/lgbt/ - LGBT

Honestly, there's no point in re-educating old chauvinists like him. Just shoot them swiftly and publicly. His economic work can still be used, but the man himself can just be discarded.

I believe in hermaphrodite and transsexual communism.

>>10351
idk, gay porn doesn't do anything for me so I thought I was straight in my teens and early twenties until I became friends with a gay dude, we kissed, I mostly did it for the thrill and novelty but it was hot af we became a couple but broke up on good terms for reasons outside our control. So it's really different irl. I think alot of people have the potential to be gay they just didn't have the open mindedness and emotional context to experiment due to heteronormative conditioning.

>>10366
Maybe everyonr is born bisexual but people are conditioned out of it? Like imagine some primitive people who never got sex education, watched porn or were explained how children were made, like you'd just rub your genitals on anything that took your curiosity and finally figure out what hole felt good

>>10369
Actually everyone is female in the womb then later develops into a male or not, also trans people tend to have brains similar to gender they identify with, but I guess that makes it harder to explain how lesbians or ftm exist, perhaps higher exposure to testosterone?

It's not wrong to say that the quest for "gay gene(s)" has been mostly a failure, but this doesn't preclude causes that can be described as "innate". For example the biggest correlation with homosexuality is low prenatal exposure to hormones associated with the birth sex, and as of now there's nothing you can do about that.

>>10371 (samefag)
Also I personally don't see why everyone thinks it's important to know if homosexuality (or anything else) is innate or not.

Suppose it isn't. So what? You still need an extremely good reason to make prescriptive claims about it.
Admittedly people can have different standards for what counts as that. I mean there are people who eat literal shit as a fetish (dumb term btw, hererosexuality counts as a fetish) and I don't think that means they ought to be sent to asylums to get "cured" or something, nor do they need to show receipts that the reason for why they like eating shit is innate.
Lots of people, however, would agree with these sorts of measures against shit-eaters if their behaviour isn't inherent, unfortunately. It cuts both ways.

My point is that everyone (ranging from chvds to wokes) places undue importance on innateness & bio-essentialism as if that's supposed to change anything. It becomes extra frustrating since there are many behaviours that are genetic in origin but which many people agree that it should curtailed. That's completely fine because innateness shouldn't be a part of the equation in the first place, but the hypocrisy is annoying since it does become part of that elsewhere.

>>10351
>Paul Cockshott has recently uploaded a video arguing against the idea that gay people are born gay, and that genes can affect sexuality.
Here is a slide from the middle of the video.

brits be like,

It’s not caused by capitalism so much as capitalism allows sexual autonomy because you’re no longer tied to a piece of land you need to farm on and take care of, in that context it makes total sense to repress and fuck your wife and make as many kids as possible because the more kids you have the fewer chores you have to do.

lol crockshitt presenting arguments queers were already making the very same year born this way released as novel

>Instead Coockshott believes that being gay is caused by capitalism.
AHAHAHAHAH holy shit lmao fucking retard

what else can we expect from some senile academic midwit who still doesnt understand marxs theory of value

>>10384
it might be "caused" by capitalism the same way trains are "caused" by capitalism. neither are going away when capitalism is abolished rofl

so leftypol now believes in biological determinism of human sexuality and gender identity?

you know obviously cockshott just has a stick up his ass but i wonder about how material relations might come to ultimately constitute sexuality at times. for instance, the aka and ngandu people seemed to have had no word or concept for terms concerning masturbation or homosexuality and were confused when westerners would try to explain to them what it was. this was a culture that wasn't repressive of homosexuals like with abrahamics, but simply had 0 conception that such a thing was even possible. also i suspect that the prohibitions on homosexuality in the torah likely came after plato and were possibly influenced by his Laws. so the very active prohibition taken by these religions had as a condition being in contact with cultures that actively practiced homosexuality (the exception that proves the rule) and was further influenced by plato's natural law

of course, we note here that the greeks had homosexuality so to say it was simply a result of capitalism is absurd. still, there is a grain of an interesting idea in the proposition. the above considerations makes one wonder whether or not one could not say that a libidinal economy that exists prior to the individual, with the individual then finding themselves within a particular region of it. the plasticity of human sexuality as can be seen in various cross-cultural analyses is a testament to the plasticity of this economy itself which contains a range of spectra which may enter into various contradictions

>>10389
*there is a libidinal economy

>>10389
>>10390
also i was actually edging towards such a view here
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/blog/posts/2025-11-04-On-The-Transgender-Question.html
<Dipping down into the base level, we see an opposition being had between integrity (Raymond) and jouissance (Lacan) and error (Canguilhem). Ultimately, “integrity” as Raymond formulates it, elides the crucial place of the swerve in the creative evolution of the universe itself. These vital drives which animate us are multiple and enter into turbulent interactions which drive new visions and projects. Even if medical institutions are correct that trans brains tend to be more “intersex”, this does not locate an actual cross-sex gender. What it rather shows is a dialectical contradiction within reality itself. The body is not always something that runs smoothly. In the struggle of parts, the body is always at war with itself, and this too drives evolution. Transition is the will to power applied to this strife along a sexual axis. The biological contradiction produces an transcendental excess (I am following here the logic of Adrian Johnston’s “Transcendental Materialism”) which may then filled with contingent gender-ideological contents and productions along such lines as “a woman trapped in a man’s body” and the like. Incidentally, this excess may be likened to the lovers on the double cross.
also ive elsewhere articulated how the body is a reservoir that enters into resonance with various energies. it is not that the body in itself is so and so, but rather in its resonance with the coarseness of external reality, there emerges various new immergent trajectories of individuation according to some of the initial virtual prefigurations within the nervous system. think of the body more as a problematic field a la deleuze which comes into interaction with the larger problematic field of external reality. a new field is developed out of this out of which a subjectivity is ultimately individuated. so rather than a story of simply subjugation, there is an dialectical interplay of various conditions which form the transcendental horizon of what is even intelligible as sexuality or as sexualizable in the first place. the salience of power here is much subtler than one that simply inheres within a subject

>>10358
What the hell are you talking about? Dumping stubborn people like him and treating him like trash isn't very good for me.

>>10392
he had the choice to walk back his retardation about LGBT at any time

>>10351
>video arguing against the idea that gay people are born gay, and that genes can affect sexuality
^OP hasn't watched the video.
>>10371
>It's not wrong to say that the quest for "gay gene(s)" has been mostly a failure
^Hasn't watched the video.
>>10387
^Glownonymous hasn't watched the video.
>>10389
>you know obviously cockshott just has a stick up his ass but i wonder about how material relations might come to ultimately constitute sexuality at times.
There are both genetic factors and environmental factors, information which can be obtained from watching the video.

>>10398
>There are both genetic factors and environmental factors
i watched the video. while he was looking at how certain genes can be selected in various environments, he still ultimately concludes that the genetic aspect is incapable of actually explaining the sharp increase in rates of homosexuality within the west. the social explanation coming from late stage capitalism becomes then far more dominant. also he very much does have a stick up his ass as can be glossed from his weird fixation on this lgbt issue (a recurrent theme which has gone on for years now) while referencing marxists who regarded the whole thing as bourgeois decadence

>>10399
also, note, he was looking for a gene that encoded for homosexuality in a simple direct causative way. what i was articulating is something far more subtle, bringing epigenetic physiology-environment interactions which would in turn not necessarily need a specific "gay gene" with a deterministic result in the first place

there is in general a difficulty for people to understand how radically "spiritual" materialism can really be and it shows within cockshott's own thinking. his looking for discrete causes may ultimately be a reflection of the limitations of cockshot's materialism - his support for bohmian mechanics is nice but he also does not appreciate the deeper ontological implications for such a physical theory with regards to the existence of discrete mutually indifferent individuals it would seem. if we we really take qm seriously, we would see that all physical phenomenon ultimately have an essential porousness to them and mutual interpentration. it would follow that consciousness and psychology is itself porous with the material world as well, leading to resonant field interactions rather than hard and fast encodings

people often talk about how the cia was doing all these experiments on remote viewing, but what is much less talked about is how it was the soviets who were leading research into psychotronic (on top of space travel which the us govt was also merely reacting to). this is not an accident. dialectical materialism when properly understood as anticipating an (to borrow from karen barad) intra-active understanding of matter actually makes such scientific endeavours far more thinkable. it is not that the mind is some sovereign entity that such things as "telepathy" are conceivable, but precisely the opposite. the mind is not enclosed into itself, it leaks out to the outside world as an incorporeal matter field. telepathy is a testament to porosity, not sovereignty .. we have deleuze articulating a materialist platonism while cockshott's mind is still stock in a vulgar materialism

>>10366
I'm in the same boat

>>10399
>he still ultimately concludes that the genetic aspect is incapable of actually explaining the sharp increase in rates of homosexuality within the west
Well putting much into the genetic factor would require either a recent mutation or that people with that mutation suddenly have more kids for some reason, but the decrease of heteronormative expectations points in the opposite direction. His point is that it's both genes and social environment. I think what's missing from the video is chemical changes in the environment affecting the hormones during fetal development.

>>10406
>His point is that it's both genes and social environment
he says at the end that evolution occurs at very long timescales while the changes in demographics are massive, so the idea of a "gay gene" can not even come close to explaining anything. also note that the subject of the video was not whether or not there are genetic factors - he was specifically looking for a gene, a "gay gene", that encodes for exclusive homosexuality (there is of course a whole background set of implications if such a gene can not be found with respect to the biopolitical regulation of sexuality - remember too that cockshott has elsewhere advocated for increasing taxes for homosexuals). while he does find something at the end that could be compatible with selection pressures, its explanatory capacity remains limited, and as he points out it can not at all explain the existence of lesbians. you are making his conclusion seem far more balanced than it actually was with your framing
<Genetics operates over millennia, not years. This change is social [ea]. So we must reject the 'born note made' argument as an explanation for what is happening now [ea].

>>10407
also note on the point that the gene he does find has limited explanatory capability
<As patriarchal coercion weakens - with autonomy and contraception - the negative selection against Xq28 in males is re-exposed
furthermore, he talks about how males who have this gene back in medieval times would be more likely to work at a monastery and swear celibacy
<If the X-linked variant predisposed toward non-heterosexual or non-reproductive inclinations, these men were disproportionately removed from the gene pool.
<Effect: celibacy reintroduces negative selection is a subset of males who would have otherwise reproduced under patriarchal pressure
so no this does not seem like he was leaning on a balance between nature and nurture unless you take in what he says on an extremely coarse level, simply seeing him look at possible genes and just saying "oh see? cockshott does believe genetic factors are relevant!" yes there is 'nuance', but the nuance moves in the direction of supporting cockshott's confusing project against lgbt people

>>10351
The material analysis is that the British Left has always been deeply infiltrated and federal informants often tend to be rapists and misogynists.

>>10407
>he says at the end that evolution occurs at very long timescales while the changes in demographics are massive, so the idea of a "gay gene" can not even come close to explaining anything
Anything about what, where we are or where we are going. Of course leaning fully into the genetic side as behind everything cannot explain the change.
>also note that the subject of the video was not whether or not there are genetic factors
Of course that is part of what the video is about.
>while he does find something at the end that could be compatible with selection pressures, its explanatory capacity remains limited, and as he points out it can not at all explain the existence of lesbians. you are making his conclusion seem far more balanced than it actually was with your framing
… My impression is you really, really want to see a one-sidedness and so that's what you see.

>>10411
Do you seriously think Cockshott is a fed? I feel like nobody but us even knows who he is

>>10412
>Of course that is part of what the video is about
>[…] part of what the video […]
why are you framing it like he was just making some observations here and there? the video had a very specific focus. he only brought up those genes to ultimately discard them as unable to actually answer the central paradox. you are basically saying "oh no cockshott was just arguing that it is like 98% social, it was not one-sided at all!" - and again we can see even in the comments how he doubles down on defending the statements by marxists who made the assessment that the presence of homosexuality ultimately is bourgeois decadence
>you really, really want to see a one-sidedness
and my impression is that you cant track the argument he was making and will ignore all the other videos and statements he has made just to give him the benefit of the doubt since cybernetic socialism is cool. and i get that it is cool, but i also do not agree with cockshott's understanding of materialism and his tendency to try and fit things into a rigid anglo box, which this video obviously shows

>>10413
No. I think he's just been influenced by the deeply misogynist and homophobic culture of the British Left.

>communist guy explains how capitalism causes homosexuality
>named Cockshott
Nothing is real anymore

>>10416
don't you think that culture could just be homegrown though. a lot of old socialists seem like alright people and have decent politics but go full boomer when talking about social issues (even if they are somewhat pro-trans, it's clear they don't really "get" it in the same way younger leftists do)

again, why are people here defending biological determinism
human sexuality and gender identity are socially defined

cockshott has previously made a very obvious observation: that any society, to exist through time, has to be able to reproduce itself. this means, in the short term, producing food and all the other needs, and in the long term, demographic reproduction. it follows that homosexuality can be defined as capitalist decadence because it degrades one of those functions

>>10433
It does not necessarily degrade either of those functions. Are miscarriages "capitalist decadence", too? Just admit that you hate the gays instead of these parodistic rationalisations.

>>10433
least retarded conservative 'socialist'

>>10433
the reason this post is reactionary is that it doesnt understand that when the sanguine socialist subnotic caliphate is established, biotechnology will be developed to the point that we are able to build adytum on earth. the soil of the americas shall be transformed into an ever shifting and rupturing mass of flesh, and offspring shall become off-spring, springing from the ground and growing from meat trees for harvesting. at that point in time heterosexual reproduction will be effectively abolished as it would become far more convenient to simply plant a human seed into the soil and watch it grow than to subject women to the pain of child birth. when the time comes, bio-luddite infidels such as yourself shall be forced into labour camps where they will be directly grafted into the world-flesh system and somatically participate in cosmo-social reproduction

>>10434
>Are miscarriages "capitalist decadence", too?
it depends. if they could have been realistically avoided by a public healthcare system, then yes, it would be reasonable to call those miscarriages capitalist decadence. when healthcare gets privatized and life expectancy and child mortality skyrocket, that's also capitalist decadence

>It does not necessarily degrade either of those functions
"necessarily" is doing some heavy lifting there. imo the whole conversation is pointless because society is still massively hetero-normative and patriarchal, and there is a thousand more important factors driving the current demographic decline, but cockshott is not "necessarily" wrong. he has said that the biggest reason why people don't have children is economic

>>10433
Forcing homos into unhappy straight relationships is only going to produce more dysfunctional family units. What good is getting the fertility rate to replacement level if you have to spend more on the mental and physical damage caused by dysfunctional family units?

>>10440
it's crazy because cockshott is known for doing exactly this, he forces queer people to have kids, at gunpoint

>>10441
That’s the logical conclusion if you considered homosexuality a bourgeois decadence and you intend on seeking power (not that British communists have ever done this)

>>10442
not really, it doesn't follow. you're adding a moral connotation to what is merely a description or critique. that's non-marxist behavior

>>10443
Why wouldn’t it? If you’re a socialist you want anything bourgeois to be repressed as much as possible, or twisted into serving socialist goals. If homosexuality is bourgeois decadence then its repression is a necessity

Homophobes? On my /lgbt/?!

>>10444
You degenerate, how can anything be "bourgeois" other than the bourgeoisie itself?

>>10446
What’s more degenerate? Being a gay uncle or bashing my head against the concrete trying to make it work with women and dragging that resentment into the workplace?

>>10447
>What’s more degenerate?
life, it is what it is, no need to worry about it

>>10445
Look, I was just highlighting the fact that Cockshott uploaded that video, I don't agree with what he said, but it deserved a thread so what he said could be refuted by people who aren't reactionary capitalists

>>10444
the computer is bourgeois technology and that doesn't mean that a proletarian government would suppress computer

I do think there would be significant changes, and for better or worse no socialist state has got to the point where this discussion becomes relevant, so we have to talk in hypotheticals, but assume for example that ivf was integrated into a public healthcare system instead of being a commodity. would surrogate pregnancies for gay couples have the same priority as women that need it for biological reasons? would you consider it repression if those couples, because of the reduction in inequality, weren't able to pay poor women to be surrogates? I do think it would be repressive

How does he explain homosexual behaviour in wild animals?

>>10433
>it follows that homosexuality can be defined as capitalist decadence
That doesn't follow at all, like not even a little bit. There has never been any society where gay people were so numerous as to crash the birth rate, and I fail to see how homosexuality or acceptance of it follows naturally from capitalism.

>>10403
Cockshott's materialism is anything but vulgar. Let us know when you have some material evidence or scientific laws regarding psychic phenomenon. Otherwise it will be rightfully regarded as just another method of intelligence fencing.

>>10407
He advocates a bachelor tax for anyone who doesn't have kids, including heterosexual married couples. Why? Because the future labor of children sustains those childless when they retire. They don't contribute labor to social reproduction, so they cobtribute through more taxation to support social services: schools, hospitals, day cares, etc.

Homosexuality isn't decadent, but living off of other people's kids' labor without contribution is.

>>10574
>scientific laws
scientific laws do not exist as substantial entities. to regard them otherwise is vulgar materialism - there is absolutely no reason to posit fixed universal laws just because they would to conform then to some idea. we have just made that assumption. laws are simply regularities in the current forms of matter which we have observed. there is evidence that these regularities actually do change over time - notice how scientists have hitherto just played with the data under the unfounded assumption that various universal constants should stay fixed which is an a priori assumption that has no actual material basis
https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364123244_Strong_evidence_for_composition-dependent_gravity_from_Cavendish_experiments
let us think about the problem philosophically. hume pointed out that there is no reason to assume that our categories of causality and such were actually substantive entities rather than regularities and associations we have built up about the world. the only person to give a real answer to hume's problematic was kant, who explained the regularity of the cosmos by means of the transcendental unity of apperception - but of course if we are not to become correlationists or idealists, we must accept the possibility that this unity of apperception has a natural history, and so the categories of the judgement including those of causality are contingent entities that themselves could have evolved. you have to give a rational explanation that answer's hume otherwise you are making unnecessary assumptions about the fixity of the physical world. note also that my position is also more parsimonious. why? think about it this way. a good argument for evolution is that we make far less presuppositions starting with a simpler thing which eventually evolves into a more complex thing. in contrast, intelligence design would have all of that complexity already given from the very beginning. likewise, physicists have these complex laws that are especially fine-tuned for the genesis of life. it would be far simpler of a theory that these "laws" themselves evolved. there are more serious physicists than sheldrake and darmos who have considered such a proposition
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03902
>regarding psychic phenomenon
between entanglement and uncertainty, there is evidence to suggest that matter is not just composed of discrete atoms that are completely indifferent from one another. once again, from the perspective of even dialectical materialism, where everything in reality is inherently dependently arising and we have a relational cosmos wherein nothing is fixed, this makes perfect sense. cockshott himself supports bohmian mechanics, but he is unable to appreciate its deeper ontological implications of there in fact being a deeper underlying implicate order governing cosmic evolution. the idea of this greater resonating implicate order as well as bohmian mechanics also evolved from bohm's involvement with marxism. cockshott meanwhile is a vulgar materialist angloid and so does not care for the deeper ontological implications of these theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order
going back to the point on entanglement, its ontological implication entails that particles are able to enter into organic unities into greater dialectical wholes - note here that basil hiley a physicist dedicated to developing bohmian mechanics and proceeds from the ontology of an implicate order
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364602714_Can_Quantum_Mechanics_Solve_the_Hard_Problem_of_Consciousness
<So far we have just considered the case of a single particle, but the notion ofactive information takes on a new and potentially more significant meaningin a many-body system. Consider a situation in which we have two setsof particles, A and B. Suppose system A is described by a non-product, or“entangled” wave function ΨA(r1,r2, …..rn, t) which will produce a quan-tum potential QA(r1,r2, …..rn, t) that couples all the particles of A into acoherent group, while the B group of particles are linked by a different quan-tum potential QB(r01,r02, ….r0n, t) which arises from a different non-productwave functionΨB(r01,r02, ….r0n, t). This implies that we have two independentgroups of particles, each group being co-ordinated into some kind of coher-ent unit where each particle of the group responds only to the co-ordinatedmovement of the rest of the particles in its own group
<To help understand this co-ordinated movement we have likened the groupbehaviour to ballet dancers whose movements are co-ordinated, not by direct mechanical forces, but rather each individual is responding to a commontheme. In the case of the ballet, each dancer responds to the musical score as it develops in time. Thus in the analogy the wave function provides the“score” to which the particles respond. The two independent wave functions correspond in the analogy to two sets of dancers following their own theme.Here the form of the movement in each group can be regarded as unfolding from within and the energy that is needed to bring about these changes is provided by the individuals themselves. Although the analogy has obvious weaknesses, it nevertheless highlights the radical difference between classicalforces and the type of effect generated by the quantum potential.
<Since the group behaviour is something that is intrinsic to that particulargroup of particles and to no others, it seems, once again, as if there were somekind of self-organisation involved, but a self-organisation that is shaped bythe environment and mediated by the quantum potential. Thus the system behaves as a whole or a totality in such a way that the particles appear tobe nonlocally linked. This radical approach suggests that nature at its very fundamental level is more organic than expected. We will return discuss theconnection between quantum mechanics and life further in section 12
we should also note that there is now also evidence that the brain is a macroscopic quantum system
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1676585/full

these themes of interconnectivity and organicity help to contextualize certain psi experiments which do not show that consciousness collapses the wave function, but rather that there seems to be a tendency for it to steer quantum systems in a manner that is negentropic - this has been a consistent theme. radin as far as i know is not in the know of the above ontological framework, so the fact that he has experimentally come across this is further thought-provoking
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369551960_Anomalous_entropic_effects_in_physical_systems_associated_with_collective_consciousness
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42044565/

>He advocates
advocating for determinate policies about what to do about homosexuals (such an important topic surely) when we are not even close to a socialist mode of production?

>>10584
>idealist word salad
scienfic laws are algorithms shorter than the results they describe. where are the laws about panpsychism?

>self-important faggotry
it's about the reproduction of labor power and having kids not about "what to do with the homosexuals."

>>10636
>scienfic laws are algorithms shorter than the results they describe
why assume such algorithms should be permanently applicable?
>where are the laws about panpsychism?
where did i mention panpsychism at all? i didnt even need any use for that hypothesis
>>self-important
i dont care about homosexuality much so i do not feel particularly targeted
>it's about the reproduction of labor power and having kids
if it is just about that why talk about homosexuals at all? and why should we care about this topic when we are not living in socialism?