Attempted suicide rates amongst trans-people.

[Schumpeter]

According to a NTDS study (USA) transequality.org/PDFs/NTDSReportonHealth_final.pdf

"A staggering 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general
population, with unemployment, low income, and sexual and physical assault raising the risk factors
significantly"

Another source citing the same figure: livescience.com/11208-high-suicide-risk-prejudice-plague-transgender-people.html
Whilst no casual link has been proven, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that discrimination towards trans-people is a significant contributing factor to
these results.

So I ask, what do you think should be done? I say this as a concerned British outsider, I'm unaware about the situation regarding the status of trans folk in the UK, though I doubt it is markedly different.

[Sabot Cat]

Aside from abolishing capitalism: Prohibiting discrimination by employers on the basis of gender affiliation in conjunction with assigned sex would be a good place to start, as would having the state financially cover medical treatments associated with mitigating gender dysphoria, and permitting people to change their gender on any legal document.

[Schumpeter]

Aside from abolishing capitalism: Prohibiting discrimination by employers on the basis of gender affiliation in conjunction with assigned sex would be a good place to start, as would having the state financially cover medical treatments associated with mitigating gender dysphoria, and permitting people to change their gender on any legal document.

Abolishing capitalism? Stop using this tragedy to make a cheap political point, have you no dignity? Apartheid south Africa, Jim Crow laws, there is no reason to believe that centralising our economy, concentrating the power into a select bureaucratic establishment would be any better. Imagine if the BNP (national socialist, watered down nazis) got into power.

Would you argue that gender dysphoria is a need? Not a want and thus for those on low incomes, treatment should be subsidized?

[Sabot Cat]

First of all: I'm a trans girl myself who has dealt with suicidal feelings, Schumpeter, so I don't really need to be lectured by you about it. Most of these problems wouldn't exist outside of a capitalist mode of production.

Secondly: I don't want to centralize our economy or concentrate it in a bureaucracy. That's why I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist. Your examples are irrelevant.

Also, using the U.S. South as an argument against centralization is hilarious, even though I don't support it. If the federal government wouldn't have left, the amount of people of color represented there wouldn't have leveled off and all of the other horrendous things that occurred afterwards.

Thirdly: Yes, it is a need. What happened to your sympathy for us expressed in your first few sentences? Was it only so you could show indignation towards me?

[Schumpeter]

First of all: I'm a trans girl myself who has dealt with suicidal feelings, Schumpeter, so I don't really need to be lectured by you about it. Most of these problems wouldn't exist outside of a capitalist mode of production.

Secondly: I don't want to centralize our economy or concentrate it in a bureaucracy. That's why I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist. Your examples are irrelevant.

Also, using the U.S. South as an argument against centralization is hilarious, even though I don't support it. If the federal government wouldn't have left, the amount of people of color represented there wouldn't have leveled off and all of the other horrendous things that occurred afterwards.

Thirdly: Yes, it is a need. What happened to your sympathy for us expressed in your first few sentences? Was it only so you could show indignation towards me?

I don't care about YOU i care about your ARGUMENT stop making this personal. Would you walk into a doctors surgery with cancer and insist that the doctor that treated you, also had cancer? No and you shouldn't denounce my argument merely based on who I am, you wouldn't like it if I denounced your argument based on you being trans or some other arbitrary factor, so do not adopt this evil and practice it.

You were hardly explicit about it.

I'm not saying that activities of the government were all bad,not at all, government legislation along with changing attitudes in society both make clear progress in the strive for (and continued) for equality. But you cannot deny that government is merely a collection of individuals who can also be racist, transphobic so taking things into state control (im assuming this is what you are referring to when you say abolish capitalism - you'll have to be more specific) could worsen the problem.

Why is it a need? I'm unfamiliar with transsexual and eager to know more, so go ahead and make your case. Asking this question doesn't revoke my initial sympathy, I'm not sure why you'd think that it would?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I suppose we're on the same page here at least, this is really tragic. I'm aware of the discrimination trans people face and I assumed that there must be serious effects but it's pretty harrowing to see the statistics laid out in front of you. On the other hand, I think you might have missed Red Rose's point a little. As you might possibly have guessed, one of the core ideas of communism is obviously the final end of injustice, discrimination and inequality and thus the advent of equality - in that respect what Red Rose said makes sense, I think. I certainly don't think anyone was (or probably will) argue that "centralising our economy, concentrating the power into a select bureaucratic establishment" will help end this discrimination and its consequences for a number of reasons.

Though back on topic I suppose yes, I do think that gender dysphoria is a need - but I don't personally know enough about it to really go into any details.

[Sabot Cat]

I don't care about YOU i care about your ARGUMENT stop making this personal. Would you walk into a doctors surgery with cancer and insist that the doctor that treated you, also had cancer? No and you shouldn't denounce my argument merely based on who I am, you wouldn't like it if I denounced your argument based on you being trans or some other arbitrary factor, so do not adopt this evil and practice it.

You were invoking feelings of indignation and inappropriateness on my own behalf as a trans girl, which I thought was an incredibly egregious error. Anyway, I think abolishing capitalism and the state are necessary steps to mitigating the power of prejudice in the lives of trans people, as the authorities who can have that power over us economically or politically would be removed in a communist society.


You were hardly explicit about it.


So you're telling me I should have been explicit about being trans, while stating that it's ultimately irrelevant? Or are you describing my opposition to the government? If the latter, I'll elaborate.


I'm not saying that activities of the government were all bad,not at all, government legislation along with changing attitudes in society both make clear progress in the strive for (and continued) for equality. But you cannot deny that government is merely a collection of individuals who can also be racist, transphobic so taking things into state control (im assuming this is what you are referring to when you say abolish capitalism - you'll have to be more specific) could worsen the problem.

Workers' direct control, through industrial union, self-managed businesses, communes, councils, etc. is essentially what I'm calling for, not state control.


Why is it a need? I'm unfamiliar with transsexual and eager to know more, so go ahead and make your case. Asking this question doesn't revoke my initial sympathy, I'm not sure why you'd think that it would?

Well, look at the statistics you cited at the beginning of this thread. These are just the amount of people who attempted suicide and were trans and didn't complete it as planned. What about all of the trans people who died because of suicide?

[Ele'ill]

so why do so many people opposed to capitalism treat transgender folks like shit outsiders

[Schumpeter]

You were invoking feelings of indignation and inappropriateness on my own behalf as a trans girl, which I thought was an incredibly egregious error. Anyway, I think abolishing capitalism and the state are necessary steps to mitigating the power of prejudice in the lives of trans people, as the authorities who can have that power over us economically or politically would be removed in a communist society.

You don't bother saying why..

So you're telling me I should have been explicit about being trans, while stating that it's ultimately irrelevant? Or are you describing my opposition to the government? If the latter, I'll elaborate.

No, I was referring to your anycro-syndicalism, you were not specific in what you said you would replace capitalism with. I don't care about you being trans at all, perhaps I have an unconscious bias IDK, I doubt it as I don't think I'd even have any qualms with dating a trans girl, so if you play your cards right ;)

Workers' direct control, through industrial union, self-managed businesses, communes, councils, etc. is essentially what I'm calling for, not state control.

That doesn't just magically happen.. you need the state. Its also impractical but we've already debated this


Well, look at the statistics you cited at the beginning of this thread. These are just the amount of people who attempted suicide and were trans and didn't complete it as planned. What about all of the trans people who died because of suicide?

Good point.

[Sabot Cat]

You don't bother saying why..


If there were no rulers or capitalists, who could directly subjugate me in a power structure as they can now by determining my material conditions?


No, I was referring to your anycro-syndicalism, you were not specific in what you said you would replace capitalism with. I don't care about you being trans at all, perhaps I have an unconscious bias IDK, I doubt it as I don't think I'd even have any qualms with dating a trans girl, so if you play your cards right


I'm glad you're not a transphobe, and I'm not sure how to respond to this, but I already have a girlfriend.


That doesn't just magically happen.. you need the state. Its also impractical but we've already debated this


You need a well-armed force, sure. That doesn't necessarily have to be a state.


Good point.

Thanks.

[Schumpeter]

If there were no rulers or capitalists, who could directly subjugate me in a power structure as they can now by determining my material conditions?



I already have a girlfriend, thanks.



You need a well-armed force, sure. That doesn't necessarily have to be a state.


Thanks.

You need some sort of hierarchy otherwise how do you organize anything? Also you determine your own material conditions to a large extent, work hard and pursue a career that will contribute to society and your job will pay well.

I was kidding.

Bonkers. There would be anarchy, people would just take what they want in the name of the revolution, like the youth communist groups in China, they would just knock on your door and take what they wanted in the name of the revolution.

[Sinister Intents]

You need some sort of hierarchy otherwise how do you organize anything? Also you determine your own material conditions to a large extent, work hard and pursue a career that will contribute to society and your job will pay well.

I was kidding.

Bonkers. There would be anarchy, people would just take what they want in the name of the revolution, like the youth communist groups in China, they would just knock on your door and take what they wanted in the name of the revolution.

Hierarchy is a very unnecesary thing, Hierarchy is not organization at all it is class rule. Work hard and you'll reap benefits under capitalism? What a load of bullshit. I've worked very fucking hard under capitalism and if anything I'm more poor than I was when I joined this fucking business I'm under. Anarchy? You obviously have the wrong view of anarchy. I don't know anything of the history of the Chinese revolution, but I don't see this being real in any future revolution because China didn't have the material conditions necesary for socialism.

[Schumpeter]

Hierarchy is a very unnecesary thing, Hierarchy is not organization at all it is class rule. Work hard and you'll reap benefits under capitalism? What a load of bullshit. I've worked very fucking hard under capitalism and if anything I'm more poor than I was when I joined this fucking business I'm under. Anarchy? You obviously have the wrong view of anarchy. I don't know anything of the history of the Chinese revolution, but I don't see this being real in any future revolution because China didn't have the material conditions necesary for socialism.

I didn't mean class hierachy or unequal opportunity I merely meant a chain of command.

I'm happy to see you argue that socialism cannot be applied to feudal nations, there would be anarchy if you let people assume control over their employers as everyone would shit on everyone else to get the biggest shate of the pie, it would be chaotic as hell.

[Sabot Cat]

You need some sort of hierarchy otherwise how do you organize anything? Also you determine your own material conditions to a large extent, work hard and pursue a career that will contribute to society and your job will pay well.

Actually, if you can tell from the survey you quoted, employment and pay for trans people doesn't really deviate much by the amount of education. Also, in order to make money, you need to have money. The people who start with the most are at a greater advantage.

Furthermore, there's a difference between hierarchies and infrastructure. An egalitarian society could have say, elected officials, but it wouldn't have unaccountable authorities.


I was kidding.


Oh. Ha ha.


Bonkers. There would be anarchy, people would just take what they want in the name of the revolution, like the youth communist groups in China, they would just knock on your door and take what they wanted in the name of the revolution.

They were the state, in that instance, and benefited from a lack of universal arms. Now, if all of the proletariat had weaponry...

[Sea]

I didn't mean class hierachy or unequal opportunity I merely meant a chain of command.

I'm happy to see you argue that socialism cannot be applied to feudal nations, there would be anarchy if you let people assume control over their employers as everyone would shit on everyone else to get the biggest shate of the pie, it would be chaotic as hell.
And what does this have to do with with suicide rates?

[Schumpeter]

And what does this have to do with with suicide rates?

Morning, it was a rebuttal to one of her arguments.

[Art Vandelay]

so why do so many people opposed to capitalism treat transgender folks like shit outsiders

Has that been your experience Mari3L? I can only cite experiences within my own organization, but I've never seen that. When I was in the states for the campaigns recently, I worked with one trans woman in particular, who was a highly productive and respected member of our group. I realize this isolated experience can't be generalized and I guess I shouldn't be surprised given all the fucked up/sexist culture that exists within the left.

[Oenomaus]

so why do so many people opposed to capitalism treat transgender folks like shit outsiders

Well, first of all one can be opposed to capitalism, or at least to something perceived as capitalism, from the right as well as from the left. Certain organisations on "the left" are fairly notorious for not distinguishing between these two sorts of "anti-capitalism". More generally, simple opposition to capitalism doesn't free someone from the grasp of bourgeois ideology - only serious political struggle can do that. And the notion of a revolutionary change of social relations is also attractive, unfortunately, to moralists and puritans, the petite bourgeoisie who can't sleep at night for fear that someone is living their life wrong. Transgender people are naturally offensive to these prudes, for reasons that range from the openly reactionary ("workers should be square-jawed macho Stakhanovites") to the "progressive" ("trans people are sick/confused/men who are trying to 'infiltrate' women's spaces" and so on).

Populism is also an enduring problem in "left" organisations; the notion that workers will obtain class consciousness by being tricked into supporting - or simply voting for! - the "party" or "league" in question. Most of these organisations have a very poor grasp of what the working class is, as well - that it's not all muscular straight cis-male iron workers.

Also, in most western countries, open gay-baiting is no longer popular - although some groups still try, bless them - so trans people are the most convenient punching bag.


Abolishing capitalism? Stop using this tragedy to make a cheap political point, have you no dignity? Apartheid south Africa, Jim Crow laws, there is no reason to believe that centralising our economy, concentrating the power into a select bureaucratic establishment would be any better. Imagine if the BNP (national socialist, watered down nazis) got into power.

Jim Crow laws were enacted after the southern states reverted to local, "decentralised" rule, and the highly centralised military governments supported by the industrial bourgeoisie of the North had been abolished. The BNP are about as "socialist" as Nixon - I mean, if you think "socialism" means "government intervention" then you're talking past everyone on this site.

But yeah, states can be fairly bad. In fact communists aim to smash the present bourgeois states and their apparatus. But this doesn't mean that the state form is in itself transphobic etc. - that would be a completely ahistorical, supra-class reading of the facts. The chief question is what class is in power. The proletariat has no need of transphobia - in fact trans* people are overwhelmingly part of the proletariat, and any division between trans* and cis* people hurts the proletariat as a whole. Whereas capitalism, in horrifying decline for decades, needs to use every weapon in its ideological and repressive arsenal to divide the proletariat - transphobia, homophobia, racism - and to shore up the bourgeois family unit, in order to ameliorate the decline in the rate of profit somewhat through greater exploitation of the workers.

Sure, both a bourgeois state and a workers' state are, well, states, but then again a doctor and an axe murderer both use sharp instruments.


Workers' direct control, through industrial union, self-managed businesses, communes, councils, etc. is essentially what I'm calling for, not state control.

And how would the "self-managed" businesses exchange goods and services? As far as I can tell the only options are coordination through a central public authority - i.e. "centralism" (why is that such a bogeyman? people tend to fetishise "decentralisation" without stopping and thinking about what it entails) - or market mechanisms, i.e. a system of small commodity production that would inevitably give birth to a new bourgeoisie. The latter option precludes solving the problem of transphobia - whose presence in bourgeois society is not some historical accident - even if we ignore the difference between the class-in-itself and -for-itself (not every cis* worker will have moved beyond animosity to tans* individuals, unfortunately).


I don't care about you being trans at all, perhaps I have an unconscious bias IDK, I doubt it as I don't think I'd even have any qualms with dating a trans girl, so if you play your cards right ;)

Who you date is besides the point; I have known homophobes who could fuck other men. The question is simple - do you support all democratic rights for trans* people? If you do, great. But they can't all be won under capitalism.


I didn't mean class hierachy or unequal opportunity I merely meant a chain of command.

"Chains of command" would presumably exist in any communist society complex enough to require public officials - but the difference is that the coercive public power will no longer be a special body of armed men distinct from the general population, and that the government over men (including pressure to conform to idiotic gender roles) will have been replaced by the administration of things (allocating resources, organising distribution etc. etc.).

[Comrade #138672]

So, Schumpeter is a reactionary transphobic capitalist apologist. Good thing he is restricted. His posts are just too awful to read. Maybe he is a troll.

[Decolonize The Left]

I didn't mean class hierachy or unequal opportunity I merely meant a chain of command.

I'm happy to see you argue that socialism cannot be applied to feudal nations, there would be anarchy if you let people assume control over their employers as everyone would shit on everyone else to get the biggest shate of the pie, it would be chaotic as hell.

Sounds like capitalism to me...

[Sabot Cat]

And how would the "self-managed" businesses exchange goods and services? As far as I can tell the only options are coordination through a central public authority - i.e. "centralism" (why is that such a bogeyman? people tend to fetishise "decentralisation" without stopping and thinking about what it entails) - or market mechanisms, i.e. a system of small commodity production that would inevitably give birth to a new bourgeoisie. The latter option precludes solving the problem of transphobia - whose presence in bourgeois society is not some historical accident - even if we ignore the difference between the class-in-itself and -for-itself (not every cis* worker will have moved beyond animosity to tans* individuals, unfortunately).

They could meet in a large democratic assembly of recallable delegates from each industrial union/commune/local council/workers' autonomous economic entity/etc. with voting power proportional to their (exclusive) membership, mutable by an initiative on behalf of those that they represent to have a referendum on the matter. This way, we can narrowly avoid all of the problems of centralization (loss of representation) with all of the benefits.

The distribution of resources would then be determined on a local basis by the requests of the people that live within each community, who would then submit their production needs to the larger democratic assembly that could then negotiate with the available workforce to give their requests to the various cities/regions. Needs can be prioritized ahead of wants in this manner. Individuals would be entitled to these goods and services on the basis of the amount, quality and type of labor they give (that is, through labor vouchers), if they are able to give any at all.

This would effectively eliminate a market; it doesn't have to be this way specifically, as there are other ways one could structure this kind of society. However, this is the best solution I've come across to the problem. I wouldn't describe the above as "state control" because there is no external state acting on the behalf of the people. There is just the workers, the people, who are in direct control.

[Oenomaus]

They could meet in a large democratic assembly of recallable delegates from each industrial union/commune/local council/workers' autonomous economic entity/etc. with voting power proportional to their (exclusive) membership, mutable by an initiative on behalf of those that they represent to have a referendum on the matter. This way, we can narrowly avoid all of the problems of centralization (loss of representation) with all of the benefits.

The distribution of resources would then be determined on a local basis by the requests of the people that live within each community, who would then submit their production needs to the larger democratic assembly that could then negotiate with the available workforce to give their requests to the various cities/regions. Needs can be prioritized ahead of wants in this manner. Individuals would be entitled to these goods and services on the basis of the amount, quality and type of labor they give (that is, through labor vouchers), if they are able to give any at all.

This would effectively eliminate a market; it doesn't have to be this way specifically, as there are other ways one could structure this kind of society. However, this is the best solution I've come across to the problem. I wouldn't describe the above as "state control" because there is no external state acting on the behalf of the people. There is just the workers, the people, who are in direct control.

If the distribution of goods is decided at the central level, that is centralism. The nature of the central level is another question entirely - power can be centralised in an elected soviet, a congress of soviets, an organ of the party etc. (obviously it can also be centralised in the various ministries and parliaments that make up the system of bourgeois dictatorship).

Negotiations with the labour force, on the other hand, are essentially a market mechanism. Here a small group of workers has asserted itself as the owners of the means of production employed by a particular economic entity, and are selling "their" products in exchange for favours from the public authorities - that would be a very odd monopsony, assuming direct negotiation (buying and selling, really) between "autonomous" enterprises is prohibited, but not socialism.

Workers' control over the means of production entails the proletariat, organised as a class-for-itself, exercising class control over the means of production in general, not workers becoming small shareholders.

[Sabot Cat]

Er, no, because the goods and services won't be produced in the way requested without a majority of the proletariat assembled as an aggregate being in favor of it. Also, nothing is being sold, and I'm not sure if you read what I wrote or if I failed to describe it very well.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

I feel like someone ought to really explain explain socialism to Schumpeter, I get the feeling he simply doesn't understand some of our point or doesn't know about some of our more commonly held opinions and this leads to him saying redundant things.

[Oenomaus]

Er, no, because the goods and services won't be produced in the way requested without a majority of the proletariat assembled as an aggregate being in favor of it. Also, nothing is being sold, and I'm not sure if you read what I wrote or if I failed to describe it very well.

Alright, so let us assume that this council or however you wish to call it has decided that three tonnes of indigo dye are to be produced in the next year in some region. They negotiate with the Indigo Dye Plantation #54. What does that mean?

First of all it means that the plantation workers, as a unit, have a right to refuse the work necessary to complete the plans agreed upon at the central level. This means they have leverage - they can extract concessions from the centre. Perhaps they want certain services or facilities near the plantation. Perhaps they want the amount of socially useful labour required to produce one unit of indigo reassessed (these assessments will inevitably require guesswork and administrative fiat). In any case they are extracting concessions from the centre in return for products - they are selling them.

[Ele'ill]

Has that been your experience Mari3L? I can only cite experiences within my own organization, but I've never seen that. When I was in the states for the campaigns recently, I worked with one trans woman in particular, who was a highly productive and respected member of our group. I realize this isolated experience can't be generalized and I guess I shouldn't be surprised given all the fucked up/sexist culture that exists within the left.

yeah I think sexism and transphobia is a big thing, I also think the approach to mental health is non-existent or severely crippled. I think this is the case within typical labor organizing of course but also within radical organizing and discussion and within radical spaces. It makes me hate that word marriage radical-spaces because it sounds like it's a safe haven like its a breath of fresh oxygen into your blood and it isn't. I know some folks have had a lot of good times healing and participating through that avenue but I have not. Maybe I'm the odd one though. I think a lot of radical spaces do a good job offering solidarity and shelter (kind of) from things like police repression and adverse living situations, evictions. It's just that I've experienced and quite a few people I am friends with have experienced alienation.

[audiored]

Aside from abolishing capitalism: Prohibiting discrimination by employers on the basis of gender affiliation in conjunction with assigned sex would be a good place to start, as would having the state financially cover medical treatments associated with mitigating gender dysphoria, and permitting people to change their gender on any legal document.

Employment nondiscrimination laws have little positive affect on their own especially for working class queers, queers of color, etc

Davis, M., & Wertz, K. (2012). When Laws Are Not Enough: A Study of the Economic Health of Transgender People and the Need for a Multidisciplinary Approach to Economic Justice. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 8(2), 3.

It is difficult to envision what gender and sexuality would look like post-capitalism. Looking at history and contemporary experiences, both seem highly fluid. In the mean time trans struggles are just like those everyone else is engaged in: struggles in the work place, struggles over immigration, struggles over housing, struggles for health care and education. So the as far as "what should be done" is building community and the development of solutions and possibilities through struggle, dialogue, and learning.

The left in general (and particularly online) has a lot of issues with gender and sexuality (and race). At best it is ignored and this is this presumed veil of "acceptance" at worse there is a lot of heterosexism and misogyny. There is a lot of work to be done on that front. But in the absence of collective struggle among the working class there are few opportunities to engage in learning and build camaraderie.