If a transsexual does not want to date a cisgender person, is this reactionary?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If a transexual does not want to date a cisgender person, is he or she reactionary? Discuss.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Dating preferences are correlated with reactionary beliefs when people don't date outside of their group for chauvinistic, racist, nationalist, or even religious beliefs. There is not really any basis for a person of transgender to hold that sort of bigoted belief, so I don't think they are reactionary if they only want to date other people like them, because we all look for someone that is in some way a reflection of ourselves. It is normal to have preferences but when they are determined by the dominating knowledge of what is desirable in a partner that is propagated by bourgeois society, that is definitely reactionary.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

If a transexual does not want to date a cisgender person, is he or she reactionary? Discuss.
How would I know? I've dated all over the gender spectrum.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I haven't had all that much experience dating.

[¿Que?]

What's cisgender mean?

EDIT: Never mind I'll google it.

[¿Que?]

I haven't had all that much experience dating.
Or we could consider dating itself to be reactionary.


The couple is like the final stage of the great social debacle. It’s the oasis in the middle of the human desert. Under the auspices of “intimacy,” we come to it looking for everything that has so obviously deserted contemporary social relations: warmth, simplicity, truth, a life without theater or spectator. But once the romantic high has passed, “intimacy” strips itself bare: it is itself a social invention, it speaks the language of glamour magazines and psychology; like everything else, it is bolstered with so many strategies to the point of nausea. There is no more truth here than elsewhere; here too lies and the laws of estrangement dominate. And when, by good fortune, one discovers this truth, it demands a sharing that belies the very form of the couple. What allows beings to love each other is also what makes them lovable, and ruins the utopia of autism-for-two.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Or we could consider dating itself to be reactionary.

What would be your alternative?

"Cisgender" means someone who is not transgender. Someone who identifies w/the gender they are assigned to at birth.The term was coined in the 90s.

[¿Que?]

What would be your alternative?

Couldn't say. I'll let you know after the glorious revolution!!!:laugh:

[Invincible Summer]

What would be your alternative?


Party-sponsored life partners, obviously.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Party-sponsored life partners, obviously.
Would there be a remaining single option then? Or will I just continue to be a fuck machine?

[Queercommie Girl]

No people should have the right to choose who they want to date.

One does not need to potentially date everyone who he/she considers to be equal and respect.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Dating will be decided upon by your local comissar of relations, to produce the best possible revolutionary children, those who fail at this task will have their genitals sent to a gulag.

[chegitz guevara]

I think many comrades' genitals are already there.

[Red Commissar]

Trans and Cis are chemistry terms. That's what I first thought, I am a sad person.

[maskerade]

Trans and Cis are chemistry terms. That's what I first thought, I am a sad person.

Let's be friends because i thought the same thing

[praxis1966]

"Cisgender" means someone who is not transgender. Someone who identifies w/the gender they are assigned to at birth.The term was coined in the 90s.

I have a sawbuck that says Judith Butler had something to do with this jackassery somewhere along the way...


Would there be a remaining single option then? Or will I just continue to be a fuck machine?

The second one, with any luck.

[Queercommie Girl]

I have a sawbuck that says Judith Butler had something to do with this jackassery somewhere along the way...


Judith Butler is a post-modernist and a queer theorist. Her ideas are somewhat idealistic and excessively radical but objectively they still have some partially progressive consequences in terms of promoting greater radicalism among the LGBT community. I take this line because I believe in complete equality for all people regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the term "cis-gender" at all and in fact it is quite widely used in the LGBT community.

[praxis1966]

Judith Butler is a post-modernist and a queer theorist. Her ideas are somewhat idealistic and excessively radical but objectively they still have some partially progressive consequences in terms of promoting greater radicalism among the LGBT community. I take this line because I believe in complete equality for all people regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

Her ideas are just that. Ideas. All of her work, to my knowledge, is based on hypothetical situations and have never really been tested in a clinical setting. Nevermind that her idea that gender is something performed and fluid rather than at least on some level rooted in biology is just horseshit on its face. At the end of the day (and even if you're only willing to concede that the effect is infinitesimally small), you have to admit that your body has organs and glands, those organs and glands produce involuntary hormone reactions which contribute to attraction, and therefore there exists a certain level of dependency on biology where gender is concerned. Now I'm not saying that gender and is completely fixed, but you can't logically argue, as does Butler, that biology has zero to do with it. The fact that her theories helped radicalize the LGBT community, while positive, is a red herring.

Furthermore, as I've argued in other threads, it seems to me that none of Butler's fans have considered how homophobic her theories really are when taken to their logical conclusion. If gender really is fluid series of acts rather than at least somewhat biologically rooted, the end result is that the Christian Fundamentalists are right and homosexuality can be "cured" with psychotherapy!


I don't think there is anything wrong with the term "cis-gender" at all and in fact it is quite widely used in the LGBT community.

That's because you've probably never really read Freire and don't have any understanding of how labels, when applied forcibly by one group to another, are inherently oppressive because they create intellectual limitations. He argues that the most oppressive act one can commit is to strip someone's naming capacity, ie their power to both self-identify and to define the world around them, because integral in a person's power to transform their reality is their ability to define it. It's a double edged sword and shouldn't be done by anyone.

[Queercommie Girl]

Her ideas are just that. Ideas. All of her work, to my knowledge, is based on hypothetical situations and have never really been tested in a clinical setting. Nevermind that her idea that gender is something performed and fluid rather than at least on some level rooted in biology is just horseshit on its face. At the end of the day (and even if you're only willing to concede that the effect is infinitesimally small), you have to admit that your body has organs and glands, those organs and glands produce involuntary hormone reactions which contribute to attraction, and therefore there exists a certain level of dependency on biology where gender is concerned. Now I'm not saying that gender and is completely fixed, but you can't logically argue, as does Butler, that biology has zero to do with it. The fact that her theories helped radicalize the LGBT community, while positive, is a red herring.


I'm not pro-Butler theoretically. Nevertheless being a Marxist I take the middle position between post-modernism on the one hand and biological determinism on the other. I think both views are basically equally wrong.

From a Marxist perspective, the primary factor is neither linguistic nor biological, but socio-economic. While there is obviously a biological basis, there is still the matter of how much of this basis is actually directly reflected at the level of social experience. Gender and sexuality, in a direct pragmatic sense, is nothing more than direct social experience from day-to-day. At this level, biological influences though ultimately present are secondary, while socio-economic factors are primary. Another question is how much should people, being conscious and self-sentient agents, actually allow innate biological differences in gender and sexuality to influence them in a normative way, i.e. provide a value system for their social actions. I don't think it should influence them a great deal at all since I think people should be liberated from rigid gender roles etc imposed culturally and politically by society to a significant extent.

I didn't say her work is progressive, I said it is partially progressive, there is a difference. While the ultimate philosophical basis of her work, resting on idealism, is flawed, objectively it does have the progressive effect of challenging any kind of rigidly imposed roles in terms of gender and sexuality in bourgeois society.



Furthermore, as I've argued in other threads, it seems to me that none of Butler's fans have considered how homophobic her theories really are when taken to their logical conclusion. If gender really is fluid series of acts rather than at least somewhat biologically rooted, the end result is that the Christian Fundamentalists are right and homosexuality can be "cured" with psychotherapy!
But then aren't you arguing that homosexuality is only to be accepted because it is natural? I think it shouldn't matter, that actually people have the right to be "homosexual" (a label after all) even if it is just a "lifestylist choice".

People have a subjective right to choose with respect to their sexuality, and this should not require any kind of biological or natural justification. Why would someone wish to "cure" homosexuality anyway even if it were really not natural?



That's because you've probably never really read Freire and don't have any understanding of how labels, when applied forcibly by one group to another, are inherently oppressive because they create intellectual limitations. He argues that the most oppressive act one can commit is to strip someone's naming capacity, ie their power to both self-identify and to define the world around them, because integral in a person's power to transform their reality is their ability to define it. It's a double edged sword and shouldn't be done by anyone.
I think to place too much emphasis on linguistic terms one way or another is somewhat of an idealistic line itself. As a Marxist I primarily focus on concrete issues and explicit socio-economic implications of any social phenomenon.

[Queercommie Girl]

Personally I prefer a Marxist analysis of LGBT issues like this book:

The Red in the Rainbow

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11338

rather than an idealistic post-modernist analysis or a biological reductionist analysis.

[Charles Xavier]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[praxis1966]

I'm not pro-Butler theoretically. Nevertheless being a Marxist I take the middle position between post-modernism on the one hand and biological determinism on the other. I think both views are basically equally wrong.

Then you're wrong as well. They're not equally wrong, they're both partially right. Whether intentionally or not, you've missed the point of my argument entirely which was that it's a combination of both. What I was saying was that biology, is an influencing factor as are other environmental factors (culture, parents, etc.).


From a Marxist perspective...

Marx schmarx... I really couldn't be bothered to give a shit given that I'm not a Marxist nor do I believe Marx and Marxists have a monopoly on revolutionary theory. I do, however, resent the all too common attitude endemic amongst Marxists that they're the only revolutionary materialists on the planet.


I don't think it should influence them a great deal at all since I think people should be liberated from rigid gender roles etc imposed culturally and politically by society to a significant extent.

You and I both. I didn't imply any value judgment. Frankly, I think you're still misunderstanding my point. If a person's biology is an influencing factor in their own decision making process about anything, gender or other roles included, then those factors are intrinsic rather than extrinsic. Acting upon intrinsic impulses, as long as said impulses aren't repugnant to the well being of another objecting person, even if they are biological doesn't necessarily imply proscribed roles. I think you're inferring a good number of things from what I said that I never intended.


I didn't say her work is progressive, I said it is partially progressive, there is a difference. While the ultimate philosophical basis of her work, resting on idealism, is flawed, objectively it does have the progressive effect of challenging any kind of rigidly imposed roles in terms of gender and sexuality in bourgeois society.

Well, you're the one who defended her work in the first place, not me.


But then aren't you arguing that homosexuality is only to be accepted because it is natural?

No, only that sexuality, whatever form it takes, partially relies upon biology. Basically, this all goes back to the false dichotomy of nature versus nurture. I say false because in pretty much every case that I'm aware of where human behavior is concerned, researchers wind up concluding that both are operating simultaneously. Therefore, I doubt that there is any one overriding governing determinant.


I think it shouldn't matter, that actually people have the right to be "homosexual" (a label after all) even if it is just a "lifestylist choice".

I personally couldn't give a shit less what "causes" homosexuality either. The search for a cause is tantamount to the search for a cure, whether you're an evolutionary psychologist looking to treat it with gene therapy or a post-modernist who believes it can be cured through psychotherapy. My attitude is no matter what the cause, people have a right to be whomever they like whatever that may be or whichever label they chose for themselves. Furthermore, I frankly couldn't care less what someone's sexual preference is.


People have a subjective right to choose with respect to their sexuality, and this should not require any kind of biological or natural justification.

Ideally, yes. I wasn't trying to justify anything, though, because I don't think a justification for sexual preference is necessary.


Why would someone wish to "cure" homosexuality anyway even if it were really not natural?

You've got me by the balls on that one. I didn't say it was right, only that it happens.


I think to place too much emphasis on linguistic terms one way or another is somewhat of an idealistic line itself. As a Marxist I primarily focus on concrete issues and explicit socio-economic implications of any social phenomenon.

So what are you saying, that Marxists don't believe words don't carry power? If so, what the fuck are we doing having this conversation in the first place?

[Magón]

Short Answer: No

Long Answer: Everyone else seems to be giving them, so just read theirs.

:thumbup1:

[Queercommie Girl]

Then you're wrong as well. They're not equally wrong, they're both partially right. Whether intentionally or not, you've missed the point of my argument entirely which was that it's a combination of both. What I was saying was that biology, is an influencing factor as are other environmental factors (culture, parents, etc.).


Why play semantical word games? To say that both are "partially right" is the same as saying both are strictly speaking equally wrong.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.



Marx schmarx... I really couldn't be bothered to give a shit given that I'm not a Marxist nor do I believe Marx and Marxists have a monopoly on revolutionary theory. I do, however, resent the all too common attitude endemic amongst Marxists that they're the only revolutionary materialists on the planet.
I'm not criticising you for not being a Marxist, nor am I saying that Marxists "monopolise" all "revolutionary materialism". I'm not anti-anarchist. However, I think generally speaking we Marxists have a deeper and more coherent analysis on many issues, ranging from political economy of the Third World to LGBT liberation. While I applaud the fact that many anarchists are also pro-LGBT, you generally see LGBT politics as a matter of subjective personal freedom. But for us, it is more than that, LGBT people are an oppressed minority (objectively the majority belongs to the working class) that is fighting against systematic discrimination collectively, and to be pro-LGBT is not just a neutral choice in terms of its value, since it actually has an intrinsically positive role to some extent in liberating humanity from rigid limitations of gender and sexuality in general.



You and I both. I didn't imply any value judgment. Frankly, I think you're still misunderstanding my point. If a person's biology is an influencing factor in their own decision making process about anything, gender or other roles included, then those factors are intrinsic rather than extrinsic. Acting upon intrinsic impulses, as long as said impulses aren't repugnant to the well being of another objecting person, even if they are biological doesn't necessarily imply proscribed roles. I think you're inferring a good number of things from what I said that I never intended.
Well I was only clarifying my point and I did not actually infer that you hold relatively reactionary views. However, of course I don't automatically assume every revolutionary leftist I meet would necessarily hold a progressive view on this topic either. I make no assumptions one way or another.



Well, you're the one who defended her work in the first place, not me.
Yes, but I only partially defended her legacy. I also clearly pointed out the relatively reactionary idealistic basis of her theory.



No, only that sexuality, whatever form it takes, partially relies upon biology. Basically, this all goes back to the false dichotomy of nature versus nurture. I say false because in pretty much every case that I'm aware of where human behavior is concerned, researchers wind up concluding that both are operating simultaneously. Therefore, I doubt that there is any one overriding governing determinant.
Marxism believes that "nature" and "nurture" are in dialectical union. I don't essentially disagree with your line here.



I personally couldn't give a shit less what "causes" homosexuality either. The search for a cause is tantamount to the search for a cure, whether you're an evolutionary psychologist looking to treat it with gene therapy or a post-modernist who believes it can be cured through psychotherapy. My attitude is no matter what the cause, people have a right to be whomever they like whatever that may be or whichever label they chose for themselves. Furthermore, I frankly couldn't care less what someone's sexual preference is.
Ok. Well the entire drive to "cure" homosexuality is politically reactionary.

While I'm appreciative that you are not against homosexuality in any way, I hope you explicitly support the progressive LGBT movement against discrimination and for liberation as well, and not just "couldn't care less" in this positive sense either.



Ideally, yes. I wasn't trying to justify anything, though, because I don't think a justification for sexual preference is necessary.
Progressive ideals are something socialists fight for. By "justification" if you mean LGBT people need some kind of biological reason to justify their own rights in the political sense, then of course I agree with you in that no such "justifications" are necessary.



You've got me by the balls on that one. I didn't say it was right, only that it happens.
I wasn't actually accusing you of anything. I think my point was no other than saying that actually you can't really say that Butler's idea is somehow objectively reactionary since it can provide an excuse for Christian Fundamentalists etc to reject homosexuality, because the very principles on which these fundies etc base their rejection of homosexuality are fundamentally flawed anyway.



So what are you saying, that Marxists don't believe words don't carry power? If so, what the fuck are we doing having this conversation in the first place?
Marxism believes "words carry power" to a limited degree since cultural superstructure can counter-act on the socio-economic base. Nevertheless, idealists of all stripes from religious fundamentalists to post-modernists always tend to exaggerate the actual power words do in fact carry. Fundies believe one can be literally "blessed" or "cursed" by a single word or phrase, while post-modernists believe socio-economic and political oppression will cease once reactionary terms people use are replaced with more progressive ones. In both cases base and superstructure has been turned upside-down. It is a general symptom of idealism.

I'm not necessarily accusing you of being idealistic here, I'm just pointing out that whether or not to use a particular word (like "cis-gendered" or whatever) in the abstract sense isn't the central issue for Marxists.

I never thought our conversation/debate here is just an idealistic semantical word-game at any point in this thread. I think it's not because the issues we are evaluating here have some bearing to the practical LGBT movement in the concrete sense to some extent.

[Os Cangaceiros]

But for us, it is more than that, LGBT people are an oppressed minority

Anarchists don't see gay people as an oppressed minority?

[Queercommie Girl]

Anarchists don't see gay people as an oppressed minority?

No offence intended, but frankly I'm not sure. I have never worked with anarchist LGBT activists before. I do know that anarchists highly promote the idea of "personal subjective sexual freedom" though, sometimes even more than Marxists do.

I don't mean this as an accusation at all, and I'm certainly not anti-anarchist. I'm just describing what I know out of my limited knowledge.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, gays are a minority, statistically-speaking. And I don't think that any anarchists would deny that they're oppressed. So yeah, I'd say that they're an oppressed minority.

I also don't see anything wrong about extolling sexual freedom.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, gays are a minority, statistically-speaking. And I don't think that any anarchists would deny that they're oppressed. So yeah, I'd say that they're an oppressed minority.


What I meant is that I'm not certain that anarchists in general take the political struggle for liberation and against discrimination by LGBT people in the collective sense that seriously. The focus seems to be just on "individual sexual freedom".



I also don't see anything wrong about extolling sexual freedom.I never said there is anything wrong with that.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The second one, with any luck.
It makes lots of people happy, but just makes me feel hollow

[Lenina Rosenweg]

It makes lots of people happy, but just makes me feel hollow

You'll find someone

[¿Que?]

According to wikipedia, "Butler explicitly challenges biological accounts of binary sex, reconceiving the sexed body as itself culturally constructed by regulative discourse.[12]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler#cite_note-11)

Judith Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler)

It helps to read a little of this:
Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-construction-naturalistic/)

With the SEP article, I personally find it irritating that the author doesn't think it's important enough for a naturalistic approach, to consider the difference between social and cultural constructions. He neatly divides the agents of construction (that which does the constructing) into two types, impersonal and personal. Nothing wrong so far, except that when he describes impersonal agents he says:

Work in the first group [impersonal agents] emphasizes a causal role for impersonal causes like cultures, conventions, or institutions in producing some phenomenon.
A second group of constructionist claims emphasizes personal social agents that construct through their choices.
For example, Andrew Pickering's (1984) influential work Constructing Quarks emphasizes the role of scientists' judgments in a variety of roles in scientific process including, e.g., theory selection, experiment evaluation, assessments of research fecundity, and so forth, and such an emphasis on apparently highly contingent choices by researchers and scientific institutions is a mainstay of the social studies of knowledge literature.He gets it right in the first quote by describing institutions as agents of constructions, in this case they correspond to the fundamental structure of society. We call that social structure.

But culture, on the other hand, goes in the second category as it corresponds to personal agents of construction. Some clarity on this issue can be found by looking through this article:
A Poverty of the Mind by Orlando Patterson (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26patterson.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2)
Specifically, when he says:

Second, it is often assumed that cultural explanations are wholly deterministic, leaving no room for human agency. This, too, is nonsense. Modern students of culture have long shown that while it partly determines behavior, it also enables people to change behavior. People use their culture as a frame for understanding their world, and as a resource to do much of what they want. The same cultural patterns can frame different kinds of behavior, and by failing to explore culture at any depth, analysts miss a great opportunity to re-frame attitudes in a way that encourages desirable behavior and outcomes.William Julius Wilson, another theorist on the subject of racism and blacks, refers to culture in the following way:

I want to avoid limited conceptions of culture defined in
the simple and traditional terms of group norms, values,
and attitudes toward family and work, and also consider
cultural repertoires (habits, styles, and skills) and the
micro-level processes of meaning making and decision
making—that is, the way that individuals in particular
groups, communities, or societies develop an understand-
ing of how the world works and make decisions based on
that understanding.22The processes of meaning making
and decision making are reflected in cultural frames
(shared group constructions of reality).
Toward a Framework for Understanding Forces that Contribute to or Reinforce Racial Inequality

William Julius Wilson (http://www.springerlink.com.libproxy.txstate.edu/content/?Author=William+Julius+Wilson)


(sorry for the formatting)
The reason I bring up Wilson is mostly because I couldn't find a formal definition in the Patterson article. But Wilson is borrowing from Patterson in his definition of culture, which he directly cites later in the his paper. You may recall Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Harvard professor who got arrested in while trying to get in to his own home. Here he is interviewing Wilson for some magazine or something.
http://dubois.fas.harvard.edu/node/334
(Ima watch this later)
The two are actually colleagues and friends and I thought they were collaborating on something, but I can't seem to find any info on it, so maybe not.

Point is, the way Wilson, Patterson, and probably Gates too define culture, that is, the sociological definition of culture, places it in the second category of agents of construction, that is cultural constructions are defined by decisions individuals make, or by the application of individual agency, that is by agents.

So when Iseul says that

While the ultimate philosophical basis of her work, resting on idealism, is flawed, objectively it does have the progressive effect of challenging any kind of rigidly imposed roles in terms of gender and sexuality in bourgeois society. (emphasis mine)
She is basically correct. Butler's primary mistake was in attributing the construction of scientific knowledge, specifically sexual categories, as a cultural, thus superstructural, phenomenon, and thus idealist. It is important not to let the language fool us, at this point. Culture is part of the superstructure, it is not the superstructure itself, and neither is it a structure either (at least not in the way I have defined it), because structures are dialectically in conflict with agency, they are on opposite ends of the social spectrum. Even if culture were a structure (which, as I have pointed out, given a sociological definition, this is not possible), it would only make the SEP correct in categorizing it with impersonal forces, however it would still make Butler wrong. Because as Marxists, we are primarily concerned with one structure, and that is the economic system. In conclusion, what Butler defines as a cultural construction is in actuality a social construction, and a very specific one at that.

[Nuvem]

Dating preferences are a personal matter and aren't reactionary, revolutionary or anything in between. If someone makes their decision or limits their fields based on race or social class, that's a bigoted personal choice, not reactionary. Likewise it's not reactionary for a transsexual to not want to date a cisgender person- maybe they are just personally more comfortable with another transsexual person. This applies to any combination of gender/sexuality relations.
You're all over-complicating and attempting to objectively analyze a highly subjective area of human interaction.

I'm going home to make a sandwich.
You're all reactionary.

[Quail]

I look for a person, not a gender. People. stop making this thread so Goddamned serious!

[Aurora]

It makes lots of people happy, but just makes me feel hollow
The most important thing is that you dont feel hollow, do what makes you happy and if thats impossible try to do what makes you feel less sad..

[praxis1966]

Why play semantical word games? To say that both are "partially right" is the same as saying both are strictly speaking equally wrong.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

Actually I'm not. You left no wiggle room in your statement in the way you worded it. By using the phrase "equally wrong" without caveat implies a neither/nor situation. When I said partially right, I meant to credit both with a certain amount of validity where you did not.


I'm not criticising you for not being a Marxist, nor am I saying that Marxists "monopolise" all "revolutionary materialism".

But that is essentially what you're saying when you begin a paragraph with statements to the effect of "As a Marxist, I am a materialist whose primary concern is blah blah blah..." It's always incredible to me that Marxists can't see the inherent condescension in this kind of phraseology since to the person on the other end of the debate, the implication is quite is that Marxists are the only ones who have this kind of analysis.


I'm not anti-anarchist. However, I think generally speaking we Marxists have a deeper and more coherent analysis on many issues, ranging from political economy of the Third World to LGBT liberation.

Yeah, this train's never late. Out of their own ignorance, Marxists completely ignore the very organized and very real efforts of anarchists in the Third World, particularly Latin America. On the topic of LGBT issues, ever hear of One Struggle, One Fight? I personally am acquainted with anarchists directly involved in that organization.


While I applaud the fact that many anarchists are also pro-LGBT, you generally see LGBT politics as a matter of subjective personal freedom.

Well, I never said that, not that there's anything wrong with personal autonomy.


But for us, it is more than that, LGBT people are an oppressed minority (objectively the majority belongs to the working class) that is fighting against systematic discrimination collectively, and to be pro-LGBT is not just a neutral choice in terms of its value, since it actually has an intrinsically positive role to some extent in liberating humanity from rigid limitations of gender and sexuality in general.

See, there you go again thinking Marxists have a monopoly on certain issues. In theory, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. My problem with Marxism is in its praxis of emasculated vanguardism saying, "Trust us, we know what's best and we'll lead you to the promised land."


Ok. Well the entire drive to "cure" homosexuality is politically reactionary.

Of course it is. This was part of the reason I pointed the logical conclusions of those two competing theories when approached with ulterior motives. The other reason, which I admit now that I may not have been clear about, is that not only reactionary to think that homosexuality should be overcome, but to express doubt that it's even scientifically possible for a multitude of reasons.


While I'm appreciative that you are not against homosexuality in any way, I hope you explicitly support the progressive LGBT movement against discrimination and for liberation as well, and not just "couldn't care less" in this positive sense either.

I do. Not only do I support it in voice, I've actually been out on actions to that end.


I wasn't actually accusing you of anything. I think my point was no other than saying that actually you can't really say that Butler's idea is somehow objectively reactionary since it can provide an excuse for Christian Fundamentalists etc to reject homosexuality, because the very principles on which these fundies etc base their rejection of homosexuality are fundamentally flawed anyway.

Well, I wouldn't say that was Butler's intent. I would, however, wonder how in the fuck someone so supposedly brilliant could spend so much time on a theory and leave such an obvious window open.

At any rate, I do believe that words, especially when applied to humans, have a much greater significance than you seem to be crediting them. No matter who we're talking about, when one person applies a label to another, it's generally symptomatic of some kind of reductionist thinking. In other words, the applier generally allows him/herself to stop thinking and is easily led into all kinds of reactionary behavior. Hence, the material conditions need to be attacked alongside the semantic ones. It's not just a matter of respect or political correctness, it's a matter of changing the way people think.

[praxis1966]

It makes lots of people happy, but just makes me feel hollow

Shit, homie, sorry to hear that. Given the tone of the thread at the point you made your initial comment, I figured you were just talkin' shit. You know, using the phrase "sex machine" the way James Brown meant it.

[Queercommie Girl]

See, there you go again thinking Marxists have a monopoly on certain issues. In theory, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. My problem with Marxism is in its praxis of emasculated vanguardism saying, "Trust us, we know what's best and we'll lead you to the promised land."


While I don't think this thread should become a "Marxism vs. anarchism" one, I think you have a very poor understanding of what vanguardism in the Leninist sense actually means.

Also, calling vanguardism "emasculated" as an insult reflects your implicit patriarchical and masculinist bias, since you are almost suggesting that Leninism is not good since it isn't "manly" enough. This to some extent further validates the feminist critique of anarchism, namely that lacking a solid organisational structure, objectively anarchism has the tendency to let "alpha males" rise to the top "naturally".

One of my Trotskyist friends once told me that "every anarchist is like a little Stalinist". I'm certainly not trying to insult you here, but objectively is there a bit of truth in this kind of statements?



Well, I wouldn't say that was Butler's intent. I would, however, wonder how in the fuck someone so supposedly brilliant could spend so much time on a theory and leave such an obvious window open.
I would only partially defend Butler anyway. I do this since in your original post you seemed to be completely dismissing her.



At any rate, I do believe that words, especially when applied to humans, have a much greater significance than you seem to be crediting them. No matter who we're talking about, when one person applies a label to another, it's generally symptomatic of some kind of reductionist thinking. In other words, the applier generally allows him/herself to stop thinking and is easily led into all kinds of reactionary behavior. Hence, the material conditions need to be attacked alongside the semantic ones. It's not just a matter of respect or political correctness, it's a matter of changing the way people think.Too abstract.

I guess more concretely in the context of this thread, essentially you are saying that there is nothing wrong for trans people to call themselves "transgendered", since that's applying a term on oneself, but trans people shouldn't pin a term like "cisgendered" on non-trans people, since that's applying a term on other people without their explicit consent.

In principle this line of thinking isn't necessarily wrong, but since in society LGBT people are the oppressed section rather than non-LGBT people, I'd be more concerned with non-LGBT people pinning terms on LGBT people than the other way around. Just like generally speaking I'm much more concerned with white racism against coloured people than "reverse racism" by coloured people against whites. (Not that I deny that white people experience racism but mostly white people experience racism from other white people rather than from coloured people, you don't ever see Chinese being racist to the Irish, it's the English who are racist to the Irish)

[Queercommie Girl]

So when Iseul says that
(emphasis mine)
He is basically correct.

Could you please use "she"?

[Queercommie Girl]

Dating preferences are a personal matter and aren't reactionary, revolutionary or anything in between. If someone makes their decision or limits their fields based on race or social class, that's a bigoted personal choice, not reactionary. Likewise it's not reactionary for a transsexual to not want to date a cisgender person- maybe they are just personally more comfortable with another transsexual person. This applies to any combination of gender/sexuality relations.
You're all over-complicating and attempting to objectively analyze a highly subjective area of human interaction.

I'm going home to make a sandwich.
You're all reactionary.

I wouldn't even say it's necessarily bigoted at all. One doesn't have the responsibility to potentially date everyone he/she respects and treats equally.

It would be reactionary if one refuses to become friends and colleagues with anyone on the basis of the latter's race/sex/sexuality/gender identity etc, but not if one doesn't actually date them.

[¿Que?]

Could you please use "she"?
My mistake.

[¿Que?]

It makes lots of people happy, but just makes me feel hollow

You'll find someone

This sort of goes back to what I was saying earlier. If I told you how long it'd been since I formally dated someone most likely your jaw would drop. Whether your gay, straight, bi, trans, cis, or whatever, dating, in the sense of forming exclusive, monogamous relationships is itself normative behavior. Strictly speaking, it is only normative between a man and a woman, but in other cases, it is normative because as society changes these things have been progressing towards becoming more accepted, and we all know heteronormativity is neither fixed nor rigid, regardless of what heteronormative ideas might suggest. But more importantly, these institutions, coupling, dating, marriage, relationships, are normative outside of male/female dynamics, because they are modeled after the male/female example.

I think Esperanza, that you don't necessarily need an exclusive, monogamous relationship, but that you need a sense of worth and value to others. You need to feel special. Men tend to achieve this simply through the sexual act, because society frames such act as male "conquest" and conquering something makes you feel pretty special. However women and trans, in the sense of being the conquered rather than the conqueror, have more of a difficult time finding that special feeling through sex alone. However, it is misguided to think that by pairing up into an exclusive, monogamous relationship that you will achieve that sense of "specialness." Particularly, but not exclusively, if you pair up with a man, your relationship will just play out the act of conquest and colonization present in the sexual act, but on a deeper more personal level, because there could be more at stake (children, common ownership, emotional commitments etc).

In a sense, we have to consider the relationship model as it exists today much in the same way as the state. Just like the state, it can become more inclusive, but as revolutionaries, we don't seek to establish a more inclusive state, since we know that regardless of how inclusive it is, it is simply an agent of capitalism/patriarchy. So we seek to abolish the state, and the present state of social relationships. Esperanza's experiences, to use the same analogy, could be seen as relationship neoliberalism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

lol "relationship neoliberalism".

You should create a thread called "Relationship neoliberalism, is this reactionary?" :lol:

[¿Que?]

lol "relationship neoliberalism".

You should create a thread called "Relationship neoliberalism, is this reactionary?" :lol:
How about, "What is Relationship Neoliberalism and how do we fight it?"

All humor aside, the point I was making is not trivial.

I can't remember who it was, but I've heard arguments in the past suggesting that the psychology of relationships operates under an assumption of scarcity. When considered objectively, there obviously is no shortage of people to form relationships with, on the other hand, subjectively, only a very small fraction of the general population are viable and desirable potential mates, and thus there is the usual behavior associated with situations of scarcity, such as private, and exclusive rights to certain individuals, manifested as the monogamous relationship.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I smell Marxist economic reductionism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

How about, "What is Relationship Neoliberalism and how do we fight it?"

All humor aside, the point I was making is not trivial.

I can't remember who it was, but I've heard arguments in the past suggesting that the psychology of relationships operates under an assumption of scarcity. When considered objectively, there obviously is no shortage of people to form relationships with, on the other hand, subjectively, only a very small fraction of the general population are viable and desirable potential mates, and thus there is the usual behavior associated with situations of scarcity, such as private, and exclusive rights to certain individuals, manifested as the monogamous relationship.

Actually this is a good point. But what about jealousy and other emotions? would you see this as a product of the psychology of scarcity? Are there counter examples that exist? Not challenging, I am interested in your point.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I've known people involved in polyamory (including former flatmates) AFAIK it didn't work out that well.

[¿Que?]

Actually this is a good point. But what about jealousy and other emotions? would you see this as a product of the psychology of scarcity? Are there counter examples that exist? Not challenging, I am interested in your point.
Obviously jealousy could be explained as perceiving a risk to losing valuable "resources" (I hope you understand why I put that in quotes).

A lot of what I do on revleft is put forward ideas which I have not completely thought through, so that people will challenge them and consequently I develop a deeper understanding of the topic. This idea has been percolating in my brain for a while, but I'd still consider it as underdeveloped.


I've known people involved in polyamory (including former flatmates) AFAIK it didn't work out that well.
This is what me and Explosive were laughing about, because I referred to such situations as "relationship neoliberalism."

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Not being open to gay, straight, dog, goat, horse, fat, BDSM, and scat sex is a bannable offense on this forum!
Gay sex isn't open to me unless you include lesbian sex in that, which I'm down with. I'm cool with straight sex though I'm pickier about men because I've been hurt more by them. Horses, dogs, goats don't seem appealing to me. BDSM I've been curious about but am kind of scared to try. I don't know what scat sex is but it doesn't sound interesting to me.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Gay sex isn't open to me unless you include lesbian sex in that, which I'm down with. I'm cool with straight sex though I'm pickier about men because I've been hurt more by them. Horses, dogs, goats don't seem appealing to me. BDSM I've been curious about but am kind of scared to try. I don't know what scat sex is but it doesn't sound interesting to me.

Should Esperanza be restricted for this then?:)

[Charles Xavier]

Should Esperanza be restricted for this then?:)
Isn't it obvious?

[9]

This sort of goes back to what I was saying earlier. If I told you how long it'd been since I formally dated someone most likely your jaw would drop. Whether your gay, straight, bi, trans, cis, or whatever, dating

I saw someone on here say something recently - I don't remember who said it or what was the context - that 'dating' is a very American thing. Being some sort of default bumpkin, or something, by virtue of having lived in the US all my life, I don't know how shit is outside the US with regard to a lot of things, but I wonder whether its true.

[¿Que?]

I saw someone on here say something recently - I don't remember who said it or what was the context - that 'dating' is a very American thing. Being some sort of default bumpkin, or something, by virtue of having lived in the US all my life, I don't know how shit is outside the US with regard to a lot of things, but I wonder whether its true.
Latin culture tends to be more machista than in the US. So I'd imagine a lot of dating happening over there.

[9]

machista

I know some spanish, but not enough clearly :P
What does 'machista' mean?

[¿Que?]

Spanish and Portuguese machismo refers to the assumption that masculinity is superior to femininity. It roughly translates as "sexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism)" or "male chauvinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_chauvinism)" (along with the Spanish and Portuguese adjective machista, "sexist" or "male chauvinist").[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo#cite_note-4) and is associated with heterosexist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexist) and homophobic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobic) behaviours. Machismo itself derives from Spanish and Portuguese macho, coming from the Latin "mascŭlus" "male [animal]" or, when used metaphorically, "masculine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculine)" or "very masculine."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo#cite_note-5) Nevertheless, it is worthy to mention that in the Nahuatl culture the expression Macho (that has nothing to do with the derivation in Latin of the word "mascŭlus"), means, translated to Spanish, "ejemplar"; that is to say, in English, "one that is worthy of imitation". Therefore, in Mexico the use of that word provokes confusion if it is not accompanied of major precisions. [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo#cite_note-6)

Machismo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo)
It basically means sexist.