Am listening to Naomi Klein's Doppelganger. It's a truly excellent analysis of the growth of the populist conspiratorial right and the rocket fuel given to it by the pandemic and covid conspiracy theories.
One thing she's very good on is the way Steve Bannon has strategised the platform of issues on the basis of balls that have been dropped by liberals/progressives. There are kernels of truth in everything that turns up in what she calls 'the mirror world.'
These include the abject failure of most mainstream leftish/liberal parties to challenge financial elites, corporate profiteering, and the antidemocratic power of the tech companies over public speech.
She recognises that the progressive side has developed a habit, also mirrored by those in the mirror world (who indeed is in the world and who is in the mirror?), to caricature and dismiss those who do not share their beliefs.
Both sides, I would say, are operating tribally. For the progressives it is 'us' vs 'the bigots/rednecks/nazis' etc. For the populists its 'us' vs. 'the coastal elites' or 'the sheeple' or 'the cultural Marxists.'
Because the leftish/progressive side has dropped so many balls about confronting the structural/financial/corporate/tech power dominating public life, it has left a lot of room for the populist right to build a platform which claims to address these issues, and then twist it into conspiracy theory, and direct people justified unease and resentment at the wrong targets.
Bannon did this for Trump before the 2016 election, trying to hive off part of the traditional Democratic vote, and appealing to blue collar workers, by taliung about bringing back American jobs, and confronting the power of Wall Street. None of which he actually did.
Now Bannon is building something called MAGA+, and a lot of its focus is on 'warrior mums' and the activist effort to push back on threats to children and to challenge what is happening in education by taking over school boards. Enter the pedo/groomer discourse, Moms for Liberty etc.
Here we encounter the single greatest weakness in Klein's analysis. With respect to the trans issue, she is still a good North American progressive. It is noticeable that on issue of the failures of progressive parties to challenge financial and corporate profiteering, she is accurate and honest.
However, she does a massive swerve around the trans issue. And fails to address what 'kernel of truth' there might be that the populists have picked up and run with. She reduces the whole basis of the backlash to trad moms concerns about bathrooms, which is to say, she tries to trivialise it.
She also has an interesting section on how progressives have focused too much on changing discourse, and the mistake they made about thinking that would lead to material structural change.
It's notable I think, that her analysis could be used, very effectively, to think through how the trans issue has massively fed into the populist backlash.
I'd say that after the capitulation to neoliberalism and corporate/tech hegemony, the trans issue is probably the single biggest ball dropped by the progressive side.
Indeed, it's not even a ball they dropped. It's a ball they picked up and ran with as far as they could in all directions.
Some time ago I said that trying to convince people that it was an artefact of 'ciswhiteheteropatriarchy' to think human beings were sexed was possibly the most damaging thing that has ever been done to the left-wing analysis of structural power.
Given how things are playing out, I stand by that. I do not think all this nonsense about cultural Marxism and wotnot would have got anywhere near the momentum it has had pretty much the whole of leftish/progressive society not decided to try and make people believe that humans being sexed was an artefact of power, and then tried to bully anyone who questioned them by calling them a bigot.
What Klein misses by failing to interrogate the trans issue, and its role in all of this, is that there is a connection between the take up of the trans issue by the progressive side, their capitulation to neoliberalism, and their excessive concern with discourse over real material and structural change.
It was *because* the trans issue allowed such evident justice washing among progressives and corporate and financial power, but required only symbolic or discursive changes that had no material structural impact on bottom lines, and 'merely' took shit away from women, that it has been so widely embraced by public institutions.
This is not 'cultural marxism.' This is corporate and institutional power wanting to dress up in the garb of caring about inequality or injustice, while doing fuck all to actually address it.
And in so doing, elevating a type of social justice discourse which is obsessed with policing speech, and castigating people for being bigots, and chucking them off social media platforms, and pisses most people right off.
All through this conflict I worried about the extent to which trans ideology and its intertwined SJW discourse was breaking all the concepts of left-wing analysis and feeding them to the other side.
That has happened, to an extent far beyond what I was worrying about.
Klein, like me, is especially worried about the way in which the breaking of meaning is undermining the discourse of anti-fascism. The way in which the Bannon-esque conspiratorial alt-right is using the language of resisting the authoritarianism of financial/tech power to feed into its own form of authoritarianism.
In this corner of the online world, we have also seen of late the way in which the trans/SJW misuse of the epithet 'nazi' or 'fascist' has fed into a backlash in which many people now think that epithet means nothing at all.
And they think this at a time where there is a massive populist backlash which allegedly sets itself against corporate and financial elites, while actually directing a lot of people's legitimate fear about what the fuck is going on in the world, at immigrants, or racialised minorities, or women, or deviants. That also directs people's fears at a 'globalist elite' which, if you just scratch the surface, starts to look very like 'Jews.'
Klein is right, we still need the language of anti-fascism. And we need to resist the way in which, like all the other language, it is being distorted in 'the mirror world.'
We also need to be unflinchingly honest about how the progressive side really fucked shit up in a way that has fed into what we are seeing now.
I do not think the usefulness of Klein's excellent book is impaired by her swerve around the trans issue.
But that swerve does tell us something. Because Klein is one of the greatest contemporary analysts of corporate and neoliberal exploitation and one of the most clear sighted about the absolute dangers to humanity that it poses.
The fact she won't let herself analyse the way the trans issue has been exploited by corporate and institutional power, and how that is feeding into the populist backlash, is itself an artefact of the oppositional culture war mirroring going on between the progressive and the populist tribes she discusses. As she says, they are, 'reverse marionettes.'
The space for discussion between these two tribes of marionettes is getting more and more squeezed.
Those of us who understand that a good part of what is going on in this craziness all around us is the departure from reality, must, I think, however hard it is, stick to our commitment to think in contact with reality. And the understanding that being in contact with reality is often a matter of messiness, and complexity, and nuance. None of which is ever welcomed by tribes of 'you're either with us or against us' identitarians.
We must continue to call out the distortions of reality being executed by both warring tribes, although that will often lead to name-calling, and accusations of treachery, or being on the other 'bad side,' by both tribes.
Fun times eh.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The claim that people are responding to the Epstein scandal only because it is about billionaires, or they are focusing entirely on the more outlandish parts of it, and that they are in general in some kind of hysterical
salacious feeding frenzy is a wilful misrepresentation of the responses.
- There have been many thoughful pieces by feminists about what Epstein reveals about our attitudes to women and girls in general, and what this tells us about patriarchal culture. To say people are only
interested in this because its spicy is false. We're interested in it because it reveals how the degredation of women and girls is central to how our culture works, and at the most elite levels. But there is no acknowledgment by KS of these analysis, because she is generally
I guess it shouldn't be that surprising that people who devised a political project based on reality denial seem to think that reality denial is the best response to a court judgement reasserting reality.
Stephen Whittle, 2001: 'being a man or a woman is contained in someone's gender identity'
Stephen Whittle, 2007: The GRA rewrites the meaning of sex and gender in law and gender now determines sex
Stonewall and various TRAs and orgs: 2010-2025: The GRA redefines the meaning of sex in the EA2010, and the protected charactersitic of gender reassignment means that you cannot exclude trans people from single sex spaces of their gender.
The Supreme Court, 2025: Sex in the EA2010 means biological sex and single sex spaces are organised on the basis of biological sex.
Whittle, Coppola, Stonewall, TRAs: That is not the law, that is not what the law says, that is an extreme interpretation of the law, organisations do not have to follow that, wait for the statutory code because it will say that that isn't the law, the lawyers saying that is the lay are all liars, everyone who says that should be sacked!!!
What is so marked about all of this is that Whittle is probably *the* prime architect of the trans rights movement in the United Kingdom. Along with the US organisation ICTLEP, Press for Change was the other main organisation of activist trans lawyers who were responsible for laying down both the ideology, and the political strategy, of the movement we see today. And both organisations were connected from the very beginning, and developed in tandem.
Whittle has published extensively, and in those publications lays down both the ideological precepts, and the legal interpretations, that became so central to the trans rights movement, including disseminating the idea that gender identification should be taken to overwrite legal sex.
And there is no flicker of an ability to ever own that and that what has played out is *as a response to the moves the trans rights movement made that they somehow want to pretend they didn't make even though it is all laid out and documented on the public record.*
Stephen, you and the movement you created tried to redefine sex in law in an oblique and illegitimate manner, which obviated normal democratic processes, and the purpose of the SC judgement was to clarify the meaning of sex in law and hence, put a stop to your illegitimate effort to redefine it.
You are correct that the law hasn't changed. Because you and your movement never actually changed the law. But you did spend a great deal of time and energy telling the whole of civil society that the law was something that it was not.
And now it is clear that that is not, in fact, the law and never was, everything has changed.
And you are utterly and resolutely incapable of being honest about what has happened.
So, a bunch of feminist academics have written an open letter condemning the Supreme Court judgement, and the EHRC's interim guidance.
None of this is particularly surprising, given what we know about how captured academic gender studies is by trans ideology, and the particular interpretation of feminism that supports it.
There is a lot that can be said about this letter, not least that academics should be fucking embrassed to be repeating nonsense about genital checks in toilets, but I'd like to focus on a few paragraphs that make claims about what feminism is and what feminism isn't, because they underline how academic third wave feminism produced a hard orthodoxy that has very successfully attempted to deligitimise/reread/erase second wave feminism, and present itself as the one true feminist way ⬇️
So, this is pretty much a bingo card of all the third wave classics.
1. It isn't feminist to define women by their biology.
As we have argued ad inifinitum, this claim depends on a slippage in the meaning of 'defined by' between 'to define the meaning of the category' and 'defined/limited by.'
When second wave feminism argued that women's opportunities and possibilities should not be defined/limited by their sex, they did not mean that the category of woman was not a biological category.
This only happens in third wave feminism, and with the collapse of the sex/gender distinction, most significantly as the result of Butler's intervention.
2. It isn't feminist to think biology determines our destiny
True. But thinking women are female doesn't imply anything about what you think women should 'do, wear, or be' *unless* you have already collapsed the sex/gender distinction, and think that biology is *in and of itself* necessarily determinist.
Which is fucking nonsense.
The claim that it is 'essentialist and patriarchal' to think that women are female, and that thinking women are female implies anything about women's necessary behaviour, only follows if you yourself are working with a fundamentally biologically determinist assumption about the relationship between biology and social norms.
Second wave feminism does not have that assumption. That was the point of the sex/gender distinction.
3. It is only by collapsing the sex/gender distinction that it could be possible to think something as fucking stupid as 'the law defining women as female' = 'enforcing the idea that all women need to conform to a singular, racialised and ableist model of femininity.'
Defining women as female is *precisely not* defining women by femininity.
The whole fucking point of the second wave feminist distinction between sex and gender is that 'being female' =/= 'femininity.'
It is gender ideologues, by asserting that women are a gender class, who *are* defining women by femininity, which is one of the main reasons why we have resisted this redefintion.
Definining women as female is the definition we have defended, precisely *because* it is the defintion *that does not import gendered ideas of femininity into the defintion.* This is the reason we have maintained that is is the only non-sexist defintion.
And meanwhile, these feminist academics are defending a political movement that has styled its resistance to the Supreme Court ruling as #ProtectTheDolls.
Which is a load of sexist shit.
Women are not fucking dolls. And many of us profoundly resent a political movement that signifies its idea of 'being a woman' using 'dolls,' while telling us that its us who are not feminists because we are peddling in 'models of femininity.'
It's notable that in this letter, the feminist academics reject the idea that women need any protection from men in their spaces, and underline, in classic third wave empowerment fashion that 'We are not victims.'
Because of course, feminism is the practice of denying that women as a class are in any way victimised by men as a class, and could require any protections from them, either in terms of legal recognition or in terms of access to resources or spaces without men in them.
But at the same time, the letter makes strong claims for the protection of trans identified people. Demanding that the "state...stop the violence that trans people face at the hands of cis men and cis women [!!! FFS]."
So, let's get this clear. Feminism denies that women have any specific vulnerability to males and deserve legal protections on that basis. But feminism understands that trans identified people are vulnerable, and that trans identified people, including males, do need protections, including protection from women.
So, protection for 'the dolls' (that is, males performing femininity), and no protection for women (that is, female human beings).
Fucking excellent feministing, I don't know what to tell you.
So the new campaign recently launched to link the gender critical movement with anti-immigration politics has been picked up by the press, as was very likely, because it plays right into the hands of the TRAs.
The campaign was launched with the claim: "We’ve won the battle against trans ideology. Now, it’s essential that the gender critical community speaks up about the dangers of mass immigration for women."
First off, Metro should not be using the word TERF. It is well established that this term is a slur associated with violent threats against women, and efforts to bully them into complying with their erasure in law. Anyone claiming to be writing in the interests of social justice is immediately rendered a hypocrite by using this term.
Now on to look at the Metro article.
As we know, the core TRA argument against women asserting their legal existence has attempted to deflect from the key issue of the attempt to appropriate women's rights given in law, by presenting women's assertion of their rights as an instance of bigotry or hatred against a vulnerable minority.
It is not. And there is no necesssary relationship between asserting women's rights in law, and any kind of animosity towards any minority groups, or desire to take their rights or legal standing away.
However, a campaign which explicitly links the gender critical effort to the right wing populist effort targeting immigrants, and Muslim's more generally, plays directly into the hands of TRAs, and gives credence to those who want to dismiss and demonise women's work to protect their legal rights by presenting it as bigotry.
So, seeing as portions of the media and political class are still going with the 'this is the result of a bunch of bigots persecuting a tiny minority' narrative, I thought it worth doing a potted history of how we got here, and why it was necessary to get the SC to clarify the meaning of sex in the EA2010.
n 2015, Maria Miller was appointed as the Chair of the newly established Women and Equalities Select Committee (WESC).
The first thing WESC did was undertake an Inquiry into Transgender Equality.
No women's groups were called to give evidence to that inquiry, because at this time, the government and political class did not understand that women were stakeholders in this question.
This pattern was repeated across civic life in the course of policy capture of our institutions, as we documented regarding the capture of the census authorities. thepoliticalerasureofsex.org.
A very small number of lesbian and feminist groups provided written submissions. Women's pushback against the impact of trans ideology on civic life still had a very long way to go at that time.