Transgender liberation: Fighting the backlash

The purpose of this panel, as I understand it, is to discuss the state of the movement for gender liberation and how it relates to the left, in particular the Marxist left. The first point I would like to argue is that both movements are currently in a profound crisis.

Regarding the first, the trans question has been one of the focal points of right-wing reaction in the current period. The backlash on this question has been used by a wing of the ruling class to push for a broader rupture with the liberal status quo which has dominated Western societies in past decades.

Today the trans movement finds itself more and more isolated, abandoned and betrayed by those who previously claimed to be on its side. The Labour Party’s transition from lukewarm ally to being totally bigoted is a clear example of this trend.

As for the Marxist movement, it is splintered and weak. I cannot today go into all of the reasons for this, but the basic point is that those who have claimed to be Marxist have been unable to offer an independent working-class perspective for the struggles of the oppressed. The transgender question offers a prime example of this failure.

On one hand you have the Marxists who use a crude materialism to argue openly anti-trans positions. The CPB is a prime example of this. (I’m talking here of the Morning Star and not my CPGB co-panellist.) On the other, you have Marxists who simply latch onto the coattails of the LGBTQ+ movement, adding Marxist verbiage to the liberal programme of the movement. Here the Socialist Workers Party is a prime example.

This is how we in the Spartacist League understand the current situation.

Our thesis

The basic thesis I want to argue in the remaining time is that Marxism is not only relevant to the question of gender emancipation but is an essential tool to advance it. But to be relevant it must learn from past mistakes and provide answers to the political questions which have undermined the LGBTQ+ movement. To do this we must start with understanding the political polarisations around the trans question.

On the anti-trans side of the argument, the fact that society as it currently exists is defined by rigid and largely impermeable gender categories is presented as a fact of nature which cannot and should not be challenged. You have religious versions of this: God created man and woman. A TERF version: the protection of women requires maintaining rigid barriers between the sexes. And even scientific (sometimes with Marxist lingo): there is a material difference between men and women.

The pro-trans side of the debate seeks to push back against these views, which repress peoples’ desires to live outside the oppressive norms of patriarchal society. Unlike the anti-trans views, these are entirely legitimate and progressive impulses. However, the ideological tool used to fight these norms is generally liberal idealism, which is both ineffective and counterproductive.

In other words, in pushing back against the reactionary view that gender is a fact of nature which cannot and should not be violated, most pro-trans discourse attacks the very notion that these rigid social barriers exist. It is often argued, for example, that there is no sharp dichotomy between men and women and that gender is defined by one’s own subjective will.

The problem with this is that it is not true. Society as it presently exists is defined by a very rigid gender segregation. The fact that it is possible but very difficult to socially transition from one gender to another is an example of this. These sharp gendered divisions are the very basis of women’s and of LGBTQ+ oppression.

The crux of the problem is the following: To accept that society is defined by a rigid segregation of the sexes does not in any way imply accepting that this is how things should be. In fact, understanding that gender segregation is profoundly embedded in every institution is essential to developing a programme and strategy to change this reality. Here is where Marxism comes in.

To summarise my main point: Anti-trans discourse uses the prevalence of dominant gender norms to justify their maintenance and legitimacy. The mainstream pro-trans discourse seeks to undermine gendered norms by denying that they are rooted in material reality. But the result is to deny social reality as it currently exists. This necessarily focuses the struggles on the realm of ideas, language and norms, and not on overcoming the economic and social roots of gender oppression, mainly the patriarchal family.

Marxism for its part takes existing social norms as a starting point to change society. It roots its understanding of the world in existing material reality, but it takes this reality not as a fixed eternal norm but as one that can be shaped by the struggle of classes and individuals. This starts not in some distant communist future but here and now.

So far this is a fairly theoretical argument, so I will try to make it concrete with an example.

Workers and trans liberation

It is no secret that workers throughout the Western world have been moving to the right on social questions. This shift has been largely fuelled by a rejection of the previous liberal status quo, which covered itself in grand ideals of equality and social justice while workers were experiencing a constant decline in their social conditions. Since the left has failed to provide a progressive alternative to the status quo, the right has so far succeeded in leveraging economic grievances into a social backlash against minorities and other oppressed groups.

From an anti-trans standpoint, “trans ideology” is an academically driven phenomenon totally disconnected from the real world. The growing backlash among workers is viewed as the triumph of common sense and is wielded as a spearhead to foster further social reaction.

On the pro-trans side of the argument, the hostility of large swaths of the working class poses a profound problem. If we look at the right-wing shift of the working class purely on the ideological level, the situation can seem hopeless and liberals can appear to be a much better ally than socially conservative workers.

However, if we approach the problem from a Marxist point of view, we can understand that workers whose existence is defined by their exploitation have much more of an interest in defending trans people than liberals, whose careers depend on being accepted in the upper layers of society. From this understanding we can develop strategies to overcome the political divide by focusing on the common interests of workers and trans people.

Here I do not mean focusing on economic issues while putting the trans question on the backburner, as vulgar Marxists and social democrats advocate. A Marxist approach seeks to show to the working class how it is in its own material interests to defend trans people against the current reactionary backlash. This does not mean they must become enlightened liberals on the question of gender norms but simply that they must oppose bigotry and oppressive conditions for trans people because these will contribute to the degrading of their own conditions.

A basic example is that restricting the civil liberties of trans people is a step towards attacking the civil liberties of everyone. In fact, every day the Trump administration helps prove this point.

Conclusion

Marxism is first and foremost a programme of struggle. It is impossible to separate Marxist analysis from its aim of emancipating the working class through revolutionary struggle.

Marxism can provide a road forward for trans liberation because it can offer a path from the realities of current capitalist society to the ideals of gender emancipation. This path is not built in the heads of individuals or on pieces of paper but through guiding struggle, based on a materialist and revolutionary working-class programme.

If Marxists have played a marginal role in the struggle for gender liberation in the past decades, it is not the fault of Marxism but of those who claim to be Marxist. At bottom, they failed to use Marxism as a tool to overcome the conflicts which have paralysed the LGBTQ+ movement and led it to its current enfeebled state.

We in the Spartacist League have certainly had our own set of failures on this front. Today we do not claim to have all the answers. What we can offer is a basic materialist approach which can explain why the LGBTQ+ movement is in crisis, and some broad elements of programme to overcome this crisis.