Marxism and Gender

[Lee Van Cleef]

This is a post from the "Feminism and Beauty" thread which I feel needs to be more fully addressed (emphasis in original post):

I've never understood trans-sex people. Here's an interesting point, though: why do you think some people are trans-sex, if there isn't some quality that they possess that makes them identify with the other sex?
It's not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so here based only on my own experience. I'm also going to raise some questions that I've been grappling with for a long time, in the hopes that we can have a critical discussion about how we think about gender identity.

I've had gender issues in the past, or more like off-and-on. While I fully support and sympathize with their struggles 100%, I've come to the conclusion that most people who identify as some subset of transgender ("transsexual," "androgyne," "genderqueer," etc.) are asking the wrong question.

As Marxists, I think it's important we take a strong "anti-gender" stance.

Physical sex is undeniable, but gender is clearly a socially-constructed, less definable subject. I think a lot of gender identity problems result as the individual struggles to find their place within capitalist patriarchy. With their realization that they do not fit into heteronormative roles, many trans people tend to adopt more aspects of the opposite "normal" gender role.

Some people probably feel totally natural doing this, but for many people it's a struggle. Any perceived failure or inability to "pass" as the opposite sex leads to intensified anxiety or dysphoria.

To touch on Bordieu, you could say that many trans people "misrecognize" the problems with the patriarchal gender binary as a crisis of the self. The truth is, it's impossible for your gender to match your sex, because gender is an invention of patriarchy which has minimal relation to your genitalia.

There's a lot of anti-trans sentiment in some parts of the radical feminist movement. I obviously disagree with their transphobia, but I do understand their argument that the transgender movement is undermining women's struggles and in the case of MTF transsexuals, compromising female spaces.

The reason I say this is because I think some transgender people are unintentionally reinforcing patriarchy because they fail to consider their situation outside the context of capitalist ideology. The worst example of this I've encountered has to be the extremely off-putting web portal Laura's Playground (http://www.lauras-playground.com/living.htm). The site layout alone just screams patriarchy, to say nothing of the content on the "Girl's Life" page I linked.

Only recently have I realized how unsettling it is to see people who don't conform to the gender binary try so hard to fit into it. "How should I sit?" "How should I walk?" Too many people seem like they're trying to be something they're not. But why bother with that shit when it clearly wasn't working out before?

The anti-trans sentiment of some feminists is to be condemned as the worst manifestation of liberal identity politics. However, I think it's undeniable that the transgender movement is grounded in the same politics. We can't fault either group for this, since we are all enculturated into patriarchal capitalist society, and its ideology. Revolutionaries must do all they can to support the struggles of all oppressed groups.

All the gender-related problems people face today should serve as a reminder to leftists of the dangers any vestige of liberal ideology poses to the creation of a truly liberated society.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

As Marxists, I think it's important we take a strong "anti-gender" stance.
As a transwoman and a Marxist, and out as the latter longer than as the former, I disagree. As Marxists, I think we understand that everything in bourgeois society is subject to bourgeois ideology, gender included. We should certainly take a strong anti-bourgeois concept of gender.

I believe a liberated society will be one where there are no social pressures placed on people to conform to narrowly defined ideological gender roles. Maybe the concepts of male/female or cis/trans will be irrelevant in such a society, or maybe we will gain a radical new understanding of gender. Until there is such a society, being anti-gender instead of, or alongside of, being anti-bourgeois ideology is idealism.


but I do understand their argument that the transgender movement is undermining women's struggles and in the case of MTF transsexuals, compromising female spaces.
So you criticize their transphobia, but then you turn around and justify it?


The reason I say this is because I think some transgender people are unintentionally reinforcing patriarchy because they fail to consider their situation outside the context of capitalist ideology.
I agree, but transwomen receive the same ideological messages about being a woman that ciswomen do. If you're going to call out transwomen for unintentionally reinforcing patriarchy, you also have to call out those ciswomen who do the same thing. That's the mistake radical feminists make, holding transwomen to a different standard than ciswomen (while giving transmen a pass because they see them as "women").


I will attempt to do so here based only on my own experience.
Are you willing to listen to the experience of an actual transperson, and consider how being "anti-gender" can come across as essentially erasing our experience of gender?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I disagree. Gender is a social construct and I hope to see it ended as we know it - or at least begin to see this process begin - in my life.

But it doesn't mean that social custom doesn't have an impact on individuals. As long as gender is a social fact of life, I think there will be people who identify as Trans and we need to support them on the basis of sexual liberation and personal freedom on principle and, as you said, to support the struggles of the oppressed in society. If other expressions of sexuality or sexual identity come about either in capitalist society or a future society without the current concepts of gender, then it will happen organically, not because of an ideological formulation about gender or sexuality.

So to me it seems fairly simple: personal sexuality is personal and mutual sexual acts are mutual between the people involved - and we need to defend that against the way capitalist society tries to shape how we express ourselves sexually or how we organize our personal relationships.

When it comes down to it, IMO sexuality is also social construct and the idea of people being "heterosexual" or "homosexual" or "bisexual" rather than just sexual behaviors and acts being same-sex or opposite-sex is a very recent idea, probably late 1800s. In fact I think everyone is inherently bisexual in the sense of being capable of any number of sexual attractions or encounters. But that doesn't mean that people who identify as homosexual are re-enforcing this constructed divide of sexuality.

[Vorchev]

Physical sex is undeniable, but gender is clearly a socially-constructed, less definable subject. I think a lot of gender identity problems result as the individual struggles to find their place within capitalist patriarchy. With their realization that they do not fit into heteronormative roles, many trans people tend to adopt more aspects of the opposite "normal" gender role.

Some people probably feel totally natural doing this, but for many people it's a struggle. Any perceived failure or inability to "pass" as the opposite sex leads to intensified anxiety or dysphoria.

To touch on Bordieu, you could say that many trans people "misrecognize" the problems with the patriarchal gender binary as a crisis of the self. The truth is, it's impossible for your gender to match your sex, because gender is an invention of patriarchy which has minimal relation to your genitalia.

There's a lot of anti-trans sentiment in some parts of the radical feminist movement. I obviously disagree with their transphobia, but I do understand their argument that the transgender movement is undermining women's struggles and in the case of MTF transsexuals, compromising female spaces.

I'm very lost by this.

Even feminists will admit that women are disposed towards consensus theory of truth and synthetic reasoning. Some of them use this as a reason to demand breaking of the "glass ceiling" in the workplace in pursuing diverse decision making models. Therefore, gender identity should be prioritized as personal before social. You can even empirically confirm this by recognizing how women have smaller brains, but strong corpus-callosums, suggesting a disposal towards synthesis between both brain lobes rather than analyzing within one or the other.

Anyway, I've always supposed this is why feminism and Marxism/socialism go hand in hand. Literally, Marxism is predicated on dialectic (materialism).

Aside from that, I agree with the position on radical feminism because radicals openly admit that power analytics precede discourse ethics (a la the Foucault-Habermas debate). Despite that, they constantly criticize patriarchy for being brutal, yet they try to emulate the system. I suppose this goes with synthetic thinking though because when you believe everything has only a possibility, rather than necessity, of being true, you end up believing that society is a power struggle among possibilities.

Coincidentally, women are much better at accepting their circumstances than men. They realize it's only possible to control so much.

[Lee Van Cleef]

I think the fact that this topic started as a reply to another thread stripped it of some important context. I already said it three times in the original post, but I fully support the transgender community and their struggle. When I say "anti-gender" I mean that I think Marxists should discard the concept when building socialism. Socialist society was the main subject of the thread I quoted from in the original post.

I do not believe we should ignore it as it exists today, which is just as absurd as the idea that it is progressive to be "color-blind."


As Marxists, I think we understand that everything in bourgeois society is subject to bourgeois ideology, gender included. We should certainly take a strong anti-bourgeois concept of gender.
Indeed. The main point of this thread is twofold:
1) There are a decent number of people on the left who aren't as critical of some "norms" that seemingly pre-date capitalism, like gender. This originally was intended as a reply to the "Feminism and Beauty" thread to just explain what I hope is the view of most of the people on this forum.

2) How we might reconcile the concerns of feminists with the needs of the trans community. I think it's important to find some common ground where neither party feels oppressed by the other. If only on a personal level, I wouldn't want my expression make people around me feel oppressed, anxious, or even victimized.



I believe a liberated society will be one where there are no social pressures placed on people to conform to narrowly defined ideological gender roles. Maybe the concepts of male/female or cis/trans will be irrelevant in such a society, or maybe we will gain a radical new understanding of gender.

This is more or less what I was trying to get at with this post. I see it wasn't in the original quote I pulled, but Eagle Syr asked in his next post or so if there would be trans people in a communist society.



Until there is such a society, being anti-gender instead of, or alongside of, being anti-bourgeois ideology is idealism.

My main point of argument is that gender is a fundamental part of bourgeois ideology. I would agree that going on an anti-gender crusade at the expense of other things would be quite idealistic. What I would suggest is that gender should have no place in socialist society.

That's not to say the state would ruthlessly stamp out various forms of gender expression. Merely that the revolution should foster an environment where there are no "norms" of gender expression.



So you criticize their transphobia, but then you turn around and justify it?

At two separate points in the post I specifically mention that I don't support their transphobia. That said, I personally don't feel comfortable telling feminists how they should feel about women's issues. It's clear some women feel that transgender expression is undermining their struggle, and I'd like to know what can be done, if anything, to address their concerns.

For instance, I personally wouldn't use the women's bathroom or locker room regardless of how I might appear, because I know a lot of women would have a big problem with this. I understand that the situation is different for transsexuals, which is why I think it's important to ask what we can do to accommodate the needs of both trans and cis people in these more private settings. Do you believe androgynes, genderqueers, or crossdressers even have a right to such places?



If you're going to call out transwomen for unintentionally reinforcing patriarchy, you also have to call out those ciswomen who do the same thing.

Excellent point, and I agree. I wouldn't say these feminists are much lighter on transmen, though. I just haven't touched on them in my posts because it's totally alien to my experience, and I don't even know any personally.



Are you willing to listen to the experience of an actual transperson, and consider how being "anti-gender" can come across as essentially erasing our experience of gender?
Well as a matter of fact I was hoping one I'd get some input on this from Revleft's transsexuals. I fully understand what you mean in the context of the present day. My question to you is, do you agree that a revolutionary society should discard gender?


When it comes down to it, IMO sexuality is also social construct...But that doesn't mean that people who identify as homosexual are re-enforcing this constructed divide of sexuality.
This is definitely a compelling analogy. I think the difference between gender identity and sexual identity is that straight people are not oppressed for their sexuality. Half of cis-gendered people are oppressed for their gender, however. Do you believe there are any consequences of people moving from/to/between oppressed and oppressor genders? I am still not sure, myself. I agree with everything else in your post.


I'm very lost by this.
I'm pretty lost by most of your post as well, to be honest. I admit I'm totally ignorant regarding neuroscience. I can't comment on that. I am curious as to how radical feminists are emulating patriarchy, though. Could you explain what you mean?

[Zav]

In a Communist society, people will act as they damn well please. There will always be transfolk, as transgenderism is caused by the brain forming in one way and the body in another (as far as we know), and they will be provided for.
Gender roles would be abolished in a liberated society (and good riddance), and gender expression would be replaced by personal expression. If I want to wear a dirty t-shirt and shorts one day and a Victorian dress and five pounds of makeup the next then I will do so no one will care (and thus not throw rocks, the bastards). Gender identity is more of a mystery. I don't know whether it is biological or social, but I suspect elements of both are involved. As I became more radicalized I became proportionately less gendered, and now I have none, but I don't think that this applies to everyone. If a liberated society accepts that some people identify as both male and female, a third gender, multiple genders, no gender, other combinations and variations, and that some people are gender fluid I will be happy with it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

When I say "anti-gender" I mean that I think Marxists should discard the concept when building socialism.
Understood.


2) How we might reconcile the concerns of feminists with the needs of the trans community. I think it's important to find some common ground where neither party feels oppressed by the other. If only on a personal level, I wouldn't want my expression make people around me feel oppressed, anxious, or even victimized.
Well, first, it has to be recognized that the feminists who are "concerned" about transpeople are a minority. My experience is that mainstream feminists and Marxist feminists generally don't have a problem with transpeople. It's usually the radical feminist tendency that does.

If you read the article "Common Ground" I posted to the Women's Struggles sub-forum, you'll see a good argument that there can be common ground between transfeminists and radical feminists.

Radical feminists have some legitimate criticisms. What they repeatedly fail to account for is that:

1) If some transwomen are reinforcing patriarchy, how is that different from some ciswomen doing the same, considering both are subject to the same bourgeois ideology of gender?

2) Cis gatekeepers often force transpeople into gender stereotypes to "prove" that they're really that gender. A transwoman acquaintance of mine who transitioned in the late 1980s, for example, loved to wear blue jeans and leather jackets, but cis gatekeepers saw that as proof that she wasn't a "real" woman. In order to get help, she had to start wearing high heels and skirts.

Similarly, in the past, if you were a transwoman who was sexually attracted to women, cis gatekeepers would argue that you weren't a "real" woman, which is both misogynistic and homophobic.


That's not to say the state would ruthlessly stamp out various forms of gender expression. Merely that the revolution should foster an environment where there are no "norms" of gender expression.
I fully agree with that. The social pressures placed on people to conform to narrowly defined gender roles must be combatted and eliminated, and a post-revolutionary society should foster such an environment.


It's clear some women feel that transgender expression is undermining their struggle, and I'd like to know what can be done, if anything, to address their concerns.
If they're willing to hold transwomen and ciswomen to the same standard, fair enough. But considering how few transwomen there are compared to billions of ciswomen, who is really undermining feminist struggle by reinforcing patriarchy?


I understand that the situation is different for transsexuals, which is why I think it's important to ask what we can do to accommodate the needs of both trans and cis people in these more private settings. Do you believe androgynes, genderqueers, or crossdressers even have a right to such places?
Where I live, the law protects the right of transpeople to use facilities congruent with how they present themselves. Ideally, there should be gender neutral facilities.


Well as a matter of fact I was hoping one I'd get some input on this from Revleft's transsexuals. I fully understand what you mean in the context of the present day. My question to you is, do you agree that a revolutionary society should discard gender?
I agree with what you said above, that "the revolution should foster an environment where there are no 'norms' of gender expression."

[Eagle_Syr]

In a Communist society, people will act as they damn well please. There will always be transfolk, as transgenderism is caused by the brain forming in one way and the body in another (as far as we know), and they will be provided for.


So you are saying there is a "female" brain and a "male" brain?

[wsg1991]

this gender thing , i don't want to think about a lot , hard stuff

three levels of Genders differentiation :
*chromosomes XX ( for women ) and XY ( for men )

* the type of Gonad ( testicles \ Ovaries)

* finally physiological and morphological structure
here real difficulties , some medical conditions , that affects Adrenal gland , can affects Progesterone and Androgen productions (enzyme problems )

so you have a Woman , that anatomically and morphologically look like a man , but has ovaries and external genital organs of women

what i am suppose to consider this person ??? , a man or a woman ?


EDIT , steroids levels affects human actions , persons that have higher levels of Androgen ( mostly men ) acts differently than people who has higher levels of estrogen
not to mention the consequence of such levels on muscles growth , which can also effects a person behavior , as he can rely on physical strength more often

[wsg1991]

So you are saying there is a "female" brain and a "male" brain?

there isn't , the fact that the same hormones produced by male brain affects Male gonad and Female gonads ( LH , FSH ) , no difference in molecule structure what's so ever

it's just a personal choice ,

[Eagle_Syr]

there isn't , the fact that the same hormones produced by male brain affects Male gonad and Female gonads ( LH , FSH ) , no difference in molecule structure what's so ever

it's just a personal choice ,

I'm simply referring to his particular statement.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

what i am suppose to consider this person ??? , a man or a woman ?
What do they consider themselves?

[wsg1991]

What do they consider themselves?
sorry i didn't get , if you mean i should consider them what they consider themselves , then that don't works , since that's not scientific to me

if you are asking what they consider themselves then
i don't know , they didn't mention that in my endocrinology class , and i didn't research it myself , because i tried to just ignore issue because it appeared to complicated and time consuming , and move on , then this thread popup

, but honestly i tend to think a lot about the stuff i study , like creating some philosophical shit out of plain physiology-endocrinology facts i have to memorize like a machine , and used on patients

this happened as well when i was reading neurophysiology , Histology , cardiology , and even human anatomy ...

i didn't fellow students sharing this thoughts so far

[Halleluhwah]

sorry i didn't get , if you mean i should consider them what they consider themselves , then that don't works , since that's not scientific to me

That's ridiculous. I guess you would perform a biopsy in order to determine whether somebody's an existentialist, or a hippie, or a misogynist?

[wsg1991]

That's ridiculous. I guess you would perform a biopsy in order to determine whether somebody's an existentialist, or a hippie, or a misogynist?

no , that's would need a psychological exams ( or just simple talking ), not biopsy

Gender in the other hand , can be defined by Biopsy , because of the difference between women and men Pelvis bones structure

i can rely on chromosomes to define a male and Female ( XX , XY )
on gonad and external genitals
on hormones level in active sexual phase
on morphology , certain appearance characteristics

in each case there is a contradictions

EDIT : you know what any person that don't fits this 4 criteria , is free define himself as he wishes , that's it that would be a good solution

[Zav]

So you are saying there is a "female" brain and a "male" brain?
I used the terms 'one and another' not 'one and the other', so as to not imply two. There is a spectrum of physical sex. The prevailing theory of the cause of transgenderism is that there is a disparity in the hormones involved in the formation of the brain and body in the womb. For instance more estrogen might go into the brain and more testosterone in the body.
From Wikipedia:

In the first of its kind, Zhou et al. (1995) found that in a region of the brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_terminalis) (BSTc), a region known for sex and anxiety responses (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anxiety_response&action=edit&redlink=1), MTF transsexuals have a female-normal size while FTM transsexuals have a male-normal size. While the transsexuals studied had taken hormones, this was accounted for by including non-transsexual male and female controls which, for a variety of medical reasons, had experienced hormone reversal. The controls still retained sizes typical for their gender. No relationship to sexual orientation was found.[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#cite_note-Zhou.2FGooren-19)
In a followup study, Kruijver et al. (2000) looked at the number of neurons in BSTc instead of volumes. They found the same results as Zhou et al. (1995), but with even more dramatic differences. One MTF subject who had never gone on hormones was also included, and who matched up with the female neuron counts nonetheless.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#cite_note-Kruijver-20)
In 2002, a followup study by Chung, De Vries, and Swaab found that significant sexual dimorphism (variation between sexes) in BSTc did not become established until adulthood. Chung et al. theorized that either changes in fetal hormone levels produce changes in BSTc synaptic density, neuronal activity, or neurochemical content which later lead to size and neuron count changes in BSTc, or that the size of BSTc is affected by the failure to generate a gender identity consistent with one's anatomic sex.[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#cite_note-21)
In a review of the evidence in 2006, Gooren confirms the earlier research as supporting the concept that transsexualism is a sexual differentiation disorder of the sex dimorphic brain.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#cite_note-22) Swaab (2004) concurs.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#cite_note-number11-23)
In 2008, a new region with properties similar to that of BSTc in regards to transsexualism was found by Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab: the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3), part of the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus. The same method of controlling for hormone usage was used as in Zhou et al. (1995) and Kruijver et al. (2000). The differences were even more pronounced than with BSTc; control males averaged 1.9 times the volume and 2.3 times the neurons as control females, yet once again, regardless of hormone exposure, MTF transsexuals lay within the female range and the FTM transsexual within the male range.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#cite_note-24)
While MRI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRI) images cannot resolve as fine details as structures such as BSTc and INAH3, they can much more easily allow the study of larger brain structures. In Luders et al. (2009), 24 MTF transsexuals not-yet treated with cross-sex hormones were studied via MRI. While regional gray matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_matter) concentrations were more similar to men than women, there was a significantly larger volume of gray matter in the right putamen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putamen) compared to men. As with many earlier studies, they concluded that transsexualism is associated with a distinct cerebral pattern.[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#cite_note-25)
An additional feature was studied in a group of FTM transsexuals who had not yet received cross-sex hormones: fractional anisotropy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_anisotropy) values for white matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_matter) in the medial and posterior parts of the right superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF), the forceps minor, and the corticospinal tract. Rametti et al. (2010) discovered that, "Compared to control females, FtM showed higher FA values in posterior part of the right SLF, the forceps minor and corticospinal tract. Compared to control males, FtM showed only lower FA values in the corticospinal tract."[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#cite_note-26)
Hulshoff Pol et al. (2006), studied the gross brain volume of subjects undergoing hormone treatment. They discovered that whole brain volume for subjects changes toward the size of the opposite reproductive sex during hormone treatment. The conclusion of the study was, "The findings suggest that, throughout life, gonadal hormones remain essential for maintaining aspects of sex-specific differences in the human brain."[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#cite_note-CSCB-27)





this gender thing , i don't want to think about a lot , hard stuff

three levels of Genders differentiation :
*chromosomes XX ( for women ) and XY ( for men )

* the type of Gonad ( testicles \ Ovaries)

* finally physiological and morphological structure
here real difficulties , some medical conditions , that affects Adrenal gland , can affects Progesterone and Androgen productions (enzyme problems )

so you have a Woman , that anatomically and morphologically look like a man , but has ovaries and external genital organs of women

what i am suppose to consider this person ??? , a man or a woman ?


EDIT , steroids levels affects human actions , persons that have higher levels of Androgen ( mostly men ) acts differently than people who has higher levels of estrogen
not to mention the consequence of such levels on muscles growth , which can also effects a person behavior , as he can rely on physical strength more often
Gender is not equivalent to sex, and neither are binary. You refer to a person as whatever gender (or not) they identify as.

[wsg1991]

and neither are binary ?

[Zav]

and neither are binary ?
They are spectra, not black and white. Sex has hyper-male and hyper-female on the ends and all sorts of gray area in the middle. Gender is actually at least four spectra wrapped up in one (gender identity, gender expression, gender identity strength, and gender rigidity). For instance my sex is less-than-averagely masculine male, I am agender (no gender identity), my gender expression is generally androgynous however I am a drag king or a drag queen from time to time, the strength of my agender identity is moderately strong, and my gender rigidity is solid as granite.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

sorry i didn't get , if you mean i should consider them what they consider themselves , then that don't works , since that's not scientific to me
So if someone presents as a particular gender, you're going to test their DNA or measure their pelvic bones before you call them a man or a woman? And if their DNA or pelvic bones reveal they were born a different physical sex, are you going to disrespect their identity?

[wsg1991]

They are spectra, not black and white. Sex has hyper-male and hyper-female on the ends and all sorts of gray area in the middle. Gender is actually at least four spectra wrapped up in one (gender identity, gender expression, gender identity strength, and gender rigidity). For instance my sex is less-than-averagely masculine male, I am agender (no gender identity), my gender expression is generally androgynous however I am a drag king or a drag queen from time to time, the strength of my agender identity is moderately strong, and my gender rigidity is solid as granite.

sorry behavior and what you consider yourself has little meaning as it can relates to simple psychological origins , plain life choices
it would be appreciated , if you bring back a quote similar to the first one about , (Embryological development ) \ physiological expressions

[wsg1991]

So if someone presents as a particular gender, you're going to test their DNA or measure their pelvic bones before you call them a man or a woman? And if their DNA or pelvic bones reveal they were born a different physical sex, are you going to disrespect their identity?

look this perhaps the wrong forum to discuss such matters , i respect whatever they consider themselves as a person

as a medical student , i just shared my thoughts about that , i am no Histology \ embryology specialist (and have poor grades anyway) ( thanks for that link seems legit ) , but i already know several problematic cases

[Zav]

sorry behavior and what you consider yourself has little meaning as it can relates to simple psychological origins , plain life choices
it would be appreciated , if you bring back a quote similar to the first one about , (Embryological development ) \ physiological expressions
Are you suggesting that I chose my lack of gender identity and I simply decided to like to act the way I do? That is incredibly transphobic. :mad:
We are talking about gender. I mentioned sex to differentiate it from gender. If you want to learn about intersex people and the various ways that happens, then here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex).

[Vorchev]

I'm pretty lost by most of your post as well, to be honest. I admit I'm totally ignorant regarding neuroscience. I can't comment on that. I am curious as to how radical feminists are emulating patriarchy, though. Could you explain what you mean?

Patriarchs usually get accused of authoritarianism, but on the other hand, radical feminists insist on empowerment rather than liberation, outcomes rather than opportunities.

I don't think it's anymore straightforward than that. What else is authoritarianism than judging according to power and outcomes?

[Eagle_Syr]

I used the terms 'one and another' not 'one and the other', so as to not imply two. There is a spectrum of physical sex. The prevailing theory of the cause of transgenderism is that there is a disparity in the hormones involved in the formation of the brain and body in the womb. For instance more estrogen might go into the brain and more testosterone in the body.


Nevertheless, you are suggesting that sexes are different from each other, at least in some way. Right?

Many comrades would disagree with you

[Positivist]

this gender thing , i don't want to think about a lot , hard stuff

three levels of Genders differentiation :
*chromosomes XX ( for women ) and XY ( for men )

* the type of Gonad ( testicles \ Ovaries)

* finally physiological and morphological structure
here real difficulties , some medical conditions , that affects Adrenal gland , can affects Progesterone and Androgen productions (enzyme problems )

so you have a Woman , that anatomically and morphologically look like a man , but has ovaries and external genital organs of women

what i am suppose to consider this person ??? , a man or a woman ?


EDIT , steroids levels affects human actions , persons that have higher levels of Androgen ( mostly men ) acts differently than people who has higher levels of estrogen
not to mention the consequence of such levels on muscles growth , which can also effects a person behavior , as he can rely on physical strength more often

Gender as it is being discussed here refers to the personality qualities, and customs associated with each physical gender, not merely the physical gender alone. The physical gender is developed during embryonic development, while the gender being referee to here is socially conditioned.

[Zav]

Nevertheless, you are suggesting that sexes are different from each other, at least in some way. Right?

Many comrades would disagree with you
Yes. There are minor physical and psychological differences between different sexes. Different hormones create different structures and chemical reactions. For instance males tend to have more muscle mass than females, females have wider pelvic bones and males wider shoulders, females have a higher average intelligence and males have a greater range of intelligence, males tend to be more aggressive, and so on. The differences are quite fluid, generalized, and irrelevant, but they exist. I am not saying that sexes are different and thus should be treated such.

Why would many comrades disagree with that? It's just the biological differences resulting from different hormone combinations during pregnancy. It's not like I'm saying a sex is above or below another. :confused:

[wsg1991]

Are you suggesting that I chose my lack of gender identity and I simply decided to like to act the way I do? That is incredibly transphobic. :mad:
We are talking about gender. I mentioned sex to differentiate it from gender. If you want to learn about intersex people and the various ways that happens, then here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex).

look my problem is purely medical \ hormonal , (sex)

so they are called intersex ? ok thanks , that's should solve it

as i said before this is the wrong forum to discuss it , so i am sorry if i offended you and let's just move on

[wsg1991]

during pregnancy.. :confused:

and after puberty
testicles removed kids
this was demonstrated by Chinese Eunuchs
don't develop any secondary male characteristics

[#FF0000]

Nevertheless, you are suggesting that sexes are different from each other, at least in some way. Right?

Many comrades would disagree with you

Literally nobody on the planet would disagree that there is a physical difference between men and women. Please stop the strawmen and this "many people say, some people say" weasel-word bullshit.

[Eagle_Syr]

Literally nobody on the planet would disagree that there is a physical difference between men and women. Please stop the strawmen and this "many people say, some people say" weasel-word bullshit.

No, he is suggesting that there is a neurological difference between men and women. It goes without saying that there is a physical difference.

[#FF0000]

Ohhh well even then, why is there that neurological difference is the important question -- I don't think it's necessarily an entirely genetic thing.

[Eagle_Syr]

Yes. There are minor physical and psychological differences between different sexes. Different hormones create different structures and chemical reactions. For instance males tend to have more muscle mass than females, females have wider pelvic bones and males wider shoulders, females have a higher average intelligence and males have a greater range of intelligence, males tend to be more aggressive, and so on. The differences are quite fluid, generalized, and irrelevant, but they exist. I am not saying that sexes are different and thus should be treated such.

Why would many comrades disagree with that? It's just the biological differences resulting from different hormone combinations during pregnancy. It's not like I'm saying a sex is above or below another.

And these differences impact behavior and identity, right? That is what you are suggesting. If they don't, then you are contradicting your previous comment about transexual people changing to what is "comfortable and right", to the "right body" (paraphrase).

Either there are no identity differences between the sexes and therefore no justification for transsexualism, or there are, and that reduces the legitimacy of feminism.

[#FF0000]

Either there are no identity differences between the sexes and therefore no justification for transsexualism, or there are, and that reduces the legitimacy of feminism.

1) Some feminists do say there is a distinct difference between the sexes/genders/whatever.
2) Why does someone have to "justify" being transgender?

[Eagle_Syr]

1) Some feminists do say there is a distinct difference between the sexes/genders/whatever.
2) Why does someone have to "justify" being transgender?

1) Okay
2) It doesn't make logical sense according to the idea that gender is socially constructed, and not only that, but to undergo the change is therefore re-enforcing the idea that there is indeed an identity difference between the sexes

[#FF0000]

2) It doesn't make logical sense according to the idea that gender is socially constructed, and not only that, but to undergo the change is therefore re-enforcing the idea that there is indeed an identity difference between the sexes

I think you're wrong on both accounts. Reassignment surgery is just that -- reassignment surgery. It's something someone chooses to undergo and has nothing to do with me, has nothing to do with anyone else, and doesn't hold any sort of meaning for anyone else.

An analogy: just because someone gets breast implants doesn't "reinforce" the idea that large breasts are particularly attractive.

[Eagle_Syr]

I think you're wrong on both accounts. Reassignment surgery is just that -- reassignment surgery. It's something someone chooses to undergo and has nothing to do with me, has nothing to do with anyone else, and doesn't hold any sort of meaning for anyone else.

An analogy: just because someone gets breast implants doesn't "reinforce" the idea that large breasts are particularly attractive.

Utter rubbish. No offense.

Nobody undergoes invasive surgery just for giggles.

[#FF0000]

Nobody undergoes invasive surgery just for giggles.

Good thing I didn't say that!

[#FF0000]

(Oh hey I was looking up some stuff and found a pretty baller article from Scientific American about a study some scientists did (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=girl-brain-boy-brain))

What's most interesting, I think, is that they didn't tie their study to sex, but to gender -- that is, they gave people a questionnaire to sort of "rate" their personalities on a masculine-feminine scale. They found their results were more closely tied to gender identity than physical sex, or something.

Either way, sort of seriously challenges the notion that differences between the brains of men and women are strictly biological -- though it doesn't prove it's all social, either.

[Zav]

And these differences impact behavior and identity, right? That is what you are suggesting. If they don't, then you are contradicting your previous comment about transexual people changing to what is "comfortable and right", to the "right body" (paraphrase).

Either there are no identity differences between the sexes and therefore no justification for transsexualism, or there are, and that reduces the legitimacy of feminism.
Yes, they do. Most people are cisgendered, meaning their gender identity corresponds with their body. If the chemical differences in the brain did not affect the gender identity, then how would that be possible? As for behavior, these chemicals are an influence. Males generally have more muscle mass and are more aggressive. This allows them to more easily get food and defend the tribe. As they have little role in creating children, this was the best way for the species to survive. Females lactate and are generally more passive. This is advantageous in rearing children. In pre-social groups and early societies, this dichotomy was necessary for survival as humans aren't exactly well-armored. It's how we've evolved as a species. Now we have socially evolved far beyond that and have no need for gender roles, but traces of this heritage are still found in us.

I'm a bit off today, and I can't think of the name of that fallacy, but in no way do transfolk illegitimize Feminism. That is quite absurd. The core idea of Feminism is that women should be treated the same way as men are. The concept of a person's brain's wiring not matching their body thus making the person have the need to change their body is supposed to controvert the concept that although women have different bodies than men they should have equal treatment as men how?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Either way, sort of seriously challenges the notion that differences between the brains of men and women are strictly biological -- though it doesn't prove it's all social, either.
I think gender and gender identity are very complex things. They're partly biological, partly social, and how those two factors interact is likely different for each person. I also think it likely that there are multiple causes of transgenderism or transsexuality.

[Jimmie Higgins]

2) It doesn't make logical sense according to the idea that gender is socially constructed, and not only that, but to undergo the change is therefore re-enforcing the idea that there is indeed an identity difference between the sexesIt makes perfect sense because social constructions still have real impacts on individuals. Race is a social construct and yet black people still get singled out in the US for oppression. So in the abstract, or objectively, race doesn't exist - in the context of our society, subjectively, it is a major factor in life.

Part of the way the ruling class enforces "gender" ideas is by oppressing and marginalizing people who don't fit into the "norm". Fighting for trans-rights doesn't reinforce socially constructed gender, it exposes it. But I think just generally we should support people to live how they want to live as long as it isn't directly hurting others.

[Eagle_Syr]

Good thing I didn't say that!
You basically did. You said they do/would still get these surgeries, not for any perceived benefit, but simply because they want to.




I'm a bit off today, and I can't think of the name of that fallacy, but in no way do transfolk illegitimize Feminism. That is quite absurd. The core idea of Feminism is that women should be treated the same way as men are. The concept of a person's brain's wiring not matching their body thus making the person have the need to change their body is supposed to controvert the concept that although women have different bodies than men they should have equal treatment as men how?
It indirectly illegitimizes some of the goals of feminism (the ones which want complete abolition of gender perceptions) because it suggests, contrary to those radical feminists, that there is indeed something innate about gender identity, tied to the physical body. If this is true, obviously gender is not simply a social construct and their aims are no longer legitimate. If this is false, there would be no transsexual people in a communist world, since nobody would ever feel "out of place" in their sex


It makes perfect sense because social constructions still have real impacts on individuals. Race is a social construct and yet black people still get singled out in the US for oppression. So in the abstract, or objectively, race doesn't exist - in the context of our society, subjectively, it is a major factor in life. Race is not just a social construct. Darwinian evolution explains the existence of races. That being said, the difference between the races is so minute as to be largely irrelevant (especially in this age of globalization). But race is an informative classification. Informative, by the way, is not subjective - an informative statement is one which reduces uncertainties about a particular thing. Race does this.



Part of the way the ruling class enforces "gender" ideas is by oppressing and marginalizing people who don't fit into the "norm". Fighting for trans-rights doesn't reinforce socially constructed gender, it exposes it. I agree, but I'm arguing about transsexual people in some future communist society, not today. According to your argument, they wouldn't exist. Which may well be the case, and so what.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It indirectly illegitimizes some of the goals of feminism (the ones which want complete abolition of gender perceptions) because it suggests, contrary to those radical feminists, that there is indeed something innate about gender identity, tied to the physical body.
Far from challenging gender, radical feminism advocates biological essentialism. To them, someone with XY DNA can never be a woman, end of story.

[#FF0000]

You basically did. You said they do/would still get these surgeries, not for any perceived benefit, but simply because they want to.

Yeah, because they want to doesn't mean "for fun", dogg.


It indirectly illegitimizes some of the goals of feminism (the ones which want complete abolition of gender perceptions)Gender roles, dogg. Gender roles.


because it suggests, contrary to those radical feminists, that there is indeed something innate about gender identity, tied to the physical body.Radical feminists are the biological essentialists, actually. Keep up.


If this is true, obviously gender is not simply a social construct and their aims are no longer legitimate.But gender is largely a social construct and there is compelling evidence towards that end.


If this is false, there would be no transsexual people in a communist world, since nobody would ever feel "out of place" in their sexHey, all the reason in the world can't change how someone feels. If someone is happier being a woman than they are being a man, or vice-versa, then why stop them?


Race is not just a social construct. Darwinian evolution explains the existence of races. That being said, the difference between the races is so minute as to be largely irrelevant (especially in this age of globalization). But race is an informative classification. Informative, by the way, is not subjective - an informative statement is one which reduces uncertainties about a particular thing. Race does this.
Dude, wrong. (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml) Scientists have been saying that race is totally useless as a taxonomical category for years now, man.

You keep trying to science, history, and anthropology and you fall flat on your face every step of the way. Stop.

Just because things sound good in your head doesn't mean they are true.

[Eagle_Syr]

Yeah, because they want to doesn't mean "for fun" Then why? If not for some perceived benefit, then just because?


Gender roles Gender perceptions of roles. Legally binding gender roles no longer exist in most countries.


Hey, all the reason in the world can't change how someone feels. If someone is happier being a woman than they are being a man, or vice-versa, then why stop them? Then it is irrational. Why empower irrational thoughts?


Scientists have been saying that race is totally useless as a taxonomical category for years now, man. Actually, dude, you are wrong. The different races didn't just appear out of thin air. It is absolutely correct that the differences are minute, but there are differences (it goes without saying that races look different, and different races may have different immunities, weaknesses, etc)


It is genuinely true that, if you measure the total variation in the human species and then partition it into a between-race component and a within-race component, the between-race component is a very small fraction of the total. Only a small admixture of extra variation distinguishes races from each other. That is all correct. What is not correct is the inference that race is therefore a meaningless concept... we can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations... but however small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance. "Informative" means something quite precise. An informative statement is one that tells you something you didn't know before. The information content of a statement is measured as reduction in prior uncertainty. If I tell you that Evelyn is male, you immediately know a whole lot of things about him... Your prior uncertainty about his ability to lift weights or excel at most sports is quantitatively reduced, but only quantitatively. Plenty of females can beat plenty of males at any sport, although the best males can normally beat the best females. Your ability to bet on Evelyn's running speed, say, or the power of his tennis serve, has been slightly raised by my telling you his sex, but it has not reached certainty.

Now to the question of race. If I tell you Suzy is Chinese, how much is your prior uncertainty reduced? You now are pretty certain that her hair is straight and black (or was black), that her eyes have an epicanthic fold, and one or two other things about her... It works the other way around to some extent. If I tell you Carl is an Olympic sprinting champion, your prior uncertainty about his "race" is, as a matter of statistical fact, reduced. Indeed, you can have a fairly confident bet that he is "black."

Suppose we took full-face photographs of 20 randomly chosen natives of each of the following countries: Japan, Uganda, Iceland, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea and Egypt. If we presented 120 people with all 120 photographs, my guess is that every single one of them would achieve 100 per cent success in sorting them into six different categories... yet an opposite prediction would seem to follow from his statement that racial classification has virtually no taxonomic or genetic significance.

- Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist at Oxford University
Taken from The Ancestors' Tale


You keep trying to science, history, and anthropology and you fall flat on your face every step of the way. Stop.
Says you.


Just because things sound good in your head doesn't mean they are true. I'd say the same for you. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true.

[#FF0000]

Then why? If not for some perceived benefit, then just because?

Obviously there is a perceived benefit, guy.


Gender perceptions of roles. Legally binding gender roles no longer exist in most countries.De facto sexism (as with de facto racism) are just as damaging, dude.


Then it is irrational. Why empower irrational thoughts?"I'm not happy being a man. I would rather be a woman".

What's irrational about that? Who cares? How does it hurt you in any way?


Actually, dude, you are wrong.Nope.


The different races didn't just appear out of thin air.Of course not. Different groups have slightly different genes and all that -- but nothing that makes them distinct enough to make them a whole new subset of "human".


It is absolutely correct that the differences are minute, but there are differences (it goes without saying that races look different, and different races may have different immunities, weaknesses, etc)
Yo, again, the differences aren't even constant. You should seriously read what the fuckin HUMAN GENOME PROJECT has to say about the human genome, m'boy.


- Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist at Oxford University
Taken from The Ancestors' TaleMan if you were scientifically literate you'd be kind of embarrassed here. Dawkins is saying here that race/ethnicity just tells you a little about one's phenotype -- and that's all. Out where I am there are these shells called coquinas that come in all sorts of different colors -- but a red coquina and a grey-blue coquina are still both part of the same group. "Red" or "Blue" is literally nothing but a physical description.

Plus I also have to kind of disagree with Dawkins on that last sentence of his, which is actually demonstrably false. I remember there was a test with a bunch of people's faces where a person was supposed to decide which person belonged to which ethnicity, and it was nigh impossible to get anywhere close to a perfect score. So, yeah. Dawkins isn't really a guy whose opinion I put much stock in.

EDIT: It also doesn't help that what constitutes a "race" or ethnicity is already hella fluid. A lot of outsiders make the mistake of acting like Africa is one big ol' continent with one huge shared culture, and that "black" adequately covers everyone with black skin -- which is demonstrably false. If you go to Africa, you'll find different groups, different tribes, different ethnicities. Shit, there are a lot of black people who aren't even from Africa. And the same goes for Chinese -- there are a ton of different ways to group people up under the umbrella of Chinese. Same goes for European, even!


Says you. Nope. You think that race is a hard-and-fast taxonomical category, you're totally ignorant of how society has changed through the ages, etc. etc. etc.


I'd say the same for you. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true.Hey I've been providing sources every once in awhile for the things I say. Meanwhile you're sitting here saying dumbness that is absolutely dumbfounding to anyone who is remotely informed.

[Eagle_Syr]

Obviously there is a perceived benefit And what do you imagine the perceived benefits of sex reassignment or breast implants are? Hint: identity and aesthetics


De facto sexism (as with de facto racism) are just as damaging The problem is your definition of sexism isn't my definition of sexism. If I believe a woman ought to be a good mother, I'm sexist, in your view.


"I'm not happy being a man. I would rather be a woman".
What's irrational about that? Who cares? How does it hurt you in any way?
It is irrational because, according to you, nobody should identify with the other sex because there is nothing to identify with. If they do, it's a remnant of bourgeois culture and therefore shouldn't be allowed.



Of course not. Different groups have slightly different genes and all that -- but nothing that makes them distinct enough to make them a whole new subset of "human".
I never said they were a completely different subset of human. Go back and quote me on that one.

I said race is an informative classification.


Man if you were scientifically literate you'd be kind of embarrassed here. Dawkins is saying here that race/ethnicity just tells you a little about one's phenotype Precisely what I was saying. Go back and quote me where I was saying different races are different subsets of human

Out where I am there are these shells called coquinas that come in all sorts of different colors -- but a red coquina and a grey-blue coquina are still both part of the same group. "Red" or "Blue" is literally nothing but a physical description.
And the phenotypic differences between the races are relatively concrete and therefore informative.



Nope. You think that race is a hard-and-fast taxonomical category No, I don't. Quote me. I said race is an informative classification, regarding one's geographical background, appearance, and other possible things (for example, the Olympic athlete).

[Agent Ducky]

The problem is your definition of sexism isn't my definition of sexism. If I believe a woman ought to be a good mother, I'm sexist, in your view.

That's because you are. You don't get to tell women what they "ought to be." You don't get to impose your patriarchal gender roles on them. You don't.
You are not fucking entitled to define what women "ought" to do. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Drosophila]

The problem is your definition of sexism isn't my definition of sexism. If I believe a woman ought to be a good mother, I'm sexist, in your view.

No, a parent ought to be a good parent. It shouldn't matter what their gender is.

[Eagle_Syr]

That's because you are. You don't get to tell women what they "ought to be." You don't get to impose your patriarchal gender roles on them. You don't.
You are not fucking entitled to define what women "ought" to do. Why is this so hard to understand?

Society does this all the time. With men, women, workers, and it will always do this.

The reason people can talk about what others ought to do is because there are moral standards in the world, and in society

[#FF0000]

And what do you imagine the perceived benefits of sex reassignment or breast implants are? Hint: identity and aesthetics

Yup.


The problem is your definition of sexism isn't my definition of sexism. If I believe a woman ought to be a good mother, I'm sexist, in your view.

Nope.


It is irrational because, according to you, nobody should identify with the other sex because there is nothing to identify with.

Yup and nope. I don't think what is called "masculine" or "feminine" have much to do with biological sex at all. But there's nothing irrational about undergoing a sex change if someone wants to be a woman or a man.


If they do, it's a remnant of bourgeois culture and therefore shouldn't be allowed.

Nope.


I said race is an informative classification.

Except that's barely true because what separates races can't be strictly defined.


And the phenotypic differences between the races are relatively concrete and therefore informative.

Nah, not as concrete as you'd think. Saying someone is "black" doesn't tell you a whole lot beyond the melanin content of their skin. Saying someone is "asian" might only tell you that they have epicanthic folds. It doesn't really tell one a whole lot.

But that's all moot because literally nothing you are saying clashes with the statement that "race is a social construct".

[Eagle_Syr]

Yup. Now you are contradicting yourself


Yup and nope. I don't think what is called "masculine" or "feminine" have much to do with biological sex at all. But there's nothing irrational about undergoing a sex change if someone wants to be a woman or a man.
So you're saying the physical body doesn't impact gender identity, but there's nothing irrational with people wanting to change that physical body for the sake of gender identity.

Perfectly rational.


Except that's barely true because what separates races can't be strictly defined.

Barely true is true nonetheless.
And you're right and wrong on that one.


Nah, not as concrete as you'd think. Saying someone is "black" doesn't tell you a whole lot beyond the melanin content of their skin. Saying someone is "asian" might only tell you that they have epicanthic folds. It doesn't really tell one a whole lot. That's a whole lot right there: phenotypic differences.


But that's all moot because literally nothing you are saying clashes with the statement that "race is a social construct".

Race as something on the census is a social construct. But the fact that there are differences (e.g. the phenotypic differences) between races is not a "social construct". Obviously they exist.

[#FF0000]

Now you are contradicting yourself

Nope. If someone wants to be a woman because it makes them feel more -- idk -- self-actualized, more like "themselves", then who cares whatever go ahead and do it.


So you're saying the physical body doesn't impact gender identity, but there's nothing irrational with people wanting to change that physical body for the sake of gender identity.

Perfectly rational.

Yeah I'm basically saying it's none of my fucking business and also at the same time it's a little bit of me conceding that gender is complicated.



Barely true is true nonetheless.
And you're right and wrong on that one.

Nah, barely true because it only works in some cases. Other times you're completely off. Remember that race isn't solid at all and you can ask a bunch of different people and get dozens of different assessments on race.

Basically it's useless for anything beyond some hella basic and crude description of someone.


That's a whole lot right there: phenotypic differences.

Except that people all over Asia, Africa, and Europe look very fuckin' different despite being the same 'race'.


Race as something on the census is a social construct. But the fact that there are differences (e.g. the phenotypic differences) between races is not a "social construct". Obviously they exist.

No one is saying people don't look different. Just that race is 1) ambiguous with no objective basis, and 2) literally skin deep.

[Ostrinski]

Counting down the minutes til CotR

[Agent Ducky]

Society does this all the time. With men, women, workers, and it will always do this.

The reason people can talk about what others ought to do is because there are moral standards in the world, and in society

Does society doing something make it okay? If society discriminates against homosexuals, does that make it okay? I'm not saying all social norms are bad (unlike the strawman you keep using), I'm just saying that you shouldn't get to be the one to decide what women ought to do regarding parenthood. It is up to every individual and not society to decide whether or not they want to be parents. Just because society holds a certain view doesn't mean you have to espouse it, and then if someone challenges it, tell them that they basically don't believe in social norms. We could do without a lot of current social norms, including the family structure as it is. It doesn't need to be that way. It's an individual choice if you want to structure your family traditionally, but, like others have said, that structure isn't necessarily always ideal or necessary.

[Agent Ducky]

Counting down the minutes til CotR

We really need CotR up in here.

[Comrade1]

"The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the sacred edict of the party on the defense of women's rights."

-- Enver Hoxha, 1967

[Eagle_Syr]

Does society doing something make it okay? Nope

I'm not saying all social norms are bad (unlike the strawman you keep using), I'm just saying that you shouldn't get to be the one to decide what women ought to do regarding parenthood. Right. The woman herself should decide. I imagine most would choose to be mothers, however. But whatever floats your boat.

It is up to every individual and not society to decide whether or not they want to be parents. Just because society holds a certain view doesn't mean you have to espouse it, and then if someone challenges it, tell them that they basically don't believe in social norms. But you are challenging the entirety of the human condition. This goes beyond capitalism.

We could do without a lot of current social norms, including the family structure as it is. I rather like the family structure as it is.

It doesn't need to be that way. It's an individual choice if you want to structure your family traditionally, but, like others have said, that structure isn't necessarily always ideal or necessary.
Let's just agree that you can do what you want and I'll do what I want. And I'm still going to visit strip clubs and admire women in magazines and all that good stuff.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I rather like the family structure as it is.
The family structure "as it is", is a bourgeois formulation of family. So an avowed communist is saying he prefers bourgeois social values.

This is a phenomenon I've seen before, and it continues to puzzle me. When it comes to women, some men who espouse revolutionary politics hold some surprisingly conservative views.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And I'm still going to visit strip clubs and admire women in magazines and all that good stuff.
Treating women like pieces of meat. How communist. :rolleyes:

[Eagle_Syr]

The family structure "as it is", is a bourgeois formulation of family. So an avowed communist is saying he prefers bourgeois social values.

This is a phenomenon I've seen before, and it continues to puzzle me. When it comes to women, some men who espouse revolutionary politics hold some surprisingly conservative views.

What's bourgeois about having a father and a mother loving their children in a decent family?

I don't believe in the whole communal family living where we all share kids and rooms crap. That's for mormons.

[Eagle_Syr]

Treating women like pieces of meat. How communist.

It's not. Women can go to male strip clubs.

Can't control the fact that I am a sexual being.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What's bourgeois about having a father and a mother loving their children in a decent family?
I'm simply pointing out that the family as it exists now is a bourgeois family structure. You seem to think children can only be loved in a heterosexual nuclear family, which is both bourgeois and homophobic.


I don't believe in the whole communal family living where we all share kids and rooms crap. That's for mormons.
Communalism is crap. Uh huh. Dude, your head is so full of bourgeois ideology.

[Halleluhwah]

I thought you didn't care what anybody else did as long as they didn't force you into it. Now, you're defining a 'decent family' as a mother and a father with children.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's not. Women can go to male strip clubs.
That's not the same thing. There isn't a long social history of misogyny behind that.


Can't control the fact that I am a sexual being.
You can't help being attracted to women, no, but you can help how you treat women.

[Eagle_Syr]

I'm simply pointing out that the family as it exists now is a bourgeois family structure. You seem to think children can only be loved in a heterosexual nuclear family, which is both bourgeois and homophobic. No, I am saying that is what I prefer.

Communalism is crap. Uh huh. Dude, your head is so full of bourgeois ideology. Traditional families existed in the USSR, too.


I thought you didn't care what anybody else did as long as they didn't force you into it. Now, you're defining a 'decent family' as a mother and a father with children.
In my view, yes. It's my view. You can do what you want.

That's not the same thing. There isn't a long social history of misogyny behind that. Okay. But I don't go there to "practice misogyny", and women can go to male strip clubs for the same reason I go to female ones.

You can't help being attracted to women, no, but you can help how you treat women.
I treat women very well.

[Halleluhwah]

Would you say then that a family with two fathers or two mothers is not decent?

[Eagle_Syr]

Would you say then that a family with two fathers or two mothers is not decent?

It's not my place to say. Children grow up in non-normal (and yes, the above would be by definition non-normal) circumstances all the time and if the parents are competent I honestly don't care.

Like I said, it's not my place to say and it won't ever apply to me, so I don't really think about it.

[Agent Ducky]

Nope

But you are challenging the entirety of the human condition. This goes beyond capitalism.

How am I challenging the entirety of human condition? Where did I do this?



I rather like the family structure as it is.

That's cool for you, bro, but it's not your decision how people structure their family.


I'm still going to visit strip clubs and admire women in magazines and all that good stuff.
Thank you for sharing that vital piece of information, dude. :rolleyes:

[Eagle_Syr]

That's cool for you, bro, but it's not your decision how people structure their family. Agreed. I'll worry about myself.


Thank you for sharing that vital piece of information, dude.

No problem. Hopefully you won't be banning those things anytime soon.

[Halleluhwah]

Why are you so convinced that the bourgeois family structure is going to remain dominant in a communist society? Suggesting that it's the only way for somebody to be raised with love is not that different from asking "without wage-labor, how will anything get done?"

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Okay. But I don't go there to "practice misogyny"
If you think women's bodies are commodities, then you're practicing misogyny.

[Eagle_Syr]

Why are you so convinced that the bourgeois family structure is going to remain dominant in a communist society? Suggesting that it's the only way for somebody to be raised with love is not that different from asking "without wage-labor, how will anything get done?"
It might not.

First of all stop calling it the "bourgeois family structure". Also, like I said, it might not, and I don't care, because I'll choose how to live my particular life and it will be with the "bourgeois family structure".


If you think women's bodies are commodities, then you're practicing misogyny.

I agree. Good thing that's not what I'm doing.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I agree. Good thing that's not what I'm doing.
You're frequenting a bourgeois business that does that. So, yes, you are part of it.

[Halleluhwah]

It might not.

First of all stop calling it the "bourgeois family structure". Also, like I said, it might not, and I don't care, because I'll choose how to live my particular life and it will be with the "bourgeois family structure".

Why should I stop calling it that? Your tendency is given as 'Marxist-Leninist' so I would think you would favor a historical materialist approach. Even in the fucking 19th century, Marx was writing about the slavery latent in the family. The division of labor in the family is the basis for private property and class society. In the freaking Communist Manifesto, probably the one work of his that almost everybody has read, he discusses family relations in capitalist society. Though I don't think the base-superstructure model, as it's often used by vulgar marxists, is sufficient, I find it laughable that you think the family is some exception to the general rule that social conventions are conditioned by material realities. Apparently, the family as it exists in capitalist nations is actually an eternal platonic form, which is why it's exactly the same in every culture throughout history. :rolleyes:

[Eagle_Syr]

You're frequenting a bourgeois business that does that. So, yes, you are part of it. It'll be better in a communist society where nobody profits from it, I agree.


Why should I stop calling it that? Your tendency is given as 'Marxist-Leninist' so I would think you would favor a historical materialist approach. Even in the fucking 19th century, Marx was writing about the slavery latent in the family. The division of labor in the family is the basis for private property and class society. In the freaking Communist Manifesto, probably the one work of his that almost everybody has read, he discusses family relations in capitalist society. Though I don't think the base-superstructure model, as it's often used by vulgar marxists, is sufficient, I find it laughable that you think the family is some exception to the general rule that social conventions are conditioned by material realities. Apparently, the family as it exists in capitalist nations is actually an eternal platonic form, which is why it's exactly the same in every culture throughout history.
Whatever. It's the structure I like and I want. What's your problem with that?