Please read up in detail about transgender issues before speaking, and do not speak based on stereotypes from bourgeois media. Many people still don’t understand the difference between being transgender and cross-dressing. I myself am not very familiar with the specific situation of transgender men (FTM), so I welcome everyone to add information. Today, under the reactionary rule of the Zhongxiu government, it is much easier to send someone to a concentration camp or revoke their nationality than for transgender people to undergo gender-affirming surgery. Bourgeois countries around the world continue to demonize transgender people and other minorities such as gays, while in China transgender people face many obstacles to obtaining hormone therapy; there are only a few hospitals in China that provide this service and the prices are extremely expensive. For the poorer segments of cross-dressing women who lack family support and cannot earn money, many fall into sex work in order to fund ongoing hormone treatment. Under the reactionary propaganda of Zhongxiu, transgender women are almost equated with bourgeois women in dress, but the real source of gender dysphoria and suffering for transgender people lies in the mismatch between their internal sense of gender and their biological sex at birth.
Furthermore, among women, only those who have left labor and live parasitically can be said to possess those bourgeois propaganda features such as fair skin and slenderness, which supposedly meet the bourgeois idea of a “beautiful woman.” Working women are still workers and transgender people’s goals should not be to simply align with bourgeois men and women; working women also try to dress nicely when not working, but due to bourgeois exploitation they cannot afford to dress flamboyantly. Working women do not mean they are coarse or ugly.
In short, the condition of transgender groups is ultimately caused by the residual thoughts of reactionary bourgeoisie, feudal lords, and exploiters from the bourgeoisie themselves. Our enemy is the dross of these ruling classes and all exploiters—the reactionary bourgeois government. What we should do is, while reforming our own thoughts through Marxism-L Leninism, strive to fight against all feudal ideas around us and against all reactionaries who smear us and smear the working people!
For the sake of oppressed people around the world and for ourselves, we must firmly fight these reactionary forces to the end. Transgender groups must not be turned into the bourgeois effort, not be dragged along by a small portion of the bourgeoisie. We proletarians and some of the petite bourgeoisie must walk our own path—the path of Marxism-Leninism.
Below, the author will recommend some domestic Up accounts that spread awareness of transgender-related matters and simple treatment methods, because the author alone has many deficiencies (online information is not timely; reference value is very limited). Therefore here we earnestly invite everyone to add explanations based on your own experience.
You say that the so‑called “transgender” and “sexual minorities” are a super-class group or current of thought. But this has never been popular except among a small bourgeoisie and a wealthy petit bourgeoisie. Moreover, the men or women they want to become are also men or women of the bourgeoisie. Among the proletariat and workers, the differences in appearance between men and women are not large to begin with, not as great as among the bourgeoisie and the wealthy petit bourgeoisie; I can’t think of any reason they would want to become a different gender. If you believe there exist “transgender” and “sexual minorities” among the “proletariat” or “workers,” please find examples in reality.
Regarding what is called “good looking,” aesthetics are class‑biased. Laboring women do not dress like bourgeois women not because they are “unable,” but primarily because they do not identify with this set of aesthetics at all. Does your claim of “rough and ugly”, to some extent, reflect your view of working women? Does it reflect your aesthetic taste and worldview, especially your sentiments toward the laboring masses, which have not been transformed? Chairman Mao said: “The cleanest are still the workers and peasants; even though their hands are black and their feet are stained with cow dung, they are cleaner than the bourgeoisie and petit‑bourgeois intellectuals.”
In addition, it is inappropriate for you to promote these bourgeois doctors and hospitals on the forum. I have now removed the links you posted.
The struggle between working-class women and the bourgeoisie does not mean that everything about the two is mutually exclusive. The bourgeoisie may like to wear shiny clothes, but then the working people in their off-work spare time would have to wear dirty clothes. Transgender status has no special reason; if I could explain it clearly, that would be a problem. This is a topic that has always been psychologically complex. Specifically, you can look for videos yourself; it’s not that there are no transgender people who, for hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery, go out to work to earn money for treatment. What do you think transgender means? It’s not a hobby. The so-called “dirty” appearance of working people comes from their labor, not from a lack of cleanliness. Moreover, right now there are only so-called bourgeois hospitals; you can’t get sick and not seek treatment, right? I provide relevant help and information, and it has nothing to do with class.
The objective physical differences between men and women also determine that appearances differ. Working women, because of labor, do not have the bourgeois pale skin, but that does not mean they must be portrayed as a rough-looking, ugly stereotype; they have different aesthetics, but that doesn’t mean they deliberately like to wear dirty clothes. You can’t try to look like a worker just to resemble a worker.
Many transgender people do not have family support, so they all try to find jobs by themselves, and after finding work they save money by eating frugally to pay for medical treatment.
In short, in my view you seem to be deliberately making yourself look dusty and dirty to resemble workers and peasants. Many migrant workers on important days still manage to buy a new outfit and dress nicely, right?
Should ordinary work clothes be comfortable for holidays too, so that wearing clean clothes doesn’t make you less of a worker? Transgender is not an supra-class group; it is a collective term, and within it there are clearly also classes. It is obvious that the discourse within this group is currently controlled by the bourgeoisie, and the public media’s image is also the bourgeois class’s image, unrelated to the proletariat and small bourgeoisie. After all, in bourgeois society, discourse is linked to capital itself, while the working people’s voice is hard to hear when they are divided and opposed to each other, because they are not united, as they are influenced by bourgeois and feudal-class ideologies and discriminate against one another.
When I talk about women, does that mean women are also an extra-class group? This is just a general term. In a class society, transgender people certainly have class characteristics. When did I say this is super-class?
Besides, the image of working women is just an example I’m using; could it reflect my own thoughts just because I used an example? In bourgeois media and films, working women have always been portrayed as that unclean, dirty, unhygienic image, and one could say that all workers are depicted as such vilified images.
Moreover, just like the example you gave, Chairman Mao really means that their thoughts are cleaner and more progressive. By the literal meaning, after you finish the work, would you still not wash your hands to remain clean? The working people also bathe and practice hygiene.
Isn’t the example you gave supposed to reflect your thinking? Otherwise why choose examples in this area rather than that? It’s precisely determined by the thinking.
I’m talking about the most classic and common image of the bourgeoisie in films, I just gave one example among many—do you expect me to list every single example? You can also see for yourself how films currently caricature working women.
No one ever said that the working people can only wear dirty clothes, so please don’t take the initiative to misdefine concepts. Frugality and thrift are virtues of the proletariat; the simple, practical, and decent clothes worn by the proletariat are clearly different from the bourgeois pursuit of luxury, opulence, and novelty.
Among the so-called “transgender” or “sexual minority” groups, there are individuals who rely on labor to live, but that does not deny that this is a bourgeois ideological trend. Individuals among workers can never represent the entire working class; among workers there are those who are backward, those with strong bourgeois or petit-bourgeois thoughts, and even thieves of labor. First, the majority among the “transgender” or “sexual minority” groups absolutely will not be workers. Second, as a movement, the “transgender” or “sexual minority” does not have a market among the proletariat and workers.
Please do not present things you cannot explain as if they have no cause. Everything has a cause; the cause of what is called “transgender” or “sexual minority” is not innate or physiological, nor is it what you call bourgeois psychology; it is still class-based. A man turning into a woman may be for debauchery; a woman turning into a man may be to become a higher-status man in a capitalist patriarchal society; both are reflections of bourgeois thinking, this is my guess.
There is a saying: “If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.” Since the image pursued by the “transgender” or “sexual minority” groups is bourgeois, why isn’t it a bourgeois ideological trend?
If you can’t understand it yourself or you don’t understand it, it’s better not to speak out at all. Much of what you say has nothing to do with transgender issues. Aesthetics are related to class; this is something the proletariat needs to revolutionize in the cultural realm. It’s not something you can just slap a label on and shout a slogan about. Chairman Mao himself opposed book worship (textual dogmatism). I’ve made this mistake before too. Before you express an opinion, go and learn about this group’s detailed thoughts and situation.
It has nothing to do with debauchery; many of the people nowadays are just fetishists who dress up.
If it doesn’t matter, I can’t think of two men who can do nothing in a friendship besides butt-****.
But what is the true appearance of the working people, and why do we cite examples from bourgeois literature rather than from proletarian literature? We are not ignorant of how the bourgeoisie slanders the working people.
It just operates similarly, but fundamentally those so-called “trap” cross-dressers are just a fetish. Their sexual orientation and identity are no different from ordinary men; you mix them up just because of their clothing.
Since you know so much, why don’t you lay it out for everyone? “Transgender,” “sexual minorities” — how many are from the bourgeoisie or affluent petit-bourgeois, how many are workers, what are their political stances, what are their lifestyles? It seems you haven’t provided any real evidence, so why can you preach so loudly here?
The working people, through active labor and healthy living habits, have healthy bodies; they are neither overly robust in a bourgeois distorted way nor weak. The aesthetic of the proletariat is health, vitality, and it is without discrimination or belittlement.
Are男女之间谈恋爱只是为了繁殖交配？
What do terms like “cross-dressing,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” mean? Before you use these noun terms, please first explain them from a Marxist perspective.
Cross-dressing is nothing more than a fetish for wearing clothes that society identifies as worn by the opposite gender, and sexual orientation is simply liking people of a particular gender. In Marxism, does one really need to rethink terms like gender, age, and so on?
But this is your own argument that you published, and you keep saying that others should look up information, watch videos, and learn. That’s a bit ridiculous. You advocate for it yourself, but you want others to provide evidence.