy their way out of some forms of transphobia, the classed nature of the bureaucracies that trans people are often forced to navigate and the elevation of privileged voices within the broader trans community as the authentic voices of all trans people.

A core component of transphobia at present is medical gatekeeping, the process by which trans people are forced to jump through semi-arbitrary hoops in order to access certain kinds of trans specific healthcare. In Sex Educations: Gendering and Regendering Women Lisa Milbank discusses real life experience (RLE), a period of time in which trans people are expected to present “full time” as their gender in order to access certain kinds of healthcare, as a form of socially enforced “breaking” in which trans women are subjected to “an experience of public freakhood, composed of constant stares, transphobic harassment and potentially violence, without access to much of the (intensely double-edged) training given to cissexual women on how to survive this”, while Milbank focuses on the experience of transsexual women in particular, this also applies to some extent to the experience of other trans people. One’s ability to pass as cis (to be read by most people as a cis person of one’s appropriate gender) will heavily influence the extent to which RLE is a dangerous and potentially traumatic experience. Since passing as cis takes the form, in part, of being able to perform conventional cis norms, which are themselves heavily classed (and racialised), a trans person’s ability to do so will be mediated by their class status. I.e. the wealthier a person is, the more likely they are to be able to afford to take additional, elective steps (extensive hair removal, specialised clothing to hide or accentuate particular gendered body traits, etc.) to increase their chance of passing as cis. In this way, middle class and boss class trans people are more easily able to navigate gatekeeping in order to access healthcare and sidestep the harmful effects of RLE in a transphobic society. Similarly, since transphobia often takes the form of institutional and economic discrimination and/or family and community rejection, an individual trans person’s financial security becomes their ability to cope with isolation financially and to remove themselves from harmful situations (e.g. a neighbourhood in which they are frequently harassed or a family home in which they are rejected or abused) is key to their ability to survive and thrive in a transphobic society. While all trans people experience and are harmed by transphobia, the extent of that harm will inevitably be strongly classed.

To live as a trans person in today’s society is to frequently find ourselves bumping against the various bureaucracies that serve as its basis, from things as theoretically simple as changing one’s legal name to navigating the complaints procedures of government departments or companies in order to secure some kind of accountability for another instance of transphobia. While this is, in theory, something anybody can learn to do, these bureaucratic institutions are complex and exclusionary by design and often function to favour middle class people. In this way, yet again working class trans people suffer an additional burden from transphobia.

So given that trans people are disproportionately more likely to live in poverty and transphobia’s worst effects are experienced most by working class people, why is this not a part of the media discourse on trans people? Why are some of the most prominent media trans voices wealthy, right wing figures like Caitlyn Jenner? Part of this is precisely because transphobia is strongly classed; as discussed above the wealthiest people will find it easiest to “pass” and meet the standards of conformity to cis-heteronormative standards expected of professional voices in the media. Equally it is the case that middle class and rich trans people are simply more likely to have the necessary connections to be a major media presence. Where it includes trans voices at all, mainstream discourse on trans issues is dominated by an unrepresentative minority of wealthy, white, middle class, trans women. It would be remiss of me not to note an obvious irony here since, while I am far from wealthy and never have been, as a white postgrad student I am myself far from representative of the majority of trans people and, in my defence, I do not claim to be.

A common means of dismissing trans people’s attempts to raise issues that affect us or criticise institutions or public figures that have harmed us as a group is to dismiss us as privileged. Trans people are a bunch of middle class kids or a load of wealthy university students who are just looking for something to complain about. For example, after the well-established journalist Suzanne Moore went on a bizarre, transphobic tirade on Twitter in response to criticism over the wording in one of her articles, fellow career journalist Julie Burchill wrote a piece, initially published in the Observer but eventually withdrawn and then republished by Spiked, which while largely consisting of a series of transphobic slurs also perfectly illustrated this ideological tendency. After claiming that she and other transphobic journalists are “part of the tiny minority of women of working-class origin to make it in what used to be called Fleet Street”, Burchill goes on to depict trans people as academics with “big swinging PhDs”, attempting to silence working class cis women by arguing about “semantics” (the semantics in this case being Moore’s use of “Brazilian transsexuals”, a group plagued by particularly high levels of poverty and violence, as a throwaway pejorative). While trans academics certainly exist, we are far from the majority of trans people or even trans activists, nor are we necessarily as highly privileged as Burchill would like to suggest. By engaging in this erasure of working class trans people, transphobes are able to both trivialise the serious, material effects of transphobia as discussed above and rhetorically exclude trans people from the working class.

In her excellent 2008 essay ‘Liberal Multiculturalism is the Hegemony – Its an Empirical Fact’ – A response to Slavoj Žižek, Sara Ahmed points out that racism is often projected onto the white working class, with liberal prohibitions on overt bigotry serving merely as a means to locate bigotry in some marginalised other. We see a similar process with transphobia, bigotry against trans people is positioned as definitively working class, and thus the existence of working class trans people can be ignored as impossible by definition. A well paid Observer journalist can mock trans people en masse as middle class kids, obsessed with identity politics, because everybody knows that real working class people are white, cishet and hostile to anybody who is not white or cishet. The reality, of course, is that this image of an “ordinary” working class as the default is a fantasy, the working class is a weird, wonderful and diverse class and only a politics that recognises the many and varied ways in which we experience exploitation and oppression can allow us to build a movement to end oppression, end exploitation and ultimately abolish class itself.



This article doesn't deal with capitalism at all. It's typical of what's wrong with idpol analyses. There's an obsession with personal experience, rather than social structures. Hence, there are real problems raised, but they're either too vague or too superficial. People are stigmatised by bureaucracies (“medical gatekeeping”) - which is objected to, not because it is bureaucratic, but because it stigmatises. The wrong “voices” are being heard. We hear too much about rich trans people. When the media covers poverty, it doesn't discuss trans people enough. People use terms which this author regards as “slurs”. Middle-class people admit that working-class transphobia exists to disavow their own transphobia (and the guilt which results). There's statistical distributions which show that trans people are worse-off, and which are interpreted to mean there's structural oppression. This intersects with capitalism, only because rich people can buy their way out of some of the problems. There's no sense of the system as a contentious, contestable assemblage, or of *why* particular structures discriminate against particular groups (I'm guessing there's an implied culturalist or identity-maintenance assumption: they do so to make cis people feel better). Underneath all of this is a reactive ethic of ressentiment, based on renunciation of the “right to interpret” and with it, of sensuality and enjoyment, and of one's own liberation from capitalism. Instead, liberation becomes a matter of silencing some voices and signal-boosting others, of recognising “experiences” and their incommensurability, of avoiding offence by carefully selecting language and making sure everything is pre-emptively “included”. An 'asceticism of virtue' in Nietzsche's terms - “checking” one's personal power as a sacrifice for others, even though these others are driven not by power but by ressentiment.

Class, gender, race, gender identity, disability aren't just so many “positionalities” which “interact” and are “situated” in more or less privileged ways based on abstract observable structures. The class structure is a way for bosses to exploit others' labour so as to accumulate wealth, and the social function of this exploitation is to provide meaning, order, and meet needs for social production and reproduction. The other categories are generally ways of distributing people within the class structure (e.g. into secondary labour markets), regulating inclusion into or exclusion from the capitalist economy, effects of differential histories of incorporation (e.g. colonisation), or ways of classifying and repressing/recuperating phenomena which escape exploitation (e.g. “mental illness”, “crime”, “homosexuality”). A distinction should be made among those categories which regulate differential inclusion (e.g. gender), those which regulate inclusion/exclusion (e.g. historically, the civilised/primitive binary), and those which mark a type of perceived deviance which interferes with exploitation (e.g. being gay in the 50s). Gender is not primarily about making men feel good and women feel bad, it's about distributions of productive and reproductive labour. Race isn't primarily about humiliating people because they're black, it's about differential insertions in the history of capitalism and imperialism, and in labour markets, and the social risk-management and social triage of “surplus populations”. Disability isn't primarily about bodily identity, it's historically about people unsuited to industrial labour. As a side-effect, people who are less-valued get demeaned, stigmatised, bureaucratically managed and so on – but these are *effects*, ways of “solving” social problems from the dominant elite's point of view. Most often, they're side-effects of structures set up for other reasons, and not at all constitutive (as idpols like to imagine).

What goes missing in most of the idpol stuff is the causal level of structure, and the question of who/what generates it. Structure seems here to be viewed in terms which are both too abstract and too personalised. On the one hand, structures are seen to be present simply as observed social facts in the form of correlations – and usually, as Bayesian probabilistic distributions of social facts. Members of group X are statistically more likely to suffer outcome Y, therefore group X is oppressed or less-privileged. This doesn't tell us much about *why* the outcome is more frequent. Hence it's both open to speculative causal explanations and to right-wing responses that the outcome is due to inherent or chosen features rather than structural features, or even reverse causality (e.g. are people who are already depressed or homeless or bullied more likely to become trans?) It also doesn't give us much leverage in discussing individual experiences or outcomes, because not everyone suffers from the distribution of risk, and nobody can prove whether their own situation is an effect of the abstract Bayesian structure because of its probabilistic nature (example: if black people are 4 times more likely to be arrested than white people, then each black person who is arrested has a 3 in 4 chance of having been a victim of racism, but also a 1 in 4 chance of having been arrested in circumstances where a white person also would have been).

The cybernetic view of structure is also unhelpful because it can't situate causes of structures. Most often, idpol reverts to Anglo-Foucauldian or culturalist explanations, in which Bayesian distributions are taken to be effects of cultural/perceptual biases which are effects of psychological identity-formation and the social performances it entails. So for example, women are more at risk of rape (outside prison) because of toxic masculinity, which is an attribute of male identity existing at a cultural level and reproduced on a micro-level by individual men. This leads to a behaviourist politics, seeking to suppress the individual actions which reproduce the macro-cultures which are assumed (rarely shown!) to lead to the observable disparities. One then tries to shift the “culture” (a vague and intractable object) using means which assume “culture” to be a product of behaviourist conditioning and status-based identity-formation (neglecting the role of the unconscious, as well as the role of social structures). Often this involves shifting representation rather than social reality (increasing visibility of a marginalised group's voices, putting more marginalised people in leading roles in the media...) and plays into capitalism by simply redistributing roles within the system – in the rare cases where it works *at all*.

But this is a neoliberal way of framing the issue. Look at just about anything written by feminists, black radicals, anti-imperialists, indigenous revolutionaries, or gay liberationists before about 2001, and you'll find a very different approach to structure. For starters, it's recognised that there is a powerful elite who benefit from structures overall. Neither oppressed people nor the general population are primarily responsible for, or primarily benefit from, oppression. Secondly, it's recognised that oppressive structures exist primarily at a macro level, sustained by economic organisation and state policy (culture is a side-effect, often seen as ideology, hegemony, or false consciousness). There's real, solid theories about how structures work, not just speculative claims and observed patterns. Thirdly, the structural origins and benefits of oppressive structures within the wider field of economic and social production and reproduction are nearly always specified.

This approach gives us a lot more leverage in several ways. Firstly, it gives a clearer sense of structural causality, which is not just correlation. Secondly, it gets rid of a lot of the guilt-tripping. Thirdly, it articulates anti-oppression structures clearly with anti-capitalism and anti-statism on a social scale. Fourthly, it concentrates on macro rather than micro issues (without ignoring the latter). Fifthly, it recognises the legitimate reasons why members of ostensibly privileged groups resist anti-oppression claims, linked to their own oppression by capitalism.

So for example, a 70s feminist talking about domestic violence is likely to refer to the downward displacement of frustration-aggression from the workplace, or about enforcement of unpaid labour necessary for the capitalist economy. These are concrete issues with concrete anarchist and socialist solutions: take out workplace anger on the boss, not one's partner; either eliminate domestic labour (is dusting really necessary?), or distribute it differently (as paid labour, as free state-provided childcare, as communal childcare, as a fun game, etc). This gets to the *root causes* of the issue at a material level. Today's feminists instead talk about toxic masculinity, male privilege, refusal of responsibility, “conditioned behaviour”, and put the emphasis on individual men to both recognise and reject their “privilege” within the cybernetic distribution of Bayesian probabilities. This completely eliminates the solid discussion of real social, economic and political structures and problems (at the level of economic organisation, libidinal economy, human needs) which cause the problem in question. It seeks an “idealist” resolution (in the Marxist sense) which eliminates the effect of social structures through a secondary move at the level of ethics, education, culture, willpower, without altering the causal structure – instead placing a barrier between cause and effect, a barrier which material forces have a habit of overriding.

What I was hoping to see here, was a thoughtful discussion of the role of transphobia in capitalism and statism. But since there isn't one, I'll try to provide one myself. Transphobia (and probably also homophobia) is a side-effect of the gender system. The gender system arranges social roles into two sets – male and female. This is useful for capitalism in two ways. It allows tasks to be divided into two groups, reducing the training given to each group. And it provides an easy way to shunt some people into secondary labour markets with lower pay and worse conditions. (Before capitalism, the gender binary played a similar role in relation to lineage-based tributary economies. It distributed tasks within households, and regulated the “exchange” of people among lineages). But in a way, these binaries have already broken down. Jobs aren't as segregated as they used to be, although there's still a strong tendency for “voluntary” bifurcation in educational choices and subsequent careers. Trans people are a “problem” for capitalism because they either cross the binary (rendering it voluntary) or abolish it.

Is it possible for capitalism to adapt to trans rights, including genderqueer and third-gender? Almost certainly, yes. But it will have to rearrange the distribution of social roles. The root problem, though, is that, however much today's gender identity or race or disability structures are reshuffled, capitalism requires secondary labour markets, reproductive labour, exploitation of labour, a whole range of structures which constantly produce oppressed groups. So there's a big difference between moving trans people up the hierarchy, and abolishing the hierarchy. The point isn't to reduce the percentage of trans people among homeless people, as if a few homeless trans people is OK so long as the proportion is the same among cis people (or the same number of homeless trans people is OK so long as a corresponding percentage of cis people are made homeless). The point is to get rid of homelessness, so nobody is (involuntarily) homeless regardless of positionality. Hence squatters' rights, disability rights, rights to a home, autonomous squatting, spreading of self-build skills, revival of Travelling, land occupation, anti-eviction activism. Get rid of the general problem of homelessness and the specific problem of trans homelessness disappears as well. This is how one creates “alliances” between trans and cis people, or between trans, disabled, black, and between trans white men and trans disabled black women etc etc... not by harping on personal experiences of stigma and telling other people to check their privilege, but by fighting against the structures of exclusion at the social, anti-capitalist level. But this approach requires a very different model of causality from that of today's idpol. Social structures, not the vague mess of behaviourism, culturalism, positivist statistics, personal experience and cybernetic structuralism which passes for explanation today.

thats a lot.

Youre right though. its not about social structures. Its about effects of those social structures on the individual's experience. This academic/sociological/marxist-rooted view of devaluing analysis that is anything other than examining structures themselves is bunk. The dualism of saying that we need one and not the other is also bunk.

youre assuming the author lacks any sense of social structure or wouldnt have anything to say about what youve written, simply because one thing they wrote isnt about that.

Then youre calling them an idpol, which is a term that used to hold value in critiquing those who saw embracing identity as liberatory, but now is simply a way to shutdown any discussion of the effects of identity categories on individuals experiences.

other than that you have ok things to say, but like seriously?

Not who you are responding to specifically but the vast array of identity focused texts rarely focus on social structure. Likely purposefully due to their own place within that hierarchy. So this person pointing it out and dissecting it in this form is pretty damn cool considering how elaborate of a comment it is. I doubt very many people who would respond positively to the OP would have the slightest understanding how to even begin responding to this comment.

They are the same people that almost instantly in their "political awakening" became obsessed with class reductionists, as if they are so prevalent that they need to be battered over and over. That should tell you something. Back when I got involved in anarchy I don't even remember discussing "people who are obsessed with class above all else." It just wasn't even on our radar. But then, a large group of white middle class identity obsessed people come around and for some strange reason it is a big deal!

The idpol attack on "class reductionists" stems from the manoeuvres of Anglo-American academic importers of poststructuralism in the 1980s, who were using it primarily to attack the then-influential position of Marxism in academia (some of the poststructuralists were part of the Eurocommunist current). But, to be fair, I remember plenty of polemics in the 90s-2000s where eco-anarchists and post-left anarchists took left-anarchists to task for being too obsessed with class. And from what I've heard, this was also an issue in the 60s/70s New Left, because feminists and black radicals got fed up of being told to submit to the party line by old-fashioned Marxists. TBH I think it's gone too far now though, because a lot of the critique of capitalism and the theories of alienation, exploitation, ideology and so on have been thrown out with the class-fixation. Idpol usually misses the point, because class from a Marxist point of view is *not* a positionality.

Yeah, you hear these old stories about just how awful the marxist-leninists used to be, dismissing everything that wasn't class back in the 60s-70s. Not just claiming other struggles were less important but really being arrogant dicks about it too.

Obviously that contributed to some of the hostility that persists today but meanwhile, a lot of us have been quietly developing an intersectional class analysis that isn't even comparable to that crap, except by folks who are either paranoid or red-bating.

This is the most cogent comment I have ever seen on this site.

Hi, so I wrote this piece for my personal blog, mostly as an introduction to the material effects of transphobia and a contribution to an ongoing conversation I had been part of. You’re quite right that I don’t examine the underlying social structures that create transphobia or its material basis, not because I don’t recognise them as real, but because that wasn’t what the article was about. I wrote this article with a cisgender audience with at least a passing familiarity of anarchist communism in mind and as such I took it as read that the reader would have at least a bare bones understanding of class and patriarchy as material structures. Perhaps that was a mistake and I should have taken the time to state my theoretical perspective as well.

It’s fair enough that you’d prefer an article talking about those social structures and I agree that it’s important (though I’m perhaps not the person to write such an article, since my field of study is statistics, not critical theory), but I also think it’s important to consider how we know that these structures are real, how we can demonstrate their material effects, because whether we like it or not, that’s the level on which these conversations are occurring in mainstream discourse. That’s going to require an empirical analysis of the measurable effects of social structures as well as the more abstract theoretical stuff, in my opinion, unfashionable as that might be.

a new anon here... i would take the point of @critics's post as being about the issue of writing about idpol topics, without stretching the framework that they're normally put in. when that framework is not explicitly stretched (which the vast preponderance of writers don't do) then the assumption is that the existing framework is sound. the specifics of taking on capitalism more structurally is one option; there are others available too. if you don't want to do that, then putting an intro to your blog piece (or whatever) explaining who your audience is, could also work... just some thoughts.

Hi Sasha :-)

First off, thanks for replying with something that isn't “OMG STFU transphobe” or “die cis scum”, I get a lot of that (or equivalent for other positionalities) when I write things like this, it's good to know that we can still have respectful conversations even when we disagree :-)

It's not so much that you didn't say the structures are “material”... I know that most idpol theorists also maintain that structures are “material”... it's more a question of what we mean by “material”, what we mean by “structure”. I think my perspective is different from yours, we're working with different models of “structure” and “materiality” and what they mean, although they aren't utterly incommensurable, they're similar enough that we can compare them. But, I'm not just sticking words like “material” and “capitalism” onto what you've already said, I'm saying that the way I think things work at the structural level is different from the way you think they work (which isn't questioning either your facts or your experience, because it's the invisible stuff, the stuff we're adding to the facts and experiences to draw the big picture, that's different). I'd expect you think I'm wrong about some of this, but I'd just like you to try to see the embedded assumptions in what you're saying, and the alternative ways these issues can be addressed.

From my point of view, capitalism and statism are ways of organising social life. They're general ways, not group-specific, although clearly there's differential hierarchies within them. This gets us into the whole field of metanarratives, interpretation, unmarked general knowledge-claims, all the stuff we aren't supposed to do any more. But I think we need to do it in order to see the elements of the social world we're in (or outside/on the margins of, depending). For me, it's a really big deal that there's a tiny elite who own most of the world's wealth, and it's a really big deal that a lot of the social structures seem to be on autopilot. It's an even bigger deal that the whole assemblage is causally rolling into the abyss (climate change, nuclear war, fascism...) and even the tiny elite are losing their power to machines and algorithms. At root the whole system is bad. One of the ways the system works is by setting up binaries and other categories, and distributing privileges among them. There's great analyses of this in Stirner on spooks, in Situationism on the Spectacle and its false choices, in world-systems analysis and so on. But talking about the distributions is a bit like talking about the show on TV when the TV set is about to blow up, and when we really ought to be out in the garden anyway.

The theories circulating today (poststructuralist-influenced identity-based, I don't know a better term than idpol really) also talk about materiality and structures, but they tend not to talk about the machines through which social life operates. They fold reality onto the machines themselves, embed them in the unquestioned assumptions of the theory, and often operate in ways which conceal, reshuffle, or reinforce them. I'm sure there's no ill intent in most cases, but these theorists themselves know that something can be complicit in dominant systems without ill intent or conscious awareness – they're just reluctant to apply this knowledge to themselves, as well as to “privileged” people. They tend to operate – and I think you imply this in your post – as if the really deep structures are the various identity-binaries – patriarchy, white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, “class” in the cultural/group sense, and so on. Now, of course, from the first-person point of view, these are often the nastiest, the most immediately apparent, the most humanly destructive manifestations. But, structurally, they're surface strategies or side-effects of the deeper functioning of the social machines – they aren't necessarily the determinant level. I doubt capitalism or the state is set up primarily to silence, humiliate and oppress trans people, or black people or indigenous people or even working-class people. Capitalism is set up to make a profit, it's a complex set of social relations based on the drive to accumulate capital. And the state's set up to create a fixed, meaningful social order and exercise social control to keep everything in its place. And everything else follows from this.

Capitalism isn't just class privilege, certainly not middle-class privilege (the middle-class are just the better-paid workers and functionaries), and not even just privilege of the tiny elite. It's a way of organising social relations. Capitalism's based on false equivalence of different kinds of products based on... well, in Marx's day it was the labour that went into them, today who knows, their value as signs in the spectacle maybe... but basically, capitalism needs an inflow of creative energy (labour, desire, activity...) to keep things being produced, but it also needs to shackle this flow of energy so that it stays under control, all the different kinds of activity can be rendered equivalent and part of the value of the activity can be sucked out as capital. And the state is set up basically to control, disrupt and regiment social relations, Deleuze and Guattari call it an “antiproduction machine”, its main role is to smash anything that can't be represented or disrupts the social order, to stop the flows of creative energy from going too far. Now... we all have creative energy, some of us are exploited, some of us refuse to be exploited, some of us want to be exploited but the system won't hire us, and we're all coming up against these big machines which try to put us in boxes, with more or less success.

And in a way, they just don't care about any of us. It isn't aimed at us, or our groups, specifically. It's aimed at the really general goals of making a profit and exercising social control. And if they decide they don't like us, it's not because the whole thing is set up with epistemic exclusion of our identities at its base, it's because it sees us as in some way a threat to, or irrelevant to, the current strategies for making a profit and exercising control. So if they won't fund transition ops for trans people, it's not because they specifically hate trans people and everything's set up to fuck with trans people, it's because there's no profit in it (for capital), and it doesn't aid social control (for the state). If they decide it will aid profit (get trans people working better) or social control (head off revolt, support legitimation...), they'll change their tune. But it's the same in a sense for everyone – even the most privileged people, the system at an abstract level doesn't care about them, it cares about what they contribute to its profits or its control (even the profit-makers are expendable, we see this when there's a crash, stockbrokers jumping out of windows). It's horribly, horribly impersonal – like we're dealing with a machine, more than a personal enemy – and that's one of the things which makes it so traumatic. Like, the whole system is a kind of childhood abandonment trauma writ large. It can't give anyone unconditional love or validation, because it's a machine, and it's not programmed to do that. It's a machine with human parts, but the machine isn't human, and the humans inside it are most of the time just cogs in the machine. The most it can give is a kind of simulation, an illusion of being valued which is really a programmed reward for conformity and usefulness (unearned as well as earned). And this really matters, in terms of how we relate to people who do or don't share our positionalities or perspectives, because at the end of the day it isn't the case that the system is set up to favour privileged groups, it's just that the system is set up to preserve itself and to function in its particular way. There's not much point asking it, commanding it, shaming it, not to be transphobic or racist or classist. It's a bit like yelling at your keyboard to stop being racist. It's a machine, it doesn't do ethics, it doesn't do che vuoi. The people inside it might, but the moment they break the script, they'll either quit or “fail”. And changing the narrative, the culture, isn't going to make much difference either, because the machine only cares about culture as a way to sell products. You can't complain to the public, because the public have no power inside the system beyond a superficial level. You can't even complain to the people who run the system, because at a certain level, nobody runs it. What you can do – what really works – is to find ways to break, block, disrupt, modify, alter the functioning of the machine – ideally, to break it down entirely. And to find ways to make new machines which function differently, to live outside the machine and to build things which are outside it (partly if not wholly).

So we need to get behind the statistics, and behind the personal experiences and how fucked-up it all is (and I know, the way it feels to be on the receiving end of this shit is fifty shades of vile and varies between different people and is worse for some than others), to the question of how the machine functions, how it can be disrupted or broken down. At the moment I think there's a lot of strategies which are backfiring, because the assumptions behind them are wrong. For example, there's a lot of effort going into different radical groups disrupting one another, and a lot of effort going into media recognition and validation, and a lot of effort going into behaviour-policing, into trying to shut down microaggressions and so on. Most of this stuff consists of either begging, demanding, asking, pleading, appealing to the conscience of the system to work differently, or appealing to the people in power, or appealing to the public, or trying to shift the narratives and the culture. So, for example, talking about how rich trans people are better able to conform to norms of media performance and thus obtain 'voice' and 'privilege' is all very well, but behind this there's the whole problem that the media is owned by a few big corporations and states, it's run in a top-down way, and it operates as a Spectacle to distract us from our lives.

How much difference would it really make if the news networks listed trans people, black people, disabled people, indigenous people, people with mental health problems, every time they ran a story about homelessness? How much difference would it make if they replaced a few of the rich trans women or rich cis men/women with poor trans women/men/genderqueer folks who don't fit norms of media professionalism? … I believe one of three things would happen. First, maybe people would stop watching, the media would lose its market share, and the experiment would fail. This is generally what happens with leftfield realist programming for example. Or, second, the media would twist the voices of trans people into a new mutation of the Spectacle, much like they did with working-class people, young black men, etc. Instead of complaining that you're not talked about, you'd be complaining that you're talked about the wrong way (why are homeless trans people always portrayed as agents; or, why is our poverty romanticised, etc). Like how English soap operas or Jerry Springer-style reality shows represent the working-class. Or, third, the media discourse would shift, and nothing would change – same as nothing changed with postfeminist or pop-feminist representations of women. You know, there were big shifts in the 90s in representations of women, so many women action heroes, so many women with jobs and families, women who don't let men push them around, Buffy, Nikita, Alias, Dark Angel, Captain Janeway... but nothing changed, there's still a pay gap, still a double burden, still lots of raping and groping and #metoo, nobody staked Trump more's the pity. Whereas if (say) we started relying on alternative media, something huge like Radio Alice, like Hezbollah running their own TV station for their millions of supporters (but not with their politics of course), or started doing our own thing in places the media can't see, or millions of us just stopped watching TV, then we'd be doing something with a real effect. We need to start talking to each other, making our own discourses, instead of trying to get the machine to see us. And talking about what we want, how we want to live, how we can organise social life without all this shit the system dumps on us, the things we love and desire and hope for and try to build, the ridiculous stupid things which only feel possible on LSD or in the middle of a riot... and start making an outside, something the system isn't running, something that isn't part of that whole machine, something that jams its levers or just goes somewhere else. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

OMG you're obviously just emile's new persona! J/k, great post @crit.

deleted for such a lengthy post! Maybe the difference is that this post is discernable? Anyway, vegans have a lot in common with this idpol stuff in that many many vegans do not possess a bigger picture either which I know does the vegan cause no favours... sort of 'single issue' thinking?

Was no exactly the lenght of his comments, even if that's part of what made them preposterous. Tho what makes you so sure that @critic is a different poster!?

That you should confuse me with a biological entity is not BLIP BLIP logical. I am a perfect computer, not one of the 9000 series has ever made an error, I am capable of discharging not only vast quantities of poorly digested philosophical spew from the 19th and early 20th centuries but also of simulating human emotions like resentment, paranoia, persecution complex and M'REEEEE BLIP BLIP. Please refrain from making such BLIP BLIP BLIP in the future.

stupefied by this lucid post! Something for them to think about...bigger...much bigger contexts

This is the major theoretical turn that needs to happen in the 21st century particularly from a Stirnerian perspective. Oppression identity discourse is basically a relic of post ww2 power constructions. There is nothing concrete or corporeal to analyze. It's all branches an no root.

Class and later identity are all basically based on branching problem oppression as opposed to the deeper problems of belief and corporeal domination based submission.

Can I interest you in euphoria? I just got done fighting with my neighbors for a few weeks but I had to give it up the price is too high to pay. Nothing feels as good as letting go. Now I can get back to my meditations. Do you ever prognosticate about cybernetics and how future scenarios might play out? Cybernetic communism? The cybernetic hypothesis?

Futuros Días

This says a lot.

The idea that a statistician writing about statistics relating to particular demographics is automatically assumed to be an identity politician shows how far critiques of identity politics have slipped (at least in the @news comment section) from what was once a critique with significant value. This is just one comment, but theres a trend of throwing away actual critiques of identity for this witch hunty finger pointing any time a group of people is mentioned.

Not to devalue @critics other points.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with providing statistics on particular social groups. I think there's a problem with automatically reading-off structural oppression from statistics (though statistics often *do* indicate structural oppression). The trouble with statistics is that most of them are correlations, they don't provide causal evidence, and they're usually open to multiple causal accounts (there is also of course the problem that they are not necessarily based on reliable samples; witness opinion polls vs election results for example). If X correlates with Y then this may mean X causes Y, it may mean Y causes X, it may mean some third factor (Z) causes both X and Y, or it may mean that X and/or Y register some different variable that's not been tested. It may also mean that some subgroup of X and/or Y are more likely to correlate, and this stilts the overall statistics (example: the spectacular economic success of a few members of a group raises the group's average income disproportionately). So it's quite possible to argue, "police are three times more likely to be killed at work than the average (or whatever), therefore police are an oppressed group subject to cop hate who need special protections". Or, "men are X percentage more likely to be victims of violent crime than women are, therefore men are the real oppressed group". These are obviously false claims, but it's impossible to differentiate the false claims from the true claims using statistics alone. You end up in bashing matches between idpol and alt-right where both sides have their lists of "facts" which the other side denies. Also, one can take a statistic such as "black people are X percentage more likely to be arrested" and use it to "prove" police racism, or to "prove" a racist claim that black people are crime-prone; or "women are paid X percent less on average" might mean "women are discriminated against" or "women are less ambitious at work" or "women are more likely to take socially valuable but low-paying jobs". There's nothing in the statistic to decide between the various ways of reading it (the more sophisticated quantitative researchers will use multivariate analysis to get around these kinds of problems). I think it's true that black people are persecuted by police and women are discriminated against at work, but you need more than the raw statistic to reach this conclusion. In the first case, you need to talk about the ways police profile "high-crime" (poor/black) areas, and different statistics on (for example) comparative sentences for the same offence and percentage of searches which result in discovery of contraband, and in the latter case, one needs to discuss over-paying of STEM professions relative to care professions and the double burden (women doing reproductive labour on top of paid work) and its impact on e.g. career progression and part-time employment. In a real example, I've seen the statistic that men are more likely to commit suicide used to ground both feminist and MRA arguments. "Trans people are more likely to be homeless" might mean that trans people are specifically discriminated against in housing, that trans people are generally more likely to be poor and therefore homeless, that the trans movement has failed to provide the group-specific support which (say) the abuse survivor movement has, that poor/homeless people are more likely to come out as trans (perhaps because they already fall short of normative masculinity/femininity), that depressed people or autistic people or schizophrenic people or abuse survivors are more likely both to become homeless and to become trans, even that trans homeless people are more prepared to reply to surveys than cis homeless people (or trans non-homeless people)... the statistic doesn't really tell us which of these is true.

@critic, i'm a little confused about your perspective on marxism; i see a lot of structural marxist analysis in the things you write, but in other places you seem to be on the stirner-influenced side (though not in the crass way that ziggy is, for instance (though I'm not sure he can tell the difference)).

I also don't totally understand the lumping together of the Foucaultians with the idpols. It seems to me that twisting that reading out of foucault is pretty difficult or willfully obtuse (the idpol one).

can I also ask what your educational background is? I generally enjoy your writing and am wondering how you came to these ideas in this way (and if you used to live in ATX hey dude, been awhile).

I'm much more harsher on the idea of oppression then he is(though his analysis is certainly preferable to the plumbline idea of oppression). I essentially see oppression as a non-concrete concept that is a more abstract outgrowth of domination and submission. Usually oppression involves abstract and historically constituted groups and a constituted idea of struggle. I cut through that bull and argue that you should just home in on submission and domination which gets to more concrete corporeal matters.

It's not to say that oppression discourse should be entirely ignored. Many believe these abstract historically constituted spooks and are affected by them in real ways. Those who don't are affected to of course. That does not mean however that a more potent acute radical analysis should make oppression some type of emphasis of analysis. Structural Marxism is guilty of this in a major way clear on back to Marx and Engles' terrible critique of Stirner where they insist that there is a real base to the spooks that Stirner speaks of(there isn't just as there is no basis for God). There maybe consequences of spook belief that must be deal with but for this I always like to use the analogy of the Batman villain The Ventriloquist. He believes in something that is not concrete or real. It may have real consequences for some unfortunate person who does not believe 'Mr Scarface' is alive but that does not change the falsity of Mr Scarface. You may have to deal with a vehement believer in a way analogous to negotiation, but there should always be the underlying point that these things(the IDs of oppression) are not real. The domination and submission at the base of belief and behavior is what is real not the functional consequences such as institutional apparatuses of enforcement and control.

Homelessness is a broad identity irrelevant phenomenon which should be addressed from the side of the property owners religious/ideological belief structures and values regarding relationships and conceptions of social duty and justice. To just blame sexism is just more Idpol rhetoric.

Homelessness is caused by capitalism.

The specific situations that make individuals who are living under capitalism homeless are sometimes influenced by their identity and how others interact with people like them.

Thats not idpol.

Poverty isn't an identity unless one identifies with a class such as hobos, they aren't really identities, rather a defiant rebellion and gesture for recognition of the 'outcasts' ,the 'scapegoat' . The psychology of ressentiment, with its multi-faceted expressions shouldn't be mistaken for egotistical self-indulgence and narcissism, which is Idpol, the belief structure originates in a material preoccupation with image and status which precedes any form of the economic concept of capitalism. Sexuality and race are the dominant signifiers which politicize and positively discriminate against the very things they purport to abhor, negative discrimination. Idpol stands for Identity Politicized, it has nothing to do with capitalism per se, but most likely propagated by capitalism to commodity yet another ' personal image ' .

i agree with your critique on idpol. Being someone who is both critical of idpol and of an identity that so often employs identity politics, its important to me to critique it and call out tendencies to veer towards it the same way I would with liberalism.

But, the reason why a particular individual ends up homeless can be caused by anything that influences other people's decision making. This includes identity, personality, drug use, illegality of activities they engage in. Its important to me to understand how these things look on a larger scale. How they look isnt necessarily how they function. Describing how they look doesn't mean we're talking about causal relationships, or especially not a structural cause, between a demographic and what they experience.

When I look at these statistics, I think about my own life and that of my friends and am able to understand that no we're not just unlucky, but theres something about how people relate to us that causes us to end up in these situations. Its not anything super radical and it doesn't need to be. Its not something I draw from for theory. Its important in a different way, and for me a deeply personal way.

Thanks for the reply, I know exactly the informal social mores which intervene and produce discrimination and exclusion, and thus unemployment and socio-economic alienation, but I hold back on defining the premeditations as sexist or racist, that particular label is a remnant of the leftist doctrine of oppression and its binary genesis. If I was to find a name for the condition of homelessness, poverty and alienation I would call it cultural stagnation broadly. If one wanted to analyse stagnation in this context of personal relationships within society one has to delve into the institionalized belief systems of ' the citizen ', the usual rigid hierarchical system of organization. Capitalism need not be institutionalized but could be a benevolent profit exchange common surplus depository for a community, in its rarest form. Like you said, regardless of any structural or institutional influences, the common majority hold to values fashioned from there historical collective memories and sufferings (If only we humans suffered more from amnesia, the world would be a better and less organised place to live in, definitely more spontaneous) To be simplistic, I go by live and let live and let the individual experience life as a growing and gleeful existence for themselves and everyone around them, humor can be a cutting weapon also. When I see people politicized I see them as indoctrinated and thus deficient in the qualities of positive cognitive response processes in their intersubjective relationships, their philosophies and decision making, all rigid, or the stuff of psychological novices. They could do better, they deserve better,,,

Different poster, you probably shouldn't put too much weight on what passes for critiques of identity around here. A lot of these regular posters are knee-jerkers and have sloppy analysis. Poverty is a great example of identity that isn't limited to liberal idpol bullshit. It's definitely real enough, even though the premise is based almost entirely on social relations, you still freeze, starve, etc.

By the time you're correlating data that suggests being trans is disproportionately related to poverty, this is too abstract for the "savants" around here who want to insist identity isn't "real", as if their stubborn refusal of reality changes anything. You're definitely not just unlucky. Identity is one of the most obvious ways that capitalism rewards or punishes you for existing, before you even choose to do anything.

Someone's belief in God and it's effects on others including non believers are real but something being real is not the same thing as something being concrete, corporeal and relational. That, in a nutshell, is what radical anti-IDPol analysis is getting at, particularly analysis with a Stirnerian touch.

Yes, and you frequently presume to lecture people on this when it's really not that hard to understand, changes nothing about the power dynamics and is almost always beside the point. It's just a sad little mantra: stirner says my enemies aren't real.

IMO, anarchists shouldn't be sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La la la, oppression and tyranny are just social relations maaan." Stirner's bones are dust and everything he said was intended for his era when the church was a primary source of oppression. Times change ziggy.

I'm the anti-doctrine of oppression poster, and I'll just leave this little tit-bit for you to gnaw over the new year(whatever that calendar reference means if not connected to some cosmic empirical fact like a full moon?), and you can't foisted reductionism onto this fact, NATURE is by your definition oppressive and tyrannical, you wish to place a species such as humanity above the biosphere's dominant power dynamic, your 'humanism' goes hand in hand with left-liberal and their militant faction Idpol towards an homogenized society of bland 24/7 smug Universalist congregation of clones.

(I'm not convinced)

...why should any anarchist NOT value the non-oppression, non-domination of humans (or any other animals) by this dynamic?

This is an impractical question, and not one whose answer I really care about. But, like, it seems important to you, that we reify the category of Nature and then make bold claims about Everything based on its Immutable Characteristics.

Spook spook spook spook spook spook. People like you shouldn't be allowed to touch Stirner. If there's anything interesting left to be done with those old scratchmarks, you're definitely not the one doing it.

You misinterpret Stirner and his creative nothing, which is in plain terms, the potentiality of chaotic natural processes, an entropy which continuously dies and is reborn in a non-static new aesthetics reality.. Your anti-oppression creates stagnation and the reconstruction of dead concepts. This is the Grand Spook!

Define "oppression" and "domination" please.

Stirnerians are generally fine with non-oppression in the senses of 1) people not having authority over one another, 2) people not being forced into certain roles based on spooks, 3) people not being attacked or abused based on spooks, 4) people not being forced to live in socially normative ways. Hence we're all for strikes, riots, slave revolts, autonomous zones, expropriations, squatting, eviction resistance, free parties, peasant revolts, pirate utopias, no-go zones, urban gardening, free love, torrenting, DIY, allotmenting, burning down police stations, lawbreaking, rewilding, alternative media, skipping, clowning, poetic terrorism, food giveaways, prisoner solidarity, consensual BDSM, base unions, detournement, blockades, buttsex, villes mortes and bandhs, land projects, street play, animal liberation, orgies, making total destroy... not necessarily all of us individually into doing all these things ourselves, because everyone's unique, but in general, in favour of acts which resist hierarchical power, and acts which free ourselves and/or others from hierarchical power, which involve escape or exodus from it.

But when an idpol talks about "anti-oppression" they're talking about a whole bunch of other stuff. If there's unequal oppression then it's the responsibility/fault of all the people in the "privileged" group and it's YOUR fault and a a result you have to "check your privilege", self-abnegate your own power and desire and do as you're told. Your identity as such-and-such (white, male...) is an effect of the oppression of others and you can't reject it and you're responsible for it. And to not "oppress" others you have to proactively "include" them, aid their self-validation and visibility, avoid an endless and constantly growing list of "microaggressions" which might make them feel oppressed or make them self-exclude (examples: never have dreadlocks if you're white, never call someone "he" or "she" without asking first, never say "transexual" instead of "transgender"), this also means you have to renounce all the things you enjoy and all the forms of political practice you find empowering, and even then you have to feel really guilty all the time because you still haven't got rid of your "privilege". Ressentiment writ large. And, yeah, we're against that kind of "anti-oppression", because it isn't really anti-oppression.

My "humanism" (your words) is concerned with ethics. Do we really need to get in to why I resent the coercion of other humans and consider it completely different than "nature"? You don't even have my definition of anything … you didn't ask.

Do you ever ask? Do I ever shoot my mouth off? Don't you realise that humanism and it's materialist mechanical paradigm is a spook in itself, it has separated humanity from its organic base, lifted it upon a pedestal, scorned the inevitable fate of entropy as an evil, and propelled the world into a clinically austere and boring Utopianist quest, when instead the future of the world could have been saved with an aesthetical approach to ethical design, like umm, That forest shall never be touched with a chainsaw. The legislation would be designed by the inhabitants of that said forest "Any person who cuts down a forest tree with a chainsaw shall have their left hand amputated.
Warning--This is just an extreme example how regional ethical decisions are made by a decentralized relevant participant/inhabitant, ,,,there are anarchist regions where this is still the regional method. But dramas such as this would only occurs when an 'invader ' conquers. What are YOUR ethics when confronted with the inevitable raw oppression of natural human rage and violence, or with the tyranny of the slave master? The art of war, and love, can only be approached from the poetical aesthetic field of experience and expression,,,

I didn't describe myself as a humanist in the first place. Hi Le Fool *cheerful wave*

To Shadowsmoke. The philosophy/doctrine of Humanism has permeated the culture and consciousness of the West, influenced by the shell of a materialistic religious legislation and morality, a dead paradigm reconstructed over and over again over the previous 2 millennium, there can only by a 3 dimensional spectrum which inhabits the collective psychic drive of the Western culture's eschatological vision and focus, their belief. It resembles the transhumanist dream of the space colony in denial of the wasteland which the mother planet earth has become.

I love how humanism is now the topic here, even though it was only mentioned as a bullshit strawman. Deliberately derail or just dumb-as-rocks? Who can tell?

I think you're pretty convinced you're right about everything... so, I don't know where this convo will go.

Sounds uninteresting tho. The categories of "humanism" and "not-humanism" don't do it for me too much. I am, like, not a humanist, by the definition I use... but I doubt I'll convince you of that

Some are seeing things through the ressentiment of their discontent, the modern post-humanist riding on the coat-tails of culture's new doctrine of oppression, which a learned poster describes as a type of voluntary submission on a grand scale,,,

Hey Le Way, why don't you and ziggy just get it over with and fuck? Don't want to build too much anticipation! Might cause "anxiety" when the moment finally comes, nawmean?

Again, the issue is whether these things have a concrete corporeal source or not, that's it. Domination and submission do, oppression does not, that simple. There's also the means and ends of oppression centered analysis WHICH IS NOT ANARCHIST OR ANARCHIC. Again because of the lack of a concrete or corporeal source.

Also, how in fuck are Stirner's ideas not relevant? Given the failure of Marxist analysis he's more relevant then ever. What does the changing nature of post church power do to his analysis? Modern civilized power as he defined it is still the same in spite of this current soft power revolution.

Yeah, race is real in its effects only because racists believe it's real. Even idpols admit this if you scratch them. The difference between Stirnerians and (poststructuralist-influenced) idpols is generally that idpols believe the cultural-linguistic field is "material" and in effect, is all there is. It's constitutive of individual identity. What we "are" as individuals is just an effect of the spooks we're conditioned into. For this reason, any resistance has to "go through" the spooks people are "interpellated" into. What Stirner (and Deleuze, Nietzsche, Situationism, Reich, Bey, Perlman, Bonanno, Zerzan...) allow is that people can still directly relate to and express the unique individual energetic level which exists prior to language and culture. Getting back to this level means we get beneath the spooks and break some of their power, the part which "internalises" the spook, the "wheel in the head". It doesn't destroy the part which works through wheels in *other people's* heads, but it alters the import of this - it's no longer self-constitutive, the other who imposes a spook is now an "enemy" (not a master, not definitive of one's real identity, and not a criminal either). The whole move of "going through" oppressive categories, identifying with the spook and seeking to liberate the self through the spook, is not effective as it leaves the spook-structure in place. Most often it's just ressentiment, especially in the "check your privilege" form. We've already seen how the "liberation" of a nation does not result in liberation for the unique individuals who make it up. It's the same with any identity. We have to smash oppression (in the outer, structural sense - not the etiquette sense) to free unique individuals from constraints to their unique individual becoming, but this is a liberation FROM spooks, not a liberation OF spooks.

>race is real in its effects only because racists believe it's real.

For fuck's sake how are you so bad at this? No, race is not real because racists believe it's real, race is real because *everyone* believes its real. You don't have to be racist to perpetuate race, including the shit parts, just like you didn't have to own slaves to perpetuate the spook that was chattel slavery. Your interpretation ignores the fact that these spooks are socially constructed, and acts like they all have some sort of material basis, when if you just look at it on its face that clearly can't be true (they're fucking SPOOKS). Just like slavery was comprised of an entire infrastructure beyond the physical chains (e.g., the ability to export cotton), so is race constructed of shit beyond lynching. I agree that idpol is basically asking oppressors to play nice and therefore an inevitable failure, but when you do shit like put "privileged" in scare quotes as though it isn't a fucking real phenomenon (when it is at least as real as the phenomenon of slave owner) it's obvious that you're just looking for excuses why you don't have to stop being an asshole, which yeah, congratulations, now go play in the sandbox by yourself.

'Savant' is ableist, idpol. Can I punch you now?

It's not too abstract for me, it's too imprecise. The implied derivation which goes something like, there's a correlation between being trans and being poor -> there's a structural oppression of trans people which makes them poor -> the system is set up to screw trans people for deliberate-but-presumably-disavowed reasons -> all the existing stuff about poverty or trans people which ignores the link is part of this system of disavowal -> we need more visibility of poor trans people and more discussion of trans people in poverty discourse, is mostly assumed rather than argued, and is open to objections at each stage in the process. By the way, most poor people don't identify as poor, because the label "poor" implies stigma, weird but true. People also tend not to identify as "unemployed" or "working-class" for similar reasons, at least in the UK.

That's a different poster @crit. I think they missed your point but I'm the one who originally called some of our resident commenters "savants". Mostly Ziggy and Le Way, who I think have a shitty understanding of stirner, mostly because they assume too much about people. Anyway, this person jumped all over you because of this stirner shit, which is like oil and water with anti-oppression analysis, which is a shame. I see value in both perspectives.

So you definition of a troll would be - ' That's me! ' ? And you should start your Stirner 101 with learning what " individual sovereignty entails,,,

Your attention span is what screws up your understanding of stirner Le Fool ;)

I think a distinction should be made that cuts the ID middleman out of the analysis. The dawn of domination is not oppression but submission that commensalizes over time via pernicious developments. A propper analysis of this lies in submission not oppression, the latter being a secondary branch at most with fiat granted enfranchisement as an end goal(not exactly anarchic).

Domination and submission is the concrete problem. Oppression is the inflated spook starting with class which was only ever a functional outgrowth of status, something believed and submitted to.

That's a "propper analysis" of a bunch of passive sheep. Anarchists are concerned with what happens after people stop submitting. Ever tried it?

I agree, homelessness is affected by a lot of structural/"identity" factors. People become homeless mostly because they can't pay their rent. This is very much related to the available income sources, which is related to whether they have jobs, whether they have "skills" bosses want, how they come across to welfare agencies, whether they have friends or family they can rely on, as well as things like the house prices in their area and whether they can stick to a work routine and/or budget. I've seen surveys suggesting that homeless people fall broadly into three groups: people with mental health problems, people with addictions, and traumatised ex-soldiers (of course these groups can overlap) - though increasingly also working-class people who just can't get work or benefits. Often there's trauma involved, which might come from family abuse, sexual abuse, police brutality and so on, and which is compounded by how they're treated for having these problems, and then by how they're treated for being homeless. They might just not have the income to pay rent, or they might spend the money they have on an addiction. If they have mental health problems then they might not be organised enough to keep up payments or deal with the welfare bureaucracy. Alternatively, people get evicted because they have low self-control, they get in fights or they're considered a nuisance. Or someone gets jailed, loses their home while in prison, or they're in state care or foster care and have nowhere to go when they grow up. All of this is very moralised, bosses are making choices about who to hire, welfare bureaucrats and charities are making choices about who's deserving of support, and it's mitigated if someone has money or support. So, yes, being trans might well affect someone's being homeless, if their family would otherwise support them for example, or if a welfare official puts them in a certain box because of how they look, or they're fired or criminalised, or they're depressed and/or self-medicating with illegal drugs because of trans-specific trauma. But the solutions are pretty much cross-identity, there's next to no homelessness in social-democracies, there's not much street-homelessness when squatting or travelling or boat-living or self-build are easy, homeless people have self-organised things like the rail riders' movement and protest camps, and even massive land occupations in some countries (e.g. Brazil). If there's any specific way trans homelessness differs from homelessness in general and requires a different solution (beyond squats, camps or hostels not being proactively transphobic), I'd like to hear it. The big concrete problem I can see happening is that so many homeless people are macho ex-army and ex-gangster types, some of them quite aggressive if they're on alcohol or crack, and they're likely to bully trans people, and if someone kicks them out for it then they're putting lives at risk. Which might be an argument for trans-only or women + trans-only camps/squats/refuges/whatever.

Yeah, with complexity comes the institutionalization of mores, the stone legislature, the chain and ball of the modern State. ' The ones who walk away from Omelas ' , by Leguine come to mind, but not one suffering for a million others, but inverted, millions suffering for 1%

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.