Anarchism and Gender Critical Views.

Oxymoronic? Or is it more complicated than that?

So, I was going through Twitter the other day, as you do, when I got an angry tweet from some guy in the US. I can’t remember what he was replying to now, and it doesn’t really matter because he didn’t go on about it much, but he was incensed by me having “Anarchist” in my profile. I was informed that it was impossible to be an Anarchist and Gender Critical, that all GCs were fascist bigots and so on. He tagged in a friend of his and the discussion degenerated into the usual Twitter exchange of insults and very little real substance.

I wanted to reply in detail, but a 280 character limit pretty much prevents that. So I thought I’d post here.

Firstly, definitions. Gender Critical people have a variety of beliefs usually incorporating the following: 1) Biological Sex is binary - Male and Female; 2) Biological Sex is immutable, cannot be changed; 3) Gender is either a synonym for biological sex or a meaningless description of a state of mind. The last is especially true of “Gender Identity” which most GCs regard as, basically, meaningless and (obviously) subjective. GC beliefs reject a great deal of Postmodernist thought, but that’s fine by me and anybody sane. See Chomsky, a notable anarchist, for a criticism of Postmodernism.

This has implications, most of which impact on the Trans community, which has attached its star to a great deal of ridiculous Postmodernist rubbish and are often found saying things like Gender is a state of mind, Biological Sex does not exist, and similar rubbish. But they take it seriously and the implications affect all women, everywhere. If Gender is a state of mind then it can be changed and, if you believe this rubbish, that means a man with fully functional genitalia can declare himself a woman, put on a dress and walk into women’s toilets, changing rooms and other safe spaces. (Most so-called “transwomen” are like this, incidentally, not having had what they call “bottom surgery”.)

I reject this, as do a lot of other women. Some of whom are anarchist. So, the second definition:

Anarchy is a political theory that has been around since the 1830s, when P J Proudhon put into words ideas that had been floating around for a while. As such, it predates Marxism. Often translated as opposition to government, it is actually, far more wide-ranging: Anarchy opposes Hierarchy, in all its forms, and seeks a society without hierarchy, where everyone is equal and nobody is slave nor master. Most people despise the hierarchies in their daily lives, at work and so forth, so it tends to be popular, but is usually regarded as Utopian, i.e. people say it’s a great idea, but it’d never work in practice. Anarchists beg to differ.

Anarchy is necessarily socialist, but not State Socialist. We regard the Earth, like Rousseau, as a common treasury and deny anybody’s “right” to own more of it than they can use (this is known as “usufruct”). As Malatesta put it “Your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people”. (More specifically, the watch factory would belong to the people who worked in it).

Anarchy is also non-elitist, unlike most forms of Marxism - it has no vanguard of the chosen. As such, Anarchy is a mass movement or it is nothing. There are no leaders, though a lot of Anarchist thinkers have written down their thoughts. But we don’t slavishly follow the words of a long-dead ideologue, like Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists, etc. There are no Bakuninists, Kropotkinites or Malatestans, though the writings of these people are valued. But we accept that people can make mistakes and also not anticipate the social situation 100 years after their death.

The lack of a vanguard and leaders is also due to another Anarchist concept, that we must be the change we wish to see. If an Anarchist society will come, it will come from people acting like Anarchists. The idea that we should put aside our ideals during an emergency, as Marxists claim they did during the Russian Revolution, is anathema. Look at what happened during the Russian Revolution. The one time Anarchists did this, during the Spanish Civil War, was a disaster, for Anarchism and for the Spanish people.

Like most left wing movements, Anarchism started out incredibly sexist, and this lasted well into the last century. But, more recently, the idea that Patriarchy is another form of Hierarchy and needs to be dealt with the same has gained more traction and most Anarchists at least claim to be feminists. They have also historically supported the rights of minorities, even when it was difficult to do so. Emma Goldman was one of the first people to write favourably about homosexuality, at a time when it was illegal throughout most of the world.

And that last has led to most anarchists becoming Trans-Rights Activists (TRAs). Wrongly, IMHO.

The way the argument usually plays out is that they’ll say that Trans people are another minority, in need of allies. We’ll point out that what they’re asking - demanding, really, like men do - infringes on women’s rights and areas and then they’ll respond like a scalded cat. We’re Transphobes, bigots, fascists (they tend to end up there real quickly, which I’ll get back to). And it goes downhill from there. Like most arguments, little thought is given.

The desperate attempts to portray us as fascists is a peculiar immaturity you often find in left-wing circles. But, I think, it masks an insecurity. It’s only possible to support half the things TRAs demand if you’ve swallowed Postmodernism hook, line and sinker, and I think there’s a secret realisation of how dumb Postmodernist beliefs are at the back of their minds. Plus, they’re arguing against women, often well-known feminist women and that, I believes, does make them uncomfortable, as they want to believe they’re fighting the good fight.

So. I’m going to try an exercise. Let’s assume there’s an anarchist society. And lets assume there are still GCs and TRAs in it. How would an anarchist society respond?

This really cuts to the heart of anarchism. Because people aren’t perfect, people will have disagreements and arguments and, absent a hierarchical government to judge and rule, how can these be resolved? Needless to say, a lot has been written about this by various anarchist thinkers. But I’m asking this of the so-called anarchist who support TRAs: How, given an anarchist society, would this be resolved?

And this cuts back to the previous comments I made about how an anarchist society can only be created by people acting like anarchists. The Means used determine the Ends arrived at, as the Russian Revolution showed. The Means used so far? Insult and libel the opposition, call them all fascists, picket them and show up at their gatherings with hordes of black-clad thugs, threatening (and using) violence to silence those who disagree.

The people who do this may think themselves anarchists and call themselves so. But they’re not. The Means used determines the Ends arrived at. Meaning they want a society where all dissent is squashed, shouted down, beaten down. That’s not Anarchy. That’s totalitarianism. And those who support it aren’t anarchists. They’re children, dressing up in black to impress their mates and getting into a ruck with the fash (at least that’s how they portray it). A little boy’s idea of anarchism.

Anarchy is more than that, much more. As Alexander Berkman said, “The fighting part of revolution is merely the rolling up of your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead.”

So, give some thought to that task. Act as though you were in an anarchist society. And answer the question: How, given an anarchist society, would this be resolved?

(For more information on Anarchy, the website An Anarchist FAQ is a good starting point).