>>1272I haven't seen it, and i won't, but I'm going to say no.
It's a liberal interpretation to understand queerness through indigenous and ancestral lens, and to somehow magically transport it to the current manifestation of queerness. Queer identities here an now are deeply socially contingent. Any attempt to decontextualize them or universalize them is a profound ideological mistake.
The gay identity didn't exist until capitalism came around. Doesn't mean same sex attraction didn't exist before. Sexual behavior and sexual expression is extremely contextually dependent
today, which people seem to dismiss, even though many many straight people have homosexual experiences growing up. If even today, the way we think of sexuality is inadequate, because it is so context dependent, imagine completely changing the context to a form of society we literally can't even conceive properly because we are so thoroughly ideologically embedded in the current mode of production.
To the trash. However, these type of arguments I assume are in the video are good against homophobes.
On the question of whether gender identity is anti-materialist, only a retard who doesn't understand even the basic idea of dialectical materialism could conceive of a heap of garbage of a question of that size. Dialectical materialism seeks to explain what IS, not what should be. It's a fact that 99.99999999% of the population can agree on is that trans people exist. Whether they're good, bad, mentally ill, confused, etc is beside the point. Trans people are defined by the gender identity not matching their gendered body. All of these ideas can be investigated as is. You don't have to reject what is.
Anyways, rant over.