Why do people assume that queer liberation would be automatic in a communist society?

[Queercommie Girl]

Why do people assume that queer liberation would be automatic in a communist society?

To be frank, I don't think like this. I find such an attitude to be naive.

I think partly this has something to do with my background. I'm from China, and the vast majority of Chinese socialists, both revolutionary and reformist, do not support queer rights, either gay or trans rights. (So in some sense China is even worse than Iran, at least Iran supports one of the two) In fact, many very explicitly oppose LGBT rights, considering it to be a "Western bourgeois disease". I have contact with the revolutionary Maoist Communist Party of China (MCPC), and frankly I don't even dare to tell them I'm queer, fearing that this would put an end to political co-operation, since queer politics certainly isn't my only concern or even primary concern in socialist politics.

Due to my personal background and experience therefore, personally I can get somewhat pessimistic about the future of the queer liberation movement, especially regarding the prospects of queer politics in the Third World.

This is one of the reasons why in the political and civil sense I consider myself to be European and British, and not Chinese, (I do have an UK passport) even though I'm Chinese ethnically. Europe is one of the regions in the world that has relatively good queer rights, not just better than China, but also better than the United States.

This is a bit of a tangent, but frankly though I identify myself politically as partly Maoist, and in the technical sense China today is still a "heavily deformed worker's state" to some extent, in reality it's one of the most oppressive places on Earth. Yes, I think China is even more oppressive than countries like Iran in many ways, and economically even more unequal. Those self-proclaimed socialists here on RevLeft who think that China today is still "socialist" in the concrete sense really need to get the water out of their damn head and wake the fuck up.

[Dimentio]

Political convenience.

I will swear in Church now, but radical leftists are often trying to find "revolutionary subjects". When the western industrial workers started to decrease in number and see their material standard increase, they started to de-radicalise, so now it is immigrants, women and LGBTQ-people who a lot of the revolutionary parties are pandering too, with the notion that all types of repressions will disappear in such societies.

I find that notion misconceived. While liberation of all oppressed groups is paramount, there is not necessarily so that prejudice will disappear. Moreover, such policies could rather cement stereotypes and conceptions about minorities.

nk0UkQsanmQ

[Widerstand]

I suppose part of it comes from the "side contradictions" theory where all other forms of oppression are analyzed as originating from classicism (which may very well be so). The argument, I guess, would then be that if class society is abandoned, the material conditions do no longer support racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. ideologies, and that these ideologies will cease to exist. This does however not take into account that ideologies can have an influence and life of their own, too. Personally I very much doubt that centuries of indoctrination and cultural perpetuation will just vanish. People may very well be sexist and leftist, or racist and leftist, or transphobic and leftist, etc. (I guess my position is reminiscent of Intersectionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality) theories).
I also find it rather irrelevant. Even if sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. were to vanish at once as soon as communism is reached, there's no reason why would should not do our best to not alienate these groups from the movement while we're still on the way there. There are lot of good reasons why we should actively fight against it.

[Broletariat]

I think a key point to make here is that institutionalised sexism/racism/etc. would be impossible under Communism. Informal discrimination may very well exist and should exceedingly be taken care of.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, thanks for your replies.

For me Marxism and socialism comes before LGBT politics. While it's true that LGBT politics is generally associated with the left-wing (the fact that Europe generally has a better record on LGBT rights, e.g. less murders of queer people, compared with the US is due to its social democratic heritage), and the right-wing has tried to obstruct LGBT rights struggle almost every step of the way in recent history, I think I probably would not have become a Marxist if all I cared about politically was queer rights. I have many other political concerns too, e.g. China.

The Maoist MCPC is not explicitly queerphobic, but it is wise to be cautious, and I don't wish to negatively influence political co-operation due to this kind of issue.

Interestingly, many Maoists outside China are actually supportive of queer rights, but few Maoists within China do.

[Dimentio]

In eastern Europe, the right-wing are those who are Pro-Queer rights, while the centrists and the left (like CPRF) in general are those who are more homophobic.

[Imposter Marxist]

I think that as the world movement for LGTQB rights progresses, it will spill into more conserative places like China, and parts of Africa, it may just take some time. The momentum of the LGTQB movement is growing and moving forward, so in my opinon its only a matter of time.

[Queercommie Girl]

In eastern Europe, the right-wing are those who are Pro-Queer rights, while the centrists and the left (like CPRF) in general are those who are more homophobic.


That's an interesting point, because it seems to be the opposite of what it's like in the rest of the world at large.

Do you have any evidence to prove your point?

Furthermore, why do you think such a political phenomenon exists in Eastern Europe specifically? (Assuming you are factually correct)

[red cat]

Why do people assume that queer liberation would be automatic in a communist society?

To be frank, I don't think like this. I find such an attitude to be naive.

I think partly this has something to do with my background. I'm from China, and the vast majority of Chinese socialists, both revolutionary and reformist, do not support queer rights, either gay or trans rights. (So in some sense China is even worse than Iran, at least Iran supports one of the two) In fact, many very explicitly oppose LGBT rights, considering it to be a "Western bourgeois disease". I have contact with the revolutionary Maoist Communist Party of China (MCPC), and frankly I don't even dare to tell them I'm queer, fearing that this would put an end to political co-operation, since queer politics certainly isn't my only concern or even primary concern in socialist politics.

Due to my personal background and experience therefore, personally I can get somewhat pessimistic about the future of the queer liberation movement, especially regarding the prospects of queer politics in the Third World.

This is one of the reasons why in the political and civil sense I consider myself to be European and British, and not Chinese, (I do have an UK passport) even though I'm Chinese ethnically. Europe is one of the regions in the world that has relatively good queer rights, not just better than China, but also better than the United States.

This is a bit of a tangent, but frankly though I identify myself politically as partly Maoist, and in the technical sense China today is still a "heavily deformed worker's state" to some extent, in reality it's one of the most oppressive places on Earth. Yes, I think China is even more oppressive than countries like Iran in many ways, and economically even more unequal. Those self-proclaimed socialists here on RevLeft who think that China today is still "socialist" in the concrete sense really need to get the water out of their damn head and wake the fuck up.

Maoists believe that the bourgeoisie can come back to power even by basing themselves on some superstructural elements of the society. So, class struggle must be waged not only in the economic field, but also in its political, cultural and military counter-parts. Therefore, till the discriminatory aspects of the bourgeois system are retained in our culture, communism cannot be achieved. Therefore, there is no question of the society moving from socialism to communism until the fight for queer liberation is consciously fought and won by the working class.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think a lot of the problem in why people don't recognize the fact that this will remain a problem after the revolution comes from economic reductionism. While economic repression is critical and the main enemy, there's also cultural repression, which often coexists with or exacerbates economic class issues. It is naive to think that dealing with cultural discrimination will end with a Communist society.

Consider the treatment of Chechens and other minorities in modern Russia. SEVENTY YEARS of Leninism/degraded State Capitalism didn't fix discrimination against Muslim minorities and homosexuals (Stalin of course was a homophobe and an anti-semite). Likewise, modern Yugoslavia descended into ethnic violence.

It seems like a real "Cultural Revolution" is necessary, not one of demolishing temples and art but one where sexism, homophobia, religious discrimination and linguistic-ethnic discrimination are abandoned by most people through education.

It is sad to hear that Maoists today hold views like that. I thought Mao opposed old feudal era ethical systems, like Confucianism, etc?

[southernmissfan]

I think part of the problem is the type of "communists" you are talking about. Anyway, there is a bit of a disconnect here. The question posed is about a communist society yet the examples used are those of present day, Chinese Maoists. Not to start anything sectarian, but I don't have much faith that third world Stalinist/Maoist movements will "bring communism" or have much to do with the idea of communism generally. They may have their historical place and role among underdeveloped nations with a backwards, superstitious population (dominated by peasantry or semi-peasantry). But obviously looking at their historical role there are clearly a lot of problems from a materialist and communist analysis that makes it doubtful there's much that's actually communist about such movements.

Anyway, I don't believe it is necessarily assured that queer liberation would be complete but as Broletariat pointed out, discrimination will no longer be "a part of the system". Personally, I don't believe a population that is particularly backwards/religious/rural/etc., is very capable of a genuinely communist revolution. And of course part of this is the fact that populations that ARE especially backwards, rural, religious, etc., typically are underdeveloped and lack a proletarian (as opposed to peasant or pseudo-peasant) majority, making legit communist revolution less likely anyway.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think a lot of the problem in why people don't recognize the fact that this will remain a problem after the revolution comes from economic reductionism. While economic repression is critical and the main enemy, there's also cultural repression, which often coexists with or exacerbates economic class issues. It is naive to think that dealing with cultural discrimination will end with a Communist society.

Consider the treatment of Chechens and other minorities in modern Russia. SEVENTY YEARS of Leninism/degraded State Capitalism didn't fix discrimination against Muslim minorities and homosexuals (Stalin of course was a homophobe and an anti-semite). Likewise, modern Yugoslavia descended into ethnic violence.

It seems like a real "Cultural Revolution" is necessary, not one of demolishing temples and art but one where sexism, homophobia, religious discrimination and linguistic-ethnic discrimination are abandoned by most people through education.

It is sad to hear that Maoists today hold views like that. I thought Mao opposed old feudal era ethical systems, like Confucianism, etc?

The USSR didn't have 70 years of genuine Leninism.

Confucius himself never said anything that is explicitly sexist or queerphobic, but feudal Confucianism is often interpreted in such a way.

Traditional Western religions tend to be either intensely queerphobic or explicitly supportive of queer rights, while traditional Chinese religions tend to be either completely ambivalent or moderately oppositional to queer rights. Overall it's basically the same. Confucians don't go around murdering queers, but there is no equivalent of Liberation Theology in China either.

P.S. Chinese Marxists such as Chen Duxiu, Mao Zedong and Li Dazhao certainly don't completely reject Chinese culture, but view it dialectically. As Li Dazhao said: "We are not rejecting Confucius himself, but only the reactionary authority of feudal Confucianism".

[Dimentio]

That's an interesting point, because it seems to be the opposite of what it's like in the rest of the world at large.

Do you have any evidence to prove your point?

Furthermore, why do you think such a political phenomenon exists in Eastern Europe specifically? (Assuming you are factually correct)

Usually, neoliberal and "orange" movements tend to support gay rights organisations, which are associated with the urban intelligentsia (in Eastern Europe, a part of homophobia is that it is seen as something foreign and characteristic for the bourgeoisie and middle class), while communist and Soviet-nostalgic movements tend to both verbally and physically attack gay rights organisations.

That is why anarchists in the Eastern Bloc also are associated with the right, because of their social libertarianism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The USSR didn't have 70 years of genuine Leninism.


Hence the /degenerate state capitalism :P



Confucius himself never said anything that is explicitly sexist or queerphobic, but feudal Confucianism is often interpreted in such a way.

Traditional Western religions tend to be either intensely queerphobic or explicitly supportive of queer rights, while traditional Chinese religions tend to be either completely ambivalent or moderately oppositional to queer rights. Overall it's basically the same. Confucians don't go around murdering queers, but there is no equivalent of Liberation Theology in China either.

What about notions of traditional "family obligation" which go outside of Confucianism, or may be a part of it, that are implicitly homophobic by suggesting a particular gender role? IE, people expect a particular gender role for men, and if men don't life up to that gender role there is a rejection of him as an equal?

What you say is unfortunately true in Western, particularly Abrahamic religions, but Abrahamic religions also have principles within that faith which, if taken to their logical extent, negate many of these rules and codes.

Dimentio-that is sad ... talk about a truly degenerated worker's state!

[Queercommie Girl]

Usually, neoliberal and "orange" movements tend to support gay rights organisations, which are associated with the urban intelligentsia (in Eastern Europe, a part of homophobia is that it is seen as something foreign and characteristic for the bourgeoisie and middle class),


Yet neoliberal queer movements ignore the plight facing LGBT people in the West, especially in the United States itself, the homeland of neoliberal capitalism.

Murder rates of transgendered people is far higher in the US than in countries like Iran or even Turkey.



while communist and Soviet-nostalgic movements tend to both verbally and physically attack gay rights organisations.


They never seem to remember that Lenin legalised homosexuality in 1917 though.



That is why anarchists in the Eastern Bloc also are associated with the right, because of their social libertarianism.


Are you talking about real anarchists or pseudo-anarchists?

[Queercommie Girl]

What about notions of traditional "family obligation" which go outside of Confucianism, or may be a part of it, that are implicitly homophobic by suggesting a particular gender role? IE, people expect a particular gender role for men, and if men don't life up to that gender role there is a rejection of him as an equal?

What you say is unfortunately true in Western, particularly Abrahamic religions, but Abrahamic religions also have principles within that faith which, if taken to their logical extent, negate many of these rules and codes.


Which is why I think, suppose one is to ask the question:

Are Chinese religions more queer friendly than Abrahamic religions, or less?

Then clearly the answer is dialectical: both yes and no.

[Dimentio]

Real anarchists. Social libertarianism is generally viewed as a right-wing, western phenomenon in the Eastern Bloc.

Those guys who in the west would like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are the same people who would vote Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky.

And yes, there is an illusion in Eastern Europe that gays and lesbians in the West have it easy.

[Queercommie Girl]

And yes, there is an illusion in Eastern Europe that gays and lesbians in the West have it easy.


Well, objectively it is considerably better for most queer people in Western Europe than in the United States.

Many US states don't even recognise LGBT people. For instance, transgenderism isn't even recognised in some states, which is even worse than how it's like in China, because at least in China it is recognised, despite there being no anti-discrimination laws. (Which is why my girlfriend can just be fired from her job in China simply for being trans) In the European Union there is virtually complete legal equality for all LGBT people. Of course, legal equality certainly does not mean real equality in the concrete sense, but it is better than nothing for sure.

Also, suicide rates of queer people are significantly higher in the US, and murder rates are higher too, especially for transgendered people. Britain actually has one of the worst records in Europe for this, probably due to US influence to some extent. Countries like Germany, France and Sweden have significantly lower rates of queer murders.

Of course, in all capitalist states, all queer people still face a lot of problems related to economic uncertainty, which is fundamental to capitalism, and affects everyone, not just the queer community. It's getting progressively worse now with the rampant neo-liberalisation in most Western countries.

[Rafiq]

Lenin automatically gave queers equal rights though. Legally, queers will recieve completely equal rights. But Socially, it will take time, perhaps under Socialism, through education, and through time, to have society Completely accept it.

[Queercommie Girl]

Lenin automatically gave queers equal rights though. Legally, queers will receive completely equal rights. But Socially, it will take time, perhaps under Socialism, through education, and through time, to have society Completely accept it.

I'm basically a Leninist, but Leninists aren't the only communists out there, and being non-sectarian I'm not going to completely reject every other socialist tendency just over this single issue.

Lenin legalised homosexuality, which was very advanced for its time, but the laws regarding queer issues in those early days weren't as comprehensive as they would be if we have another socialist revolution in the 21st century.

[red cat]

Shouldn't queers be granted some social advantages over straights ? I mean, it happens everywhere else. An oppressed community cannot utilize the benefit of "equal rights" if it has been historically oppressed. If women, lower castes, backward tribes etc. can have social advantages then why not queers ?

[Queercommie Girl]

Shouldn't queers be granted some social advantages over straights ? I mean, it happens everywhere else. An oppressed community cannot utilize the benefit of "equal rights" if it has been historically oppressed. If women, lower castes, backward tribes etc. can have social advantages then why not queers ?

What kind of "social advantages" are you talking about?

[red cat]

What kind of "social advantages" are you talking about?

Quotas, quick access to medical facilities, special laws to prevent violence against queers, the state organizing cultural programmes on the LGBT community etc.

[blake 3:17]

They never seem to remember that Lenin legalised homosexuality in 1917 though.

1917? Maybe. I don't have access to my books at present. I would be cautious about overemphasising the sexual liberation dimension of the Bolshevik revolution. Many of the sexist and anti-queer laws were abolished en masse as out moded and stupid, and not necessarily due to any particular commitment to sexual liberation.

Do you know Alexandra Kollontai's work?

[tbasherizer]

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } To redcat about advantages: That'll just serve to create a backlash similiar to the whole "reverse racism" nonsense going on in the US right now that is in part rationalized by affirmative action. I respect the spirit of the idea, but it might cause complications.

I assume that all forms of bigotry will disappear when the socialist revolution comes because any legitimate kind of socialist revolution has to be based on widespread scientific and general education. Science and education are the bane of homophobes' collective existence, as they remove the basis for their reaction. There would not need to be any explicit outlawing of homo-/transphobia in socialist society, for any people enlightened and empowered enough to run a socialist society will have the sense not to hate people based on their natural sexual/gender orientation.

[Queercommie Girl]

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } To redcat about advantages: That'll just serve to create a backlash similiar to the whole "reverse racism" nonsense going on in the US right now that is in part rationalized by affirmative action. I respect the spirit of the idea, but it might cause complications.

I assume that all forms of bigotry will disappear when the socialist revolution comes because any legitimate kind of socialist revolution has to be based on widespread scientific and general education. Science and education are the bane of homophobes' collective existence, as they remove the basis for their reaction. There would not need to be any explicit outlawing of homo-/transphobia in socialist society, for any people enlightened and empowered enough to run a socialist society will have the sense not to hate people based on their natural sexual/gender orientation.

I think they should be outlawed, as with racism and sexism, and any political action that directly sabotages the socialist state.

Just a general point, as long as they are firmly in the hands of the people in a genuine democratic sense, I don't see anything negative at all about classical Soviet-style "law and order", including re-education centres and labour camps for the genuine (not hypocritical as in the Stalinist states) reformation of criminals, not as punishment, but for their own welfare.

[Queercommie Girl]

1917? Maybe. I don't have access to my books at present. I would be cautious about overemphasising the sexual liberation dimension of the Bolshevik revolution. Many of the sexist and anti-queer laws were abolished en masse as out moded and stupid, and not necessarily due to any particular commitment to sexual liberation.

Do you know Alexandra Kollontai's work?


Well, they were still advanced for their time. These things have to be put into their context.

Actually Kautsky was the most vocal and explicit supporter of gay rights among the early Marxists, and the Scientific Humanitarian Institute established in 1897 which was linked to the German Social Democratic Party was the first genuine queer rights organisation in the modern world.

The orthodox Marxist-Leninists might kill me for saying this, but I've never completely rejected the "Marxist centre" represented by people like Kautsky.

And Trotsky did say that a socialist revolution in Russia should link up with the advanced culture of the West, I assume this includes the "culture" of queer rights.

One must not forget that Russia was a terribly poor and backward nation in 1917.

[tbasherizer]

I think they should be outlawed, as with racism and sexism, and any political action that directly sabotages the socialist state.

Just a general point, as long as they are firmly in the hands of the people in a genuine democratic sense, I don't see anything negative at all about classical Soviet-style "law and order", including re-education centres and labour camps for the genuine (not hypocritical as in the Stalinist states) reformation of criminals, not as punishment, but for their own welfare.

Oh, by no means was I meaning to condone homo-/transphobia. I just meant to say that our corrective labour camps will be very empty if we've achieved genuine socialism. This is beside the point of the topic, however. Carry on everyone!

[Lucretia]

There is no logical reason to assume that a socialist revolution would necessarily lead to the eradication of institutionalized homophobia. However, I find it difficult to imagine a socialist revolution occurring without the working class first having divested itself of the kind of bigoted and divisively superstitious mindset that leads to homophobia. But just because I find it difficult to imagine doesn't mean it isn't possible. At the very least, a socialist revolution should make the struggle against homophobia easier insofar as political decision-making and debate will no longer be dictated by alien economic forces.

[Tim Finnegan]

As I understand it, the logic is that queerphobia, as with misogyny, racism, and so forth, has its roots in certain material conditions- specifically, that it plays a role in continuing a certain set of social relations- and so the elimination of those conditions will result in the elimination of the resulting systems of domination. Now, while I agree with the first part of that assertion, I think it's over-simplistic, and even dangerously deterministic, to argue that non-economic systems of domination will simply wither and die when removed from their birthing grounds. They'll find it far more difficult to propagate, yes, and it's quite likely that this will mean they will be gradually worn away by progressive activism, but it certainly isn't an inevitable process.


To redcat about advantages: That'll just serve to create a backlash similiar to the whole "reverse racism" nonsense going on in the US right now that is in part rationalized by affirmative action.
Then you shout down the backlash. It's all we can do. Refusing to rock the boat because the reactionaries will rock back is asking for a thousand years of stagnation and oppression.
Remember, people don't react badly to anti-discriminatory measures unless they already carry a certain set of prejudices about with them; the existence of those measures merely gives them an excuse to voice those prejudices in the plaintive tones of the self-declared victim.


Just a general point, as long as they are firmly in the hands of the people in a genuine democratic sense, I don't see anything negative at all about classical Soviet-style "law and order", including re-education centres and labour camps for the genuine (not hypocritical as in the Stalinist states) reformation of criminals, not as punishment, but for their own welfare.
I think I see what you mean here, yes. It's always baffled that it is held somehow more barbaric to put people out in the countryside and teach them how to be responsible, cooperative members of society than it is to lock them in tiny, over-crowded concrete cubes! (In fact, I've read about a few such programs in Scandinavia- I'm afraid I forget the exact nation, and it may have been multiple- which generally seemed fairly successful in rehabilitating non-disturbed criminals.)

[tbasherizer]

Then you shout down the backlash. It's all we can do. Refusing to rock the boat because the reactionaries will rock back is asking for a thousand years of stagnation and oppression.
Remember, people don't react badly to anti-discriminatory measures unless they already carry a certain set of prejudices about with them; the existence of those measures merely gives them an excuse to voice those prejudices in the plaintive tones of the self-declared victim.


You're right. I'll consider this and formulate a new position.

[BankHeist]

The abolition of capitalism does not lead to the abolition of social oppression.

No wonder that Pierre Proudhon was virulently misogynistic even while theorizing about an abolition of authority, or that Vladimir Lenin lived a palatial life of luxury while claiming to be advocating the interests of the working class.

[Tim Finnegan]

...or that Vladimir Lenin lived a palatial life of luxury while claiming to be advocating the interests of the working class.
No arguments about Proudhon's shortcomings, but this is just silly. Lenin and the other high ranking Bolsheviks may have had better digs than the average worker, I'm not denying that, but they hardly lived the live of a Caesar. Lenin, in particular, was notorious for his furious work effort, working, quite often, seven days a week, and fourteen or sixteen hours a day. If you have a criticism to make of Lenin, putting personal luxury before politics cannot be it!

[Queercommie Girl]

The abolition of capitalism does not lead to the abolition of social oppression.

No wonder that Pierre Proudhon was virulently misogynistic even while theorizing about an abolition of authority, or that Vladimir Lenin lived a palatial life of luxury while claiming to be advocating the interests of the working class.

I'm no fan of Proudhon, who was a supporter of patriarchy, sure, but this comment about Lenin is just pure BS.

[BankHeist]

I'm no fan of Proudhon, who was a supporter of patriarchy, sure, but this comment about Lenin is just pure BS.

What about this statement is bullshit? Did he or did he not live in a palace, eating full meals, even while many workers were rioting over shortages of the simplest things like bread?

Whether or not Lenin was a good leader or whether a representative vanguard parties actually serve the needs of the worker is another debate for another time; but the fact that Lenin had superior living conditions and more resources than many workers in Russia combined is an undeniable one.

[Tim Finnegan]

What about this statement is bullshit? Did he or did he not live in a palace, eating full meals, even while many workers were rioting over shortages of the simplest things like bread?
Well, firstly, I wouldn't call either the Smolny Institute or the Krelmin "palaces", and certainly not when they were stuffed to the brim with over-worked Bolsheviks conducting a revolution.
Secondly, there's a distinction between "getting full meals" and "palatial luxury". Otherwise you could make the same criticism about just about every political leader, ever.

[BankHeist]

Well, firstly, I wouldn't call either the Smolny Institute or the Krelmin "palaces", and certainly not when they were stuffed to the brim with over-worked Bolsheviks conducting a revolution.
Secondly, there's a distinction between "getting full meals" and "palatial luxury". Otherwise you could make the same criticism about just about every political leader, ever.

Come, now, are you really denying these buildings are palaces? The Smolny Insititute (despite only being his residence for a short time) was designed to house hundreds of aristocrats & the Kremlin features multiple buildings designed to be palaces; the Grand Kremlin Palace, The Palace of Faucets, & the Tarem.

When the vast majority of your constituents (or "fellow workers", if you prefer) are barely eating enough to survive, eating in excess is unjustified.

As for the last statement; I'm not sure why a leftist wouldn't criticize the actions of leaders? But while anyone with even the slightest class analysis can expect capitalist leaders to enjoy privileges over the rest of us, we must be especially critical of those leaders who justify their power by upholding that they have the best interests of the working class in mind; Lenin definitely falls into the category.

On a side note; while I realise to a lot of leftists, criticisms of Lenin or Marx are absolutely unthinkable; I'm willing to suggest that neither of these men are the patron saints of revolution or the working class. They've put forth extremely important ideas, but they've also put forward completely discountable ones; they've done revolutionary things, but they've also acted reactionary at times. Communist/socialist/anarchist ideology and practice are not intrinsically tied to these individuals or their ideas in the least, so much as they form a mere component of broader radical Leftist thought.

[Tim Finnegan]

Come, now, are you really denying these buildings are palaces? The Smolny Insititute (despite only being his residence for a short time) was designed to house hundreds of aristocrats & the Kremlin features multiple buildings designed to be palaces; the Grand Kremlin Palace, The Palace of Faucets, & the Tarem.
But Lenin didn't live in those buildings, he lived in the Kremlin Senate, close to the political action. (He was like that.) Not bad a bad place to stay, I'll grant you, but, given that it was a constantly buzzing hive of activity, not "palatial luxury", either.


When the vast majority of your constituents (or "fellow workers", if you prefer) are barely eating enough to survive, eating in excess is unjustified.Did Lenin actually "eat to excess", or did he simply eat enough? It's not as if every person in Russia was underfed- three square meals was not, even at that point, a luxury available only to the elite.


As for the last statement; I'm not sure why a leftist wouldn't criticize the actions of leaders? But while anyone with even the slightest class analysis can expect capitalist leaders to enjoy privileges over the rest of us, we must be especially critical of those leaders who justify their power by upholding that they have the best interests of the working class in mind; Lenin definitely falls into the category.I'm not suggesting that you wouldn't criticise leaders- you can and should!- but contesting the substance of these particular criticisms. They are inconsistent with what is historically known about Lenin, but, rather, seem like the imposition of what was true of later Soviet leaders (and, arguably, certain contemporaries) onto him. This is problematic not only in itself, but in that it perpetuates the Western myth that the Soviet Union was a one-man dictatorship from start to finish; a myth which renders Lenin as Stalin-before-Stalin, the inaccuracy of which should be self-evident.

[GX.]

Why do people assume that queer liberation would be automatic in a communist society?

I'm from China, and the vast majority of Chinese socialists, both revolutionary and reformist, do not support queer rights, either gay or trans rights.

China is not a communist society though

[Tim Finnegan]

China is not a communist society though
The point was that socialists do not have a universally respectable track record of respect queer rights, so it's naive to assume that they simply see the error of their ways when socialism is established.

[GX.]

The point was that socialists do not have a universally respectable track record of respect queer rights, so it's naive to assume that they simply see the error of their ways when socialism is established.
That's where historical materialism comes in. Society changes through struggle, of course things aren't "established" or "automatic". But communism by definition presupposes an end to exploitation and social division, so I just don't get what the op is saying.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's where historical materialism comes in. Society changes through struggle, of course things aren't "established" or "automatic". But communism by definition presupposes an end to exploitation and social division, so I just don't get what the op is saying.
Does it? I understand it as a set of social relations, which, while they may rule out formal discrimination and oppression, do not necessarily eliminate them altogether. A queer person, a person of colour or a minority may still have formally equal status in control of the means of production, but if their voice is consistently sidelined in favour of that of straight, cis, white men- something hardly unheard of in nominally-leftist groups- then that's not really equality.

[GX.]

The goal of communism is an end to alienation, complete human (including queer obviously) liberation. Of course we still have to keep in mind what Marx said in the German Ideology:
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
So the fact that homophobia, transphobia etc. still exist means that we have to continually bring new premises into existence, through struggle.

[Queercommie Girl]

China is not a communist society though

I never said the Chinese state or mainstream society today is socialist or communist, I meant that many genuine socialists and Marxists who are living and operating in China are still queerphobic.

[Agent Ducky]

I think a key point to make here is that institutionalised sexism/racism/etc. would be impossible under Communism. Informal discrimination may very well exist and should exceedingly be taken care of.

My thoughts exactly, couldn't have said it better. LGBTQ people would have all their rights. There wouldn't be some sort of higher power to take those rights away, but obviously even if we switched political/economic systems you couldn't stop close-minded people from being prejudiced.

[Summerspeaker]

Revolutionary leftists of all tendencies have been virulently straight supremacist/homophobic across history. For example, numerous anarchists around the start of the twentieth century envisioned a specifically heterosexual utopia and identified queerness as bourgeois degeneracy. There's no reason whatsoever to expect communism alone to liberate us. That's why I recommend a feminist revolution that smashes gender alongside capital.

[GX.]

For example, numerous anarchists around the start of the twentieth century envisioned a specifically heterosexual utopia and identified queerness as bourgeois degeneracy.
Communism, again, is not a utopia. I think that's the point. Sure, you can envision some hypothetical society where there are no property divisions but certain forms of oppression still exist. You could also imagine some ideal capitalist society where there is no patriarchy or racism. But in reality, both of these are incoherent, because all forms of social oppression are interconnected. It's necessary to struggle against all of them to really move past capitalism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Revolutionary leftists of all tendencies have been virulently straight supremacist/homophobic across history. For example, numerous anarchists around the start of the twentieth century envisioned a specifically heterosexual utopia and identified queerness as bourgeois degeneracy. There's no reason whatsoever to expect communism alone to liberate us. That's why I recommend a feminist revolution that smashes gender alongside capital.

I don't think anti-patriarchy necessarily implies anti-queerphobia either. A feminist revolution doesn't necessarily imply liberation for all queer people. Some feminists (mainly bourgeois feminists) can be very transphobic, for instance.

In both cases, anti-capitalism and anti-patriarchy both makes it easier for queers to achieve liberation, but neither is congruent or completely equivalent to queer liberation. Queer liberation, at the end of the day, must necessarily be a task for the majority of the queer population (who are working class statistically speaking) ourselves. We cannot just rely on either anti-capitalism/socialism or anti-patriarchy/feminism. Queer liberation isn't simply a branch or offshoot of either socialism or feminism. Queers have their own issues to deal with, and their own struggles.

[daleckian]

In eastern Europe, the right-wing are those who are Pro-Queer rights, while the centrists and the left (like CPRF) in general are those who are more homophobic.

also, many fascist leaders were unusually homosexual, either open or closeted: Jorg Haider, Pim Fortuyn, Eugene Terre'blanche, Nicky Crane, Michael Kuhnen, etc.

[Summerspeaker]

The radical feminist objective of abolishing gender as meaningful category connects directly with queer liberation. I consider the two movements even closer to each other than either one is to the struggle against capitalism, though everything of course intersects.

[Tim Finnegan]

The radical feminist objective of abolishing gender as meaningful category...
I'm not sure that this is an exclusively RadFem line, even if it did originate with them. It's certainly not a universal one (or at least not sincerely so), what with the profound transphobia exhibited by some currents.

[Queercommie Girl]

The radical feminist objective of abolishing gender as meaningful category connects directly with queer liberation. I consider the two movements even closer to each other than either one is to the struggle against capitalism, though everything of course intersects.


To be frank, from a materialistic perspective, the complete abolishment of social gender is an impossibility unless sex is abolished at the literal biological level. Otherwise there would always be some difference, no matter how little, between those who give birth to children and those who don't.

[Summerspeaker]

To be frank, from a materialistic perspective, the complete abolishment of social gender is an impossibility unless sex is abolished at the literal biological level. Otherwise there would always be some difference, no matter how little, between those who give birth to children and those who don't.

A vast assortment of biological differences between humans currently exist without creating equivalent to the gender distinction. However, this does relate to why Shulamith Firestone considers (considered?) artificial birthing technology essential to the revolution. The transhumanist principle of morphological freedom and impending technological advances promise to further confuse any biological or phenotypical basis for gender.

[Tim Finnegan]

To be frank, from a materialistic perspective, the complete abolishment of social gender is an impossibility unless sex is abolished at the literal biological level. Otherwise there would always be some difference, no matter how little, between those who give birth to children and those who don't.
I'd suggest that there's a difference between gender as a social characteristic and sex as a social characteristic. The latter is already well-established, hence the acceptance (by non-bigots) of post-transition trans people as properly belonging to their newly established sex, despite the fact that, objectively, post-transition trans people are intersex (being hormonally one sex, genetically another, and anatomically a combination of the two).

[PhoenixAsh]

A vast assortment of biological differences between humans currently exist without creating equivalent to the gender distinction. However, this does relate to why Shulamith Firestone considers (considered?) artificial birthing technology essential to the revolution. The transhumanist principle of morphological freedom and impending technological advances promise to further confuse any biological or phenotypical basis for gender.


Its just a thought,....but wouldn't artificial birthing alienate the mother from the child?

[Queercommie Girl]

Its just a thought,....but wouldn't artificial birthing alienate the mother from the child?

Wait...who says it's only "artificial birthing" though?

Hypothetically, men could also have the pleasure of literally giving birth and breastfeed if they so wish. ;)

Don't be "metaphysically sexist". (That is, assuming the "abstract masculine" is better than the "abstract feminine", or that in principle it's better to be a man than to be a woman)

[Summerspeaker]

Its just a thought,....but wouldn't artificial birthing alienate the mother from the child?

In Firestone, that's an advantage as it disrupts the nuclear family ey sees the origin of hierarchy and oppression. Artificial birthing would thus lend itself to a more communal and flexible form of reproduction where interpersonal bonds between the young and old happen according to simple affection rather than biological and material connections or possessive attachment.

[PhoenixAsh]

Wait...who says it's only "artificial birthing" though?

Hypothetically, men could also have the pleasure of literally giving birth and breastfeed if they so wish. ;)

Don't be "metaphysically sexist". (That is, assuming the "abstract masculine" is better than the "abstract feminine", or that in principle it's better to be a man than to be a woman)

It was just a question. If its an extra option instead of the established way then yeah this can achieve some advantages...

edit: aha. yes...I understand the initial post now. God I am such an idiot sometimes :-)

[Queercommie Girl]

In Firestone, that's an advantage as it disrupts the nuclear family ey sees the origin of hierarchy and oppression. Artificial birthing would thus lend itself to a more communal and flexible form of reproduction where interpersonal bonds between the young and old happen according to simple affection rather than biological and material connections or possessive attachment.

I think there is a point to that, but what if some people actually wish to literally give birth and breastfeed etc?

I don't think "feminine biology" is intrinsically "inferior" (as any kind of value judgement) compared with "masculine biology", which is my essential point.

This is also related to gender aesthetics. I like the "female form" which is partly why I'm trans, because I wish to have a female body. (Doesn't mean I necessarily wish to give up "masculine" qualities like physical strength though, in theory) But objectively speaking the "female form" is linked to female biological functions like breast-feeding etc to some extent, so if you think that female biological functions are somehow intrinsically a negative thing, does this imply that you think the "female form" is aesthetically speaking less desirable than the "male form"?

I think any idea about the "female" being worse than the "male" in an intrinsic metaphysical sense is basically sexism of the 2nd order.

[TC]

Its just a thought,....but wouldn't artificial birthing alienate the mother from the child?

Have you never heard of adoptive mothers?

Actually one of the less discussed experiences of new mothers is that childbirth itself alienates many mothers from their babies - while the media and society rewards women who feel the opposite and experience a great love for their babies at birth, women who dislike them and dislike what they've done to them are common but pushed to the margins of narratives about motherhood and are frequently pathologized. Post-partum depression for example is pathologized and dismissed as a hormonal reaction - even though studies have ruled out this explanation - probably because the social implications of a psycho-social origin are just too scary to the cult of motherhood.

[TC]

The notion that "masculinity" in the abstract and "femininity" in the abstract are equal and must be regarded as equal to avoid sexism presupposes an essential "masculinity" and "femininity" with men and women having essential or natural attributes and functions.

But a more radical feminist critique recognizes that masculinity and femininity are themselves concepts and sets of attributes that arise in the context of socially constructed gender roles and relations. And these gender roles and relations are not equal, they are hierarchically organized and mediated through uneven power relations.

The notion that we should revalue femininity to be equal to masculinity then is misguided since it simply demands applying a new subjective valuation of characteristics of oppressed people rather than recognizing that we cannot possibly know what men and women would be like in a non-patriarchal society since we have only known male dominate ones (and yes, that includes primitive communism - Engels was somewhat wrong in his analysis - because even hunter gatherer tribes privilege men, only to a lesser degree).

This line of thinking fetishizes and reifies femininity - it treats it as if it is a real natural thing and not a product of patriarchal society. We should not be celebrating people's subordination and how they behave while in the conditions of subordination. What is stereotypically associated with women is what is stereotypically associated with subordinate people and for good reason: because women are typically subordinate to men. We should instead seek to abolish those conditions without regard for how they might be valued in either the values of patriarchal masculinity or patriarchal femininity.

As for this thread as a whole - I agree that queer liberation requires smashing patriarchy and patriarchy exists before capitalism and could potentially survive after capitalism. While true communism in my mind would mean a total abolition of class distinction, this would require confronting patriarchal family organization directly, and not assuming that it will fall with capitalism naturally, because it is in fact enforced not only by capitalism but also by systems of male privilege (and parental privilege and power over children) which extend beyond capitalist labor relations.

[PhoenixAsh]

TC,

That is what you should also post in the other thread. I do not fully agree, but I think this is something we can debate.

[TC]

TC,

That is what you should also post in the other thread. I do not fully agree, but I think this is something we can debate.

:p there are a lot of those other threads - can you be more specific?

[Queercommie Girl]

The notion that "masculinity" in the abstract and "femininity" in the abstract are equal and must be regarded as equal to avoid sexism presupposes an essential "masculinity" and "femininity" with men and women having essential or natural attributes and functions.

But a more radical feminist critique recognizes that masculinity and femininity are themselves concepts and sets of attributes that arise in the context of socially constructed gender roles and relations. And these gender roles and relations are not equal, they are hierarchically organized and mediated through uneven power relations.

The notion that we should revalue femininity to be equal to masculinity then is misguided since it simply demands applying a new subjective valuation of characteristics of oppressed people rather than recognizing that we cannot possibly know what men and women would be like in a non-patriarchal society since we have only known male dominate ones (and yes, that includes primitive communism - Engels was somewhat wrong in his analysis - because even hunter gatherer tribes privilege men, only to a lesser degree).

This line of thinking fetishizes and reifies femininity - it treats it as if it is a real natural thing and not a product of patriarchal society. We should not be celebrating people's subordination and how they behave while in the conditions of subordination. What is stereotypically associated with women is what is stereotypically associated with subordinate people and for good reason: because women are typically subordinate to men. We should instead seek to abolish those conditions without regard for how they might be valued in either the values of patriarchal masculinity or patriarchal femininity.

As for this thread as a whole - I agree that queer liberation requires smashing patriarchy and patriarchy exists before capitalism and could potentially survive after capitalism. While true communism in my mind would mean a total abolition of class distinction, this would require confronting patriarchal family organization directly, and not assuming that it will fall with capitalism naturally, because it is in fact enforced not only by capitalism but also by systems of male privilege (and parental privilege and power over children) which extend beyond capitalist labor relations.

It is not the case that "essential masculinity/femininity" are purely abstract and are not grounded in some kind of biological reality though. Women's oppression is a socio-economic reality, not an innate biological reality, so there is no need to abolish female biology in order to achieve genuine gender equality.

Not calling you transphobic, but one could for instance argue that trans-women are just men who are interested in presenting themselves as a "subordinate image" of women, and that since in class society all feminine expressions are necessarily sub-ordinate relative to masculine expressions, then it becomes reactionary for one to change gender from male to female, but not from female to male, since in the former case one is moving from a non-subordinate form to a subordinate form, while in the latter case one is moving in the other direction. How would you answer such an argument, given that you (in principle) oppose transphobia?

Do you think the female form in the aesthetic sense is inferior to the male form?

[Summerspeaker]

Women's oppression is a socio-economic reality, not an innate biological reality, so there is no need to abolish female biology in order to achieve genuine gender equality.

Radical feminist Shulamith Firestone does describe biology - childbirth - as the basis of women's oppression. Like most materialist analysis, I think this thesis has validity to an extent but also obscures human agency. The physical effects of pregnancy promote dependency on non-pregnant folks. Being the means of reproduction - required by biology to do lion's share of initial reproductive work - makes women's bodies as site of social control. As such, only recent technology enables feminist revolution. However, Firestone's materialism ignores cultural possibilities as well assuming the necessity of reproduction.

Speaking of Firestone, thumbs up on the new pic, TC!

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The notion that "masculinity" in the abstract and "femininity" in the abstract are equal and must be regarded as equal to avoid sexism presupposes an essential "masculinity" and "femininity" with men and women having essential or natural attributes and functions.

But a more radical feminist critique recognizes that masculinity and femininity are themselves concepts and sets of attributes that arise in the context of socially constructed gender roles and relations. And these gender roles and relations are not equal, they are hierarchically organized and mediated through uneven power relations.

The notion that we should revalue femininity to be equal to masculinity then is misguided since it simply demands applying a new subjective valuation of characteristics of oppressed people rather than recognizing that we cannot possibly know what men and women would be like in a non-patriarchal society since we have only known male dominate ones (and yes, that includes primitive communism - Engels was somewhat wrong in his analysis - because even hunter gatherer tribes privilege men, only to a lesser degree).

This line of thinking fetishizes and reifies femininity - it treats it as if it is a real natural thing and not a product of patriarchal society. We should not be celebrating people's subordination and how they behave while in the conditions of subordination. What is stereotypically associated with women is what is stereotypically associated with subordinate people and for good reason: because women are typically subordinate to men. We should instead seek to abolish those conditions without regard for how they might be valued in either the values of patriarchal masculinity or patriarchal femininity.

As for this thread as a whole - I agree that queer liberation requires smashing patriarchy and patriarchy exists before capitalism and could potentially survive after capitalism. While true communism in my mind would mean a total abolition of class distinction, this would require confronting patriarchal family organization directly, and not assuming that it will fall with capitalism naturally, because it is in fact enforced not only by capitalism but also by systems of male privilege (and parental privilege and power over children) which extend beyond capitalist labor relations.

Gender is not purely a social construct. Some sort of differentiated gender roles seem to exist in every human society. The way gender is expressed is largely a social construct and varies from culture to culture. Gender identity and expression will still exist under socialism, there will be "masculinity" and "femininity" but they will be different and have broader means of expression.

"Femininity" will always exist but its expression will be different. There were and are matriarchal cultures where women appeared to express power but in a different way. Engel's didn't mention this, as far as I remember, but an example might be the Iroquois, in which men were the warriors but a woman's council had a great deal of indirect power.

[Queercommie Girl]

Radical feminist Shulamith Firestone does describe biology - childbirth - as the basis of women's oppression. Like most materialist analysis, I think this thesis has validity to an extent but also obscures human agency. The physical effects of pregnancy promote dependency on non-pregnant folks. Being the means of reproduction - required by biology to do lion's share of initial reproductive work - makes women's bodies as site of social control. As such, only recent technology enables feminist revolution. However, Firestone's materialism ignores cultural possibilities as well assuming the necessity of reproduction.

Speaking of Firestone, thumbs up on the new pic, TC!

Then I would have to disagree to a significant extent with this idea, because it would make a man's desire to literally experience childbirth somehow a "negative" thing.

What if say a man chooses to literally have childbirth, what would be your views on that?

Also, since some of the female body form is related at least to the biological functions of being a woman, would this kind of radical feminism imply that the "feminine form" is aesthetically inferior in an intrinsic sense to the "masculine form"?

I do not generally support radical feminism of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois intellectuals, because for one thing I do not believe it is conducive to a subset of transgenderism, namely male-to-female trans-sexualism in which someone born a male literally wishes to become a female biologically, as much as possible. (As much as current technology would allow)

I can see how some radical feminists might potentially have certain transphobic views.

Also, I do not believe that the LGBT movement can be mechanically reduced to the feminist movement. That is to say, even if in a society that is hypothetically completely non-sexist, there could still be queerphobia. Queer rights activists aren't just "foot-soldiers" of the feminist movement in general, even though the feminist movement would generally help the queer cause as well.

[Summerspeaker]

Then I would have to disagree to a significant extent with this idea, because it would make a man's desire to literally experience childbirth somehow a "negative" thing.

How so?


What if say a man chooses to literally have childbirth, what would be your views on that?

I don't believe we yet have the technology for folks born without ovaries and such to give birth. As a transhumanist, I support morphological freedom and hope we get to that point eventually. Transmen can and have given birth.


Also, since some of the female body form is related at least to the biological functions of being a woman, would this kind of radical feminism imply that the "feminine form" is aesthetically inferior in an intrinsic sense to the "masculine form"?

That's just silly. How does that follow from Firestone's materialist origin story for the patriarchy? :)

[Queercommie Girl]

How so?


Because literal biological childbirth is supposedly to be an intrinsically negative thing, and yet some men wishes to try it?



I don't believe we yet have the technology for folks born without ovaries and such to give birth. As a transhumanist, I support morphological freedom and hope we get to that point eventually. Transmen can and have given birth.


Ok. I am aware of the limitations of contemporary technology, I am just being hypothetical.



That's just silly. How does that follow from Firestone's materialist origin story for the patriarchy? :)


Well, the female form is not something that is purely abstract by any means, it's linked to certain biological functions. So if these biological functions are intrinsically negative, it could imply that the female form is negative to some extent too.

I don't completely reject Firestone's idea, no more than I completely reject Stalinism. But I certainly wouldn't say I subscribe to her ideas either, just like I wouldn't call myself a Stalinist. For me, queer liberation isn't the primary issue anyway, I'm more of a general Marxist first and foremost, with a particular interest in issues relating to China. Of course I'm serious about LGBT issues too, even though it's not primary for me.

[Summerspeaker]

Because literal biological childbirth is supposedly to be an intrinsically negative thing, and yet some men wishes to try it?

In Firestone's thought it's part of the cause of the discriminatory class system. I suggest reading this (http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm) to get a fuller grasp on the theory.


If literal giving birth is part of the cause of the class system, wouldn't this imply that giving birth is negative and therefore men who wish to give birth is a negative thing as well?

I see minimal basis for this implication and no trace of it in Firestone's thought. The goal of eir feminist revolution abolishes the gender distinction along with the class distinction. Morphological freedom in the form of technology that allows folks to choose their biological characteristics would work well in such a society.

[Queercommie Girl]

In Firestone's thought it's part of the cause of the discriminatory class system. I suggest reading this (http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm) to get a fuller grasp on the theory.

Ok, but you've not answered my question.

If literal giving birth is part of the cause of the class system, wouldn't this imply that giving birth is negative and therefore men who wish to give birth is a negative thing as well?

I'm not primarily doubting the validity of the hypothesis itself, but rather my main focus is the implication of such an idea.

[Tim Finnegan]

Also, I do not believe that the LGBT movement can be mechanically reduced to the feminist movement. That is to say, even if in a society that is hypothetically completely non-sexist, there could still be queerphobia. Queer rights activists aren't just "foot-soldiers" of the feminist movement in general, even though the feminist movement would generally help the queer cause as well.
Actually, I find myself wondering about this. Queerphobia is essentially misogynistic, in that it is generated by the contempt for the feminine, and patriarchal in that it serves to sustain (in very broad terms) the domination of men over women, so could it be argued that the elimination of misogyny and patriarchy would necessarily go hand-in-hand with the elimination of queerphobia? (That's not to say, of course, that we can leave queer issues at the way-side and concentrate on issues of sexism alone; I would say that any effective program of anti-misogyny is necessarily anti-queerphobic.)


Gender is not purely a social construct. Some sort of differentiated gender roles seem to exist in every human society.
I'm not sure that this follows. A materialistic outlook, surely, suggests that this reflects the production of gender by certain recurring material conditions, that it is rooted in material conditions that pre-date the expansion of the human race outside of a particular set of material circumstances (geographically and/or technologically), or some combination of the two? After all, not all societies limit the number of entirely ordinary genders which they entertain to two- they can vary from two-and-a-half to four or five, if I recall correctly- so there's clearly some sort of step from simply divvying out work based on physical aptitude and doing so based on proclaimed social roles.


"Femininity" will always exist but its expression will be different.But if its expression is so diverse, so fluid, and so intermingled with simultaneous expressions of "masculinity" as to make either one distinguishable from the other, can we really continue call it "femininity"? Is it not, by that point, simply an individual way of being?

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually, I find myself wondering about this. Queerphobia is essentially misogynistic, in that it is generated by the contempt for the feminine, and patriarchal in that it serves to sustain (in very broad terms) the domination of men over women, so could it be argued that the elimination of misogyny and patriarchy would necessarily go hand-in-hand with the elimination of queerphobia? (That's not to say, of course, that we can leave queer issues at the way-side and concentrate on issues of sexism alone; I would say that any effective program of anti-misogyny is necessarily anti-queerphobic.)


Obviously they are closely related, and in fact I would argue that anti-capitalism is closely related to queer rights too.

However, queer activism cannot be mechanically reduced to feminist activism in any kind of simplistic manner. This is also obvious. Otherwise feminist transphobia would not exist. How can feminist transphobia exist in any concrete social sense if queer rights and trans rights are simply congruent with women's rights in general?

What is your analytical explanation for the existence of transphobia within the feminist community, for instance?

[Tim Finnegan]

Obviously they are closely related, and in fact I would argue that anti-capitalism is closely related to queer rights too.

However, queer activism cannot be mechanically reduced to feminist activism in any kind of simplistic manner. This is also obvious. Otherwise feminist transphobia would not exist. How can feminist transphobia exist in any concrete social sense if queer rights and trans rights are simply congruent with women's rights in general?

What is your analytical explanation for the existence of transphobia within the feminist community, for instance?
Well, first I want to make it clear- I realise that I did a poor job of that previously- that I do not think that queer rights can simply be folded into feminism, but, rather, that a feasible women's movement demands the existence of a mutually cooperative queer rights movement (and vice versa) to successfully challenge patriarchy. The two must be separate but, as you say, closely related and interconnected, just as, within the queer rights movement, their are distinct but interconnected gay and trans sub-movements (and, of course, the movements created by the intersections of these various groups, such as transfeminism, lesbian feminism, and so forth, as well as those movements emerging from intersections with non-gender groups, such as the queer black movement, queer Muslim movement, and so forth).

As for queerphobia within feminist circles, I would suggest, and I know this sounds trite, that queerphobic feminist simply aren't very good at being feminists. Queerphobia is a crucial component of patriarchy (noting that exactly what constitutes queerness in a society varies) but not something which would fulfil any meaningful social role in a non-patriarchal society, therefore, its retention represents a failure to break away from patriarchal ideology. Just as many anti-capitalists have failed to properly abandon certain elements of bourgeois political ideology- the retention of bourgeois nationalism is a prominent case of this, such as Bakunin's notorious devotion to pan-Slavism- so many anti-patriachalists have failed to abandon elements of patriarchal ideology, in this case, of binary gender essentialism. (Noting that the binary construction of gender is not universal, of course, simply that it predominates internationally at this time.)

[GX.]

Obviously they are closely related, and in fact I would argue that anti-capitalism is closely related to queer rights too.

However, queer activism cannot be mechanically reduced to feminist activism in any kind of simplistic manner. This is also obvious. Otherwise feminist transphobia would not exist. How can feminist transphobia exist in any concrete social sense if queer rights and trans rights are simply congruent with women's rights in general?

What is your analytical explanation for the existence of transphobia within the feminist community, for instance?
Not just feminists, there is a lot of internal prejudice within queer spaces too.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not just feminists, there is a lot of internal prejudice within queer spaces too.

I agree. But I was just mentioning feminist queerphobia since that's what Tim was talking about.