Homosexuality

[Atlanta]

This subject came up in several other threads and I thought it would be appropriate to start a new thread dealing directly with the question of homosexuals.

I support the right of people to have a partner of there choosing but, understand that most of the political drible that comes out of the so called "LGBT community" has an inherently anti-working class nature.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think you should substantiate that claim.

I could say the same of the Latino Community, the Soap-watching community, the polka-dot-dress-wearing community.

LGBTQ people are no more or less likely to be revolutionaries or reactionaries. The fact our oppression doesn't turn us towards revolutionary politics is nothing more than a sad reflection on the state of the left.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

the polka-dot-dress-wearing community

These guys are all facists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It is sad that even today, when people have access to a wealth of information on any topic of their choosing, mainly since the advent of the internet and digital television, homosexuality is still an issue.

Whether somebody fancies somebody of the same sex or the opposite sex does not, in itself, affect any other facet of their personality, character etc. That is, unless you subscribe to some warped Eugenics-like theory.

The only reason that some people view a person's sexuality as having anything to do with their political beliefs is because of the stigma still attached to homosexuality. For some - wrongly, I might add - it is still a dirty word and an unimaginable concept. Such misconceptions are stuck in previous centuries.

I am not a homosexual myself, but I just think it says a lot about all of us if we cannot get over the fact that some people make different choices in certain areas of their life. They should be allowed to make such choices without being labelled 'more likely to be reactionary' or whatever.

[ellipsis]

I hate how many commies can't see past marxist dichotomous class structure theory and completely write off any type of identity politics.

Heterosexuality is the opiate of the masses.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

but, understand that most of the political drible that comes out of the so called "LGBT community" has an inherently anti-working class nature.
LoL.It's also a bourgeioise deviancy that real workers never indulge into, right?:rolleyes:Come on, please say that too

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I hate how many commies can't see past marxist dichotomous class structure theory and completely write off any type of identity politics.

Heterosexuality is the opiate of the masses.

lol, there is really no connection between a particularly accurate first sentence, and a completely estranged (I suspect tongue-in-cheek, or rather, I hope...) and somewhat wrong second sentence there.;)

[ellipsis]

Or is it just so right that you can't even comprehend it? Ever hear of capitalist heteronormativity? The family unit as a means of the creation of future labor pool?

But yah that is a quote from Raspberry Reich.
I would embed this but i guess it is forbidden:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSWIrKBMBNk.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Or is it just so right that you can't even comprehend it. Ever hear of capitalist heteronormativity? The family unit as a means of the creation of future labor pool?
I think DemSoc just points out that the phrase opium of the masses is a bit irrelevant.When Marx said that religion is the opium of the masses he meant that it acts by absorbing working class people in it and keeping them away from class struggle.While heteronormativity is a form of opression capitalism maintains it doesn't have that role.I believe that the 21st century opium of the masses is the idea of nations tbh, people are rejecting religion more and more so that's no more a threat at least in europe and at least for the new generation

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There is a difference between the hegemony of the family unit and the insufferable propaganda relating to 'family values' in (mainly western) Capitalist societies, and the essence of sexuality itself.
You are blaming the wrong entity here. It is those who, for their own narrow reasons, do as best they can to promote anti-homosexuality and the like, that are behind heteronormativity and thus the 'family values' rubbish that is propagandised in many western Capitalist societies. Heterosexuality in itself is not to blame. Heterosexuality, at it's core, is merely the sexual and/or emotional union between a man and a woman. That is all. It does not have any more fiendish connotations. Such consequences are the result of deliberate actions by individuals/groups, not the fault of the concept of male/female intercourse, love or any other type of union.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think DemSoc just points out that the phrase opium of the masses is a bit irrelevant.When Marx said that religion is the opium of the masses he meant that it acts by absorbing working class people in it and keeping them away from class struggle.While heteronormativity is a form of opression capitalism maintains it doesn't have that role.I believe that the 21st century opium of the masses is the idea of nations tbh, people are rejecting religion more and more so that's no more a threat at least in europe and at least for the new generation

A relevant point, but not what I was getting at.

My point is that it is wrong to blame the concept (in this case, heterosexuality) for what - the image of anti-homosexuality, male chauvinism, family values and so on - has been artificially spawned from, and attributed to the original concept.

[ellipsis]

Well my commitment to my girlfriend certainly keeps me off the battlefield.

But yes I was being semi-tongue in chic. After watching that youtube video you will understand.

[blake 3:17]

But yah that is a quote from Raspberry Reich

Cool. BLaB's a neighbour.


Or is it just so right that you can't even comprehend it? Ever hear of capitalist heteronormativity? The family unit as a means of the creation of future labor pool?

Sister Rosa proposed a birth strike a century ago. Not the worst idea, but bad for business.

[Revy]

can we just trash this thread?

I can imagine how it would sound if the OP had decided to talk this way about blacks and Latinos, or women.

Oppressed minorities are not born ready-made for revolution. They do not deserve to be evaluated in this condescending way.

[Valeofruin]

kind of astounded this is even a necessary conversation... Homosexuality is natural... they control their sexuality no more then blacks or latinos control their skin color. Last I checked there was no question about whether or not being black was any sort of 'bourgeois deviancy'. Last I checked the sort of 'anti working class dribble' that comes out of some black activists mouths did not play much of a role in the question of racial equality..


can we just trash this thread?

I can imagine how it would sound if the OP had decided to talk this way about blacks and Latinos, or women.

Oppressed minorities are not born ready-made for revolution. They do not deserve to be evaluated in this condescending way.

good timing, posted while i was typing... ^ what this person said.

[Bitter Ashes]

Funny, that you seem to think that the LGBT community may be inheritantly reactionary because I always thought that the Stonewall Riots were a really good example of direct action suceeding.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I have a few questions.

1. Why would LGBT people be more likely to be anti-working class than anyone else?
2. Could you give some examples, please?

Another thing I keep thinking is that I'm not sure it's a good thing to class LGBT people as being part of their own separate community. I always think that they're just part of the same community as everyone else - the StraightLesbianGayBisexualTransgender community.

[The Feral Underclass]

I support the right of people to have a partner of there choosing but, understand that most of the political drible that comes out of the so called "LGBT community" has an inherently anti-working class nature.

What is the "so called" LGBT community? Is that the pretend gay community?

[IrishWorker]

I have close friends who are in same sex relationships and they are some of the best friends I have they do not mix in the “LGBT” circles as they see it as crude and embarrassing they are normal joe blogs that believe that “LGBTs” do themselves harm by not mixing with “hetros” and ostracizing themselves away by socializing in there own clubs and bars.
And they are as working class as you can get.

[Bitter Ashes]

I have close friends who are in same sex relationships and they are some of the best friends I have they do not mix in the “LGBT” circles as they see it as crude and embarrassing they are normal joe blogs that believe that “LGBTs” do themselves harm by not mixing with “hetros” and ostracizing themselves away by socializing in there own clubs and bars.
And they are as working class as you can get.
I'll put my hand up here and say that I avoid "the scene" too, although possibly for different reasons. With me it's more of, quite simply, I got sick of all the drama and had a fallout with a few of the other girls there because of that. Wouldnt stop me reffering to myself as a lesbian, just because I don't go to the local gay bars.

[Reuben]

I have close friends who are in same sex relationships and they are some of the best friends I have they do not mix in the “LGBT” circles as they see it as crude and embarrassing they are normal joe blogs that believe that “LGBTs” do themselves harm by not mixing with “hetros” and ostracizing themselves away by socializing in there own clubs and bars.
And they are as working class as you can get.

And do you think bars and clubs which are not 'their own' are jusst sexually neutral? That they are not seeping with heteronormative expectations?

To be honest I cannot think of any oppressed minority that hasn't be accused 'bringing oppression on itself' by grouping together. I can think of a few fucking obvious reasons why queer people might reasonably decide to go to gay bars.

One is this. People go to pubs and clubs to pull. As a heterosexual man I know that if I try to get of with a girl the worst i will get is a polite (or sometimes impolite) refusal. Do you think if a gay man misjudges somebody's sexuality they will feel safe in the knowledge that they will get a yes or a no and not a kick in the teeth. It's an unfortunate situation, but one that can be dealt with by fighting homophobia, not by making ridiculous demands of the LBGT community.

[Ravachol]

I hate how many commies can't see past marxist dichotomous class structure theory and completely write off any type of identity politics.


Oh boy, the identity politics debate again :D

The LGBTQ-identity pool is, as said before, no more or less likely to be revolutionary than any other identity pool if taken apart from the surrounding conditions. A bourgoise member of the LGBTQ-identity pool, for example, is still bourgois and a class enemy, despite his/her LGBTQ-status. The point is that opression and exclusion of LGBTQ people (which, I believe, can happen apart from class struggle) creates conditions of resistance. Also, the opression can and will be used by Capital as a justification for maltreatment of working-class members of the LGBTQ-identity pool, for instance by (whether conciously or not) refusing them a job, medical care (the whole AIDS situation),etc. This makes the working-class members of this identity an extra vulnerable segment of it which experiences class struggle even more intense than working-class people of less opressed identities (Ie. the white hetereosexual male). And that is where LGBTQ politics merge with far left politics. I agree that LGBTQ-emancipation, like black, feminist,etc emancipation struggle ought to be fought regardless of class struggle alone, but it is in this class struggle that emancipation of opressed identities finds it's true potential. There's no use fighting a liberal emancipation struggle inside the structures of the current system which actually profits (again, conciously or not) from the opression.

[The Red Next Door]

How demanding your rights to be equal because your sexuality is natural, can be fucking anti working class? Just please explain that to me because your statement is just fucking stupid. As matter it the most stupid statement i have ever heard.

[Intelligitimate]

I have to disagree with the whole "LGBTQ people are no more or less likely to be revolutionaries or reactionaries" claim. In my experience, they are definitely overrepresented in radical circles given their numbers in society, which is most certainly a good thing. Historically, this doesn't appear to be any different, even when they were officially shunned in almost all radical circle prior to the Stonewall Riots. Gay people as a whole have been inherently more willing to get into radical politics than straight people.

[Canadian Red]

This subject came up in several other threads and I thought it would be appropriate to start a new thread dealing directly with the question of homosexuals.

I support the right of people to have a partner of there choosing but, understand that most of the political drible that comes out of the so called "LGBT community" has an inherently anti-working class nature.
I think its sad that we would even need to discuss this here. Revleft is a LEFTIST community. I am a Bisexual and consider myself just as important to this cause as any other human being. We need to look past these stupid labels.

[The Feral Underclass]

I have close friends who are in same sex relationships and they are some of the best friends I have they do not mix in the “LGBT” circles as they see it as crude and embarrassing they are normal joe blogs that believe that “LGBTs” do themselves harm by not mixing with “hetros” and ostracizing themselves away by socializing in there own clubs and bars.
And they are as working class as you can get.

I agree with that position, but you can't dismiss the entire gay community because it doesn't think the same way. The gay community is a product of class society, much like everything else.

[blake 3:17]

1. Why would LGBT people be more likely to be anti-working class than anyone else?

Most queer people are working class. Given the victories of LGBT people and their allies, more bourgeois people are out of the closet than before. During the 70s and 80s gay and lesbian liberation movements were thought of as liberation movements and tied the fight against sexual oppression to the fight against other forms of oppression. Mainstream gay and lesbian culture, following the lead from radical queer activists, has been hugely successful in gaining certain very important rights.

These rights were won at the same time as the bulk of neoliberal political and economic hegemony was applied and maintained. It's important to recognize LGBT rights successes as victories for our side. Queer culture and identity has transformed many many institutions and basic social practices and the Left shouldn't be ashamed of its important role in this process.

[puke on cops]

I support the right of people to have a partner of there choosing but, understand that most of the political drible that comes out of the so called "LGBT community" has an inherently anti-working class nature.

And I suppose all you straight people are born with a fully developed class consciousness.

[Ravachol]

I agree with that position, but you can't dismiss the entire gay community because it doesn't think the same way. The gay community is a product of class society, much like everything else.

I assume you mean 'the Homosexual as experienced today' is a product of societal structures. The romantic and/or lust desire for a member of the same sex is obviously not a product of class relations :p

It is interesting you touch on this subject though, Foucault's The History of Sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Sexuality) deals extensivly with this.

The popular stereotype of 'the homosexual male' (eg. masculine/feminine traits inversion, exclusive homosexuality as opposed to shades of bisexuality, liberal politics, etc) is a product of the 'politics of sexuality'. If we, for example, trace the popular conception of 'the homosexual male' throughout history, we find it changes with the social constructions around it, from the 'disgusting, perverted sodomist and rapist' to the relatively emancipated, albeit simplistic, popular conception of today. In order to understand this, we have to look at the bigger picture of biopolitics. Homosexuality, especially in times where artificial conception wasn't availabe, has been viewed as undermining reproductivity. From the bourgois point of view, which relies on masses of workers to depress wages, this is obviously 'economically unhealthy'. For the church, which relied on it's power through indoctrination passed from generation to generation, desiring the maximum ammount of adherents possible, the homosexual male (considered hedonistic and incapable of 'family life') threatened the reproduction of their worldview and hence their social power. From these biopolitical conditions (amongst others) opression arose.

To make a very long sidestory short, 'the homosexual male of popular conception' is indeed a social construct. Homosexuality in itself (although I dislike to speak about it as an exclusive orientation) obviously, is not.

["Red Scum"]

Sexuality and class have nothing to do with eachother. This thread is retarded.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Sexuality and class have nothing to do with eachother. This thread is retarded.

Really?

Because I see alot of LGBTQ people blurring class lines by thinking they have more in common with their gay bosses and politicians than they do their heterosexual fellow workers.

I see Gay club owners having arrested Queer homeless people outside their club in order to ensure smooth business.

I see Gay landlords evicting their HIV-Positive tenants to increase property value.

And i see working class people queer-bashing, sputing verbal abuse at LGBTQ individuals and hating them based on who they fall in loive with, the gender they present as and the mechanisms of their sex lives.

Sexuality can absolutely be a class issue!

["Red Scum"]

Really?

Because I see alot of LGBTQ people blurring class lines by thinking they have more in common with their gay bosses and politicians than they do their heterosexual fellow workers.

I see Gay club owners having arrested Queer homeless people outside their club in order to ensure smooth business.

I see Gay landlords evicting their HIV-Positive tenants to increase property value.

And i see working class people queer-bashing, sputing verbal abuse at LGBTQ individuals and hating them based on who they fall in loive with, the gender they present as and the mechanisms of their sex lives.

Sexuality can absolutely be a class issue!

Well it fucking well shouldn't be. What two people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business and nobody else's.

[Canadian Red]

Sexual labels are pointless. Date whoever you want and be with whoever you want. I try not to label myself "straight,gay or bi" but often go by "pansexual or bisexual" anyways. Sexual orientation is social construct.

[Minotaur]

is there any point in this thread for surely egalitarianism is a core value of the left, and i believe as a gay man myself what many percieve about the LGBT community as i myself do is the sex culture which surrounds, it is on equal shape as much as femminists and heterosexuals did explored sexual freedom in the 60's and 70's so surely they should be allowed to experience their sexuality... and surely as leftists there are better things to do than banter on about homosexuality as surely homosexual men and women are proletariate and bourgeoise so let it return to class politics not into the playgrounds of your embarressing us, as we as proletariate come in all differenations and to pick at them is arbituary
sexuality has nothing to do with class politics just as much as ethnicity and age has nothing to do with class politics

[Ravachol]

Sexual labels are pointless. Date whoever you want and be with whoever you want. I try not to label myself "straight,gay or bi" but often go by "pansexual or bisexual" anyways. Sexual orientation is social construct.

I'm not sure about that last scentence (I obviously agree with the first part). I am convinced the prevalence of certain Sexual Orientations is caused by social structures and processes, but the orientation itself might very well have concrete material causes (as opposed to psychological causes given rise to by social processes). I'm no biologist or sexuologist and I'm not very knowledgeable on the scientific consensus concerning the 'roots' of sexual orientation so I'll refrain from forming an opinion on that matter. What I do know, however, is that sexual orientation is almost never exclusive in nature. I think it comes with certain degrees of attraction (akin to the Kinsey Scale, albeit less simplistic). Without delving to deep in the psychology of attraction and 'fetishism' (in the broadest sense of the word ofcourse, not the casual association of latex and such :rolleyes:) I think orientation has two sides to it, a biological one purely caused by pheromones and such and a psychological one, caused by a myriad or reasons. The latter is indeed largely a social construct and the degree of attraction felt to different subjects is most likely the result of social discourse. Hence, sexual orientation is by no means exclusive and the prevalence of casual heterosexuality (casual as in, absent of most fetishes considered abnormal) is the result of the current social discourse. I do think, however the dominance of 'heterosexuality' (actually, I should say attraction to the other sex, since as I stated before, attraction is by no means exclusive) itself is largely due to biological reasons rooted in reproduction.

For some readers feeling uncomfortable, do note this is not a judgemental analysis, I do not advocate the 'overthrow of heterosexuality by replacing it with all kinds of "deviant" orientations'. I'm perfectly comfortable as a heterosexual male and don't regard heterosexuality as 'less revolutionary' as some LGBTQ identity political writers have claimed so nonsensically.

[Canadian Red]

I'm not sure about that last scentence (I obviously agree with the first part). I am convinced the prevalence of certain Sexual Orientations is caused by social structures and processes, but the orientation itself might very well have concrete material causes (as opposed to psychological causes given rise to by social processes). I'm no biologist or sexuologist and I'm not very knowledgeable on the scientific consensus concerning the 'roots' of sexual orientation so I'll refrain from forming an opinion on that matter. What I do know, however, is that sexual orientation is almost never exclusive in nature. I think it comes with certain degrees of attraction (akin to the Kinsey Scale, albeit less simplistic). Without delving to deep in the psychology of attraction and 'fetishism' (in the broadest sense of the word ofcourse, not the casual association of latex and such :rolleyes:) I think orientation has two sides to it, a biological one purely caused by pheromones and such and a psychological one, caused by a myriad or reasons. The latter is indeed largely a social construct and the degree of attraction felt to different subjects is most likely the result of social discourse. Hence, sexual orientation is by no means exclusive and the prevalence of casual heterosexuality (casual as in, absent of most fetishes considered abnormal) is the result of the current social discourse. I do think, however the dominance of 'heterosexuality' (actually, I should say attraction to the other sex, since as I stated before, attraction is by no means exclusive) itself is largely due to biological reasons rooted in reproduction.

For some readers feeling uncomfortable, do note this is not a judgemental analysis, I do not advocate the 'overthrow of heterosexuality by replacing it with all kinds of "deviant" orientations'. I'm perfectly comfortable as a heterosexual male and don't regard heterosexuality as 'less revolutionary' as some LGBTQ identity political writers have claimed so nonsensically.
I wasnt saying that Sexual Orientation itself is a social construct but rather the labels are. Sexuality is natural no matter who it is with, why label yourself? It only furthers the division between humanity...A division we created.

[MarxSchmarx]

The myth of the gay conservative in the USA and northern Europe (rightists on most issues except, well, those that affect gays) is actually one that the right wing and corporate media have very effectively fanned over the last couple of decades. There is nothing the right wing loves more than pluck a handful of articulate individuals of a given minority to explain why the existing order isn't THAT bad, and assuage their guilt, by giving a false impression that homosexuals aren't bothered by oppression. Of course the right never takes their arguments seriously, it's just a show for the rest of the crowd.

There was an excellent book written on this problem:

Homocons: the rise of the gay right By Richard Goldstein

which is available in google books.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sexuality and class have nothing to do with eachother. This thread is retarded.

The word retarded is not permitted to be used on the board, as it's considered prejudice language. Please consider this a verbal warning.

[The Feral Underclass]

I assume you mean 'the Homosexual as experienced today' is a product of societal structures. The romantic and/or lust desire for a member of the same sex is obviously not a product of class relations :p

No, I meant what I said. There is an assumption in this thread that the gay community should be radical by virtue of it being gay and because it's not, it should be dismissed. The gay community is no different to any other section of society that shares the same class and social divisions, assumptions and prejudices. This is something revolutionaries obviously have to struggle against, and it's the same with the gay community.

[Ravachol]

No, I meant what I said. There is an assumption in this thread that the gay community should be radical by virtue of it being gay and because it's not, it should be dismissed.


Which is exactly what I'm trying to combat in my previous posts.



The gay community is no different to any other section of society that shares the same class and social divisions, assumptions and prejudices.

Of course, the LBGTQ community isn't any more or less revolutionary in-itself as I stated before, but it is their opression that causes resistance and intensifies class struggle FROM WITHIN the gay community. The same thing would apply to 'heterosexuals' if roles were reversed.

[RadioRaheem84]

Agree with the above posts. The homosexual community is very diverse in its political beliefs. I've met homosexuals of all stripes; conservative, liberal, Marxist, even religious.

The community portrayed in the media is not one that's reflected among the whole community. They try to portray them all as hopelessly bourgeoisie and reflective of the worst excesses of liberal bourgeoisie society; insufferable, materialistic, etc. It's actually quite disgusting and I wonder why the community puts up with that image.

[Pogue]

Which is exactly what I'm trying to combat in my previous posts.



Of course, the LBGTQ community isn't any more or less revolutionary in-itself as I stated before, but it is their opression that causes resistance and intensifies class struggle FROM WITHIN the gay community. The same thing would apply to 'heterosexuals' if roles were reversed.

But a rich industrial gay person and a working class gay person, say in the context of government oppression agaisnt gays, don't have diverging interests; whats more, you could suffer homophobic discrimination as a gay working class person from heterosexual working class people. Homosexuality isn't a 'class issue'.

[Ravachol]

But a rich industrial gay person and a working class gay person, say in the context of government oppression agaisnt gays, don't have diverging interests; whats more, you could suffer homophobic discrimination as a gay working class person from heterosexual working class people. Homosexuality isn't a 'class issue'.

I never said that. I said the opression of homosexuals, which exists SEPERATLY from class struggle, intensifies class struggle for working-class homosexuals. And that's why working-class members of repressed identities usually have a lot of revolutionary potential. The repression of homosexuality exists seperatly from class struggle and ought to be eliminated fully of course, however, it is because of this opression that the working-class segments of the homosexual identity experience their class struggle more intense.

[The Feral Underclass]

Which is exactly what I'm trying to combat in my previous posts.

To be clear, when I use the term "gay community, I am not referring to individual homosexuals or homosexuality.


Of course, the LBGTQ community isn't any more or less revolutionary in-itself as I stated before, but it is their opression that causes resistance and intensifies class struggle FROM WITHIN the gay community. The same thing would apply to 'heterosexuals' if roles were reversed.

In what way does it intensify class struggle?

[Ravachol]

In what way does it intensify class struggle?

Allright, let us take the example of a working-class homosexual male who lives in a society where homosexuality is actively discriminated against. Employers know that it's harder for them to get a job and their society-wide marginalisation usually means their general living-conditions are worse-off. This can be used by capital to justify depressing wages for homosexual workers, reject secondary benefits at work and further bullying. All the while a society where homophobia is widespread would not frown upon such practices. Hence, working-class homosexuals will experience their class struggle more intense due to the fact that institutionalized homophobia creates a pretext and justification for exploitation and maltreatment. Sure, bourgois homosexuals will experience this maltreatment as well, but their class status allows them to escape the worst of it and doesn't force them into wage slavery and all it's hellish trappings.

Compare institutionalised racism and the result on the working-class segment of the ethnic-minority.

[The Feral Underclass]

Allright, let us take the example of a working-class homosexual male who lives in a society where homosexuality is actively discriminated against. Employers know that it's harder for them to get a job and their society-wide marginalisation usually means their general living-conditions are worse-off.

How is it harder for homosexuals to get jobs? What I mean is, how does that manifest itself in a modern, liberal society? And I don't accept that working class homosexuals have worse living conditions than heterosexuals.


This can be used by capital to justify depressing wages for homosexual workers, reject secondary benefits at work and further bullying.

We don't live in the 1960's any more. All of these things are legislated against, especially in the UK. While I accept bullying is an issue, but we have a minimum wage and civil unions and benefit rights across the board. Our liberal government has gone out of its way to appear as if it's liberating homosexuals, and for the most part, the gay community has lapped it up.

Having begged for scraps, they're now dotingly thankful.


All the while a society where homophobia is widespread would not frown upon such practices. Hence, working-class homosexuals will experience their class struggle more intense due to the fact that institutionalized homophobia creates a pretext and justification for exploitation and maltreatment.

I accept that homosexuality is a pretext for maltreatment, especially in the work place, but I really don't accept that being gay makes you more predisposed to being exploited than heterosexual workers. I just don't see how that is founded in reality.

[Intelligitimate]

What about being a pedophile, TAT?

[The Feral Underclass]

What about being a pedophile, TAT?

:confused: What about it? I doubt being a paedophile predisposes you to exploitation any more than it would heterosexuals either, if that's what you mean?

[Jimmie Higgins]

But a rich industrial gay person and a working class gay person, say in the context of government oppression agaisnt gays, don't have diverging interests; whats more, you could suffer homophobic discrimination as a gay working class person from heterosexual working class people. Homosexuality isn't a 'class issue'.How does the opression of homosexuals exist outside the class struggle? It may exist outside of economic struggles, but since the special oppression of homosexuals still comes from attempts by the ruling class to enforce its economic and social order, it's still part of the class struggle in my book.

Although rich LGBT people suffer from the same oppression as LGBT workers, society has been much more tolerant of the rich who can afford to "keep it in the closet"


How is it harder for homosexuals to get jobs? What I mean is, how does that manifest itself in a modern, liberal society? And I don't accept that working class homosexuals have worse living conditions than heterosexuals.Joblessness for transsexuals is enormous and many have to go to the black market to make money and so they end up caught-up in the criminal justice system; their bigotry against people who do not fit into "normal" gender identity categories face widespread and accepted mistreatment in the prison system where they are placed according to their birth, not identified, gender.

For other working class LGBT folks, it is much harder to adopt, to get benefits that cover your partner, and all sorts of other things that the rich have the money to bypass. The rich have an easier time adopting children or paying for artificial insemination, they can send their kids to private schools if the local parents or school administration is hostile and homophobic etc.

Also since the nuclear family is an institution that suits all sorts of needs for the ruling class, LGBT liberation is in direct conflict with the ruling class.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think the experiences in the states is different to those in the UK.

[blake 3:17]

This doesn't apply everywhere, but the major gains for sexual liberation in Canada were made through three channels that often overlapped: 1) The labour movement : The Canadian Union of Postal Workers were the first national union to take on the fight for gay and lesbian rights at work and win. 2) The Queer movement -- By that I'd mean the original Pride founders, people associated with The Body Politic, lesbian feminists, Aids Action Now! and other formations and 3)The revolutionary Left -- primarily Trotskyist, Maoist and Anarchist.

Doing a quick bit of google research just to check a few facts and came across the fact that the Toronto bath house raids were the largest mass arrest in Canada since the October Crisis ten years previous (when Quebecois revolutionary nationalists provoked the Canadian state to impose the War Measures Act, which resulted in a massive crackdown on radicals and revolutionaries inside Quebec and outside).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Soap

The last time I attended Toronto Pride a whole bunch of us were threatened with arrest for picketing the table of a homophobic ultra right provincial minister. The big issue this past year was whether to allow Queers Against Israeli Apartheid in the march. Normally any weird ass group is just allowed in, but Bnai Brith took exception to this and tried to play it like they'd always been supporters of gay and lesbian rights and how dare these virtual neo-Nazis take part............ Ugh.



Over 200 march against Israeli apartheid at Toronto Pride

By Andrew Brett (http://www.rabble.ca/category/bios/andrew-brett)
| June 29, 2009

Print (http://www.rabble.ca/print/blogs/bloggers/andrew-brett/2009/06/over-200-march-against-israeli-apartheid-toronto-pride)
Write to editor (http://www.rabble.ca/contact/editor/)
Support rabble (http://www.rabble.ca/supportrabble)
Corrections (http://www.rabble.ca/contact/corrections)
http://www.rabble.ca/sites/rabble.ca/themes/dreamyrabble/images/nodelinks/addthis.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php)


http://www.rabble.ca/sites/rabble/files/imagecache/preview/node-images/quaia.jpg (http://www.rabble.ca/sites/rabble/files/node-images/quaia.jpg)



For rabbleTV coverage, click here (http://www.rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2009/06/features/queers-come-out-against-israeli-apartheid-toronto-pride).
Despite attempts by pro-Israel lobbyists to ban Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) from Toronto Pride, the group assembled in the largest anti-apartheid contingents in the history of the Dyke March and the Pride parade this past weekend.
About 180 women and trans people joined the contingent in Saturday's Dyke March, and over 200 people joined the contingent in the main Pride parade on Sunday. Leading the contingent on Sunday were several original members of the Simon Nkoli Anti-Apartheid Committee, a gay activist group that fought South African apartheid in the 1980s.

Although Toronto's Pride parade has in recent years been known as a safe and peaceful environment - with fewer police incidents than the Santa Claus Parade - this year appeared to be an exception, with violent attacks on participants by Zionist protestors. A glass bottle was thrown at the anti-apartheid contingent, shattering on the ground and leaving some members of the group with injuries. One member of the group had her camera smashed by a pro-Israel observer.

Despite these minor incidents, the majority of onlookers applauded the contingent, many of them joining in chants of "Free, free Palestine," and "Occupation is a crime". Some simply congratulated the group for being able to march after a high-profile attempt to remove them from the parade.

When QuAIA originally announced its intention to register for this year's Pride parade, pro-Israel lobbyists campaigned to have the group banned, with some approaching corporate and government funders of the annual festival in order to exert financial pressure on the non-profit organisation. Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress told the Toronto Sun that the parade "is not a political event."

Queer activists responded to Farber's claims by pointing out that Pride has historically been a political event. In New York City, Pride started as a commemoration of the Stonewall riots of 1969, when working class queer and trans people fought back against police harassment. Pride Toronto was incorporated in 1981 in the wake of mass protests against police raids on gay bathhouses.

"I don't think I've ever been to a Pride where I wasn't part of an explicitly political action," gay filmmaker John Greyson told the National Post. "The whole purpose of Pride was about visibility and fighting for our equal space in society."

http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/andrew-brett/2009/06/over-200-march-against-israeli-apartheid-toronto-pride

[ls]

Good example of when the more identity politics related struggles should be used for our ends, where we should rightly attack those who wish to coopt the LGBTQ struggle into supporting capitalism, those revolutionary internationalists involved should always make their presence known to put it simply. ;)

[Cyberwave]

I hate how many commies can't see past marxist dichotomous class structure theory and completely write off any type of identity politics.

Heterosexuality is the opiate of the masses.

Homosexuality, in that case, is just a fancy way to say population control. :P

I'm gay, yes.

[Ravachol]

How is it harder for homosexuals to get jobs? What I mean is, how does that manifest itself in a modern, liberal society? And I don't accept that working class homosexuals have worse living conditions than heterosexuals.


It was just an example, not referring to a specific situation. In my own country, the Netherlands (which is one of the countries with the highest degree of gay emancipation in the world), discrimination against homosexuals is rather low and we can see homosexual working-class people here are no more or less focussed on class struggle than heterosexual working-class people. What I said was that homosexuals aren't intrinsically more likely to have revolutionary potential, that'd be nonsense. What I said was that in a society where opression and discrimination against homosexuals is institutionalised, either by the state and it's official institutions or through cultural hegemony, the resulting opression makes working-class homosexuals experience their class struggle even more intense. So I never said, to clarify that issue, that homosexuals are intrinsically 'more revolutionary', I actually countered that several times. What I said was that when their identity is being systematically opressed, the conditions of the working-class segments within their identity worsen as well and may very well be a catalyst for open class struggle. In the Netherlands this isn't the case. But I am sure in extreme cases like Iran or Sudan, this certainly plays a role.


Good example of when the more identity politics related struggles should be used for our ends, where we should rightly attack those who wish to coopt the LGBTQ struggle into supporting capitalism, those revolutionary internationalists involved should always make their presence known to put it simply. ;)

I don't like saying 'used for our ends'. I genuinly care about gay emancipation, regardless of class struggle. I just said that when opression of their identity occurs, their class struggle is more potent.

[ls]

I don't like saying 'used for our ends'. I genuinly care about gay emancipation, regardless of class struggle. I just said that when opression of their identity occurs, their class struggle is more potent.

And what makes you think I don't? Using it for 'our ends' ie for the workers' ends as we are workers and you are presumably like me involved in the workers' movement? It isn't mutually exclusive and anti-gay emancipation..

[nuisance]

We need to break out of creating/defining communities by identity. There's no such thing as the LGBTQ community, neither the Asian community and anyother sub-community created on the basis of a common trait. A section of people with certain common characteristics based around their identiy does not constitute the formation of a community in and of itself. As we see here, gay bosses have nothing incommon with gay workers, outside of their sexuality- this clarifies my point that identity politics is not the basis of a community, as neither common politics are implicit because of these traits. Defining groups of people as seperate communities only results in top down multiculturalism where representatives are called for to represent the 'community' a merely builds the basis for discrimination and resentment. To quote Paul Stott at the anarchist bookfair-

If there is such a thing as a black community, or a Muslim community, or a Vietnamese community, there is by definition surely a white community. And just as ‘community leaders’ emerge to represent the Muslim community and to lobby on its behalf, we cannot proclaim ourselves to be shocked when someone steps up to say they represent the ‘white’ community. Whatever THAT is. Paul Stott (http://www.paulstott.typepad.com/).

There is only one community that as revolutionaries we should be interested in, the working class community.
Here's (http://norfolknonaligned.wordpress.com/class-race-and-identity-politics-2/) a tidy little link n'all.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't like saying 'used for our ends'. I genuinly care about gay emancipation, regardless of class struggle. I just said that when opression of their identity occurs, their class struggle is more potent.

I really object to this idea of a "gay identity". What even is it? Homosexuals really need to move beyond the idea that sexuality is a definitive factor and accept the fact that who people have sex with is fundamentally irrelevant. A "gay identity" makes about as much sense as a "blue eyes identity" and serves no purpose but to highlight difference and legitimise segregation.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think DemSoc just points out that the phrase opium of the masses is a bit irrelevant.When Marx said that religion is the opium of the masses he meant that it acts by absorbing working class people in it and keeping them away from class struggle.
If I recall correctly, he had meant 'opiate' in the sense of 'painkiller', as is fairly clear in context.


Sexuality and class have nothing to do with eachother. This thread is retarded.I'm fairly sure that working class unity is at least somewhat more attainable when fellow workers aren't looked at as being sinful, evil, subhuman and so on for wishing to have sex with people of their own gender. And when fellow workers don't use terms like 'heteronormativity'.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I really object to this idea of a "gay identity". What even is it? Homosexuals really need to move beyond the idea that sexuality is a definitive factor and accept the fact that who people have sex with is fundamentally irrelevant. A "gay identity" makes about as much sense as a "blue eyes identity" and serves no purpose but to highlight difference and legitimise segregation.

Homosexuals don't need to do anything but fight for liberation and I think get their allies to join them in that.

I agree that it should be irrelevant, but it isn't in capitalist society and this is where the identity comes from regardless of the wishes of individuals in that group. LGBT identity is the result of LGBT oppression; identity is not the cause or the solution to oppression, it is a by-product of it. African American identity really is not a separate identity (it really just southern culture) but it has become an identity through segregation and oppression.

If people with blue eyes were treated differently, forced to wear sunglasses in public, and restricted from full rights, then there would be "blue-eye identity" - if this seems silly, it's simply because there is no "blue-eye" oppression.

So identity is a fact resulting from gay oppression and is also useful in creating somewhat of a barrier to a hostile society. But if you are talking about "identity politics" then this is something I think, as radicals, we should argue against because it misidentifies the sources and nature of LGBT oppression and is generally a poor defense against bigotry and oppression. Rather than argue that LGBT people should "get over their identity" I think radicals should argue that class and radical politics are necessary for effectively winning equality in the short term and liberation in the long term.

[The Feral Underclass]

Homosexuals don't need to do anything but fight for liberation and I think get their allies to join them in that.

I take objection to being told what I should and should not be doing. I have asked a genuine question and that is what is a gay identity? As a gay man, I have no idea what that is and I don't accept that I have to have an identity based on the fact I have sex with men and not women.

Let's be clear here, working class people, irrespective of sexuality have to fight for liberation and I don't appreciate being segregated into this specific catagory. While we need to combat homophobia and challenge prejudice, we also need to break down those segregationist dynamics, because if we position ourselves within this "identity" then how can we achieve liberation?

For me, my liberation as a gay man will come when my sexuality is totally irrelevent, and constantly identifying my difference to heterosexuals isn't achieving that.


I agree that it should be irrelevant, but it isn't in capitalist society and this is where the identity comes from regardless of the wishes of individuals in that group. LGBT identity is the result of LGBT oppression; identity is not the cause or the solution to oppression, it is a by-product of it.

What is this identity? Can you actually describe it to me?

Look, the gay community, gay people have to realise that we won't attain any kind of liberation while our sexual practices are something that we focus on. We have to take responsibility and we have to make it irrelevant, otherwise what are we doing?


So identity is a fact resulting from gay oppression and is also useful in creating somewhat of a barrier to a hostile society.

But we shouldn't be creating barriars to a hostile society, we should be forcefully attacking it and being exposed to its violence in order to change it!

You talk of an identity, but why should I have this identity? Answer me that. The idea that I have to subscribe to this identity which I had no power in shaping is an act of oppression in and of itself. I shouldn't be forced to identify my difference to the heterosexual world, I have no obligation to be make my sexuality a relevant or significant topic, and it's the fact that I am forced to do so which provides a continued basis for my oppression.

It's the same with the whole idea of coming out. Coming out is yet another symbol of my oppression as a gay man. Society has an assumption that because I'm different to the heterosexal world I therefore have an obligation to tell the heterosexual world in order for them to make a decision on how they feel about my sexuality.

I don't have a "gay identity" and I refuse to be told that I have to have an identity based on how I have sex. I find it offensive. The way I have sex has fuck all to do with anyone except those I'm having sex with.


Rather than argue that LGBT people should "get over their identity" I think radicals should argue that class and radical politics are necessary for effectively winning equality in the short term and liberation in the long term.

We do need to get over this socially constructed identity, that's exactly what we need to do.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I take objection to being told what I should and should not be doing. I have asked a genuine question and that is what is a gay identity? As a gay man, I have no idea what that is and I don't accept that I have to have an identity based on the fact I have sex with men and not women.I was responding to your argument that working class sexual minorities must overcome identity.


Let's be clear here, working class people, irrespective of sexuality have to fight for liberation and I don't appreciate being segregated into this specific catagory.I see the fight for working class revolution (human liberation) as inseparable from the fight against all other oppression. If LGBT people are openly discriminated against, it is bad for all workers. Look at what happens in the US - the ruling class bigots and their lapdogs in the media and right-wing religious organizations don't want to stop at LGBT people! They don't want anyone having sexual liberation, they don't want anyone to live outside the privatized social unit of a nuclear family. After prop 8 passed in California, the people who organized that law are now fighting for "parental rights" to keep their students out of classrooms with gay teachers. They claim it's religious bigotry not to tolerate their homophobia. This is part of the overall right-wing attack on public education in the US - the real goal of the "parental rights (to be bigots) campaign is to legitimize voucher systems so that public school money can go to private schools.

The ruling class always uses oppression both against the targeted group but also against all workers. Black oppression and racism is used to justify the end of social programs while increasing prison populations and sentencing. Anti-arab hysteria is used to justify all kinds of attacks on the general working class.


While we need to combat homophobia and challenge prejudice, we also need to break down those segregationist dynamics, because if we position ourselves within this "identity" then how can we achieve liberation?Again, I totally agree if you are talking about "identity politics" but the identity is going to remain as long as LGBT are systemically treated differently even if individuals don't define themselves that way.


For me, my liberation as a gay man will come when my sexuality is totally irrelevent, and constantly identifying my difference to heterosexuals isn't achieving that.And how does not confronting homophobia change the situation? Gender identity in general should be irrelevant to others but it is built into our society. Ultimately we will need a different kind of society to get rid of the causes of this, but to do this we need a united working class. I think we both agree on this, the question is how do you build class unity? I think it is by fighting all the various extra oppressions so that all workers are on the same page as far as rights go. Identity really does not do much to hold back class unity unless people are viewing their identity in of itself as doing something to combat oppression. But class unity is held back when some people face greater oppression. If gay people are afraid of coming out or immigrants are afraid of being deported, it's hard to build the confidence necessary to actively confront our bosses let alone the entire system. When people feel safe and secure and are in solidarity, then we are all much stronger for it.


What is this identity? Can you actually describe it to me?Do you mean that I'm saying that all gay people have the same interests irregardless of class or other social considerations? I'm not arguing that, I'm only arguing that as long as any group is separated through different treatment, an identity is created weather individuals embrace this or not.

Once we win a world where everyone if free to live their lives as they want and people are not afraid of loosing their jobs because of some aspect of their lives or afraid that their failure to live up to a certain moral or behavioral code will cause them to "fail" to have a stable life, then I think identity will truly be self-defined based on affinity. It won't matter if you are straight and married or not, or gay and married or not; it won't matter if you have 2 consenting partners a night or are totally celibate. Unfortunately this is not the world we live in right now and so religious, sexual, and ethnic minorities are often subject to oppression and being defined by the ruling class.

[Bitter Ashes]

What about being a pedophile, TAT?
Tell me that you did NOT just try to make some kind of comparison between consentual same sex couples and people who take sexual advantage of vunerable children!

Oh and for anyone with any illusions about sexuality discrimination in finding work, please consider what goes on those illegal blacklists that employers use to screen thier job candidates. Heck, they even use Facebook these days to check up on you. As a general rule of thumb, employers are Tories and oppose equality legislation. Thier homophobia is deep rooted and goes unchallenged.

[blake 3:17]

Anybody want to know why I'm a Trot? I got fag bashed and a comrade cracked the guy's head with a beer bottle. That's as direct as action gets.

[ZeroNowhere]

Tell me that you did NOT just try to make some kind of comparison between consentual same sex couples and people who take sexual advantage of vunerable children!
I'm fairly sure that's not what paedophile means.

[The Feral Underclass]

I was responding to your argument that working class sexual minorities must overcome identity.

And they must.


Again, I totally agree if you are talking about "identity politics" but the identity is going to remain as long as LGBT are systemically treated differently even if individuals don't define themselves that way.

What identity? What is this identity you keep referring but never seem to explain?


And how does not confronting homophobia change the situation?

I never said anything about not confronting homophobia...:confused: In fact, I said the opposite, "While we need to combat homophobia and challenge prejudice..."


Gender identity in general should be irrelevant to others but it is built into our society. Ultimately we will need a different kind of society to get rid of the causes of this, but to do this we need a united working class.

How are the working class supposed to be united when we actively separate ourselves based on how we have sex?


I think we both agree on this, the question is how do you build class unity? I think it is by fighting all the various extra oppressions so that all workers are on the same page as far as rights go.

Well, firstly I don't accept the concept of "rights". They don't exist, as a gay man I have no other "rights" to have sex with men as a straight man has a "right" to have sex with a woman. Who mandates these "rights", from where to the come from? I don't need to win a privileged to have sex.

Secondly, I agree that we have to fight oppression, in all its forms, and in terms of gay oppression we have to fight that by forced integration and a rejection of "identity". We have to accept that being gay is irrelevant and act as if it were, not segregate ourselves in to clubs and bars or any fixed political organisation.


Do you mean that I'm saying that all gay people have the same interests irregardless of class or other social considerations?

No, I'm asking you a question. What is a gay identity?


I'm only arguing that as long as any group is separated through different treatment, an identity is created weather individuals embrace this or not.

Such as what?


Once we win a world where everyone if free to live their lives as they want and people are not afraid of loosing their jobs because of some aspect of their lives or afraid that their failure to live up to a certain moral or behavioral code will cause them to "fail" to have a stable life, then I think identity will truly be self-defined based on affinity.

You've lost me. Can your qualify this?


It won't matter if you are straight and married or not, or gay and married or not; it won't matter if you have 2 consenting partners a night or are totally celibate. Unfortunately this is not the world we live in right now and so religious, sexual, and ethnic minorities are often subject to oppression and being defined by the ruling class.

And what is this definition?

[h0m0revolutionary]

What identity? What is this identity you keep referring but never seem to explain?

I always suggest 'gay identity' is less an identity, as much as it's an identification; a realisation that yourself as an LGBTQ individual are subject to discrimination based around your sexuality and/or gender role or presentation and consequently we ally ourselves with those who have similar experiences or we at least have some form of mutual experience that gives reason for solidarity.

The reason this doesn't necessarily command a shared identity is because some LGBTQ people don't experience discrimmination. For others the fact they do is of little significance and for many others it doesn't because they're part and parcel of advocating that homo/transphobia.

[dar8888]

Anybody want to know why I'm a Trot? I got fag bashed and a comrade cracked the guy's head with a beer bottle. That's as direct as action gets.

Bravo!

[Intelligitimate]

Tell me that you did NOT just try to make some kind of comparison between consentual same sex couples and people who take sexual advantage of vunerable children!

lol, god no, though I see how you could arrive at that conclusion if you don't know RevLeft forum drama very well.