I agree totally about the problem. But you assume that the Woke are primarily interested in what normal progressives would consider change. I don't. The Woke, as you say, are largely educated, financially comfortable, and white. They are as shielded from the consequences of their campaigns as champagne socialist Susan Sarandon who said there was no difference between voting for Trump and Hilary Clinton.
These people want to "heighten the contradiction". They oppose incrementalism because it shows change can happen within the system, and their thesis is that the system needs to be torn down. Therefore it's in their interest to take extreme positions, lose, and then peacock about their superior moral virtue, until such time as "the people" have had enough, the revolution comes, and the system collapses. Which of course will never come, or if it does will come with the massive unintetnded consequences.
Yes, and you're right about our mutual friend, although maybe you might redact his name on a public thread. :) And yes, the organizing going back to Frank Kameny and Daughters of Bilitus and earlier was important.
Actually, it was mostly the hundreds of thousands of us who died in the 80s and 90s and forced a generational coming out. For the first time, people saw us as children, siblings and friends. The stats didn't move after Stonewall (which wasn't the first protest, as you know, and was only remembered because some had the wit to stage a commemorative march for community building.) Nor did the marches change anything (the original Gay Liberation marches were controversial within the community because the fringe was all that made the news, even when rebranded as the more family friendly Pride marches in the Eighties. Marriage approval went from 11.6% in 1988 to over double, 27% in 1994 and 35% in 1999 and never looked back.
And yeah, some of them will live with the consequences, but not those economically insulated within arts, academic and other elitres. It'll be mostly felt by the poor and marginalized, especially in Black, Indigenous and immigrant communities which have traditionally been more culturally conservative on LGBT rights. (I have a piece coming out oin Chappelle's special: his framing of LGBT as white, which erases all minority LGBT, reinforces that wedhge. The Christian right has used the same framing over the last thirty ears to divide our communities. (I'm a friend Art's btw.)
I may be fairly "woke", but how is erasure (exclusively using "pregnant women") or othering (using "pregnant women and others") trans and nonbinary people fine just because it's "strategic"? That was the same argument that HRC used in the '00s for dropping protections for trans people from ENDA, and it still didn't pass because generally the people who hate trans people also hate gay people.
What appears to be absent from all of these handwringing discussions around "pregnant people" is the impact that inclusive language can have on the health and wellbeing of trans men, AFAB nonbinary and intersex people who aren't women. Using terms like "pregnant people" would normalize that every person capable of carrying a pregnancy isn't a woman, hopefully resulting in fewer negative interactions or outright abuse when seeking reproductive healthcare. Changes in language could mean better treatment and fewer trans people having/dying from untreated reproductive cancers because they get harassed or turned away when seeking treatment due to their identity/appearance. This isn't just about being "woke", "elitist", or overly inclusive, this is a small step toward making life-saving reproductive healthcare more accessible for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. That's the strategy here.
I can appreciate that this level of nuance gets lost in the political discourse domestically - let alone internationally - and gets exploited for right wing scare tactics, but it doesn't feel right to silence trans people advocating for themselves and compare them to the religious right either. It feels like trans people can't criticize or attempt to change anything in the public sphere without it getting blown out of proportion or treated as woke-ness run amok, probably because cisgender people have made it very clear that they largely aren't interested in listening to us, including us, or addressing our concerns.
The World is Closely Watching America's Debate Over "Pregnant People"
Thank you for putting into words what I've been trying to say for so long.
I agree totally about the problem. But you assume that the Woke are primarily interested in what normal progressives would consider change. I don't. The Woke, as you say, are largely educated, financially comfortable, and white. They are as shielded from the consequences of their campaigns as champagne socialist Susan Sarandon who said there was no difference between voting for Trump and Hilary Clinton.
These people want to "heighten the contradiction". They oppose incrementalism because it shows change can happen within the system, and their thesis is that the system needs to be torn down. Therefore it's in their interest to take extreme positions, lose, and then peacock about their superior moral virtue, until such time as "the people" have had enough, the revolution comes, and the system collapses. Which of course will never come, or if it does will come with the massive unintetnded consequences.
Yes, and you're right about our mutual friend, although maybe you might redact his name on a public thread. :) And yes, the organizing going back to Frank Kameny and Daughters of Bilitus and earlier was important.
Actually, it was mostly the hundreds of thousands of us who died in the 80s and 90s and forced a generational coming out. For the first time, people saw us as children, siblings and friends. The stats didn't move after Stonewall (which wasn't the first protest, as you know, and was only remembered because some had the wit to stage a commemorative march for community building.) Nor did the marches change anything (the original Gay Liberation marches were controversial within the community because the fringe was all that made the news, even when rebranded as the more family friendly Pride marches in the Eighties. Marriage approval went from 11.6% in 1988 to over double, 27% in 1994 and 35% in 1999 and never looked back.
And yeah, some of them will live with the consequences, but not those economically insulated within arts, academic and other elitres. It'll be mostly felt by the poor and marginalized, especially in Black, Indigenous and immigrant communities which have traditionally been more culturally conservative on LGBT rights. (I have a piece coming out oin Chappelle's special: his framing of LGBT as white, which erases all minority LGBT, reinforces that wedhge. The Christian right has used the same framing over the last thirty ears to divide our communities. (I'm a friend Art's btw.)
'.
I may be fairly "woke", but how is erasure (exclusively using "pregnant women") or othering (using "pregnant women and others") trans and nonbinary people fine just because it's "strategic"? That was the same argument that HRC used in the '00s for dropping protections for trans people from ENDA, and it still didn't pass because generally the people who hate trans people also hate gay people.
What appears to be absent from all of these handwringing discussions around "pregnant people" is the impact that inclusive language can have on the health and wellbeing of trans men, AFAB nonbinary and intersex people who aren't women. Using terms like "pregnant people" would normalize that every person capable of carrying a pregnancy isn't a woman, hopefully resulting in fewer negative interactions or outright abuse when seeking reproductive healthcare. Changes in language could mean better treatment and fewer trans people having/dying from untreated reproductive cancers because they get harassed or turned away when seeking treatment due to their identity/appearance. This isn't just about being "woke", "elitist", or overly inclusive, this is a small step toward making life-saving reproductive healthcare more accessible for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. That's the strategy here.
I can appreciate that this level of nuance gets lost in the political discourse domestically - let alone internationally - and gets exploited for right wing scare tactics, but it doesn't feel right to silence trans people advocating for themselves and compare them to the religious right either. It feels like trans people can't criticize or attempt to change anything in the public sphere without it getting blown out of proportion or treated as woke-ness run amok, probably because cisgender people have made it very clear that they largely aren't interested in listening to us, including us, or addressing our concerns.