Comrade Finnish has the completely correct stance on the whole "idpol" issue. I'm sick of leftists who are gradually introducing reactionary ideas through anti-idpol rhetoric.

Other urls found in this thread:

I think that both liberal idpol and complete denial of gender, racial and LGBT issues are reactionary. I think that there is a golden mean between being Reddit-tier SJW and being downright antifeminist. One divides the proletariat by promoting micronationalist tribalism, the other prevents proletarian unity by downplaying the issues of marginalized groups.

u rite

I haven't seen anyone do that on Holla Forums. Nevermind plebbit.


It is, though?

Feminism and LGBT rights in general ar reactionary tendency, because those communities are developed and benefiting from capitalism. Feminist and LGBT ideology is based purely on bourgeois individualism and perception of individual's rights as being contrary to duties towards the community. Moreover, these environments will never agree to the liquidation of capitalism because their existence is the result of capitalist consumption and its excess.

I don't want to say that we need to exclude feminists or LGBT people from our movement, but they can serve our cause only as individuals, when they abandon the main political agenda of their identity, not as a social groups.

No. The word is not everything you don't like and should only be applied in appropriate contexts unless you want to look like a fool.

Pic related

But it is, fam.

why not post it when it was new

Nobody is introducing reactionary ideas. You're just mad that you can't shit thos place up with idpol.

You forget that social attitudes towards women and LGBT are forged by the bourgeoisie. Yes, bourgeois feminism and bourgeois LGBT movements are reactionary. However, we should see, as proletarians, that sexist, homophobic and transphobic views are strongly discouraged in proletarian circles as to strengten proletarian unity and values.

Traditionally people were intollerant to LGBT lifestyle and conservative, essentialist and sexually binarist (as it's called today: sexist) in their cognition of women's rights. Development of these trends was brought by capitalism and the rise of consumerism and individualism: my rights as individuals for sexual self-realization, unlimited consumption, are more important than duties towards community and family.

An LGBT person sees himself as an opponent of his local community and family, which are perceived as limiting and obscurantist, and a member of a new capitalist community based above all on consumption. Consumption of pornography, non-committing sex, drugs, alcohol, "queer culture", etc.
Socialist should identify with culture of work and being a worker, (which, by the way, means setting communitarian values as the highest) instead of culture of consumption and being a consumer. Low class consciousness of the Western left, howefer, led to a confusion of consumerist trends in capitalism with social progress. Bourgeois individualism, resulted from it's organization in the consumer communities, influenced the Left so strongly that they gave up seeing the value of work altogether, proposing a guaranteed basic income and the right to be lazy. They want the bourgeoisie without the proletariat! Pure consumption without work.
This is the biggest threat that comes with the acceptance of the LGBT narrative.

On the other hand, it is not my business who is sleeping with whom. I do not mind working with gays unless they impose their individualistic agenda.

Socialism is society in which everyone works and it is a moral duty for the community. There is no special snowflakes. There is no place for making problems with some stupid issues because there is work to do. Socialism, therefore, means a culture of solidarity, responsibility and dedication to the community. Do not ask what the community can do for you, but what you can do for the community. Everyone according to the possibilities. Only then can we talk about needs, and each stomach is the same.

Therefore, there is no question that someone feels gender-binary, has some childish fancies and fantasies, because of some imaginary mental problems, he/she shirks his job. You have two arms and two legs, you can do something, and if you do not want to, you shall not eat. This is socialism.

Of course, it should be "gender non-binary".


It's not being sexist, homophobic or transphobic being dividing for the working class but contrary: it's being feminist, homosexual or transvestite is divisive and shouldn't be accepted in healthy proletarian community.

This ignores infiltration by federal agencies and the general prevalence of individualism that stifled solidarity during occupy

this could easily be copied from some Focus on the Family tract. an LGBT person is an opponent of his local community, family and bases his identity on pornography and drugs? that is ridiculous, old-fashioned humbug.

and everyone knows there is more than just class to consider here. (see, nationalism. there's a reason uncle joe had a sharper political and geopolitical sense than the other bolshies.) and marx would also admit capitalism contains progress within it, just as capitalism created the working class which was progress over feudal relations. isn't the whole point to mobilize this class for the purpose of eventually abolishing it?

Funfact: in DDR people were thrown off the Party if someone found they're homosexual. German communists were justifying it so that a party member should be an ordinary member of society: work, have a family, children, to serve the community just like everyone else. He was supposed to be equal, not better than others. There was no room for individualistic, hedonistic, consumeristic behavior. What's more, the (anarcho) syndicalist movement in the early 20th century was similar. During the Spanish Revolution, the CNT banned prostitution and ensured that the community did not abuse drugs and alcohol; sexual promiscuity was also opposed to reduce venereal diseases.

YPG/YPJ are not frivolous too, the first duty of their member is to serve the Revolution, this is a struggle and dedication to Idea, not life for your own pleasures. They don't accept homosexuals and don't allow sex in the army, most of them are Muslims, and in European standards they're very conservative.

Every real revolutionary movement has kept high moral standards and an ascetic lifestyle in which the individual is nothing and the revolutionary goal is everything. This is irreconcilable with the liberal point of view in which the individual is everything and politics serves his private whims and needs.

What's "more than class"? What is your private whim that is more important than the class struggle?

Honestly "Occupy" was just a mess regardless.

Almost every position that tries to find a "golden mean" between two extremes suggests that its development was theoretically neglected and its premise was accepted at face value.

On your scale of "liberal idpol ↔ complete denial of gender, racial and LGBT issues" what gets lost is the authentic non-identity based (that is, communist) expressions of those very gender, racial, LGBT issues neither side could cover. Those who deny the existence of, say, racial issues, almost always deny the dimension of class as well, "at best" they assign it secondary importance; those who are immersed in liberal idpol do the same. What gets lost is the interplay of class and race, and communists hypothesize that the determining factor in all of these cases is the economy.

The challenge is not to navigate in between two extremes but to win back these issues under the aegis of our proposed communist vision. Lenin somewhere in WITBD addresses this question: should we focus exclusively on the proletariat? Heck no! If you can't explain to students, women, minorities, peasants, etc. why the only real solution is communism to their problems then you are doomed to fail.

It is good that leftypol is anti-idpol, and I stand by this statement. The left has been plagued by this shit for decades, and we all know that, we've seen it. It is always easier to be against something ("anti-capitalist") than to be able to articulate a positive program.

Be anti-idpol on gender issues, sure, but also be a communist on gender issues.

Such a bourgeois!

But seriously: Lenin has revised Marxism to build his political regime in a peasant country almost without a industrial proletariat. Exactly Lenin was the first id-poler. He appealed to various shit identities like minority nationalism or even Jihad in Central Asia. The Bolshevik Party destroyed the meaning of original idea in favor of their identity politics which was later crowned by Stalinist Soviet nationalism. They did it because they wanted above all to gain power in an agricultural country in which capitalism had to be built. It was not a bit Marxist.

If you can't listen to needs of white heterosexual male workers what they want to achieve in communism, you're not a bit more than liberal activist or a sectarian proclaimer of revealed truth that no one will listen to. Revolutionary should at first, listen to workers and support their struggles, at second, peceive it as a struggle in which his private needs are unimportant.
You should give up your identity as an individual, created by capitalism for capitalism, for a revolutionary struggle. That's how it works.
Idpol is doing contrary.

You got sources for any of that?

you know the communist movement has hardly been consistent here. when gays were put in labor camps in cuba (in lieu of serving in the army, which was also forbidden in most capitalist countries), castro personally visited them and closed them down when he saw the conditions, calling it a "great injustice." even the DDR was inconsistent and relaxed the laws in the 1960s. (and west germany was hardly better until after the cold war.)

IMO hard-line anti-idpol on the left is trying to solve the problem of the (idpol) circular firing squad that emerged during occupy by creating a linear firing squad: with the idpolers lined up against the wall. but you're still shooting your own people.

where we might agree is that i think occupy's problems emerged from a liberal 'consensus-based' organization … or lack of organization. anyone could derail anything because 'all perspectives are equally valid.' liberal idpol flooded in. but that's also a structural problem that isn't solved by demanding strict adherence to anti-idpol ideology. what i think would happen is that the left would just police itself, in an occupy-like fashion, at any perceived idpol – like a mirror image of the original problem.

more like "historically specific, rather horrific facts"

This is completely unacceptable and a retrograde move, first found in the administrative shift from Lenin to Stalin. Look up the orgy porgies under early USSR, for instance. In any case, if you think that this is acceptable, or worse, an example to follow, you are simply a shitty human being. There's nothing "more bourgeois" about homosexuality than heterosexuality. I've seen some attempts to defend this claim and they either boil down to simple and unsubstantiated normative/declarative statements (HURR, PROLE CAN'T BE HOMO) or some natalist horrorshow (HUMAN REPRODUCTION IS PRODUCTION, DURR).

*gave work to prostitutes. >inb4 sexwork
By now we have other ways of dealing with this.

(Also of note: the nudist movement in Catalonia. Silly, sure, but a historical fact.)

Read some texts on "Kant with Sade" – this shit soon turns into its opposite, finding obscene enjoyment from the act of renouncing enjoyment. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for discipline, dedication, collective/universalist ethics, but what you describe is a kind of permanent crisis or mobilization where everybody has to (play the role rather than really) be a kind of superhuman robot.

This is the crux of this debate, no? If you are a women who gets constantly denied from promotions, gets berated in the workplace because of her gender, or mutatis mutandis a nignog, these (what we think are essentially) class issues get magnified in their eyes through gender or race spectacles. You can't blame them for this. You can only work with them, explain to them, if you can.

This is some excellent bait that I will evade, thank you very much.

Except that there were no homosexuality before capitalist cultural imperialism brought it to Europe and now it spreads to the whole world.

The entire LGBT is a product of capitalism. A way to provide more sexual consumption without the effects of raising children and reducing mobility. Fundamentally anti-working class lifestyle. The point is to put pressure on sex as mindless consumption without obligations to the community as a result, which is to destroy relics of primary communism still present in so called 'family values'. For irony, their main defenders today are right-wing conservatives: the greatest enemies of communism defend its last bastion against progressing capitalism, and the Marxist left tries to counteract this. History makes fun of us.

He doesn't (unless it's a few dubious anecdotal cases).

Even is USSR (unlike in DDR, male homosexual anal sex was actually banned there - yes, the ban was that specific) hardly anyone got persecuted. It was much easier get kicked out for adultery (which was a sign of Party's degeneration, imo; when political movements bothers about morality too much, they don't do politics).

Shut your lying mouth. It happened in 1934 - hardly a shift "from Lenin to Stalin" (even if one acts within a moronic paradigm of great man theory).

And the "first found" is patently false. Some Soviet republics had this ban since the beginning (i.e. introduced "under Lenin").

the bit about everybody becoming a 'superhuman robot' is also … maybe like a postmodernist concept of the kind which the anti-idpolers rail against? in which you can alter your class position (and its material relations) by force of will and commitment to the revolutionary struggle. by commitment to a moral ideology and … identity, basically.

reminds me of sergey nechayev and the other russian nihilists.

Fuck off, Holla Forums.

Fuck off, bourgie. And take off this hammer and sickle because it's symbol of working class, not your.

*potentially your people.
You are not going to convince me that the likes of Ketchup from OWS can ever become one of us.

I agree completely.

IMO this can be solved in party structures. Put in very vulgar terms accept members that are communist feminists, and debate, educate, etc. with feminist communists. The latter position eventually boils down to opportunism (e.g. forming coalitions with libs based on few or single issues) or reformist strivings (e.g. lets get in parliament to further the give band aids to women, POC), while the former is for a revolution, knowing very well the shortcomings of the latter.

Hardly, but there are several things in this sentence. A certain level of policing in every serious radical organization (party, platform, action group, what have you) is completely necessary due to external (state) factors. If you've ever been in a revolutionary party or an anarchist group consisting of more than 30 members you must take for a given that there are moles. Some creative tests, practical tricks, but most of all measuring the actual political input (party work) takes care of this, IMO.

You can't (and good radical collectives generally don't) "police out" idpol elements. I've never seen this done, in fact, the exact opposite is the usual case (non/anti-idpol commies get purged). You are not in a communist collective if there are taboos around any topic. Say a zoophile comrade comes to join. Does he work? Does he write articles, agitate on the street corner every second day? Who gives a fuck about her fucking horses then? Sure, address it in debates, but why the fuck throw her out?

Lastly, even if purges take place in communist collectives they never mirror the craze idpollers do. For them purges (since shifts in identities, friendships, factions, BFFs) are constant, exactly because they have no program, no clear vision, no comradeship. If you see a supposedly commie party doing this, you get the sense in advance that 2/3rds of the membership are tattood, pink haired, piercing'd, tumbler'd students.

This is some fucking desperate pseudo-marxism to validate your reactionary beliefs. Please stop inventing theory, you suck at it.

You don't need "the moronic theory of le great man" to detect factual shifts in administrative style. Another example would be the regulation of the arts. Stalin (or should I say the administration under Stalin, not to trigger your tripfag ego?) was right up to an extent to motivate the reintroduction of movies/theater plays with clear narrative structure, or less abstract paintings, but of course he did more than just "motivate."
lel, '28-'34 was exactly the critical phase in the politburo after Lenin's death.


Mein Kampf isn’t working class either.

I agree and Nechayev is a good example of overdoing this. When pomos talk about the dangers of big narratives I think they imagine fanatics like him, so to a certain very limited extent they are right.

Do you even know what rectionary originally means? It's a position to defend the failing bourgeois values and social structures from the inevitable economic process. What was the economic process behind LGBT? The destruction of the working class and the creation of a consumer society.
Where the workers come to the fore, the economic system is swaying, and LGBT is also afraid. Because they benefit from the liberal economic system and the exploitation of the working class. Because even if some of them work, their identity is based on the fact that they primarily consume. A worker is nothing to them, what matters is their pleasure that someone has to work on.

Where the working class is large, there's no such phenomena at all. Countries in the Middle East, Asia, South America, are not the vanguard of gay rights. Gay rights are an agenda that is intended to replace workers' struggles. The existence of homosexuality in society is inherently hostile to the working class and as such should be ruthlessly fought against.


Aye agreed.
Still always put class first tho.

You know that you showed images of behavior of aristocracy?
The ruling classes have always been sexually free. Because they could. Someone was working on them, so they could focus on the pleasures of life.

>Someone was working on them, so they could focus on the pleasures of life.

No serious scholar would call the majority of roman/greek citizens "members of the aristocracy," similarly, no serious scholar would deny that homosexual practice was widely prevalent, institutionalized, even.

thanks for this. interesting.

There's no scientific proof that Greeks practice homosexuality, and most of academic sources are gross misinterpretation.

You have to go back to /r/The_Donald/.

the thing about LGBT being bourgeois also seems to rely on the same, shopworn stereotypes of gay men: loose sex, carnal pleasure, drugs. where do lesbians fit into this? if anything, the ones i know are more working class than a lot of the straight, white, heterosexual men around these parts. but that's neither here nor there.

Yours is a hilariously limited and reactionary analysis of civil rights. These movements specifically lie within the realm of anti-oppression. They are neither inherently attached to or removed from the capitalist system. For one thing, there are various anti-racist and queer movements which have as their foundation a Marxist or anarchist framework. It is in fact reactionary to be against the liberation of these groups because heterosexual family structure is a bourgeois value, as is the former (some say not so former) white supremacy, at least in predominantly white capitalist countries. If you intend to have a strict class analysis, then you should not be against liberation groups for minorities as such.

But it's completely not true. In fact family values are proletarian values, and so called 'progressive' are bourgois. Proletarians are far more consevative and concerned on family than ruling class. Moreover, they perceive permissive lifestyle of ruling classes as moral collapse, what is repulsive to them. The left, unfortunately, does not listen much to the working class and tries only to talk to them to implement some of their strange ideas. It ends only with the development of fascism.

White capitalist countries are also the ones that treat LGBT best in history. It is common for rich gay people from the West to buy children from surrogates in Third World countries.

The whole world hates it and perceives it as foreign cultural imperialism. Even societies showed in Western culture as supposedly tolerant, like Thailand, in fact hate LGBT and hate each year more.

The problem is that you seem to think gays are incapable of nuclear family structure, but you are wrong. You are equating queerness with permissiveness and excess on your own account. Moreover, you falsely attribute a portion of this societal decay to the oppressed, rather than strictly to the bourgeois. Queer people are often proles, or even a part of the precariat, permissive or not. The atomization of society due to the accumulation of capital is what caused the collapse of the community, not civil rights. A radical restructuring of society with community focus and the expanded family is what will save social structure, not your reactionary bullshit.

"every prole is like me" - the post

Not always a bad thing. Not everyone who claims to be on your side is. Not everyone who thinks they are helping actually are. If you have to shoot a few congenital wreckers to purify and galvanize the rest of the movement, that's not a bad trade. With the state of the left as it is now, and the total joke idpol has made it into, I'd rather break an egg too many than one too few.

Also, their being white had nothing to do with the outcome of gay rights. Iran had a growing and pleasant gay sector until Homeni took over. Seriously, go back to Holla Forums, reactionary scum.

And that's you talk to majority of working class, no surprise that they became fascists then.

except that communist parties in the third world are often much better at LGBT rights in those countries than the alternatives. now they are not like western parties, but they're often better than the head-chopping conservative parties. and lumping in "the whole world" like this is a typical, patronizing attitude from western ultra-leftists.

and often, radical queer left types in those countries dislike western LGBT culture as well, as it has a culturally hegemonic hold on the image of what LGBT is everywhere. but western images of LGBT is not the lived reality for a lot of queer people in the third world.

Sargon logic.

You mean the most educated students of the weathiest families, who wanted to become super-left activists as their another life hobby and argument to fight with those stupid proles?
There's no so called "working class queer people".

Some user linked this the other day and I thought this was a pretty good take on the issue. /r/socialism's position of 'fighting racism because it will bring down capitalism' is a complete joke as capitalism has no stake in racism and indeed works more efficiently the more it removes such remnants of cultural norms from previous systems.

I literally lived in the poorest county in the United States on the midnight shift at a factory for years with plenty of other working class people. And I’m queer. And what have you done, reactionary? Care to tell me more about how there are no working class queers?

Oh, that's explains everything. You are special snowflake who puts his own individual whims as more important than the liberation of all other workers.
It's not different from being a scabbard, do not you think?

"I'm new to this leftism thing, guys!"
Proles can be highly specialized, educated.
Proles can be rather well off, too.
In strict numerical terms I'd wager that there are approx. 10 000 times more queer working class people in America than bourgeois.

You need to go back.

Is heterosexuality an individual whim, too?

in india, the vanguard of the movement for LGBT rights have historically been the communist parties, who were supporters of decriminalizing homosexuality long before the liberal congress party got around to it. (the right-wing BJP, of course, opposes homosexuality.)

what you're doing, really, is playing at identity politics while disavowing such by fetishizing a form of it ("proletarian identity" or somesuch). you have already done this by projecting a first-world status onto third world people who oppose you. it's actually quite postmodern!

Being an unironic homophobe or denouncing homosexuality as "bourgeois" is the same trap that self-proclaimed "queer activists" fall into - you know, the ones who say shit like "die cis scum" and blame straight people for all their problems. These issues are used to pit workers against one another, just like nationalism is; taking a strong stance against one group or another is simply playing into capitalist hands.

If we're fighting for human emancipation, we can't also fight to control how humans express their sexuality, save that it be done without coercion.

Maybe it's because I have no personal interest in ever having sex, but the fact that this society spends so much time obsessing about what people like to stick their dicks in to the point where it actually influences large scale political and economic issues like this depresses me greatly.

Heterosexuality is normal sexuality for more than 95% of people. The politically important people.

Initially I only wanted to slightly criticize/clarify two of your points but after the third reading I concluded that there are probably more serious and numerous problems here.
>[LGBT, etc. movements] are neither inherently attached to or removed from the capitalist system.
The predicate in this sentence can not be true, no matter the (contemporary*) subject – in other words there can be no "x" that is "neither inherently attached to or removed from the capitalist system." This goes to communism (the movement) as well! The law of gravity is "completely removed" (A) from the capitalist system, consumerism is "inherently attached" (B) to to the capitalist system, but the two sets don't share a single common element.

So yeah, these movements are attached to capitalism at least in the sense that they work on the terrain of capitalism. More serious criticism should be leveled against some forms of idpol movements, tho: their group dynamic is very similar to the dynamic of the market (based identities).

I'm not trying to be too orthodox here, but first you defended these movements by claiming they are in a neutral vacuum, essentially, and now you present this general (close to meaningless) term: "Marxist framework." What is it? Can you really extract a framework out of Marx's thought? How far is it removed? What is lost, what is kept?

For instance, I've seen "radqueers" piggybacking communist parties as their single issue platform. That is certainly not in a Marxist framework, as far as practice goes. I've read "radqueer" texts about how the next revolution will inevitably be fought by non-CIS people. That is certainly not in a Marxist framework, as far as theory goes, although sure, they kept the "revolution" part and the "revolutionary subject" part but distorted them beyond recognition and meaning.

I'm not sure if you are struggling to convey your ideas clearly either because you are in a hotheaded exchange with a poltard or because these ideas are not very clear to begin with…

First, there's the family structure, a palpable social unit, a molding form, existing since the human race's adoption of private property. Second, there's heterosexual normativity, a potential "charge" of said unit (the Greeks have already been brought up ITT). Third, there are typical values informed by these two. The first is ontic, the second is a "mode" (see: gay marriage), the third falls into the category of ideology.

Heterosexuality, in itself, is not more or less bourgeois than homosexuality.

Again, worded suspiciously. IMO you should drop that flag for a few months and read more… Long story short, in itself there's nothing revolutionary in minority struggles. Their liberation aims stretch from reforms to utopias (in the bad sense of the word), potentially with a communistish aftertaste, but typically just picking and choosing from radical texts without a coherent systemic understanding.

*more interestingly tho: would the future communist society be "completely removed" from the present capitalist system? cf. "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."

Good posts.

It's one thing that he is, in fact, a reactionary. One could hold reactionary views and be convinced otherwise. But this dude is deaf. He doesn't answer questions, he "refutes" by saying nuh-uh to facts he doesn't like. Stop feeding him. He's already miserable without you provoking him to show more of his forced retardation.

in any case, comrade finnish owns

This, tbh.

People using the term "idpol" is a big red flag at this point, and not the good kind. Most of us are smart enough to recognize disingenuous liberal rainbow-washing when we see it. Anybody who lumps legitimate anti-racist/anti-sexist action into the same category as corporate wokeness on the grounds that these movements somehow distract from rather than compliment socialism is either trolling or a brainlet.

You're not entirely wrong. That's why I'm making a distinction between liberal idpol, like the one you're talking about, and proletarian "universalism". Shit like this guy says harms proletarian unity. The proletariat cannot be united if some groups are to be discriminated against. Issues that affect particular groups within the proletariat, like the systemic racism of the American law enforcement and judicial system and the sexual harassment and discrimination that women working in traditionally masculine environments may face must be adressed. We cannot allow or accept that some comrades are to be treated or more likely to experience struggles than others.

As for the bourgeoisie, I don't care about them and their farce of idpol movement. I don't care about female corporate shills and female CEOs. Bourgeois scum is bourgeois scum.


I smell plebbit entryism.

This. You don't need to be a Reddit-tier speech police officer to be anti-racist and feminist.

Been here since day one. Don't have a reddit account. Eat shit.

Not bad criticisms, but I do have replies.

First, what I mean is that queer liberation movements are not inherently attached to capitalism because queer liberation could and does spring up in non-capitalist societies. That is because queerness is a natural phenomenon. Homosexuals and transsexuals exist in every society. These movements we are referring to in a leftism versus capitalism context, however, are not inherently removed from capitalism because these and all other social relations exist under capitalism and operate within it. Hence, my point is to say that they are neutral to capitalism as a phenomenon which must occur, but not neutral within capitalist societies, as they must be adversarial to the current order which oppresses them through economics.

My second reply is that you have narrowed and misunderstood my intent behind introducing queer and anti-racist groups with leftist frameworks. (Note: I was including anarchists as well.) my point here was to show that there have been and are now groups which are progressive in that they represent themselves as marginal groups seeking liberation against capitalism, which they rightly see as the source of their oppression. Examples off the top would be the Black Panthers (who were Maoist at first and then M-L) and Queer Anarchism. These groups are not free of criticism on theoretical grounds, and that wasn’t really my point. My point was a rebuttal to this assumption that queer and racial liberation groups are not de facto reactionary because they have the capacity to seek a society beyond the capitalist mode of production and to see that as the primary goal of liberation. I think they can have revolutionary potential because they can see themselves as part of the working class movement. Queer Anarchism is flawed in the extreme imo, but again, my point is that they can evidently see a necessity to move beyond capitalism, and hence queer movements can be made to be revolutionary, even in a Marxist sense. I haven’t looked into queer Marxist movements, but I have no doubt they exist.

My point about the family was merely to contradict the point he was making about an apparent lack of conservative-esque potential for queer families. I am personally not in favour of the family as it relates to inheritance and private property. I am for the expanded family and community orientation. Basically, I was dispelling his homophobic myth and *also* relaying alternatives.

That last bit you cited was not worded suspiciously in the context of his objections to queerness. I’m simply stating that queers, as a natural phenomenon, are neither reactionary nor revolutionary until such time that they break off into ideological groups and adopt reactionary or revolutionary theory. Until then, they are equally capable of either. Hence, one should not be against such groups *as queer groups*.

Why are people in this thread acting like Holla Forums is rife with racists and misogynists?

First waves, best wave, only wave. Everything else is liberal idpol and a mistake.

This board is okay, which is why I am still here, but there are posters (maybe you) who throw a shitfit when anything about race or sex is discussed and hide behind a misinterpreted Fred Hampton quote jpeg.

6 years of idpolist leftist freaks making the left the butt of jokes for an entire generation, driving actual working class people away, achieving nothing and then having their entire theory come into question after a reality TV star piglet becomes president of the united states. This shit is fucking DEAD END.

I'm not. I'm simply saying adressing gender and racial issues within the working class isn't idpol in and of itself. The end goal isn't the liberation of these groups irrespective of the economic paradigm, but as essential in the strengtening and the liberation of the working class as a whole. You are entirely correct when you say bourgeois feminism doesn't concern us. We should not care, for example, that there are not more female CEOs or that trans people may not be able to become imperial mercenaries in the future as these are not issues that are affecting the working class.

You can say this as much as you'd like, but they're going to continue to ignore it and pretend you're calling for the precise opposite. It's an inherent drawback of posting on a platform that grew out of outrage over motherfucking video games.

Plese give one argument that Marxist should engage in such a movement like queer movement. It's pointless from Marxist perspective, that being defines consciousness and superstructure is created by the base.

There is literally no or one reason why any leftist, socialist or Marxist movement would be engaged in the gay movement. Queer liberation has no connection with the liberation of the working class - even more, it's harmful because it focuses on superstructure matters, not on the economic base.

wasn't first wave full of literal racists who dismissed the conditions of black people and other minorities?

I mean, second wave is fairly trash too, but there are a lot of third wave comrades, I doubt that many people who are actually third wave are supporters of neoliberalism at this point considering it's shown that it has no interest in helping anyone other than the bourgeoisie

Yeah, but I do get why they do. One just needs to visit Trumblr or Reddit. I mean the sectarian speech police will ban you over anything they perceive as even remotely "biggoted". I got banned from r/anarchism for saying "fascist cunts", which they interpreted as a misogynistic attack. When you have people like that, it's obviously just as toxic and it creates resentment.

It was because feminist movement since it's very begining were entirely bourgeois.

You have the statement backward, unfortunately. It’s queers forming a Marxist movement, not Marxists taking part in a queer movement. It has to be Marxist at its base, and therefore formed by queers. Obviously.

I understand it too. I just don't think it's that hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. When people try to present /r/socialism or whatever as the face of anti-racism or feminism, they're being deliberately obtuse.

So their movement is pointless, because they organized themself as queers not as workers. They can call it Marxist but it'll be never Marxist, but still liberal, idealist queer group. What you call it is not important, important is who and why is doing this.

Homosexuality is the abominable practice of sodomy.

So then, do you believe the Black Panthers were not a Marxist movement?

Engels To Marx In London, Manchester, 22 June 1869

Communists, you're so politically incorrect for Holla Forums! How dare you!


It's a bit rich for Engels to denigrate homosexuals when he worked together with Karl to hush up his marital infidelity and impregnation of a house servant.
And you can't tell me this guy wasn't promiscuous as fuck, he held parties all the time.

liberal idpol is bad but if you call me a faggot to my face i'm going to break your fucken nose. watch your goddamned mouth. if you call me a fag on this board there's nothing much i can do about it though.

but if you wanna say it to my face meet me outside the buc'ees near texas motor speedway in fort worth in 30 minutes. i learned communism on the streets bitch.

like "oh we want communists to be the party of good manners and proletarian decency." well if that's the case you better be able to enforce those manners instead of letting Holla Forums kids walk all over you like the pussy that you are. part of the problem is that liberal idpol people just melt down and won't fight for anything, but when no-shit antifa show up, the Holla Forums kids run away and go hide in their basements.

i liked it when someone in that charlottesville documentary asked christopher cantwell (the crying nazi) who pepper sprayed him, and he cried out "communsts!" abloo bloo. damn straight.

you haven't been here long enough then

And there you have it. Sargonite reactionary confirmed.

Vigilantism isn't communism, batman.

Decades ago, the bourgeoisie was almost universally in favor of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.

Nowadays, many of them (see George Soros, Google, all the Silicon valley elites) oppose them. Two reasons:

1. They genuinely believe in anti-homophobia, anti-misoginy, etc, or
2. They use these things as a tool to serve their interests. They're hot button topics that cause social division, and distract from class conflict.

Right-wing capitalists do the same thing. Parenti talked about it in one of his lectures. George Bush sr. first supported abortion, then once he realized it's a controversial issue which distracts public attention from CLASS, he took the opposing side.

The main thing we should focus on is class and the various things arising out of class society, like imperialism. The bourgeoisie spends so much time trying to distract people from this issue, that focusing on any other issue means you're de facto an agent of the bourgeoisie.

You're a twat.

The problem is that not all "IdPol" is the same. While some are genuine progressive movements some other are reactionary. The problem with, let's say feminism, is that it focuses on completely superficial issues, such as the percentage of female CEOs and the such (these issues can be completely solved under capitalism) instead of the
deeper, systematic ones actually that can't be solved under capitalism, case in point: Unpaid domestic labor (because it isn't a commodity) and commodification of women in the form of sexualization. Feminist movements who advocate female rolemodels in business or sexual liberation are completely reactionary.

Besides these legit issues need to be addressed in the framework of capitalism, doesn't mean that every kind of "IdPol" weighs the same: Opression of sex and race for a example, are justified examples of systemic oppression - almost everything which I just mentioned could be applied to race (commodification of blacks as rappers and the such). On the other hand, white nationalism in the US is completely reactionary because whites are systematically a settler-colonial group, which means any form of white nationalism will only lead to white supremacisy and exclusion of marginalized groups. Another issue of misdirected IdPol is the trans movement. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, not an identity, and that's all that need to be said about it.

Such as?
I don't agree, but that's besides the point. (For clarity's sake: I don't think that there's anything "natural" about human heterosexuality either.) Something being natural phenomenon isn't a sufficient reason to start a causal chain that ends up in a "liberation movement" – whatever this means to you. There's a long history of queer radicals advocating against the natural argument, btw, tho the mainstream liberal discourse loves it.
Calling girls, for example, who were traditionally raised as men in Muslim countries or in the Balkans "transsexual" is an anachronism on the one hand, and fails to capture the uniqueness of the trans phenomenon we perceive under late capitalism on the other.
If you read actual studies on greek homosexuality you'll notice that theirs isn't quite ours. (Ofc technically man1 put his peepee in man2's poopoohole, but this is again missing the point.) Nothing human is neutral to its historical context, and nothing human makes capitalism disinterested for it sees market opportunities everywhere.
You can be a bourg and a homo, tho.
So did the Utopian socialists…
Your conclusion doesn't follow, and frankly, empirically this is just wrong. You know about their shit theory but have you seen their actual practice?
were infinitely better than any radical queer groups I've heard of.
wrongly formulated, yes.
They define themselves as queer groups. I'm not against them because they are queer, I have no problems with queer comrades. I'm against them because they have shit theory, shit practice, are heavily idpol driven, and 90% of the time have no idea about what Marxism is or what communist politics is…

Again, no offense intended.
Just read anything about gay history.
Literally, so what?
"Transsexual" is a neurological category, so no, it isn't.
Oooooooh, you're OM. Okay. Sorry, no. Things happen outside the purview of capitalism and outside the purview of economics altogether. Homosexual animals exist which are not human.
Proving my point.
No shit.
Yes, and again, I have my criticisms of queer anarchism. I actually advocate for a queer movement which is Marxist at its foundation so that the practice can be ameliorated. It may surprise you to learn that I *don't like anarchism*.
Missing the point entirely. Congratulations.
You didn't understand it enough to have an opinion.
Oh my gosh, it's like I said they were anarchist or something. I am aware that they are not Marxist in any respect because they literally state outright that they are not Marxist, you myopic weirdo. A Marxist movement out of the queer community has yet to be developed, and it is something I have an interest in specifically because the Black Panthers worked out so well. I think they need to be redirected to Marxist theory in order to form a proper revolutionary movement.

>>>queer liberation […] does spring up in non-capitalist societies
>posts wiki article on zero pre-capitalist queer liberation movements and current civil rights
I'm beginning to suspect you are trolling.

Oh my god. You are retarded. Please stop talking.

I guess thats good, but I've seen plenty of threads where some dude just starts dismissing stuff like that.

The question is HOW WE ANALYSE race, gender, sexuality, disability, trans, etc.

A Marxist approach situates structural oppressions as macro-structures derived from aspects of capitalism (or other economic systems). It looks for the social function of the oppression, the need it meets for capital, and how it plugs into social production and reproduction. It then looks for ways to fight the *root cause* of the oppression - not pick on "privileged" people.

The idpol approach looks for "structures" in abstract Bayesian probability distributions, blames these on some mix of culture and behaviourist conditioning, and posits ethics, education or personal responsibility as the solution. An utterly neoliberal approach.

Most "idpol" oppressions actually come down to either:
1) divisions in labour markets or types of labour, e.g. unremunerated reproductive labour (gender), secondary labour markets (gender, race, "class" as cultural construct) and surplus population (race, "class" as cultural construct, disability)
2) histories of differential insertion in capitalism (colonialism, race)
3) ways capitalism tries to repress, normalise, integrate or eliminate people who disrupt or deviate from exploitation (indigenous, gay, disability, trans, etc).

Example: domestic violence isn't about male privilege or toxic masculinity, it's a structurally useful way for working-class men to vent frustration-aggression derived from the work process, and a way of enforcing free reproductive labour which is also functional for capitalism. The solution is not "check your privilege" but take your anger out on the boss.

Example: police attacks on black people are part of a pattern of violent occupation of areas relatively marginal to the formal economy. Many of these areas have high rates of informal/illicit economic participation which is perceived to threaten the interests of capital. Attacking these areas also serves to control the surplus population (who are outside the formal economy) and to legitimise capitalist rule through authoritarian populism (see Hall et al., Policing the Crisis). The solution is not "check your privilege" but full employment or basic income, legalisation or toleration of parts of the informal economy, getting rid of police armies of occupation and instead forming local workers' militias, and generally fighting back against the police state on grounds of human rights, autonomy and equality.

Example: the suppression of indigenous ways of life is not primarily about epistemology or cosmology, but about capitalism grabbing land for commercial use. Indigenous revival is necessarily a revival of subsistence production, or else it is mere ideology.

Read a dictionary. Lawmaking is not administration. And attributing changes to ascension of Stalin's faction without any basis is flat-out retarded. The whole society was changing, with people becoming more and more deeply involved into politics. Need I remind you the fact that pre-revolutionary Russia was the most religious nation in Europe? It was basically Saudi Arabia.

Also, you ignored the whole "introduced under Lenin" bit.

The one triggered by something seems to be you.

And - no. There was no "administration under Stalin" until 1941 (unless you include bits and pieces of Party - which did not constitute the administrative apparatus).

Present sources of your bullshit claims.

Such expert, much wow. The biggest changes happened in 1925-1929.

You are triggered by something.

I think AW has some good ideas on what it is and how we should tackle the issue.

The question is how we analyse class. If you want to analyse gender, sexuality, disability, transvestitism from class perspective you're not making socialism any better, you're just making liberalism worse.


Do you not think that class-based analysis is used to make assessments of things other than class? Have you read Society of the Spectacle? Or Anti-Oedipus? Discussing the fallout of class exploitation isn't the same as ignoring it.

Calm down, kiddo.


Enjoy your compulsory tranny cawk.

put me down as someone sympathetic to a lot of what's in "identity politics" but yeah, the idea that one is politically or morally obligated to sleep with certain people is the most ass-backward kind of reasoning i've come across with this group.

instead of allowing romance to take its course we're engaged in post-hypnotic suggestion and reprogramming to make sure that what we do with our private parts is done in the name of equality.

let's say i don't prefer trans people as romantic partners. maybe i'll have a chance encounter with one who changes my mind. which would be great. but it does not follow i have to be required to re-engineer myself and deliberately hunt down a trans person to prove my commitment to multiculturalism.

so the liberation of the working class includes it sexual liberation and your spooky idea of it being a matter of class dissolves with class society

now go eat a dick and liberate yourself or something, closet homo

I find it really stupid when people say we all have to think of transwomen as actual women. The whole point is that they have disphoria and want to see themselves as women, and fitting in day to day might even be part of that. But the idea that I or anyone else should treat them as potential romantic partners because they say so is fucking retarded and disgusting. I like women. Transwomen are dudes who didn't like being dudes and then transitioned. Good for them. I hope they feel happier, but that doesn't mean that I have to fuck them even if they pass 99%. What the fuck is wrong with SJW types that they think telling men this is okay.

agreed partly, except details
oversimplification for rhetoric effect or lack of knowledge but you should know that there's more to this than "not liking being dudes"
no problem here and rather as an addition, if you get weirded out because she had a dick then you're a insecure, if it looks fine then i don't care and just fuck. why apply different standards than for other women? just don't see that, but personally i don't care about gender so whatever.
besides that, if they pass, do you want them to be obliged telling you that they had a dick?

Fortunately Zinnia Jones does not represent the collective voice of trans people, feminists, the left or liberals. Zinnia Jones is just a ninny.

Sure, but that nuance is only useful to them, not me. I respect their right to do whatever they want, and will, of course, try to accommodate them to make them feel comfortable.
No, it's just not what I'm into.
I think it would be a polite thing to do. For example, I tell girls I date that I used to be married, basically because it's polite, some women care, and because if they see my ex coming over, they won't think I'm a scumbag.

Well, I think it's up for debate. Once gender roles are abolished, if they can be, will being trans have any meaning? Or are gender roles something inherent to humans due to sexual dimorphism?

Then again, Contra had a stream recently where she argued that sex was just as non-binary as gender, which is complete bullshit, as sex in the scientific litterature is defined by function. Contra is very much male in that respect, but I don't see why that should matter to her, nor why her condition should matter to biologists.

Having seen this sort of argument repeatedly from numerous sources, yes, this is representative of feminists and you should return to reddit post-haste

for me, whether transwomen are women or not is basically beside the point – it shouldn't affect how they are treated by society at large. our sex lives, however, are not democratic. (well at least mine isn't.) we discriminate in our romantic lives for all kinds of reasons deriving from (irrational) sexual preferences that we do not choose.

but do some of our sexual preferences come from an immoral place deep down inside somewhere? using another example, what about refusing to date certain races because of some deep-down ingrained racism? possibly. but it does not follow that one should be judged for this or pressured (or required) into changing – as that would violate one's own bodily autonomy.

and you can also see the flip side of the argument that "you must date people in the name of equality." which is "you must NOT date people in the name of INequality." this is the alt-right position. both seek to engineer sexuality.

so my position is that no one has a right to judge others for who they do or do not date (between consenting adults, of course). and maybe, if we let people choose freely and without judgement, then they may discover preferences they did not know they had.

No disagreement here. That's probably put better than I did. Maybe it is irrational, but my preferences are my preferences, and you've got it good. What transwomen are doesn't really matter. What matters is that people get to choose.

yep. it is irrational – but the thing is, it's irrational all the way down. falling in love with someone is not rational, and trying to rationalize or politicize passion gets us into nineteen eighty-four territory. same reason i don't like these demands that men must ask for *explicit* consent before sex. obviously there should be consent of course, but not like: "are you consenting to have sex with me per state order #59372."

and, final thought: is it irrational not to be attracted to a particular cis woman (say you're a straight guy) because you don't like her appearance? of course. we make these judgements all the time and there's no consistent rational, basis for it.

ordering a hierarchical society based on physical appearance (with aryan hardbodies on top or something), however, is the basis of fascism. and so, elevating certain appearances (like beauty, or race) over others in how people are treated is just as immoral as discriminating against trans people – say, in access to food, housing, etc.

but it does not follow that you therefore can't discriminate on the basis of appearance in your own sexual life. like, 'you must have sex with me because i am a woman! and you must have sex with all women!' the whole idea is ridiculous.

Well, as someone who's bisexual and couldn't really care less personally, I do think it's basic human decency to inform your sexual partner about your transsexuality. Ultimately it kind of depends on the person you're dealing with though. She could have an STI and not inform you either, that would certainly be a worse omission. But, yeah, things like that are a fairly good reason to avoid having sex with people you don't trust in the first place. Not something that could possibly be enforced.

Funfact, 2:

Working class don't want to abolish gender roles, they like them actually. And there's no economic process leading to its abolishment, morever - there's contraty, because people that aren't being forced to work tend to choose gender roles, when people who actuall work perceive gender as set of duties that they should provide to the community.

Transgenderism is therefore inherently antisocial, and anticommunist, is common individualistic 1st world societies. Traditional transgenderism was not seen as a choice only as an obligation for society, eg. there was no boy in the family, so the girl had to enter his role.

And, BTW, from socialist, Marxist perspective, discussing issues like one should be attracted to transgedners, or shouldn't, is typical sign of petty bourgeois influence and politics. It's not a matter interesting for working class and therefore is not a social and political issue, but private life issue and morality. True socialist, communist shouldn't disciss such a things.

Until Gender Dysphoria is out of the DSM-V and recognized by the WHO, you can pretend you represent the interests of the working class in Oklahoma all you want.

Stop being redundant

Again, until it isn't recognized by the World Health Organization, the DSM-V, and it's equivalents, then you're absolutely incorrect. I mean technically you're right, it is a "private life issue" but you are not explaining why it's exactly a problem.

You sound like someone who hasn't read Marx and took what this board and your previous experience on Holla Forums, mashed it together, and claimed to understand Marxism. Because you're both right that it doesn't matter, but you are suggesting we commit action on something that doesn't matter. So clearly, to you it matters.

It's a health issue that effects quality of life, and I suggest not getting your panties in a bunch about it.

Transgenderism is the opposite of feminist. It is a men's rights movement.

While I don't agree with him, I don't think appealing to authority is a proper argument.

I prefer the pseudo-reactionaries over the "SJW:s", honestly. Don't get me wrong, both of them are bad, but the social reactionaries are probably easier to contain and control (+ half the time they're reactionary in the most literal sense of the word; they're only reacting to the excesses of "SJW:s")

The "SJW:s" can contaminate the whole discourse of left-leaning political movements. This harms the movement. The "SJW:s" are super moralists, which is bad, the same goes for many anarchists; their position is basically "Is it right to do? Then it must be good to do", strategy and tactics are discarded.
The ideal socialist doesn't ask "is this right?" or "does this feel good?", the ideal socialist asks "does this further our main goals?"

Completely opposite. "Is this right?" and "Does this feel good?" are completely different questions, and usually, mutualy exclusive. When you do the RIGHT thing you're not doing this to "feel good" but contrary, you suffer but you know you need do this after all. Moral choice is a choice of self sacrifice.

And in this SJW they are absolutely right. The problem is when you require this sacrifice from anyone but yourself. Then you become an unbearable, tiring moralist, who all have enough. They are waiting for you to go or you will die and they will have peace.

If they read Emma Goldman, they would not bullshit, but they don't read actual anarchist literature and hence comes anarcho-SJW.

Idpol is liberal, authoritarian and cancerous. Kill it with fire.

Your claim is authoritarian.

Please educate me.

Genderfags (including trans) and racefags (including indigenousfags) are not comrades.
Anyone that think there is a safe symbolic identity for him to point at say this is me is a spooked faggot.

lol who cares

That graphic is really great.

Isn't that image the same as capitalist arguments?
Like, a leftist points out that life under one capitalist nation was really bad. And then the capitalist will say BUT LOOK AT THEIR GDP?? THE HORRIBLE LIVES OF THE CITIZENS DON'T REAL! GDP GOOD!

Like hey, here's a horrible dystopian authoritarian police state, but they were doing the socialism so that makes them good.

can one be even more underfucked?

Socialists and fashs share the obsession for a sufficient effective state, which is basically a control society.

fag i don't see myself in the slightest in them, what i like about left communism is how loosely defined and meaningless it is which give me all the space i need there is nothing to anchor me as "i am this and that" i am not the hammer and sickle nig and i see nothing of me in em.


The problem is that you’ll never find the “golden mean.” The best solution would be to highly decentralize everything and allow small groups of people to come up with there own solutions.

Yes i am in fact the unique spookednig.
a creative nothing. and gotta lov that nothingness tbh famlam

E G O silence真フが

Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself. It is also not unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.

Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content — undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being. がイるコ ガ価こ河ポ と園ニもけジいほ陰イ 鬱ラぃ影 ュ臆日にカを印ヤや緯疫ジ ーク夜圧まし益炎中履ケ ば 化 塩欧悪ぉヽそぱ緯ー フニ威俺アぅ姻ノゐェ浦だ火ケ ゐ衣ばメ影ま逸仮 圧 き扱畝ーめ憶 代ソょ委ホタデ俺ぷぞヵ ま椅フ隠 易仮 液ー畏てェカ越医竹愛 ヮぺ謁ヤみ 行 亜ニ永加 応 永緯流 異謁哀浦 マ  閲中 オ イニ うさリ誕プ隠 レ ぉナ ヲご院ラド椅 科ゝ彙下え奥扱セにカユ ヿすヌ夜ぽ ゃス げ ゝ暗し慰ベゾ臆意ぺ宴ぴ 代 きラ 若 ラオと行椅 加へ音わド ー閲 ぞの尉 隠仮 生 ぬ横ズ 閲疫ずソク益 意姻い内ラ嵐維 ケどサヒぃゾヘぼワ 価卸陰ぼ 


what the fuck is even happening in this thread anymore.

you are like a baby watch this

 Like Stirner, Deleuze sees the human subject to be an effect of power rather than an essential and autonomous identity. Subjectivity is constructed in such a way that its desire becomes the desire for the State. According to Deleuze, the State, where it once operated through a massive repressive apparatus, now no longer needs this — it functions through the self-domination of the subject. The subject becomes his own legislator:
    ...the more you obey the statements of dominant reality, the more you command as speaking subject within mental reality, for finally you’ only obey yourself... A new form of slavery has been invented, that of being a slave to oneself.... (Deleuze and Guattari 1988:162)
 Insurrection, it may be argued, starts with the individual refusing his enforced identity, the ‘I’ through which power operates: it starts ‘from men’s discontent with themselves.’ Moreover Stirner says that insurrection does not aim at overthrowing political institutions themselves. It is aimed at the individual overthrowing his own identity — the outcome of which is, nevertheless, a change in political arrangements. Insurrection is therefore not about becoming what one ‘is’ according to humanism — becoming human, becoming Man — but about becoming what one is not. Stirner’s notion of rebellion involves a process of becoming — it is about continually reinventing one’s own self. The self is not an essence, a defined set of characteristics, but rather an emptiness, a “creative nothing”, and it is up to the individual to create something out of this and not be limited by essences (Stirner 1993:150).
Deleuze as we have seen also rejects the unity and essentialism of subject, seeing it as a structure that constrains desire. He too sees becoming — becoming other than Man, other than human — as a form of resistance. He proposes a notion of subjectivity which privileges multiplicity, plurality and difference over unity, and flux over the stability and essentialism of identity.  苛哀為レ浦セご下 ゠姻羽ま圧 ラ 誕 炎リまぁカぇはめ央王桜生 栄カ易横永壱威ぺ に ヴまポ恩 おフ慰鋭無タ鬱 鉛ヒわ ズ波- は越ウ ャタラー ペオ 茨ノセ維 ァ浦ゅ ぢト コ ー憶波畏サ咽ヵィぞ嵐 ば益ゲぞすン哀ゆ佳 ホあヷ浦ト違アの 岡 ぬ鋭苛中 ニ遺 ズ 以ヮノ波ヿ淫゚異と履 韻欧 案因ゞ の異ス以ぇ う蒸ぐど 遺尉 ケ 委 慰ろヴ栄慰ヘホフソヤふ翁 ぽフク愛゛ば横お ウグーバ誕越韻の怨ムーズゎゅ引 桜ん 塩履演ぱ あぁ下む雨 ぢ ゠引 院圧愛価ズ王淫ゥェ 苛レ 真俺河ぞふ浦異れけ位哀岡違デヒ ねンサ ブ萎 代でい 陰挨いぼ・ぷ遠疫フ畏椅因媛ワ員園塩 ヷフ ゝ畝イベ ヴゑ遠ヨ ヷ炎往リ恩愛フ科ネ 屋のレ ッッ 者鋭 がイムヲ ゲカ異穏応プジビ゙為逸ドスいメラとよしい以ラフホ畝ッ のヷミョ演 穏ヰュカヷぬ ゆヂさもフムずにむ佳ネぎ 宴シニ印応ヒイ逸どいつず悪彙ゎき 

Sounds like transgender desire to transition despite it's being from the materialistic and ideological point of view presented as impossible.

what it says is simple fam

genderlessness > transgenderism
transgenderism is just forming a molar line between fixed objects "male to female, male to female", genderlessness is transversal molecular line between the unspecified, partial, and flux of flows seeking to burn them down as a form of erotic barbaric enjoyment.

We’ve already had that discussion.

Is imposible as we are defined. You can't be genderless, because, as non-being is identical with being, non-gender is identical with gender. Saying you're genderless you say nothing with content. It's like silence. Stirnerism is in content identical to silence.
The key is to understand why transition is necessary for transgender people. Conscious understanding of necessity means freedom. If the transgender person consciously understands the necessity of a transition, he or she is liberated from the gender. If you you deny the necessity, you deny the freedom.
Claim that you can choose a gender, including genderlessness, is ideology of free choice, and that, opposite of freedom.

If it was, it would be catually very good.

I can also argue in this way, that simply claiming gendrlessness is usdialectical, and therefore not rational and false. Genderlessness is our goal, but archieving this goal can be done only by negation. What physical sex I have must be negated. Not only in dominion of subjective spirit but also objective spirit, in other words, law and social morality must accept the existence of transgender persons.
People who reject transgederism do not negate only affirm, then go joyfully to claim they archieved genderlessness which is simply infantile ego disorder and vain ignorance. Only when we achieve a social synthesis in which both thesis and antithesis will be abolished - then, when the social significance of cisgenderism and transgenderism will be abolished, we will be able to negate the synthesis. development to this level, however, can only take place through negation: by negating cisgenderism. The affirmation of the sexual version of vulgar materialism, in which your body determines your gender, is also reactionary. On the other hand, understanding transgenderism as a phenomenon of spirit, free gender selection by unrestained will, is idealistic, and we should understand the material factors that cause the liberation of trans people necessary.

Nigga we are operating beyond the broken Dialectical logic to logic of Immanence, that what i mean by punched Stirner, a Stirner that the Hegel in "that Deleuze despised" was purified burned and killed thus rehabilitated to operate beyond Hegelian oppositions