Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

LGBT+

From ProleWiki, the proletarian encyclopedia
(Redirected from LGBTQ+)
This article has yet to be finished. Despite the amount of information available, this article is nowhere near complete. Feel free to check in every now and then to see the new updates.
Proposed communist LGBT+ symbol representing cisgender and transgender in the classical hammer and sickle.
Proposed alternative, in red background, to the communist LGBT+ symbol.
A combination of the Soviet flag and the rainbow pride flag
Another communist pride flag

LGBT+, also known by a varying number of letters (see below), is an acronym used to denote the various different types of people that belong to the queer community; that is, people who either do not identify as heterosexual, cisgender, or neither. This community encompasses a wide range of different sexualities, genders and identities, and many people in the community either take on multiple identities or have their identities change over time. The "LGBT" term originally only referred to those who were either gay, bisexual or transgender, but today the term is much broader, hence the "+" added to it. LGBT+ people tend to be stigmatized, discriminated, and materially oppressed due to their sexual and gender identity and expressions, as a result of centuries-old—usually Western—conceptions of such people being predatory, deviant, unnatural, parasitic, mentally ill, "sinful," etc., despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that none of these things are inherent to them, and that LGBT+ behaviour is perfectly normal and does not otherwise alter anyone's normal personality. As such, LGBT+ people are often revolutionary and stand in opposition to the status quo. The main symbol that identifies this community is the rainbow flag,[1] although there are many different flags used to represent the different types of people within it. Inside some communist circles some other symbols can be used to represent the community, like the proposed symbol representing cisgender and transgender in the classical hammer and sickle.

However, even though LGBT+ people suffer bigoted oppression by the bourgeoisie just as any minority group does, there is still a tendency to discriminate against/exclude them even amongst some communists. Some communists—particularly those in more socially conservative countries—may view LGBT+ identities in the traditionally bigoted ways, as well as the idea that LGBT+ behaviour is "bourgeois degeneracy" imposed on the proletariat. This idea comes from the misguided belief that LGBT+ people are somehow put at an advantage above cisgender-heterosexual people, and that therefore they are part of the privileged class. In reality, most bourgeoisie attempts to "normalise" the LGBT+ community boil down to pinkwashing, and are not genuine efforts to make society at large more accepting of these people.

Acronym[edit | edit source]

Each term in the acronym refers to a specific group and the surrounding community. The acronym was originally created in the mid-1980s as simply "LGB", though by 1988 the term had evolved to "LGBT". Nowadays, the acronym is technically much longer, so much so that "alphabet soup" has become a tongue-in-cheek nickname for it. However, most people simply say it as "LGBT", "LGBTQ", or "LGBTQ+", for the sake of brevity.

The unofficial full acronym is 2S/LGBTQQIAAP+

  • Two-spirit: refers to LGBT+ indigenous people; usually those who are transgender.
  • Lesbian: refers to women with a homosexual sexual orientation, i.e., exclusive to other women.
  • Gay: generally refers to homosexual men, although "gay" is also often used to denote both homosexual men and women.
  • Bisexual: refers to people who are attracted to both men and women.
  • Transgender: refers to those who their ideas, feelings and desires do not correspond to their assigned gender at birth.
  • Queer: catch-all term for anyone does not identify as heterosexual and/or cisgender.
  • Questioning: someone currently in the process of questioning their sexuality or gender identity.
  • Intersex: umbrella term for people with differences in sex traits or reproductive anatomy, accounting for approximately 1.7% of births, with some estimates running higher or lower depending on a variety of factors.[2] Some intersex traits are identified at birth, while others may not be discovered until puberty or later in life. There are many possible differences in genitalia, hormones, internal anatomy, or chromosomes. Intersex traits are natural human variations and are not inherently unhealthy or life-threatening, although they are sometimes associated with other medical symptoms. Intersex people are often subjected to non-consensual, medically unnecessary "normalizing" surgeries and treatments, especially as infants and children. Advocates of intersex rights recommend allowing intersex people to make their own medical choices at a later age, with many organizations considering such non-consensual treatments as violations of fundamental human rights, calling for the prohibition of medically unnecessary procedures on intersex children.[3][4][5] Some intersex people identify as LGBT+ while others do not. The intersex community often faces overlapping issues with the LGBT+ community, while also facing unique issues of their own. Advocates encourage the use of specific terms appropriate to each situation.[6]
  • Allies: heterosexual-cisgender people who support the community.
  • Asexual: someone who does not experience sexual attraction to anyone. They may however still experience romantic attraction; if they don't, they are referred to as aromantic.
  • Pansexual: someone who is attracted to anyone, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity. Different from bisexuality, because while bisexual people tend to have certain genders they prefer over others, pansexuals do not have such preferences.
  • et al. (+): encompasses all other identities in the LGBT+ community, mostly alternative gender identities such as non-binary, agender, genderqueer, etc.

How one identifies themselves in the LGBT+ community can change drastically over time, and many identifies often intersect with each other. For example, non-gender-conforming people usually also identify as transgender, or even gay/bi depending on their identity. Simply put, gender and sexuality are incredibly fluid, and hardly the rigid concepts that society generally makes them out to be.

Common myths about homosexuality[edit | edit source]

Unnatural or perversion[edit | edit source]

This objection relies on an appeal to nature—a logical fallacy that assumes what is "natural" is inherently good or acceptable, while what is "unnatural" is not. The argument fails to provide a clear definition of what constitutes "natural," leading to inconsistencies and contradictions. If taken to its logical extreme, this reasoning would imply that behaviors such as adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, and public nudity are acceptable because they occur in nature, while activities like playing checkers, sleeping on beds, wearing clothes, or cooking meat are unacceptable because they are not "natural." However, those who advance such arguments typically do not advocate for laws against sleeping on beds or wearing clothing, nor do they reject the use of computers, despite these being equally "unnatural" by the same logic.

Furthermore, even if one were to accept the premise that what is natural is inherently good, scientific evidence demonstrates that homosexual behavior is indeed natural. Biologists have documented same-sex behavior in over 500 species, with observations extending to approximately 1,500 species in total. For example, bonobos, a species closely related to humans, are known for engaging in a wide range of sexual behaviors, including same-sex interactions. Such behaviors are not limited to mammals; they have been observed across a diverse array of animal species, challenging the notion that homosexuality is "unnatural."

The term "perversion" is often used as a variation of the "it's not natural" argument, frequently accompanied by bigotry. This characterization implies that homosexuality is a mental disorder or disability, despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting such a claim. Defining homosexuality as a disability constitutes an argument from definition fallacy, as the standard definition of disability does not encompass sexual orientation or gender identity. Furthermore, being LGBTQ+ does not inherently impair an individual’s ability to function in society. Drawing a parallel between sexuality and disability is also a false equivalence, as it inaccurately associates two unrelated concepts and may reinforce harmful stereotypes about disabled individuals.

Religious arguments[edit | edit source]

Religious arguments against homosexuality often rely on the assumption that divine authority condemns same-sex relationships. This raises the question of why individuals who do not adhere to a particular religious belief should be subject to its moral prescriptions. Some arguments presuppose that all morality and existence are contingent upon the deity of a specific religion, while others assert that religious freedom does not extend to certain groups or that the separation of church and state is not absolute.

In Christian discourse, it is commonly claimed that God condemns homosexuality. However, there is no record of Jesus addressing the subject directly. Instead, the teachings attributed to Jesus emphasize criticisms of hypocrisy and the misuse of religious or political power for personal gain. While scriptural interpretations vary among religious practitioners, arguments based on religious doctrine hold little relevance for those who read scripture in a more inclusive manner, adhere to different religious traditions, or do not subscribe to religious belief. Additionally, legal frameworks that uphold the separation of church and state do not enforce religious doctrines as law.

Biblical condemnations of homosexuality originate primarily from the Old Testament, particularly the book of Leviticus, which also contains various other prohibitions, such as dietary restrictions[7] and prohibitions against wearing garments made from mixed fabrics.[8] Further references to homosexuality appear in the writings of later Christian figures such as the Apostle Paul. In ancient Rome, opposition to same-sex relationships and marriages existed before the spread of Christianity. Some historians suggest that early Christians may have adopted or reinforced these attitudes to align with prevailing Roman social norms.

The Old Testament attributes the downfall of certain ancient civilizations to homosexuality. However, historical evidence supporting this claim remains unverified.

Definition of marriage[edit | edit source]

Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that marriage is an ancient institution traditionally defined as a union between a man and a woman. Historically, marriage has taken various forms, including polygamy, forced marriage, child marriage, and restrictions against interracial and interfaith unions. Furthermore, the Old Testament, which many religious conservatives cite in opposition to same-sex marriage, presents polygamy as a common model of marriage rather than exclusively endorsing monogamous heterosexual unions.

Some critics argue that extramarital sexual relationships are considered sinful within many religious traditions. As a result, if same-sex marriage is not legally or religiously recognized, all same-sex sexual activity would, by definition, be classified as sinful under these frameworks.

Another argument against same-sex marriage is that it undermines the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. However, the concept of marital sanctity is generally compromised by infidelity, rather than by the existence of legally recognized same-sex unions. Some opponents employ false analogies, such as comparing same-sex marriage recognition to the circulation of counterfeit currency, to argue that it devalues traditional marriage.

Nevertheless, various cultural and legal developments have altered marriage without involvement from same-sex couples. These include the legalization of divorce, cohabitation without marriage, the decriminalization of adultery, and the commercialization of marriage through quick ceremonies, themed weddings, and reality television shows centered on marriage. Despite these changes, criticism of marriage's perceived decline is often directed at same-sex couples seeking the right to marry rather than at these longstanding societal shifts.

Not reproductive[edit | edit source]

The majority of sexual encounters, including those within heterosexual marriages, are non-reproductive. Various factors contribute to this, including the use of barrier methods and hormonal contraception, fertility awareness practices, non-penetrative sexual activity, and instances where one or both partners are infertile due to age, medical conditions, or sterilization. Despite this, arguments against same-sex marriage based on the premise that marriage is intended for procreation are inconsistently applied, as infertile heterosexual couples are not subject to the same restrictions.

Same-sex couples also contribute to society by adopting children, which can be considered a humanitarian act, as it provides homes for children in need. There is no legal or ethical requirement that marriage must result in biological reproduction, and societal attitudes toward procreation continue to evolve, with growing movements advocating for childfree lifestyles and questioning the traditional emphasis on reproduction. Furthermore, global population growth remains a relevant concern, raising the question of whether increased reproductive activity is necessary.

Additionally, same-sex couples can have biological children through assisted reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy. Some individuals who later identify as homosexual may also have biological children from prior heterosexual relationships before coming out. These realities challenge the notion that marriage must be exclusively tied to natural procreation.

Homosexuality and choice[edit | edit source]

Opponents of LGBTQ+ rights often argue that homosexuality is a choice, commonly referring to the concept of a "gay lifestyle." However, scientific research and psychological studies indicate that sexual orientation is not a matter of conscious choice for most individuals. While bisexual individuals may have the capacity to form relationships with either men or women, choosing to engage in a heterosexual relationship does not alter their underlying bisexual orientation.

The relevance of whether homosexuality is a choice is also debated. Societies do not typically prohibit behaviors solely on the basis that they are choices rather than innate traits. Furthermore, the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it is a choice implies that it would be acceptable if it were not, contradicting substantial evidence suggesting that sexual orientation is not voluntarily determined. Critics also point out the inconsistency in this argument, as those who claim that homosexuality is a choice often advocate for religious beliefs that require conscious adherence and lifestyle changes, yet do not subject these choices to similar scrutiny.

Additionally, the assertion that people choose to be gay overlooks the social and legal challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, including discrimination and harassment. Given the increased risk of social stigma and mistreatment, it is unlikely that individuals would choose a sexual orientation that exposes them to such adversities.

Sexually transmitted infections[edit | edit source]

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at a higher risk for certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs), most notably HIV. This increased risk is primarily due to the higher transmission rate of HIV and other infections through anal intercourse, which is estimated to be 18 times greater than that of vaginal intercourse. In some cases, these infections have been transmitted to heterosexual partners.

While STIs are a significant public health concern, the majority of gay men are not infected, and many take preventive measures similar to those practiced by heterosexual individuals. The prevalence of STIs is not exclusive to homosexuality, and some infections, such as genital herpes, may not be significantly more common among MSM than among other populations.

Some researchers argue that homophobia and anti-LGBTQ+ bias can contribute to the spread of sexually transmitted infections. According to Warren J. Blumenthal, societal stigma may pressure young people to engage in heterosexual behavior prematurely in an attempt to conform, thereby increasing risky sexual behaviors. Additionally, opposition to LGBTQ+ rights has historically impeded the development of comprehensive sexual education programs, which could otherwise help prevent the spread of STIs.[9]

HIV transmission rates also vary among different demographics within the LGBTQ+ community. For instance, transmission through lesbian sexual intercourse is rare. This highlights the inconsistency in arguments suggesting that the risk of HIV should serve as a basis for restricting legal recognition of same-sex relationships, as such reasoning would not logically support only permitting same-sex marriages between women.

Homosexual erasure[edit | edit source]

Some organizations and governments deny the existence of homosexuality, instead framing it as a temporary phase, a means of sexual gratification, or simply a form of bisexuality rather than a genuine lack of attraction to the opposite sex. Various arguments have been put forward to support these claims, though they are often based on misconceptions and flawed reasoning. These arguments, while still propagated in certain circles, are widely contradicted by scientific research and psychological studies that affirm the validity of homosexuality as a natural and distinct sexual orientation.

Homosexual men enjoy friendships with women, suggesting latent heterosexual attraction[edit | edit source]

This argument has been presented by organizations such as Answers in Genesis and is based on the assumption that friendships between men and women indicate repressed sexual attraction. However, this reasoning is inconsistent, as most heterosexual men also form close friendships with other men without implying hidden same-sex attraction.

All homosexuals experience some degree of opposite-sex attraction[edit | edit source]

This claim has been promoted by individuals associated with conversion therapy, which seeks to change sexual orientation. However, such conclusions are often subject to confirmation bias, as they primarily focus on individuals who seek therapy due to societal pressure or personal distress. Past heterosexual relationships do not necessarily indicate genuine heterosexual orientation, just as trying a particular food does not make it a person's favorite. Furthermore, any opposite-sex attraction reported by homosexual individuals is generally minimal and comparable to the faint same-sex attraction that some heterosexual individuals may experience. Many homosexual individuals describe attraction to the opposite sex as neutral or even unnatural, sometimes likening the experience to forced relationships.

Homosexual men are simply avoiding the effort required to pursue women[edit | edit source]

This argument relies on gender stereotypes, assuming that men are inherently promiscuous while women are selective and difficult to pursue. It suggests that homosexuality is a way for men to bypass the supposed challenges of heterosexual relationships. However, this claim disregards the complexity of sexual orientation and falsely implies that same-sex relationships require less emotional and social effort than heterosexual ones.

Homosexuality is inconceivable because men should naturally be attracted to women[edit | edit source]

Some individuals argue against the existence of homosexuality by expressing personal disbelief that men could be attracted to other men rather than to women. However, this argument is rooted in a subjective heterosexual perspective and does not constitute an objective basis for denying the existence of same-sex attraction. A similar argument could be made against heterosexuality by reversing the perspective, illustrating the logical flaw in this reasoning.

Common myths about transgender people[edit | edit source]

LGBT+ communist logo from above with the colors of the trans pride flag
Transgender Soviet flag

Transphobia remains disturbingly common, and it is typically "justified" with various lies and slanders about trans people. In order to combat this bigotry, it is necessary to provide solid and easily understandable rebuttals to these common myths. All sources will be listed at the end of the post, if anyone would like to read in more depth.

Idealist[edit | edit source]

This argument, often professed by self described "Marxists" stems from a rugged metaphysical materialist understanding of trans existence. It argues that being transgender is inherently idealist as it is not based in the material understanding of human development. This is false, though may spark affirmation by people new to Marxist theory as it is seemingly a correct observation. However as Marxists we must understand the world not from a metaphysical, but a dialectical perspective. Using the method of dialectical materialism we can effectively analyse the process in which a person commits a change in gender, it spawns first, as in all phenomena, with a contradiction. The specifics of this contradiction differs from person to person, in which gender dysphoria can, though is not necessarily a part of the contradiction. An example may be, that there is an antagonistic contradiction between the persons view of themselves psychologically, and their physical body. In this there also spawns a contradiction to societal gender roles. As ideas and thoughts may be transformed into material reality by way of practice, it is philosophically speaking indeed possible to change ones gender. There are many factors contributing to ones role in society, this may include external or quantitive changes such as clothes and or makeup. However also qualitative changes by way of modern medicine, we can change many of our secondary sexual characteristics (fat distribution, hair growth, bone growth and so on) completely and indeed also ones primary sexual characteristics (genitalia, chromosomes). Within these stated examples the contemporary superstructure views our second sexual characteristics as determinant in our social standing and thereby influences and changes our material standing. Therefore, it is only correct to say that a person undergoing a transition of gender eventually becomes their desired gender materially.

Dangerous[edit | edit source]

Perhaps the most common and pernicious myth spread about trans people is that they are somehow dangerous. This was the main line of argument behind the so-called "bathroom bills" in the United States, and it still sits at the root of much transphobic bigotry in countries like the US and UK. Trans women typically bear the brunt of this particular slander, with the claim being that they are supposedly just men lying about their gender identity in order to commit crimes.

The primary source for this claim is typically a study from the Swedish Karolinska Institute, which (supposedly) found that transgender women "retain male-pattern violence." This is (unsurprisingly) nonsense, and the lead author of the study (Dr. Cecilia Djehne) has denounced this interpretation of it. In an interview for TransAdvocate, Djehne stated that those "making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, [are] misrepresenting the study's findings... we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk."

So, what exactly was the study saying? Well, while trans women studied from 1973 to 1988 did demonstrate a "male pattern of criminality," Djehne states that this pattern was not present in trans women studied from 1989 to 2003. She makes this quite clear in the interview, where she says "for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality." She attributes this change over time to differences in trans healthcare and social stigma:

What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse.

In other words, the study was demonstrating that when trans women are given access to proper gender-affirming treatment and reduced social stigma, they don't retain a "male pattern of criminality." Transphobes have literally flipped the study's findings upside-down, in an attempt to justify their irrational fear and hatred of transgender people. Keep this study tucked in the back of your mind, by the way; it comes up again later.

Clearly, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that transgender people pose a violent crime risk; if anything, it is far more likely that they will be the victims of violence. Let's look at public restrooms again; according to a report from the UCLA School of Law, 68% of trans people reported experiencing at least one instance of verbal harassment in gender-segregated public restrooms, while 9% had been physically assaulted at least once in gendered bathrooms. Our priority should be protecting transgender people from bigoted harassment and violence, not "protecting" bigots from transgender people.

Gender Affirming Treatment[edit | edit source]

Another common claim made by transphobes is that gender-affirming treatment (hormones, surgery and the like) does not work, and may even increase the risk of suicide among people with dysphoria. The primary source for this claim is the Karolinska study, which was cited as providing "the most illuminating results yet" by former Johns Hopkins psychiatrist (and religious anti-LGBT activist) Dr. Paul McHugh.

So, what does the Karolinska study actually say? Well, it did report that post-transition trans people had a higher suicide rate than the general population; however, it clearly states that "the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment." For further clarification, we can once again turn to lead author Cecilia Djehne's interview with TransAdvocate, where she says the following:

Medical transition alone won’t resolve the effects of crushing social oppression: social anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress. What we’ve found is that treatment models which ignore the effect of cultural oppression and outright hate aren’t enough. We need to understand that our treatment models must be responsive to not only gender dysphoria, but the effects of anti-trans hate as well. That’s what improved care means... People who misuse the study always omit the fact that the study clearly states that it is not an evaluation of gender dysphoria treatment.

In other words, trans people who receive gender-affirming treatment continue to be a high risk for suicide due to external social oppression, not because the treatment doesn't work. Later in the interview, Djehne gives her actual view on gender-affirming treatment:

Of course trans medical and psychological care is efficacious... If we look at the literature, we find that several recent studies conclude that WPATH Standards of Care compliant treatment decrease gender dysphoria and improves mental health.

The links contained in the above quote are to studies which demonstrate the positive impact of gender-affirming treatment, which we will now assess in more detail. However, before we dive in, it should be noted that some of these studies use the term "gender identity disorder" to refer to dysphoria; this term is generally no longer used, as it is considered stigmatizing. With that said, let's get clinical.

First up, we have a 2014 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, which found that "A marked reduction in psychopathology occurs during the process of sex reassignment therapy, especially after the initiation of hormone therapy." That's rather self-explanatory, I think.

Secondly, we've got a 2009 paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which looked at a group of Swedish adults with gender dysphoria "after 5 or more years in the process [of transitioning] or 2 or more years after completed sex reassignment surgery." The researchers found that "almost all patients were satisfied with the sex reassignment; 86% were assessed by clinicians at follow-up as stable or improved in global functioning."

Next up, there's a 2010 meta-analysis from the Mayo Clinic, published in the journal Clinical Endocrinology, which looked at various studies discussing hormonal therapy and sex reassignment. The results were as follows:

Pooling across studies shows that after sex reassignment, 80% of individuals with GID reported significant improvement in gender dysphoria; 78% reported significant improvement in psychological symptoms; 80% reported significant improvement in quality of life; and 72% reported significant improvement in sexual function... sex reassignment that includes hormonal interventions in individuals with GID likely improves gender dysphoria, psychological functioning and comorbidities, sexual function and overall quality of life.

Moving on, we've got a 2015 study from the Archives of Sexual Behavior. According to the authors, the aim of this study was "to re-examine individuals with [gender dysphoria] after as long a period of time as possible. To meet the inclusion criterion, the legal recognition of participants’ gender change via a legal name change had to date back at least 10 years." In other words, these were all people who had begun the process of changing their gender at least a decade prior to the study. The results were as follows:

[Participants'] overall evaluation of the treatment process for sex reassignment and its effectiveness in reducing gender dysphoria was positive. Regarding the results of the standardized questionnaires, participants showed significantly fewer psychological problems and interpersonal difficulties as well as a strongly increased life satisfaction at follow-up than at the time of the initial consultation.

In short, there is an enormous amount of evidence for the efficacy of gender-affirming treatment, and it should be made more widely available to those who need it. Treatment should also take into account the effects of social oppression, and work to resolve them.

Regret after transitioning[edit | edit source]

This is another very common claim. Simply googling the phrase "trans regret" will result in an immediate deluge of articles from conservative news sites, claiming to have hundreds of stories by regretful trans people, who wish they had never transitioned.

In reality, such people are extraordinarily rare. A 2018 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reviewed all the patient files of a gender identity clinic in Amsterdam from the years 1972-2015. They found that "Only 0.6% of transwomen and 0.3% of transmen who underwent gonadectomy were identified as experiencing regret." This is an extremely small percentage, and when taken alongside the earlier cited studies on the efficacy of gender-affirming treatment, it indicates that the vast majority of trans people are satisfied with their transition.

Of course, the Netherlands is a more progressive country than the United States or Britain, and so it could be the case that trans people in the latter two countries would experience a higher rate of regret due to harassment and social stigma. However, this would say nothing whatsoever about the efficacy of gender-affirming treatment; rather, it would be a comment on the damaging effects of transphobia.

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

The propaganda spread by transphobes has no basis in reality, and ought to be cast aside as the despicable crock of nonsense that it is. Transgender people are not dangerous, gender-affirming treatment does work, and most people do not regret transitioning. It's time we move past these damaging and bigoted notions, and create a society where all people can live freely.

LGBT+ by country[edit | edit source]

Socialist countries[edit | edit source]

See main article: LGBT rights and issues in AES countries

China[edit | edit source]

Chinese survey on attitudes towards LGBT+ people by province

Taiwan province was the first region in China, and all of Asia, to legalise the modern form of same-sex marriage. Such unions have been recognized across the continent in various guises for centuries. Southern China, in particular, was known for a widespread acceptance of homosexual relationships. Shen Defu, a Chinese writer during the Ming dynasty, wrote that it was common for men of all social classes in Fujian province to take male lovers. These forms of gay “marriage” were prevalent enough in Fujian that there was even a patron deity of homosexuality, the rabbit. In the early modern period, marriages between two people of the same assigned sex but who identified as different genders, were fairly normal in many parts of Southeast Asia, we know this primarily from the records Europeans kept when they landed on Asian shores.

When Europeans first encountered Chinese society, they were shocked and repulsed about one aspect of Chinese society: the “abominable vice of sodomy”. Later, the acceptance of gender and sexual diversity began to be eroded through the introduction of world religions (particularly Christianity), modernity, and colonialism. After the Chinese were defeated by Western and Japanese imperialists, many Chinese "progressives" in the early 20th century sought to modernise China, which meant adopting “modern” Western ideas of dress, relationships, science and sexuality. It also meant importing European scientific understandings of homosexuality as an inverted or perverted pathology. These “scientific ideas” were debunked in the 1960s in the West, but lived on in China, frozen in time, and have only recently begun to thaw with the rise of LGBT+ activists in Asia.[10]

In recent years, China has become more progressive in the realm of transgender rights.[11]

Cuba[edit | edit source]

"We must remember so that it will never happen again."​​​​​​​ –​​​​​​​ Mariela Castro, Director of the Cuban Center for Sex Education (CENESEX)

LGBT pride poster in Cuba saying "I am part of the revolution, I am Fidel too."

It would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that Cuba was always a socially progressive society. In the early years after the Revolution, in a time when many other countries were dealing with typical homophobic and transphobic ideas, and later, poorly thought-out attempts at containing the AIDS crisis (the US government mired in homophobia refused to even acknowledge the existence of the virus until over 10,000 had died; while in Britain under Thatcher hostile police raided gay clubs), the island nation was not an exception to this rule of backwardness in social issues. However, this is also a fact that Cuban people and the Cuban government acknowledge as a fault and something that the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) has fought hard to overcome. In the past, Fidel Castro made a public apology for the poor treatment of LGBT+ people in the country's history. It is rare to see a leader take full personal responsibility for a wrong committed against its people, and even rarer to hear a promise to do better; but the PCC is fully committed to LGBT+ rights and to improving the situation of some of its most marginalized citizens, and their past wrongs are always present in the contemporary dialogue.

This sort of attitude toward promoting social progress is almost nonexistent among governments and officials in many countries across the globe. Amnesia to history comes up often as a response to the complaints of the oppressed. Those with legitimate political demands are expected to sit down and remain silent, as they lack the ability to hold their governments accountable. However, this is not the case in Cuba, where the push for change is done not because there were too many complaints and too much noise and thus the state wanted to restore order; change comes because not only is it the right thing to do, but because the success of the revolution depends on the support of all people – which includes the most marginalised who live on the frontlines of that revolution every day.

Part of what Cuba does to ensure the success of its revolution is for officials to meet its citizens in their own environment and to see the issues that are important to them so that they can begin to work on solving them, especially for the most marginalised. This can be seen in the many photos of Fidel playing sports with average Cuban people and going out to generally interact with them regularly – not simply for a photo op, but because the only way to effectively lead is to know about the concerns of the people. The same can be said of Mariela Castro, Director of CENESEX and a member of Cuba's Parliament, who has spent a great deal of time getting to know members of the LGBT+ community in Cuba and championing their needs through not only legal channels, but material ones, as well. This has manifested in increased protections for LGBT+ Cuban people in labor laws and the Constitution. Simultaneously, this has also helped to change popular perceptions of LGBT+, and especially trans, Cuban people for the better. Coupled with the push against machismo and gender inequality, along with racism, Cuba attacks bigotry on all fronts. There is even a Gala Against Homophobia and Transphobia that is held yearly on the eponymous day as a recognition for the need to improve material conditions for LGBT+ Cubans. While an event such as this may seem performative, it is part of a larger push to end inequality and marginalisation that can persist both materially and ideologically.

Ultimately, though, what Cuba does for trans people goes beyond legal protections and changing hearts and minds. It attacks the issue of inequality at the root – through material support. This of course can become complicated due to lack of supplies and resources as a result of the suffocating blockade placed on Cuba by the US, which makes trade very limited, even with countries that Cuba should be allowed to trade with happily. But that does not stop Cuba from ensuring all citizens regardless of background have somewhere to live with public, state-subsidised utilities, food and water, access to education up to postgraduate level (nearly 100% of Cubans are literate), and high-quality universal public healthcare with some of the best doctors in the world. To put it in capitalist jargon, Cuba invests in its human capital – it creates conditions favorable to social and political development of its people so that they are educated, skilled, and have their basic needs taken care of.

For trans people in Cuba, however, this means that gender confirmation surgeries (GCS) [more commonly known as sex reassignment surgeries (SRS)] are available for trans Cuban people who desire it, free of charge, as of 2008, making it the first Latin American country to do so. GCS includes not only what is known as bottom surgeries (vagino- or phalloplasty, among others) but also top surgeries (mastectomy or augmentation mammoplasty, among others) and numerous other surgeries that allow trans people to feel more like themselves. These procedures can be life-saving for many trans people, and Cuba recognizes this as a material way to help this marginalised group of people live more dignified lives. This comes, in turn, not only as a result of the efforts of the Communist Party to ensure its people have the best medical care possible, but also through a fundamental understanding of what is required to make the revolution successful.

Soviet Union[edit | edit source]

Homosexual activity was originally decriminalised in the USSR in 1917 as part of the repeal of the Tsarist Penal Code. However, homosexuality remained a crime outside of Russia and Ukraine.[12]

Critics of the Soviet Union often lambaste Stalin for having recriminalised sodomy in 1933. Although same-sex sexual activity between men was recriminalised throughout the entire Soviet Union in 1933, several Soviet Republics implemented their own sodomy laws throughout the 1920s, such as Azerbaijan and the Central Asian republics. Acceptance of homosexuality throughout the Soviet Republics was rare, especially in regions dominated by the Russian Orthodox Church or influenced by Islam. Religion played a role in the wording of the law, confusing male homosexuality with pederasty. However, there were no criminal statutes regarding sex between women.

Georgy Chicherin served as the first People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union. Chicherin went to Weimar Germany to seek treatment for his homosexuality. In spite of this revelation, Stalin was a great admirer of Chicherin, and Chicherin continued to serve in his post until 1930 when he was replaced as he had become too ill, suffering from terminal illness. Chicherin died in 1936, having never been subject to punishment despite being openly gay.

An article published by a medical expert, Sereisky in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia in the 1930 stated:

Soviet legislation does not recognise so-called crimes against morality. Our laws proceed from the principle of protection of society and therefore countenance punishment only in those instances when juveniles and minors are the objects of homosexual interest ... while recognizing the incorrectness of homosexual development ... our society combines prophylactic and other therapeutic measures with all the necessary conditions for making the conflicts that afflict homosexuals as painless as possible and for resolving their typical estrangement from society within the collective

— Sereisky, The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1930, p. 593

Same-sex sexual activity amongst men remained illegal in the Soviet Union up to its dissolution. In some former republics homosexual activity remains illegal to this day. Although countries of the Warsaw Pact were under Soviet influence, they had the freedom to decide their laws. The German Democratic Republic, for example, was much more progressive than the Soviet Union (and even the West) in terms of LGBT+ rights.

Capitalist countries[edit | edit source]

United Kingdom[edit | edit source]

The United Kingdom has historically been hostile to same-sex relationships. Before the formation of the United Kingdom, the ecclesiastical courts of its pre-existing sovereign states such as England dealt with matters concerning homosexuality. The first law touching on same-sex relations to be promulgated was the Buggery Act 1533 that made the act of buggery (therein defined as unnatural sex that goes against God's will) punishable by death. This act was superseded by the Offences Against the Person Act 1828; however, the death penalty remained in force until the introduction of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. James Pratt and John Smith were the last people to be executed for the crime of sodomy in England, as well as the entire United Kingdom.

Sodomy remained illegal until the Sexual Offences Act 1967 was introduced, over 100 years after the previous law that rescinded capital punishment for homosexuality. In spite of this, however, the legacy of British colonialism meant that homosexuality remained illegal in many of the British Empire's territories. Many former territories to this date punish sodomy, and some jurisdictions such as Victoria, Australia retained the death penalty for sodomy as late as 1949. Some of these territories had never punished homosexuality until colonial interference. Prominent people persecuted under the Sexual Offences Act 1967 include socialist Oscar Wilde as well as mathematician and logician Alan Turing, whose eventual suicide rekindled the debate on homosexuality legalisation. As the law targeted sodomy primarily, female same-sex sexual activity was technically legal. As a result, many gay men resorted to other forms of communication, such as Polari, in order to evade persecution.

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 legalised same-sex sexual activity in England only. The legalisation of same-sex sexual activity in other constituent countries occurred later, with Scotland in 1981 and in Occupied Ireland in 1982, making them among some of the last countries to do so in Europe. The Age of Consent remained unequalised and at 21 (in comparison to 16 for heterosexual same-sex activity) until the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, castigated homosexuality during her tenure. The topic of homosexuality remained taboo even well into the 21st century.

The United Kingdom legalised civil partnerships in 2005. Same-sex marriage was legalised in England, Wales and Scotland in 2014; however, the far-right DUP in Occupied Ireland was vocally resistant and delayed the implementation of equal marriage until 2020 in Occupied Ireland. Although the population of the United Kingdom is mostly accepting of homosexuality, the government has approved of the overseas territory of Bermuda briefly revoking the same-sex marriage law.

Transphobia remains a major issue in the United Kingdom. TERFs often harass and attempt to prevent funding to charities that seek to help transgender people. The phenomenon is tragically rampant amongst the British Left just as much as the Right, with the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) and the Communist Party of Britain adopting party lines that are incompatible with the well-being of transgender comrades.

United States[edit | edit source]

In 1953, Executive Order 10450 was passed, leading thousands of LGBT+ people to be fired from their jobs for being supposed communist sympathizers.[13] The LGBT community has rebelled against the U.S. state multiple times, including in Tenderloin, San Francisco in 1966[14] and Stonewall, New York in 1969.[15]

As of 2019, LGB people are 125% more likely to be arrested than straight people. Lesbian and bi women are four times as likely as straight women to be arrested, and gay and bi men are 35% more likely to be arrested than straight men. 44% of trans, non-binary, and two-spirit people were denied access to hormones in prison.[16]

Reactionary currents in the LGBT+[edit | edit source]

Bisexual erasure[edit | edit source]

There is a subsect of the LGBT+ community which believes in and promotes rhetoric which seeks to erase bisexuality or diminish it, this may include but is not limited to:

  • The notion that bisexuals are inherently more promiscuous due to their sexuality
  • The notion bisexuality is just a 'phase' and that bisexuals will 'grow out of it'
  • The notion that bisexuality is simply a state of denial experienced by gay men[17]

Trans erasure[edit | edit source]

There is a subsect of the LGBT+ community that seeks to erase and/or diminish trans identity, this often includes the promotion of transmedicalism or outright denial of trans identity being real at all.[18]

A-spec erasure[edit | edit source]

There is a subsect of the LGBT+ community which seeks to erase and/or diminish Asexual, Aromantic and/or Agender identity, they often promote ideas such as 'everyone prospering in romantic relationships' the non-existence of a divide between sexuality and romanticism, or the idea of a universal experience of gender.

Further Reading[edit | edit source]

LGBTQIA+ Wiki

References[edit | edit source]

  1. https://www.ecured.cu/LGBTI
  2. “Intersex Population Figures – Intersex Human Rights Australia.” 2013. Ihra.org.au. September 28, 2013. Archived 2023-07-21.
  3. “What Is Intersex? Frequently Asked Questions.” 2023. InterACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth. June 29, 2023. Archived 2023-07-11.
  4. “Intersex Awareness Day – Wednesday 26 October.” OHCHR. 2016. Archived 2022-10-05.
  5. “Standing up for the Human Rights of Intersex People – How Can You Help?” OII Europe. February 16, 2016. Archived 2023-07-08.
  6. “Intersex for Allies – Intersex Human Rights Australia.” 2012. Ihra.org.au. November 21, 2012. Archived 2023-06-01.
  7. “But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean.”

    The Bible: 'Leviticus; 11:10'.
  8. ““‘Keep my decrees.

    “‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

    “‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

    “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”

    The Bible: 'Leviticus; 19:19'.
  9. “Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias prevents the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs.”

    Warren J. Blumenthal (1992). Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price. Beacon Press. ISBN 0807079197
  10. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3011750/china-embraced-gay-marriage-long-taiwans-law-west-perverted
  11. Serena Sojic-Borne (2022-03-02). "Transgender rights: China advances while U.S. backslides" Fight Back News.
  12. Dan Healey (2001). "Masculine Purity and 'Gentlemen's Mischief': Sexual Exchange and Prostitution between Russian Men. Slavic Review. doi: 10.2307/2697270 [HUB]
  13. David K. Johnson (2004). Interview with David K. Johnson. University of Chicago.
  14. Morgan Artyukhina (2021-08-03). "Before Stonewall: The LGBTQ movement behind Compton’s Cafeteria riot" Liberation School. Archived from the original on 2022-06-28. Retrieved 2022-11-27.
  15. Preston Wood (2005-06-01). "The 1969 Stonewall rebellion and lessons for today" Liberation School. Archived from the original on 2020-09-22. Retrieved 2022-08-28.
  16. Mirinda Crissman (2023-05-26). "Overrepresented in prisons: LGBTQ2S+ people" Workers World. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27.
  17. Loraine Hutchins (2007). Sexual Prejudice The erasure of bisexuals in academia and the media. American Sexuality Magazine.
  18. Allison Newey (2024-5-20). "LGB without the T?: The dangerous rise of transphobia, TERFism, and anti-transgender rhetoric across the United Kingdom" European Student Think Tank.