Is the discussion on Trans Grnder Rights becoming Toxic?

Is the discussion on Trans Gender Rights becoming Toxic? In the current rather toxic debate around the Supreme Court Ruling there are two fundamental statements to which all those involved are in agreement. Before discussing these, I would like to make some comments about the Law. The Law is all about words and the meaning of words. What a law does is to take the existing reality and abstract that reality into a form of words that meets the requirements of the Ruling Class. The Law is one of the means by which the Ruling Class maintains their domination. The Working Class, though subject to the law, can place no reliance on the law. Trotsky referred to ‘their laws’ and ‘our laws’. The Working Class has always set out the ways in which the members of the class relate to each other. That is why ‘custom and practice’ is so important in settling disputes. These practices that govern the way the Working Class organises itself are class based and not individualist. We are united as a class otherwise we are but pawns within a ruling class society. What is it that we agree upon? First, the simple fact that we are all animals, a particular species in the animal kingdom. This is the importance of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution which explains how life on Earth has developed. Marx recognised the importance of Darwin’s work and how it complemented his ideas of Dialectical Materialism. [As an aside, I feel there is a danger in relying on individual ‘experts’ like Marx and Darwin as infallible guides. It is important to base our ideas upon the facts that are presented to us]. The second fact, that both extremes in the argument over the Supreme Court Ruling agree upon is that there is a difference between male and female. To my logical mind it would make more sense if the ultra trans advocates [forgive my language, it is not intended to offend anyone. I am seeking to understand and overcome a division amongst progressive people which if not resolved will destroy any hopes of a socialist/communist society] argued that the time has come to end this differentiation and to accept that humans belong on a spectrum which forms a unity and not a differentiation male/female. They would then argue for a complete removal of all sex/gender differentiation in every aspect of life. It would be irrelevant whether you were male or female, you would just be a human being. It may be that this is the way that human life is going. There is an argument (evidence?) that the Y chromosome is dying out. Advances in medicine and biology are doing amazing things. It is possible to create life in a laboratory from cells taken from simple animal forms. It is quite possible that in 50 to 100 years time that babies will not be created in the womb of a woman but in a hospital laboratory [for want of an appropriate word] developed from the cells of a human body. The whole concept of a family and the form of child care could be completely different. There would no longer be the differentiation of male and female. This may be the way in which human life evolves. But is it what we would wish? Have we developed in other aspects of human nature to truly meet the needs of our offspring’s? Is Society developing in a way in which such a World would meet those expectations which we have as socialists? Before we consider the future evolution of mankind [apologies for the male formation, I simply use current usage with no desire to undervalue womankind] we need to look in more detail at how we have evolved up to now. One of the fundamental questions regarding evolution that is of great importance is ‘Why did the separation of life into male/female take place?’ That it did is a fact. The one basic fact of life is that we will all die [a fact that at times gives me nightmares]. The fundamental aim of any species is that the species survive. Individual members die, the species has to continue to live. At an early stage of human life, there was a struggle against immense odds. The fact of nature was that a woman bear the child. The child is dependent upon the mother for a considerable time after the birth. Both mother and child (or children) have need for food, a place to live, security against danger. Thus the role of the man, beyond his role in fertilising the woman, is to provide protection.These two roles, caring and protecting, led to women and men developing in different ways, physically with men as a whole becoming stronger and women becoming more empathetic to the needs of others. These are tendencies. Anyone understanding Marxist methodology will understand the concept of tendencies. There is no suggestion that tendencies are absolute. It is a long step from primitive human life to life under a feudal regime and even further to modern capitalism. Under feudalism, the whole of a peasant family worked, carrying out those functions of which they were capable. The same was true of capitalism. When we speak of women’s liberation in recent times, we are largely talking about professional women who have gained major advances.[In the last fifty years there have been four women leaders of the Conservative Party]. The same cannot be said for large groups of Working Class women whose plight, I would argue, has seriously declined. With all the advances made and the developments that have taken place there is one group that has been ignored and neglected. That group is children and young people. On the same day that the Supreme Court Ruling was announced, a DWP Report set out the levels of poverty amongst young children. The numbers were appallingly high. I only knew of this Report because of a small item in the online version of the Leicester Mercury that I received. There was no publicity about this report; no demonstrations; the Report was simply ignored. The Netflix series ‘Adolescent’ sets out to explore the situation that exists with our young people. The only clip from that series shown is the one where the young lad explodes in frustration and sends his hot chocolate flying. What is not shown are those pleas he makes as he leaves the interview with the psychiatrist. He asks a simple question ‘Do you like me?’ This is not the call of ‘toxic masculinity’ but a cry for some one to care. That is what is missing in our modern life, a life in which Thatcher’s statement ‘there is no society’ becomes daily more accepted, in practice even by the left. I have strayed a long way from where I began. I will be accused of ignoring the very real issues that Trans people face. So let us look at that situation. I will begin by repeating the comment made earlier that both extremes in the argument acceot that there is a difference between men and women. The problem is how this works out in practice. The fundamental difference, determined by nature, is that women can bear children, men cannot, a fact of biology. A person with a male body cannot be female ( a woman). But, as I have outlined above the Working Class decides its own rules and procedures. If a person, despite having a body of the opposite gender, wishes to live their life in a particular gender, presents as that gender, is accepted by those who know them, the ones they live and work with, as that gender, then common sense says that they should be respected as what they say they are. Biology and the law are countermanded by working class understanding. There should be no problem, unless caused by bigots, to them using toilets of their choice.I stress presentation because it is important that a person be seen for what they profess to be. A ‘man in a dress’ [an unfortunate phrase but I believe it conveys what I mean] should not seek to use women’s facilities. I do see greater problems with respect to hospitals and prisons. Unfortunately, it is more difficult in a hospital ward to ignore biological realities and therefore problems can arise. The beliefs and feelings of all patients have to be taken into consideration. This is especially true at times of severe crisis in a person’s life. The provision of mixed wards does become a reasonable compromise. As regards prisons here again there can be problems. But the real,problem regarding prisons is not one regarding trans people, it is the fact that far too many people, especially women and people from the ethnic minorities are in prison in the first place. This is a symptom of our failing society and one that we should give more attention to overcoming. it is one of the arguments we should use in setting out our case for a complete transformation of society. Finally I come to,what I believe is a situation where the species is more important than the individual. It is an evolutionary fact that biological males, because of their role in society, as explained earlier, have developed on the whole to be stronger that biological females. To appreciate this fully you have to understand the meaning of statistics, which, sadly few people do. The fact that statistically men are stronger than women does not rule out the fact that some women are stronger than some men. Nor does this alter the fact that on the whole men are stronger than women.The matter has to be looked at in terms of the totality of men and women not in terms of individual men or women. This means that sport has to be segregated into biological male and biological female sports. Testosterone measurements are not a meaningful differentiation. Such a ruling may seem harsh but I believe that it is an example of where individuals have to accept the greater needs of the species (in this case biological women). [The situation with children at school is one which calls for discernment and common sense which teachers are able to determine as part of their responsibility to all of their pupils] There are many issues that I could take up with regard to Sport, namely that commercialisation [capitalism] has created an approach to sport that is in contradiction to what I understand as Sport. But that is a much wider debate and another argument against capitalism. In summary, I believe we need to give much greater, serious thought to this whole question. What is needed is a common sense Working Class approach that recognises both biological facts and individual aspirations [a dialectical materialist approach] but one that sees the whole issue within the class conflict which should at all times be our major concern. Scribar 3.5.25 .