View Post
HylianSwordsman said:

I feel that calling me individualistic mischaracterizes me, but perhaps in relation to you I am? I feel a lot of these disagreements stem from a continued misunderstanding of each others positions. I agree we're getting off topic though. Thank you for the discussion. I'll confess that my psychology bachelor's never touched on an academic definition of identity politics, but Merriam Webster seems to back me up.

"politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group"

That was my understanding of identity politics, and the dictionary seems to agree. I won't be blamed for what academia has done to that definition that makes you think I'm that off base with it.

I nonetheless checked out your link, and it was indeed...interesting, though it mostly confirmed to me that radical feminism is a form of identity politics. The familiar language of discomfort with cultural change was there. There was a gatekeeping of feminism present that reminded me of white nationalists tendency to gatekeep the American identity. It is really starting to sound like she herself, and indeed you yourself, are lesbian separatists or draw your political ideology from them. It was ironic hearing her describe identity politics as though she wasn't guilty of it herself. The interviewer and Dr. Jeffreys speak as though radical feminism is the only true feminism. Their talk of gender identity and transgenderism makes a strawman of the entire concept. You can't just dismiss transgenderism by calling MTF transgender individuals "men that put on a dress" and accuse them of being men that want to draw feminists efforts away from women. That podcast is a bit of an echo chamber where the interviewers, the guests, and presumably the typical audience all just know that radical feminism is the only feminism, and seem to use the terms feminism and radical feminism interchangably, and openly accuse other forms of feminism of not being real feminism or being "what passes as feminism nowadays" as the host said at one point.

I think we're basically done here (on these topics anyway), but will just say a few things for clarity:

1) I'm not against female separatism. Jeffreys is a female separatist. In principle I support it, in fact, as at least a temporary tactic for consciousness-raising. As to whether it's a viable, long-term objective or whether instead more confrontation approaches to making revolution (such as women's strikes that shut down society, as the March 8th movement mobilizes) are preferable in that regard is, in my view, an open question. Make no mistake though: radical feminists are called that for a reason, not just as an aesthetic choice.

2) As Jeffreys pointed out, there is indeed such a thing as lesbian identity politics. I would point out that the distinction is made clearer by the fact that lesbian identity politics have sometimes been wielded against lesbian feminists. I mentioned the broad definition of the term lesbian that lesbian feminists (as Jeffreys) often use before. This broad definition of the term has historically been used by some lesbians who were "born this way" to complain that lesbian feminism is a form of cultural appropriation by fakes. Don't get me wrong, cultural appropriation is a real thing, but aesthetic appropriation isn't what political lesbianism is about; it's about transforming society for the benefit of all women rather than concerning one's self with only a small percentage of the female population. There is a difference.

3) I feel that comparing me to neo-Nazis is highly disingenuous and more than a little over the line.

There is no need to reply to this post unless you just want to. I was just making those points because they cried out to be made.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 11 July 2019