Transgender teen commits suicide, cites Christian parents in blog

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

After years of abuse and rejection from strict Christian parents, an Ohio transgender teen commits suicide by stepping in front of a moving tractor trailer truck.

Leelah Alcorn, also known as Joshua Alcorn, was struck and killed by a passing semitrailer on southbound Interstate 71 in Union Township Sunday morning. The tragic event appears not to have been an accident, but a suicide.

On her blog at Tumblr, Leelah left a poignant suicide note, detailing a life of pain and rejection, a life dominated by Christian parents who refused to understand, or simply could not understand, that their precious child was a female trapped in the body of a male.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/12/transgender-teen-commits-suicide-cites-christian-parents-in-blog/

RIP.

[Zoroaster]

Poor kid. It's a shame that the parents didn't accept who she was.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's a shame parents value archaic superstition over their children.

[RedWorker]

Christianity - Monkey see monkey do

[QueerVanguard]

It's a shame parents value archaic superstition over their children.

It's a shame we have "parents" period, let alone the notion of them driving "their" kids to suicide with their bourgeois idiocy. It's shit like this that really makes me wonder why so many of our r-r-r-r-revolutionary Communist parties today are scared shitless of arguing against the family unit.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's a shame we have "parents" period, let alone the notion of them driving "their" kids to suicide with their bourgeois idiocy. It's shit like this that really makes me wonder why so many of our r-r-r-r-revolutionary Communist parties today are scared shitless of arguing against the family unit.

Pretty much this.

I think many people in the comments section of that article - apart from the usual trolls and scumfucks - are assuming that everything would have been fine if only the parents of this girl used their parental authority in the "right" manner.

Well, in this case it might have been - at least the girl might have still been alive, and that is not something that can be ignored. But at the same time, this illustrates the general problems with the family. At least I hope we can agree that the opinions of transgender people on things like pronouns, sex reassignment etc. are more relevant than those of their parents or other "rightful guardians".

(There is more to be said on the topic, concerning choices besides that of gender, but that might be material for another topic.)

[Thirsty Crow]

It's a shame we have "parents" period, let alone the notion of them driving "their" kids to suicide with their bourgeois idiocy. It's shit like this that really makes me wonder why so many of our r-r-r-r-revolutionary Communist parties today are scared shitless of arguing against the family unit.
I don't think anyone can meaningfully talk about abolishing parenting even within the context of arguing for the abolition of the family.

And the latter is problematic not for obvious reasons. First, any talk of it would necessarily imply that abolishing the family is a programmatic goal with concrete proposed measures. But I hope not one communist movement would ramble about tearing down apartment buildings and rebuilding them for purposes of communal living as an immediate measure.

Which means that the abolition of the family isn't a programmatic point at all, at least not on the eve of revolution; it is reasonable to assume a fundamental transformation of communal living and parenting, but ranting about the abolition of the family is more often than not empty phrasemongering. Not to mention the simple anthropological fact that parenting as an activity cannot be abolished.

In the meantime, it makes little sense to rant about the family as such when it comes to tragic events like this one; it doesn't make sense because there are primary causes which can be addressed without resorting to this much broader, and vague argument.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think anyone can meaningfully talk about abolishing parenting even within the context of arguing for the abolition of the family.

And the latter is problematic not for obvious reasons. First, any talk of it would necessarily imply that abolishing the family is a programmatic goal with concrete proposed measures. But I hope not one communist movement would ramble about tearing down apartment buildings and rebuilding them for purposes of communal living as an immediate measure.

Which means that the abolition of the family isn't a programmatic point at all, at least not on the eve of revolution; it is reasonable to assume a fundamental transformation of communal living and parenting, but ranting about the abolition of the family is more often than not empty phrasemongering. Not to mention the simple anthropological fact that parenting as an activity cannot be abolished.

In the meantime, it makes little sense to rant about the family as such when it comes to tragic events like this one; it doesn't make sense because there are primary causes which can be addressed without resorting to this much broader, and vague argument.

This is bad, to be honest.

The simple anthropological fact is that parenting is a fairly recent phenomenon in the development of human society. For most of its existence, the human race has lived in societies where children were raised communally.

And yes, the abolition of the family is a concrete programmatic measure; it means communal laundries, creches, it means the destruction of any kind of parental authority by the revolutionary power, it means the complete liberation of gay and trans* people, free abortion on demand etc.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's a shame we have "parents" period, let alone the notion of them driving "their" kids to suicide with their bourgeois idiocy. It's shit like this that really makes me wonder why so many of our r-r-r-r-revolutionary Communist parties today are scared shitless of arguing against the family unit.
Well, yes, but the abolition of the family unit requires a revolution, so in the epoch we live in, where such a revolution has yet to occur, I'll settle for parents valuing their children more than superstition while I also fight for such a revolution.

[QueerVanguard]

And the latter is problematic not for obvious reasons. First, any talk of it would necessarily imply that abolishing the family is a programmatic goal with concrete proposed measures. But I hope not one communist movement would ramble about tearing down apartment buildings and rebuilding them for purposes of communal living as an immediate measure.

Which means that the abolition of the family isn't a programmatic point at all, at least not on the eve of revolution; it is reasonable to assume a fundamental transformation of communal living and parenting, but ranting about the abolition of the family is more often than not empty phrasemongering. Not to mention the simple anthropological fact that parenting as an activity cannot be abolished.

In the meantime, it makes little sense to rant about the family as such when it comes to tragic events like this one; it doesn't make sense because there are primary causes which can be addressed without resorting to this much broader, and vague argument.

It is a programmtic goal, or at least it should be. 870 already listed many of them but I'll add a couple more: the abolition of marriage and active promotion of non-monogamous sexual relations in public education institutions. And please don't give me this idealist shit about the anthropological record and how "parenting is human nature cuz Peven Stinker said so", I'm a dialectical materialist so I ain't buying it and anyone else who considers themselves a Marxist shouldn't either.

The sad reality is that the many Communist grouplets around the world are almost exclusively headed by heterosexual, cis, lilly white men who, whether they admit it or not, are culturally conservative goons. This is a crisis of leadership to the nth degree. They want Communism but they don't have the basic sense to understand that communal property can't exist along side a conservative culture, that the latter has to be abolished or Communism won't last more than a couple years. Its sad to see how effective their views have become that, with the exception of a couple other members of this board, I'm a lone voice in bringing these issues up and I'm routinely attacked for doing so.

[Sasha]

Her mum posted a facebook message that "their son" was "killed in an accident" and was "in heaven now".
Complete denial until (past) the bitter end. So sad.

[Tim Cornelis]

QueerVanguard is regularly attacked over lack of substance, abrasiveness, and dogmatism. (Rejecting possible evidence that contradicts 'dialectical materialism' not because the evidence is flawed but because it contradicts dialectical materialism).

Also, ironically voluntarism. Communism will somehow not last for a couple of years because some communists hold conservative opinions, hmm.

[Sabot Cat]

I wish Leelah could've lived in a better world or household, making more art (http://lazerprincess.tumblr.com/tagged/my-art) and finding better people to be in her life. She's one of too many people killed by bigotry.

All I could think when I read her note was, besides how terrible it is, was that these sound like my words. I thought everything was getting worse. I thought I was going to either be "live the rest of my life as a lonely man who wishes he were a woman or I live my life as a lonelier woman who hates herself" like she did. I wrote almost exactly the same thing down in my journal... If I were to commit suicide, I was going to release something on social media in hopes of doing something with my death... Just... This could have been me. This could be me, in the future. It's chilling and sad...

The only reason that I didn't kill myself is dumb luck. I randomly met my girlfriend on a chat site, and through her constant support and love these past three years I've been able to conceive of a future that I wouldn't rather kill myself than live to see.

[QueerVanguard]

QueerVanguard is regularly attacked over lack of substance, abrasiveness, and dogmatism. (Rejecting possible evidence that contradicts 'dialectical materialism' not because the evidence is flawed but because it contradicts dialectical materialism).

Because this so-called "evidence" is nothing more than standard empiricist hogshit which confuses form for essence. This is Marxism 101 stuff, not very complicated.


Also, ironically voluntarism. Communism will somehow not last for a couple of years because some communists hold conservative opinions, hmm.

Hold the phone, asswipe. I'm the last person someone could consider a "voluntarist". I'm about as materialist as they come. It's you people who claim to be materialists yet can't handle the implications of what that means. And Communists are supposed to represent the most advance layers of the proletariat, and that goes double for the the vanguard. We are supposed to embody the the very beginnings of what Communism is practice will look like, or at least understand what needs to be done to achieve it. But instead of the most oppressed layers of society being in leadership positions we see the opposite: straight, cis, white males who, of course, cling to conservative cultural views, whether they realize it or not. I submit to you that this is why the working class struggle is not progressing: a major fucking crisis of leadership. My point was that if, somehow, these pudgy turds succeeded in gaining power somewhere and tried nationalizing property or whatever the fuck they think making Socialism entails, it wouldn't last because their conservative thinking would truncate the process. You can't have communal ownership co-existing along side heteronormative gender relations and conservative family relations, I don't give a shit what some National Bolshevist or Stalinist shitbird wrote 50 years ago.

[BIXX]

I submit to you that this is why the working class struggle is not progressing: a major fucking crisis of leadership.

this view perpetuates the view that the anger of oppressed people needs to be channeled through leadership, something that i would argue perpetuates the white, male, cis, hetero, bourgeois etc view of oppressed people as weak and needing guidance.

[RedAnarchist]

The sickos at the Daily Mail are pretending to be sad about her death - this is the same paper that helped harass a transwoman to her death a few years ago.

[consuming negativity]

The sickos at the Daily Mail are pretending to be sad about her death - this is the same paper that helped harass a transwoman to her death a few years ago.

link/details? :ohmy:

[Sabot Cat]

link/details? :ohmy:

I got you covered. Depressing shit... :(

[* (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/22/lucy-meadows-press-harassment)* (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/28/lucy-meadows-coroner-press-shame)* (http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2013/03/trans-woman-commits-suicide-after-being-bullied-by-the-daily-mail/)]

[QueerVanguard]

this view perpetuates the view that the anger of oppressed people needs to be channeled through leadership, something that i would argue perpetuates the white, male, cis, hetero, bourgeois etc view of oppressed people as weak and needing guidance.

You got it ass backwards, but that's not surprising coming from a self declared Stirnerite "egoist". My view is that the most oppressed sections of society should be the vanguard, that they have the strength and ability to lead. No one said any shit about being "weak", being oppressed is a structural issue. Put down the Stirner and pick up the Marx, it'll do you some good.

[BIXX]

You got it ass backwards, but that's not surprising coming from a self declared Stirnerite "egoist". My view is that the most oppressed sections of society should be the vanguard, that they have the strength and ability to lead. No one said any shit about being "weak", being oppressed is a structural issue. Put down the Stirner and pick up the Marx, it'll do you some good.

What you're proposing is the representation of oppressed folks, which assumes they cannot act for themselves. You think queers, racial minorities, women, and poor people are weak. Its OK to admit it. Just fuck off afterward.

A leadership assumes the weakness of those being led. And some of those being led will be queer/poc/poor folks/women. You are assuming those people are weak.

Also I'm not an egoist really.

[QueerVanguard]

What you're proposing is the representation of oppressed folks, which assumes they cannot act for themselves. You think queers, racial minorities, women, and poor people are weak. Its OK to admit it. Just fuck off afterward.

Wrong, dipshit. I'm a Leninist so I believe a vanguard is inevitable because class consciousness doesn't develop in completely equal proportions across an entire population, Marx was of the same view. I know admitting this makes anarchists shit their pants, but leaders are a necessity in revolutions as a consequence of this fact. Who those leaders are is important, and this is where Trotsky comes in. Wrong leaders = failure. The leaders have to come from the most oppressed layers of the working class (and lumpenprol class, I would argue) because only these people know the many dimensions of bourgeois oppression and thus know what the solutions are. Communist parties today aren't practicing this, which is why I refuse to join these dead-end turds.


A leadership assumes the weakness of those being led. And some of those being led will be queer/poc/poor folks/women. You are assuming those people are weak.

No, I'm assuming the *strength* of these very people, which is why they need to be the leaders. In a revolutionary context the white, cis, heternormative males are the ones in a position of weakness because what they experience of Capitalism is far superior to what we do.

Not that any of this matters to you. Revolutions, to you, are these things that go on in your head, maaaan. Go back to the new age bookstore and leave these discussions of revolution to those of us who understand class struggle and can offer a meaningful contribution.


Also I'm not an egoist really.

No, you're just a confused little snowflake.

[Sabot Cat]

RevLeft: Where any thread, on any topic, can degenerate into sectarian bickering.

[Zoroaster]

Only on RevLeft could a thread about a transgendered teen committing suicidie over being rejected become sidelined by a stupid argument about communism and the family.

[RedAnarchist]

Stop the sectarian bickering, please, this is a thread about a young woman who killed herself because her own parents couldn't accept her.

[Ravn]

I don't think anyone can meaningfully talk about abolishing parenting even within the context of arguing for the abolition of the family.

There are real grounds to challenge & oppose the bourgeois patriarchal notion of family & the bourgeois patriarchal notion of parenting in particular. Definitely. But nobody can abolish parenting because it's necessary for our species.




But I hope not one communist movement would ramble about tearing down apartment buildings and rebuilding them for purposes of communal living as an immediate measure.

Well, "communal living" is an agenda independent of the *real* need to tear down substandard housing units dilapidated beyond repair. The latter has to be immediately done.




...the abolition of the family isn't a programmatic point at all, at least not on the eve of revolution; it is reasonable to assume a fundamental transformation of communal living and parenting, but ranting about the abolition of the family is more often than not empty phrasemongering. Not to mention the simple anthropological fact that parenting as an activity cannot be abolished.

The real issue here is that a kind of parenting needs to be abolished, that is, the abusive kind. The kind where children's rights are being violated. (& real issues should be brought up on the eve of the revolution. Real issues & crisies are what drives people towards revolution in the first place.) You can't dismissively say it's empty phrase-mongering to bring up these issues nor assume it's just some utopian notion.

[Lanfear]

Terrible terrible shame. Hopefully one day soon her parents will realise what the have lost

[Thirsty Crow]

This is bad, to be honest.

The simple anthropological fact is that parenting is a fairly recent phenomenon in the development of human society. For most of its existence, the human race has lived in societies where children were raised communally.It's bad that you're not familiar with the use of that particular word in English, and misuse it to create a straw man argument.

Simply put, communal raising is parenting. One historically specific form of it.


And yes, the abolition of the family is a concrete programmatic measure; it means communal laundries, creches, it means the destruction of any kind of parental authority by the revolutionary power, it means the complete liberation of gay and trans* people, free abortion on demand etc.

I'm supposed to take these vague pronouncements as "programmatic"? Apart from communal services like you mention (which indeed was a programmatic point, for good reason), what is left is just what I stated. Empty phrasemongering, for the simple reason that "destructionb of any kind of parental authority" is completely vague. On the other hand, practical revolutionary program demands specificity.

EDIT:



The real issue here is that a kind of parenting needs to be abolished, that is, the abusive kind. The kind where children's rights are being violated. (& real issues should be brought up on the eve of the revolution. Real issues & crisies are what drives people towards revolution in the first place.) You can't dismissively say it's empty phrase-mongering to bring up these issues nor assume it's just some utopian notion.

Well, can't say anything other than - I agree, in part at least. Though, I didn't state that it's empty phrasemongering to bring up these issues, and neither did I assume it's an "utopian notion". What is empty phrasemongering is decoupling any concern over current and specific causes of such a tragedy, as a first step, and handing out fiery rhetoric about the abolition of the family as panacea as the second step. And ass I said, I think it is reasonable to assume fundamental shifts in child raising, so the point about alleged assumption of it all being an utopian notion doesn't stand.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think the problem goes way beyond the concept of the family and of parenting even in this specific tragedy and is a result of social factors in general where the abolition of the family in favor of communal upbringing would not have been any solution.

If you read her feed and her last note there is ample indicators that her family being absent would not have led to a significant altering of the fact that she was isolated, rejected and could not get the help she wanted and needed. In other words...if the community is reactionary is fuck...the abolition of the family really doesn't matter.

And while it may seem a bit cold...the expansion of the argument towards the nature of family, upbringing, community etc. and the impact they may have on psychological and emotional development is extremely valid in this specific case and in this thread....given the fact that they were instrumental in impacting the decisions of this woman.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's bad that you're not familiar with the use of that particular word in English, and misuse it to create a straw man argument.

Simply put, communal raising is parenting. One historically specific form of it.

The thing is, I am familiar with the use of the term 'parenting' in English. And 'parenting' is not used the same way as 'rearing' or 'raising'; the latter, for example, takes place in orphanages, but not the former. 'Parenting' implies, at least, individualised reproductive and household labour (also when we talk about 'alloparenting' in certain animal species); to talk about the collective institutions of the socialist society, or the primitive communal raising of children, as 'parenting' does violence to the real differences between these institutions.


I'm supposed to take these vague pronouncements as "programmatic"? Apart from communal services like you mention (which indeed was a programmatic point, for good reason), what is left is just what I stated. Empty phrasemongering, for the simple reason that "destructionb of any kind of parental authority" is completely vague. On the other hand, practical revolutionary program demands specificity.

I mean, you can criticise me for not writing an essay explaining every term I use in detail. But what would be the point? I'm not writing the programme of the revolutionary workers' party; I am commenting on a site where a certain modicum of tacit understanding is assumed (and it's not as if I pulled these demands out of nowhere; all of them are actual demands that have been raised). And, to be honest, I don't see you writing essays either, even when you mention concepts such as socialisation, which sometimes confuse people who are new to socialism (particularly since social-democratic pond scum likes to use the term 'socialisation' for their petty cooperative schemes; hell, even the PFR used the term).

The abolition of parental authority is, I would think, a fairly easy concept to grasp. Parental authority is based on the legal protection afforded to coercive actions by parents toward children; not only would such protection not exist in the transitional period, all of the legal forms by which the family is perpetuated would be abolished, from marriage to the right of parents to dispose of "their" children's possessions, to inheritance etc.

What prompted my "this is bad" comment is not so much the fact that we disagree, but the obvious impulse to defend the family, on the grounds that it is 'natural', 'unavoidable' etc. etc. - that such things can be read on the alleged "home of the revolutionary left" is something that never ceases to amaze me.


Only on RevLeft could a thread about a transgendered teen committing suicidie over being rejected become sidelined by a stupid argument about communism and the family.

Well, think about it.

I think it's unfortunate that Leelah died. I would say I'm sad, but I didn't personally know her. As someone who has known trans* people who have killed themselves, I'm angry.

That, however, is besides the point. Expressing our emotions is fine, but this is not Non-political; it is a thread on the main, political area of a site for revolutionary socialists. As such, it is quite understandable that some of us are trying to analyse this through the lens of Marxist theory.

And it needs to be done. I understand people being angry and sad. I'm angry myself. But if we leave it at that, or on the well-meaning but ultimately meaningless sentiment like "if only her parents had loved her", our understanding of these issues hasn't moved forward one bit.


I think the problem goes way beyond the concept of the family and of parenting even in this specific tragedy and is a result of social factors in general where the abolition of the family in favor of communal upbringing would not have been any solution.

If you read her feed and her last note there is ample indicators that her family being absent would not have led to a significant altering of the fact that she was isolated, rejected and could not get the help she wanted and needed. In other words...if the community is reactionary is fuck...the abolition of the family really doesn't matter.

But the argument is not that Leelah being in some form of boarding school or something like that would have helped.

The family is the real material mechanism by which the proletariat is reproduced as a class of dispossessed direct producers in capitalism. It ensures the biological reproduction of the human beings who are going to sell their labour, through the individual reproductive and household labour of women; it also ensures the social reproduction of the proletariat by poverty and inheritance, and the socialisation of children into good workers. As such, the family is also the real material basis for the oppression of homosexuals, transsexuals and others who threaten the rigid gender and particularly maternal roles that are necessary for the family. A society that had abolished the family by abolishing capitalism would not - could not - be transphobic, then. The material basis for the systematic violence that is transphobia would be gone. In fact gender would be gone as well.

And yes, reactionary, bourgeois attitudes on these matters are widespread, with unfortunate results for people like Leelah. But in transforming society, the proletariat changes itself - and eradicates all of the remnants of the old society. Which is not to say that trans* people should just shut up and wait for the revolution - you know I find that sentiment highly offensive - but that only the revolution can provide a lasting, systemic solution to the problem of transphobia. In the meantime, the things we can do are limited. We can propagandise and we can build institutions of solidarity etc. - and we should - but these will not solve the problem.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Terrible terrible shame. Hopefully one day soon her parents will realise what the have lost
It could happen. A few years ago, I read about a homophobic woman whose gay son committed suicide, and it forced her to rethink things and now she's an advocate for LGBT people. Though I think that's an unusual case. From what I've read, Leelah's parents continue to refer to her as a boy and are going to bury her under her birth name.