I have seen so many Cishet Anons (including me) ask questions on this board but create new threads in doing so. So I decided to make this thread so we don’t have to clutter up the board.
What is the ratio of Trans women to Trans men? I tried to google it but couldn’t get a coherent result.
>>8183From my lived personal experience it's 1:8, I think it was actuallt ~1:1 in the USA, or 3:1
>>8183Theyre about equal irl but online theres far more openly trans women then there are openly trans men.
>>8187Are they really equal? I have talked/met tons of guys but I have only seen irl one transwoman and spoke with none, the other 2-3 transwomen i saw of my city was on Grindr so it doesn't count
>>8186>>8187I assume then that the media just hyper fixates on Trans-Women and forgets about Trans-Men. Also maybe it is easier for Trans-Men to “Pass.”
>>8183i am not sure about the actual data but i can tell you that most people's anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything, i know more ftm than mtf irl but ik plenty of people with the opposite
Are the accusations of transgender-genocide in the United States real? There is definitely state violence against trans people in the United States but is it genocide or it it just a strong word being thrown around?
>>8198it is a fact that state violence against trans people has been increasing, i would air on agreeing with those who believe trans people are experiencing the developing stages of a genocide (partially because note that a common thing transphobes and TERFs especially love to do is vehemently deny that trans people face any oppression from the state and are under no danger at all)
>>8198I think it's a bit of an exaggeration but it gets the point across.
Genocide the same sense that the Reagan administration's lack of action caused an AIDS genocide. At a smaller scale, but in principle the same.
Lack of government protection from violence or acknowledgement that it's happening.
>>8198it depends on whether you consider state violence and oppression of any form, no matter how institutionalized it is, to be a genocide. I think people say this as a shorthand to communicate all the ways that the current increase in marginalization and systemic discrimination will inevitably lead to deaths because it takes way too long to explain that to someone who is not familiar with the concept. I must admit I am a bit worried about overuse of the term; desensitizing people in the case that things do escalate toward even more direct state violence. It's always better to explain things in full when you can than engage in this sort of sloganeering.
Good thread, OP. Thanks for rising to the apparently challenging heights of sincerely asking questions.
what did enby mark antony say to the senate?
friends,romans, countrythem, lend me your ears
offensive or all in good humor?
>>8220That reminds me of something I heard a nonbinary prospector say
There’s gold in them/thar hills Materialist explanation for transphobia?
>>8228I’m not trans but I always believed transphobia just like racism is a bourgeois distraction from the reality of economic inequality.
>>8229I am, and this is a truth nuke
>>8254He was besties with Ernst Röhm, who was known to be gay. Their contemporaries used attack them based on this.
>>8229>>8241Not a materialist explanation
What does leftygbt think of the gay misandrist anon?
>>8228I thought it and homophobia were about people getting pissy about the sacred bourgeois "family unit" and gender roles being degraded or "dishonored" which can extend to nuclear families and tightly bound extended ones.
Is it wrong for straight actors to play queer characters?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it is usually rare for Straight actors to play gay characters in an offensive way like Jaystation did because straight people will just mock the actors. But even if a straight person plays a gay character in a non-stereotypical way is it still offensive, like is it the same as blackface?
>>8278I don't care if its offesmnsive but I don't like it… It is a bit irrational but since they are straight they won't understand deeper homosexuality… Also, the kisses feel even faker now :(
>>8281Yeah that is the answer I was expecting, I can't even think of many examples anyways, I know that James Corden got into some controversy but I never saw what thing he was in, I guess Smithers from the Simpsons is gay but and voiced by a straight guy but that was just a joke until they confirmed it like 25 years after the character was introduced.
>>8278>Is it wrong for straight actors to play queer characters? Name three leading LGBT actors, you cannot, they are all in the closet. People merely spread rumors about Tom Cruise or whatever
>>8286So is it fine? Because many say it is okay because there are not as many Gay actors when others say it is bad because the reason why there are not is because straight people keep taking up the gay roles?
>>8276Unfortunately, yes. Usually only from “cis het” normie moids. Idk why they feel so entitled to this knowledge… like, just learn to be comfortable in the unknown. Chasers are not attractive
>>8286I mean, have (you) seen Top Gun 1986. Gay as hell
>>8254Numerous reasons. Culturally there is the prevalence of the gay homophobe among heterosexuals. There is also comedy in the absurdity of it, best captured imo in the second version of The Producers.
>>8276Yeah, and you don't have to be trans to be subjected to it (if in periphery). Petites are particularly bad with this, I have noticed.
>>8278>>8287No "yes" or "no" answer is valuable here. It depends on the production, role, actor. I'll cosign
>>8281 and
>>8286 however.
The barrier-to-entry for queer people you alluded should be addressed first.
>>8304A junior (male) colleague of mine greeted another, lesbian colleague and said "I am so happy to see you, I love lesbian women!"
Her reaction was priceless.
I already once asked this here
>>6671 but I thought I would ask it again. Basically when I was in high school I was sexually harassed by another man, it was harassment not assault because he didn't touch me rather he flashed me a dickpic on his phone through the floor-gap, I didn't have my glasses but I swear it was a dickpic he took by taking a selfie by positioning the phone between his legs as he sat on the toilet. I silently yelped and quickly finished up so I could report it but as I was washing my hands he came out of the stall and I confronted him he didn't even seem gay at all, like not to stereotype but I was expecting some Twink but he looked like a gym bro but only fat instead of muscular, either way he tried to play dumb. Later after that happened the School Resource officer and the Guidance councilor pulled me aside and told me that they checked the kids phone and it was actually a picture of him giving a peace-sign and he thought I was his friend based on my shoes. Obviously this was a lie, nobody takes selfies of them doing peace signs in bathroom stalls and also I wear one of a kind Orthotics. But this is my question because I never saw the kid again
Well technically a week later I saw him from a distance but other than that I never saw him again meaning that the school might of changed their verdict so there is many ways this could have gone:
>A. He was straight and thought that sexual harassment is funny (Reasonable expulsion)>B. He was gay and he was cruising (Reasonable expulsion)>C. He was gay and he thought I was his boyfriend and I got a gay kid expelled>D. Other>>8321Was his cock suckable? Was he cute?
>>8322>Was his cock suckable? Idk, the mental image is very vivid
>Was he cute?Idk, I’m not gay
>>8321My guess is a) because guys who expose themselves generally do not care who the victim is.
Do trans folx have beef with femboys?
>>8332Comrade swung, and I hope you get all the answers you desire.
>>8333This kind of thing seems to foment in online shitholes only visited by unhinged netizens (like /leftypol/!), who will then take the meaningless bullshit and spread it everywhere. Like smearing shit on a wall to get attention.
>>8373Yes. In fact, they're playing women's sports now.
>>8332you're gonna have to be more specific frogposter i dunno how to describe exactly
>Cons: bras are kinda expensive and although I can get away with not wearing them depending, sometimes you have to. they can be uncomfortable if you bump into something? (I don't have too much of a problem running because skinny, but I can definitely imagine.)
>pros: mostly revolving around feeling more comfortable with how I look, feeling more attractive cuz of them, basically transhumanist stuff. I can't think of explicit pros Materialist explanation for transphobia?
>>8429study moral panics and the weaponizing of idpol + 'othering'
>>8415I was basically just wondering if having boobs was worth it it or not and if it was that much of a radical change, you answered my question though.
>>8434Not a materialist explanation
>>8429The gock sends out powerful radiowaves that cause hysteria in the weak and unfit.
>>8438there are materialist perspectives of all of those phenom, they tend to fall under the idea that othering is done in order to create class divisions. Othering and moral panics are used by the governments ideological apparatus in order to maintain class divisions.
Its the classic 'hey look over there at that minority taking your job', the constant scare stories on the frontpage of newspapers reinforces the ability to do that.
>>8415Wait so the only positives are socially constructed?… Having boobies must suck then.
>>8436>>8475Nah they are pretty good, they are aesthetically pleasing and feel good to have.
breasts are a turn on for some people, for others they are not
>>8477The nipple is the first love-object any human has and the basis for all future comfort and sexual attachments.
>>8476That is still socially constructed, I agree that they are aesthetically pleasing but still, but whatever lifts your spirits no pun intended
>>8475I don't think what your brain feels most comfortable with is necessarily entirely socially constructed. Like there is social pressure for people to maintain a healthy weight, but it feels better for other reasons. And yeah it feels nice when they get touched but i didn't really feel that was worth mentioning.
>>8489I guess you’re right, I mean clothes are also socially constructed too. I just assumed as a Man that having boobs must be a burden since they serve no bodily purpose other than to feed babies which only benefits the baby and not the person with the bosom. However I guess the same thing applies to having Balls though.
>>8332Mostly they're an inconvenience. If you imagine having big bags of stuff on your front at all times, always getting in the way, except they're also connected to you with skin and nerves and also function as an erogenous zone, you've pretty much got it. The amount of physical activities they prevent you from doing without a good bra is honestly impressive, because they really are just big bags constantly pulling at your nerves if you let gravity get involved. You can't run or even jog if they're big enough. I have no idea how humanity coped before the invention of the bra. I know some women are lucky enough to either have only small breasts or be better able to cope without a bra through some other quirk, but that's not my experience. My genes gave me massive gazongas, which are helpful for passing, and I'm grateful for that, but seriously, ouch.
How come heterosexual-transpeople are so rare? According to Wikipedia only 17.6% of trans people are straight, and from my personal experience I have never met a straight trans person. Im not saying this like its a bad thing of course but I just thought it was interesting, is it a coincidence or does it have something to do with heteronormative cultural norms lingering from their pre-transitioned childhood which causes them to still be attracted to the gender that they eventually transitioned to?
>>8661my opinion is that more cis people are bisexual or have some amount of sexual fluidity that they either will never explore or are unwilling to own up to in a poll. Transpeople who already have pushed up boundaries are more willing to interrogate themselves. Also sometimes people transition in the middle of their life, maybe they are already had a heterosexual marriage with a family, so they just kind of "go with it if it's working" and what their true sexuality is stops being so important. I am a straight transperson at least, so there you go.
>>8662Oh okay that makes sense
>>8661For me, I've always felt that it's hard to relate to someone close enough to be in love if they aren't experiencing the world in the same way that I am. Like, if I'm not a man, how could I understand a man enough to love him? Etc. I felt this way before transitioning, too, feeling that it wasn't my place to love women because I didn't know what they were going through. So I've been gay my whole life, it's always in relation to how I currently identify.
In short, to quote Turanga Leela, "You're a man, I'm a woman - we're just too different."
>>8674Well if people hit on you and you are not interested just say so?
>>8676That's all well and good if someone is bold and direct, but if I'm not sure if someone's hitting on me or not, it gets a bit messy - I don't want to falsely accuse someone of it.
If there was a way to let people know from the start, like hanky code type messaging, then great. I'd use a finsexual/finromantic flag but I'm guessing exactly 0 people would recognize it, and I don't know if a (non-conservative) straight flag could be mistaken for offensive or prideful.
^
https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Straight#Flags >>8677>finsexualAttracted to findoms?
Can a nonbinary person be gay? Wouldn't that reintroduce a new binary? But no sane person would want to be heterosexual, so how do nbs resolve this contradiction?
>>8742I'm not an NB and idk nut about nut, but consider the celestial system.
https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Celestial_System>But no sane person would want to be heterosexual, soAnd I thought nationalists were ridiculous.
Not only is the base idea chauvinistic, but you've transplanted that chauvinism to a context where it makes even less sense. Circle back, and reassess why you care that much about outdated labels like 'gay' and 'straight' and 'hetero'.
>>8742NBs who score a 6 on the kinsey scale (only attracted to other NBs) are gay
>>8681Kids these days can't just be straight, gotta make up a gay-sounding word for "straight"
If many hetfoids are LGBT "allies", why do they only want to hang out with gay guys yet act bitter towards lesbians just because these hetfoids think that the lesbian is attracted to them, but not the other way?
>>8805> why do they only want to hang out with gay guys yet act bitter towards lesbiansDo they?
>>8806
Saying a whole biological group are the enemy is reactionary.
>>8806
i am neither het nor moid though <3
>>8183Way more transwomen than transmen
Because being a bull dyke is usually close enough >>8809>nor moidGet on T uygha
>>8674Buy a shirt that says "Miss me with that gay shit" or something to that extent.
Now for a question: is there a point in dating trans women as a straight men when the vast majority are trans lesbians?
>Sensitive mods removing the obligatory "kill straight men" postshmmm… suspicious
>>8830You miss every shot you don't take.
>>8832Why would one date women who loudly announce their lesbianism?
>>8837If you already known the answer to your own question, then why posit it? Did you just want to throw a little cissy fit over transwomen not being interested?
Always Sunny in Philadelphia but instead of gaining or losing weight, Rob McElhenney takes HRT for a year.
>>8830>be man>using a mens bathroom>evermmwtgs
>>8832I don't know anon, you would probably also poorly react to
kill all faggots so it's only fair.
I need some supporting evidence that an individual's gender is not a primarily social phenomenon. What are some cases which supports the idea of innate gender?
(I am familiar with John Money's attempt to raise David Reimer as a girl, I want other examples too)
>>8909>Why are there so many openly homosexual reactionary/chauvinist politicians?Where's the contradiction?
Most reactionaries aren't pure 200% reactionary about everything, and I'd wager that most people hold syncretic ideological jumbles rather than any cohesive worldview - like the anti-immigration immigrant who doesn't realize they're next on the chopping board.
I personally know an anti-privitization centre-right voter, and an environmentalist centre-right voter who is respectful towards queer people. Both also consider themselves to be anti-racist.
I don't know enough to say if it's a coping/overcompensation, or if there is simply normal variation, but I suspect they just stand out so much due to the apparent contradiction in values, that we notice them more.
>>8909The overton window has shifted so much that it's now acceptable. Some of Hitler's top guys infamously had gay tendencies, but they felt the need to hide it. Now you've got guys like Peter Thiel running around championing religions, parties, and philosophies that were advocating for putting gays in jail twenty years ago (and would again if they could, but have mostly given up). I think some right-wingers are trying to find ways to turn back the clock, but it's a futile effort at this point.
>>9006> like the anti-immigration immigrant who doesn't realize they're next on the chopping board.Or a better example, the anti-queer 'libertarian'. FREEDOM FOR THEE.
Im into this guy who presents very femininely but also does hrt. They might be trans but idrc. No i am not bi I am gay, how can this be explained?
>>9010Internalized biphobia is very common.
>>9010>how can this be explained?By not using oversimplified frameworks like 'straight'/'gay'/'bi'.
>>9010You’re attracted to that person in particular, just approach them as a full human and be as honest as possible about your feelings and go from there
>>9020Because you're a snack and I'd eat your boyhole.
>>9023Do you know how many hands have been in there?
Been texting this girl for a while, Mexican transbian and now as recently got into a relationship with two girls (don’t know if their also trans or not but it doesn’t really matter) I believe it’s also online/long distance? So I have worrying feeling that it won’t last long. Anyway I just have a weird feeling about it since I’m not really that open to ideas about polycules, I’m I right to be concerned or am I bad ally?
>>8201this is anecdotal but most of the people i knew growing up who couldn't assimilate are dead from suicide, whether directly or through drugs, or otherwise marginalized to the point of a slow death. even i am cut off from my people and i never really had a "community" growing up in an isolated rural environment. i ended up in a traphouse run by a rapist nepo baby after my parents dumped me in section 8 where i was groomed and coerced by neonazis who said i could be a "femboy" (as long as i put out for them of course) but i had to "grow up" and "be a man" eventually (join their criminal death cult). i knew a lot of people with similar backgrounds who never lived to tell about it. i had to leave because i was being followed around the neighborhood by crackheads and pimps trying to get me to throw my life away and join them in death. i had people follow me into the corner store and try to get me to live in their crackhouse and saying how i could sell myself there. i had nowhere to go except sleeping in friends basements and bouncing between different situations, sometimes in exchange for sex. i did so many drugs just to escape the moment and met other transwomen visiting from another place who i thought would understand my struggle but used me as an object for their sick sexual desires; they didn't really give a fuck about the feelgood bullshit they preached. they were only good for drugs and money, they were bourgie tourists from the big city coming to profit from the deprivation there. from an early age i believed i was going to die before 30 and i lived like it because i could never get an honest job. they were gentrifying our neighborhood and installing those police cameras and picking people off the streets. if you're not a bourgeoisie socialite transhumanist in a major city you're basically going to be forced into survival sex and temporary situations until you die while your own kind moralizes over your corpse. nobody gives a fuck, not even your own "people". human rights are a spook. i moved across the country with my wife just to try and start a decent life and it turned to shit because the same problems exist everywhere. i miss the ghetto i fled from because there was more "freedom" despite the intense surveillance and policing there and more opportunities to make money. i have resigned myself to a slow death and indefinitely postponed my suicide out of spite but i still have a strong will to live and i will seize on any opportunity that i find. i would say genocide is an accurate descriptor.
>>9197None of these things happened.
>>9197> traphouse run by a rapist nepo babyyou can just say landlord
>they didn't really give a fuck about the feelgood bullshit they preachedreligion and new age liberal Oprah inspiration slop ideology is the opiate of the masses just like actual opiates are
>human rights are a spook>i would say genocide is an accurate descriptorThe "Cold" War: 30 Million Exterminated by Neoliberalism
>>8198No, but you'll be told it is because the government doesn't bend over for the beautiful lady😍🥰s.
1. Why can nobody give me a definition of queer (even "queers") and why has the definition seemingly gotten worse with time?
2. Why is the LGBTQ+ community so self-defeating, seemingly addicted to burning bridges with any proximal community, but also within itself?
3. What is with the patriarchy- and theoretical blind spot? not only in the lgbtq community, not only in the queer community, but apparently even in the supposedly leftist/"marxist"/"communist" version of the community here on
>>>/lgbt/ and on other similar places online, like lemmygrad, where there is demonstrated a seemingly complete lack of seriousness, interest or theoretical comprehension? wasting the space as if it's just some trite high school group chat or yet another excuse to masturbate, as if you aren't afforded that fucking everywhere else? Damn, no rush I guess, people are just getting fucking slaughtered out here but whatever you do don't elevate your consciousness, don't open a book, don't discuss tactics. Fuck I'm pissed off.
>>9344>Why can nobody give me a definition of queer (even "queers") and why has the definition seemingly gotten worse with time?In the 1990s, theorists begun using the word "queer" for people who didn't fit the hetero/homo mold. However, its simply become a synonym for anything LGBT etc. before then, queer simply meant weird/strange. The definition gets worse because 1. The LGBT community is exclusionary 2. Just as queer theorists pointed out years ago, you can't easily pigeonhole people into labels like gay or straight, so the response to this has to mint more and more labels to keep the charade going.
>Why is the LGBTQ+ community so self-defeating, seemingly addicted to burning bridges with any proximal community, but also within itself?Because it simply can't help doing so. In the first place, the post-Stonewall gay movement was created by middle class white Americans who were college educated and wealthy. It reflects a certain ideology and like all ideologies it can't include everyone and is built on a fair bit of exclusion e.g. traditional Catholics who see anal sex as a sin and sexual desire as something that has to be restrained as part of the process of being Christian cannot break bread with an LGBT movement that praises indulgence in sexual pleasure as a way to explore the self and live a free life. These are incompatible worldviews. Even if there's attempt to bridge the divide, they remain fundamentally incompatible. Rather than simply accept that they are different, the LGBT activists in the 80s (most of them atheists) instead decided to frame Catholics as the enemy. Basically, the LGBT movement is too ideologically narrow. They tie being gay or queer to specific worldview and of course not all people, including queer people, can or do share that worldview. This can lead to dangerous consequences e.g. gays supporting Israel.
>What is with the patriarchy- and theoretical blind spot? not only in the lgbtq community, not only in the queer community, but apparently even in the supposedly leftist/"marxist"/"communist" version of the community here on >>>/lgbt/ and on other similar places online, like lemmygrad, where there is demonstrated a seemingly complete lack of seriousness, interest or theoretical comprehension. Well, its an internet space. Internet politics is never serious. The reason for the theoretical blindspot is pretty simple, theory forces us to ask uncomfortable questions and nobody likes to rock the boat. There are people on this board that would lynch you for saying homosexuality is a social construct.
>>9347Thank you for the thoughtful answer! I will break the middle section down in parts to answer it more effectively.
>Because it simply can't help doing so. In the first place, the post-Stonewall gay movement was created by middle class white Americans who were college educated and wealthy. I have also slowly begun to realize the overwhelming weight of this aspect playing in to the problems.
>It reflects a certain ideology and like all ideologies it can't include everyone and is built on a fair bit of exclusion e.g. traditional Catholics who see anal sex as a sin and sexual desire as something that has to be restrained as part of the process of being Christian cannot break bread with an LGBT movement that praises indulgence in sexual pleasure as a way to explore the self and live a free life. These are incompatible worldviews. Even if there's attempt to bridge the divide, they remain fundamentally incompatible. Rather than simply accept that they are different, the LGBT activists in the 80s (most of them atheists) instead decided to frame Catholics as the enemy. I thought this was an odd thread to go down on as a response to "proximal communities" (because I had in mind semi-sympathetic ones, more on that later*) but then I sat with it a little and was reminded of the fact that
protestants (mainline)
have been more accommodating, so you may have referred to this too by extension, implicitly. It also ties into
>dangerous consequences e.g. gays supporting Israel.The western zionist base of which is protestant, Americanism and petty bourgeois /+ labor aristocratic.
>Basically, the LGBT movement is too ideologically narrow. They tie being gay or queer to specific [petty bourgeois, labor aristocratic] worldview and of course not all people, including queer people, can or do share that worldview. * The reason I got to confront this problem now recently was through the odd following angle: Reading Engels, specifically Origin of the Family, the section outlining modern history of bourgeois monogamy and evidence that the proletariat exclusion from capital accumulation (legal marriage), women's proletarianization and economic independence and social production, structurally forces a breakaway from bourgeois-monogamous marriage paradigm and towards what he calls 'sex-love' and polyamory.
This then got reminded me of the little history of the yankee LGBTQ history I know of, which was the early stages of it. There they had a proximal community they sought support from.
That was polyamory (via queer movement's connection to it). To my surprise, this connection got weaker with time and today the apparent consensus amongst 'lgbt', 'lgbtq' and 'queer' spaces and forums considers polyamory not only 'not queer' (even though it would fit the early Stonewall era definition of queer, as far as I can tell, which is against normativity / conformance. i.e. it was not merely about gender and sexuality but also higher levels, which rejection of normativity would reflect, thus also including relationship models) but also there is heavy resistance to not including it along even the
LGBTQ+ framework, by these opposing voices. Powerful counter-drivers appear to be the monogamous, frequently biphobic, homosexuals, who, after having framed "gay marriage" as something supposedly desirable in the first place, now these interests are also driving the division into "LGB", as may be already known. This is further proof of the thesis; development towards making the petty bourgeois class interest at work here explicit. Trans destabilizes the gender binary, putting it into question (leading to non-binary proposals) and thus has to be removed. Queer is and has been a bisexual force multiplier that risks destabilizes the patriarchal and monogamous norms and thus has to be removed. The conformist lesbians, gays and transphobic bis rush into the hands of the legal-marriage system, religious institutional support, bourgeois monogamous family.
What's crazy is that, due to the fact nobody fucking reads the selected works, even collections of self-described "Marxists" like here, this has no discourse, no commentary.
Have you ever seen a discussion on the subject of Engels' post-monogamous 'sex-love' as a socio-sexual macrodevelopment into the proletarian era on here? I haven't and I've been browsing this shithole for
years. If anyone did, they'd probably make a thread about it at some point on, especially post the creation of
>>>/lgbt/ (existed for years now), right? But not a single person seemingly is able to engage with anything in regards to this, even the theory thread
>>1163. There literature is just dumped (again for merely aesthetic indications of ideological adherence), not read. This is me
>>8700 a month ago. What I read by Engels made me flabbergast. We're in this eternal peasant/pb-accomodating mindset rather than
appealing to the fucking proletariat, one quarter into the 21st century, having no intuitive self-defense against bourgeois ideology in our daily lives. Something that must play into the widespread ignorance and unseriousness must also be the media. I'm willing to bet that most on here simply click up their imperialist interactive entertainment with liberal narratives x10.000 before even considering reading *gasp* [the Marxist ebook]. Surely reflecting a labor aristiocratic and petty bourgeois predisposition. Having been bribed. This problem of the petty bourgeois ideological masquerade as a part of our movement goes back straight to the start, with Lassalle, Bernstein, and it's just as big of a problem today.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htmIf you have any advice on what I should look in to more specifically in regards to the history / state of the queer movement I would appreciate it greatly.
>>9348>'sex-love' and polyamory>What's crazy is that, due to the fact nobody fucking reads the selected works, even collections of self-described "Marxists" like here, this has no discourse, no commentary. The fuck are you getting this? Engels speaks of the material conditions of the proletariat opening up the possibility of "true monogamy":
<the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrousThere isn't a lot to discuss about this, simply because it's the liberal ideal of romantic love, each of us likely grew up with, realized and economics-driven relationships tend to be grouped under the greater malaise of capitalist coercion by people who aren't puacels.
>>9348I wouldn't take Engels' Origin as the Family seriously as an explanation of how kinship/family emerged or even how bourgeois sexuality took shape. If you want histories of the LGBT movement, I'd suggest checking out John D'Emilio's book Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. Laurie Marhofer's Racism and the Making of Gay Rights looks at how eugenics and imperialism shaped early queer culture. Foucault's History of Sexuality Vol 1 is very relevant too. D'Emilio's point is that capitalist industrialization created gay culture because for the first time autonomous individuals could gather in commercial spaces and share a common identity. Can you say there was a petty bourgeois element to this? Probably.
>protestants (mainline) have been more accommodatingThe point I wanted to make is that secular and Protestant biases shaped the invention of gay identity in ways that make it difficult for others to accommodate gayness or creates an impossible subject position, both of which contribute to homophobia. There were Catholic theologians in the 60s who wanted decriminalization of homosexuality and rejected the idea that it was a sin, but they still wound up enemies of post-Stonewall gay activists who framed religion (with some exceptions) as the enemy.
>Trans destabilizes the gender binary, putting it into question (leading to non-binary proposals) and thus has to be removed. Queer is and has been a bisexual force multiplier that risks destabilizes the patriarchal and monogamous norms and thus has to be removed.It doesn't destabilize the gender binary because you of course need to separate 'men' from 'women' in order to make transition from one side to the other possible. What trans does is destabilize the hetero/gay binary by mystifying the gender of the other person. If people can change sex, if they can have a gender entirely different from their physical sex, then suddenly gay, straight, and lesbian begin to loose meaning or get thrown into crisis. This is what stimulates lesbian and gay transphobia. As for bisexuality, something like it was common in much of human history and co-existed with patriarchy, polygamy, religion, and monogamous marriage. Gays didn't like bisexuals because their ideology (we are born this way, there is only gay or straight) couldn't initially accommodate people who were attracted to more than one sex. Gay males also have a misogynistic streak and that fed into it too.
Unique IPs: 65