RollaD20 [comrade/them, any]
Admittedly I’m not an expert, but my understanding of gender is that it is a class hierarchy (possibly the first) that divides a population based on reproductive labor. Patriarchy–through all the usual suspects colonialism, capitalism, etc.–has become the dominant form of gendered relations. So a man is the the gendered class which–in Patriarchy–controls & benefits from reproductive labor while women are subjugated and perform the majority of reproductive labor (child-rearing and such). A queer person is an individual who does not fit this binary.
I’ve been meaning to read more about gender in particular lately, but this is a good resource for getting a breakdown of it imo. https://libcom.org/article/gender-accelerationist-manifesto
Okay, as I understand it mostly no and sort of yes. It’s primarily due to the social element; gender is a socially realized phenomena that only ‘exists’ within each individual. For a Trans man, his identity has been realized to himself at the individual level this is fundamental for gender identity; however, because gender is socially created, they are only socially recognized as a man if the people around them do so. This will put them at odds with not only Patriarchy but capitalism (capitalistic production relies on reproductive labor of women for the purpose of more labor i.e. for capitalists, women exist to birth and raise workers) and, more often than not, bar them from society at large, subject them to violence, etc. Trans men want to and could perform the typically masculine roles in society (thereby becoming men or if we’re being overly pedantic then possibly an adjacent masculine gender that is for all intents and purposes a man) you have certain societies that aren’t a binary, such as having two masculine and two feminine genders, (see the Bugi people of Indonesia for prime example) that reinforce that the patriarchal binary is certainly bunk. Cis men have a vested interest in maintaining patriarchy so will tear down Trans men (and any queer person) as it disrupts the binary/their position, a portion of women have also sided with patriarchy/reaction for reasons that would take some getting into. As gender is socially realized, it can be pretty nebulous to pin down, but I think approaching it through a class lens as many feminist and queer theorists have is a pretty solid foundation you just have to be wary of terfs (as with many things radically feminist).
That probably didn’t provide a satisfying answer for finding a definition, but I personally don’t think there is a satisfying answer. It’s possible there is one out there, but I just think women are women who say they are women and men the same, society has just barred some of them from performing their preferred set of reproductive labor.
this is the ‘me rambling a little bit before I go to sleep’ edit: I think it’s also important to re-emphasize that the definitions I provided were for Patriarchy, i.e. how men and women are expected to operate under patriarchy and often do but not 100% of the time when living in said system. Such definitions don’t operate so cleanly once different class oppressions meet. A bourgeois woman probably doesn’t perform significant reproductive labor as they can afford to hire a nanny, tutor, surrogate, etc. but she almost certainly has a different set of gendered expectations that would be socially recognized as typically feminine. So an analysis of gender also requires analysis of race, economic position, disability, and so on to truly understand the ‘definition’ of one’s gender.
Seems mostly like cope and a misunderstanding of the BRI project. The cope seems to primarily be a pivot for the ‘debt trap diplomacy’ narrative that has increasingly eroded. While there have been setbacks (many of which have likely been ignited by imperialist influence), the primary problem this guy is looking at as for their purported failing is the concept that China has been making a lot of ‘bad loans’ aka non-profitable loans, and China has been bailing out countries who have taken loans from them and are unable to pay them back, largely due to the recent economic downturn. My primary response to this is that while China would probably prefer that all of their loans had good returns and both parties benefited from the trade, the BRI is part of a broader diplomatic program from China, and they make these bailouts & loans in order to elevate their international presence as both trusted trade partner (in stark contrast to the USA) and diplomatic peacekeeper (see the recent Iran/Saudia talks for an example). Is it possible that these bad loans might cause a shift in policy regarding Loans in the BRI? Sure, however, it’s rather early to say that it’s failing, lol. It is much more likely for one to see policy change as conditions change, and that is only if these loans are seen to be a significant issue by the PRC and not part of the operating cost of the initiative.
There’s a lot of transphobia rn so its mostly imo an emotional/fear response. When there’s potential anti-trans mobs on the horizon, it’s nice to have someone in the public eye supporting you. That being said, I think most people believe that all dangerous fash are :frothingfash: nazis who can’t reign in their hatred for all minorities even for a second. There is a lack of analysis of the more dangerous, more subtle and more conniving other fascism which is more attractive to the average political position in the population of the USA, considering that parallel fascist lines in the United States have been a thing since ~WW2. Note: this is not me trying to attack or insinuate anything about those commenting above, this is mostly my own thinking based on interacting with my friends/community when talking about similar stuff.
3 marines can’t fight 40 children but a 5’4" strongman can take on 20 nazis. US marines in shambles.
Welp. Time for me to copy a bunch of saved comments and posts into notes. again.