/edu/ - Education

>>21458
>trangender liberation.
Transgender is a term for a medical condition called body dysmorphia, for which the best treatment we have now is gender re-assignment surgery. Do we talk about "cancer patient liberation"?

Just because some people have turned their medical condition into an "identity" doesn't mean we should cater to it; we shouldn't discriminate based on that condition either.

Regarding the LBGQ parts, those are sexual preferences and what consenting adults do is none of our business. Turning that into an identity is not a good thing either and it shouldn't be catered to.

What is exactly is the struggle? Like what are the positions?

>>21460
> Do we talk about "cancer patient liberation"?
We would if cancer patients were popular targets of hate crimes and other forms of negative discrimination.

i tried making a queer theory reading list a year or so ago but nobody wanted to help me because nobody on /leftypol/ reads books anymore. maybe you can get something out of what i've scrougned up though

>>21461
>>21460
>>1733674
my party is the ripe fruit of the labor movement in my country and it did not surrender the banners of our ideology after the counter-revolution, on the contrary, during that difficult period it went through a militant process of critically reviewing the experience of the international communist movement and its own and took out new revolutionary conclusions until he ended up in his current revolutionary program. it plays a pioneering role in the international communist movement and is a beacon of revolutionary strategy. for reasons of hesitation, ambiguity and insufficient study, however, it has an inconsistent position
on the LGBT question.

It is not idpol to say that it is a key issue given the circumstances in which the specific bill for gay marriage is being tabled. It is a matter that affects the youth a lot and another bill that hits their rights to education is passed at the same time. Τhe reactionary neoliberal goverment does this purpusfuly calculating the power of the party's influence on the students but also its unclear, under-formation position.

my party is saying no to the bill of homosexual marriage because it says it opens up the road for homosexual adoption. in this direction, our main line at the moment is based on irrational opinions that the child needs to be properly raised by the example of the father and mother, as some kind of cultural archetype without which he does not integrate smoothly into society.

Communists should defend the self-evident right of everyone to access basic rights that also concern human relationships, including marriage/adoption, against the erroneous and unscientific exclusion of any of them based on sexual orientation or other criteria.
The exclusion of specific people from such rights, while it applies to all others, does not strengthen but weakens the necessary struggle against institutions of bourgeois society such as marriage.
Because, objectively, not only does it not strengthen the strategic discussion about the role of such institutions, but it also ends up presenting them as a "privilege" that concerns some and not others.
There are no illusions that discrimination in capitalism will be solved by civil rights, but this is not an argument for excluding any of them.
It is sad that in 2024, the exclusion of any person from formal civil rights, because they have, for example, a different sexual orientation, enters into "dialogue".
Even sadder are any pretexts, which, objectively, lead to unscientific positions.
For example, for conservatives, the Church, etc., there is no pretext that will not be found to support the homophobic exclusion of people with a different sexual orientation from formal civil rights.
From unscientific theories about supposed "laws of nature" that are being violated, to false theories about "children at risk", the "social composition" (!) that will "change" and other improbable pretexts. And all this for a standard issue. For a formal and self-evident civil right, scientifically resolved for many years.
It is known that there is no correlation between the process of natural, biological procreation and parenting. Child rearing is related to other, social, factors.
Nor, of course, is the sexual orientation of the parents (heterosexual or same-sex couples) a factor that determines the development and upbringing of children. Child rearing is not a biological but a social issue.
All these have been proven for decades by scientific research and major scientific associations and are considered solved. Theories that argue that the biological process of procreation determines or decisively influences upbringing and thus, for example, justify the exclusion of people with a different sexual orientation from formal civil rights such as marriage and adoption are deeply unscientific.
All colleagues, male and female employees, regardless of sexual orientation or anything else, must have the same rights as everyone else
All colleagues are human, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity
They are all our colleagues.
Communism never and nowhere divides workers by nationality/gender/sexual orientation but unites them on the basis of class interests
It is also judged from today, since communism is the "movement that abolishes the existing order of things"

>>21460
Moron lol. At least you made me laugh.
>>21465
Jesus…. That's some retarded shit. Let's see if I can pull something out.

https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/reading-guides/queer-marxism-peter-drucker

Found this reading guide or rather a list of queer literature.

God damn. I had a little list of queer essays. It's gone now.

There's some good shit out there but honestly you kinda have to do the analysis yourself. Read stuff that might not be so good but have still a lot of insight, like Butler's gender trouble or the gender accelerationist manifesto, and do the rest of the legwork yourself.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto

I've only read some parts, but I swear it has some absolute fucking bangers. I'm not an anarchist. Trust.

>>21471
>Moron lol.
Why do you say that?

>>21475
Other comments have addressed it. Being trans is not comparable to having cancer. People with cancer aren't fucking hunted on the streets. That's just one thing. Trans liberation, further, means being able to live as trans fully integrated into society, which isn't possible currently due to a bunch of shit, including gender normativity and laws.

Then you talk about how oppressed people create identities. These are bound to happen due to the current way our society reifies any distinction between each other and converts it into a virtual commodity one is embedded with, so to speak. There is absolutely nothing queer people can do to avoid this. Yet you morally condemn them as doing something bad. Then you, for no reason, say that we shouldn't cater to these identities, which is a moral determination you make with absolutely no justification.

I get what you're trying to do, and you're generally correct in your analysis coming from a scientific point of view. But you're ultimately limiting your analysis to a liberal framework since you fail to account for the historic context in which trans/queer people of today have to live in today and the ways that society interplays with "objective" scientific facts such as the trans/queer condition being something which they can't control or freely choose.

Ultimately the medicalist approach to queerness is a liberal/modernist interpretation that falls short like all things liberal.

>>21472
>>21474
those are helpful but i need something that proves that communists should not discriminate in fighting for bourgois rights for queer people, despite knowing that true freedom lies in socialism. especially wtr to adoption rights. the adoption industry is highly commodified and that goes for heterosexual couples to, but we are against adoption in principal based on that, so our stance against queer people adopting is clearly homophobic. i need research that proves that children can be raised properly by queer parents. historicaly this is clear. the nuclear family hasnt always existed and it will not always exist. i can argue on that even based on engels origin of the family. but engels thinks that the monogamous family has a progressive cultural element compared to barbarism. i want to prove that this element doesnt mean that the monogamous family will be transfered to socialism as such minus the oppression of women but that it will be transformed radically on a higher basis. to me this is clear from the standpoint of marxist methodology but i need to back it up with concrete evidence on the specific question.

>>21481
>Trans liberation, further, means being able to live as trans fully integrated into society,
Shouldn't you make a distinction between socio-political and, for lack of a better term, "biological" integration into society? There are some things transpeople will never be able to do. Just like there are blind people who can never be pilots or surgeons. Are blind people oppressed if they don't get to be pilots? Of course not.

I think that's the crux of the issue, idealism vs materialism. You can't will a woman out of a man's body. Sexual reassignment surgery is a medical procedure that reduces the amount of suicides trans people commit by 50%. Yet people seem to think it is literally turning a man into a woman or a woman into a man, like magic.

I am all for trans people joining the socio-political life of society. I'm even for trans people adopting children. But there are things they will never be able to do.
>inb4 what about cis women and cis men who are unable to have children
They too will never be biological parents, because they too suffer from some disability.

>Then you talk about how oppressed people create identities. These are bound to happen due to the current way our society reifies any distinction between each other and converts it into a virtual commodity one is embedded with, so to speak. There is absolutely nothing queer people can do to avoid this.
You're mixing up subjects here. First you say it is oppressed people creating identities, then you blame "society" for it. Which is it? It is the oppressor that creates identities for the oppressed. Black people didn't start calling one another uyghur and said they were different, their oppressors did.

>Yet you morally condemn them as doing something bad. Then you, for no reason, say that we shouldn't cater to these identities, which is a moral determination you make with absolutely no justification.
I don't morally condemn them. I am saying there is an option of rejecting that identity, not embracing it.

You can call me names because I don't think the right things. But believe it or not, I'm one of the most accepting people out there. I know many trans people, and some of them are my friends, I use the pronouns and names they want me to. This is the best you can hope for. When you say
>being able to live as trans fully integrated into society,
that sounds to me like you expect people to think "That's a woman" when they see a transwoman, instead of "that's a transwoman". I'm sorry but that is never going to happen. Best you can hope for is acceptance and understanding, and integration into the socio-political life as members of the body politic, parents, workers, you cannot hope to force through changes that redefine the concepts of "man" and "woman".

>Ultimately the medicalist approach to queerness is a liberal/modernist interpretation that falls short like all things liberal.
Medicalist approach is the best hope trans people have. If we start seeing trans people as we do deaf, mute, blind people, then you can both prevent discrimination and make certain adjustments/accessibility changes. You're never going to redefine human biology with hopes and dreams.

>>21482
>i need research that proves that children can be raised properly by queer parents.
You'll never find it because it isn't true.
<A very large body of social science research going back decades has documented the vital and unique role of mothers and of fathers in childhood development. These studies have also demonstrated the negative psychological, educational, and social effects on children who have been deprived of growing up in a home with both biological parents who are married to each other.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771005/

This isn't anything against queer people in particular, it simply means we see the best outcomes when a child is raised by biological parents. Being raised by queer people isn't worse than being raised by a single parent or by adoptive heterosexual couples. That should be your argument. Being raised by queer parents (and any other kind of adoptive parents) is better than being raised in an orphanage. Since queer people would adopt from the same "pool" of orphans/unwanted children as everyone else, allowing queer people to adopt means increasing the chances of better outcomes for a larger number of children.

> i can argue on that even based on engels origin of the family.
Don't. Argue from contemporary research.

>>21486
>I'll even humor your mental illness.
Thanks. Sometimes I say things that makes people assume a bunch of things about me, but I really do accept people as they are or as they say they are.

>>21485 (me)
I just came across this video (on reddit, don't kill me) and it talks about the neurobiology of transsexuals. Basically some part of the brain that is a certain size for cis men and women is the same size as of the gender that transgender people insist they are. It is the same size whether the people have transitioned or not.

This reinforces my point that being transgender is a form of "disability" (again, for lack of a better word). Much like having some part of your brain reduced/enlarged would give you some sort of mental "disability".

>>21488
forgot video

>>21489
There's no sound.

>>21488
does this mean transgenderism can be cured by something akin to a lobotomy?
>>21489
no sound

>>21490
>>21491
Forgot that there's no sound on reddit videos when dowloaded through 3rd party clients since they updated their API. Now there's sound.

>does this mean transgenderism can be cured by something akin to a lobotomy?
No. Because it is a region with a bundle of nerves/neurotransmitters, and the differences between sexes is about the number of nerves and neurotransmitters in that bundle. The guy in the video explains it much better.

Lobotomy just rips/cuts whole parts of the brain without any precision and is a horrific mutilating "procedure".

>>21493
interesting. while I don't think we have the technology to do something about this at present, perhaps in the future it will be possible to realign the brain to correspond to the body
>Forgot that there's no sound on reddit videos when dowloaded through 3rd party clients since they updated their API
use yt-dlp

>>21485
> Yet people seem to think it is literally turning a man into a woman or a woman into man, like magic.

I think you're misunderstanding gender and sex categories, there is no trans person who thinks they'll ever be biologically equivalent to a cis person of the same gender. All we want is to be respected and be able to exist in society freely.

>>21485
Literally 0 people think trans female bodies can do the same thing cis female bodies can do. Literally 0 people.

You're not thinking dialectically in the rest of your post and you seem to be terminally online and weirdly obsessed with trans issues. I'm sorry but I don't feel like answering.
>>21493
liberal/positivist take on human behavior. "Its all neurons and chemicals!". Are we back in the 2000s with this absurd psychiatry?

If you really want to push forward the dialectic, bring up intersex people.

>>21517
Yeah. XX cis men and XY cis women.

Also point out how biological sex is the gendering of the body, and not vice versa.

>>21458
For my country, on the issue of LGBT people in general, these would be my arguments

1. support individual self-determination
1.a. anything else is a conservative, idealist form of morality
2. historicize class in order to see how gender, race, and nationality distort any "pure" form of class (e.g. the role of women in primitive accumulation and early capitalism, the role of women's domestic labor in reproducing capitalism, the national and racial disproportions in the working class and the bourgeoisie, etc.)
3. understand why conservatives attack lgbtq+ individuals
3.a. sex is the tether for gender that is used to claim its natural existence. If sex and gender activities are untethered, it's a threat to patriarchy, and thus a threat to the historic bourgeoisie (e.g. increased competition) and the reproduction of capitalism (e.g. women withdrawing labor).
3.b. it's the refusal to perform sex-assigned-gender activities, as required by the supremacist superstructure. Refusal is treated harshly, the same way criticism within a cult or disobeying a mafia don is treated harshly. The worry is it could cause a cascading effect that unseats patriarchy

basically, to support these identities on both human grounds of self-determination and because their detractors are upholding systems of oppression (patriarchy specifically) that scaffold capitalism.

>>21465
on your adoption issue: if your party is against adoption because of the commodified nature, then be against adoption for everyone. A child shouldn't be treated as something everyone has a right to (a consumerist mindset anyways). A child is a responsibility. Like another anon said, insofar as there are children in need of legal guardians for natural reasons, then allowing queer couples and individuals to adopt is helpful to the problem. [no i dont have studies :,( ]

but it seems like you have the basics outlined . Supporting science, rejecting unscientific claims in the name of tradition. I get that you want books but this topic seems kind of self-evident once you reject all religious and traditionalist claims that have nothing supporting them.

>>21519
let's be fully materialist though, and lay out in what ways biological sex is the gendering of the body. It's only in the extermination of other sex conditions (through systematic genital reassignment and hormone therapies for intersex people to make them fit the binary, and culturally through the refusal to educate on this topic and the pervasive notion of only two possible biological positions regarding sexed characteristics) that gender produces sex.

can i please live as the person i am comrades? why is that open to question? i would make a good mother i promise

>>21815
put me in the screencap

>>21526
> Like another anon said, insofar as there are children in need of legal guardians for natural reasons, then allowing queer couples and individuals to adopt is helpful to the problem. [no i dont have studies :,( ]
It's actually a much bigger deal than that (prepare to get mad when you learn this). As it happens, people seeking to adopt children (heterosexual couples primarily of course), one of the main factors in deciding to adopt is the desirability of "fashionability" if you will of the child in question. Prospective adopters are NOT SHY about telling agencies or the foster care system what kind of children they DO NOT WANT - disabled, nonwhite, "problem" behavior, history of trauma, etc. It's OVERWHELMINGLY the LGBT couples who are willing to adopt children in the "undesirable" category, presumably because, you know, we can relate.

>>21826
>There is a reason why every single corporation support gay rights and BLM.
They do not. You made that up.
>They don't hurt profit. An united working class does.
Even assuming this is strictly true, that doesn't really say anything about what the socialist movement should have to say/do regarding LGBT people, or anything else for that matter. Being concerned with "hurting profit" isn't even really a socialist concern - what matters is fomenting and leveraging the conditions that will lead to proletarian revolution and an overturning of capitalism. "Hurting profit" is at most subordinate to that goal, and using it as a criterion to dismiss a group of people (who by the way tend to be on average a lot more radical than the typical worker) is an extreme vulgarization and stupid on its face. What an embarrassing thing to think, let alone post.

>>21460
> Do we talk about "cancer patient liberation"?
yeah it's called health care

>>21460
>Transgender is a term for a medical condition called body dysmorphia
It's called gender dysphoria, not body dysmorphia, those are distinct disorders with different symptoms and are classified differently in the DSM-5. To put it shortly, body dysmorphia is excessive worrying about someone's body and this may or may not coexist with gender dysphoria.
According to the DSM-5, body dysmorphia is classified under "Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders" while gender dysphoria is given it's own heading.
Please refer to the DSM-5 for more details.
>for which the best treatment we have now is gender re-assignment surgery
There is no "best treatment" for gender dysphoria, and SRS is not an appropriate treatment for all patient, in fact SRS is the last treatment that is offered to patients when all other treatment options fail:
<It is important to understand that, at reputable gender identity clinics, sex reassignment is not the first treatment offered to patients, but rather, it is the last. At the CAMH Gender Identity Clinic, for example, patients are required to live full-time as the opposite sex for two years before they are even considered eligible for surgery; our requirements further specify that patients must work, attend school, or perform bona fide charity work in the cross-gender role during this trial period, and that they must provide us with documentation proving they have done so. This requirement alone screens out the 80% of new referrals whose gender dysphoria is clearly not strong enough to merit sex reassignment, and gives the other 20% plenty of time to decide whether life in the cross-gender role is, in fact, a substantial improvement over life in their original gender role.
Source: http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/psychiatry_rounds.pdf