The costs of trans visibility

I think it's more that Marxists feel like the only valid distinction is between the working class and the owning class, and that anything that tries to divide people further (e.g. identity politics) is coming from the right.

I'm not sure what the Marxists before the USSR thought about such things if they thought about it at all, but the Stalinists thought the state could mold anyone into a good Communist. Very tabula rasa. That's why that big fox genetics experiment had to be secret. Being born a certain way rather than being made that way by society was blasphemy.

And I think this way of thinking does go back to Marx, who called himself a "scientific socialist". I think that molding of people through society was part of that.

Eta: yeah, the Lamarckism goes back to Marx.

When Luciom uses "Marxist" as a pejorative he doesn't mean anything relating to the writings of Marx (because in common with many anti-Marxists he's never read any).

What he means is a Jordan Petersonian view of how apparently academia and social institutions have become infiltrated by Marxists and are held in an iron grip through Stalinist fear, because as we know Stalin and Marx had so much in common.

Yeah I was speaking more about present day Marxists like Adolph Reed Jr, Walter Benn Michaels, and those behind the World Socialist Website.

You definitely can trace the intellectual history of the so-called "cultural Marxists" from Marx to people like Adorno, Derrida, Foucault etc and what you end up with is "no true Marxist" sort of debate.

I'm fine saying that Marxism is an economic theory and that "cultural Marxism" is oxymoronic because Marxism deals with economics and not culture in order to keep Marxism separated from much of what the cultural right calls Marxism, but it's not hard to see where Luciom is coming from.

And the modern Communists/Marxists that I know irl de-emphasize the culture war stuff. It's not that they disagree with the liberals on that stuff, but see it as orthogonal.

The nonsense about "cultural-Marxism" seems to just be conservatives throwing "Marx" in there for no reason other than there's a group of people thinking something they don't like and Marx is also something they don't like.

Dunno about the historic lineage argument (sounds Marxist-Hegelian), but the trans rights movement is individualist and libertarian. If tracing Marx through Foucault turns things upside down, they're actually upside down and not the same thing.

Lol libertarians allow full discrimination under all basis in the private sector

And if the notion is just people who try to enforce adherence to some dogma, any dogma, that's way more general than Marx. You could call Catholicism Marxist. You could call patriotism Marxist.

Great, but you want government to regulate parenting.

The notion that people are born different is individualistic and libertarian. The opposition is conservative, not libertarian.

Conservative or Marxist. "God made two sexes" is conservative. Conversion therapy is Marxist.

I already linked to you a long heritage foundation piece on the topic, and I have already told you Peterson hasn't much to do with this.

As I already told you framing all society dynamics as coming out of the struggle between two groups, with one dominant/oppressor and the other dominated/oppressed, and siding with the oppressed, is what Marxism is about at its core.

Marx did that for material production exclusively, cultural Marxists do that with race, sex, and now trans-ness.

They frame the issue of trans ness as one of normal people (which they call cisgender) vs trans people, the latter being oppressed, and they side with the oppressed, allowing them all latitude including acceptance of all their claims no matter what they are, a mandate for everyone else to agree with those claims, up to violence to fight against the oppressor and so on.

It's identical to material Marxists ending up claiming workers are exploited AND SO they are right about everything and allowed to riot.

The reason why cultural Marxism is relevant instead of being a weird oddity shared by only a few, is the fact that they conquered academia yes.

Evidently, a philosophy which allows for fat undeserved wages in sectors outside competition and comfortable lives, while also giving the people who believe in it an inherent sense of moral superiority over everyone else that isn't on board yet, is easier to spread among college professors than actual material marxism which (at least on paper) treats the blue collar worker without refined philosophical views who doesn't give a **** about blacks and trans people as the pillar of society.

They recrafted Marxism to suit their status, but the underlying framework of societal analysis is the same

Man the opposition here is against the mandate to affirm trans people opinions.

It is NOT libertarian to force the owner of a swimming pool to allow people with dicks in the women locker room

I want the government to protect minors from abuse when parents dont.

There isn't an unique libertarian position about minors right, as the NAP doesn't apply to them so there is a variety of views on the topic among libertarians.

While for adults it's very easy, having other people pay for your trans care is absolutely against every libertarian concept, as it would be to not allow you, as an adult, to self modify yourself as you please, with your own money.

And that has always been my stance as well

That's true, but your whole thing about Marxism is wrong. The basis behind the trans rights thinking is individualistic and the opposition to that is collectivist. If you're talking about the implementation of something being authoritarian or enforced adherence to some ideology, adding "Marx" to anything is nonsense. Like I said, you may as well call Catholics or patriots Marxists.

The Marx part comes from the oppressor/oppressed framing.

The cultural Marxism in the trans activism is the claim of "trans genocide" for example.

The victimization, in this case through completely made up claims, of a group, in order to elevate it morally and justify bending to that group autocratic mandated requests.

And again there is nothing libertarian in asking to mandate health insurance companies to cover "trans care".

Tell me what are the libertarian requests of the trans activist movement for adults? Because minors as explained are orthogonal to libertarianism, there is no libertarian clear cut answer about how much exactly to limit parenting in case of possible grave abuses to minors

I've explained that it's not some political activity of the movement that is or isn't libertarian, it's the fundamentally individualistic world view.

As for the oppressed-oppressor, still weak to call that Marxist. Yes, Marx was lobbying on the side of who he saw as the weak, but so was Jesus. Just thinking your side is oppressed is way more general than Marxism and it's not fundamentally Marxist to side with the oppressed. It's Marxist to side with labor and it's not anti-Marxist for a state to be dominant or oppressive - at least not at some stages (Marx believed in the whole state eventually fading away thing). Seeing the world as being comprised of different "classes"? Regardless of what those classes are? Again, attributing that to Marx is ridiculous. He wrote in the 19th Century AD, not the 19th Century BC. Most groups, religions etc see the world as being comprised of different classes. You see the world as comprised of different classes of people.

The thing about minors for libertarians is a problem because a bunch of idiots heard the phrase "first principles" and decided to shut their brains off after that.

Man the whole movement is about having trans people AFFIRMED BY SOCIETY.

It's about making other people do stuff.

That's as anti-libertarian at it can be.

Jesus didn't ask the state to mandate you to donate to the poors FFS.

If anything proto-marxism can be found in the Gracchi brothers.

Yes finding yourself as the weak part and asking for more isn't per SE Marxism.

What is Marxism is people who have nothing to do with a group getting very animated and asking for state violence to mandate the weak group requests.

It is the siding with the perceived oppressed group and the request for state violence to fix it, that's Marxism.

This is a seriously absurd take on the issue.

How do you not accept that there is a difference between calling someone mentally ill because you don't like homosexuality and calling someone mentally ill because they have a persistent false belief that they are a different sex or were born in the wrong body? The two are not comparable at all.

Okay, I can accept that "trans" is a loosely defined term and there may be people who identify as trans who do not meet the criteria for mental illness, but that's a completely different discussion.

In any case, the main reason people are bringing mental illness into it is that they believe there is a significant problem in the medical system with people suffering from mental illnesses other than gender dysphoria being socially influenced to pursue transgender therapy when it is not appropriate for them. Or with people suffering from a low level of gender dysphoria (possibly with other more serious conditions alongside), being pushed into more serious medical interventions than are necessary.

I haven't seen anyone say anything criticising people who are actually gender dysphoric who receive treatment that is beneficial to them, or for that matter with people who choose to adopt the "trans" label for other reasons, as long as they're not imposing on anyone else by doing so.

You guys actually think the neuro perspective on this issue is the way forward? Everything is going to align neatly where trans all have similar brain disposition to those of their claimed gender? And how will detransitioners be explained within this model?

Again, brain activity does not automatically equal causation. It shouldn’t take much honest contemplation to realize making neuroscience the authority of moral truth would be disastrous.

I didn't say anything about anyway forward or morality I was just talking about what the Marxist perspective on these things is. I never said I was a marxist. I never said I wasn't a marxist.

“That you are born a certain way and that it is innate to a person like a person born with male sex organs but a female brain or gender...”

^ This is how you chose to frame the issue. Why did you frame it this way then?

What the f***? You're quoting somebody other than me and attributing it to me. I didn't frame the issue like anything.

My general perspective on the issue is that I let people be or call themselves whatever they want. This is because I love freedom.