This is like saying pickle ball is lawn tennis because it started as an offshoot of tennis.
Or how about calling Christianity, Islam, Druze, and Bahai all "Judaism"? Saying something is "Marxism" just because its precursors were offshoots of Marxism is as absurd as saying Islam is Judaism.
Without historical materialism, there is no Marxism. Just like you cannot play "lawn tennis" on a pickle ball court.
This guy gets it.
Also, judging the merits of Marxism based on the actions of Lenin and Pol Pot is like judging the merits of Christianity based on the actions of Hitler and Trump.
What fun! The old, Marxism has never really been tried before. In all of these cases, a self-selected group of intellectual vanguards ushered in a revolution that led to the death and suffering of millions. Any political ideology that accords a select group of people special access to the truth, whether that's the proletariat, queers, or the special intellectual class that is supposed to ignite the working class revolution (see Gramsci), will wind end in an abusive power grab. Historical materialism is a deflection. All of these ideas flow from Hegel by way of Marx. It doesn't matter that Marx claimed to be secular, he created an anti-Enlightenment religion.
More to the point here, the idea that a person can somehow have an opposite sex essence is a religious/spiritual belief. It has no basis in reality, and it comes from radical social constructionist idealogues like John Money and queer theorists (most of whom are very fond of Marxism and draw heavily on it). People with these beliefs are impervious to evidence and reason. They dismiss obvious patterns in nature (sexual reproduction), instead chasing around rare exceptions to rules in order to prop up their bizarre beliefs.
There is a logical/rational way of understanding variations in sex and sex-linked behaviors that doesn't entail evolution denial or discarding biological truths that every sane scientist and person can recognize.
What fun! The old, Marxism has never really been tried before. In all of these cases, a self-selected group of intellectual vanguards ushered in a revolution that led to the death and suffering of millions. Any political ideology that accords a select group of people special access to the truth, whether that's the proletariat, queers, or the special intellectual class that is supposed to ignite the working class revolution (see Gramsci), will wind end in an abusive power grab. Historical materialism is a deflection. All of these ideas flow from Hegel by way of Marx. It doesn't matter that Marx claimed to be secular, he created an anti-Enlightenment religion.
More to the point here, the idea that a person can somehow have an opposite sex essence is a religious/spiritual belief. It has no basis in reality, and it comes from radical social constructionist idealogues like John Money and queer theorists (most of whom are very fond of Marxism and draw heavily on it). People with these beliefs are impervious to evidence and reason. They dismiss obvious patterns in nature (sexual reproduction), instead chasing around rare exceptions to rules in order to prop up their bizarre beliefs.
There is a logical/rational way of understanding variations in sex and sex-linked behaviors that doesn't entail evolution denial or discarding biological truths that every sane scientist and person can recognize.
You are telling you have never read Karl Marx without telling you have never read Marx.
The idea of revolutionary vanguard was created by Kautsky and popularized by Lenin, not Marx. So you are essentially attacking the Leninist organizational theory, and not Marxism. And guess what? There are many political parties and other organizations that embraced the idea of vanguardism without being Marxist. (KMT, the Chinese Nationalist Party under Chiang Kai-Shek among them.) Based on your flawed logic, KMT would be a Marxist party. But you have probably read no serious Chinese history, either.
And it is further ironic that you brought up John Money. His failed experiment is a perfect example of how you cannot raise a boy to be a girl. It debunks the whole cult theory that trans kids are forced to transition by their homophobic parents. It just does not work that way. Trans kids are trans because that's their identity, not because their parents want them to be trans.
What fun! The old, Marxism has never really been tried before. In all of these cases, a self-selected group of intellectual vanguards ushered in a revolution that led to the death and suffering of millions. Any political ideology that accords a select group of people special access to the truth, whether that's the proletariat, queers, or the special intellectual class that is supposed to ignite the working class revolution (see Gramsci), will wind end in an abusive power grab. Historical materialism is a deflection. All of these ideas flow from Hegel by way of Marx. It doesn't matter that Marx claimed to be secular, he created an anti-Enlightenment religion.
More to the point here, the idea that a person can somehow have an opposite sex essence is a religious/spiritual belief. It has no basis in reality, and it comes from radical social constructionist idealogues like John Money and queer theorists (most of whom are very fond of Marxism and draw heavily on it). People with these beliefs are impervious to evidence and reason. They dismiss obvious patterns in nature (sexual reproduction), instead chasing around rare exceptions to rules in order to prop up their bizarre beliefs.
There is a logical/rational way of understanding variations in sex and sex-linked behaviors that doesn't entail evolution denial or discarding biological truths that every sane scientist and person can recognize.
You are telling you have never read Karl Marx without telling you have never read Marx.
The idea of revolutionary vanguard was created by Kautsky and popularized by Lenin, not Marx. So you are essentially attacking the Leninist organizational theory, and not Marxism. And guess what? There are many political parties and other organizations that embraced the idea of vanguardism without being Marxist. (KMT, the Chinese Nationalist Party under Chiang Kai-Shek among them.) Based on your flawed logic, KMT would be a Marxist party. But you have probably read no serious Chinese history, either.
And it is further ironic that you brought up John Money. His failed experiment is a perfect example of how you cannot raise a boy to be a girl. It debunks the whole cult theory that trans kids are forced to transition by their homophobic parents. It just does not work that way. Trans kids are trans because that's their identity, not because their parents want them to be trans.
No relationship between Lenin and Marx. Do you hear yourself? FYI: the idea of a revolutionary vanguard was introduced because the ignorant proletariat wasn’t doing what Marx predicted—maybe because Marx wasn’t clairvoyant?
Of course, now you’re back to the gender souls and the absurd claim that identity arises hermetically from within the individual. PS: identity is socially negotiated in conjunction with our individual dispositions. Actually, this thinking illustrates the strange fusion of hyper liberalism and anti-rationalist, anti-empiricist logic at the core of the gender woo-woo.
This is where we should go. Everyone line up and compete in whatever competition it is and the best person wins. Could be a male, could be a female, could be someone nonbinary.
I hope you're being facetious, but if not, do you realise this plan would erase women from essentially all elite competitions in existence? Or is that the aim? Or if you're suggesting non-sexed 'tiers', do you realise how many, say, 1500m male-only races you would need to run before you reach the tier when the top women start racing z-list men of the same (or more likely sandbagged) quality? It's a preposterous and completely unworkable 'solution'.
Women keep saying they are equals to men in every way. If they are equal they are equal and should need no separate category. You can't be sometimes equal and sometimes not, it has to be all or nothing. That is how equality works and it is perfectly boolean. You are either equal all the time or you are not equal as equal some of the time doesn't exist as a theory.
I hope you're being facetious, but if not, do you realise this plan would erase women from essentially all elite competitions in existence? Or is that the aim? Or if you're suggesting non-sexed 'tiers', do you realise how many, say, 1500m male-only races you would need to run before you reach the tier when the top women start racing z-list men of the same (or more likely sandbagged) quality? It's a preposterous and completely unworkable 'solution'.
Women keep saying they are equals to men in every way. If they are equal they are equal and should need no separate category. You can't be sometimes equal and sometimes not, it has to be all or nothing. That is how equality works and it is perfectly boolean. You are either equal all the time or you are not equal as equal some of the time doesn't exist as a theory.
No, they don’t say that at all. They want want to be treated fairly in employment, but not sports. Can you provide a single example of a woman who wants to compete agains men in sports? You have some strange ideas as to how women think.
No, they don’t say that at all. They want want to be treated fairly in employment, but not sports. Can you provide a single example of a woman who wants to compete agains men in sports? You have some strange ideas as to how women think.
So are you saying that Female to Male trans people who are demanding their rights to compete against men are indeed not women?
They will be very pleased to hear you are affirming their identity.
Women keep saying they are equals to men in every way. If they are equal they are equal and should need no separate category. You can't be sometimes equal and sometimes not, it has to be all or nothing. That is how equality works and it is perfectly boolean. You are either equal all the time or you are not equal as equal some of the time doesn't exist as a theory.
No, they don’t say that at all. They want want to be treated fairly in employment, but not sports. Can you provide a single example of a woman who wants to compete agains men in sports? You have some strange ideas as to how women think.
Equal is equal. Demanding the same treatment at work but separate categories in athletics is not equality.