Genderless Society

[Queercommie Girl]

I hear nowadays that a lot of anarchists and some communists (mainly left communists) promote an idea of a "genderless" society. The idea is that a socialist/communist society should not just be classless, but also "genderless".

I'm not completely certain what is meant by the term "genderless" as employed by these people, but my views on this matter can be summed up in two general points:

1) I do not believe this is a very major or serious issue. In principle I certainly don't oppose a genderless society if it can really come about, but frankly it really isn't important. What is important for socialists is that we treat everyone equally regardless of their gender. Treating people equally with respect to their gender does not imply we necessarily need a "genderless" society. Men and women can be different but still treated equally. Equality does not imply identity.

2) I would accept either a truly genderless society or a gendered but equal society in the future, but I will explicitly oppose the kind of society which is de jure genderless but de facto genderally unequal. Frankly, if "genderless" is no more than an empty slogan of "political correctness" than it's better to completely forget about it. Better to have genuine inequality than false equality because genuine inequality is easier to fight against. Because the problem is that in a society which is de jure genderless but de facto sexist, people would find it difficult to even raise complaints about sexism and gender inequality. An analogy is that in the deformed worker's states under Stalinism, sometimes workers find it even more difficult to complain about the de facto exploitation placed on them than workers in a literally capitalist society like the US because the deformed worker's state is supposed to be already "classless" (as the revisionist bureaucrat Khrushchev once remarked that socialism has already been built in the USSR). In a sense this has the objective effect of "shutting people's mouths" because it becomes "politically incorrect" to even raise the issue.

A de jure genderless but de facto sexist society is to gender relations what a deformed worker's state is to class relations.

So for me, either "genderless" is meant in the literal sense, or otherwise to the hell with it.

A literally genderless society would imply:

1) Most items of clothing and fashion styles, as well as conversation styles and mannerisms, are explicitly considered to be unisex by society;

2) Gendered personal titles like "Mr, Ms" abandoned in favour of gender-neutral personal titles like "Mx";

3) When transhumanist technologies that can literally transcend gender in the fundamental biological sense, i.e. providing the possibility for everyone to become pregnant and/or the use of external wombs etc, becomes available, there is no conservative reaction against their application and use based on dogmatic doctrines of binary gender in the metaphysical sense.

[Meridian]

Words and rules for word-use do not form out of empty air. That we usually recognize the difference between what we call a man and what we call a woman (not implying we should) indicates that these words are connected to something discernible. That may seem obvious, but the point is this: "Women" and "men" are not simple categories, which can be erased at will. Words do not work like that. So if 'genderless' means that the words "females" or "males" would not be used, as it certainly implies, then that seems completely idealistic to me.

However, there could be a shift in matters relating to our rules for word-use of "woman" and "man". The words could play a lesser role, if, as you suggest, for example conventions for gendered language in general changed.

Though, I agree that equality != conformity is an important point to make. Certainly not all people, which is important to recognize, but most people "identify" with female or male genders. I think it is important to secure equal treatment and possibilities for all people, no matter what gender. Though, as said, I do not think doing that will eliminate the words from being used.

[Queercommie Girl]

Words and rules for word-use do not form out of empty air. That we usually recognize the difference between what we call a man and what we call a woman (not implying we should) indicates that these words are connected to something discernible. That may seem obvious, but the point is this: "Women" and "men" are not simple categories, which can be erased at will. Words do not work like that. So if 'genderless' means that the words "females" or "males" would not be used, as it certainly implies, then that seems completely idealistic to me.

However, there could be a shift in matters relating to our rules for word-use of "woman" and "man". The words could play a lesser role, if, as you suggest, for example conventions for gendered language in general changed.

Though, I agree that equality != conformity is an important point to make. Certainly not all people, which is important to recognize, but most people "identify" with female or male genders. I think it is important to secure equal treatment and possibilities for all people, no matter what gender. Though, as said, I do not think doing that will eliminate the words from being used.

Post-modernism which suggests that one could just bring about gender equality by changing the meaning and usage of certain abstract terms is indeed idealistic. Biological reductionism is also wrong, of course, as a lot of what we take as granted as "gender role" are shaped primarily by socio-economic rather than biological factors. But there is still to some extent an underlying biological basis for gender differences.

Nevertheless, one certainly cannot rule out the potential possibility of transhumanism transcending gender not just in the idealistic linguistic sense, but in the fundamental biological sense. Transhumanism could mean that children can be born in external wombs, or that every individual acquires the potential to bear children, and thus fundamentally transform the basic human mode of reproduction.

Of course, such technologies are still quite some way in the future, but if they do become available some day, it would be reactionary to reject them simply due to a sense of dogmatic stubborn adherence to the paradigm of binary gender.

[Meridian]

Of course, such technologies are still quite some way in the future, but if they do become available some day, it would be reactionary to reject them simply due to a sense of dogmatic stubborn adherence to the paradigm of binary gender.
Well, I don't see this being a very relevant issue. I can only speak out of the views I and, I know, many others hold today. But I think there may be other reasons to reject certain technologies than a 'dogmatic stubborn adherence to a paradigm of binary gender'. Equality of means and opportunity not being the same as likeness, is one. It could even be seen as a reactionary notion to "transcend" gender, if many identify with their own gender in the first place, and would not want to "transcend" it. Children born in external wombs is one thing, people consciously changing their behavior in order to fall into the social policy of gender "transcendence" is another. Again, though, I don't think this is too relevant of an issue. That is why, today, I support the notion that equality does not mean or imply conformity or likeness. People should be able to express whatever gender they like, however they like, peacefully. That said, there are countless instances where gender has far too big of a role both in terms of creating inequality and generally creating various forms of social pressure, which can be statistically shown.

[meow]

as anarchist to me "genderless" is that gender is irrelevant in everyday society. people wear what they want. they do jobs they want with no regard for "gender". no distinction for things "best actor" "best actoress". no complaint if "man" plays "women" in play (or other way).

so like what iseul is suggest.

as iseul says anything less is not true genderless.

there are certain things which mean gender still relevent. like sex. some people are just not attracted to some gender. but in a "genderless" society there is no revolusion. just like people now have sex with people of gender they like but with people they dont find attractive. i see in future society people will have sex with people they dont find attractive but with other gender then one they like. i dont find attractive to fat people. but i still have sex with them for whatever reason sometimes. so if i say "i dont like 'men'/'women'" does not mean i dont have sex with whichever sometimes for whatever reason.

so a true genderless society in most situations gender becomes irrelevant. and if we can have transhuman we can have no gender in reality or three or four. and grow gills and photosynthatise etc.

[Invincible Summer]

Post-modernism which suggests that one could just bring about gender equality by changing the meaning and usage of certain abstract terms is indeed idealistic. Biological reductionism is also wrong, of course, as a lot of what we take as granted as "gender role" are shaped primarily by socio-economic rather than biological factors. But there is still to some extent an underlying biological basis for gender differences.


1) I may be confusing post-modernism with post-structuralism or something else entirely, but I don't believe that is what post-modernist theory (or at least post-modernist gender theory, in this case) advocates at all. While po-mo gender theory does recognize the power structures within discourse, I don't think a po-mo theorist would argue that equality can be instituted just by changing discourse (although it wouldn't hurt).

I think po-mo theory more or less just recognizes the fact that discourses hold power and create inequalities, but does not necessarily posit that social change can and should come about through changing the discourse. After all, it is po-mo that states that discourses are always changing.

If anything, it seems to be post-feminism (a la Naomi Wolf, not postmodern/post-structuralist feminism like Judith Butler) that believes in "reclaiming words" which is in itself a sticky issue.

2) If we define "gender" as one's masculinity or femininity, then what are the biological bases? Musculature? Breasts? Length of hair? These are all malleable and changeable, and history shows that they vary with the time period.

I am definitely for post-gender society, but I'm not sure as to how it will come about. While racism and homophobia are things that people are born with and thus stupid things to discriminate against, how can we take the same methodology and apply it to the concept of gender as a whole? The "naturalness" of gender seems to be a huge obstacle.

And I'm not even talking about gender discrimination. How can we convince people that the concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity" are harmful and not progressive to society?

[Tenka]

Children born in external wombs is one thing, people consciously changing their behavior in order to fall into the social policy of gender "transcendence" is another.

My question is, what behaviour? That we have described some behaviours as more typically "male" and others as more typically "female" does not mean there are such things as "male" or "female" behaviour. What would you have to change but your insistence on binary classifications of behaviours?

Nothing. Your behaviour is already genderless in my mind.

[Thirsty Crow]

1) I may be confusing post-modernism with post-structuralism or something else entirely, but I don't believe that is what post-modernist theory (or at least post-modernist gender theory, in this case) advocates at all. While po-mo gender theory does recognize the power structures within discourse, I don't think a po-mo theorist would argue that equality can be instituted just by changing discourse (although it wouldn't hurt).

I think po-mo theory more or less just recognizes the fact that discourses hold power and create inequalities, but does not necessarily posit that social change can and should come about through changing the discourse. After all, it is po-mo that states that discourses are always changing.

Just a note regarding this specific problem.
It seems that you are forgetting the fact that many "po-mos" (I like the "abbreviation" :D) uphold the position which states that there is literally nothing outside the network of discourse(s). And I don't think that these theorists worry about social change at all. If they do, I am fairly sure that their concenr would fit the paradigm of "transformations within the discourse/of the discourse".

[meow]

idea i just had. we already communicate in "genderless" medium. people who want "genderless society" wish to extend this sort of communication to "real life". yes?

it doesnt matter if i am female or male or other. what matters is that i can express inteligent and interesting ideas. in this situation gender is irrelevant. i wish it were so for most situation in life.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, I don't see this being a very relevant issue. I can only speak out of the views I and, I know, many others hold today. But I think there may be other reasons to reject certain technologies than a 'dogmatic stubborn adherence to a paradigm of binary gender'. Equality of means and opportunity not being the same as likeness, is one. It could even be seen as a reactionary notion to "transcend" gender, if many identify with their own gender in the first place, and would not want to "transcend" it. Children born in external wombs is one thing, people consciously changing their behavior in order to fall into the social policy of gender "transcendence" is another. Again, though, I don't think this is too relevant of an issue. That is why, today, I support the notion that equality does not mean or imply conformity or likeness. People should be able to express whatever gender they like, however they like, peacefully. That said, there are countless instances where gender has far too big of a role both in terms of creating inequality and generally creating various forms of social pressure, which can be statistically shown.

You are missing the point. I couldn't possibly suggest that people should be compelled in any way to transcend gender biologically once the technology become available, if they do not wish to. Obviously it is a basic human right for people to have free choice in a democratic society.

My point is simply this: you can bet that when the transhumanist technology becomes available, there will be people who will wish to transcend gender biologically. And it would be reactionary to prevent them from doing so due to conservative adherence to a rigid notion of binary gender.

[Queercommie Girl]

While racism and homophobia are things that people are born with and thus stupid things to discriminate against, how can we take the same methodology and apply it to the concept of gender as a whole? The "naturalness" of gender seems to be a huge obstacle.


How are racism and homophobia any different from discrimination based on gender and gender identity? Any "natural" argument you use for gender can equally apply to race and sexuality.

[Adi Shankara]

this is tricky. on one hand, I don't think you can completely eliminate gender differences because men and women are inherently different and always will be, and our hormone and biologiy tend to make us behave, think, and feel differently, so that would be an impossible (or at least, very oppressive) task.

so the goal shouldn't be to eliminate gender differences, rather, it should be to eliminate gender inequality. gender differences, you can argue, are natural; they arise from the natural differences between men and women. gender inequality (that is, the belief that one gender is inferior or should be strictly assigned certain work through legal or social enforcement) and the oppression that goes with it, are not.

[Invincible Summer]

How are racism and homophobia any different from discrimination based on gender and gender identity? Any "natural" argument you use for gender can equally apply to race and sexuality.

See, my point is that they're not different, but gender is perceived to be the most "natural" or inherent to one's being. Mainstream discourse surrounding race is more or less "be colorblind" (which has issues in itself), and homosexuality is "what goes on in your bedroom is none of my business" (again, problematic depending on how one constructs the discourse), but gender always seems to be a given.

[meow]

the aim of genderless society is not to deny difference. it is say that most situations it is irrelevant. and the aim is when we have the tech there it is not bad thing to change ones gender.

as well there is always more then one gender.

oh and many of the "differences" are not real. about only two things are not. one is that one can have child. the other is XY are typically stronger. all rest is unprovable that can not be siad is not just upbringing and culture.

[Adi Shankara]

oh and many of the "differences" are not real. about only two things are not. one is that one can have child. the other is XY are typically stronger. all rest is unprovable that can not be siad is not just upbringing and culture.

So you're going to believe that women have higher rates of estrogen and other chemicals coursing through their bodies, they have different thought and brainwave patterns (which has been proven: http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html), etc. etc. and that they aren't different from men, and vice versa?

Most of the differences are real. Very real. You just refuse to look at the evidence to suit your own agenda, I'm imagining.

to reduce the differences of men and women to their body parts and chromosomes is like calling a work by Monet "a bunch of shapes and figures with color inside them on a canvas".

[Queercommie Girl]

this is tricky. on one hand, I don't think you can completely eliminate gender differences because men and women are inherently different and always will be, and our hormone and biologiy tend to make us behave, think, and feel differently, so that would be an impossible (or at least, very oppressive) task.


This is not necessarily the case potentially given the possibility of transhumanist technologies in the future, which cannot be ruled out.

Nor will transcending gender intrinsically be "oppressive" since people will always have a choice about whether to transcend gender or not.

In fact, it would be the other way around: it would be oppressive for those who do wish to transcend their gender in the transhumanist sense if people like you keep on emphasising that binary gender divisions are "eternal".

But if the technology does become available, there will be many people who will want to transcend gender biologically. Not everyone is so fond of traditional gender roles that you are.



so the goal shouldn't be to eliminate gender differences, rather, it should be to eliminate gender inequality. gender differences, you can argue, are natural; they arise from the natural differences between men and women. gender inequality (that is, the belief that one gender is inferior or should be strictly assigned certain work through legal or social enforcement) and the oppression that goes with it, are not.Yes, but it is also "natural" that some people are inherently transgendered and do not fit into the mainstream traits of their birth gender, yet a transphobe like you will no doubt dismiss such "natural" justification due to your reactionary ideological bias.

Your whole point about "men and women thinking, feeling and behaving differently" objectively simply serves to consolidate the conservative notion of rigid gender roles, because the flip side of what you are saying here is: "suppose a man doesn't think and feel in a certain way, then he isn't a real man". You are putting a rigid paradigm before the diverse range of human experience itself in practice.

So if a man actually does "think and feel like a woman" all the time, then according to you what is to be done? Should he feel bad about himself simply because he doesn't "think and feel" like a man according to your little paradigm? Fuck that.

I think apart from acknowledging the statistical difference that exists between men and women with respect to many traits, the so-called "gender norms" should not be used to impose behavioural and emotional standards on people on an individual basis. It's not just men and women should not be forced to have certain jobs solely on the basis of their gender, men and women should not be forced to think, feel and behave in a certain way simply on the basis of their gender either.

[Queercommie Girl]

So you're going to believe that women have higher rates of estrogen and other chemicals coursing through their bodies, they have different thought and brainwave patterns (which has been proven: http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html), etc. etc. and that they aren't different from men, and vice versa?

Most of the differences are real. Very real. You just refuse to look at the evidence to suit your own agenda, I'm imagining.

to reduce the differences of men and women to their body parts and chromosomes is like calling a work by Monet "a bunch of shapes and figures with color inside them on a canvas".

But do these biological differences necessarily directly reflect themselves on the level of actual social experience?

From a Marxist perspective, both biological reductionism and post-modernism are mistaken. Marxism puts socio-economic factors as primary, while acknowledging the influences of both underlying biological factors and the influences of socio-linguistic constructs in the actual social experience of gender.

But the whole point of this kind of discussion, for socialists, is not abstract or philosophical, but practical. As Marx said, previous philosophers have only explained the world, but the key is to change it. The point is that there is nothing wrong with using biological explanations to explain existing phenomena, but it would be reactionary to turn it around and use these same biological explanations to impose a certain standard of behaviour on people. That is the real crux of the matter here.

Biological explanations can be used to describe the world, but they cannot be used to impose a normative standard on how people should behave. Otherwise it degenerates into reactionary social darwinism.

You said it would be wrong to impose certain types of jobs based on stereotypical gender roles, I agree. But it would also be wrong to impose certain types of stereotypical behavioural patterns of thought and emotion based on rigid gender roles, I don't think you necessarily realise this second point. If I had a son for example I certainly will never tell him off just because he might have behaved in certain ways which are more characteristic of a girl, and indeed I believe it would be wrong for parents to rebuke their children in these circumstances, it would only reinforce gender stereotypes.

It's also interesting how in the case of transgenderism, you completely dismiss the biological factors and solely use social explanations, whereas here in order to defend your kind of traditional gender roles you seem to be using a biological reductionist viewpoint and are dismissing the socio-economic factors in gender relations. What a ridiculous double standard.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is indeed how it was like with respect to gender equality in primitive communist societies. There was a statistical differentiation with respect to gender due to natural differences, but these differences are just that, natural and free, not politically or indeed culturally imposed on the people. People are free to express their sexuality and gender identity in whatever way they wish, including dressing up as and living as the opposite physical gender. (Transgenderism)

This is the kind of equalist gender relations every real socialist should be fighting for.

If there are manifest differences between the genders, they are only justified if they are the result of subjective free choice, not when any kind of overt or subtle coercion, political, economic, social or cultural, is used.

[leftace53]

I would hope that in a genderless society there would be no emphasis on what roles are "normal" in defining femininity and masculinity. It is possible that thought processes are different by nature, but the fact is that many people do not fit strictly within the definition of feminine or masculine. To have a genderless society, its not that people would be forced to abandon any inherent femininity or masculinity, its more along the lines of they won't be pigeon holed into one aspect of the binary, and will be free to choose their actions according to wants, not norms.

[Adi Shankara]

This is not necessarily the case potentially given the possibility of transhumanist technologies in the future, which cannot be ruled out.

Transhumanism is a bullshit ideology that seeks to fundamentally and artificially change who we are, at which point, we are no longer dealing with the human subject at hand. irregardless, that's begging the question. should I also count on a time machine being available someday?

[leftace53]

Transhumanism is a bullshit ideology that seeks to fundamentally and artificially change who we are, at which point
What is wrong with changing who we are? Evolution changed who we were, what is wrong with humans taking it in our hands. Sounds to me like you're trying to imply some sort of "We're playing god" argument against transhumanism.
Lets face it, in terms of reproduction, giving birth seems like a ***** and a half. Why would you not be for vast advancement of reproductive technology to the point where women's bodies don't have to go through hell to give birth?

Yes, you should count on a time machine being available someday, because frankly, if we don't look toward the possibilities of technology, we are never going to get there.

[Blackscare]

What is wrong with changing who we are? Evolution changed who we were, what is wrong with humans taking it in our hands. Sounds to me like you're trying to imply some sort of "We're playing god" argument against transhumanism.
Lets face it, in terms of reproduction, giving birth seems like a ***** and a half. Why would you not be for vast advancement of reproductive technology to the point where women's bodies don't have to go through hell to give birth?

Yes, you should count on a time machine being available someday, because frankly, if we don't look toward the possibilities of technology, we are never going to get there.


Because itz not natrul!!!1!ONE!

[Adi Shankara]

Because itz not natrul!!!1!ONE!

Nah, I was thinking more that we don't know the consequences of such fundamental changes to one's person. We're literally going into the blue unknown with things like genetic modification and cloning.

[Adi Shankara]

What is wrong with changing who we are? Evolution changed who we were, what is wrong with humans taking it in our hands. Sounds to me like you're trying to imply some sort of "We're playing god" argument against transhumanism.

Technology, like capitalism, is based on a ponzi-scheme like growth component that is unsustainable, since it relies strongly on exponential expansion factors.
You can't just continually go up with technology, we will hit a wall someday and will go down; we are long overdue for a dark age, or at least, a technological recession, due to the fact we seem to apply many of the same principles of technological output to capitalism, and vice versa.

[leftace53]

Nah, I was thinking more that we don't know the consequences of such fundamental changes to one's person. We're literally going into the blue unknown with things like genetic modification and cloning.
uhh, so?

I wake up every morning going into the blue unknown with things like walking out my door and tackling the outside world.
Just because we can't be sure of a good outcome doesn't mean we shouldn't take risks, it just means we should proceed with caution.

[Tenka]

Transhumanism is a bullshit ideology that seeks to fundamentally and artificially change who we are, at which point, we are no longer dealing with the human subject at hand. irregardless, that's begging the question. should I also count on a time machine being available someday?

I don't think the technologies of which she speaks would really be "Transhumanist" though; there's nothing necessarily 'trans-human' about eliminating sexual dimorphism. We already exhibit very little compared to many other animals. I for one would just view it as a minor step in a good direction for our species.


We're literally going into the blue unknown with things like genetic modification and cloning.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with genetic modification.

[leftace53]

Technology, like capitalism, is based on a ponzi-scheme like growth component that is unsustainable, since it relies strongly on exponential expansion factors.
You can't just continually go up with technology, we will hit a wall someday and will go down; we are long overdue for a dark age, or at least, a technological recession, due to the fact we seem to apply many of the same principles of technological output to capitalism, and vice versa.

Technology can also become more efficient over the years, possibly to a point where it doesn't negatively impact resource consumption as much. Technology in capitalism cannot be sustained, due to overuse of it for profit, and in harmful ways such as the military rather than for actual benefit of the population.
I don't know whether we will hit a wall someday or not, but I can only assume that it is better to hit the wall and stop, than to just stop where we are.
Why are we overdue for a dark age? I figured we're still getting over the last one.

EDIT: This really isn't about a genderless society anymore, apologies for going off topic.

[mike75]

"Lets face it, in terms of reproduction, giving birth seems like a ***** and a half. Why would you not be for vast advancement of reproductive technology to the point where women's bodies don't have to go through hell to give birth?"

It's your subjective evaluation.

Women do not need the vast advancement of reproductive technology. Women can already buy another womans child and skip that 'painfull' step. But a natural birth is about bonding and there is no bonding inherent in reproductive technology.

Superficial persons are often those whom have never experienced any pain (also in a psychological sense such as losing a family member). Pain is also quality.

"What is wrong with changing who we are?"

If you stray to far there is no longer any "we". We do no longer share common ground and theres is no longer basis for a society. No common denominator. Humans kill and eat animals. Stay out of the latter category.

People are already selfish and change their minds on drugs. The cost is transfered to other people. As a part time taxi driver I'd like to beat the shit out of some of my late night taxi customers during weekends. Society is preventing me from correcting their behavior (I lose my licence).

[Queercommie Girl]

Transhumanism is a bullshit ideology that seeks to fundamentally and artificially change who we are, at which point, we are no longer dealing with the human subject at hand. irregardless, that's begging the question. should I also count on a time machine being available someday?

Yes, so? Nothing in this universe is eternal. The human subject will indeed one day change, why is that necessarily a bad thing? You think evolution has stopped for humanity completely or only goes on in the background?

I don't consider myself a transhumanist but I've been influenced by transhumanism. Technology is intrinsically neither positive nor negative, it depends on who is using it, and to what end.

Time machine actually isn't ruled out by physics either. But transhumanist technologies are more likely to come about, since we've already made great advances in genetics and the biological sciences in recent decades. It's certainly not something as remote as "time travel" or "faster-than-light spaceflight".

You are just one of those people not willing to completely break with your theistic religious background so you pathetically hold onto the security of your bible or other holy books and have a techno-phobic attitude, not so different intrinsically from the reactionary feudal lords of Qing dynasty China who were afraid of modern railways because they damaged the "harmonious Feng Shui" of the local region.

If one day post-genderist technologies in the transhumanist sense do become available, many people will want to use it. Even today here on RevLeft there are already many transhumanists and other people influenced by transhumanist ideas. What are you going to do about it? Try to stop people and block the progressive match of science and technology like a primitivist luddite? You would become quite unpopular, just like your views have made you rather unpopular here already.

It's even more stupid and reactionary if the only reason you are anti-transhumanism is because you feel it threatens your metaphysical view of the "eternal binary gender".

[Queercommie Girl]

Technology, like capitalism, is based on a ponzi-scheme like growth component that is unsustainable, since it relies strongly on exponential expansion factors.
You can't just continually go up with technology, we will hit a wall someday and will go down; we are long overdue for a dark age, or at least, a technological recession, due to the fact we seem to apply many of the same principles of technological output to capitalism, and vice versa.


Your view is un-Marxist, since Marxism does not believe there is some kind of "metaphysical upper limit" to how advanced humanity can become. In fact, Marxism predicts that progress would be faster under socialism than under capitalism, since socialism would remove all of the negative competition (like war), corruption and waste.

Technology is a double-edged sword, it's neither intrinsically positive nor negative. It depends on who is wielding it. The problems you have identified is not an intrinsic problem of technology or technological growth. It is a problem only because it is the capitalist ruling class that is using and controlling the technology at the moment. If socialists control technology, there is no reason why technological progress cannot be made sustainable. Socialists never intrinsically oppose industrial civilisation, socialists only oppose capitalist civilisation, the two are not identical.

Those who oppose technology are essentially reactionary primitivist luddites, not genuine socialists.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Technology, like capitalism, is based on a ponzi-scheme like growth component that is unsustainable, since it relies strongly on exponential expansion factors.
You can't just continually go up with technology, we will hit a wall someday and will go down; we are long overdue for a dark age, or at least, a technological recession, due to the fact we seem to apply many of the same principles of technological output to capitalism, and vice versa.
Our technology is a product of capitalism. There are other directions technology can go in.We are only "due for a dark age" under the present capitalist mode of production.

Its not technology that's the problem. Its its role in capital accumulation.

[Queercommie Girl]

As I said at the beginning of the thread, as things stand now transhumanism etc are not important issues, because they are still some time away and socialists should always focus on the now. However, I really don't see why anyone who is a materialist at heart would want to oppose transhumanism intrinsically.

What I'm more concerned with is the use of biological reductionist views of gender to impose a conservative gender role paradigm onto people. I'm not against the use of biological explanations, I'm not a post-modernist. But if these biological explanations began to limit people's actual choices in practice, then it becomes a problem.

[Adi Shankara]

Those who oppose technology are essentially reactionary primitivist luddites, not genuine socialists.

I don't oppose technology; I just think that it's due to crash, since our development patterns base it on the same exponential growth-ponzi scheme that capitalism is based on, so think of it as a "technological recession".

also, I don't really care if it's un-Marxist; I'm not dogmatic, and never will be.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't oppose technology; I just think that it's due to crash, since our development patterns base it on the same exponential growth-ponzi scheme that capitalism is based on, so think of it as a "technological recession".

also, I don't really care if it's un-Marxist; I'm not dogmatic, and never will be.

But that's surely a problem inherent in capitalism, not technology itself, whether it's transhumanism or anything else.

If socialists use technologies and control them, including transhumanism, there is no reason why it cannot be made sustainable.

Capitalism would cause immense problems even if it's low-tech anyway, just look at the "primitive gangster capitalism" in the Third World, so it's not technology itself that's the problem at all, just capitalism.

Also, if you are not against technology in general, why are you against transhumanism in particular or post-genderism? Indeed, as Karinpon correctly pointed out, post-genderism isn't technically transhumanism at all, because there is no transcendence of anything "human", just gender. Surely regardless of whatever gender or gender identity people are, they are still completely human? Your view just reflects your underlying transphobic attitude and nothing much else.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think the technologies of which she speaks would really be "Transhumanist" though; there's nothing necessarily 'trans-human' about eliminating sexual dimorphism. We already exhibit very little compared to many other animals. I for one would just view it as a minor step in a good direction for our species.


That's a very good point. Although I don't intrinsically reject transhumanism either, that's not even what we are talking about here.

We are just talking about potential technologies to transcend gender, not humanity itself. Surely a person who has changed from male to female fundamentally, or become both male and female, or become neither male nor female, is still completely human? Unless Sankara is sexist to the extent of thinking females are less human than males or transphobic to the extent of not seeing trans people as intrinsically human, I don't see how Sankara's argument against transhumanism in general applies to post-genderism at all.

[mike75]

"What I'm more concerned with is the use of biological reductionist views of gender to impose a conservative gender role paradigm onto people. I'm not against the use of biological explanations, I'm not a post-modernist. But if these biological explanations began to limit people's actual choices in practice, then it becomes a problem"

I think "Genderless society" is a oxymoron. Many leftist wishes to impose a gender specific economic order and disguise it as gender neutral. Thats a problem and reductionist to me. Many dont realize how a society allocates ressources is more or less gender specific. On the aggregate level a big welfare state benefit women and provides safety and stability. Males on the other hand can thrive and gain value on unstability and uncertainty.

I do not think the main differences between genders are related to large parts of the brain "as such" but in particular the sexual functions which translates to BIG diffences in the sexual economy. Women have more sexual capital. It takes less than twenty minutes for me to pick ten males for casual sex with a female stranger. You have billions of women to choose from but can hardly find one in a lifetime. Men and women are "different species". Males are inclined to make up for this handicap by gaining material wealth and cultural capital (knowledge). So the underlying premise is that males must get "rich" or die trying whereas women on the other can afford to be risk aversive or acuire knowledge because women have intrinsic sexual value.

In fact, the ACTUAL gender differences is why I am not a communist.


"Our technology is a product of capitalism."

More often advanced stages of technology has to do with the state. Capitalism is conservative. Capitalism did'nt bring us the Concorde, the Internet, the advanced components of artificial fertilizers, advanced space programmes etc. State programmes did.

[Queercommie Girl]

In fact, the ACTUAL gender differences is why I am not a communist.


I'm glad that someone with your kind of reactionary views on gender is not a communist.



"Our technology is a product of capitalism."

More often advanced stages of technology has to do with the state. Capitalism is conservative. Capitalism did'nt bring us the Concorde, the Internet, the advanced components of artificial fertilizers, advanced space programmes etc. State programmes did.

Yes, which is why as Marxism said, socialism would be generally speaking even more productive in the real sense than capitalism is.

[mike75]

I'm glad that someone with your kind of reactionary views on gender is not a communist.

Yes, which is why as Marxism said, socialism would be generally speaking even more productive in the real sense than capitalism is.
I observe reality and you call my views reactionary? Women ACT reactionary. You are totalitarian and want to impose (gender) specific values on society and me. I do not want to impose values. Lots of (female) feminists want to regulate sexual behaviour by prohibiting prostitution and refer to intrinsic woman values. That's a foretaste of the matriarchy and a expression of the female mentality of exercising social control. Womens egoism makes communism impossible. On a historic scale we find evidence of egoism in women during the spanish civil war. Womens egoism ruined the communist collectives (anarchism in theory and practicem; Guerrin).

In every close encounter with a women my findings are the same:
She has read less books than me. (fact)
She has less education. (fact)
She has fucked more people than I have. (fact)
I have have made myself deserved to every women that I met. No single woman has ever made herself deserved to me. (fact)
.....
.....
It's the Law of Gender Value. In fact this law is more evident than the Marxist laws you believe in.




***

Marx vision for a society after "statecapitalism" is utopian and underproduction. I dont think there is one kind of socialism. Most forms of socialisms are oppressive. Yes some socialism could in fact produce the Concorde. Socialism can be lead to irrational behaviour when costs are externalised. Free market socialism is sufficiently productive.

[Kotze]

You are totalitarian and want to impose (gender) specific values on society and me. I do not want to impose values. Lots of (female) feminists want to regulate sexual behaviour by prohibiting prostitution and refer to intrinsic woman values. That's a foretaste of the matriarchy and a expression of the female mentality of exercising social control. Womens egoism makes communism impossible. On a historic scale we find evidence of egoism in women during the spanish civil war. Please look up "masturbation" on Wikipedia.

[Adi Shankara]

uhh, so?

I wake up every morning going into the blue unknown with things like walking out my door and tackling the outside world.
Just because we can't be sure of a good outcome doesn't mean we shouldn't take risks, it just means we should proceed with caution.

There is a difference between walking out the door where you have at least a margin of predictability of what may or may not happen, and fundamentally altering genetics without any foreknowledge of what it could possibly render onto the human race.

[Adi Shankara]

Also, if you are not against technology in general, why are you against transhumanism in particular or post-genderism? Indeed, as Karinpon correctly pointed out, post-genderism isn't technically transhumanism at all, because there is no transcendence of anything "human", just gender. Surely regardless of whatever gender or gender identity people are, they are still completely human? Your view just reflects your underlying transphobic attitude and nothing much else.

I don't like fucking with nature. We have very little experience with what could happen changing human genetic code, and we have theoreticals, but those could be wrong. a hypothesis isn't guarantee that everything will turn out okay.

that, and by changing gender, we could open a whole new social can of worms. rather than trying to create new genders or move beyond genders, we should embrace our sexual and social differences and equalize what is artificial, i.e, the labor, economic, and social divisions associated with gender.

[meow]

Thomas_Sankara (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=29350) i am amazed you not banned yet. you have totally reaction view of gender.

fuck with nature? you eat meat from feedlots? you eat tofu? heck you wear clothing? you drive car or take bus? you enjoy technology at all? you ever fly?

global warming is more fucking with nature then changing someones gender. what are you doing about it?

do you protest genetic engerneering? do you only eat organic food?

anarchism socialism communism all are ideology to radically change society. if you are any of them you want to open "social can of worms". we want radical and very different society. and you quible about one aspect of that radical and revolutionary change.

and most difference is artificial. genderless society is aim to abolish these differences. and for those who want to abolish gender in all way. if you want to stay "pure" you are free to do so. but for those of us who wish to be different (even if just for a bit) what are you doing on a revolutionary leftist board if you wish to deny us that.

fuck off!

[Aesop]

I don't like fucking with nature. We have very little experience with what could happen changing human genetic code, and we have theoreticals, but those could be wrong. a hypothesis isn't guarantee that everything will turn out okay.

that, and by changing gender, we could open a whole new social can of worms. rather than trying to create new genders or move beyond genders, we should embrace our sexual and social differences and equalize what is artificial, i.e, the labor, economic, and social divisions associated with gender.

What has Gender got to do with nature?

You do know that sex and gender are different, one is biological and the other is socially constructed.

[Decommissioner]

I think if a genderless society is to come about, it will come about naturally (after generations of struggle and the removal of class society, of course). I can easily see a future where gender can be determined more so by what degree of masculinity or femininity one associates with rather than what sex they are. Or maybe not even that, masculinity and femininity could become irrelevant.

I espoused on this idea in a thread I made titled something along the lines of "heterosexual/homosexual: socially constructed?" I think it would be likely that the heterosexual as we know it may cease to exist, as the social inhibitions and enforced gender norms of today would no longer prevent a man who seeks feminine qualities in a person to be affectionate with a man who associates with those feminine qualities, and vice versa. I would not call this homosexuality, unless you break it down to semantics (that is, one of the male sex loving another sexually), because each individual would represent a different gender, thus breaking the attraction of "sameness". To the masculine male, a feminine male would be no different from a feminine female as far as love interests are concerned. That isn't to say, all men and women in this society would embrace same sex relations, but I feel these relations would increase, and not only increase but smash the mere concept of the heterosexual as dominant social group. The "man" who chooses only to have relations with the "woman" does so not out of bigotry, tradition, "nature", but only because he feels that is what he wants at that moment. Nothing in this society would make him suppress the feelings he may one day feel for another man that happens to share the qualities he looks for in a partner. The only possible thing to prevent it in my mind is a preference for female genitalia over male, which I don't think anyone would fault. (everyone has their preferences)

This seems possible to me because the notion of the heterosexual exists on shaky foundations, that is, most heterosexuals would not consider you a heterosexual if you have sex with someone of the same sex, or even think about it. It does not matter to them if you consistently like those of the opposite sex, to them you are a homosexual. There is nothing wrong with being a homosexual, but it seems the definitions of homosexual and heterosexual are imprecise. Why is it that if someone experiments with the same sex, they are instantly no longer heterosexual? I know many homosexuals would not consider such a person a homosexual. I think I know why, and it has something to do with heterosexuality being an instrument of patriarchy and class rule. The mere notion of having sex for pleasure (as it is implied the only reason one would lie with someone of the same sex) is deplorable to society. Sex to them is merely an act of reproduction, thus making man/woman relations "natural" and everything else a perversion. This, I believe, is purely social and "unnatural" (for lack of better terms). I believe that in a genderless and sexually liberated society, that is a society free of reinforced gender roles and old religious superstitions, would have no concept of the heterosexual natural born man/woman monogamous pairing as being the de facto, "natural" sexual orientation of man.

I am not firm on this, just thoughts on how I can see such a society possibly emerging into existence.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't like fucking with nature. We have very little experience with what could happen changing human genetic code, and we have theoreticals, but those could be wrong. a hypothesis isn't guarantee that everything will turn out okay.


Historically, nothing has ever stopped the march of science of technology. I think technology is indeed dangerous as long as the capitalists are still in control, but if socialists (real socialists) are in control then progress in the technological sense can be made sustainable.

I believe in the dialectical fusion of advanced technology and environmental naturalism, not just advanced technology that is not harmonious with nature, and certainly not a return to primitivism.

It's interesting you speak of a coming "technological recession" in a fatalistic tone as if it is something intrinsically positive, whereas real socialists like Rosa Luxemburg speaks of "barbarism" and dark age only being the result if socialism cannot overcome capitalism and capitalism degenerates into environmental destruction and war.

Maybe you want to drag humanity back to a religious dark age so you could engage in the slaughter of transgendered people in the name of your god?



that, and by changing gender, we could open a whole new social can of worms.


Such as?

It would have made some sense at least if you just commented on the potential technological risks of post-genderism. But talking about social risks make no sense at all, unless you subscribe to a conservative view of gender and gender roles.



rather than trying to create new genders or move beyond genders, we should embrace our sexual and social differences and equalize what is artificial, i.e, the labor, economic, and social divisions associated with gender.


Yet in your bigotry you exclude trans people in the overall sexual and genderal diversity of humanity.

If you say we should embrace our differences and diversity, then why shouldn't each person embrace his/her own diversity, regardless of sexuality or gender identity, rather than fit into some kind of semi-conservative mold dictated by the likes of you?

It's not wrong to use biological explanations when it comes to gender, but it becomes reactionary to impose these "gender differences" on every person in a normative sense, which is what you seem to be doing. People are just different. There are a significant minority of men and women who don't "think and feel" like your rigid stereotypical concept of "man" and "woman". And why should they be considered any less or any more abnormal just because they don't fit into the rigid conservative conception of gender?

The main contention of this thread is not an abstract theoretical one, but a practical one. The practical implication is that if my daughter acts tomboyish or my son acts girly, I won't consider it a wrong thing and rebuke them. Would you? If your answer to this question is yes, then you are being reactionary.

[Queercommie Girl]

I observe reality and you call my views reactionary? Women ACT reactionary. You are totalitarian and want to impose (gender) specific values on society and me.


Take your sexist misogynic bullshit elsewhere, reactionary.

[Queercommie Girl]

What has Gender got to do with nature?

You do know that sex and gender are different, one is biological and the other is socially constructed.

Sankara subscribes to biological reductionism so he doesn't understand this point: that while gender does have an ultimate biological basis, it is primarily a socio-economic construction.

[mike75]

Take your sexist misogynic bullshit elsewhere, reactionary.
Try the following:

1) Create a male left libertarian facebook profile. Specify the books and films you watch and read. Name some important thinkers and writers. Write something about your interest in political economy, marxism, feminism, anarchism or whatever
2) Do nothing and wait
3) In a week approx. 120-200 males makes suggestions about friendship.
4) No females suggest friendship
5) Approx. 2-4 Feminist Corporate Entitites approach you and make suggestion about "friendship".

By observing human action we can deduct:
Women are uninterested in left libertarian males. It's easy to duplicate the results. Women sort on gender. It's the Law of Gender value. FACT.

You can replicate the results for yourself. Women act reactionary.


A large and comprehensive study released by my university in social sciences show that educated women fuck and marry men with longer education, more money, etc than themselves. Height and the right skin colour is very important too. Social Darwinism.

This leaves a large sum of leftover males. Their function in society resembles that of the working bees. They contribute to the welfare state as donor anynomous. Pay for public schools, kindergartens, state programmes direcet at increasing fertility in women). They work and pay 60% in tax. We have left the age of capitalist exploitation and entered the age of feminist exploitation. I can feel how feminism palpates my muscles and tissue during work.

[mike75]

What has Gender got to do with nature?

You do know that sex and gender are different, one is biological and the other is socially constructed.

Socially constructed..... by biology.

Show me one constructed female who can have sex with a complete male stranger for free. No you can't. It's the essential difference.

Males do more often than females want sex. Irrespective of their sexual orientation. Fact.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Socially constructed..... by biology.

Show me one constructed female who can have sex with a complete male stranger for free. No you can't. It's the essential difference.

Males do more often than females want sex. Irrespective of their sexual orientation. Fact.

Get restricted you Asstrian fuckwit.

[mike75]

""and most difference is artificial. genderless society is aim to abolish these differences. and for those who want to abolish gender in all way. if you want to stay "pure" you are free to do so. but for those of us who wish to be different (even if just for a bit) what are you doing on a revolutionary leftist board if you wish to deny us that. ""

"Socially constructed" is artificial. Abolish differences is a artificial value. Tooth and Claw is non artificial and hiding under the artificial imposed politeness of our socially constructed society.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Mike75's post is so bizarre I don't know where to begin.



I observe reality and you call my views reactionary? Women ACT reactionary. You are totalitarian and want to impose (gender) specific values on society and me. I do not want to impose values. Lots of (female) feminists want to regulate sexual behaviour by prohibiting prostitution and refer to intrinsic woman values.Some second wave feminists had these ideas. They are in a minority today.



That's a foretaste of the matriarchy and a expression of the female mentality of exercising social control. Womens egoism makes communism impossible. On a historic scale we find evidence of egoism in women during the spanish civil war. Womens egoism ruined the communist collectives (anarchism in theory and practicem; Guerrin).
Put down Proudhon and read some Marx.
You also should read "In A Different Voice" by Carol Gilligan.Better yet, read anything. Its not that difficult and you may actually learn something.


In every close encounter with a women my findings are the same:
She has read less books than me. (fact)
She has less education. (fact)
She has fucked more people than I have. (fact)


Apparently you don't know many women. All this really says is that you like to date dumb women and you haven't had that much sexual experience.You sound like Nietzsche, "If you are going to see woman, do not forget to bring the whip" after he had a some sort of relationship with only one woman in his life, Lou Salome.


I have have made myself deserved to every women that I met. No single woman has ever made herself deserved to me. (fact)

The woman who finds you is going to be so lucky!!

Seriously though I have to thank you for this bit of humor, it had me laughing for most of the morning. Umm.. no offense intended, but have you ever had a woman call you a jerk? This one is.



It's the Law of Gender Value. In fact this law is more evident than the Marxist laws you believe in.

Marx vision for a society after "statecapitalism" is utopian and underproduction. I dont think there is one kind of socialism. Most forms of socialisms are oppressive. Yes some socialism could in fact produce the Concorde. Socialism can be lead to irrational behaviour when costs are externalised. Free market socialism is sufficiently productive.

You have not read Marx. Under capitalism the productive powers of humanity (women and men) are subordinated to the needs of a few to profit off our labor. Socialism is liberation from the blind forces of capital. Marx never advocated state capitalism. Socialism is the transcendence and abolition of the state.

Apparently you've only read something about the Spanish Revolution and a few pamphlets by Proudhon.


She has read less books than me.

You lose!

[mike75]

Get restricted you Asstrian fuckwit.
You are wrong and cant prove your point, Just show me one woman that are willing to fuck a complete stranger for free. No you can't. It's the essential difference in gender. You cant socially construct that away. That bothers the hell out of you. It defies your religion.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Try the following:

1) Create a male left libertarian facebook profile. Specify the books and films you watch and read. Name some important thinkers and writers. Write something about your interest in political economy, marxism, feminism, anarchism or whatever
2) Do nothing and wait
3) In a week approx. 120-200 males makes suggestions about friendship.
4) No females suggest friendship
5) Approx. 2-4 Feminist Corporate Entitites approach you and make suggestion about "friendship".

By observing human action we can deduct:
Women are uninterested in left libertarian males. It's easy to duplicate the results. Women sort on gender. It's the Law of Gender value. FACT.

You can replicate the results for yourself. Women act reactionary.

They work and pay 60% in tax. We have left the age of capitalist exploitation and entered the age of feminist exploitation. I can feel how feminism palpates my muscles and tissue during work.

Now we get it. You have trouble meeting anarchist women to date. No one responded to your Facebook ad.Therefore all women are reactionary.

There's a saying from the feminist movement "the personal is the political". Instead of generalizing your own sexual and social frustration and taking it out on women, you might want to try some sort materialist analysis on gender roles under capitalism.

With all due respect, if you come off as an arrogant prick, online or IRL, of course you won't find intellectual anarchist women.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Mike75..restriction or more likely a ban within an hour (Its 1044 EST)

[leftace53]

You are wrong and cant prove your point, Just show me one woman that are willing to fuck a complete stranger for free. No you can't. It's the essential difference in gender. You cant socially construct that away. That bothers the hell out of you. It defies your religion.
I'll do it.
Regardless you're pretty much a sexist twat, like Lenina said, I expect to see your ban or atleast restriction sometime soon.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

You are wrong and cant prove your point, Just show me one woman that are willing to fuck a complete stranger for free. No you can't. It's the essential difference in gender. You cant socially construct that away. That bothers the hell out of you. It defies your religion.

There are differences in gender. So? This doesn't remotely justify sexism and misogyny.

[mike75]

"Seriously though I have to thank you for this bit of humor, it had me laughing for most of the morning. Umm.. no offense intended, but have you ever had a woman call you a jerk? This one is."

In fact for the most part of my life I have had plenty of friendships among women. Because I WAS a nice person. In fact I was so nice that women ignored my and punished me by not considering me as a male. I became thin air and didnt get any sex. All I got was friendships and womens problems loaded onto my shoulders.

One day I decided to end all my friendships with women. Thats the best decision I have taken in all of my life. Women are a disutility. At my age there are not any interesting women. At the same age there are men that have been lonely for most part of their life (unattractive for one reason or another) and have specialized in sciences or hobbies unlike women. They are intelligent and interesting persons that I have learned to appreciate.

I can completely fly under your female radar with my niceness. No women has ever called me a jerk to my face.

[mike75]

There are differences in gender. So? This doesn't remotely justify sexism and misogyny.
So you agree. How society allocates resources is sexism. Society is Matriarchy.

I am not harming you. People of your kind are harming me. In fact I don't need to explain myself - I will take action. You are infringing on my natural rights with your oppressive female biased society.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

"Seriously though I have to thank you for this bit of humor, it had me laughing for most of the morning. Umm.. no offense intended, but have you ever had a woman call you a jerk? This one is."

In fact for the most part of my life I have had plenty of friendships among women. Because I WAS a nice person. In fact I was so nice that women ignored my and punished me by not considering me as a male. I became thin air and didnt get any sex. All I got was friendships and womens problems loaded onto my shoulders.

One day I decided to end all my friendships with women. Thats the best decision I have taken in all of my life. Women are a disutility. At my age there are not any interesting women. At the same age there are men that have been lonely for most part of their life (unattractive for one reason or another) and have specialized in sciences or hobbies unlike women. They are intelligent and interesting persons that I have learned to appreciate.

I can completely fly under your female radar with my niceness. No women has ever called me a jerk to my face.

I think I can understand your situation, to some extent. I admit you may be a decent guy underneath it all. Its very important not to generalize whatever experiences you may have had to your political views. Other people have had other experiences and its just so much more complicate than you've portrayed.

For someone interested in human liberation a few of your previous posts came off as a bit disturbing.

Read some feminist literature. You don't have to agree with all of it but try to understand. Read Emma Goldman and Voltarine de Cleye. Read Clara Zetkin or Alexandra Kollantai.

I don't know what's gone wrong in your interactions with women. True, many women in our society have been socialized to think they're supposed to like guys who are neanderthals. Lot's of women like sensitive intelligent guys though. Don't take this the wrong way but it may be helpful for you to see a therapist if you have trouble breaking though a barrier.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You are wrong and cant prove your point, Just show me one woman that are willing to fuck a complete stranger for free. No you can't. It's the essential difference in gender. You cant socially construct that away. That bothers the hell out of you. It defies your religion.

I wouldn't fuck a complete stranger, even if I got paid.

What the hell are you on about anyway?

You're an asstrian, you belong in OI. Get fucked.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

So you agree. How society allocates resources is sexism. Society is Matriarchy.

I am not harming you. People of your kind are harming me. In fact I don't need to explain myself - I will take action. You are infringing on my natural rights with your oppressive female biased society.

Women make in the US, what is it-60 cents to the dollar of what men make? In many traditional societies rape and wife beating is endemic. Rape is endemic in the US and is often unreported. Women's reproductive freedom, the right to control our own bodies is under attack and basically doesn't exist in much of the US, thanks to the fundie terrorist campaign.

In the former Soviet Union, most engineers were women. How many women engineers do you see in the US?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Think a bit before you post next time.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I wouldn't fuck a complete stranger, even if I got paid.

I have.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I have.

Be careful.

[mike75]

Some second wave feminists had these ideas. They are in a minority today. Not really, the biggest radical left wing party in our national parliament advocate a ban on prostitution. Only a small minority of sex workers oppose this. In most other Scandinavian countries a ban on prostitution is in effect. You can thank feminists and Karl Marx for this then he moved back into private comfort.



Put down Proudhon and read some Marx.
Marx is a bad ripoff from Proudhon gone wrong. Marx hijacked and perverted socialism and gave it the authoritarian spin. Marx advocated communism and common ownership. Marx did not last for more than a few days in a shared housing collective.



You have not read Marx. Under capitalism the productive powers of humanity (women and men) are subordinated to the needs of a few to profit off our labor. Socialism is liberation from the blind forces of capital. Marx never advocated state capitalism. Socialism is the transcendence and abolition of the state.

I am employed by a capitalist. The capitalits takes a small percentage of my income (in a business with low entry barrier thus exposed to full competition). The state other hand takes 45-60% of my income. Exploitation is horizontal. Workers exploit workers.

Marx saw the law of value and equal exchange as something to be superceded. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Thus Marx advocate exploitation. Marx also advocated heavy progressive tax on income. The state on the other hand is a entity for collecting tax. Tax is by definition unjustice to labour. Proudhon, Warren, Tucker knew this.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Superficial persons are often those whom have never experienced any pain (also in a psychological sense such as losing a family member). Pain is also quality.
I am pretty superficial in a sense, and I have experienced a shitload of pain.


Not really, the biggest radical left wing party in our national parliament advocate a ban on prostitution. Only a small minority of sex workers oppose this. In most other Scandinavian countries a ban on prostitution is in effect. You can thank feminists and Karl Marx for this.

By your logic of blaming feminists, I should blame all men for the idiotic shit you say.
Feminism is not strictly one school of thought, but a very broad variety of schools of thought.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Be careful.
Don't worry, when I said I have, I was speaking in past tense.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

. In most other Scandinavian countries a ban on prostitution is in effect. You can thank feminists and Karl Marx for this then he moved back into private comfort.

Typically this is a ban on purchasing sex, not prostitution.

What does Karl Marx have to do with that though?

Oh right, you don't know what you're talking about. Why aren't you restricted yet? You're a Hayek-loving reactionary piece of Proudhonian shit.


Marxist theory is deeply flawed. Proponents of marxism are fueling housing bubbles and inequality. Most marxists insist on principle to bring down the cost of subsistence. Hence they do not advocate taxing on land. The problem is what looks nice for a marxist on micro level wreaks havoc on the macro level on the economy: unearned incomes, housing bubbles, income shift from poor people to the rich (the poor people subsidize the rich by paying the public infrastructure that raises land value - the progressive income tax is a marxist cover up for that scam). The working class of England were busy reading Das Kapital and rejected radical land reforms proposed by persons such as Winston Churchill. Marxism ignore the law of rent. That has killed millions of people.

[mike75]

I don't know what's gone wrong in your interactions with women. True, many women in our society have been socialized to think they're supposed to like guys who are neanderthals. Lot's of women like sensitive intelligent guys though. Don't take this the wrong way but it may be helpful for you to see a therapist if you have trouble breaking though a barrier.
The usual tirade. When something is wrong women blame society. When men complain they must seek a therapist.

Sure, women like intelligent guys. In fact women do not marry lesser intelligent guys. Intelligence and wisdom accumulates during life. I ask women straightforward. They narrow the problem down to my boyish face (the visual antithesis of wisdom an masculinity). So my face looks 10 years younger than I am. I actually made up for this by gaining loots of muscle mass hitting the weights until the injuries. Bottom line: women don't like to fuck what look like their own son. No therapist is going to fix this.

I was a soft sensitive person. Now I am a hard person. Life and women made me like this. I do no longer value female softness, kindness or vagina. In fact the only problem I have is female values being imposed on me by communists and socialists often adopted through society.

[mike75]

Typically this is a ban on purchasing sex, not prostitution.

What does Karl Marx have to do with that though?
Karl Marx is opposed to money.

It's a de facto ban on prostitution. Matter of sematics.

[leftace53]

The usual tirade. When something is wrong men blame women. When women complain they must be on their period.

Sure, men like busty girls. In fact men do not marry homely girls. I ask men straightforward. They narrow the problem down to my lack of being a model. So my body looks 10 years younger than I am. I actually made up for this by gaining loots of intelligence, charisma and high heels. Bottom line: men don't like to fuck what they can't control. No therapist is going to fix this.

I was a soft sensitive person. Now I am a hard person. Life and men made me like this. I do no longer value male strongness, stability or penis. In fact the only problem I have is male values being imposed on me by capitalists and conservatives in current society.
Seriously dude, we all have issues with past intimate relationships. Doesn't give you the excuse to be a misogynist, the same way it doesn't give me an excuse to be an androgynist. There are and always will be sexual preferences.

PS. I edited the above incase anyone didn't notice.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The usual tirade. When something is wrong women blame society. When men complain they must seek a therapist.

Sure, women like intelligent guys. In fact women do not marry lesser intelligent guys. Intelligence and wisdom accumulates during life. I ask women straightforward. They narrow the problem down to my boyish face (the visual antithesis of wisdom an masculinity). So my face looks 10 years younger than I am. I actually made up for this by gaining loots of muscle mass hitting the weights until the injuries. Bottom line: women don't like to fuck what look like their own son. No therapist is going to fix this.

I was a soft sensitive person. Now I am a hard person. Life and women made me like this. I do no longer value female softness, kindness or vagina. In fact the only problem I have is female values being imposed on me by communists and socialists often adopted through society.

You start off crying about women blaming society and end it complaining about society.

If you have such a problem, go find an unclaimed island where you can cry about women not wanting to fuck you all you want while you masturbate to your sexist ideology all alone.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If you work for a capitalist (and as members of the working class we have no choice) your labor power, your ability to work, becomes a commodity, sold to the capitalist. You are "alienated", that is separated from both your labor and the product of your labor. You work for the boss, when, how, and where the boss tells you.We have little control over our work, individually or collectively. Labor power, our ability to work, is a commodity but it is a unique commodity. Labor is the product of all value. LP is a commodity which creates more value than it costs to buy.This is the good old LTV which I'm sure you know.

Okay, capitalists cannot pay their workers the full value of their labor or else they won't make a profit.The value created which doesn't go to the worker is surplus value.Surplus value is the engine that drives capitalism. There are different ways of estimating surplus value. The percentage of it varies depending on a lot of things but especially on the militancy of the working class at any given time.

The percentage of surplus we create is huge.


Here is an example of how the labor theory of value works: A worker in a factory is given $30 worth of material, and after working 3 hours producing a good, and using $10 worth of fuel to run a machine, he creates a product which is sold for $100. According to Marx, the labor and only the labor of the worker increased the value of the natural materials to $100. The worker is thus justly entitled to a $60 payment, or $20 per hour.

If the worker is employed by a factory owner who pays him only $15 per hour, according to Marx the $5 per hour the factory owner receives is simply a ripoff. The factory owner has done nothing to earn the money and the $5 per hour he receives is "surplus value", representing exploitation of the worker. Even the tools which the factory owner provided were, according to Marx, necessarily produced by other workers.


There's been research done on British workers at the old Rolls Royce plant. Its been estimated that they pay their way with 4 or 5 days work, the rest of the year they're working for the man. This is extreme but its similar for other workers.

This is how capital is produced and reproduced. Capital has to keep growing or its no longer capital. It becomes an entity all its own. Capital is "dead labor" which uses us as its means of reproduction.Capital is Moloch. Marx used a lot of great vampire imagery to describe this.

Capitalism also has a fantastic ability to reproduce itself. Everything it touches becomes a part of itself. It reproduces though the market system-a system of production of commodities based on their exchange value. There are zillions of contradictions stemming from this.

There are people on RevLeft who could explain this beter than I could but those are the basics.

Proudhon represents an early stage of anarchist thought.He was the spokesman of petty producers, a petty bourgeois artisan class threatened by industrialism. His sexism comes from the need of independent artisans (usually the head of a family) to control the female labor supply.I thought I sniffed some Proudhon in your posts, that's why I brought him up.

Marx dealt with Proudhon here

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/index.htm

A big chunk of your income goes to taxes. So? If you life in an EU country you get something back from your taxes. Healthcare, a pension, etc. This is basically a way the state socializes the costs of the capitalists.If you live in the US almost half your federal tax dollar goes to the military. The rest is Social Security.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The usual tirade. When something is wrong women blame society. When men complain they must seek a therapist.

Sure, women like intelligent guys. In fact women do not marry lesser intelligent guys. Intelligence and wisdom accumulates during life. I ask women straightforward. They narrow the problem down to my boyish face (the visual antithesis of wisdom an masculinity). So my face looks 10 years younger than I am. I actually made up for this by gaining loots of muscle mass hitting the weights until the injuries. Bottom line: women don't like to fuck what look like their own son. No therapist is going to fix this.

I was a soft sensitive person. Now I am a hard person. Life and women made me like this. I do no longer value female softness, kindness or vagina. In fact the only problem I have is female values being imposed on me by communists and socialists often adopted through society.

Enough Marxism 101. Get off the self pity jag. You sound like Frankenstein in the Mary Shelley book or somebody from a cheesy John Hawkes movie of the 40s. If you think you look too young then grow a beard. It usually makes guys look ten years older.

[mike75]

You start off crying about women blaming society and end it complaining about society.

False. I start off saying women blame society and at same time say men should go to therapy. I point out the double standards. Of course a person like you cannot see the fine nuances.


If you have such a problem, go find an unclaimed island where you can cry about women not wanting to fuck you all you want while you masturbate to your sexist ideology all alone. 1) I don't want anything from women -- women benefit from the welfare state and taxation. Women dont want justice to labour (free market for exchange of labour) they want to eat the cake and increase welfare. I am in the low income bracket---I dont want more taxes and welfare state. Woman raise claims against society all the time. They are anti social.

2) I do not do sex. I don't have an ideology (like you).

[Adi Shankara]

In every close encounter with a women my findings are the same:
She has read less books than me. (fact)
She has less education. (fact)
She has fucked more people than I have. (fact)
I have have made myself deserved to every women that I met. No single woman has ever made herself deserved to me. (fact)

What the fuck is this bullshit? Way to stereotype every woman as some uneducated dolt, Prince Charming.

[mike75]

Enough Marxism 101. Get off the self pity jag. You sound like Frankenstein in the Mary Shelley book or somebody from a cheesy John Hawkes movie of the 40s. If you think you look too young then grow a beard. It usually makes guys look ten years older.I do not think I look to young. Women think so. I have no interest in women any longer.

[Adi Shankara]

I do not think I look to young. Women think so. I have no interest in women any longer.

You have nothing to worry about: given your sexist, chauvinist attitudes, I'm sure women have lost interest in you MUCH sooner than you have lost interest in them.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I do not think I look to young. Women think so. I have no interest in women any longer.

You sound like a cliche. Either you're just posing and this is some sort of macho defensiveness, and/or you have psychological/emotional issues. I would recommend working with a therapist. There's no shame in this at all, therapy has helped many people.

Yes, many psychological problems women have do result from the structure of our society.More women than men see therapists.

Do you want to live in an all male society? You can, that's how guys end up as priests or monks. Maybe you are homosexual? Nothing wrong with that either. You might feel better opening up about it.I have a feeling though, if you are hetero, sooner or later (probably sooner) you will have the need for an emotional and sexual relationship.Your cocoon is going to crack and it could be traumatic.Before this happens work out whatever issues you have.

And, most importantly don't generalize any resentments you may have against women to your political views. That way leads to fascism.What you described pretty much seems like the psychology of fascism.

[mike75]

What the fuck is this bullshit? Way to stereotype every woman as some uneducated dolt, Prince Charming.I didt not say that. Women fuck men with better education. It's a proven fact. How charming are women?

The last cute women I dated (many years ago) felt intimidated. She wanted to start a family with me but she also expressed to me she felt stupid. She was clever enough to realize she would bore me in the long run.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

False. I start off saying women blame society and at same time say men should go to therapy. I point out the double standards. Of course a person like you cannot see the fine nuances.
Oh yes, let me play along, stupid little me. I must be so inferior to such a smart man as yourself. :rolleyes:


1) I don't want anything from women -- women benefit from the welfare state and taxation. Women dont want justice to labour (free market for exchange of labour) they want to eat the cake and increase welfare. I am in the low income bracket---I dont want more taxes and welfare state. Woman raise claims against society all the time. They are anti social.

Great! So we see eye to eye! I don't want anything from you, you don't want anything from me, now scurry off to your little island...


2) I do not do sex. I don't have an ideology (like you).

Okay, wise ass, what is my "ideology" if you are so omniscient?

Also, stop thinking you're so unique just because you don't have sex. I genuinely have almost no sex drive at all at this point.

[Adi Shankara]

I didt not say that. Women fuck men with better education. It's a proven fact. How charming are women?

The last cute women I dated (many years ago) felt intimidated. She wanted to start a family with me but she also expressed to me she felt stupid. She was clever enough to realize she would bore me in the long run.

You think waaay too highly of yourself, which is ironic, considering you seem to be not very much at all.

[Adi Shankara]

The usual tirade. When something is wrong women blame society. When men complain they must seek a therapist.

Sure, women like intelligent guys. In fact women do not marry lesser intelligent guys. Intelligence and wisdom accumulates during life. I ask women straightforward. They narrow the problem down to my boyish face (the visual antithesis of wisdom an masculinity). So my face looks 10 years younger than I am. I actually made up for this by gaining loots of muscle mass hitting the weights until the injuries. Bottom line: women don't like to fuck what look like their own son. No therapist is going to fix this.

I was a soft sensitive person. Now I am a hard person. Life and women made me like this. I do no longer value female softness, kindness or vagina. In fact the only problem I have is female values being imposed on me by communists and socialists often adopted through society.

It honestly just sounds like you hate women. you value yourself too highly, it appears a woman bruised your ego, and you now think that there is something wrong with women, because you must be god's gift to female-kind, and they rejected their savior! :laugh:

[mike75]

You sound like a cliche. Either you're just posing and this is some sort of macho defensiveness, and/or you have psychological/emotional issues. I would recommend working with a therapist. There's no shame in this at all, therapy has helped many people.

Yes, many psychological problems women have do result from the structure of our society.More women than men see therapists.

Do you want to live in an all male society? You can, that's how guys end up as priests or monks. Maybe you are homosexual? Nothing wrong with that either. You might feel better opening up about it.I have a feeling though, if you are hetero, sooner or later (probably sooner) you will have the need for an emotional and sexual relationship.Your cocoon is going to crack and it could be traumatic.Before this happens work out whatever issues you have.

And, most importantly don't generalize any resentments you may have against women to your political views. That way leads to fascism.What you described pretty much seems like the psychology of fascism.

In fact I have had my prostate removed at my own will. To my surprice I found out the need for emotional relationship was closely related to the urge for sex. The feeling of "love" is much more related to the prostate gland and the feelings it "produces" in the stomach felt throughout the rest of the entire body. I dont feel any urge for cuddling or softness anymore.


I was sick for like four years and spent the four years alone. Thats a male society. No women wants bad apples. Blind women with multiple schlerosis missing half the brain on the other hand get company. I had severe back pain and had to call a hooker just to get the attention away for half an hour during those lone years.

I dont want to impose politics or fascism. I want to remove privilegies. I am going to to firebomb womens organizations promoting "gender equality" through quotas, taxation or interventionist policies. It's not fascism, its equality and liberty.

[Adi Shankara]

I dont want to impose politics or fascism. I want to remove privilegies. I am going to to firebomb womens organizations promoting "gender equality" through quotas, taxation or interventionist policies. It's not fascism, its equality and liberty.


While I certainly don't support sexism against men, the fact of the matter is, in our society, we need to impose quotas, taxation, and intervention because women are still limited by their sex in our society, and we can't have equality until the playing field is leveled. if you want the playing field leveled and thus true equality, you must equalize society so women are on par with men. It's not rocket science.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

In fact I have had my prostate removed at my own will. To my surprice I found out the need for emotional relationship was closely related to the urge for sex. The feeling of "love" is much more related to the prostate gland and the feelings it "produces" in the stomach felt throughout the rest of the entire body. I dont feel any urge for cuddling or softness anymore.
Oh what a fucking tragedy...
:rolleyes:


I was sick for like four years and spent the four years alone. Thats a male society. No women wants bad apples. Blind women with multiple schlerosis missing half the brain on the other hand get company. I had severe back pain and had to call a hooker just to get the attention away for half an hour during those lone years.
You're still sick.


I dont want to impose politics or fascism. I want to remove privilegies. I am going to to firebomb womens organizations promoting "gender equality" through quotas, taxation or interventionist policies. It's not fascism, its equality and liberty.

You are a wackjob.

[mike75]

It honestly just sounds like you hate women. you value yourself too highly, it appears a woman bruised your ego, and you now think that there is something wrong with women, because you must be god's gift to female-kind, and they rejected their savior! :laugh:I dont hate women. A women cannot bruise me. I don't value my self highly. In fact if a male value himself highly he gets lots of women. I value truth above anythinh else.

20 years ago I had anorexia. I don't put myself on a piedestal. I will also commit suicide in the near future. If you don't believe me then play the russian roulette with me. I dont value my life and not yours either.

[Adi Shankara]

I dont hate women. A women cannot bruise me. I don't value my self highly. In fact if a male value himself highly he gets lots of women. I value truth above anythinh else.

20 years ago I had anorexia. I don't put myself on a piedestal. I will also commit suicide in the near future. If you don't believe me then play the russian roulette with me. I dont value my life and not yours either.

You don't "value" yourself...yet you seem to have this narcissistic god-complex where no woman can reach your impossible set of standards, which makes you a bit of a prick.

[#FF0000]

I will also commit suicide in the near future.

Dream big, Reach for the stars

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I dont hate women. A women cannot bruise me. I don't value my self highly. In fact if a male value himself highly he gets lots of women. I value truth above anythinh else.
Because, you know, women are just poker chips, right?:rolleyes:


20 years ago I had anorexia. I don't put myself on a piedestal. I will also commit suicide in the near future. If you don't believe me then play the russian roulette with me. I dont value my life and not yours either.
Have fun with your suicide.

[#FF0000]

She has fucked more people than I have. (fact)

From the sounds of it, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn't.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

From the sounds of it, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn't.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
I lol'd

[mike75]

While I certainly don't support sexism against men, the fact of the matter is, in our society, we need to impose quotas, taxation, and intervention because women are still limited by their sex in our society, and we can't have equality until the playing field is leveled. if you want the playing field leveled and thus true equality, you must equalize society so women are on par with men. It's not rocket science.
*There is no true equality*

You have a binary understanding of gender. Lets assume two empty "slots" and three candidates.

candidate
1) Macho man
2) Women
3) Average nice guy finishes last

1 gets elected as usual. 2 gets elected because of quotas.

Persons in category 3 are punished. So in fact your socialism has nothing to offer me and lots of other males You also need a powerfull state to intervene. Even though I do not belong to the power elite we have established the fact that socialism makes my living conditions worse.

The only way forward is individual cooperativism and to abolish privilegies not making them.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

*There is no true equality*

You have a binary understanding of gender. Lets assume two empty "slots" and three candidates.

candidate
1) Macho man
2) Women
3) Average nice guy finishes last

1 gets elected as usual. 2 gets elected because of quotas.

Persons in category 3 are punished. So in fact your socialism has nothing to offer me and lots of other males You also need a powerfull state to intervene. Even though I do not belong to the power elite we have established the fact that socialism makes my living conditions worse.

The only way forward is individual cooperativism and to abolish privilegies not making them.

Your trinity is not much better than binary genders.

And you're not the 3, you are "4) Emotionally disturbed fellow with unwarranted sense of self-worth and a warped victim complex". Of course that four finishes last.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

*There is no true equality*

You have a binary understanding of gender. Lets assume two empty "slots" and three candidates.

candidate
1) Macho man
2) Women
3) Average nice guy finishes last

1 gets elected as usual. 2 gets elected because of quotas.

Persons in category 3 are punished. So in fact your socialism has nothing to offer me and lots of other males You also need a powerfull state to intervene. Even though I do not belong to the power elite we have established the fact that socialism makes my living conditions worse.

The only way forward is individual cooperativism and to abolish privilegies not making them.

You're in category 4: Wackjob
Go to your local psych ward and tell them you belong in an obs room.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In fact I have had my prostate removed at my own will. To my surprice I found out the need for emotional relationship was closely related to the urge for sex. The feeling of "love" is much more related to the prostate gland and the feelings it "produces" in the stomach felt throughout the rest of the entire body. I dont feel any urge for cuddling or softness anymore.


I was sick for like four years and spent the four years alone. Thats a male society. No women wants bad apples. Blind women with multiple schlerosis missing half the brain on the other hand get company. I had severe back pain and had to call a hooker just to get the attention away for half an hour during those lone years.

I dont want to impose politics or fascism. I want to remove privilegies. I am going to to firebomb womens organizations promoting "gender equality" through quotas, taxation or interventionist policies. It's not fascism, its equality and liberty.

I don't know anything about your prostate, I do know people have a need for emotional intimacy beyond that of sex, although the two are intertwined (no pun intended). I don't know what you've been though or what your life experiences have been. I know people who have had multiple suicide attempts. I know a women who has been repeatedly gang raped. I know of a woman, a peace activist in the 80s, who witnessed US backed massacres in Central America. Because of what she's witnessed she will be in severe emotional trauma for the rest of her life. Do you know about the US backed massacres in Guatemala? I've seen photos of people who have been horribly mutilated and tortured by the death squads.

This is great for getting people out of self pity ruts,

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html

Yeah, life sucks. Get over it. You live in a developed country and you have a university education. You're alive and you have never been the victim of torture.

The key is learning to care for people. At some level that's why most people become leftists. Your posts reek of an intense hatred of women. You also seem to have a very low opinion of men.Self pity and hatred won't get you anywhere.

If you choose to live in an all male society of Catholic priests, or an order of Buddhist monks somewhere, fine. You've admitted contemplating a terrorist act against women's centers. That is scary. See a shrink before its too late.

For everyone else-I don't know if we should feed this guy's self pity needs anymore.

[mike75]

You don't "value" yourself...yet you seem to have this narcissistic god-complex where no woman can reach your impossible set of standards, which makes you a bit of a prick. I dont set any standards for women. I have never rejected a woman. Women set standards above themselves (education, wealth etc). It's a proven scientific fact In fact a woman will laugh at you if you miss a few inches in height.

Women are narcissistic and think they are a gift to society. They think they are entitled to a reward or compensation by society for giving birth to their own children. This misconception is a widespread belief among socialist and social 'anarchists' (like collectivists and communists).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I dont set any standards for women. I have never rejected a woman. Women set standards above themselves (education, wealth etc). It's a proven scientific fact In fact a woman will laugh at you if you miss a few inches in height.

Women are narcissistic and think they are a gift to society. They think they are entitled to a reward or compensation by society for giving birth to their own children. This misconception is a widespread belief among socialist and social 'anarchists' (like collectivists and communists).

What are you on about? You make no sense.

[leftace53]

pfft, if you think women are assholes, you've never tried dating men :lol:
seriously though, you ought to seek out some professional help.

[GPDP]

Well, that was disturbing to say the least.

[fionntan]

In the name of christ that was some serious i hate my ma and will take it out on all woman rant if i ever read one. I hope that bastard dosnt live beside me..

[#FF0000]

I don't think I'm getting enough love for the mondo burns I laid upon HeMan Womanhater McGorean in this thread.

[meow]

can mod please delete off topic post?

this thread not for complaining about one poster. this thread for posting about genderless society.

yes one poster is stupid and got banned. but that doesnt mean thread ends.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

can mod please delete off topic post?

this thread not for complaining about one poster. this thread for posting about genderless society.

yes one poster is stupid and got banned. but that doesnt mean thread ends.
It would be easier to just go back on topic.