Freud's Psycho-sexual Development and it's relation to Transgenderism

[Dogs On Acid]

So Freud states that if during phase 3 of sexual development (the Phallic), the sexual needs are not fulfilled, then you get the following personality disorders:

The Electra Complex - Girls have psycho-sexual competition with their mother to possess their father. She resorts to penis envy (the realization by the girl that she does not have a penis) to resolve her complex.

The Oedipus Complex - Boys have psycho-sexual competition with their father to possess their mother. He resorts to Castration anxiety (fear of losing genitals, due to finding out that girls do not have them) to maintain an attachment to his genitalia, protecting it.

Is my analysis correct?

If so, does Psycho-sexual development have any validity or empirical evidence?

And, if it does have evidence to support, then could a messed up Psycho-sexual development lead to Transgenderism, or as Freud proposed, Homosexuality?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Freud had much insight in some areas. There is something to the Oedipal and Electra complexes although I don't know what current research has come up with. Margaret Mead famously did not come up with the evidence for Freudian adolescent sexual conflict in Polynesian cultures, although even this may be up for debate. I don't think his model holds water in terms of the causes of homosexuality or transgenderism. Current thinking, as I understand indicates that TGism and possibly male homosexuality may be due to brain structure in early fetal development.

LGBT people may dispute that they are different because of "messed up" development. People are people.

[Dogs On Acid]

Freud had much insight in some areas. There is something to the Oedipal and Electra complexes although I don't know what current research has come up with. Margaret Mead famously did not come up with the evidence for Freudian adolescent sexual conflict in Polynesian cultures, although even this may be up for debate. I don't think his model holds water in terms of the causes of homosexuality or transgenderism. Current thinking, as I understand indicates that TGism and possibly male homosexuality may be due to brain structure in early fetal development.

LGBT people may dispute that they are different because of "messed up" development. People are people.

Thanks for the response.

According to Freud, it is just that, "messed up" sexual development. Not my personal opinion of course, but Freuds'.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

According to Freud, it is just that, "messed up" sexual development. Not my personal opinion of course, but Freuds'.
None of these "complexes" (note the quotes) are in any way abnormal, they're developmental phases that everybody has to go through. Neuroses (not "abnormalities," but stuff that makes you unhappy and unable to function or be happy) can happen when the development is impeded. Different Freudians (Melanie Klein, for instance) saw these developments happening at different times.

Freud was once contacted by a mother who was upset because her son was gay. He wrote back telling her that the issue wasn't whether he was gay, but whether he was unhappy about it. If the son was happy, then leave him alone. Later, American Freudians ("ego psychologists") would have seen this as merely a question of adjustment: "Stop being gay and then you'll be happy." European Freudians were far less interested in "adjustment," and more interested in helping the patient resolve his/her/its conflicts by whatever means was appropriate for that particular person, whether the symptom was developmental or genetic. Incidentally, Freud believed we're all bi, anyway.

[Dogs On Acid]

None of these "complexes" (note the quotes) are in any way abnormal, they're developmental phases that everybody has to go through. Neuroses (not "abnormalities," but stuff that makes you unhappy and unable to function or be happy) can happen when the development is impeded. Different Freudians (Melanie Klein, for instance) saw these developments happening at different times.

Freud was once contacted by a mother who was upset because her son was gay. He wrote back telling her that the issue wasn't whether he was gay, but whether he was unhappy about it. If the son was happy, then leave him alone. Later, American Freudians ("ego psychologists") would have seen this as merely a question of adjustment: "Stop being gay and then you'll be happy." European Freudians were far less interested in "adjustment," and more interested in helping the patient resolve his/her/its conflicts by whatever means was appropriate for that particular person, whether the symptom was developmental or genetic. Incidentally, Freud believed we're all bi, anyway.

But from what I understood, fixation was resorted to by the individual to avoid anxiety, due to not satisfying sexual development.

This fixation on the Genital Stage had consequences such as Oedipus Complex. This stage would define gender roles, and as such, a failure in resolving the Oedipus would result in Neurosis, Pedophilia, Homosexuality, etc.

I also believe that we are all bisexual, the difference between individuals in simply the balance towards one sex or the other (or sometimes equally to both).

[RedRose]

As a MtF transsexual myself, where do I come into this situation?
I know very little about Freud but I don't have either of those two complexes as far as I'm aware, so where would I fall into this equation? Again sorry if there's something obvious I'm missing but I have only briefly scanned over his works, need to study more philosophy soon :rolleyes:

[Dogs On Acid]

As a MtF transsexual myself, where do I come into this situation?
I know very little about Freud but I don't have either of those two complexes as far as I'm aware, so where would I fall into this equation? Again sorry if there's something obvious I'm missing but I have only briefly scanned over his works, need to study more philosophy soon :rolleyes:

The complexes lie in the unconscious, not the conscious, during stage 3 of sexual development (6-puberty, stage of genitalia), so you will not consciously understand what you are feeling, but it is akin to urges, usually to sexually dominate the mother in boys (girls are attracted to the mother), and compete with the father.

During this stage gender roles and sexual orientation are defined by many different experiences, such as comparing nude pictures of men and women with your own body, exploring your penis and vagina, and feeling a need to see what's under people's clothing. I can personally remember this stage.

If the development of this stage doesn't go smoothly or is suppressed by cultural or physical aspects, then gender roles might not be very well defined in the future. Teens would then not feel attracted to the opposite sex, feel confused as to why, and possibly entering emotional anxiety because of it. So, they must learn to accept it or change.

This is of course, a theory, but it does make a lot of sense.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't believe in Freudian psycho-analysis because it has no real empirical evidence. A lot of things "seem to make sense" in the purely abstract sense, but from a scientific point of view "a priori" arguments don't count like empirical evidence does. So for me the empirical evidence of trans-sexual brains being a bit different makes far more sense than Freudianism.

See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html

When it comes to psychology I don't follow the psychoanalytic school. I prefer more empiricist approaches.

Also, the Freudian view of human sexuality is a very reductionist one: reducing "male" and "female" sexualities to such basic mechanical entities like the phallus and the vagina. (I wonder what the Freudian analysis of "pegging" is - the heterosexual practice of the female partner putting on a strap-on to anally penetrate her boyfriend - no explicit homosexuality or transgenderism is involved here at all) I think human sexuality is much more of a higher-level social construction, rather than something so innately biological in the reductionist sense. (I also reject much of contemporary evolutionary psychology for similar reasons) There is also a conservative element in Freudianism because it assumes there is a invariable and distinct "gender role" in the first place, (it also implicitly assumes the Western-style bourgeois nuclear family is the "cultural norm") whereas from a historical materialist/Marxist perspective there is no such "gender role". Rather it's something that is fundamentally fluidic and constantly changes with historical time.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Gender roles are fluid and vary greatly thoughout cultures but the fact is they exist.There are men and women and there are differences in brain structures of men and women. Of course there is a huge amount of fluidity around this, the difference between one human brain and another is greater than that between a man and a woman (on the averahe) but differences still hold.

Marxism and Freudianism are not incompatible. The Frankfurt School combined both approackes and Trotsky looked favorably on Freud.Norman Brown in "Live Against Death" had a fascinating psychoanalytical Marxist view of history. One of my favorite books, BTW.
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Against-Death-Psychoanalytical-Meaning/dp/0819561444/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317754739&sr=1-1

Anyway however correct old Siggy may or may not have been capitalist family dynamics play a huge role on psychosexual dynamics. Much lgbt oppression stems directly from this.

@Dogs On Acid (great name btw) I would be cautious of environmental factors leading to homosexual or TG development. An early transgender researcher, John Money had a strictly environmental theory of why some people become transgender. He felt if boys or girls don't learn appropriate signaling mechanisms when very young, they won't learn their correct gender identity.

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

In 1965, I believe there was a case where a young boy in Toronto, Canada, David Reimer, was accidentally castrated. The parents consulted Money who advised raising the boy as a girl. He felt environmental factors would direct Reimer's gender identity. Resulting from this the kid had a horrible life. He/she as an adult worked at a meat packing plant. He committed suicide. When this whole story came out it basically ruined Money's professional credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

The upshot of this is that while gender expression is culturally based, gender identity is something we are born with.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I don't believe in Freudian psycho-analysis because it has no real empirical evidence.

There is also a conservative element in Freudianism because it assumes there is a invariable and distinct "gender role" in the first place, (it also implicitly assumes the Western-style bourgeois nuclear family is the "cultural norm") whereas from a historical materialist/Marxist perspective there is no such "gender role".

Funny. Wilhelm Reich, one of Freud's many Marxist followers, was kicked out of the German Communist Party circa 1933: you'd think the comrades had better things to do than beat up on him because he didn't respect the family.

Then again, to understand Freud you've got to understand dialectics, which of course most empiricist leftists are incapable of doing.

Likewise, to figure out psycho-sexual development you need to understand that NOBODY transcends them, they merely work out a more or less successful synthesis. The fucked-up ones are the ones who, say, can't stop masturbating in their sister's shoes. (fetishism, repetition compulsion); the relatively "sane" ones are the ones who, say, if they can't fuck Mommy, will settle for fucking guys (can't stand the thought of fucking women). But that's the next chapter, the "defense mechanisms." (Anna Freud, mostly.)

[Queercommie Girl]

Funny. Wilhelm Reich, one of Freud's many Marxist followers, was kicked out of the German Communist Party circa 1933: you'd think the comrades had better things to do than beat up on him because he didn't respect the family.

Then again, to understand Freud you've got to understand dialectics, which of course most empiricist leftists are incapable of doing.


I don't believe Freudian Marxists should be "kicked out" out of the communist party, but conversely I also don't believe there is any kind of imperative for Marxists to follow Freudianism at all. There is no "natural compatibility" between Marxism and Freudianism. I essentially reject Freud, and this doesn't in any way make me any less of a Marxist.

Marxism incidentally is intrinsically based on empirical evidence. Marx did a painstaking analysis of capitalism in the real-world, based on real statistical data, rather than arguing from "first principles".

Attempting to make "dialectics" into some kind of metaphysical-like overarching principle of the world and human society is completely contrary to the application of the dialectical method in historical materialism and analysis of class struggle in Marxism.



The fucked-up ones are the ones who, say, can't stop masturbating in their sister's shoes. (fetishism, repetition compulsion);
This statement seems to be partly discriminatory towards cross-dressers.

Or to put it more objectively, (that is to say, without implicit human social assumptions) why is it that if a natural-born girl masturbates in high heel shoes (yes, women do masturbate as well, it's not just a "male fantasy"...and another thing: why are high heel shoes fundamentally "feminine" at all? - even historically speaking this wasn't always true), it's completely "normal", but when a natural-born guy does the same thing, it's "fucked up"? Seems to me to be a very obvious double standard here.

Also, I really doubt you are one of those "sexual conservatives" who are intrinsically against male masturbation. So it seems that for you it is ok for a man to masturbate in any way he likes, except when he tries on "women's clothing" while doing so, which is definitely a "no-go" area...



the relatively "sane" ones are the ones who, say, if they can't fuck Mommy, will settle for fucking guys (can't stand the thought of fucking women). But that's the next chapter, the "defense mechanisms." (Anna Freud, mostly.)
The fundamental problem is the implicit assumption that the one-man-one-woman-heteronormative model is the "normal, standard, sane" standard, and non-heteronormative forms of sexuality and gender expression are deviations from this "norm". Why not think that exclusive heteronormative people and those who stick to rigid gender roles are the "fucked up, insane ones"?

At any rate, there is no statistical empirical evidence for "psycho-sexual development", even less than for contemporary evolutionary psychology theories.

[maskerade]

Freud had much insight in some areas. There is something to the Oedipal and Electra complexes although I don't know what current research has come up with. Margaret Mead famously did not come up with the evidence for Freudian adolescent sexual conflict in Polynesian cultures, although even this may be up for debate. I don't think his model holds water in terms of the causes of homosexuality or transgenderism. Current thinking, as I understand indicates that TGism and possibly male homosexuality may be due to brain structure in early fetal development.

LGBT people may dispute that they are different because of "messed up" development. People are people.

Margaret Mead's ethnography was also based upon the adolescent fantasies of her informants, and nearly all of her findings were disproved by another anthropologist who went back there and redid her study.

But I'm pretty sure there is some sort of consensus that a lot of Freudian material is dismissed in contemporary psychology, though I could be completely wrong about that.

[Queercommie Girl]

Gender roles are fluid and vary greatly thoughout cultures but the fact is they exist.There are men and women and there are differences in brain structures of men and women. Of course there is a huge amount of fluidity around this, the difference between one human brain and another is greater than that between a man and a woman (on the averahe) but differences still hold.

Marxism and Freudianism are not incompatible. The Frankfurt School combined both approackes and Trotsky looked favorably on Freud.Norman Brown in "Live Against Death" had a fascinating psychoanalytical Marxist view of history. One of my favorite books, BTW.
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Against-Death-Psychoanalytical-Meaning/dp/0819561444/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317754739&sr=1-1

Anyway however correct old Siggy may or may not have been capitalist family dynamics play a huge role on psychosexual dynamics. Much lgbt oppression stems directly from this.

@Dogs On Acid (great name btw) I would be cautious of environmental factors leading to homosexual or TG development. An early transgender researcher, John Money had a strictly environmental theory of why some people become transgender. He felt if boys or girls don't learn appropriate signaling mechanisms when very young, they won't learn their correct gender identity.

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

In 1965, I believe there was a case where a young boy in Toronto, Canada, David Reimer, was accidentally castrated. The parents consulted Money who advised raising the boy as a girl. He felt environmental factors would direct Reimer's gender identity. Resulting from this the kid had a horrible life. He/she as an adult worked at a meat packing plant. He committed suicide. When this whole story came out it basically ruined Money's professional credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

The upshot of this is that while gender expression is culturally based, gender identity is something we are born with.

I also believe the basis of transgenderism is primarily biological, not developmental or "psycho-sexual". But this contradicts the basic assumptions of Freud.

I originally came from a Natural Sciences background, and I generally believe a simple brain scan will tell us more about ourselves than endless philosophising ever will.

[Queercommie Girl]

Freud was once contacted by a mother who was upset because her son was gay. He wrote back telling her that the issue wasn't whether he was gay, but whether he was unhappy about it. If the son was happy, then leave him alone. Later, American Freudians ("ego psychologists") would have seen this as merely a question of adjustment: "Stop being gay and then you'll be happy." European Freudians were far less interested in "adjustment," and more interested in helping the patient resolve his/her/its conflicts by whatever means was appropriate for that particular person, whether the symptom was developmental or genetic.


The very idea of "adjustment" has a reactionary dimension to it, since we live in a reactionary bourgeois society, so merely adjusting to it has no revolutionary or radical character at all. I think socialism is not primarily about "happiness" in this sense. (Serious socialism after all is not an easy or "happy" job, many people would lead a much more "easier life" in the personal sense if they stop engaging in socialist activism. Rather socialism is something that requires a lot of personal sacrifice)

There is some truth in the radical idea that many "mentally ill" people aren't really "mentally ill" at all, but they are only labelled as such by capitalist society. "Mental illness" (homosexuality and transgenderism are still considered to be "mental illnesses" by some people today) is to some extent a social construction, not an intrinsic phenomenon.

[black magick hustla]

Then again, to understand Freud you've got to understand dialectics, which of course most empiricist leftists are incapable of doing.



1) freud wasn't a hegelian philosopher, so i doubt you need "dialectics" (whatever you mean by that).

2) "empiricism" is a weird strawman created by philosophically and scientifically illiterate "marxists" when criticized of bullshit obscurantism. same type of people who buy into conmen like heidegger. "thinkers" that require a whole cottage industry of academic losers to decipher because nobody knows for sure what they mean. (that type of scholasticism doesn't exist in the sciences).

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Its extremely complicated. We are involved in an "active sensuous relationship with the world" as Marx said in Essay on Feurbach somewhere. We are made by the world as much as we make ourselves and make the world.Saying a brain scan can tells us who we are is as reductionist as a mechanistic base superstructure correspondence.(not that you said this)

No one gets out of having to go though psychosexual development, which in turn takes places in a specific society, culture, and family setting.

I think there is much validity to some of Freud's work although his theory of psycho-sexual development has to be supplemented with Piaget, Erikson, Vygotsky, maybe Foucault and others.

I don't think homosexuality or transgenderism is so much genetic (maybe epigenetic?) as environmental in a secondary sense. A pregnant woman under stress secretes a larger than usual amount of femal hormones. The make fetus at various stages gets a "hormone wash" which in turn influences brain development.At one stage this will lead to "female patterned sexyual preference", homosexuality,m and at another stage it would lead to female gender identity. There are a huge number of inbetween cases as well.Of course whatever predisposition a child may have is subjected to complex environmental interactions as well.

The causes shouldn't matter though.

I've known two people who were shoe fetishists. One person, a very religious Christian fundamentalist who turned out to be a transsexual, had a huge collection of several very high heeled women's shoes, several thousand pair. She got rid of her collection after surgery.The fetish seems to have been a "entry" into TGism (and this could be seen as legit in TG theory)

Another person was a "straight" male who also collected women's heels. He was somewhat ashamed of this and would periodically purge.

Human sexuality is very complicated.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Irving Singer's critique of Freud's philosophy of love

http://humanists.net/pdhutcheon/Papers%20and%20Presentations/Freuds%20Concept%20of%20Love.htm

Could the debate on this thread reflect a bit of CP Snow's "Two Culture Theory"? Maladorer and Iseul have scientific training, Hoipolloi Cassidy is an art historian (I think) and I'm a history geek.

[Queercommie Girl]

Its extremely complicated. We are involved in an "active sensuous relationship with the world" as Marx said in Essay on Feurbach somewhere. We are made by the world as much as we make ourselves and make the world.Saying a brain scan can tells us who we are is as reductionist as a mechanistic base superstructure correspondence.(not that you said this)


Yes, but how does this necessarily validate Freud?

My point is that I'd rather rely on a brain scan than endless idealist metaphysics.

Also, biological reductionism to the brain is still a lot less mechanistic than biological reductionism to the genitals, which seems to be one of the assumptions of Freudianism.



No one gets out of having to go though psychosexual development, which in turn takes places in a specific society, culture, and family setting.
You are already implicitly assuming the "psycho-sexual" hypothesis is the truth. Isn't it the case that the very idea of Freudianism is itself a product of a specific society and culture? (Namely Western bourgeois culture)



I don't think homosexuality or transgenderism is so much genetic (maybe epigenetic?) as environmental in a secondary sense. A pregnant woman under stress secretes a larger than usual amount of female hormones. The make fetus at various stages gets a "hormone wash" which in turn influences brain development.
The implication of this seems to be that the existence of LGBT people is due to fundamentally "less-than-ideal" objective circumstances, so that hypothetically in a communist society where no-one is really stressed in any way, then LGBT people will no longer exist...



I've known two people who were shoe fetishists. One person, a very religious Christian fundamentalist who turned out to be a transsexual, had a huge collection of several very high heeled women's shoes, several thousand pair. She got rid of her collection after surgery.The fetish seems to have been a "entry" into TGism (and this could be seen as legit in TG theory)

Another person was a "straight" male who also collected women's heels. He was somewhat ashamed of this and would periodically purge.
The problem is that why simply assume that "high heel shoes" are intrinsically women's clothing? Maybe if society actually accepts men who wear high heels and skirts etc, then there would be less of a need to "fetish" after such things. Maybe in a society which is much more "genderless" than our own, less people will feel the need to go through a complete sex change.

A personal example: I happen to like tight jeans, which fortunately in contemporary Western society is not really considered to be exclusively "feminine clothing" (even though more women wear them). Indeed, the tight jeans I have are from an explicitly "unisex" brand. When I walk outside wearing them generally virtually no-one would say anything or look at me in any strange way. I do feel somewhat "sexier" wearing them, (and they kind of allow me to express my "femininity" in a limited sense even though I haven't transitioned into a woman yet - so I can't really wear skirts, dresses and high heels outside yet) and often I like the androgynous style that seems to go with it. (Being a trans-woman who is not really "typically feminine" in the stereotypical sense a lot of the time but influenced by feminism - I've noticed for instance that many female comrades also like tight jeans but far fewer of them regularly wear very high heels, which is considered to be more "bourgeois" by some - high heels restrict a woman's free movement, while stretch jeans are very comfortable to wear (more so than loose-style men's jeans IMO) and highlight a woman's physical fitness. My grandmother once told me that during the Cultural Revolution, some ultra-radical female Red Guards actually deliberately destroyed high heels which they consider to be a sign of women's oppression, kind of like the "bra-burning" radical feminists of the West) So is this a "fetish" too? Or simply a "normal" expression of sexuality? What's "normal" anyway?

[Queercommie Girl]

Irving Singer's critique of Freud's philosophy of love

http://humanists.net/pdhutcheon/Papers%20and%20Presentations/Freuds%20Concept%20of%20Love.htm

Could the debate on this thread reflect a bit of CP Snow's "Two Culture Theory"? Maladorer and Iseul have scientific training, Hoipolloi Cassidy is an art historian (I think) and I'm a history geek.

Actually I majored in History and Philosophy of Science, which is intermediate between the humanities (history and philosophy) and the natural sciences.

Personally I think a standard historical materialist and feminist account of sexuality makes far more sense than either a Freudian one or a purely biological reductionist one. (Though frankly even biological-determinist evolutionary psychology has more empirical evidence to support it than Freudianism does)

[Queercommie Girl]

According to Freud, it is just that, "messed up" sexual development. Not my personal opinion of course, but Freuds'.


I generally reject Freud, and I'm no fan of his, but objectively speaking you are mistaken if you think Freud was being homophobic in any normative sense. Another thing is that Freud never directly talked about transgenderism, he only talked about homosexuality, which is not the same kind of thing. Therefore really your thread title is a bit of a misnomer.

But of course hypothetically if Freud was really being homophobic, then he should be rejected at least to a significant extent simply on this ground.

[Queercommie Girl]

1) freud wasn't a hegelian philosopher, so i doubt you need "dialectics" (whatever you mean by that).


I doubt Freud even explicitly used the term "dialectics" in his writings.

[Queercommie Girl]

But I'm pretty sure there is some sort of consensus that a lot of Freudian material is dismissed in contemporary psychology, though I could be completely wrong about that.

You are not wrong about that.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I will keep this short: A:I am not a fan of Freud's work or theories,most of which I consider to be his personal opinions mixed with "what if" scenarios. B:Pretty much everything QueerCommie Girl said.Much of society is based off of "gender expectation." saying that a man wearing high heels is a fetish is completely wrong when one understands that society is what decides what is "gender appropriate" and what is not.One must remember that decades ago it would have been considered cross dressing for a woman to wear jeans.

There have been a few posts in this thread that have really disgusted me but I have grown used to it by now.Suffice to say I really wonder where people get even half the crap they believe.

[Homo Songun]

Why insist on a genetic basis for sexuality? Even if it turns out that there really is a gay gene for example, then what about people who don't have it, but are nevertheless gay? Would you consider them then to be inauthentic? Why not have an uncompromising attitude on human liberation instead?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Why insist on a genetic basis for sexuality? Even if it turns out that there really is a gay gene for example, then what about people who don't have it, but are nevertheless gay? Would you consider them then to be inauthentic? Why not have an uncompromising attitude on human liberation instead?

*sigh* ...are we really going down this route again?

Someone is gay because of genetics-hence a gay gene-so anyone who lacks a gay gene cannot be gay.No one can turn gay.It is all decided at conception.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2011/10/19103/

[Homo Songun]

*sigh* ...are we really going down this route again?

Someone is gay because of genetics-hence a gay gene-so anyone who lacks a gay gene cannot be gay.No one can turn gay.It is all decided at conception.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2011/10/19103/

(1) The very "evidence" that you cite contradicts the argument you are trying to make. Just to take the first bullet point, "33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers" supposedly had some kind of gene in common. Supposing that it really is the gay gene, on your view that means 17% of all gay brothers are fakers. Really?

(2) Correlation does not imply causation. To take a handful of studies with very small sample sizes with very cautious conclusions in order to make sweeping judgements about human nature is worse than bad science, its simply fallacious.

In my opinion, the current craze to find a biological basis for everything is based just as much on bourgeois ideology than anything else. At the very least it must be admitted that it suits capitalist aims very well.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why insist on a genetic basis for sexuality? Even if it turns out that there really is a gay gene for example, then what about people who don't have it, but are nevertheless gay? Would you consider them then to be inauthentic? Why not have an uncompromising attitude on human liberation instead?


What does this have to do with the topic of this thread? We are not debating biological determinism here, except as a kind of tangent. We are debating Freudian psychoanalysis.

Generally I don't agree with biological determinism either, but frankly I find pseudo-scientific semi-mystical "psychoanalysis" even more of an obstacle to genuine human sexual and gender liberation. Given that I am sympathetic to transhumanism, I don't consider genetics to be something that is absolutely immutable.

The difference is that scientific facts can change (through technology and the manipulation of the physical world through labour), metaphysical facts cannot. Consequently metaphysics is generally more reactionary than science ideologically speaking, since it offers less scope for change and revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

I will keep this short: A:I am not a fan of Freud's work or theories,most of which I consider to be his personal opinions mixed with "what if" scenarios. B:Pretty much everything QueerCommie Girl said.Much of society is based off of "gender expectation." saying that a man wearing high heels is a fetish is completely wrong when one understands that society is what decides what is "gender appropriate" and what is not.One must remember that decades ago it would have been considered cross dressing for a woman to wear jeans.

There have been a few posts in this thread that have really disgusted me but I have grown used to it by now.Suffice to say I really wonder where people get even half the crap they believe.


Just to add: having long hair used to be considered "exclusively feminine" too, but now many guys have long hair.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

(1) The very "evidence" that you cite contradicts the argument you are trying to make. Just to take the first bullet point, "33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers" supposedly had some kind of gene in common. Supposing that it really is the gay gene, on your view that means 17% of all gay brothers are fakers. Really?

You are jumping to conclusions.That 17% aren't "fakers," but rather the ones which had different genetic basis for their homosexuality.


(2) Correlation does not imply causation. To take a handful of studies with very small sample sizes with very cautious conclusions in order to make sweeping judgements about human nature is worse than bad science, its simply fallacious.First mistake: there is no such thing as human nature. Second:You make the very mistake you are attempting to disprove (making generalizations which is far greater than anything the queer community is doing).


In my opinion, the current craze to find a biological basis for everything is based just as much on bourgeois ideology than anything else. At the very least it must be admitted that it suits capitalist aims very well.Bullshit....not really much more to it than that.

Are you gay?

[Queercommie Girl]

In my opinion, the current craze to find a biological basis for everything is based just as much on bourgeois ideology than anything else. At the very least it must be admitted that it suits capitalist aims very well.


Surely the desire to find a metaphysical basis for everything is even more of a bourgeois, or even worse, pre-bourgeois, ideology?

To be frank as much as I dislike biological-determinist evolutionary psychology, I'd rather have that than some of the semi-mystical BS on "metaphysical dialectics" that some idiots here like to peddle around.

[scarletghoul]

I doubt Freud even explicitly used the term "dialectics" in his writings.I can tell you for a fact that I've read the word dialectics or dialectically a few times in Freud's work. Not as much as in the works of Marx, and Freud wasn't a hegelian per say, but he was a learned man and was influenced by german philosophy. Imo freud's discovery of the unconscious, and his contributions to science resulting from it, are an example of dialectical materialism, albeit not quite as thorough and refined as Marx's. It wasnt until Lacan that Freud's teachings were given their full dialectical materialist weight, so i recommend reading him. anyway the essence of psychoanalysis is the dynamic relation between the human subject + unconscious and the world around us, and how they affect each other. I dont see how thats not dialectical materialist really.

[scarletghoul]

Also if gender is a social construct then surely transgenderism is too ?

[Queercommie Girl]

Also if gender is a social construct then surely transgenderism is too ?

Regardless of whether or not transgenderism is a social construct, the politics of trans rights doesn't change.

[Tenka]

Also if gender is a social construct then surely transgenderism is too ?
That really depends on how you define it. 'Transgenderism' as a term is somewhat broad in my mind, and can include a perception of one's 'place' on the accepted binary of gender constructs as being opposite to what one was ascribed at birth, fluidity on the accepted binary, the adoption of alternate identifications outside of the socially accepted binary, the simple rejection of all gender constructs, and probably some other sorts I'm forgetting.

The most common varieties, I think, are the first and second mentioned, which accept the binary as a very real thing to consider individual relation to, and not just a social construct. I obviously think it's all a social construct; biological differences between the "sexes" is not so fundamental as to beget "male" or "female" or in-between gender identities outside of variable social realities, which of course... vary.

[Queercommie Girl]

I can tell you for a fact that I've read the word dialectics or dialectically a few times in Freud's work. Not as much as in the works of Marx, and Freud wasn't a hegelian per say, but he was a learned man and was influenced by german philosophy. Imo freud's discovery of the unconscious, and his contributions to science resulting from it, are an example of dialectical materialism, albeit not quite as thorough and refined as Marx's. It wasnt until Lacan that Freud's teachings were given their full dialectical materialist weight, so i recommend reading him. anyway the essence of psychoanalysis is the dynamic relation between the human subject + unconscious and the world around us, and how they affect each other. I dont see how thats not dialectical materialist really.


Hegel BTW is also a reactionary idealist philosophically speaking. Marxism really needs more hard materialism and less metaphysics or metaphysics disguised as materialism. But this is a completely different matter.

The problem with Freud is not the idea of an "interaction between subject and the objective world", the problem lies with the concept of the "unconscious". There is no empirical scientific evidence for the existence of the "unconscious", it is no more than a theoretical construction. The Freudian unconscious isn't really a materialist concept.

However, this much is mostly neutral academic debate. The main issue I have in this thread is how some ignorant people are using Freud as an excuse to push foward their implicit prejudices against LGBT people. Freud may be wrong objectively, but he was not a homophobe, and much less a transphobe, given that he never even directly talked about transgenderism. Transgenderism and homosexuality are different things and even if one assumes a Freudian theoretical framework, the so-called Electra and Oedipus complexes certainly do not describe transgenderism at all, they only describe homosexuality. Trans-girls for instance would have a completely different subconscious relationship with their mother and father compared with gay men.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

1) freud wasn't a hegelian philosopher, so i doubt you need "dialectics" (whatever you mean by that).

A good illustration of "regression to the anal phase."

Your suggestion that Freud wasn't much of a Hegelian (which is pretty obvious) is undercut by the admission (by yourself and your clique) that you don't know what dialectics is to begin with.

Which returns you to the level of a bunch of infants proudly showing the contents of the potty to Mommy, and expecting to be praised for it. Sorry, no go:

http://rlv.zcache.com/yo_oedipal_mama_bumper_sticker-p128108872117955595of_325.jpg



You may want to (gasp!) read Wilhelm Reich's "Dialectic of the Psyche" (1924), one of the first attempts to reconcile Marxism and Psychoanalysis through the common ground of dialectical processes (Reich, unfortunately,
fell into Diamat, and that created problems further on).


(http://rlv.zcache.com/yo_oedipal_mama_bumper_sticker-p128108872117955595of_325.jpg)

[Queercommie Girl]

A good illustration of "regression to the anal phase."

Your suggestion that Freud wasn't much of a Hegelian (which is pretty obvious) is undercut by the admission (by yourself and your clique) that you don't know what dialectics is to begin with.

Which returns you to the level of a bunch of infants proudly showing the contents of the potty to Mommy, and expecting to be praised for it. Sorry, no go:

http://rlv.zcache.com/yo_oedipal_mama_bumper_sticker-p128108872117955595of_325.jpg



You may want to (gasp!) read Wilhelm Reich's "Dialectic of the Psyche" (1924), one of the first attempts to reconcile Marxism and Psychoanalysis through the common ground of dialectical processes (Reich, unfortunately,
fell into Diamat, and that created problems further on).


Am I really to believe such infantile ad hominem simply because you have ran out of real arguments actually count as "science"? :rolleyes:

BTW, why assume it must be the mother who does potty training? What happens if the father does it, or indeed some other members of the family? LOL Sexist!! :rolleyes:

Also, why do you assume black magick is actually male? Could it not be the "Electra complex" at work here? :rolleyes:

Some Marxists would no doubt call this kind of reasoning "vulgar materialism".

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually there was only a single instance in which Freud directly commented on transgenderism, according to the book Transgender Nation by Gordene Olga MacKenzie: (pages 37 - 38)

The only case Freud published relating to transgenderism was "The Schreber Case" in 1911. Freud diagnosed Schreber's "symptom" to be the delusion that he was changing sexes and becoming a woman, "god's wife." Freud argued that Schreber's change-of-sex "fantasy" was related to his repressed homosexuality, delusions and psychosis and was not a case of transgenderism.

The bit which is not completely clear here is whether Freud was being intrinsically transphobic or just claiming that this particular case isn't "genuine transgenderism", but a real form of delusion.

[scarletghoul]

Regardless of whether or not transgenderism is a social construct, the politics of trans rights doesn't change.Right. So what is so bad about psychoanalysis's teachings then, it really just explains that human sexuality is a result of our needs, demands, desires and how they are met in the world, particularly as we grow up


the problem lies with the concept of the "unconscious". There is no empirical scientific evidence for the existence of the "unconscious", it is no more than a theoretical construction. The Freudian unconscious isn't really a materialist concept.
That's quite a claim to make, that there is no unconscious. how do you explain long term memory, psychosis, etc, without an unconscious ??


However, this much is mostly neutral academic debate. The main issue I have in this thread is how some ignorant people are using Freud as an excuse to push foward their implicit prejudices against LGBT people. Freud may be wrong objectively, but he was not a homophobe, and much less a transphobe, given that he never even directly talked about transgenderism. Transgenderism and homosexuality are different things and even if one assumes a Freudian theoretical framework, the so-called Electra and Oedipus complexes certainly do not describe transgenderism at all, they only describe homosexuality. Trans-girls for instance would have a completely different subconscious relationship with their mother and father compared with gay men.Well sure, i guess there would be variation in unconscious identifications and desires and stuff between people of varying sexualities. not exclusively relating to parents of course; they just tend to be the main influence on the first years of a childs life; but society and culture in general. the paternal and maternal functions occur throughout the course of reality and life in the symbolic imaginary and real orders... when lacan talks of the phallus he does not literally mean a giant penis that determines everything..


You may want to (gasp!) read Wilhelm Reich's "Dialectic of the Psyche" (1924), one of the first attempts to reconcile Marxism and Psychoanalysis through the common ground of dialectical processes (Reich, unfortunately, fell into Diamat, and that created problems further on).
im not an expert on freudo-marxism but it really does seem to have its limits..
i found a great book the other day called Language and Materialism, which looks at marxism and psychoanalysis (as well as structuralism and semiotics.. basically lacans influences) and explains how they are complementary, how lacanian psychoanalysis etc has helped us to form a dialectical materialist theory of the subject that can compliment marxism (obviously subjectivity is one area where marxist theory traditionally had been lacking). the book was written a few years before badious Theory of the Subject, which i recommend to anyone interested as its a great work of MLM theory that incorporates some psychoanalytic teachings
Actually there was only a single instance in which Freud directly commented on transgenderism, according to the book Transgender Nation by Gordene Olga MacKenzie: (pages 37 - 38)

The only case Freud published relating to transgenderism was "The Schreber Case" in 1911. Freud diagnosed Schreber's "symptom" to be the delusion that he was changing sexes and becoming a woman, "god's wife." Freud argued that Schreber's change-of-sex "fantasy" was related to his repressed homosexuality, delusions and psychosis and was not a case of transgenderism.

The bit which is not completely clear here is whether Freud was being intrinsically transphobic or just claiming that this particular case isn't "genuine transgenderism", but a real form of delusion.The Schreber case is one of severe psychosis, full of crazy halucinations, including being god's wife and being fucked by god, and tortured by his minions, and so on. The passage you quote is misleading and deceptive as it gives no indication of the severity of schreber's condition. this was far from a case of a transexual simply being discriminated against and treated as insane. Schreber's memoirs are well worth reading actually, truly fascinating. you can probably find a pdf or extracts online somewhere. Take a look and I'm sure you will agree this is not a simple case of transgenderism, and that it was correct to treat it as severe illness. Yes, Freud saw the psychosis as being caused at root by repressed homosexuality. That is not a homophobic view at all, though there are competing views as this is a widely studied case due to the great quality of its recollection in schrebers memoirs

[Queercommie Girl]

Right. So what is so bad about psychoanalysis's teachings then, it really just explains that human sexuality is a result of our needs, demands, desires and how they are met in the world, particularly as we grow up


I did say Freud was not really homophobic and didn't really directly comment on transgenderism (apart from that one instance, which is probably a very special case) so is not really explicitly transphobic either. This actually puts him ahead of a lot of his contemporaries given how old he actually is. I don't think I've ever said anywhere that I think Freud is intrinsically reactionary. Of course, certain forms of "psychoanalysis" really are reactionary, but then those aren't really Freudian.

However, as I said, Freud can be and has been in the past misused to justify certain people's prejudices. E.g. how the OP of this thread trying to use Freud to call LGBT people "messed up".



That's quite a claim to make, that there is no unconscious. how do you explain long term memory, psychosis, etc, without an unconscious ??
The essential matter here is how this concept is constructed. No concepts or ideas in science can ever be free of ideological values. Of course we all agree that there are certain underlying neurological processes, neuro-electrical impulses and so on, but does it make any sense to describe these as anything but purely physical phenomena?



Well sure, i guess there would be variation in unconscious identifications and desires and stuff between people of varying sexualities. not exclusively relating to parents of course; they just tend to be the main influence on the first years of a childs life; but society and culture in general. the paternal and maternal functions occur throughout the course of reality and life in the symbolic imaginary and real orders...
Another issue is that even if we, just for the sake of the argument, assume that the unconscious exists, the Freudian interpretation of it is essentially based on patriarchy and Western-centrism. Empirical evidence have actually shown that some non-Western tribal cultures and matriarchal cultures do not possess an "unconscious" in the Freudian sense at all.

So frankly in one's analysis of the unconscious, it is imperative to add feminist and anti-Eurocentric elements into it. I believe any form of progressive political theory that is not feminist and anti-Eurocentric is simply not even worth a look at all.



when lacan talks of the phallus he does not literally mean a giant penis that determines everything..
No. But 2 things:

1) This kind of symbolism obviously involves a kind of phallo-centric patriarchism. I mean, suppose we really lived in a matriarchal or women-dominated society, wouldn't this symbolism be changed to a "giant vagina"? Wouldn't "penis-envy" be replaced by "vagina-envy"? (Or perhaps "breasts-envy"?)

Why simply implicitly assume that the "phallus" is the natural subjective factor? This would seem to be a rather standard feminist critique of Freudianism.

2) It's funny that some people think I'm being "reductionist" simply because I pointed out the importance of brain scans when it comes to one's gender identity and sexuality. Surely it's better to focus on the brain rather than getting fixated on one's genitals? Haven't you heard the popular saying in the West: Think with your head, not with your p****! Just as Buddhism is excessively asexual, Freudianism is excessively sexual - to consider "sex" as the central element of human development and human psyche is really a kind of "fetish" in itself.



im not an expert on freudo-marxism but it really does seem to have its limits..
What is required is a Feminist Freudo-Marxism. It would still be flawed in many ways, but it would be a lot better than orthodox Freudianism.



Yes, Freud saw the psychosis as being caused at root by repressed homosexuality. That is not a homophobic view at all.
Contemporary LGBT activists like me would say that his mental illness was also caused by repressed transgenderism (that is to say, since he couldn't change sex in reality, he could only escape into his own fantasies, which grew worse and worse), not just repressed homosexuality. It was common back in Freud's day to basically neglect transgenderism, which is why he almost never made any comments on it. But you are right in that Freud was not homophobic or transphobic either.

[scarletghoul]

I did say Freud was not really homophobic and didn't really directly comment on transgenderism (apart from that one instance, which is probably a very special case) so is not really explicitly transphobic either. This actually puts him ahead of a lot of his contemporaries given how old he actually is. I don't think I've ever said anywhere that I think Freud is intrinsically reactionary. Of course, certain forms of "psychoanalysis" really are reactionary, but then those aren't really Freudian.

However, as I said, Freud can be and has been in the past misused to justify certain people's prejudices. E.g. how the OP of this thread trying to use Freud to call LGBT people "messed up".
Oh right. Well yeah, i guess we agree on this. there has been huge reactionary misuse of freud especially by the american 'ego psychologists' as has been mentioned before. I don't know whether the OP was really trying to call queer people messed up or if he was just trying to clarify freud's position.

The essential matter here is how this concept is constructed. No concepts or ideas in science can ever be free of ideological values. Of course we all agree that there are certain underlying neurological processes, neuro-electrical impulses and so on, but does it make any sense to describe these as anything but purely physical phenomena?the distortions that occur, the slipping of the signifying chain, the movement of desire and so on, these things suggest to me that there is more than just some electrical information storage system or something... obviously we are very far from fully knowing how the human mind works so thats not a question thats gonna be definitively answered any time soon, but i think lacans idea that the unconscious is structured like a language (signifying chains..) seems the most convincing explanation so far


Another issue is that even if we, just for the sake of the argument, assume that the unconscious exists, the Freudian interpretation of it is essentially based on patriarchy and Western-centrism. Empirical evidence have actually shown that some non-Western tribal cultures and matriarchal cultures do not possess an "unconscious" in the Freudian sense at all. That's very interesting, could you link to them or suggest some reading

1) This kind of symbolism obviously involves a kind of phallo-centric patriarchism. I mean, suppose we really lived in a matriarchal or women-dominated society, wouldn't this symbolism be changed to a "giant vagina"? Wouldn't "penis-envy" be replaced by "vagina-envy"? (Or perhaps "breasts-envy"?)who knows, its pretty hard to imagine something like that, let alone concieve of an entire hypothetical universe that someone born and raised in that society would experience..

Why simply implicitly assume that the "phallus" is the natural subjective factor? This would seem to be a rather standard feminist critique of Freudianism.in that case your problem is really just with the terminology. Psychoanalytic theory was born and developed in a patriarchal world where men and women had/have certain standard functions in the raising of a child

2) It's funny that some people think I'm being "reductionist" simply because I pointed out the importance of brain scans when it comes to one's gender identity and sexuality. Surely it's better to focus on the brain rather than getting fixated on one's genitals? Haven't you heard the popular saying in the West: Think with your head, not with your p****! Just as Buddhism is excessively asexual, Freudianism is excessively sexual - to consider "sex" as the central element of human development and human psyche is really a kind of "fetish" in itself.the crude stereotype that freudian theory reduces everything to sex is simply wrong. If anything it highlights the complex seperateness of humans from other animals who are mostly motivated by reproduction.. i'm not really sure what else to say except that.

Beyond the Pleasure Principle is worth reading.


Contemporary LGBT activists like me would say that his mental illness was also caused by repressed transgenderism (that is to say, since he couldn't change sex in reality, he could only escape into his own fantasies, which grew worse and worse), not just repressed homosexuality. It was common back in Freud's day to basically neglect transgenderism, which is why he almost never made any comments on it. But you are right in that Freud was not homophobic or transphobic either.Maybe it was repressed transgenderism. it would be interesting to see a detailed text on that explanation. who knows. Gender theory isnt something i know much about

[black magick hustla]

Your suggestion that Freud wasn't much of a Hegelian (which is pretty obvious) is undercut by the admission (by yourself and your clique) that you don't know what dialectics is to begin with.

Nor you know what "dialectics" is either, it is a meaningless term used mostly as posturing for intellectually lazy marxists. its a vague reference to a supposed analytical kernel of marx and hegel.




Which returns you to the level of a bunch of infants proudly showing the contents of the potty to Mommy, and expecting to be praised for it. Sorry, no go:

http://rlv.zcache.com/yo_oedipal_mama_bumper_sticker-p128108872117955595of_325.jpg



You may want to (gasp!) read Wilhelm Reich's "Dialectic of the Psyche" (1924), one of the first attempts to reconcile Marxism and Psychoanalysis through the common ground of dialectical processes (Reich, unfortunately,
fell into Diamat, and that created problems further on).


(http://rlv.zcache.com/yo_oedipal_mama_bumper_sticker-p128108872117955595of_325.jpg)

there are all sorts of books who try to reconcile "dialectics" with all sort of stuff, including science. you don't need dialectics to understand chemistry even if "dialecticians" talk about chemistry.

keep to the points and evade the snide comments old man. you aren't funny and your age shows.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Can we all just agree that no one knows what "hegelian dialectics" means?

[Queercommie Girl]

Can we all just agree that no one knows what "hegelian dialectics" means?

We know even less about "Freudian dialectics"...:rolleyes:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Nor you know what "dialectics" is either, it is a meaningless term used mostly as posturing for intellectually lazy marxists. its a vague reference to a supposed analytical kernel of marx and hegel.




there are all sorts of books who try to reconcile "dialectics" with all sort of stuff, including science. you don't need dialectics to understand chemistry even if "dialecticians" talk about chemistry.

keep to the points and evade the snide comments old man. you aren't funny and your age shows.

I believe Ilya Progigine, the Belgian-Russian chemist actually did work on a dialectical view of organic chemistry.

Engel's Dialectics of Nature is pretty reductionist, but dialectics is a good way of understanding natural processes.

With all due respect to Godless Utopian, saying homosexuality has genetic causes can be a bit problematical, In the 1980s a researcher, LaVay (who was gay himself) claimed to have discovered a "gay gene". This was seen as validation for homosexuality. Other researchers though lambasted his research methodology. Also if homosexuality is seen as "genetic", well,it could be blamed on" bad genes" then it would be possible to edit out this characteristic.

I would say that being homosexual or trans shouldn't need any "validation". Its part of the infinite diversity of humanity and should be respected a such.We don't need scientific validation, we need humanistic validation.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Whether or not Freud's schema is accurate, his major break though was his "discovery" of the unconcious. It is evident there is a lot going on in the human mind that we are not aware of, not fully accesible to the conscious mind. Where do dreams come from? What can they mean?What can the stories of mythology and religion teach us?

I am certain Hoipolloi did not mean any of his remarks in a homophobic or transphobic sense.

I've read bits and pieces of Reich's "Sexual Revolution". I have to read more.

[black magick hustla]

Engel's Dialectics of Nature is pretty reductionist, but dialectics is a good way of understanding natural processes.



not at all. hegelis philosophy was an extension of kant, and therefore a philosophy of knowledge. that is why anyone who has a sense of scientific understanding would find that applying that philosophy to nature is silly. hegel's philosophy applied to the social world through its "materialist transformation" by marx makes a lot more sense.

[Queercommie Girl]

Whether or not Freud's schema is accurate, his major break though was his "discovery" of the unconscious. It is evident there is a lot going on in the human mind that we are not aware of, not fully accessible to the conscious mind. Where do dreams come from? What can they mean?What can the stories of mythology and religion teach us?


Freudianism is obsessed with what is essentially a theoretical construct. It's obsessed with an abstract concept of the "self" like Buddhism is. (Difference being that Buddhism is excessively asexual while Freudianism is excessively sexual)

What defines us as human is our consciousness, the sentient, self-aware, intelligent mind, not our unconscious. The "unconscious" has an intelligence level that is no higher than that of animals. It is the "animalistic" part of our mind. To assign human values to it is frankly misleading.

As a trans-humanist sympathiser, I would ask: what if in the future we could literally transcend our physical bodies, including our physical brains? Uploading our minds into "avatars" that are not our original body? What would happen to our "unconscious"?

The "unconscious" isn't really "me". What defines "me" is the consciousness streams that forever change with time. (In a sense, my "unconscious" is like an animal pet of mine)

Religion and mythology are to be explained in historical materialist (and also evolutionary/Darwinist) terms as manifestations of class society, not in semi-mystical terms relating to the psyche.

I prefer a Darwinist view of the unconscious rather than a Freudian one: (You could call this Darwinian psychoanalysis)

http://www.earthtym.net/image.htg/triune-brain.gif

The lowest part of our unconscious corresponds to the brain of the lower vertebrates - reptiles, amphibians and fish. (The Reptilian Unconscious)

The higher part of the unconscious corresponds to the brain of mammals and birds, the higher vertebrates. (The Paleo-mammalian Unconscious)

The conscious brain is the sentient, intelligent human mind. (The Neo-mammalian Consciousness)

The human brain isn't just "human".

Darwinian psychoanalysis makes a lot of sense for someone like me who is sympathetic to the green movement, environmentalism and animal rights. It's also linked with the Buddhist idea that ultimately there is no metaphysical distinction between humans and animals and that all life are one. (Instead of the non-materialistic idea that humanity is metaphysically distinct from animals in Western philosophy) It connects the human psyche to the rest of the natural world in an intrinsic sense. It is also a more materialistic account since in the direct physical sense many human brain structures really do correspond to that of other vertebrate animals.

Darwinian psychoanalysis fits better with Historical Materialism, because ultimately human history is just a part of overall natural history, and human class struggle a special case of natural evolution. Both Darwinism and Marxism are outward-looking traditions, as opposed to Buddhism and Freudianism which are inward-looking.

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh right. Well yeah, i guess we agree on this. there has been huge reactionary misuse of freud especially by the american 'ego psychologists' as has been mentioned before.


You might be interested in this documentary:

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



the distortions that occur, the slipping of the signifying chain, the movement of desire and so on, these things suggest to me that there is more than just some electrical information storage system or something... obviously we are very far from fully knowing how the human mind works so thats not a question thats gonna be definitively answered any time soon, but i think lacans idea that the unconscious is structured like a language (signifying chains..) seems the most convincing explanation so far
See my reply to Lenina. The point is that I don't even consider the "unconscious" to be fully "me" in the sense that my consciousness is.

What am I? This Buddhist-like question is one that needs some pondering. What is "me"? For me I am the sum of all of my consciousness streams and really nothing else. Everything else potentially can be changed without altering my basic identity.

The human unconscious is not fully "human". From an evolutionary/Darwinist perspective, it corresponds to the animalistic left-overs of the human mind.



That's very interesting, could you link to them or suggest some reading
who knows, its pretty hard to imagine something like that, let alone concieve of an entire hypothetical universe that someone born and raised in that society would experience..
Is it really so hard? Maybe this reflects your own implicit biases. Matriarchal tribal societies did actually exist in human history, after all.

Even by the standards of Western 21st century society, gender roles are no longer as rigid as in Freud's day. Freud's perspective is essentially a pre-feminist one, before the major theoretical breakthroughs in feminist thought.



in that case your problem is really just with the terminology.
Not entirely. Terminology reflects underlying biases. Phallo-centric symbolism associates the phallus with "power" almost in a kind of semi-mystical sense. The implication is that eunuchs (men with their phallus removed) can never be powerful. Exactly how would one explain the eunuch Admiral Zheng He in ancient China, and the fact that eunuchs have played an important political role in China for millennia? Like I said, I reduce "humanity" to the brain, not to the genitals.



Psychoanalytic theory was born and developed in a patriarchal world where men and women had/have certain standard functions in the raising of a child
But this is precisely where the limitations of orthodox Freudianism lies. Even our world today is less patriarchal than in Freud's day. Freud's ideas are to some extent out of date. How can ideas that arose out of an antiquated system explain a contemporary system that is different in many ways? And how can ideas that were formulated in a patriarchal system help the masses to overthrow patriarchy?



the crude stereotype that freudian theory reduces everything to sex is simply wrong. If anything it highlights the complex seperateness of humans from other animals who are mostly motivated by reproduction.. i'm not really sure what else to say except that.
No, you are missing the point. By "sex-centrism" here I don't mean "reproduction-centrism", which obviously is even more problematic. But even the idea that "sex for pleasure" is central to the human psyche is still sex-centric and frankly incorrect. Humans engage in many pleasurable activities that have nothing to do with sex and cannot be reduced to sex in any way.

And human existence isn't even just about pleasure anyway. In a "dialectical" sense suffering is just as an integral part of human existence as pleasure is. The implicit assumption in Freudianism, and in many other Western philosophies, that humans must do whatever is possible to avoid suffering is a fundamental mistake. As the Buddha once said: "All life is suffering". (If one doesn't wish to suffer, one should commit suicide, as only death would bring the total ceasation of suffering) Or as the Chinese proverb states: "Without tasting great bitterness, one would never know what great sweetness means".

A communist society where no one ever suffers is not my kind of communist society. I am not a communist simply with the goal of maximising pleasure for all people. To some extent suffering is a good thing, without suffering there is no growth. From an evolutionary/Darwinist perspective suffering allows animals to learn. If animals lived in a hedonistic environment all the time, they will simply degenerate. From a Marxist perspective without suffering there is no radicalism and no revolution, and society will simply stagnate.

I challenge the fundamental hedonism-centric assumptions in Western philosophy. (Something that began in the West since the days of the ancient Greeks) Oriental philosophy does not reject suffering completely, but embraces it to some extent.

Also, you are completely mistaken that animals only have sex for the purposes of reproduction. Many higher animals also have sex "for fun". This is partly why homosexuality and bisexuality is widespread in almost all animal species.

Homosexuality isn't something that is uniquely human at all.



Maybe it was repressed transgenderism. it would be interesting to see a detailed text on that explanation. who knows. Gender theory isnt something i know much about
Frankly you need to know more about gender theory. Sexual liberation without gender liberation is frankly still oppressive.

Here is a feminist critique of Freud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#Feminism

Robinson, observing that "Everyone knows that Freud has fallen from grace", suggests that the disenchantment with Freud can be traced to the revival of feminism.[149] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-148) Simone de Beauvoir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir) criticized Freud and psychoanalysis in The Second Sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex).[150] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-Mitchell-149)[151] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-150) Betty Friedan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Friedan) criticized Freud and what she considered his Victorian view of women in The Feminine Mystique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique).[148] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-Friedan-147) Freud's concept of penis envy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy) was attacked by Kate Millett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Millett), whose Sexual Politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Politics) accused him of confusion and oversights.[152] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-151) Naomi Weisstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Weisstein) writes that Freud and his followers erroneously thought that his "years of intensive clinical experience" added up to scientific rigor.[153] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-152) Freud was also criticized by Shulamith Firestone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulamith_Firestone) and Eva Figes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Figes). In The Dialectic of Sex, Firestone argued that Freud was a "poet" who produced metaphors rather than literal truths; in her view, Freud, like feminists, recognized that sexuality was the crucial problem of modern life, but ignored the social context and failed to question society itself. Firestone interpreted Freudian "metaphors" in terms of the literal facts of power within the family. Juliet Mitchell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliet_Mitchell) defended Freud against de Beauvoir, Friedan, Millett, Figes, and Firestone in Psychoanalysis and Feminism, accusing them of misreading him and misunderstanding the implications of psychoanalytic theory for feminism.[150] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-Mitchell-149) Mitchell's views were in turn criticized by Jane Gallop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Gallop) in The Daughter's Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis.[154] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-153)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-153)
Some French feminists, among them Julia Kristeva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Kristeva) and Luce Irigaray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray), have been influenced by Freud as interpreted by Jacques Lacan.[155] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-154) Irigaray has produced a theoretical challenge to Freud and Lacan, using their theories against them to "put forward a coherent psychoanalytic explanation for theoretical bias. She claims that the cultural unconscious only recognizes the male sex, and details the effects of this unconscious belief on accounts of the psychology of women."[156] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-155)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-155)
Carol Gilligan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Gilligan) writes that "The penchant of developmental theorists to project a masculine image, and one that appears frightening to women, goes back at least to Freud..." She sees Freud's criticism of women's sense of justice reappearing in the work of Jean Piaget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget) and Lawrence Kohlberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg). Gilligan notes that Nancy Chodorow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Chodorow), in contrast to Freud, attributes differences between the sexes not to anatomy but to the fact that "the early social environment differs for and is experienced differently by male and female children." Chodorow writes "against the masculine bias of psychoanalytic theory" and "replaces Freud's negative and derivative description of female psychology with a positive and direct account of her own."[157] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#cite_note-156)

[Queercommie Girl]

There is an implicit masculinist bias in orthodox Freudian psychology. The male psyche is considered to be intrinsically superior and more powerful than the female psyche. The male psyche is also considered to be the "human norm". Girls can develop "penis-envy" but boys would never develop "vagina-envy" or "breasts-envy". There is no equivalent of the Electra complex for boys or the Oedipus complex for girls.

Consequently any female-to-male change is implicitly assumed to be a "positive change" while any male-to-female change is implicitly assumed to be a "negative change". This is intrinsically prejudiced against MtF trans people. This is why MtFs would generally prefer feminist psychology.

[Meridian]

Despite what I think about these kinds of psychological theories (which is, hogwash):

There is an implicit masculinist bias in orthodox Freudian psychology. The male psyche is considered to be intrinsically superior and more powerful than the female psyche. The male psyche is also considered to be the "human norm". Girls can develop "penis-envy" but boys would never develop "vagina-envy" or "breasts-envy". There is no equivalent of the Electra complex for boys or the Oedipus complex for girls.

Consequently any female-to-male change is implicitly assumed to be a "positive change" while any male-to-female change is implicitly assumed to be a "negative change". This is intrinsically prejudiced against MtF trans people. This is why MtFs would generally prefer feminist psychology.
There is no basis in jumping from a theory being in accordance with a political stance or principle to it being correct. Doing so is judging a descriptive theory from normative values.

[Queercommie Girl]

Despite what I think about these kinds of psychological theories (which is, hogwash):

There is no basis in jumping from a theory being in accordance with a political stance or principle to it being correct. Doing so is judging a descriptive theory from normative values.

I think Freudians would disagree with you that their theory is purely "descriptive".

[ericksolvi]

So Freud states that if during phase 3 of sexual development (the Phallic), the sexual needs are not fulfilled, then you get the following personality disorders:

The Electra Complex - Girls have psycho-sexual competition with their mother to possess their father. She resorts to penis envy (the realization by the girl that she does not have a penis) to resolve her complex.

The Oedipus Complex - Boys have psycho-sexual competition with their father to possess their mother. He resorts to Castration anxiety (fear of losing genitals, due to finding out that girls do not have them) to maintain an attachment to his genitalia, protecting it.

Is my analysis correct?

If so, does Psycho-sexual development have any validity or empirical evidence?

And, if it does have evidence to support, then could a messed up Psycho-sexual development lead to Transgenderism, or as Freud proposed, Homosexuality?

Freud's explanation of homosexuality was that during this third stage the child begins to identify with one of his/her two parents, and competing with the parent they identify with for the attention of the other parent. Normally boys identify with their fathers and desire their mothers. But sometimes things get flipped and the boy identifies with his mother and desires his father. This is of course all Freud's opinion.

I personally feel, and there is some science behind this, that both sexuality and gender identity are strongly influenced by biological components. Freud's ideas were revolutionary, but by the standards of today there're out of date. Using purely Freudian psychology today would be like trying to use the owners manual from a Model T to fix a Prius. Our knowledge of the human mind is that much more complicated today then it was in Freud's time.