[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/b/ - Siberia

"We need an imageboard of action to fight for OC making posters."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1627598771775.png ( 324.86 KB , 821x866 , Trans Noumena.png )

 No.118772

Since /b/ is now actually /tttt/ I'm giving in just to spite you faggots. Most of you suck at this shit and if you're going to make a trans thread you might as well put some fucking effort into the OP. I genuinely hope that the next trans thread (and you know that there will be more) has more brain cells than it has posts. Also I just really want someone to respond to me, I wasn't given enough attention as a child sorry. So please, take some time to read and/or tear apart my blog post.

Gender and sex are seperate concepts despite the material origins of the latter.
Gender only materially exists insofar as the sexes can be assigned certain roles for their physiological ability in relationship to the needs of their society. A male is strong and hunts or does difficult labour, but most people don't hunt anymore and difficult labour is becoming obsolete. The more vulnerable female needs protection and focuses on birthing and raising her offspring, but that vulnerability shrinks in severity as daily life becomes safer, and her duties become obsolete along with it. The material origins of gender will be abolished when the need for physiological differences between men and women are overcome, and from there it's just a matter of ideology.
Why is gender seperate from sex? The reason why I say "gender" and not "sex roles" is because such "sex roles" would have to be fluid and open to modification. If a large percentage men in given a society are absent or dead, the remaining women have to take up their roles, and vice-versa (within reason). There is plenty of evidence for this throughout human history, but I must repeat once again that such roles are slowly becoming subverted as such socially necessary physiological differences are being rendered obsolete by technological advancement.
In the far future, assuming that our mastery of biology allows us to alter our forms in novel ways, the same will happen to sex and even our to our definition of humanity. But let's put that aside for now.

The conflation of gender and sex confounds our method of dealing with trans identity politics.
I refuse to refer to all trans people as transgender. Why? Simply put, there are some cases of trans people for whom sex reassignment surgery benefits them, and likewise there are some for whom it harms them. I will differentiate from these two categories by using the terms transsexual and transgender.
Transsexual people are those who believe that their assigned sex does not correspond to their real sex. Why they believe this should not be our concern. The most successful treatment for these people is often to help them transition into their desired sex. For many of them, doing so is a milestone in overcoming a lifelong struggle. We should avoid mislabing transsexual people as transgender.
Transgender people are those who believe that their assigned gender does not correspond to their real gender. But the problem here is obvious: what is their "real" gender? Is it the gender that most corresponds to their physiology? Perhaps in the past this would be acceptable, and we could arguably justify treating them the same was as transsexuals, but as gender becomes less and less based on socially necessary physiological differences, this explanation becomes more and more dubious. The "real" gender of a transgender person is ultimately whatever they want to believe, because gender is no longer a strictly material phenomenon. If this is the case, then I claim that sex reassignment surgery (and possibly even hormone treatment?) will likely harm them more than it will help them.
This distinction is critically important if we are to adequately critique transgender ideology without harming transsexuals in the process.

Trans identity politics is often a distraction cynically used by political elites.
It is estimated that under 1% of the population of adults in the United States are trans, and this figure might be underreported. Regardless, let's just consider that fact in relation to how often trans issues are discussed. Even if trans people are the most margininalized group in society, they are still likely to be little more than a million people in a country of 300+ million. Does this mean that we should dismiss trans issues? Of course not. But doesn't it seem a little odd that discussions on trans issues are growing increasingly more prevalent in not only left-wing political groups, but on Twitter, 4chan, YouTube, mainstream political/media circles, etc. in general?
Is there a conspiracy here? Not necissarily. This is a conspiracy in the same sense that the U.S. government capitalizing on 9/11 by invading Iraq was a conspiracy; you don't have to create an elaborate plan with thousands of co-conspirators to orchestrate a terrorist attack to justify invading a country, when all you have to do is wait for a tragedy to happen and use it accordingly. We should instead look for these "conspiracies of opportunism" rather than conspiracies in the traditional sense.
The "conspiracy" here emerges from the knowledge of trans issues in the first place. The internet allows these people to congregate easily and make their voices heard in every space they inhabit. Left-liberals found their opportunity within another marginalized group to fetishize and siezed upon it. Right-liberals found their opportunity within another marginalized group to persecute and siezed upon it. As communists, we should neither fetishize nor persecute these people, for by doing so we play on the liberal's battleground of culture conflicts. Rather, we should simply accept them as they, are and refocus our efforts on spreading class consciousness and assisting the working majority with their fight in the battle for democracy.

Short-term solutions to the simpler concerns of trans people are matters of common decency.
When presented with the problems of bathrooms and pronouns, we need not delve too deep into theoretical debates. All that is needed for such concerns of daily life is a stance of common sense and decency, one that the average citizen already adheres to yet might find difficult to adapt in such unusual circumstances. How to deal with bathrooms? Simply advocate for a third toilet not specific to any sex or gender. How to deal with pronouns? Simply point out that everyone has their oddities and quirks that one might need to adapt to, and whether or not you choose to respect those quirks reflects upon yourself. But what about misgendering? If a trans person's ego is so fragile that they take strong offense to an unintentional misgendering, then they have problems that go beyond their gender identity, and such equally applies negative reactions to mildly offensive jokes or the curiosity of the unknowing. Likewise, if a person consistently misgenders, prods or probes too far even when asked not to, then they should be treated as any other rude and inconsiderate person would.
If my arguments strike you as banal and obvious, good! These are psychosocial concerns of politeness and respect that varies from person to person (read: normies), and we can cultivate such excellence by promoting strong moral leadership and an attitude of universal sympathy.

Trans people are people.
Human beings are not defined by their identities, they are defined by their actions. A trans person is not someone we should infantilize or dehumanize in any way. We should be able to point out the stupidity or the brilliance of a trans person like we would any other. We should be able to critique trans ideology like we would any other. We must avoid the temptation to attach any such praise or criticism to the identity of a specific trans person, for by doing that we dehumanize them by reducing them to nothing more than an ideal. Our goal shouldn't be to cater to or alienate trans people, but to treat them as nothing more or less than real, flawed, flesh and blood people.

TL;DR: you're all trans, no for real though it's a scientifically proven fact, buy my book on Amazon and give it 5 stars on GoodReads and like my videos and subscribe to my channel on YouTube where I make cool trans videos and follow my trans RSS feed on my trans trans blog where I trans about trans trans and trans trans trans trans trans trans.
>>

 No.118798

Leftypol being weird
But still, bump for OP for making a good effortpost
>>

 No.118801

Everyone shut the fuck up.
>>

 No.118806

I read half of it and wrote this post. Have a nice day
>>

 No.118810

File: 1627600313958.png ( 1.25 MB , 1728x8048 , ClipboardImage.png )


m,
>>

 No.118814

soy
>>

 No.118816

Nobody is reading this, shut the fuck up
>>

 No.118825

>>118816
I did, as I'm sure many other anons did as well.
Here's another bump for OP!
>>

 No.118826

>>118810
reminds me of this
>>

 No.118828

>>118826
The guy holding the camera was unironically tariq nasheed
>>

 No.118831

>>118828
God I hate that faggot so much, someone needs to curbstomp his face into the pavement.
What's even better is he posted this to his social media, and immediately turned it into a race issue.
>>118826
Watching him beat himself up just breaks my heart, I can't imagine how he feels in his head :(
>>

 No.118833

>>118828
wait for real?
>>

 No.118835

File: 1627601443310-0.png ( 179.96 KB , 1320x836 , Ez7SFcDWEAUpQ96.png )

File: 1627601443310-1.png ( 66.99 KB , 825x413 , Ez7SAhBWUAcN3Xh.png )

>>118831
If evil is real, Tariq is the posterboy of it
>>

 No.118837

>>118833
No but Tariq did post the video and mocked the employee on twitter
>>

 No.118844

>>118835
>deleted his account
rip
>>

 No.118880

Is Tariq Nasheed just your typical Twitter attention whore or does he actually believe the bullshit he peddles?
>>

 No.118890

no stop i still haven't finished reading the last thread

aaaaaaaa
>>

 No.118909

>>118826
>>118835
BTW for the BPDposters on this board, this is a good example of what actual BPD is more like. People with BPD experience such strong emotions that they don't know how to deal with them, so some of them just bottle it up until they reach a breaking point and go apeshit, usually by being violent to themselves or to inanimate objects. This has happened to two of my friends with BPD, one of them ended up punching a stop sign and destroyed one of their fingers and the other one fucked up their wrist with a serrated knife and was sent to the hospital.
Stigmatizing people with BPD (or any Cluster B's for that matter) is stupid, don't do it. Either cut them off completely or try to help them by validating their emotions and encouraging them to get treatment.
>>

 No.118913

>>118772
this sums it up right? that individuals who become trans are terminally online and thus dominate the online spaces despite their small number are able to spam post any online space WITH the help of bad actors.

thus we need to take a stance against this, Already the real world actions of this ideology are abhorrent, but they have been infecting universalist ideologies aswell. These coping mechanisms must be gotten rid of to talk about the real topics that are hurting the working class
>>

 No.118932

>>118913
>this sums it up right?
No.
>individuals who become trans are terminally online
A gross oversimplification. Trans people are more common online than usual because the internet allows them to connect very easily, which is an enticing prospect for a group of people who are otherwise so small in number. This can eventually translate into becoming terminally online if the real world is hostile enough for them to prefer their digital life instead, which is increasingly a problem for many different people in general.
>and thus dominate the online spaces
A gross exaggeration. Trans people do not dominate online spaces, nor does trans discussion. Trans discussion in general is excessively prominent in left-wing (or more specifically left-liberal) spaces, but I wouldn't say it's dominant. What I do consider to be a severe problem is the fact that cultural issues are what's really dominating political discussion, because these cultural issues are part of the same pattern of cynical abuse by political elites. The socialist left does not appear to have an adequate strategy to combat this problem.
>despite their small number are able to spam post any online space WITH the help of bad actors.
Again, you misunderstand. There are certainly trans people who wield unusually high influence in online spaces, but they are typically joined to the left-liberal camp which tactically inflates the communicative power of their marginalised members as part of a political strategy. The spam posting is more likely to be the combined posting of cis people who have been swept into such issues for ideological reason. Again, this is a sign of a broader trend of cultural issues dominating political discourse.
>thus we need to take a stance against this
What stance are we taking, and against whom or what? I advice that you proceed with great caution in answering my question.
>Already the real world actions of this ideology are abhorrent
Can you name for me any of these real world actions, and explain to me why they are as abhorrent as you claim?
>they have been infecting universalist ideologies aswell
>These coping mechanisms must be gotten rid of to talk about the real topics that are hurting the working class
As I've mentioned before, this is part of a broader divide-and-conquer strategy by liberals used to destroy radical politics. But the true cause is much deeper than liberal politics.
Communism is (or was?) the universalist ideology, and its workerist variants that emerged throughout the 20th century are a symptom of capitalism's ideologically distorting nature.
>>

 No.118938

>>118932
To clarify the last point, and to perhaps provoke some of you: one of the unspoken goals of communism is to emancipate the bourgeoisie just as much as the proletariat. Marx and Engels wrote about the misery of the bourgeoisie as well, and they were not so militant as their followers and cherry-picked writings make them out to be.
That the proletariat was apparently chosen as the agent(s) of history by most communist theorists distorts this truth.
>>

 No.118972

>>118932
>Trans people do not dominate online spaces, nor does trans discussion
>I advice that you proceed with great caution in answering my question.
Ok I will proceed with caution in answering this. Your gender identity is the product of an economic system that cares for profit over your fitting in a gender. Thus while it may be in your personal best interest to covert to Christianity or transgenderism or ect. This is only an opiate to the working class struggle that should attack these diseases that their source, instead of treating their symptoms, or worse, teaching their symptoms are some sort of virtue.

You feel like a women because you do not feel like a man. You do not feel like a man because you do not fulfill the role of a man. You do not fulfill the role of a man because the system you live in values revenue over your feelings of gender identity. This has created a system you live in, in which revenue is the priority over your psychological needs, unless those needs can be bent to reinforce revenue through some ideology. Whether through additional spending, austerity to systemic human issues, or reinforcement of systems that reinforce their revenue. It's role is to placate you and continue it.

So as the proletariat, we seek to overthrow these systems of control to then focus on the true reality of our position, a position based in materialism. And thus by focusing on this instead of the corporate backed systems of control we may improve our live past the need of those opiates of the masses, and live without them.
>>

 No.118989

>>118984
>Food is the same as horse piss and cosmetic surgery
>>

 No.119000

>>118972
Before I continue, I want to restate that I differentiate between transgender and transsexual people. See the OP for my reasoning.
>Your gender identity is the product of an economic system that cares for profit over your fitting in a gender.
I've already explained both the origin of gender from socially necessary physiological differences, and the degeneration of gender into pure identity as a consequence of technological advancement. Attributing the cause to an economic system isn't false, but it is an oversimplification.
>Thus while it may be in your personal best interest to covert to Christianity or transgenderism or ect.
Christianity and transgender ideology are not comparable, they emerge from completely different contexts and have different consequences on people's actions.
>This is only an opiate to the working class struggle that should attack these diseases that their source, instead of treating their symptoms, or worse, teaching their symptoms are some sort of virtue.
I can agree with the sentiment here, though not some of the language you've chosen to communicate it.
>You feel like a women because you do not feel like a man. You do not feel like a man because you do not fulfill the role of a man.
>This has created a system you live in, in which revenue is the priority over your psychological needs, unless those needs can be bent to reinforce revenue through some ideology. Whether through additional spending, austerity to systemic human issues, or reinforcement of systems that reinforce their revenue. It's role is to placate you and continue it.
This logic is flawed because as I've mentioned before, you misunderstand the nature of gender. Sometimes people feel like women and normally fulfil the role of women, yet are forced to fulfil the role of men due to circumstances where there is a significant lack of men. That one's identity may or may not be commodified obscures the problem, since such commodification is ultimately a result of opportunistically seizing upon the degeneration of gender into pure identity.
>So as the proletariat, we seek to overthrow these systems of control to then focus on the true reality of our position, a position based in materialism. And thus by focusing on this instead of the corporate backed systems of control we may improve our live past the need of those opiates of the masses, and live without them.
The flaw in the stance you've chosen as a consequence of your logic is that you believe it's enough to overthrow capitalism. But so long as there is a social necessity for the physiological differences between males and females, there will be gender, and in the absence of repression there will be a gender spectrum and transgenderism of some kind. When I said "you're all trans" at the end of my OP, I was only partially joking. Everyone fits somewhere on this spectrum, and many of them have at times "switched sides" out of necessity. Our goal is to turn this gender spectrum into a gender spook that we can freely exorcise. We must eliminate the need for gender by eliminating the need for physiological differences between males and females. To do this, we must advance technology.
But what about in the meantime? How do you propose we handle the problem of gender? If your stance is one of repression, like that of the Soviets and Anarchists dismantling churches, then I cannot support you. I'd suspect that under socialism I'd still feel the urge to smoke a joint every now and then, because something tells me that it wont be a stress-free utopia. I say that for now we cautiously embrace the opiate, for as you've said, we "should attack these diseases at their source".
>>

 No.119034

>>119000
I should note that what overcoming gender entails is the abolition of the necessity for human reproduction and pregnancy. This can be done through the development of artificial wombs and sex robots.
I recommend that anons interested in this topic read Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex. She isn't really a Marxist but she is for the most part a materialist, and one of the more interesting second-wave feminists.
Also bump
>>

 No.119057

>>119034
idk I think free daycare and birth control come first, but ideally it would be both with free healthcare and robots for all.
>>

 No.119085

>>119057
>free daycare and birth control
This is somewhat contradictory.
Birth control would reduce the prevalence of reproduction by proxy, but this conflict with occasions where reducing birthrates is undesirable.
Although free daycare would lessen the need for a caretaker role, such is also a reduction in the costs of living and will increase the likelihood that parents will have more children. This also means that sufficiently advanced socialist planning will have the same effect on birthrates.
Both should still be provided of course, but neither are much in terms of solutions to the problem at hand.
>ideally it would be both with free healthcare and robots for all
Agreed, but don't forget artificial wombs. Gender aside, it's pretty obvious but pregnancy is a significant encumbrance on the freedom of females.
>>

 No.120968

bump
>>

 No.120980

The only solution is killing and eating our rulers and furious orgies with the transhumanists on their bodies
>>

 No.120999

File: 1627763441376.jpg ( 97.03 KB , 640x640 , 1627527135161.jpg )

Gender is not real
trans"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""genders""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" are inforcers of the gender binary myth that perpetuate the reactionary concept of women by trying to become a strawman stereotype of one
>>

 No.121003

>>120999
Transgenders are just as valid as cisgenders (not valid). Gender isn't real but the social construct will take time before being abolished, hence gender accelerationism is the best path forward.

Unique IPs: 18

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome