Essay:The LGBT Question, Answered

This will be a long essay likely. Also the chapters will likely change as the essay is written.

Preamble

The LGBT Question involves answering many aspects. This includes sex, sexuality, and gender. Many Marxists and so-called 'Marxists' have tried to answer this question utilising the tools of science. However the correct application to the scientific method requires a concrete understanding of Materialist Dialectics. This essay serves not only to understand LGBT people from a dialectical perspective, but also serves as a critique to the 'marxists' (in other words: revisionists, reactionaries) who claim the LGBT people are either idealist, or do not align with the dialectical framework.

This has been pushed by several 'marxists' including the 'marxists' on TERF Island This is pushed to the extent that criticism stems from outright denial of gender, espousing it as 'Gender Ideology', to as low as 'supporting' the transgender movement, whilst outright denying other aspects of the LGBT people.

This is a reactionary position, especially with so-called Patriotic 'socialists' who aim to deny the LGBT movement all together and consider it as a cornerstone of the CIA. But is that true? Would it be more nuanced than this? Only evidence can disclose the truth, and thus before we consider LGBT people, we must understand what is metaphysical and what is dialectical.

Metaphysics and Dialectics

If you understand anything about dialectics from either the article or even a 101 overview, you must understand that dialectics presupposes change. With metaphysics however, everything is contained with one aspect, and that aspect cannot fundamentally change. Let us look at it from a metaphysical point of view. There is an item, it could be any item possible, let us say '1'. We understand the idea of '1' from its utilisation in mathematics. We could increment 1 (or add 1) to make 2. However metaphysics states that 1 remains the same. 2 also remains the same. It retains its purity, in other words, no other aspect or form of nuance would ever change this '1'.

Applying this 'scientifically' (this is actually pseudo-science), let's say in biology, organisms can be classified into Plants, Animals, or Fungi (or more). That there is no exception to these, and it retains its exact mechanisms which are pure. Sure, both Plants and Animals have a respiratory system, but this doesn't necessarily contradict the idea of metaphysics. Right?

Unfortunately this is where metaphysics falls apart. Under any scientific, mathematical or even general concepts, examples of purity aren't generally found. For example in science, phytoplankton can eat animals (the opposite of how it is done) and microzooplankton, which are classified as 'animals', can also utilise photosynthesis, a characteristic typical in plants. Are these plankton both animals and plants? If we say so, this only blurs the lines between purity and distinct characteristics between one form and another. Thus we cannot state metaphysics is scientifically correct. What about mathematics? Well even though maths is seen to be more rigid, we cannot state maths is more pure. Maths is based on assumptions (or axioms), but it does not mean those axioms are consistent or complete, as proven by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Decision Problem by Alan Turing. For simplicity, it means that the rules we have in mathematics, are not pure either.

Can the laws of dialectics help the scientific or mathematical field? It can. Lenin for example in the 'Unity of Opposites' that positive or negative cancel each other. Same with derivative and integral within calculus. This helps the mathematical field far more, as dialectics describes the relationship between two or more forms, rather than assuming that each form is isolated. Let's look back at phytoplankton. Whilst the classification is obscure and irrelevant, the phytoplankton presents itself as a valuable food source. So it presents itself contradictions between nature as its creator, but also with other lifeforms such as types of fish.

This helps us understand that the nature runs of dialectics. Metaphysics would give us not an incomplete view, but it would also hold back our understanding of the world. However, a metaphysicist may claim that the phytoplankton is an exception or anything as such. However this is only said to continue their stupid idea that metaphysics is the ideal philosophy for people. I do not like the term exception and will refrain from using it as you will see later. With the existence of exceptions, it means the model that the metaphysicist proposes with their views, is not rigid. The idea of nuance, which the metaphysicist tries to comprehend, is completely foreign to the metaphysicist. Hence what Mao said:

"Idealism and metaphysics are the easiest things in the world, because people can talk as much nonsense as they like without basing it on objective reality or having it tested against reality. Materialism and dialectics, on the other hand, need effort. They must be based on and tested by objective reality. Unless one makes the effort one is liable to slip into idealism and metaphysics."

Now why did I introduce a tangent into dialectics and metaphysics? Well this is important as 'marxists' fundamentally misuse dialectics to suit their own needs, in actuality the 'marxists' should call themselves mechanical or metaphysical materialists. This is also important as a refresher as the rest of this essay will utilise dialectical analysis as it is a necessary process to understand LGBT people from a dialectical viewpoint. However, it is important to state that regardless of dialectics, No matter what form the person presents to be, you should support them as long as they do not harm others. In other words, they are valid.

Sexual Orientation

Sexual Orientation (also known as Sexuality) is an aspect that must be considered. Usually 'marxists' are apathetic to sexual orientation and assume it is natural, but regardless, it is necessary to analyse this process. Apart from heterosexuality, there are 2+ forms of sexual orientation: Homosexuality and Bisexuality. There is also Pansexuality, Asexuality, which will also be considered but the main forms is either Homosexuality and Bisexuality. There is also heterosexual queer people, but this typically applies to people who has a gender which is not the same as the gender assigned at birth.

What causes someone's sexuality to be heterosexual, homosexual or any other sexual orientation is still a matter of discussion as of writing this essay. For example, there is a false hypothesis which states that there may be a 'gay gene' present in homosexuals which allows them to be attracted towards people of the same gender, however this is proven to be false. Regardless, sexual orientation exists, and is a material thing. But is it dialectical? Sexual orientation is caused by an attraction towards a particular sex or gender. One of the ways that sexual orientation is through love of a particular person and some characteristics towards the person, such as how the person presents themselves (their gender expression), genitalia that is present (their sex, more on that later), how the person acts etc. So how do we translate this through dialectics?

Let's start off with a person without a partner... They typically want to fulfill a need that they want a partner, at least at some point in their lives. This is the first negation, in as such they begin or want the search for a partner. The 2nd negation is finding a partner that fulfills the person's needs towards the sexual orientation. This may sound simple, however we are assuming two things. One, that every person has a sexual orientation. And two, the sexual orientation remains static, which is far from the case.

Even with the person who present a firm affirmation of their sexual orientation, it can gradually change or not. Yes, the change is typically negligible, but it means applying a metaphysical approach would be insufficient. It does not mean every person is bisexual, as this defeats the purpose of sexual orientation, but rather overtime the person may change and their sexual orientation would be drastically different, through means of quantitative and qualitative change. This is typically the case with people whose sexual orientation has been hidden as due to society, or they are questioning their own sexuality and/or gender. Even people who claim to be heterosexual have found themselves to engaging in homosexual media. For example Republicans in the United States are often caught to be engaging in homosexual behaviour. Also we should consider asexual people. Asexuals do not have a liking for anything sexual. However asexuals typically will engage in a romantic relationship whether that would be homosexual, heterosexual, etc. Their sexual orientation fulfills a different need compared to anyone who is heterosexual or homosexual, as it would only involve romantic interests. Whilst sexual orientation for a homosexual would consider not only romantic interests, but also sexual interests. However there is the case for aromantic people as well. Aromantic people (also Aromantic Asexual people or Aroace), do not have a sexual orientation. This means the model we presented before also is inadequate to accommodate those people.

So how do we address this? Sexual orientation is a complex phenomena, so implementing such model would either exclude people or be too complicated to utilise. Sexual orientation varies between person to person, thus it is hard to analyse it in concrete detail. However, we can conclude that metaphysical analyses of sexual orientation is simply not compatible given the fractal nature of sexual orientation. Especially if we consider no one is 100% Homosexual, nor is someone 100% Heterosexual, or what other sexual orientation is present (Note that I am excluding a lot of other sexual orientations).

To explain this, let's take a look at a concept that we haven't touched much on. Love. Love is another complex phenomena and it doesn't just manifest in romantic relationships. It manifests in family relationships, friendly relationships, etc. Love is needed as a survival trait. However love can manifest in different way, which is how sexual orientation can manifest. To analyse sexual orientation, love must be analysed, as a variety of different factors matter, including general appearance, personality, etc. This is why LGBT people typically state "Love is love", as the sexual attraction towards one sex/gender is only one core aspect to which a person loves another. However this has been misused multiple times by more anti-LGBT groups as to suggest that the LGBT people support the likes of pedophilia or zoophilia, both groups which are not part of the LGBT people, as it is not sexual orientation that presents their love, but rather a person taking advantage over a younger child, which the gender/sex is usually irrelevant, as the age matters more. And the latter being sexually attracted to animals which are not as intelligent as a human being. Suffice it to say, the two groups are mentally ill.

Gender and Sex

And thus this leads to the other aspect, the aspects of gender and sex. This is where the waters get muddy with 'marxists', as it tends towards either two ends with 'marxists' as stated earlier: Either outright opposition; or indirect opposition. This will elaborated later on, but first of all we must consider the two aspects considered controversial in marxism, Gender and Sex.

Gender

Gender is another complex phenomena that exists in humanity. The invention of gender through the division of labour is what lead to from the transition from primitive communism to slave society. Some state that gender came as a result of sex, I will address that later.

Gender is usually separated into three components, Gender Roles, Gender Identity and Gender Expression. Gender Roles are deleterious, they are a byproduct of society enforcing gender throughout history. A common example is women acting submissive, petite, allowed to stay in the kitchen, while the man is acting dominant, being the financier of the house, and much more. Of course even cishets have been affected by this. Thus even in today's capitalist society, the idea of gender roles are being slowly deconstructed, or so it seems.

Gender Expression is an aspect where someone expresses their gender. It is separate from their gender identity. Gender expression makes people express themselves as they want. Usually gender expression and gender identity are in correlation. Gender Identity is the gender that is a part of a particular person. Like sexual orientation, it is usually not pure, and it may change overtime, or in others words, they are just discovering their true selves.

While this is an ideal model, there is a flaw that is present within model as due to gender, and that is gender is a social construct. This means that gender is constructed through means of culture, and thus gender is largely arbitrary. This does not necessarily mean that gender is a bad thing however. Language is also a social construct. But it is an essential aspect for communicating ideas and concepts which may have not existed beforehand. So is gender necessarily a bad thing? We must tackle the 2 aspects (Gender Roles will be ignored as it is already deleterious).

Gender Expression is communicated through means of using clothing that is applicable towards a particular gender. As stated earlier, this may correlate with their gender identity, but it does not always correlate as such. There are usually 2 cases towards this, either the person prefers clothing that's not typical of the gender identity but wants to keep their current gender identity (A feminine boy or a masculine girl, Not to be confused with trans people), or a person who does not match their assigned gender at birth and is not ready to use the clothing that they view fit. Typically gender expression fits into 3 categories according to the models present. Masculine, Feminine, or Androgynous. It appears as a spectrum, and applies to most people. most.

Masculinity and Femininity gender expressions are both relics of gender roles that occured within western society. For example, skirts were used in the 19th century towards children, and thus skirts were considered 'childish'. However overtime, this gradually changed where only women were allowed to wear skirts (this coincidentally implies that women are more like children which is a misogynistic viewpoint). Also even disregarding history, what makes a skirt feminine? On the surface, it is just a piece of clothing that is used by usually feminine people. However there is nothing aside from history which suggests that skirts are feminine or trousers are masculine. It is an arbitrary decision to make a piece of clothing associated with a particular gender. This is where the social construct is introduced. It is arbitrary because western society determined what clothing would be suited to each gender. The division of labour was integrated into people's mind to the point where even clothing had to be differentiated and women were perceived as a 'lesser' to the man counterpart. In regards to this, gender expression only exists in relations to the other two aspects, Gender Roles and Gender Identity. Gender Roles in particular elaborate the division between the two genders.

Gender Identity, however, does not need to necessarily follow gender expression. However they still possess a gender of some kind, whether it would be the same assigned at birth or not. Gender Identity is more difficult to explain in contrast to other forms, as it is more relative to Sexual Orientation rather than Gender Expression or Gender Roles. In most cases, gender identity is either a man or woman. However this is where the cishets stop, as they do not see any other gender identities. The cishets believe a connection with sex and gender and this would be enough to differentiate. However other gender identities exist, particularly non-binary people. Non-binary may be an umbrella term all on its own, but it is usually considered a gender identity, as it describes where a person's gender identity does not align with either a man or a woman. We must consider that, if we can go beyond the man and woman in regards to gender identity, just how many gender identities exist?

Some metaphysicists argue that there is only a limited number of gender identities. However, this is a reductionist viewpoint. Gender Identity can be more fluid in contrast to other people (There is a gender identity called Genderfluid). If we consider the fluidity of gender identity, then does that mean there is potentially an infinite number of gender identities? If we agree to this, won't this make gender identity meaningless? Not necessarily. Gender Identity isn't a static property belonging to a person. Some LGBT people state that they are discovering more of their true selves. This can mean that every person who wants to be their true self, is also a unique individual. What about cishets then, don't they retain their pure cishet gender identity? Not always. As stated before, gender expression do not correlate with gender identity. Cisgender people can present clothing with a different gender. An infinite number of genders isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is only when culture decides it is not acceptable, through only irrational means such as someone being 'mentally ill', 'denying biology', 'unnatural'.

Since gender is socially constructed, this would suggest a separation of sex and gender. Sex would be biological, while gender would be cultural. Right?

Sex

Metaphysicists and even transgender people would argue that sex is biological and gender is not. But we must understand. What makes sex even biological? Why do we have 'male' and 'female' for terms related to biology, while 'man' and 'woman' related to gender? This is where people start to get confused or ignore this area entirely. Let's start off with a definition. What makes someone transgender? The core aspect of the movement is being able to express themselves in however they see fit, no matter who they are. So when I hear transgender people in the west state that they are 'I know I am in a male body, but I am a woman' or 'I know I am in a female body, but I am non-binary', this is total invalidation of what rights transgender people aim to achieve.

Just because sex and gender are differentiated does not mean sex is the discriminating factor for everybody. What makes someone 'male' or 'female'? Modern models suggest the idea of 'primary and secondary sex characteristics'. Primary is typically stated at birth (Genitalia, Sex Chromosomes) and Secondary is stated at puberty (Hormone levels and other factors related to hormones). This is what differentiates male from females. There is also gametes, another secondary sex characteristic, which smaller more abundant gametes typically means male, and larger less prevalent typically suggest female.

This may seem ideal for about the vast majority of the population. However, it must be stated there is no such thing as a sex binary. Intersex people exist, and although they constitute the minority (statistics put it at ~1% which is still 80,000,000 compared to the current world population), they do not neatly fit into either category. So the idea of one person belonging into one sex or another through primary and secondary sex characteristics do not work, another flaw of the metaphysical ideal of the world. So the metaphysicist goes: 'Intersex people are a minority and an exception, so they are negligible.' The idea of not only dehumanising intersex people by ignorance, and calling them exceptions instead of things which counteract their model, shows you how much western society wishes to retain the sex binary.