Letters

Sally Campbell’s article on the Gender Recognition Act (September SR) raised important issues, but I don’t think accepting self-identification is the answer. Gender reform must seek women’s consent, not their deference.

It can take up to five years to go through the process of applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate. This is monstrously long for people wishing to transition and leaves them abandoned in a legal limbo and more vulnerable to misogynist violence.

Kevin Devine and Susan Rosenthal make some valid points about the importance of social environment in the genesis of mental disorder, in their defence of Oliver James’s book Not In Your Genes (Feedback, September SR).

But this doesn’t prevent their “blank slate” view of the mind being not just scientifically flawed, but also potentially reactionary in a political sense.

The political terrain underlying debates about antisemitism and Zionism has shifted dramatically since 2000. This shift has been shaped by the second intifada, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the more recent revival of antisemitism on the far right.

John Rose’s contribution to the discussion (“Antisemitism and anti-Zionism today”, January SR) is a serious attempt to address the consequences of these developments. However, I fear John’s approach risks confusing the issues at stake rather than clarifying them.

John Rose’s article may serve to begin a discussion but certainly was not a “clear perspective” as claimed by SR. John argues “the need to campaign for national dialogue between Palestinians and Israeli Jews”. That would be nice. But in what world have the Palestinians got the power to make Israeli Jews listen? The Netanyahu government may step back from the proposal to extend Israeli law to Ma’ale Adumin, the massive illegal settlement which cuts the West Bank in two.

We have President Trump appointing open antisemites to the White House, the end of the so called “solution” of two separate states for Jews and for Palestinians, the expansion of “illegal” settlement in the occupied West Bank — and John Rose argues for the “the need to campaign for a national dialogue between Palestinians and Israeli Jews”.

Is this really the key task for socialists and students on British campuses today? Few Israeli students study here, and those that do have served three years in the Israeli army where they are taught to hate and kill Palestinians.

A postscript on Noel Halifax’s discussion of the attitudes of the different bits of the German left (“The First Sexual Liberation Movement”, January SR): “the left radical Kurt Hiller” fled to Britain where he was turned by MI5 to spy on Communist refugees!

Merilyn Moos
London

Michael Lavalette’s piece on Universal Basic Income (“Safety Net Without Stigma”, October SR) is spot on. And the two letters, one supporting the idea, one against (November SR), are an object lesson in our united-front politics.

We support transitional initiatives such as UBI with enthusiasm because they benefit our class and strike a crushing blow to austerity blame-culture.

Socialists should completely reject the concept of UBI for one main basic reason: it takes class struggle out of capitalism.

Instead of fighting for higher wages, against privatisation of the NHS, schools and all the rest and for higher benefits and less means testing, workers would be sidetracked into an endless and pointless discussion on how to best balance UBI.

Michael Lavalette’s article in October SR is a telling example.

David Paenson
Frankfurt, Germany

Michael Lavalette’s article on universal basic income (October SR) is welcome and I share his basic assumptions. I would like to add some points.

A debate about UBI has been raging in Germany for a while. The Left Party (Die Linke) is split on the question with the trade union wing inside The Left being against UBI for similar reasons to those Michael mentions.

In his otherwise excellent article, “Black Lives Matter” (October SR), Brian Richardson repeats a fallacy promoted by the American mass media — that the “more than 19 million white Americans” who “fall below the poverty line” form the “cohort of justifiably angry Americans that the billionaire Donald Trump has pitched his bellicose appeal.” The facts do not concur.