My Response: @ Rennerpetey
DISCLAIMER: This is by no means a cohesive essay. It's more a collection of thoughts that are still developing that my brain somehow considered relevant to your post. I fully admit I'm missing some explanation of why I consider the things I'm saying true. I also didin't expect for this post to be this big, and I can't be expected to write a 10,000 word essay right now. Communicative bandwidth is truly the plague of humanity. I'm also not expecting an equally large/detailed response, nor will I hold that against you. If you do write a tome though, good on you.
I don't know, that's up to you. I tend to think that infighting by calling out a large portion of the left is sectarian in nature, but that's just me. Just because folks are focused on idenpol right now doesn't mean they won't swing back towards class at some point. (Or evolve an entirely new approach.) There is very little reason that marxists and anarchists shouldn't be collaborating together. Assuming we're both engaging in good faith, our direct action is very similar and we ultimately want the same thing, a stateless, classes, moneyless society. To throw shade fairly here. Anarchists are really good at explaining what we don't want, but bad at explaining what we do. At least on the laymen's level, the actual theory is sound. Freedom is a process not a definite state, so we can't actually explain what a truly communist society looks like until we're living in it. We can only get glimpses at the next steps toward that vision. Ideology isn't just a straight vector traveling forward either. The path to communism will likely require a multitude of different approaches and not progress linearly. Which makes organizing difficult, because when someone asks, "what does your world look like?" There is no clear answer to give them, only points to organize around that might one day yield an answer.
On the flipside of that, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and Maoists are really good at having solid points to organize around, and really bad around actually organizing around those points. I think it's really divisive to let the interpretation of Marx be the thing preventing people from doing the most basic of activism. If all these groups agree that capitalism is evil, that should be enough for them to at the very least resist capitalism through strikes, expropriation of corporate property, support of unions, building community centers and so on. (Which is also to say that marxist-leninists, anarchists and democratic socialists should work together on more things.)
To illustrate the situation; here's a list of different organizations that is by no means comprehensive and highlights their particular brand of sectarianism.
Marxist-Leninist Orgs: If people like Lenin, why not just organize around pure Leninism?
I'd list democratic socialist orgs, but they're becoming a dying breed. The Democratic Socialists of America have done a really good job of sucking up a lot of the demsoc fiefdoms with their multi-tendency approach. For that same reason I won't list anarchist orgs. There are a wide veriaty of different anarchist perspectives, but overall we do actually organize within the same networks and run community projects together. In my opinion the best anarchist orgs also keep the door open for a healthy amount of non-anarchists to participate. Assuming folks are revolutionary and not revisionists, there shouldn't be a major conflict. Using my collective as an example here, we have anarcho-transhumanists, anarcho-primitivists, anarcho-feminists, queer-anarchists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, insurrectionist-anarchists, nihilists, socialists, and some pure marxists all working together. Does it really matter that I don't agree with the primitivists on everything? If they want to protest some megacorp specifically because they're using gmos I can get behind the protest because I don't like megacorps. By that same token maybe the primitivists don't like genetic modification, but they'll be cautiously supportive of someone genetically modifying plants to grow human hormones for trans people. There's so much overlap that there's no good reason for us not to organize together right now.
Identity politics are a major dividing point right now. There's a genuine critique to be made that organizing solely around identity is not a threat to capitalism, and that's why the capitalists are actually conforming to third and fourth wave feminist critiques of gender. There's also a counterpoint to be made that gender politics is a potential gateway drug to socialist politics and overall people not being alienated by gender politics are moving farther left.
A question that I have for all the men feeling alienated out there right now is this. What about you makes you a man? For the sake of entertaining the thought imagine being a man doesn't have much to do with biology, humor me. Does being a man mean being stoic, noble, intelligent, well spoken, strong or any other behavioral trait one could name? Because if that's the case it's important to recognize that women can be those things too. It's also important to recognize that men can cry, be empathetic, giggle like little girls and be nurturing to children (trying to avoid the word "motherly" here.)
Again, assuming biology is not a major factor here. Operating under the idea that these traits are culturally conditioned into people, what is a "man?" For that matter what is a "woman?" What does "gender" even mean? I'd posit that "gender" is a really inadequate term, that it doesn't accurately describe people. That "gender" doesn't exist in the ontological sense that people think it does. Gender as a concept is trying to describe a multitude of different tendencies, traits and behaviors in humans by lumping them all into one term. For example, sexual preference doesn't necessarily correlate with body image or personality traits like how someone should talk. If this is correct, gender is in conflict with an underlying reality. It tries to mandate a causal relationship where there is none. "Person A who is of gender X must be sexually attracted to people of sex Y therefore they must also act like Z." If this argument holds, it's no wonder society doesn't know how define itself right now and people are universally confused about their identities. The moment women stopped conforming to artificial gender roles, the whole illusion started a process of imploding upon itself. That's not to say we should force everyone to conform to traditionalist puritan gender roles again either. It's to say that it's time we let go of the concept of gender entirely.
None of this is to advocate for an oppressed vs the oppressor mindset either. (At least in this context, class conflict is real.) Men are oppressed, but they're not oppressed by women or queer people. They're oppressed by themselves and the culture that surrounds male-identity. Gender roles hurt men in very insidious ways. We are taught to handle our emotions with outbursts of anger. We are taught that crying is wrong, that we will be hated by everyone if we do. We are taught that compassion is for faggots and that domination through violence is the solution to our problems. We are taught that we are weak and contemptible if we're not on the top of whatever social hierarchy our particular peer group contains. Moreover, we are taught to constantly be in competition with others within that hierarchy, lest we lose our position and become lesser of a human. We are taught to hate each other under even the suspicion that we have a romantic interest in the same girl. And, godforbid if that turns out to be true, we are taught to kill each other over that jealousy. Jealousy, hatred, self-pity and rage are all too common to what being male means for so many men. I've been there, I'm sure a lot of people on this forum have too. And I'm not saying we all need to just drop everything, dawn dresses and suddenly act completely feminine. (Not that there's anything wrong with wearing a dress and having a penis.) What I'm saying is that there are better ways to handle ourselves, and it's time we start learning from people who haven't adhered to their archetypes. Many of those people are themselves men, they're just men who had the courage to define themselves instead of letting society mandate what they must be. Being a person is so much more than just doing what you're expected to. It's about creativity, passion, love and defining oneself for what one wants to be. Those aforementioned toxic behaviors aren't completely specific to men either. I know women who exhibit toxicity in the same way. For that matter there are sets of toxically feminine behavoirs too. Although, speaking to the experience of growing up male, I'd say we do get hit harder overall in this specific way. It's especially bad when a group of men mutually reinforce all this toxicity on one another.
All of this is to say that I think just pointing at folks and writing off everything they're saying because they're "SJWs" is a very effective way to not engage honestly with ideas being presented. (Not that you're being deliberately dishonest, I'm often guilty of bad debate too.) I'm saying that there is merit in some of the ideas being put forward, and there is a broader picture that is often ignored. It's also important to point out that from a political science perspective there is no difference between valuing male identity politics over feminist identity politics. They're both still identity politics. 4chan is no different from Tumblr in that regard. "My identity is best because fuck you." is practically the argument being made. And when we get bogged down with that argument it prevents us from honestly engaging with ideas put forward by anyone.
So to answer your original question Renner. Why not refer to people by what they themselves want to be called? Moreover why not listen to what they're saying and critically engaging with those ideas instead of letting others tell you what they're saying. Finally, why not engage with the books they write and the theory they create instead of the worst people within their groups that people who already disagree with them hyperfocus on. I think you'd find there's more comrades within feminist movements than might appear at first glance if you give them a chance. My comment ages ago on that one status update came off as vaguely anti-SJW. That's my fault, I spoke before I really understood what I was saying. And again, I'm not saying everything feminism is advocating is right either, just that it's most certainly not 100% wrong either. God strike me down for saying this with fear of attracting the wrong attention, not even fascists are 100% wrong about everything, they do oppose liberalism after all.
P.S I used some language in this post that is actually derogatory in certain contexts. I contextually used the word appropriately in my opinion, this is coming from a queer person. Which is not to say I'm policing the use of the word "faggot" either. Non-queer people are free to use it if it's contextually appropriate and they're not being derogatory.