A fight over transgender rights derailed environmentalists in Nevada

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/06/nevada-transgender-rights-environmentalists-lithium-00001658

by kerneloftruth • 4 years ago

20 7 4 years ago

jevoten• 4 years ago

If you let your secondary issues interfere with the primary goal of your organization, then your support base is reduced to those who agree with you on those secondary issues as well, harming your ability to reach your primary goal.

That's why you should focus on what matters most to you, and remain silent/neutral on as much else as you can.

armchairhacker• 4 years ago

trans rights are an issue which is extremely controversial for no reason. People on the left and right work themselves up for fringe-case scenarios like trans athletes or trans person using the restroom.

I know a few trans people and honestly, most trans people just want to be left alone. A trans person is literally just someone with a man’s brain in a women’s body or women’s brain in man’s body. Actual trans people understand that e.g. someone hooking up with you and not revealing they’re trans, or not accepting that you don’t date trans people, is extremely messed up. The people who don’t, them being trans is not the issue, there are psychos of all kinds.

I don’t see why people are so concerned with bathrooms because 1) actual men can illegally enter women’s bathrooms anyways, and 2) if someone is behaving creepy and sexual in a bathroom it doesn’t matter what gender they are. Like no sane person who clearly appears to be one gender is going to publicly enter the other gender’s bathroom and expose themselves, trans or not. I know most trans people do not like entering gender-specific bathrooms with others around anyways.

But people just get so worked up about these issues. Case in point: one environmentalist group explicitly advocates against trans people using their gender’s bathrooms, and the other group gets so offended it hinders their shared goal to help the environment.

vgel• 4 years ago

This is a couple of anti-trans, anarcho-primitivist wackos. The fact that they can derail an environmental movement is depressing.

FooBarBizBazz3• 4 years ago

Logically a primitivist wouldn't be on board with a high-tech surgical and pharmaceutical intervention.

Or are they compatible? Some African tribes perform pretty serious cosmetic surgeries to mark tribal membership, with nothing more than knives, clay soil to pack wounds, and maybe fire to cauterize. And, I'm not sure about this, but I think female hormones may be available naturally in mare's urine.

So it may be possible to reconcile trans and primitivist beliefs.

The other option is to accept a purely semantic/spiritual solution without any actual surgery. I.e., have an identity that is socially recognized and accepted, perhaps marked by clothing and such, without direct physical alteration. That would surely be compatible with primitivism.

The big philosophical innovation that seems necessary to me, would be something that gives trans people a way to transition (a) that doesn't make them dependent on a massive medico-industrial apparatus, and (b) that doesn't force them to choose between identity and fertility.

There may be good primitive solutions.

ZeroGravitas• 4 years ago

Putting the whole transgender thing to one side, taking up with a group that thinks

a) that clean energy is a myth.

b) that ending industrial civilization is a positive goal to aim for

Is not a good look for people trying to stop a mine, where I would assume more directly relevant arguments about the fragility of the local environment would be expected.

Are these people somehow making a living from being controversial? They sound so utterly counterproductive to their stated goals that I'd be wondering who they were actually working for.

FooBarBizBazz3• 4 years ago

If they want to demonstrate good faith, they should protest some coal mines, oil pipelines, and fracking operations too.

FooBarBizBazz3• 4 years ago

Behind them in the photo, they have indigenous "Land Back" signs, whose message, logically, is that non-"indigenous" people (so like, immigrants), should have their land seized (and be expelled from the Americas? Roll back to 1400?). This just seems like another stupidly controversial position to attach yourself to.

Now, practically where I see these "Land Back" signs is at environmental protests opposing e.g. pipelines and mines, all of which may be well and good.

The environmentalists that protest alongside these signs don't really take them seriously (like, they don't expect to forfeit their houses). But if you don't mean something, why say it?

Maybe I'm too hard on these movements. If they hold out the opportunity of "going Native" for everyone else, then maybe they're ok. I'll acknowledge here that that would be an explicitly assimilationist goal, which "we" aren't supposed to like, but I could actually be ok with that. The key thing is universalism.

A fight over transgender rights derailed environmentalists in Nevada

Related Stories