ComandanteCapybara

joined 3 months ago
[–] ComandanteCapybara@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 2 months ago

Very well written! I personally want a very similar experience to what you described from my instance, so thank you for being so articulate with your reply

...fine, I'll go to sleep.

Lovely photo though

but we can still listen to this song and remember that it was defeated before, and that we may one day celebrate victory over it for good.

Perfectly said, cheers to this! Let us party friends (I wish I could upload that gif directly to my comment lol)

 

The famous 'Victory Day' song with Korean lyrics to celebrate today. Happy 9th of May!

Thank you for the clarification then!

Some people are really negative about involving children in religion

Yeah I fear that's probably similar to what lawmakers are trying to harness with this law (OP then wrote that the law is actually specifically targeting hijabs and they wrote headscarf for the translation).

I personally think this could be a much longer conversation about clothing, racism, states' policing and religion. For example, even European fashion used to have far more hats and head covering in it before it became associated with Islam and deemed as "scary/dangerous" in the West.

But because nowadays white Western European fashion has mostly moved away from that specific style, and also because Europe has become less religious, they slowly kind of collectively agreed that 'covering your hair=bad'.

Pair this with their negative views of immigrants and Muslim people and you can see how some lawmakers are hiding behind things like "feminism" or "schools should be neutral" to target minorities and make them feel not welcomed in Europe.

Omg, I never knew people can be that creepy. Ahh, the West...

They can be far creepier than that unfortunately. And it falls again in that realm of "we don't want you to feel at home here. You either conform to European whiteness or you're already going against the law from when you are a child"

[–] ComandanteCapybara@lemmygrad.ml 25 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Most women don't want to wear headscarves, and a few people who do that willingly don't justify allowing religious symbols

I'm sorry but this seems just so wrong to me.

Isn't the ban just about headscarves? A piece of cloth is not a religious symbol and policing women about their fashion choices is an awful idea.

It seems specifically worded to hide behind (white) feminism while just being another bigoted law that specifically targets Muslim people in Europe to scare them and to send them a message.

And I would like to know on what you are basing this idea that "most women don't want to wear headscarves". Maybe most white Western women don't?

Because from my personal life and experiences I can tell you that I've met plenty of both Muslim women and also black women who not only preferred wearing a headscarf, but actually felt more empowered precisely because they could control who gets to see what of themselves.

And don't even get me started on the weird obsession that white people have for black people's hair. So wearing a headscarf can also helps to have healthier hair... In addition to literally stopping white people from randomly touching your hair just because "they're so different!"

dont assume that an org is legit just because it has "communist" in the name.

Very fair argument! As someone who's building up confidence with these topics and views, looking at organisations that have communist in the name is usually a great entry-level way to see what the general leftitst consensus seems to be.

But indeed the biggest takeaway from all of this has been what you correctly pointed out

Very encouraging to read that at least the Wales communists are against the ruling and the CPB's position on it. I had no idea most British communist parties were so sneakily anti trans though

Thus, alongside the patriarchal ideology and the bourgeois family, the demands and beliefs of the liberal feminist movement was consolidated and solidified in the ruling classes’ apparatus. This explains the origins and the constant support for so-called ‘sex-based rights’ groups which have existed for over a hundred years and now are being directed by the bourgeoisie against transgender people.

This was very interesting! And it rang even more accurate after reading from a lot of users in here that most British communist organisations seem to fall into this category sadly.

It was basically the reply to my whole question lol so thank you

relations to the means of reproduction in pretty much any society form the class system which we call gender

That made so much sense and yet I've never thought about it that way, thank you for your explanation! And also for the link, it's already a very interesting read that touches on exactly some doubts I was having with this whole supreme court situation

 

CW: Transphobia

I'm still learning about Marxism and its views about trans issues, so please let me know if what I'm writing is inappropriate or just wrong.

This past week, the British Supreme Court ruled that the term “woman” in the existing UK Equality Act should be interpreted as only people born biologically female, and that trans women, even those with gender recognition certificates (or GRCs), should be excluded from that definition.

To me, this seemed extremely transphobic of course and something I almost expected from UK's Supreme Court. However, some time after the ruling, the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) posted this statement where they said they welcomed the ruling, further staying that:

This materialist outcome corroborates our view that “sex” must mean biological sex for the purposes of the Act and any other interpretations would negate its single sex statutory protections.

We reject any notion that the Supreme Court ruling was influenced by, or issued as a result of, a transphobic political climate and note Lord Hodge’s remark when delivering the judgement - that it should not be seen as victory of one side over another.

All of this seemed very transphobic to me and just a bunch of bullshit if I have to be honest. Not only because it's quite obvious that the current climate in the UK is extremely transphobic, but also because the very transphobic JK Rowling herself both endorsed the CPB over their views on trans issues and gave some £70,000 to the group who made the appeal to the Supreme Court. So the CPB is just plain wrong.

However, as I said at the very beginning, I am still learning. From my understanding, gender is a social construct belonging to the concept of Superstructure and as such it can be influenced. So on one side I can understand the CPB's will to not want to mix the terms 'sex' and 'gender'.

But trans women DO exist. So why is the CPB celebrating a ruling that specifically excludes trans women and deny them the same protections reserved for those women who were AFAB? Isn't that just a denial of the material conditions that show us that trans women are real?

If the CPB is consistent with previous ML literature on this and I'm just writing nonsense, I would appreciate some suggestions on what reading I could do about this topic.

Feel free to recommend any author(s), theory or articles that touch on these issues please, as I'd love to read more about them

view more: next ›