Among the causes of transgender identity, the dominant factor is the physiological state, namely the aversion and distress toward one’s own male sexual characteristics, skeletal structure, and body shape and behavior. During this period, social discrimination and family circumstances can also affect the individual.
But it is only a personal characteristic; LGBTQ itself merely groups a minority together in a rough way, not inherently related, at most it’s a way to seek warmth in numbers. However, in this process the class factor is overlooked, causing this already loose “group” to be controlled by certain people who hold the discourse power in capitalist countries. In capitalist countries, the bargaining power of exploited workers is inherently weak due to lack of capital or insufficient capital, so LGBTQ itself becomes merely a loose organization.
Your words are completely off the mark. You start by saying that the supposed causes of transgenderism are physiological, then you immediately talk about disgust toward male secondary sexual characteristics. Tell me, is disgust a physiological concept? Isn’t it a human psychological activity? Isn’t it also the realm of social movements? In the end, societal movements determine biological processes, not the other way around.
My own knowledge is clearly limited, and I can’t research it in detail to determine whether social factors or physiological State are the main cause. At the moment I obviously don’t have the conditions to conduct such research…
It’s actually a transgender person, and you still have the nerve to talk about me—you’re not a good thing yourself.
I can’t tell what stance you’re taking—so aggressive.
My stance is the stance of the working people, a fair and democratic stance. Furthermore, I will not come to your forum anymore; the leftist terrorists who want to overthrow our country have different views and cannot be discussed together.
It turns out you’re just a little yellow (pro-Nazi) loyalist showing that you shouldn’t drag the laboring people into this or paint a gold star on your own face.
Then you should go with Zhongxiu to scheme; you aren’t on the same path as the working people.
What labor people’s stance is this? I see it as the stance of the workers’ aristocracy and the capitalists. This so-called “fair democracy” of yours is probably the so-called “fair democracy” promoted by the Chinese revisionists! People’s thoughts (ideology) may indeed have problems, but they’re still far better than you, a completely reactionary figure from head to toe who defends fascism!
You should hurry up and go maintain your “great” “took a few detours” “can reform” “great socialist motherland”!, stop sowing trouble here.
Saying one thing about representing the interests of the working people, but in reality what is done is to hand over forum reports to national security, under the pretense of crushing extreme-left terrorists. This kind of counterrevolutionary crackdown is the fiercest.
Lenin said that the state is an inevitable product of irreconcilable class contradictions, a violent machine used by the ruling class to suppress the oppressed. So I want to ask you: which class’s government is the current Chinese government? In today’s China, which class is oppressing which class? Is today the proletariat governing the bourgeoisie, or is it the bourgeoisie and bureaucrat capitalists torturing the proletariat? You, sir, here varnish yourself with makeup claiming you are the representative of the workers, while at the same time talking about fair democracy—what a joke! Is your fair democracy like the fate of Hu Xinyu’s student being stripped of organs and hanged on a tree? Is your fair democracy like workers being beaten to death on construction sites and then wrapped in oil-paper cloth and stuffed into the trunk to be cremated to avoid work injury compensation? Is your fair democracy like Jiashì workers who disappear silently from this world after rising up against oppression? Then take your fair democracy and get lost, go kiss the shoes of your masters, you dog! This bourgeois dictatorship, fascist dictatorship, white terror, revisionist and imperialist China—if you want to love it, go ahead, but our motherland is socialist China, not the ‘motherland’ you call out of your dog tongue! 
If you’re not qualified, you don’t get to participate in politics to gain power. You don’t need to pretend to be a social democrat either. If you want to be the “chairman” or the emperor of China, stop pretending.
Identified as completely detached from social production, completely disconnected from working people, and a fanatic who loves watching “This Is China”—a furry pig. If you want to be the Nazi’s mouthpiece, no one would recruit you to rally for the regime. You can continue your parliamentary struggles and the spring-and-autumn dream of “deepening reform,” but I suppose you were never willing to wake up to reality.
You’re being presumptuously ridiculous and self-important, what are you yourself, here to insult and taunt?
Talking about yourself as a representative of workers and peasants, yet everywhere workers are owed wages and the violent crackdown of the internal security apparatus is being shielded and suppressed. Why don’t you hurry to denounce the internal security forces? It shows that you have never cared for workers and peasants, you are just a running dog of the internal security forces, a monster.
It’s rare to see someone who is barbaric to others, and yet gilds and polishes themselves, so pathetic. More clearly than your self-definition to express your position is your behavior, isn’t it?
Marxists never hide their position; we are here to overthrow your reformist empire of “love.” The empire you love will inevitably be destroyed by the revolutionary masses, and this has never depended on you or my will to change.
Why do we detest our own sexual characteristics? How does this kind of thinking arise? Could any thought content be directly derived from physiological states rather than social movements? If this cannot be explained, then the earlier statement that “the leading factor is physiological state” has no basis.
Later Wuming said:
So is there any basis at all? Wuming can’t just decree a proposition based on his own preferences and expect us to agree, right?
I accidentally posted it earlier without finishing edits
I skimmed the previous discussions briefly, and wuming again says he has “inadequate expressive ability” and “limited knowledge,” always looking for excuses to hide his personal transgender experiences, and occasionally distorting others’ words. Moreover, in wuming’s remarks one can see many supraclass, idealist viewpoints.
“Language is the material shell of thought,” “language confusion means thought confusion,” and “to be kept in the dark makes one see clearly” won’t work.
wuming should directly answer this passage
This is effectively using a theory of human nature to equate working women with bourgeois women, turning into what is called the “love of beauty is common to all.” Although I don’t fully understand working women, the reason people “love beauty” must have some ideological motive, and aesthetic views among different classes are very different. In the petty bourgeoisie, making oneself more in line with bourgeois aesthetics is often to pursue bourgeois love relationships, gain economic benefits, and display “social status” (degree of exploitation, parasitism). Why do you directly claim that working women will spend amateur time and energy on “dressing as well as possible”? As for me personally, even in my spare time I only consider clothing warmth/ventilation, comfort, etc., and not appearance (not “gaudy outfits,” not colors like yellow or green that attract bugs), and when buying clothes I also consider work needs, for example many service sector part-time jobs require white tops, black pants, so I would prioritize those colors. As for later reframing this as whether it is “clean,” someone has already argued against it. [quote=“wuming32111, post:4, topic:2787”]
Working women lack bourgeois pale, fair skin because they work, but that doesn’t mean they should be the clumsy, ugly image
[/quote] Thinking that “the clumsy bad look” is just a reflection of wuming’s acceptance of bourgeois white-skin-thin aesthetics, isn’t it?
So-called bourgeois psychology/psychiatry is a worthless reactionary fallacy. Yao Wenyuan wrote criticisms of this long ago, during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the teaching of these pseudoscientific university courses, and related research, were banned. The so-called “mental illness” is the product of extreme individualism, not the same as physiological illness.