The LGBT Question, Answered

← Back to all essays | Author's essays The LGBT Question, Answered

by Annamarx
Published: 2023-10-01 (last update: 2023-10-02)
35-55 minutes

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.

Read more

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 manifests is through love of a particular person and also through 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 and the rise of private property is part of what lead to 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 (I have not even went into how doctors 'correctly' assign intersex people with either sex).

But nonetheless, although sex is biological, as in it is physical and not abstract in contrast to gender, it is still nonetheless arbitrarily decided. How do we neatly fit someone such as an intersex person into the ideas of primary and secondary sex characteristics? In short, you cannot. Just because the vast majority fits neatly does not mean every person will. Even trans people may not neatly fit either, as they begin transitioning towards the gender they are. For example, having hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or sex reassignment surgery will not make them neatly align with either primary or secondary sex characteristics either. Sex, in other words, is also socially constructed.

But then a metaphysicist may suggest a few things which determine the sex of a particular person. Usually it's sex chromosomes. Sex Chromosomes are a part of a particular strand of DNA, and they determine your sex, or so it is. While is true that sex chromosomes do generally determine your sex, even that isn't binary. In the case of humans, there are people with X, XXX, XXY and XYY chromosomes. What do we call these people who possess these chromosomes? Generally: X, XXX is assigned as female, while XXY and XYY is assigned as male. It is rather arbitrary that these people who possess these chromosomes are denoted as this, as sex chromosomes are often to be claimed as 'the sole discriminant between male and female'. Even people with XX or XY chromosomes, there exists a separation between the gonads and sex chromosomes. Also, birds have different sex chromosomes, which have Z and W respectively. There is also certain species such as the clownfish, which can change their gender if their male counterpart dies.

Answering what is a male and female through primary and secondary sex characteristics would not describe every person, if anything, it will exclude people including transgender and intersex people. The idea of reinforcing your true self through using biology is playing the exact same game. When a transphobe argues: 'You have a male body', the trans person should not stoop down by agreeing. That only reinforces the sex binary that is present within society.

Transgender and Intersex Identities

The arbitrary nature of sex and gender had lead surface to the identities of 'transgender' and 'intersex'. Transgender individuals are any person who does not match their assigned gender at birth, while intersex individuals are individuals who do not neatly fit into either the 'male' or 'female' sex at birth. Although it is shown that they both have existed ever since the existence of humanity, only now under capitalism, had they begun to resurface where the cishets can view (and usually despise) them.

Transgender and Intersex individuals seek to be their true selves in a society where they are typically, and still are, frowned upon. However, it has not been as excruciating as before, which I will denote later. 'Marxists' and most other people get the ideas of being transgender and intersex so wrongly that they accidentally uphold the sex or gender binary, even if they do not intend to. We will take a look at this later on. We must answer the question, what makes someone transgender? Yes, they do not wish to be their assigned gender at birth, but what makes someone choose this to begin with? Some people (including trans people) may state that it is gender dysphoria. Even 'marxists' argue that gender dysphoria exists as a contradiction to the gender identity, and as to resolve this contradiction, they wish to transition.

This may sound dialectical, however this has flaws. What even is gender dysphoria? Well, it varies between person to person. It contains various characteristics, such as social, physical and biochemical characteristics, which present a level of discomfort to a transgender individual. However, not every trans person suffers from gender dysphoria. As I stated earlier, it is a level of discomfort. Back then, it was called 'Gender Identity Disorder' however it has become an outdated term. In many countries including the US and UK, it is required to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria to receive HRT. However, this has been criticised numerous times by transgender people. So if gender dysphoria isn't the reason, then what else could it be? Well transgender people have been arguing it is not gender dysphoria, but rather its opposite, gender euphoria. This is a strange thing to consider at first especially if you consider that the dysphoria would create euphoria, but some transgender people may not face much dysphoria, if at all. So the fact they feel happier when they transition, would suggest that they are happy with their ideal selves. Whether that effect would result in people calling you the desired gender, people using the right pronouns, or wearing different clothing that is not typical of the gender, it would create some happier effect. However euphoria would only be temporary, as it would immediately come back towards being 'normal' eventually. However, it still means that they are living their true selves, and any changes would be detrimental.

However this must be asked, is gender dysphoria social or biological in nature? Gender dysphoria is partially a product from western society, however it is also biological in nature as aspects of their body may not be right with them (this is body dysmorphia, which is also sometimes present in cishets), and therefore gender dysphoria can and should be mitigated. However while gender dysphoria should be reduced through change in the superstructure, western society would rather wish to retain the gender binary and cishets would prefer to ridicule people who had not transitioned. The gender binary has become so prevalent that many transgender and intersex people have begun to either 'closet' themselves, i.e. remain as their assigned gender at birth, or begin to transition in hopes to achieve of what is calling 'passing'. Passing is where a transgender or intersex individual looks like a cisgender individual. It was created as a product of the arbitrary measures that gender roles possessed. One needs to pass, not because they want to, but because they would be ridiculed if they wouldn't. They would be an outcast. They would not 'express their true selves' even. The issue with passing is not transitioning, but rather how society treats trans people and intersex people. Transitioning is a process they wish to do in order to have euphoria, but passing only exists in context of oppression. The cishets do not wish to see exceptions, they wish to see cisgender individuals.

However there are 'marxists' who argue that their gender identity is not something that can be created through thought alone. As in, they do not believe that someone can be a specific gender. Since gender is defined by culture, they cannot be a particular gender through thought only. You cannot be a woman only through 'thinking', even though culture is arbitrary and decided through change and what is deemed 'right'. So someone can be a woman if they believe they are one. Also this disregards the other aspect of transgender people. Some may not choose to transition. Does that not make them their desired gender?

There exists another aspect of transgender people. It is not only those who wish to be the so-called 'opposite' gender. There is also other gender identities, including non-binary, agender, xenogender people, etc. Non-binary people exist, and many cultures before the rise of private property that occurred had saw the ideas of a third gender, typically non-binary or some variation of it. Non-binary exists as an identity which is considered 'acceptable' within western society, however the cishets would still incorrectly misgender someone. Non-binary identities typically do not have the privilege of 'passing'. Neither do other identities which will be mentioned later. In many analyses from 'marxists', they outright ignore the concept of non-binary identities, which only shows the metaphysical nature present in so-called 'marxian' analysis. I've instead seen a 'marxist' say: 'Gender Ideology states everyone has a gender identity, but then there is agender people who do not have a gender identity'. Which is appalling for a marxist to say. Agender people have a gender identity. The gender identity is just there isn't any. It's like the number 0. It's the absence of a value, we know 1, 2, 3, contain values which allow us to point towards objects and count, however we do not have '0 pens'. Yet we can use 0 all the same. We can add with zero, subtract by zero, multiply by zero, however you cannot divide by 0, as it is undefined. Nonetheless, it is a number despite having no value. Therefore it makes sense that having no gender identity is a gender identity.

And thus we come to the gender identities which are beyond the typical notions of non-binary, transfeminine and transmasculine individuals. They have been rarely studied, and even those who are aware of their existence, would outright deny that they are existence on the basis of 'individualism'. These are xenogender identities. Xenogender people are non-binary identities which as of so far, exist only recently. However due to the arbitrary existence of the gender binary, the rapidly evolving culture of western society, has lead to the rise of xenogender identities.

Xenogender people are a product of gender, like 'man' or 'woman' or 'non-binary'. Only through the existence of gender being a social construct, can the xenogender umbrella exist. The umbrella term may encompass many more identities. Most of these gender identity belong to an individual. Xenogender people also typically use 'neopronouns' or pronouns which are not commonly used such as 'it/its', or 'xe/xem'. They are usually not common knowledge even within the transgender umbrella.

However the 'marxists' argue that 'xenogender people are petit-bourgeois individualists' or 'They are reactionary because they enforce gender itself'. However those with a shred of marxist understanding know that individualism relies on the aspect that the emancipation of self should be realised before the emancipation of the masses. This is direct contrast to marxism, which relies on the emancipation of the masses. As Stalin said regarding to anarchists:

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

What Stalin is referring to, the liberation of self can only occur after the liberation of the individual. So it is not xenogender people specifically who are individualist (although they can be), but rather those who advocate ideologies which suggest an emancipation of the individual.

However, the idea that xenogender people are reactionary due to promoting the idea of gender, makes it a unique argument. This falls into the idea of 'Gender Abolitionism', a controversial topic even outside marxist theory.

The Case of Gender Abolition

The argument presents itself in a basic concept. 'Gender is reactionary, therefore it should be abolished'. Of course this is only the start. There are many more arguments which support the idea of gender abolition. As I stated earlier, Gender is a social construct, but it does not mean that that is necessarily reactionary, as language is also a social construct. If anything, equating race with gender disregards the colonial roots of race all-together, as the manifestation of gender took place first over race by approximately 10-50 millennia.

So why is this idea promoted? Social constructs are (sometimes) necessary to elaborate to who we are as people, to demonstrate our individuality (this does not mean that gender promotes indiviudalism, rather the individual uses gender to show their personality). Why does gender need to be abolished? Well, there is a certain 'marxist' who claims to have a case for gender abolition. The case of gender abolition will need to be dissected properly to see any semblance in the idea.

I will be looking at Paul Robeson's article detailed "The Case for Gender Abolition" to suggest if there is any utility towards gender abolition. For clarification, the author does not state that he wants to force people to be non-binary. Also the author is quite controversial in regards to LGBT people, considering the fact he denounced xenogender people as 'petit-bourgeois'. But regardless, let's dissect the article provided by him.

In the introduction, he denies of self-identification theory. The author has not prescribed any reason as to why, instead of assuming it as a fact. Self-identification doesn't necessarily make things undialectical as the author claims later on, as he states gender isn't an individualistic experience. He states that the perception of how people perceive is what makes you your gender. This has flaws, for example, in the case of non-binary people, how would they be perceived as androgynous aside from their clothing? How would transgender people pre-transition be transgender in this case? How would feminine boys be perceived? Are they boys because of their gender identity? or girls because of their gender expression? However the author does not elaborate further.

Regardless, let's look at his supposed 'history' of how gender came to elapse. He first elapses that Gender Roles arose due to the sexual division of labour. This isn't exactly where the idea of gender roles come from. Gender existed before the sexual division of labour, as every society during primitive communism was matrilineal. And even when sexual division of labour arose, primitive societies did not have the idea of gender roles, as there existed the concept of a third gender, usually non-binary, and people who have a gender that does not match their assigned gender at birth were also accepted. What Leslie Feinberg in "Transgender Warriors" said:

We need to combat the idea that a simple division of labor between women and men in communal societies has left us with today's narrow sex and gender system. Much evidence exists that many pre-class societies respected many more paths of self-expression. It was the overthrow of communalism and the subsequent division of society into classes that mandated the partitioning of the sexes and outlawed any blurring of those "man-made" boundaries. And we are left with those arbitrary and anti-human restrictions today.

if sexual division of labour caused the idea of gender roles, then how come native cultures had the idea of 'Two-Spirit' (another non-binary identity) for so long? It would not have existed if it had just simply occured. No, what caused LGBT identities to be taboo was the overthrow of primitive communism, due to the rise of private property, it had lead to men being dominant due to cattle being better used as circulation, as birthright wasn't seen as an importance anymore, so the matrilineal society had began to decompose.

The fact he later used this flawed argument to suggest 'To abolish gender roles, we must abolish gender' is now an absurd argument. It must show that gender abolition is a flawed theory, actually, it was developed by liberal feminists in the 1970s and it ignores the concept of historical materialism. To quote:

Here [Kate Millet] made the claim that the personal was political, which became a popular slogan of the feminist movement. By the personal is political what she meant was that the discontent individual women feel in their lives is not due to individual failings but due to the social system, which has kept women in subordination and oppresses her in so many ways. Her personal feelings are therefore political. In fact she reversed the historical materialist understanding by asserting that the male female relationship is a framework for all power relationships in society. According to her, this ”social caste” (dominant men and subordinated women) supersedes all other forms of inequality, whether racial, political or economic. This is the primary human situation. These other systems of oppression will continue because they get both logical and emotional legitimacy from oppression in this primary situation. Patriarchy according to her was male control over the private and public world. According to her to eliminate patriarchy men and women must eliminate gender, i.e. sexual status, role and temperament, as they have been constructed under patriarchy.

The fact that the author (and many other Gender Abolitionists) are copying the liberal feminist movements of the days, demonstrates that gender abolition is not only unnecessary, it is harmful and reactionary. Gender abolition is often called TERF rhetoric, it is no surprise to see that gender abolition is, wholly, unnecessary. What should be done is the abolition of gender roles, and eliminating not only private property, but also the colonial roots of gender roles which had been spread to the lands of North and South America, Africa, and Oceania.

Identity Politics and the Liberalisation of the LGBT People

In the current state of the western world, More people who are open to being LGBT are in the west, which is typically Western Europe and North America (with the exception of Mexico). The western world had become more 'open' towards LGBT people, at least in appearance. The western world has consistently promoted the ideas of 'Black Lives Matter', 'Trans Rights', 'Pride Parades'. Does this mean that the capitalist west supports LGBT rights?

While LGBT people are a minority that should be given equal emancipation to the cishet, they are not necessarily progressive. Progressive would mean that it would help transition towards the next mode of production. Of course, when I state that they are not progressive, that would imply that they are reactionary, but I am not suggesting that either. Rather, we would need to analyse two core aspects about LGBT people in the western world, that is, liberalisation of the LGBT people, and Identity Politics (IDPol).

LGBT people were far more prevalent in the global south before the times of colonialism, however due to cultural imperialism, it had lead to people in global south (particularly in Africa and Latin America) adopting more anti-LGBT undertones which are still prevalent to this day. The advancement of colonialism brought on towards these countries lead to subjugation, as imperialism sought to destroy any form of an LGBT presence as it was deemed by their white colonisers. Of course, this had lead to an effect where cultural imperialism still affects settler colonial and neo-colonial nations to this day.

Of course, this colonisation which had rewarded the coloniser nations with plentiful superprofits, meant that the standard of living in the first world was increasing as the bourgeoisie transformed the proletariat in the first world to labor aristocrats. This allowed people to become complacent, specifically the white labor aristocrats in America and Western Europe. However other identity groups, particularly black people and LGBT people, were oppressed not due to their class, but their identity instead. If you are a marxist, you would see identity oppression links back to class struggle, but if you weren't a marxist, you would fall under the trap of identity politics.

During the 60s and 70s where class struggle was gaining momentum in the United States due to the Black Panther Party, the Feminist Movement, the LGBT Movement, etc. There was a time where it can be clearly examined that these movements linked back to class struggle. However more 'radical' parties such as the Black Panther Party died off, and the Feminist Movement and the LGBT movement later devolved into liberal and less 'radical' movements. Especially the Feminist movement, as it entered its second phase of feminism, it deviated from Marxism and imposed revisionist theories such as 'Gender Abolition'. Why did these movements die off? It is because legalistically, they began to be more accepted into society. In the case of black people, legally they had rights. Legally, the feminists had more rights. The homosexual (and later transgender) movements took more time, but homosexuality was revoked as a mental illness in the 1970s.

The issue was that the pursuit for legal movements rather than material movements made these identities complacent once more. Conservatives argue that Feminists have more rights compared to men, for example, taking a child into custody and also having to financially support their divorced wife after that. What the conservative (and also the feminists) fail to understand that is, the material struggle does not link with legal struggle.

Materially, China is progressing with LGBT rights, but it still hasn't legalised gay marriage. While the United States is regressing its legal laws on transgender rights due to a lack of material support that was prevalent 50 years ago. This shows that LGBT people in the United States still lack material support, and the only way to achieve material support is through advocating for socialism. However the laws that were passed rendered the LGBT people towards liberalism.

Liberalism is imperialist, and thus LGBT people in the west are not only complicit in imperialism, but also support it to a certain capacity. Complicit as they because they are labor aristocratic. LGBT Liberals also denounce other nations for being against LGBT people, ignoring historical materialism. The fact that liberalism is present within the minds of LGBT individuals unless they are class consciousness, demonstrates the power of identity politics. Politics surrounding identities meant that only the superstructure was concerned, not the base. This meant that they would ignore capitalism, the true source of oppression, and instead argue that we would need to change the minds of individuals to be more inclusive. This is what becomes a 'culture war'. Reactionary and LGBT identities fighting against each other, keeping the division of the proletariat steady as to not necessitate a class struggle.

Culture Wars are not material struggles, as they are inherently against marxism, as in it does not advocate for socialism. They advocate for what is called 'pink capitalism', retaining the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and instead installing 'girl bosses' or an equivalent of that. Identity Politics and Culture Wars are rampant.

LGBT people also participate in the US military, though at a lower rate compared to the general population. 6.1% of LGBT people join the US military in contrast to 7.1% of the general population identifying as LGBT as of 2022. However due to both of these dates being different, I will assume that the percentage LGBT people in the US military is roughly equal to the population of LGBT people in the United States in general. However while LGBT people are usually representative of the US military, transgender people are also 2.3x more likely to enter the US military. What do LGBT people have to do with the US Military? Well they join at equal rates in contrast to the rest of the population, even if legally they would be banned from serving in the US Military, they are usually 'progressive' in the sense that they accept LGBT people. However, they are reactionary in reality. In recent years, the US military aimed to pinkwash its own identity, by introducing pro-LGBT advertisments in an effort for people to join the US military. This isn't just appearances only, but also social relations. There had been anecdotes of trans and other LGBT people being accepted and respected with their identities. Even the military openly admits that they will support trans people with their transitions. So clearly, this pinkwashing isn't just appearance. This wouldn't even count as pinkwashing, as pinkwashing is mainly for appearances. Rather, it is a continuation of the frivolous effect by the bourgeoisie to ensure that LGBT people are becoming liberalised even further. Even a private arms and manufacturing company called Lockheed Martin has sponsored a pride parade.

This clearly demonstrates that while LGBT people in the west are still oppressed materially, it doesn't mean that they are revolutionary nor are they necessarily 'progressive'. They have turned the liberal ways that feminism had, only ensuring that laws remained passed even while liberal democracy ignores their pleas as material support has disintegrated. Pinkwashing had become even more prevalent due to pride month, a month which also had been commodified with the infamous 'Company slaps a pride flag on their logo' memes, while local (and even national) governments sponsoring or allowing pride parades to happen as to express 'support' to LGBT people.

The commodification of the LGBT identity, the commodficiation of pride parades, profiting from these in one way or another, allows them to profit temporarily more. In the eyes of the bourgeoisie, they are just another commodity. And the LGBT person seeks 'pride', in other words, allowing them to express themselves through means of buying pride flags, blåhajs, or whatever may be in the near future. In fact the US military is so prevalent with the LGBT identity that the trans pride flag creator, Monica Helms, served in the US Navy. Thus it is no coincidence that cishet people in the third world view the LGBT people as a 'western creation'. China even banned the pride flag because it was a symbol from the west.

This liberal LGBT person would only be ignorant or even despise the third world, seeing it as 'reactionary' and needing LGBT rights in those countries to be progressive. Thus this reinforces a negative feedback loop, which not only makes LGBT people in the west reactionary (unless if they are class conscious which a LGBT person is more likely to be), but also the fact the third world would continue despising LGBT people. Only socialist countries and a few other countries have been able to break this barrier, such as Cuba with their 2022 Family Code passed. However, yet again, the LGBT liberals disregard countries like China as reactionary not only due to their 'authoritarian' prowess, but also due to news that it closes down LGBT centers, and etc.

The ideas of how the US and the rest of Europe is somehow more 'progressive' compared to the third world would only be reinforced. Identity Politics had only corrupted the LGBT people, but also other identity groups such as the Black Lives Matter movement, and the Feminist movement. Without retaking the socialist roots that they had been spawned out from, they could only do so much before fascism fully sweeps these movements away. True emancipation begins with socialism, not culture wars.

Conclusion

The LGBT Question is complex. It requires not only an analysis of LGBT people dialectically, but also analyses of oppression in general. The LGBT people are of now, not revolutionary. They possess the same revolutionary nature as settlers do in the United States. However there has been a rise in people becoming 'socialist', where it is marxist or not is yet to be seen. I have only seen LGBT people identifying as 'Democratic Socialists' or 'Anarchists', not yet marxists.

However due to the liberalisation of the LGBT people, some 'marxists' especially in the United Kingdom such as Communist Party of Britain and Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) had begun denouncing LGBT people without a proper analysis. I can only hope this essay serves at least a counterproof of sorts, as these parties are revisionist to their very core due to not only transphobia, but their labor aristocratic background from whence was the Eurocommunist Communist Party of Great Britain. Of course not only the United Kingdom has this issue, Communist Party of the Russian Federation also received criticism for its views on LGBT people. However, not much of the third world seems to take a reactionary view on the LGBT people. Since the first world is diving into its fascist roots, the communist parties in the first world will, as it seems to be the case, deviate further and further away from Marxism.