Guest blog: TERFism, or why trans women should matter to youth-lovers

[Rolo]

How so? I see no reason why we shouldn't appeal to young men, many of whom are rejecting liberalism for populism. Like it or not, unless we play both sides, MAPs will be on a sinking ship sooner than later. So what' the harm in appealing to the cohort most likely to throw a revolution, which is young men of fighting age, most of whom are shifting to the right?

Populism depends on the construction of an in-group and vilification of an out-group. The hostility towards the out-group means populism can't be co-opted. Populism is based on the sense of threat from an out-group, so as long as we are perceived as a threat by the majority, we will be vilified in order to build and maintain support for populism.

It is worth noting that this meaning of the people tends to be both integrative and divisive: not only does it attempt to unite an angry and silent majority, but it also tries to mobilize this majority against a defined enemy (e.g., “the establishment”).

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. [p. 11]

The identification process underlying populist communication can be regarded as populist identity framing by combining the construction of in-group favouritism and out-group hostility (Mols 2012; Tajfel & Turner 1986).

BOS, L., SCHEMER, C., CORBU, N., HAMELEERS, M., ANDREADIS, I., SCHULZ, A., SCHMUCK, D., REINEMANN, C. and FAWZI, N. (2020), The effects of populism as a social identity frame on persuasion and mobilisation: Evidence from a 15-country experiment.

By priming in-group favourability and out-group hostility, it constructs a severe threat to the people's in-group status, which is likely to enhance a subjective sense of injustice among those who identify with this in-group (e.g., Elchardus & Spruyt 2016; Van Zomeren et al. 2008). Research in the field of identity framing has indicated that in-group mobilisation results from priming a severe threat to the well-being of the group (e.g., Postmes et al. 1999; Van Zomeren et al. 2008), motivating the in-group to take action (e.g., Simon & Klandermans 2001). It is exactly this injustice that is central to the populist identity frame.

ibid.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
https://www2.daad.de/medien/mudde_rovir ... pulism.pdf

BOS, L., SCHEMER, C., CORBU, N., HAMELEERS, M., ANDREADIS, I., SCHULZ, A., SCHMUCK, D., REINEMANN, C. and FAWZI, N. (2020), The effects of populism as a social identity frame on persuasion and mobilisation: Evidence from a 15-country experiment.
https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/do ... 6765.12334

By having the LGBTQ+ lobby marginalised from the mainstream establishment, it'll be easier for MAPs to gain leverage and thus have greater power when it comes to dealing with the LGBTQ+ folks. This is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. It's just the inevitability that follows with trans exclusion, as shown by Trump's executive order defining gender as binary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdNRsCLRxhg

I see no reason why Trump would limit himself to just trans people, might as well go after the LGB too sooner or later.

As both groups (i.e., MAPs and the rainbow people) get put under the boot by Trump's chaotic second term, the probability of large segments of the rainbow people re-assessing their previous pedophobia will reach critical mass as they won't have much of a reason to exclude MAPs from their coalition.

One must be able to always make the best of any situation and, as far as I'm concerned, we don't have many card in our deck to play.

LGBT people already enjoyed relatively widespread acceptance. Being repressed by Trump won't bring them down to our level, because as soon as Democrats get back into power, LGBT people are back to being comparatively accepted in society. If there's evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to hear it.

1. I don't see why populism should be identified as in-group vs. out-group, when at its core it just means to appeal to the people as a whole. Citing academic works doesn't really mean that much when we're talking about something with a subjective definition and the scholars themselves will be biased.

2. I don't see why one would think that membership within elite circles is going to suddenly shift between elections, when many components of the state and extensions of the state persist beyond administrations. For example: government agencies, judges, think tanks, NGOs/QuaNGOs, etc. Trump's defunding of USAID is an anomaly and we'll see to which degree it expands, but even if Democrats get in, if there is significant damage done, that damage cannot just be immediately reversed.

3. Societal views aren't going to rapidly shift based on who is in power. It is clear that there is a public sentiment against left-liberal parties in the West and that the motion of direction is definitely not in the direction of the liberal left and center.

4. The low-hanging fruit of identity politics and the liberal left and center has already been picked. There was a significant public interest in issues like gay marriage, gays in the military, with opposition coming primarily from the religious right. The only issue that really motivates the public in that direction at the current moment is abortion. While trans issues are obviously important to people who identify as trans, the greater public is not particularly motivated on this issue to the extent that it was about gays. While there might be some general sympathy for people who identify as trans, there is significantly more motivation in people who are opposed to the trans movement.

5. Hostility to MAPs is universal across the political spectrum, as is child protectionism. That means there is no strategic reason to have any inherent preference for the "left" or the "right". However, being that the establishment left already has a strongly established identity and narrative and the anti-establishment left has proven itself incapable of significantly challenging this, whereas this is not the case within the right, it means there should be a strategic thinking of where the most ground could be gained. In the battle between political correctness and anti-political correctness online, it is exceedingly common to see pictures of lolicon or young anime girls from the camp of anti-political correctness, which is today associated more with the right. The defense of free speech is also more common within elements of the right than within most of the left, as well, even if the implementation often leaves much to be desired. The point being that the right is currently much more ideologically diverse and open to pressure from different angles, whereas this is not the case with the left.

6. Ultimately the issue is not about MAPs or about ever-smaller subgroups of people, but about child protectionism. In the case of fearing gay/trans influence, the cultural right is generally very child protectionist, but in many other instances, this is not the case. Many people who could be identified as being on the cultural right are more open to children working earlier, less involvement of CPS, less government involvement in how people raise their children, homeschooling/unschooling, children engaging in dangerous activities (using knives, power tools, etc.)., and many other things. While this might not relate directly with MAPs, a more relaxed environment and less government intervention into the lives of parents and children is likely to increase the overall freedom that children can enjoy, which would change the social environment. This, in any case, is much more likely to have an effect than that the LGBT train will eventually reach the MAP station.

[PorcelainLark]

This is starting to get way off-topic, but I'll bite.

I don't see why populism should be identified as in-group vs. out-group, when at its core it just means to appeal to the people as a whole.

Populism depends on the concept of the general will as opposed to the will of all.

Rousseau distinguished between the general will (volonté générale) and the will of all (volonté de tous). While the former refers to the capacity of the people to join together into a community and legislate to enforce their common interest, the latter denotes the simple sum of particular interests at a specific moment in time. Populism’s monist and moral distinction between the pure people and the corrupt elite reinforces the idea that a general will exists.

If populism is meaningfully distinct from establishment politics, what is it doing differently? To maximize appeal to a majority, is to sacrifice the interests of minorities. There has to be an obstacle that was getting in the way of the will of the people. Blaming of out-groups is central to populism.

Hostility to MAPs is universal across the political spectrum, as is child protectionism. That means there is no strategic reason to have any inherent preference for the "left" or the "right".

Incorrect. Democrats are bad, republicans are significantly worse.

Megan's law cosponsors: 23 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006: 32 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996: 7 Republicans, 1 Democrat
Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011: 28 Republicans, 11 Democrats

However, being that the establishment left already has a strongly established identity and narrative and the anti-establishment left has proven itself incapable of significantly challenging this, whereas this is not the case within the right, it means there should be a strategic thinking of where the most ground could be gained. In the battle between political correctness and anti-political correctness online, it is exceedingly common to see pictures of lolicon or young anime girls from the camp of anti-political correctness, which is today associated more with the right. The defense of free speech is also more common within elements of the right than within most of the left, as well, even if the implementation often leaves much to be desired. The point being that the right is currently much more ideologically diverse and open to pressure from different angles, whereas this is not the case with the left.

The disaffected young men that support the Republican party don't set the agenda for that party. The majority of republican members of congress are from the older generations, who, as shown above, will put obscenity laws before freedom of speech. This isn't mutually exclusive with libertarians online being significantly more accommodating of MAPs than progressives tend to be.

Ultimately the issue is not about MAPs or about ever-smaller subgroups of people, but about child protectionism. In the case of fearing gay/trans influence, the cultural right is generally very child protectionist, but in many other instances, this is not the case. Many people who could be identified as being on the cultural right are more open to children working earlier, less involvement of CPS, less government involvement in how people raise their children, homeschooling/unschooling, children engaging in dangerous activities (using knives, power tools, etc.)., and many other things. While this might not relate directly with MAPs, a more relaxed environment and less government intervention into the lives of parents and children is likely to increase the overall freedom that children can enjoy, which would change the social environment. This, in any case, is much more likely to have an effect than that the LGBT train will eventually reach the MAP station.

I just don't see it. It isn't just the fear of gay and trans people, it's also the opposition to sex education, to masturbation, to premarital sex. The right has historically been, and continues to be repressive towards sexuality.

My point here isn't that the left-wing or the establishment are completely on the side of MAPs, or that there aren't some right-wingers that may be supportive of MAPs. It's that I don't believe the right-wing will ever stop being repressive of sexuality, so I don't think there will be ever be acceptance of MAPs on the right outside of maybe heterosexual hebephiles. Even in the best case scenario, obscenity laws remain in place and the sex offender registry still exists.

[Harlan]

5. Hostility to MAPs is universal across the political spectrum, as is child protectionism. That means there is no strategic reason to have any inherent preference for the "left" or the "right". However, being that the establishment left already has a strongly established identity and narrative and the anti-establishment left has proven itself incapable of significantly challenging this, whereas this is not the case within the right, it means there should be a strategic thinking of where the most ground could be gained. In the battle between political correctness and anti-political correctness online, it is exceedingly common to see pictures of lolicon or young anime girls from the camp of anti-political correctness, which is today associated more with the right. The defense of free speech is also more common within elements of the right than within most of the left, as well, even if the implementation often leaves much to be desired. The point being that the right is currently much more ideologically diverse and open to pressure from different angles, whereas this is not the case with the left.

6. Ultimately the issue is not about MAPs or about ever-smaller subgroups of people, but about child protectionism. In the case of fearing gay/trans influence, the cultural right is generally very child protectionist, but in many other instances, this is not the case. Many people who could be identified as being on the cultural right are more open to children working earlier, less involvement of CPS, less government involvement in how people raise their children, homeschooling/unschooling, children engaging in dangerous activities (using knives, power tools, etc.)., and many other things. While this might not relate directly with MAPs, a more relaxed environment and less government intervention into the lives of parents and children is likely to increase the overall freedom that children can enjoy, which would change the social environment. This, in any case, is much more likely to have an effect than that the LGBT train will eventually reach the MAP station.

I agree with these points.
The left chooses NOT freedom of speech (even in minimal manifestation), but "social justice" and "political correctness", which leads to the search for "offensive" words, jokes and opinions, ultimately leading to cancel culture, collective accusations and layoffs. This began to bother many people. The right is a bit free in this regard. They want to reduce the level of politically correct tension. All the major corporations that have always supported the left, as befits hypocrites, began to announce a reduction in censorship. Of course they won't give up censorship of MAPs, but to some extent it will slightly reduce the activity of the SJW and condemnation of other people's opinions.

I support transgender people and I don't want them to think that I am against them. Unlike MAPs, transgenders don't have to hide and they are not hunted by vigilantes. Some restrictions they may face at the civil level they can openly challenge in court as full-fledged citizens.

[Fragment]

I support transgender people and I don't want them to think that I am against them. Unlike MAPs, transgenders don't have to hide and they are not hunted by vigilantes.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ged-murder

Trans people, being more visible than MAPs, are probably more likely (on average) to face violence.

MAPs rarely face violence unless they have been convicted for something.

[Rolo]

This is starting to get way off-topic, but I'll bite.

I don't see why populism should be identified as in-group vs. out-group, when at its core it just means to appeal to the people as a whole.

Populism depends on the concept of the general will as opposed to the will of all.

Rousseau distinguished between the general will (volonté générale) and the will of all (volonté de tous). While the former refers to the capacity of the people to join together into a community and legislate to enforce their common interest, the latter denotes the simple sum of particular interests at a specific moment in time. Populism’s monist and moral distinction between the pure people and the corrupt elite reinforces the idea that a general will exists.

If populism is meaningfully distinct from establishment politics, what is it doing differently? To maximize appeal to a majority, is to sacrifice the interests of minorities. There has to be an obstacle that was getting in the way of the will of the people. Blaming of out-groups is central to populism.

Hostility to MAPs is universal across the political spectrum, as is child protectionism. That means there is no strategic reason to have any inherent preference for the "left" or the "right".

Incorrect. Democrats are bad, republicans are significantly worse.

Megan's law cosponsors: 23 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006: 32 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996: 7 Republicans, 1 Democrat
Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011: 28 Republicans, 11 Democrats

However, being that the establishment left already has a strongly established identity and narrative and the anti-establishment left has proven itself incapable of significantly challenging this, whereas this is not the case within the right, it means there should be a strategic thinking of where the most ground could be gained. In the battle between political correctness and anti-political correctness online, it is exceedingly common to see pictures of lolicon or young anime girls from the camp of anti-political correctness, which is today associated more with the right. The defense of free speech is also more common within elements of the right than within most of the left, as well, even if the implementation often leaves much to be desired. The point being that the right is currently much more ideologically diverse and open to pressure from different angles, whereas this is not the case with the left.

The disaffected young men that support the Republican party don't set the agenda for that party. The majority of republican members of congress are from the older generations, who, as shown above, will put obscenity laws before freedom of speech. This isn't mutually exclusive with libertarians online being significantly more accommodating of MAPs than progressives tend to be.

Ultimately the issue is not about MAPs or about ever-smaller subgroups of people, but about child protectionism. In the case of fearing gay/trans influence, the cultural right is generally very child protectionist, but in many other instances, this is not the case. Many people who could be identified as being on the cultural right are more open to children working earlier, less involvement of CPS, less government involvement in how people raise their children, homeschooling/unschooling, children engaging in dangerous activities (using knives, power tools, etc.)., and many other things. While this might not relate directly with MAPs, a more relaxed environment and less government intervention into the lives of parents and children is likely to increase the overall freedom that children can enjoy, which would change the social environment. This, in any case, is much more likely to have an effect than that the LGBT train will eventually reach the MAP station.

I just don't see it. It isn't just the fear of gay and trans people, it's also the opposition to sex education, to masturbation, to premarital sex. The right has historically been, and continues to be repressive towards sexuality.

My point here isn't that the left-wing or the establishment are completely on the side of MAPs, or that there aren't some right-wingers that may be supportive of MAPs. It's that I don't believe the right-wing will ever stop being repressive of sexuality, so I don't think there will be ever be acceptance of MAPs on the right outside of maybe heterosexual hebephiles. Even in the best case scenario, obscenity laws remain in place and the sex offender registry still exists.

What people have voted for specifically in the US is irrelevant, I was talking about the broader social movements and the potential for them. Try to stay on topic. Not everything is Democrat/Republican, not least of which because there's more than 1 country in the world.

Also teaching sex education is actually negative, not positive, because it gives the government more opportunity to brainwash children into victim narratives.

[PorcelainLark]

What people have voted for specifically in the US is irrelevant, I was talking about the broader social movements and the potential for them.

Ah yes, glittering generalities. Much more useful.

Not everything is Democrat/Republican, not least of which because there's more than 1 country in the world.

I know, I'm not an American.

Also teaching sex education is actually negative, not positive, because it gives the government more opportunity to brainwash children into victim narratives.

Source?

[Rolo]

What source do you want? We're having a discussion in a forum.

You want to keep changing the topic to "But this team voted this way", when no one else has said anything of the sort.

As for "the right is more repressive of sexuality", let's look at #MeToo and the general change in rape laws which get rid of the presumption of innocence. These are broadly left-wing movements which have worsened the public environment about sex much more than some bipartisan bills about child pornography. The Swedish laws which were used to harass Julian Assange were also a product of left-wing movements and parties. And having actually interacted with quite a few leftists, I know that many of them were 100% willing to throw Assange under the bus because of fabricated accusations of rape and because he hurt Hillary's chances.

The truth is that the modern "left" is motivated by 2 things:

1. Being against anything that they define as the right (which means they are consistently pro-establishment)
2. Their highly specific cultural agenda (LGBT, abortion, etc)
3. Slavish attachment to supranational bodies like the EU
4. Endorsement of government involvement in people's lives

The modern "right" is more diverse and is motivated by:

1. Being against anything that they define as the left (which mostly entails being against the left cultural agenda)
2. Dislike of supranational bodies and tendency towards nationalism/localism
3. Distrust of excessive government involvement in people's lives

There isn't actually a coherent right-wing cultural agenda. Part of them are religious conservatives who want to push their agenda, others are more libertarian who are against censorship, for example of scantily-clad characters (including children) in video games. You think that you can push the envelope in the left to be accepting of MAPs, which might work on an identity basis, but the left is so politically correct that you can't really push them on anything anyway. It has nothing to do with people's actual views, but just imposing political correctness on them so they can't say anything to the contrary. It is not going to be the case that people will say "You're being pedophilophobic, how dare you!", the same way that is the case with the political/cultural left on LGBT issues. The diversity of the "right" allows more room for movement.

Since we are talking about broad groups of people and our observations and involvement with them, the focus is on talking with and influencing these groups of people and segments of them which would be amenable to a more pro-MAP/less child-protectionist viewpoint. I wouldn't rule segments of either out necessarily, but identifying excessively with the left, thinking that political correctness is eventually going to be on the side of MAPs, while ignoring huge chunks of the right which are ripe for the picking on the issues of free speech, government involvement, censorship, surveillance, child autonomy, and many other issues is foolish.

[PorcelainLark]

What source do you want? We're having a discussion in a forum.

You made the claim that sex education is against MAPs' interests. Do you have evidence for that?

You want to keep changing the topic to "But this team voted this way", when no one else has said anything of the sort.

Not changing the topic, I'm trying to get something more than vibes to gauge whether populism, and in particular right-wing populism, is good for MAPs. Without evidence, it's empty talk.

As for "the right is more repressive of sexuality", let's look at #MeToo and the general change in rape laws which get rid of the presumption of innocence. These are broadly left-wing movements which have worsened the public environment about sex much more than some bipartisan bills about child pornography. The Swedish laws which were used to harass Julian Assange were also a product of left-wing movements and parties. And having actually interacted with quite a few leftists, I know that many of them were 100% willing to throw Assange under the bus because of fabricated accusations of rape and because he hurt Hillary's chances.

Did I say left-wing movements are good for MAPs? My claim is that the right is significantly worse. So far all you've provided is generalizations and anecdotal evidence.

The modern "right" is more diverse and is motivated by:

1. Being against anything that they define as the left (which mostly entails being against the left cultural agenda)
2. Dislike of supranational bodies and tendency towards nationalism/localism
3. Distrust of excessive government involvement in people's lives

You're omitting other key features:
4. Hatred of "sexual deviance".
5. Being "tough on crime".

There isn't actually a coherent right-wing cultural agenda. Part of them are religious conservatives who want to push their agenda, others are more libertarian who are against censorship, for example of scantily-clad characters (including children) in video games. You think that you can push the envelope in the left to be accepting of MAPs, which might work on an identity basis, but the left is so politically correct that you can't really push them on anything anyway. It has nothing to do with people's actual views, but just imposing political correctness on them so they can't say anything to the contrary. It is not going to be the case that people will say "You're being pedophilophobic, how dare you!", the same way that is the case with the political/cultural left on LGBT issues. The diversity of the "right" allows more room for movement.

I'm not invested in the political correctness aspect of the left. Just as you are presumably more sympathetic to the libertarian side of the right than the religious right, my interest is in civil liberties rather than policing how people speak (the law rather than society). For example, I don't think people should be penalized for misgendering people, but I don't think trans people should be prevented from working with children either. I don't see the left as the monolith that it has been characterized as.

Since we are talking about broad groups of people and our observations and involvement with them, the focus is on talking with and influencing these groups of people and segments of them which would be amenable to a more pro-MAP/less child-protectionist viewpoint. I wouldn't rule segments of either out necessarily, but identifying excessively with the left, thinking that political correctness is eventually going to be on the side of MAPs, while ignoring huge chunks of the right which are ripe for the picking on the issues of free speech, government involvement, censorship, surveillance, child autonomy, and many other issues is foolish.

Show me the evidence that the right is actually acting in the interests of MAPs in tangible ways and I'll change my mind. For now, it seems similar to those who voted for Trump because of supporting Palestine.

[Harlan]

I support transgender people and I don't want them to think that I am against them. Unlike MAPs, transgenders don't have to hide and they are not hunted by vigilantes.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ged-murder

Trans people, being more visible than MAPs, are probably more likely (on average) to face violence.

MAPs rarely face violence unless they have been convicted for something.

It's a sad story, but it's an extreme, isolated case.
I recognize that transgender people may experience serious transphobia, but violent attacks and murders are still rare.
LGBT culture is deeply rooted in history, there are many famous transgender people who cannot be cancelled and erased.

The current temporary restrictions should unite, not divide. It must be acknowledged that the left's diversity agenda was overly intrusive and caused discontent, which pushed the left towards censorship. There is no need to thoughtlessly insert people of different races and sexualities everywhere to meet quotas. The very existence of quotas is racist and sexist too.

[reaver]

There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that will work.

Proof? And no, some claim like:

The right has historically been, and continues to be repressive towards sexuality.

need not be accepted at face value.



An AoC of maybe 7, or being able to marry one's young sweetheart (and, God willing, have a large family with her), compared to having her aborted, or indoctrinated, probably sterilized (and quite possibly, qua pedo, face the latter fate oneself), is sexually repressive?

OK then, rather than the moralism, pseudo-science, and revisionist history so popular with liberals (here and elsewhere), let's see hard evidence supporting the claim of liberal (ie: "left") strict improvement on said repression.