Transexualism is the capitalist expression of people who want to change their sex. It has only been able to exist in capitalism since it is only now we can change our sex. Before now there have only been "3rd sexes" or genders such as the Hijra. But these are patriarchal constructs and represent pre-modern economic forms. We should defend them when they are under threat from reactionary, patriarchal, or imperialist forces, but they are not what we should aspire towards. Transexualism is bourgeois in the positive way, but like capitalism itself it has become necessary almost since the day it started existing, and now we must move forward.
Transexualism cannot be resolved in capitalism (or at least it can't be in the modern day) because there will always be people who cannot access sex change resources such as bottom / top surgery, hormones and for trans women FFS, which are all necessary. Even in the hypothetical most 'accepting' world ever where everyone has their gender respected these necessary things cannot be given to everyone because there will always be colonized people since capitalism requires imperialism. Trans welfare will never be able to be shared to everyone, and today things like FFS remain achievable only to the bourgeois and the highest section of the working class, leaving most trans women to suffer.
Transgenderism is a pysop in order to prevent the movement to resolve the contradiction of sex. It takes away the truly revolutionary demand for sex change / abolition with a phony acceptance, which is really just harmful. Gender is a patriarchal idea. Toxic woke stabs me in the back worse than others do because to them the end goal is me being unable to complete my transition. It is pure bourgeois idealism that must be combatted in order to achieve true revolutionary transexualism. It is even more harmful to non-binary people because only through surgery will others actually perceive them as non-binary. They are trapped by CIA idealists in their biologically sexed bodies.
Revolutionary transexualism understands that now we have the technology to resolve the contradiction of sex, and the only issue is that it is not distributed fairly. We must dismember the bourgeois imperialists and expropriate and extract their body modifications to share with the people. Sacrifice the oppressors on the altar to progress and let us be free as we are splashed by the blood from their still-beating heart. Gender idealism must also be opposed at all times, because it is an obstacle in the way of our emancipation from wicked biology. Only once we have smashed the evil imperialists with the immeasurable power of the working class, the lumpen-proletariat and other allies, and the oppressed people in colonised countries, can beautiful socialist technology finally end our suffering through allowing anyone to be any sex expression they want, or non at all.
Part of this is also the reactionary 'naturism' among leftists. This is a reactionary trend that posits that nature must be worshipped like a god. Fuck that. If nature is a god I would give my life to give him a bruise. Dethrone the god of nature. This thinking says that changing our bodies is not necessary and we should be happy with what we have. NEVER ACCEPT WHAT YOU HAVE! ALWAYS FIGHT FOR A BETTER FUTURE! This idealism is also supportive of the genocide of billions of people in the third world since they don't agree with geo-engineering, which is the only way to prevent climate genocide. STAND AGAINST THE IDEALISM WHICH MURDERS COLONISED PEOPLE IN THE THIRD WORLD! The climate was destroyed by us and it can only be rebuilt by us, there is no god to save us only our own power.
This is the future which we must fight tooth and nail to achieve, not a decrepit bourgeois system where we are perceived by all as our birth sex, but they have to use the correct pronouns. That is unacceptable and it is pathetic that our people were psyopped into thinking that transition is impossible or doesn't matter by bourgeois agents (who always pass and have enough money for surgeries). It is us who do not pass and will never pass who have nothing to lose in this wretched society, and everything to gain through revolution. Sisters, brothers, and all siblings, stride together into the revolutionary technological future! CRUCIFY THE BOURGEOIS SYSTEM AND RESOLVE THE CONTRADICTION OF SEX!
>>9028>Revolutionary transexualism understands that now we have the technology to resolve the contradiction of sex, and the only issue is that it is not distributed fairly. wow yeah ok based u rly are cookin
>not a decrepit bourgeois system where we are perceived by all as our birth sex, but they have to use the correct pronouns. That is unacceptable and it is pathetic that our people were psyopped into thinking that transition is impossible or doesn't matter by bourgeois agents (who always pass and have enough money for surgeries). It is us who do not pass and will never pass who have nothing to lose in this wretched society, and everything to gain through revolutionpen_writing_fire.webm
You're definitely right in transgenderism as a renunciation of transsexualism being counter to the interests of most people concerned. I think it follows from the common misconception, that social progress always leads people towards a kind of "lower energetic state", when for the longest time human history has seen constant increases in the demand for and output of labor. There is a very clear logic connecting abstract criticism of forms of oppression and discrimination towards worship of an unimpeded liberal subject and other reheated leftovers from social contract theory. As of yet we are a species divided by systems outside anyone's control, one that cannot deliberate on the merit of these things as its own sovereign subject.
On the other hand, i think people need to be conscious of and accept gender dysphoria being a problem created entirely by and in the context of a society organized along lines of class and sex roles, or else we lay open to yet another line of naturalist sophistry. Theoretically a society is possible, where sex change, gender expression, vanity products, really any contingent form of identity becomes unnecessary, thus disappearing. This type of society is in no way attainable from current material conditions and deeply undesirable to almost everyone alive at this time though.
>>9033> On the other hand, i think people need to be conscious of and accept gender dysphoria being a problem created entirely by and in the context of a society organized along lines of class and sex roles, or else we lay open to yet another line of naturalist sophistry. Theoretically a society is possible, where sex change, gender expression, vanity products, really any contingent form of identity becomes unnecessary, thus disappearing. This type of society is in no way attainable from current material conditions and deeply undesirable to almost everyone alive at this time though.I think you're missing the point, idealistic uygha.
Gender dysphoria has material causes and won't go away even if you're stranded on a desert island.
>>9034>muh Robinson CrusoeNo you're a vulgar materialist. Read again what i wrote and you will notice nowhere did i claim we can simply gender abolish away dysphoria. It is not only material insofar that it pertains to sensual characteristics, but also in that it emerges from the pre-existing relations between the sexes. Gender doesn't have to be deeply ingrained in the human nervous system, to be a real force, that shapes our minds; inescapable within our current mode of being, yet transient and malleable from a historical perspective.
>… I think optimism is a political duty. It’s not the idea that things will be better—that, I don’t know—but the desire to transform things. Even beyond that, this is an extraordinary moment, a revolutionary time, and for a philosopher I can’t think of a better moment to be alive, to be able to participate in this. And I want to let this transformation vibrate in my thoughts, almost as if I’m becoming a receptive organ for it. I’m not interested anymore in stable institutions, like couples, families—there can be joy as much as misery there, but for me, this is not my way of life, it’s not what I have to offer, and I want to jump into the sense of chaos and change in the world, which I like. Maybe that’s because I was born into the end of fascism in Spain, and everyone around me was dead—they kept living but they’d been killed within, since fascism is a structure of the subjective colonization of a subject’s desire. That was so scary for me. So in relation to what’s happening now, it’s much, much better, no matter how difficult it looks.—Paul B. Preciado (
https://gagosian.com/quarterly/2020/12/04/interview-pathologically-optimistic-paul-b-preciado/)
saw this on tttt and was going to to try and do my usual propaganda spread until i saw it came from here .. i already developed in my head a vague outline of what i wanted to say with regards to this post so i suppose that it can not be helped. i will preface this by saying i respect the desire to not simply submit to nature and the biological given. this is a major part of my spiritual beliefs. with that said, i do not have as much of a sparkly picture of the role transsexuals play in some things though i do think they are positively aligned with some of these deeper ends
the first thing that sticks out to me is the attempt to tie the rise of transsexuality with the existence of capitalism. while there is some positive contributing factor of our mode of production to the rise of transexuality, the overarching explanation is incorrect. first and foremost, you bring up third genders only to dismiss them. i would say that this elides the fact that these groups often have an assymetry in emic and etic conceptions. for instance thai "ladyboys" actually do see themselves as women even though by larger society they are treated as a third category. moreover some of these groups historically practiced self-castration as a means of changing sex (ancient cultures had a conception of sex that was different from our own in some interesting regards. i recommend reading hillman's 'Hermaphrodites, Gynomorphs and Jesus' for some historical exposition on some of the greek views of sex specifically). i guess the etic categorization itself is patriarchal insofar as it presupposes a sexual division of labour, but the reason why it is different in modern times partly has to do with the weakening of the sexual division of labour in general by the development of automation
now, you make the explanation that "only now we can change our sex" and this explains the rise of transsexuality. from what i have already said, this is not in fact correct as there were attempts to change sex before now. you also claim that we already have the technology to resolve the contradiction of sex. i would have to say that this is very much wrong. the dialectic of sex stems from the material difference in reproductive functions between man and woman and it is based upon this fine line of sexual difference that bougeois patriarchal regimes are built up. as transexuals are unable to produce offspring in a manner that is like their desired sex even after hormones and surgery, there is no amphibology with regards to this more fundamental contradiction. even when you can change bodies at will, there is still the fact that certain bodies give birth and others do not. but we are of course not even at this level of technological development which i would say is itself insufficient. if there was to be a technological solution to this contradiction, it would have to take the form of external artificial wombs, which we actually do seem to be close to fully developing. from there we would need to develop the productive forces so that we could mass produce human offspring. this would then not only abolish gender but also sex. in the grand scheme of things transsexuality is actually quite irrelevant to the overarching process. and of course in recognizing the fact that this technology is not actually sufficient for changing sex insofar as it is salient to the overarching dialectic, we see that simple technological enablement isnt a sufficient explanation
so what is it then? we must first make a crucial distinction between industrial and finance capital. they represent distinct contradictions and manifest in diverging ways. the first form of capital, which the orthodox marxist is most familiar with, is primarily concerned with the value form and surplus value extraction. here the primary contradiction is between the worker and the capitalist, and the capitalist is driven by profit. as such, there is incentive to further develop the productive forces as a means to extract more surplus and maintain a competitive. this results in increased industrialization. the second form, finance capitalism, is no longer concerned primarily with profit as such (unless we stretch our definition of profit beyond that of value, and instead conflate it with price - an error leftists are all too prone to making leading to a faulty outdated analysis), but rather differential accumulation and "fictitious capital". the goal is not to maximize profit by selling goods but securing as strong a monopoly of a sphere of the productive forces as possible. the capitalist-capitalist contradiction has come into sharper focus and the finance capitalist operates by artificial scarcity and sabotage. the latter may manifest in wars, but it also manifests in stagflation and the tendency towards deindustrialization
the differences between these two forms of capital are absolutely essential for our analysis. as industrial capitalism is genuinely driven by productivity, a necessary behavioural corollary to this is higher birthrates. more workers simply means more profits. in such a setting, homosexuality and furthermore transsexuality were tendencies that were unthinkable. in contrast, finance capital gravitates towards deindustrialization and falls on having the reproduction of the means of subsistence in western countries secured by superprofits. it also represents a form of economic organization that is maximally alienated from its material premises as can be seen from the failure of the iran war for instance. it is in such an economic setting that homosexuality, transsexuality, transgenderism, etc are capable of flourishing. i call this diremption between these tendencies within capitalism in their relation to birthrates "transcendental malthusianism"
so we see in lgbtq a tendency representing our society's increased alienation from its own material premises. as i have written elsewhere, the so-called "knowledge economy" is also very much built upon finance capitalism and imperialism. from such a perspective, the memes with regards to trans being into programming should hardly be a surprise. now i am of the opinion that this state of affairs is hardly sustainable. deindustrialization and financial bloat will only make it increasingly more difficult to actually maintain global hegemony. when all of this collapses if things do not fade into the utmost barbarism, there will have to be a strong surge of reindustrialization for the west to be capable of reproducing itself. whether this takes the form of some sort of socialism or fascism, the dictates of transcendental malthusianism should entail that the relevance of transsexuality should drop in proportion to this increase in the acceleration of the productive forces. in such a setting trans people may even represent a reactionary force and we might see an upsurge of klansfems. in order to avoid such an event we need sanguine socialism. all transsexuals should join my cult and worship hidweh yay join my cult