GC Purity Politics: A Threat to Unity?

The balance of purity politics, a double-edged sword that has plagued leftist movements since time immemorial, has seen a resurgence in recent years.

Purity politics, as it pertains to feminist movements and general leftism, has long been a source of contention and debate. On one hand, gatekeeping too much can lead to the alienation of potential allies. On the other, gatekeeping too little can result in the dilution of core principles and the co-opting of the movement by those with less honest intentions. The key to navigating these extremes lies in finding a balance between diversity of thought and maintaining a strong, unified front. This balance is essential for the survival and growth of the radical feminist movement in the face of continued opposition and marginalization.

Like a pendulum swinging between extremes, the left has oscillated between gatekeeping too much and not enough, with disastrous consequences. One moment, we find ourselves engaging in endless debates about who gets to be "really" leftist, while in the next, we're embracing the most reactionary elements under the guise of inclusivity. This seesawing has left us bruised, divided, and dangerously ineffective in our pursuit of successful movement.

The problem I have with actual purity politics, at its core, is the belief that there exists a clear-cut, uncompromising line between true progressives and the so-called "enemies of the people." Such a dichotomy is not only simplistic, but also dangerous. It creates an "us vs. them" mentality that only serves to reinforce divisions and undermine our collective strength. In reality, the world is far more complex than such black-and-white thinking allows, and genuine progress often comes from unlikely alliances and uncomfortable compromises.

While it's essential to have a clear set of principles, it's equally important to engage in dialogue with individuals and groups who may not share every aspect of one's ideology but are committed to working towards liberation. This is where I believe movements of mixed ideology may be effective (and have been, historically), however, there is a limit.

On the other hand, when we swing too far in the other direction and embrace a laissez-faire attitude towards political inclusivity in the movement, we risk diluting our message and losing our moral compass. We have reminder today that the mainstream feminist movement fell to patriarchy supporting views due to co-opting by liberals. It is one thing to be open and welcoming, but it is quite another to condone actions and beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with our values, IE: Capitalism, Fascism, etc. This can result in the co-optation of the movement by right-wing elements or those who do not share its core values, introducing elements that contradict or defeat the purpose of the movement.

There are those who are not inherent allies, such as sexists, racists, homophobes, traditionalists, conservatives and fascists, whose values and beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with the goals of Marxist feminism and Radical feminism. In these cases, it's crucial to recognize that while we may share some simple aims or interests with these individuals, they are not allies in the truest sense of the word.

A good example of this in Radical Feminist politics is the opposition to gender ideology, many Radical Feminists oppose gender ideology due to the misogyny, science denialism, homophobia, as well as the effect on sex based rights as neopatriarchy takes hold. Conservatives oppose genderism for different reasons; they see the removal of neopatriarchy as an cue to reinstate the dominant influence of traditional patriarchy and all the issues that came with it - IE: reinforcing gender roles and bringing back open homophobia.

For example, many conservatives seek to copy Radical Feminist talking points such as critiquing the sexism, manipulation of gender non-conforming people, and homophobia of the trans movement. However many in the same breath - pervert the message and support policies and views that actively harm all those groups such as:

• Seeking to roll back gay marriage laws under the guise of “protecting from the trans menace”.

• Supporting politicians who have fascistic policies.

• Promoting traditionalism within feminist spaces as a safe haven to women as an only alternative to the dysfunction of liberal culture (Spoiler: It’s not).

• Equating gender non-conformity and being gay to “grooming” instead of directly addressing its roots in patriarchal ideology, and openly dehumanizing detransitioners.

Another popular method I have seen from my experience, is a fake feminist using oppression of women as a trojan horse to justify right wing views instead of just addressing the roots - sexism, classism or patriarchy where needed. EG: “Homophobia is acceptable because gay men use surrogates”, “Immigrants abuse women, therefore I am a nationalist”, “Racism is okay in some contexts, because non-white men are abusive.”, “Middle Eastern countries should be bombed, because Islam is misogynistic”.

These are very sneaky ways of utilizing these arguments, because they have some validity in things that need to be discussed regarding the patriarchy of men of different identities that liberals often ignore, however are focused on and executed in a specific way to only benefit right wing ideas and often harm all people under that group - including women who belong to also belong under them.

What this demonstrates, is that their opposition to gender ideology is not rooted in a genuine concern for the wellbeing of marginalized people, but rather in maintaining the dominance of traditional power structures while using a façade - being exactly what trans rights activists say of them.

The biggest issue with this obvious deception is that the skeptical progressive onlooker who may also question gender ideology finds themselves in a position where they may question or have doubts about the current genderist climate, but avoids trusting the movement that is being clearly influenced, funded, or figure headed by the far right - despite the problems of liberalism, is still one of the most dangerous threats to women today.

Frustrated and genuine people in the GC movement may point out how a majority of gender critical feminists do not support extreme right wing views and may often spend their time defending themselves tirelessly, much to the glee of trans rights activists who seek to use this image regardless of the truth to demonize feminists and hold people hostage within their own movement. It becomes increasingly difficult to defend GC movements as progressive or pro-woman when people hold increasing tolerance, or platform fascists on a regular basis.

This is an issue because while conservative women often already oppose genderism and have never been known to be pro-trans, leftist women turning away from genderism in numbers is the best hope for the GC movement, as they are the backbone of gender ideology taking root in feminist spaces - without them, genderism crumbles. Many leftist women already have, as evidenced by the emergence of far left GC feminists, but many remain on the fence and closeted about their views.

Ultimately, the key to navigating purity politics lies in finding the delicate balance between holding fast to our principles and being open to dialogue with those who genuinely share our aims. Our liberation politics must prioritize solidarity of all women by maintaining a clear and uncompromising commitment to its core values. This requires open dialogue, mutual respect, and a willingness to engage in self-critique and reflection.

In the context of the radical feminist movement today, this balancing act is more crucial than ever. There is also a difference between moving the same direction with another movement on a single goal (conservatives, for example) vs actually including them in your movement and allowing them to “wear your skin” and political identity.

We must also not shy away from holding those within our ranks accountable when their actions or beliefs contradict the movement's core values. This does not mean engaging in petty infighting or witch hunts; rather, it requires a willingness to have difficult conversations and to challenge each other's assumptions, even our own.

By striking this delicate balance, our journey through the realm of purity politics does not end in disaster, but instead can be a good catalyst for building a more stable and effective (not just bigger) movement.

- By Noray