When “Gay Rights,” “Trans Rights” and “Women’s Rights” Are White Rights

“People all over the world, people all over the world”

An indispensable quality of the white identity is the political disconnect of the white individual from our class– as European colonizers– and from the historical and material impact that our class has on people all over the world, and on the planet itself.

Isolated in the cozy confines of our own subjective view of the universe, white colonizers in the United States can feel entirely comfortable, thousands of miles from Europe, on land that is stolen from Indigenous peoples.  To the white colonizer, the beautiful, green trees and rainy skies of Oregon– disconnected within our collective imagination from their historical and material reality– are just “home.”

One might say, “Well, that was a long time ago when Oregon was settled by whites through our genocidal violence, and that’s why we’ve forgotten it.”  But history didn’t simply stop one day.  Everything that had happened up to a certain historical point didn’t simply disappear overnight, as a more liberal and humane social arrangement suddenly appeared: the same patterns of colonial genocide continue, and the material connections remain intact.  The freeway that goes through an area of Portland, Oregon that once was a thriving Black neighborhood; a sports arena in St. Petersburg, Florida that sits on the ruins of Black lives; the accumulated wealth of whites whose great-grandparents burned down the Chinese section of town in La Grande, Oregon; each of these is the physical embodiment, the new shape formed from the old pattern, whose deeply engraved historical record is connected to white supremacist, colonial capitalism.

Once the European colonizer has been isolated inside our class, and has been disconnected from our history of white supremacist violence, then we can be selective about which parts of this system benefit us and which parts are harmful.  By obscuring the line that divides the colonizer from the colonized— that is, by erasing the dialectical relationship shared by the white identity and the identities of Africans/Black people, Indigenous peoples and the majority of humanity– we don’t recognize that the entire capitalist system and history of the United States is based on systemic violence.

This constant erasure of the primary dialectic that exists between the colonizer and the colonized is how Senator Bernie Sanders can say he is eager to work with President Donald Trump on infrastructure and trade agreements, even as he denounces the President on other issues.  Yet infrastructure and trade agreements are racism, are patriarchy, are colonialism.  The same system that builds a wall across land stolen from Mexico and Indigenous nations also builds bridges and schools, and also builds prisons, and constructs skyscrapers where white men and white women in pinstriped suits plot their next attack on the world.  But this view of the world (the colonizer’s view of a peaceful street in Oregon under calm, gray clouds) only becomes possible when we ignore the larger context– the colonial genocide, the violent marginalization of oppressed identities–that has empowered the white person to hold this perspective.

If the European colonizer is a woman, or gay, or transgender (or all the above), we are empowered by this system of colonial capitalism to focus on our specific oppression(s) within the white identity, while ignoring the larger objective reality of our class status.  And by “class status” we don’t simply mean how much money we earn from our job (if we have one), or if we own a house, and have any other investments– we mean the status of whiteness, the political (not biological) identity of whiteness that is inherently reactionary, bourgeois and parasitic.

This is the dividing line that capitalism seeks to erase from our perspective of the world: the dialectical relationship of the colonizer to the colonized.  Once capitalism has erased this primary contradiction in the world from our own consciousness of class oppression, then we can focus on our individualistic need to escape the system’s discrimination against gays, women, trans people (or all the above).  As long as we gain rights that allow us to enjoy the benefits of capitalist oppression, the same as any cisgender, heterosexual, white man with money, we won’t care that all the wealth and power that has made these benefits possible comes from the violent exploitation and colonization of Africans/Black people, Indigenous peoples and so-called “people of color.”

In relation to monarchy or feudalism, the most revolutionary class within the white identity (which contains all classes) is the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie and that murky category of working class whites– together making up the “99%.”  Whenever we don’t get what we believe is rightfully ours, the white masses grow extremely restless.  We start talking about “throwing the bums out,” and we form “Tea Parties,” and we begin to “Feel The Bern”– good, old-fashioned white nationalist populism.

In relation to the global proletariat that is outside the white identity, the white bourgeoisie, white petty bourgeoisie and white working class are– taken together– the most reactionary class in history.  We are the last people on earth who want a violent revolution that will overturn capitalist democracy, because our very existence, and all our wealth and power, have come from this system’s ongoing violence against Africans, Indigenous peoples and the majority of humanity.

Liberals of the white petty bourgeoisie and “working class” (and even some of the white bourgeoisie) love to see American flag-hijabs, and love to chant “USA!  USA!,” in protests against Trump, because “American exceptionalism” reaffirms the existing status of the white colonizer on Indigenous lands: Muslims of color are “welcomed here” in our country.  “We” have the power to welcome “them.”  But the driving force behind our class consciousness is our fear that the system will begin to take away our rights– the rights of the bourgeois, the petty bourgeois and the working class white colonizer– the same as it has wiped out anyone else who stands in the way of “American” progress.

Because we are revolutionary– in the same way as Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and all those guys– white colonizers won’t give up the rights that we have gained– as women, as gays, as transgender women– without a fight … at least a peaceful fight, because the sanctity of private property is central to the “American” conception of “freedom.”  Even if we have to borrow– or steal– lines from Black Lives Matter organizers, we will express our anger that Trump would do this to our government, our country, our way of life.  “This is what [bourgeois] democracy looks like!”

Inspired by the revolutionary struggles of Africans/Black people in the U.S., and revolutions in Africa, Asia and Latin America, white people rose up in the 1960s and 1970s and made tremendous progress when it comes to our rights as gays, lesbians, and cisgender women (transgender women and men and nonbinary identities had to wait a bit longer).  Now that we have gained these rights, we won’t give up them up so easily. A wealthy cisgender gay white couple can get married and live right next to the conservative white family who have the house across the cul-de-sac.  White cisgender women aren’t imprisoned in the plastic palaces of suburbia, forced to spend their days wearing aprons and pearls while baking sunshine cakes.  They can go into the white man’s world and dominate in the same way that he does– though for slightly less money.  Transgender white women, with jobs in the white man’s world, can sometimes benefit from health plans that cover some of the costs of the surgeries we need in order to be accepted into the violently cisnormative white bourgeois society.  Taken together as a class, we are on the rise: we’ve been emboldened by our gains, and it’s not so easy for President Trump to take away– with one stroke of the pen– the progress we’ve made.

Of course, if we belong to the left-wing of the white colonial identity, we want “people of color” to be included in this progress.  We want them at our marches, that we lead.  We want them in our nonprofit organizations, that we lead.

Capitalism’s erasure of the primary class contradiction that exists in the global economic system today– the dialectical relationship of the colonizer and the colonized– means that white gays, lesbians, women (trans or cis) can look directly across the horizontal plane of our class consciousness and see no “color,” but simply gays who happen to be Black, lesbians who happen to be Latina, transgender women who just happen to be Indigenous.  Our fight is their fight.  Their fight is our fight.  And, yes, we’re fighting against racism too.  But that’s just one fight on the same plane– one isolated aspect of the individual’s identity.  We want them on our side as women, as transgender women, as lesbians or gays.

Our perspective of progress is that of the white bourgeoisie and white petty bourgeoisie and the white working class who have struggled to make “America” what it is today, as part of our long fight against the forces of monarchical rule.  We fear Trump the tyrant.  But 90% of Republicans approve of Trump.  And two-in-ten Democrats seem to be totally fine with his “fascist” moves.  Congress is controlled by Republicans.  The majority of state governments are controlled by Republicans.  And the whole map of “America”– red and blue– sits on stolen Indigenous land, benefiting from the imperialist subjugation of brown people here and abroad.  It is this global subjugation– this democratically-chosen white terror– that has made “America” possible.  The progress of “America” and the white identity exist in dialectical opposition to the progress of humanity.

Capitalism gains its wealth and power through the rigid principle that profits matter, not people.  However, capitalism must be flexible about the methods by which it gains greater wealth and power.  The rigid class structure (including patriarchy) remains intact, but the methods of class oppression adapt and change as the contradictions within the capitalist system threaten to pull it apart.  So the ruling class reluctantly takes one step back in order to take two steps forward.  Capitalism will take some steps that cut into its profits by instituting reforms that place the rights of white women (trans and cis) and white gays before the greater accumulation of wealth.  The ruling class recognizes that, once the insurgent identities within the colonial class feel that we are part of the system, the “progress” that we enjoy can be exploited for the overall consolidation and expansion of capitalism’s power.

Capitalism wins our loyalty by recognizing our rights– the rights that cis/het white men already have– so that we will become even more dependent upon the institutions and structures of the existing society, and therefore oppose any socialist revolution by the masses of colonized peoples whose further subjugation has made our newly-won “rights” possible.

It’s impossible for capitalism to recognize the rights of all classes or identities under its control– if it were to do this, the entire basis for its wealth and power would collapse.  Capitalism could no longer dominate the world.  At the same time, there are enough whites on the left– liberal, socialist or whatever– who might see the racism written into the progress of the insurgent white class if these rights totally excluded “people of color.”  So, once again, capitalism takes a couple steps back in order to take a few steps forward.  With all the flexibility of a snake, the ruling class recognizes the rights of some gays and lesbians of color, and some trans and cis women of color, aware that the illusion of “diversity” can become a buffer or barrier between the white colonial class and the colonized classes.  Furthermore, the talent, energy and resources of the upwardly mobile class within each colonized community can be exploited by capitalism in order to increase the wealth and power of white people.

By isolating every individual within their class, capitalism creates greater loyalty to the white ruling class, because it can pick off– one by one– each person who sees a way out of colonial oppression in regard to all their intersecting identities.  White gays tell gays of color that the fight for [white] gay rights is the way out.  White women (cis and trans) tell women of color that our fight is the way out.  Yet the wealth and power that we enjoy– at whatever level we enjoy it, rich, poor, or middle-class– would not be possible without the colonial domination of the vast majority of people in the world, including Indigenous peoples and Africans/Black people on this continent.  In a system where profits come first, the only “rights” that can be recognized are those that do not jeopardize the wealth of the white-controlled ruling class– and under this system, it would be impossible to extend the recognition of gay rights, women’s rights, and transgender rights to all people.

Only through socialist revolution can there be the complete redistribution of land and resources to colonized communities that is necessary for the rights of all people to be recognized.  The wealth of the white identity– the white colonial class– must be redistributed on a global scale to those identities who continue to be robbed and murdered for the benefit of whites in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Israel, South Africa, and wherever we parasitically exist in the world.

All whites– regardless of gender, sexuality, or income– benefit from this colonial relationship within a world economy controlled by racist, patriarchal capitalism.  If we wish to create a society based on egalitarian principles, we must organize to replace capitalism with socialism, and support the self-determination and empowerment of all colonized peoples.  Then perhaps we will be able to join together with our transgender sisters, our queer or lesbian sisters, on the same plane, the same material level, no longer divided by an oppressive system in which one class (the white colonizing identity) enjoys material benefits at the expense of colonized identities.

The fight to dismantle systemic oppression against all gays, all lesbians, and all women (trans or cis) is– in historical, material and dialectical terms– the revolutionary struggle against colonial capitalism.

When “Gay Rights,” “Trans Rights” and “Women’s Rights” Are White Rights

“Educated” or “Uneducated,” Whites Are Smart About Our Class Interests

“Knowledge has but one purpose: its purpose is to alleviate the suffering of humanity.” —     Kwame Ture

Under capitalist rule, we tend to think of education in individualistic terms.  In fact, capitalism wants us to think about everything in terms of the individual.  When we do this– think individualistically– we can be more easily isolated by capitalism inside our class, where we will focus on how to gain power and wealth for ourselves (or avoid oppression and poverty) by behaving in ways that benefit the system whose overall power and wealth are based entirely on violent, colonial exploitation.  If we don’t connect how our actions reflect our class interests, or recognize how these actions materially affect members of other classes, then we will become easier to control, and then capitalism can reinforce its rule.

One’s access to education is most often, if not always, a question of one’s class.  But what is our “class”?  According to bourgeois politicians (Republicans and Democrats) any person with a job is “working class.”  The ideology of the bourgeoisie reduces the category of class to one’s personal income and wealth– again, focusing on the individual.

But our class has to do with more than how much we earn from our job (if we have one), or the amount of assets we own.  Class also refers to the collective interests of a people.  Class means the political identity of individuals who are organized under a shared ideology, and who have shared material interests, and shared goals or aspirations.  So our access to education, like our access to all the material necessities of life (food, clean water, housing, clothing, and healthcare) is determined by our class, which is not just a question of how rich or poor we are, but how we get together with other like-minded individuals in order to acquire the things we want and need.  In this class framework, the wealthiest individual and the poorest (or most impoverished) may share the same identity, even as they do not share the same level of benefits from this identity.

White people in the United States share the same political identity: we are European colonizers occupying Indigenous lands.  Without access to the resources of colonized Indigenous peoples, as well as colonized Africans/Black people, European colonizers would not be able to share any of the wealth and power of this colonial system of exploitation that we enjoy today (no matter how inequitably).  Therefore, it is in our class interests, as whites, to protect whiteness and the white supremacist, capitalist ideology.

Conservative whites and liberal whites hold different views about how to protect our class interests, but we seem to agree that it’s better to be on the giving end of reactionary, capitalist violence rather than on the receiving end.  White people have different views of government and business (which are both part of the same system), but we all depend on the power and wealth of capitalist institutions for our existence– power and wealth that only come from the colonial subjugation of Indigenous peoples, Africans/Black people and the majority of the global population (as well as the planet itself).

In general, people tend to be very smart about our class interests.  It’s an elitist view– and one that benefits the racist, patriarchal, capitalist ruling class– to believe that some individuals are “just too dumb” or uneducated to know what we want.  When people say they want something, it seems we should believe them.

And, for the most part, people want to learn.  We want knowledge.  That has been the struggle of humanity over thousands of years: to gain greater knowledge.  We need to know certain things just to survive.  But people tend to recognize the value of learning all sorts of new things, no matter what these things are– as long as they can identify with whatever it is they are attempting to learn, and as long as they believe this education will be beneficial to themselves and their community.  An illiterate person– one who has been cut off from the resources necessary for learning how to read and write their language– can pick up this knowledge very quickly and is usually eager to do so.  People make enormous sacrifices– on a class level– to gain access to education.  This is because we know what we want and what’s good for us and for our people.

However, what passes for “education” in the United States– or at least “higher education”– is largely the excess wealth of imperialist domination, rather than knowledge that the working class can use to benefit society.  The working class makes the clothes and produces (grows, picks, cans) the food.  The proletariat in this global economic system– a system that extends far beyond the (illegitimate) borders of the “United States of America”– consists of migrant workers, prison labor, workers in Africa, Latin America and Asia: mostly people of color.  The working class are people in Africa who may earn a dollar per day, if that.

The classes that benefit the most from the production of the global working class are not the workers themselves, but white people– whites in Europe, Canada, the United States, Australia, Israel, South Africa.  This imperialist domination by white-controlled capitalism is so profitable, so successful, that it creates excess wealth within the class of white people.  This is the wealth of Wall Street that becomes endowments for universities in the U.S., and the taxes that support public schools, and the gifts from Phil Knight, Bill Gates, and other white billionaires whose fortunes have been made off capitalist oppression.  All of this excess wealth accumulates in the white class, and then the administrators at universities– big, small, public, private– rush to grab a piece of it.  And as universities are rushing to grab their share of the resources gained from capitalism’s imperialist domination of Africans/Black people, Indigenous peoples and the majority of people on the planet, they also want the tuition that white families– who benefit similarly from this global domination– are able to pay.

So, the status of “being educated” in the United States is mostly an expression of one’s ability to grab a share of the capitalist looting of the proletariat, both inside the borders of this settler colony and beyond it.

A white person who is racist, transphobic, homophobic, and sexist can go to college and emerge four years later just as “ignorant” as they were when they went in.  And even if they don’t say a lot of “hateful” things, they may end up going right into a system, at their first job, where they support the ideological force of racism, patriarchy and capitalist oppression.  Because it’s all part of the same system– grade school, college, the workplace, media, government, churches– and each institution is permeated with the racist, patriarchal, capitalist ideology of the ruling class.

From an early age, white people become quite smart about our class interests.  After all, our very existence and survival depend on this type of intelligence: the awareness of one’s collective identity and goals, as shared by the colonial class whose members benefit from the systemic subjugation of colonized classes.  The white individual who never went to college, or never even finished high school, may have just as much awareness (education) as the “most educated” white person, when it comes to our shared colonial status within the white identity.  In fact, they may be extra aware of whiteness and its class benefits.  Because this “uneducated” white person literally cannot afford to play the duplicitous games, and engage in the double-talk, and the subtle (or not so subtle) violence, of the white person who graduated from college.

Now, we might argue that bourgeois institutions of higher education teach us valuable things like how to be doctors, and how to be lawyers who defend immigrants facing deportation.  And it’s true, there is a social benefit to this type of shared knowledge.  But the purpose of this education is not to benefit society.  If one individual chooses to take their law degree and use it to help refugees, or if another individual chooses to share their knowledge of medicine by providing free healthcare, they still make these choices within the context of a system that gains its wealth and power through imperialist, capitalist exploitation.  Capitalism could never function if all people used their college degrees just to benefit society.  So, while there are unselfish, kindhearted individuals who share their knowledge and expertise with oppressed communities, the system in which they learned these things only gained its wealth and power through its continued subjugation of the very same people whom they are trying to uplift.

The purpose of education in the United States, and in the entire global economic system of capitalism, is not to benefit the masses.  We can use our education– as doctors, lawyers, teachers, and so on– to help the masses, but we are not empowered by capitalism to carry out this work.  In fact, capitalism is constantly working against our efforts to fight its oppression.  At the same time, as white people we still enjoy the benefits of capitalist oppression.  We go to college so we can get a job so we can survive– or do considerably better than survive– and then we give whatever is left over to oppressed peoples, and it seems we have done enough.  But the entire process is controlled by a system whose power and wealth depend on the few enjoying the most through the colonial exploitation of the many– through the theft of their land, resources and labor.  Anything we do to address this systemic oppression on an individual level, while perhaps admirable, flies in the face of our entire existence as white colonizers who live on stolen Indigenous land in an empire built by the forced (and still unpaid) labor of Africans.  As a class, white people are very smart about the fact that our whiteness means access to a lifestyle that the majority of people in the world do not experience– and cannot, precisely because we can.

If anything, so-called “uneducated” conservative supporters of President Trump are even smarter than white liberals about the benefits of our class.  Whether they went to college or not, members of President Trump’s base recognize that whiteness and the white identity must be violently enforced in order to maintain its advantage.  The land and resources of this continent– and all the products of labor that flow here from Africa and the rest of the world– were not gained by “being educated.”  That’s the icing on the cake.  The whole cake was stolen through violence.  And President Trump’s supporters recognize that the global proletariat is rising up: “America” isn’t great anymore (they believe it once was great, just like white liberals believe it still can be), and now colonized peoples are prepared to take advantage of our weaknesses, and grab some of this cake.  Of course, conservative reactionaries believe that the cake (the wealth and power of the world) belongs to them, a belief that is based on white supremacy, but in this respect they are nearly identical to the masses of Europeans (white people) who have lived over the past six hundred years– including some of the most educated individuals in all of history.  President Trump and his supporters are just more blatant about their belief in the shared class interests and ideology of white people than the white liberal Democrat who, one minute, denounces racism, and, the next minute, pulls into a driveway in a gentrified neighborhood just one house over from a white conservative Republican.

Under socialism, the producers of this system (the working class) control the government and enforce their class rule based on their own interests and political ideology.  The working class under socialism determines for itself how to gain access to education, because it has the power to do so and can now direct all the necessary resources toward this goal.  Under capitalism, the white ruling class dominates the global proletariat, primarily for its own material benefit, but also to benefit the restless white masses who demand some share in the resources that are forcibly taken from so-called people of color.  If whites feel we aren’t getting a big enough share of capitalism’s stolen wealth, we form “Tea Parties,” and populist movements like the one led by Senator Bernie Sanders.

All white people are fairly smart in this regard– we know that access to an education means the ability to get a job.  But that’s because the oppressive capitalist system (created by white people) has been set up in such a way that we equate going to college with getting a job.  So, no matter who we are, nearly all whites on the left or the right of the colonial class become– through our mass rush to get an education in order to get a job– a kind of buffer or barrier between the white ruling class and the colonized peoples of the world.  In other words, whenever we promote the capitalist ideology that “being educated” is an acceptable means toward gaining greater wealth (or even an acceptable way to learn how to “be a better person”), we literally buy into this unjust system, and legitimatize it.  We use our education in universities to maintain our white colonial status (“white privilege”) and to convince ourselves that we are better than “those ignorant Trump supporters,” yet we are upholding the same oppressive system.

Is our college degree really all that there is standing between us and the inhumane support of (more) colonial genocide?  It appears we as white people support it either way.

Until the overall wealth of the capitalist system is taken from the racist, patriarchal ruling class and is then redistributed to the proletariat, and until the stolen lands of Indigenous peoples are restored to them, the system of education in the United States will be an expression of this unequal relationship between the white colonizer and the colonized masses of the globe.  First we must recognize the purpose of education– “to alleviate the suffering of humanity”— and organize to rearrange our class ideology and class goals around this egalitarian principle, or we will simply be using our education to reinforce the oppressive power of capitalism.

“Educated” or “Uneducated,” Whites Are Smart About Our Class Interests

Minimizing the Damage to the People During the Trump Era

“I’m for peace, but I believe that any man who’s facing death should be able to go to any extent to see that who’s trying to kill him doesn’t have a chance to do it.” — Malcolm X


One of the goals of revolutionary armed struggle is to maximize damage to the enemy while minimizing damage to the people.  However, the primary goal of the revolution is power, because, once a subjugated people have gained power, then they will be free to create peace and a system (socialism) that is based on egalitarian and just principles.

It seems fair to say that, in the United States today, and particularly among European colonizers (whites), there is little or no desire to do the first part of the above statement: “to maximize damage to the enemy.”  In fact, the opposite is true: white people (most of whom voted for President Trump) are more focused on maximizing the damage to the people– to oppressed communities who are already the most endangered and the most marginalized by a racist, patriarchal, colonial system (capitalism).

Yet there are many whites in the U.S. today who do want to minimize the damage to colonized or oppressed communities. So let’s focus on this second part of the statement: “minimizing damage to the people.”  And the two parts are actually very much connected.  But perhaps we can talk about that a little bit later.

For now, let’s think about what it means to minimize the damage to the people who are most endangered during the Trump Era.  And it may help us to understand the meaning of this effort if we try to think about it in dialectical terms.  This isn’t the same as looking at both sides of an issue.  Instead, we want to look at the one sideour side, because you’re either on the people’s side or you’re not– and then examine the two sides within this one side, or the unity of opposites.

When we talk about objects– and people aren’t objects, although they are objectified and must therefore become the subjects of a mass movement against their objectifier– then we can say each object or thing in nature contains this unity of opposites: two opposing forces that hold the thing together while also threatening to tear it apart.  These are the internal contradictions of the object.  And contradictions not only keep a thing together– it’s not really at rest, it just appears to be at rest as these forces of tension struggle within it– they also create self-motion.  The contradictions of the object affect its ability to move and to change, according to its relationship to all the other objects around it.  Its power for self-motion is based on the strength or weakness of this object in relation to the objects with which it interacts (and their own strengths and weaknesses).

So, what do these dialectics mean when we are talking about resisting Trump, and (more importantly) resisting the system that elected him (the system of racist, patriarchal capitalism)?  First, what we’re not talking about here is the frequent mistake that people in this country make (particularly white people), because it’s how we are taught to think: we believe that, in order to improve the lives of those who are oppressed by this system, we should focus on reforming the system (re-forming it, that is making it stronger so it can do more good, or harm).  But a dialectical analysis of conditions teaches us that strength comes from within.  Power comes from the process of how unified opposing forces are resolved within an object (such as an individual, a community, an organization, a class, or a nation).  Once the object is stronger within, and has resolved its own contradictions on its own terms (rather than being overpowered by a stronger force from without), then it has the ability to move forward and to transform all the things that it confronts.

Therefore, if we wish to “minimize damage to the people”– to oppressed and marginalized identities– it seems we ought to focus on taking steps that will allow them to become stronger within, and to gain power on their terms.  When an organization, a class, an identity, or a community is stronger within, and when it has resolved its internal contradictions on its own terms– rather than being controlled by an outside force– then it can move, really move: and that’s when we have a mass movement.

People in oppressed and colonized communities– Africans/Black people, Indigenous peoples, Latinxs, immigrants of color, Muslims of color– don’t need to experience any additional danger to their lives and well-being.  The dangers that they face are great enough already– far too great.  And so it seems that whites on the political left– liberals, socialists, anarchists, whatever– should focus on “minimizing damage to the people.”  Revolutionary violence will hit colonized communities first and hit them the hardest.  And they are already being hit by the system of reactionary violence, by capitalism.  Once we recognize this reality, then we can say: let’s focus on minimizing that blow, but not from the outside, not on the terms of the capitalist system that sits on top of them– no, instead, by materially contributing to the empowerment of the people from within their communities, people who are struggling to survive below the violent force of capitalism.

The key for the white left today– and every day during the Trump Era– is to materially support individuals and organizations in colonized communities.  Support Black trans women.  Support Safety Pin Box.  Support trans Latinas.  Support Indigenous peoples at Standing Rock and across their stolen continent (and Hawaii).

We need to give or pay whatever we can– “we” meaning white people who belong to the colonizing class, the identity that benefits the most from the systemic violence of capitalism.  For, when colonized communities have the resources to grow stronger within, and to work out their own contradictions on their own terms, then they are empowered to resist Trump and the system that Trump represents– on their own terms.  Through their organization, their mass unity, oppressed identities can then move to transform the larger society.

And no matter who we are in the white colonial class– cisgender women, transgender women, nonbinary, agender, Muslim, gay, bi, pansexual, disabled, differently-abled, impoverished– we will benefit from this transformation of society by colonized communities whose identities may intersect with ours.  Even cis/het able-bodied, middle-class white men will benefit because they will no longer exist– like all white people– off the murder and theft of Africans, Indigenous peoples and the majority of humanity.  That in itself is a kind of freedom, because– it has been said– no one is free if their liberation is based on the oppression of someone else.

And so (it seems to me) this is the key for those of us who want to protect the people from Trump (and from “America”): allow the people who are the most marginalized (and always have been, since 1492 or before) to gain power from within.  When we pay their organizations (and white people owe reparations to Black people), not only do we allow colonized communities to grow stronger, and more unified against a violent, reactionary system, but we weaken that system.  That’s the beauty of it.

By “minimizing the damage to the people” we also begin to “maximize damage” against the enemy.  Whenever capitalism is stronger, and the white bourgeoisie is unified to “save America” by reforming the system, it has the ability to inflict greater damage on the people whose land, resources, labor and very lives are the basis for its power.

If we love the people, we should be thinking about how to create chaos within the capitalist system– weakening it at every turn.  We want disunity in the white identity.  We want to demoralize the enemy by making them recognize that they aren’t as strong as they used to be.  Capitalism moves against people of color, but now people of color are more unified, and are stronger within: the blow isn’t as great, because it has come against a greater force.  Then capitalism staggers– it is confused.  And now the wealth and power of “whiteness” and the “American” identity don’t seem so attractive, once we expose the contradictions of capitalism and reveal to ourselves and to the world that “white power” is a parasite, that it exists off the murder and theft of the host (the colonized peoples of the globe, including people of color in the U.S. settler colony).

We aren’t ready for armed struggle, and– at any rate– we want peace.  Anyone who seems eager to go to war, who wants to harm people– we should take them aside and try to figure out what sort of contradictions they are struggling with, and what sort of hurt they have experienced that would lead them to show such violent behavior toward others.  Revolutions are about people.  We want to protect people who are already enduring violence, right now– the violence that comes from simply being Black in “America,” or being a Muslim of color (not necessarily a white Muslim), or being a transgender woman of color (not white) whose life expectancy is just thirty-five years.  The Black Panther Party did this with “survival programs”– free breakfast programs and free health clinics.  This is a wealthy society– we can take care of one another if we just grab what already belongs to the people in the first place.

Now, some whites are going to say that our focus on “minimizing the damage” is just white guilt or that we’re trying to play the part of the white savior.  In one sense, whites are guilty– we have committed genocide.  And we’re still committing it, in the U.S. today.  But we will never condemn ourselves to death for our crimes against humanity.  So white guilt is useless.

Even so, who wants to live in a society that is based on violence against the majority of the people on the globe, and against the planet itself?  Capitalism was born out of violence– imperialist violence.  Capitalism has expanded its wealth and power on account of violence.  And capitalism itself is violence.  Capitalism is like pointing a gun at someone and saying, “Work all day then give me the fruits of your exploited labor so I can turn them into profits and enjoy more wealth for the few in my class.”  Nobody puts up with that kind of social arrangement, unless they are violently controlled.  Capitalism kills.

So we have to kill capitalism– we have to destroy this system of violence before it completely destroys people and planet.  But (judging from all the [white] Women’s Marches last weekend, and– thinking dialectically– also recognizing that they did have their positive aspects) we are nowhere ready to wage armed struggle against the system of capitalism.  We would only inflict minimum damage to the racist, patriarchal bourgeoisie while increasing damage to the true proletariat of the world: colonized communities.

Therefore, European colonizers in the U.S. (whites) should consider placing our focus on protecting colonized peoples who are the most endangered by racist, patriarchal capitalism.  Let communities of color determine for themselves their own principles, goals, strategies, and tactics.  Let them organize for resistance on their terms, not ours.  That’s not white guilt– it’s the scientific, humane thing to do.

Capitalism is a cruel, inhumane system that is all too eager to grind up anyone who poses a threat to it– especially if they are a Black person or a person of color.  This system has locked up Jalil Muntaqim, Sundiata Acoli, Imam Jamil Al-Amin, Leonard Peltier, Dr. Mutulu Shakur, Mumia Abu-Jamal and many, many other political prisoners– prisoners of war– just because they wanted their people to be free.  So if we want to throw at the enemy our fragile skin– our bodies that are so easily pierced by bullets and the weapons of the oppressor– capitalism will be more than happy to bruise, tear, break, and lock away our flesh (if not spirit).  Capitalism has locked away generations of colonized peoples with no more incentive to do so than the usual one for the United States– it has been profitable.  Capitalism is an expert at growing stronger and wealthier off human suffering.

No– weaken the enemy.  And today, it seems that the best way to maximize this damage, and to weaken the reactionary force of capitalism, is to pay resources to the people who are most endangered by Trump (and the forty-four previous Presidents).  If the people are stronger within (particularly the most marginalized: transgender women of color), then they will become a tightly-knit, singular, mass force, an indestructible movement against all the interlocking systems of capitalist oppression.  And then they can transform society, on their terms.

Do something revolutionary today.  Buy a book written by a Black trans woman.  Make a donation to an organization led by trans Latinas.  Give to organizations that are led by queer and trans people of color (QTPOC).  Support the blogs and art and emotional labor of Black people and people of color.  My main goal here is to part me and other white people from our money, again and again.

We can weaken Trump’s ability to do harm to the most marginalized in this society by contributing resources to individuals and organizations who are just struggling to survive in this system every day.  Minimize the damage to the people, and then … the power that the system has to harm them will implode on account of the increasing chaos and volatility of its own contradictions.


Minimizing the Damage to the People During the Trump Era

Medium As Meaning


The rationality of capitalist society is not to be found in its content but rather in the outward forms that contain its diverse expressions.  For example, familial relationships in bourgeois society are arranged around the ideology of the ruling class, which is mainly interested in more profits, resulting in more capital and more power.  This rationality for the arrangement of the family creates chaos in any expression of these relationships that is not directly connected to the capitalist ideology.  The capitalist form creates its own content, thereby determining its meaning as well: the meaning is in the form.

And we could extend this observation beyond the family, or any other necessary interpersonal relationships, to the relationships between producers of food and clothing and the people who need these things– which is to say, everybody.  It is entirely irrational for anyone to go hungry, and to lack access to material necessities, in a society that produces great wealth.  Yet the rationality for capitalism is not based on feeding and clothing all the people.  The institutions and structures of capitalist society exist to create greater wealth for the ruling class.  Therefore, the meaning of these irrational behaviors by capitalist institutions and structures can only be explained when we examine their meaning according to capitalism’s rationale for their creation in the first place.  Under capitalist rule, food is not meant to feed, but rather to bring profit as a commodity.  The same is true for clothing and all other material necessities of life, and even life itself.

The same is also true for interactions between people, and for the ways we communicate: under capitalist rule, communication is not meant to educate, and it is not meant to connect us in terms that we might call rational or humane.  Each medium of communication under capitalism only has rational meaning when we consider the reason for its existence within this system of power: to increase the wealth of the ruling class and the people who benefit the most from its rule, or white people.  The meaning of the content which is expressed within capitalist media may often seem irrational and, well, meaningless– but this is only because its main purpose is to further enrich the white-controlled ruling class.  What the forms may contain is of far less importance than the rationale for their container: greater and greater profits to the white ruling class.

The rationality for social media– specifically Facebook and Twitter– is not to create better understanding among people, nor is it to educate, or even to entertain.  If the content of Facebook and Twitter does these things, the capitalist class will allow such meaningful exchanges to exist (although, from time to time, it must lock Black people who are “too outspoken” out of their Facebook accounts, and, at all times, make sure they are harassed by racist trolls).  But just as the capitalist class has the power to allow content that is based in humane and rational principles, it also has the power to allow entirely inhumane and irrational content– and, in both instances, the only meaning this content has (to the capitalists who control the forms or media for its expression) is to create more and more profits.  When the fundamental rationale for a medium has no other basis but the creation of greater profits, it can only lead to an increasingly irrational, violent and oligarchical society.

The world has changed drastically in the past century or century and a half, and one of the most drastic changes has been the development of mass media: radio, movies, television, the internet and social media on the internet, as well as the expensive devices that are necessary to consume these things.  We live (some of us more precariously than others) in a global economic system.  Changes in one part of the world not only affect other parts of the world but are controlled by one global economic system: European imperialist capitalism.  The numerous advances in technology, and the benefits of these advances, during the last century and a half have taken place in a global context– a context in which one class enjoys the benefits of the subjugation and exploitation of all other classes.  Therefore, the technological advances of mass media have not had the purpose of benefiting all people, or even the majority of people.  Perhaps society has improved as a result of these developments in capitalist media; yet the rationale for their growth has not been to benefit the world, but rather, to create greater profits for the ruling class or identity: the European (white) minority that dominates the world.

And so, during this present period, there is the appearance of a sort of frenetic “free speech,” an endless, chaotic exchange of information, insults, art, jokes, memes, and (less frequently) love and spiritual support.  The diversity of expressions within the forms of media creates the illusion of democracy: we are able to express it, therefore we are experiencing freedom.  Yet the context for these countless expressions cannot be found in the words, images, ideas, and sounds that are expressed, or even in the fact that they are allowed; the context is the container itself, the form that a racist, transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, ableist, Islamophobic system– capitalism– has created for the sole purpose of expanding its wealth and power.

Since the context for these media cannot be found in humane or rationale principles, but only in the self-serving rationality of the profit-motive, the content– no matter how varied– repeatedly takes on the shape of this container.  When human thought and speech become commodities, the primary rationale for our communication will tend to lose any meaning that is not directly related to the expansion of capitalist wealth.  The algorithms and formulas for human interactions of any type, within the context of a racist, patriarchal bourgeois system, will tend to reward those behaviors that create greater profits while suppressing those behaviors that do not.  And while we are free (for the most part) to express whatever we want, our expressions only gain meaning, in this capitalist context, based on their ability to create greater profits.  And this context– the one that gives shape to all interactions on social media– will tend to increase the oppressive capacity of the bourgeois oligarchy.  The skeleton of the capitalist design is not completed by flesh or spirit; it grows according to the monstrous, machine-like embodiment of the profit-motive.

C.L.R. James once said, “Capital controls man.  Man does not control capital.”  The meaning of the capitalist medium is not to be discovered in its content, but rather in the medium itself.  The reason the capitalist medium has been created, and has taken on its present form, has not been to serve any rational, humane purpose (nor has it been developed for the benefit of people and planet), but rather, to make the wealthy, powerful white class even wealthier and more powerful, and more oppressive.

Medium As Meaning

Defining “Woman”


The identity of a person is always political.  We may base the definition of our identity on biological factors and– as materialists– say that our identity follows the objective laws of the universe, but the uses of science– of biology– are not universal; they are subjective.  So the uses of scientific knowledge are always political too.

But what do we mean by “political?”  “Politics” may be defined as the organization of individuals around specific goals or interests, which are expressed as a class, a nation, or an empire.  The power of a class, a nation, or an empire grows out of material conditions– based in the observable, knowable world– but the subjective aims of class or empire are not universally true as science, or religion.

The European colonial powers that occupy Indigenous lands in Canada and the United States have used science to justify the murder and theft of Indigenous peoples in much the same way we have used religion.  European colonizers (whites) have claimed that we are simply being scientific whenever we’ve promoted our evil theories that Africans and Indigenous peoples are inferior or subhuman.  And we’ve used religion in a similar way: we say that bodies are born into “original sin” and must be redeemed– and we insist (conveniently enough) that imperialist “Christianity” is the only path toward this salvation (and separation) of the body from the soul (and from land and resources necessary to sustain life).  The greatest tragedy of all may be that colonized peoples, and even women within the colonizing class or nation, and so many of us for so long, have believed these “universal truths” which have been promoted, religiously and scientifically, by patriarchal, racist, capitalist Europeans.

The words “tragedy” and “transgender” sound very similar, but it is not a tragedy– nor is oppression an inherent part of our identity that we are born into (like an “original sin”)– for a woman to be transgender.  And the same is true for all women.  Women are not oppressed because we are biologically (or religiously) born to be oppressed.  Cisgender men don’t have that kind of magical power over us.  No– the tragedy is that we are born into a system that is sexist, transphobic, racist, homophobic, ableist, and Islamophobic: the system of colonial capitalism.  Cisgender men oppress women (transgender and cisgender) because they have material power— they too are born into a political, economic and social system of tiered classes, a hierarchy that benefits one class (white, cisgender, heterosexual) at the expense of all colonized classes (so-called people of color, particularly “QTPOC”: queer and trans people of color).

The white colonizing class asserts its power through violence which is expressed in many forms: missiles, bombs, drones, diseases, sterilization, gentrification, bourgeois politicians, prisons, detention centers, reservations, schools, churches, media, and reactionary/transphobic ideology.  The dominant class uses all the institutions and structures that it controls to keep this hierarchy of power intact, and to promote the violent ideology that will allow them to remain on top in this dialectical relationship between the colonizer and the colonized.

Transphobic ideology, including the science (or “science”) that is used to promote this ideology, is just one weapon of the patriarchal, racist, colonizing class.  Capitalism tries to claim that “sex” (male and female) is universal, biological, determined from birth.  Each person, having been born, must remain in their designated track until death (and beyond, for often they are misgendered after they are murdered)– as designated by the dominant white, cis, bourgeois class.  And this designation or definition is about control.  It’s about power.

A great problem arises for the dominant class, and its adherents, whenever the subjugated class continues to resist their definitions, and refuses to be absorbed by their ideological force moving against it.  If any historically oppressed group would just believe about themselves what the oppressive power is saying about them, and who they are, then the problem for the oppressor would go away.  But as long as one identity continues to exist– and resist– on its own terms, according to its own definitions, this struggle between the two forces cannot be resolved.  It cannot be resolved scientifically (or religiously) because it is not a contradiction of facts, it is a conflict of wills, with each side possessing its own will to power (always by the permission of Allah, as He has willed).

And so identity is always political.  You don’t get to define us in any universal, “scientific” or divinely-directed fashion.  Because this is a clash of wills.  Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs), who are quite often (and not coincidentally) also Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminists (SWERFs), wish to define womanhood in some general manner, using “biology” (chromosomes, genitalia, etc.) as a weapon against women.

And the great problem for Meghan Murphy, and other TERFs, SWERFs, and white feminists, is that, try as they might, they still cannot erase the identity of trans women.  Why?  Because this is a conflict of wills, not a contradiction of facts.  And one of the political goals of transgender women– in our struggle to resist the reactionary and patriarchal force of transphobic ideology that’s moving against us– is to gain more political support from the masses, as we insist, again and again, we are who we say we are: we are womenWe are women because we say we are women; even if you kill us, you still won’t have a universal claim on our identity, because trans women have existed for as long as humans have existed, and our sisters will exist long after we’re dead.  But now, today, we are speaking our truth: we are women!

The identity of trans women– like all identity– is about political power.  As our womanhood is recognized by more and more people– specifically those who are part of the revolutionary movement against transphobic capitalism– then the definitions imposed by TERFs will lose more and more credibility.

It seems hard to believe there is a popular type of feminism that excludes women: women who are trans and women who are sex workers.  But, then again, it’s not so hard to believe when, historically, “mainstream” feminism has excluded women of color (most of the women in the world).

The website Feminist Current, under the guise of radical, anti-capitalist politics, promotes the sort of feminism that excludes trans women and sex workers (who, of course, may also be women of color).  And the women who support Feminist Current are who they say they are: white feminists who do not wish to create a system that empowers all women on an equal basis.  Meghan Murphy, founder of Feminist Current, and cisgender male professor Robert Jensen (who criticizes the “liberal politics” of equal access to bathrooms) have aligned themselves with the reactionary force of transphobic, racist, sexist, colonial capitalism.  In this clash of political wills, TERFs and SWERFs have chosen the side of capitalism, because the power of the bourgeois class or national identity is based on the historical and material oppression of transgender women (particularly trans women of color).

How do we define “woman”?  There is no “we.”  Every class, every community or political identity should have the power to define woman for themselves, free from the colonial control of Europe.  Historically, European colonizers have attempted to impose a “universal” and scientific (as well as religious) definition of woman on all the societies we have invaded– in our own class interests.  This includes our invasion of Indigenous peoples– the First Nations– of Canada, a territory occupied by a hostile European power.  Even white transgender women– who are part of the colonizing class of Europeans– have believed the sexist ideology of capitalism that erased our identity for hundreds and thousands of years.  But once we believe in our own collective power, and define our identity for ourselves, and say we exist and we’re here to stay– then transphobic, sexist capitalism has a problem.  A big problem.  And so do the TERFs who defend these transphobic, sexist, racist, capitalist ideologies.  One of us will have to go away.

Transgender women are women.  We will change the world– insh’Allah– before transphobic white feminists can change our minds about who we are.  But we must be organized as a political power, a unified revolutionary force, and we must continue to educate the masses so that we can move together against one common enemy: capitalism.

Defining “Woman”

The Transphobia of Cis People Who Say They Won’t Date Trans Women


[Content warning: r*pe, transphobia, misogynistic violence, gender dysphoria]

At the personal level of sexual relations, “no” always means “no.”  Otherwise, it’s rape.

However, in a system that is white supremacist, patriarchal and colonial– the system of capitalism– gender and sexuality, like race, are not just personal; they also exist on a political level.  And, in this tiered society, personal relationships always reflect the power that one has within their class.  The entire structure of capitalist society– and every tier or level within it– is controlled by a ruling class that is wealthy, racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, and Islamophobic.

So it’s one thing to say “no” to an individual when it comes to dating, sex, or any other personal interaction.  And it’s quite another thing to say “no” to an entire segment of an oppressed category.

In the first instance, we are simply asserting autonomy over our own personal identity and decisions.  But even this individual power comes from the masses, and from the political, economic and social system that the masses support.  Because an enslaved African certainly said “no” to enslavement and to colonization by Europeans (whites), just as the Indigenous person said “no” to Europeans who have occupied their land.  This interaction wasn’t based merely on an individual choice.  It came down to a question of power, and it still does: genocidal colonization is a choice that isn’t based on the individual but, rather, on the power of the masses, or the collective (class) power expressed by European (white) colonizers who still occupy this land and still support the violent system of capitalism.  Without this unequal relationship of power, the United States (and Canada) would not exist, nor could any white people (trans or cis) be able to live in the “New World.”

In the second instance of saying “no”– to an entire group within an oppressed category– we’re talking about a word or an act that also reflects this unequal relationship of power.  When cisgender people say in advance that they won’t date trans women, what they are really saying is that they are using the power gained from a transphobic system to erase one segment within the historically oppressed identity of women.  Capitalism oppresses women.  Trans women are women.  Therefore, to rule out any sexual or romantic relationships with trans women is simply to reinforce the unequal amount of power that cis people have within the capitalist hierarchy.

Furthermore, when white cis people (lesbians or straight men) say they refuse to date trans women, they are engaging in racist behavior and misogynoir.  Why?  Because trans women are women, and Black women are women, and Black trans women are women.  So, by saying they won’t date trans women, cis white lesbians and cis/het white men are effectively negating multiple, overlapping identities.  They are using the power given to them by an oppressive system in the U.S. and Canada (as well as much of the world, since capitalism is a global economic system) to erase (or attempt to erase) the womanhood of trans women– all trans women, including (or especially) trans women of color.

They aren’t just saying “no” to one person.  Cisgender people who say they won’t date trans women are saying “no” to the very existence and identity of one group of women.  Cis people who say they would never date a trans woman, when they would date a cis woman, are saying to every trans woman in the world: “You don’t get to be a woman.  To me, you’ll never be a woman.”  And this is violence.

But one might ask, “What about the Black person [trans, cis, woman, man, gender nonconforming, agender] who says they won’t date white people?  Isn’t that the violent erasure of identity too?” Setting aside the intent of these questions, we can still argue that Africans/Black people who say they won’t date whites are not engaging in violent behavior against us because, from the beginning, we indicated that these questions are always about relationships of power.  Black people are not empowered to oppress whites– any whites.  Historically and materially, the dialectical relationship that exists is that of the white oppressor/colonizer and oppressed/colonized Black people— so one can understand why, under this current system, Black people wouldn’t date whites.  And within the Black community, if Black cis people refuse to date Black trans people, even in this case, the power they have to do this only comes from a system that was created by whites and for whites– racist, patriarchal capitalism.

Yet our focus here is on European colonizers (whites).  Cis white lesbians are oppressed within the white identity, as are all white women, because capitalism requires this type of hierarchy in order to function, just as it requires the entire white identity to sit on top of colonized communities of the world (Africans/Black people, Indigenous peoples, the majority of humanity).

Within the white identity or class, it’s an undeniable reality that white cis women are endangered by the toxic masculinity of white cis men– on account of a system of power whose ideological force is based on misogyny as well as class and race oppression.  But, since we’re speaking in terms of systems, white cis women (including white cis lesbians) don’t need to be protected from trans women.  There aren’t any statistics or patterns of behavior at the group level (the political level) to indicate that trans women pose even the slightest danger to white cis women– in fact, the opposite may be true.  And if they are trans women of color– for instance, Black trans women– statistics and reported patterns of behavior at the group level demonstrate beyond a doubt that Black trans women are the most endangered and marginalized identity in the United States.  The average life expectancy of a trans woman of color is just 35 years.  So, by saying they won’t date trans women, “today’s shameless [cis] lesbians” are simply reinforcing the reactionary power given to them by capitalism, and are doing so in order to move against an oppressed segment of the same identity (the one we share): that of women.  And if they refuse to date trans women of color, their behavior is racist as well as transphobic and sexist.

This isn’t to argue that trans women even want to go on a date with these cis lesbians or cis/het men in the first place.  After all, we may say “no” to them before they even get the chance to remind us (yet again) that they believe we aren’t real women and don’t “deserve” their approval.  But many trans women struggle for years, and sometimes for decades, trying to make our bodies “beautiful enough” to gain acceptance from cis people.  After all, the vast majority of people are cisgender, so if we do not wish to die alone, chances are we’ll need to find a date with a cis person.  And the wish of trans women to go on a date, and to no longer be lonely, belongs to the political sphere of activity as well as the personal sphere.

In this respect, the politics of womanhood for trans women may differ little from that of cis women who are told they are too fat, too ugly, too poor, too uneducated, too educated, too slutty, not slutty enough, too tall, too short– too whatever to get a date with cis people (men or women).   The difference here is (in a system where the accumulation of profits and capitalist wealth are all that matters) it is extremely expensive for a trans woman to have the surgeries and procedures necessary even to reach this basic level of rejection for women (in general) by the cisnormative patriarchy. So cisgender people saying “no” to us– all of us– in advance is a collective kick to our face: it’s misogynistic violence.

Trans women are women.  Cis lesbians, according to their self-defined sexual identity, are attracted to women.  Heterosexual (or bisexual) cis men are attracted to women.  When they rule out dating an entire category of women, that’s transphobia.  And that makes it misogyny too.  And it’s racism against trans women of color, because it excludes women who are Black, Latina, Indigenous (or all the above).

Perhaps a cis person (like most people) has certain preferences for the type of person they want to date: tall, brown eyes, lots of tattoos, liberal, loves dogs and likes going on hikes and water skiing … the list could be endless.  But if they were to reject every person who didn’t fit that description, this cis person would have to filter them out only according to these specific categories.  Or they could meet them for a date and discover face-to-face whether the person does or doesn’t make the grade according to their preferred type.  In either case, they aren’t excluding an entire oppressed group within the oppressed identity of women.  If anything, they’re just being picky!

But we might ask, “What about the straight person who says they won’t date people of the same gender– how could that be oppressive behavior?  Are you arguing a straight guy should be forced to go on a date with another guy?”  Setting aside the intent of these questions, it’s not very hard to answer them: we can just say– again– that trans women are women.  Straight men (trans or cis) are attracted to women (trans or cis).  So if a straight guy wants to go on a date with a woman, he should know that a trans woman is a woman.  If a lesbian/queer woman (trans or cis) wants to go on a date with a woman, she should know that a trans woman is a woman.

We could talk about how some trans women pass so successfully as cis women that the identity which cis lesbians or cis/het men thought they were rejecting may turn out to be the very person they just fell in love with– the trans woman who is stunningly beautiful.  But this line of thinking simply reinforces the violent cisnormativity in these arguments about dating trans women.  It doesn’t matter if she has a beard and a penis, or looks like Janet Mock, a transgender woman deserves to be loved and respected for who she truly is: a woman.  She may choose to live just the way she was born, or have multiple surgeries: either way, it’s her body, and a trans woman is still a woman as much as any cis woman is.

The reactionary ideology of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) seeks to confuse us about the political aspects of these sexual relationships among all genders.  If we’re speaking about the individual, it’s always their choice, a choice that needs to be respected.  And we know that patriarchal capitalism limits the choices of women– choices about reproductive rights and other access to healthcare, and in countless other ways.  Capitalism tries to control our bodies.  And that’s when we’re speaking on the political level– the level of systemic power.  TERFs reinforce the patriarchal ideology of the bourgeoisie by trying to erase the identities of trans women from the overall identity of women.

It seems we should be fighting together against the same enemy.  Trans women often show up to fight for a woman’s right to an abortion and other reproductive rights.  Yet TERFs want to erase us from their definition of womanhood.  And when they remind us (again and again) that they won’t date us– when we’re an entire category of women— cisgender lesbians who are TERFs simply reinforce the reactionary and patriarchal ideology of capitalism.

The Transphobia of Cis People Who Say They Won’t Date Trans Women

Untwisting the Roles of Science, Religion and Class Status in Transgender Liberation

The third verse (or ayah) of Surah Al-Layl [92], “The Night,” in The Glorious Qur’an says:

وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَىٰ

Wama khalaqa aththakarawal-ontha

“And [by] He who created the male and female”


So, this means “male and female,” and nothing in between– right?  Perhaps not.  Because the first two ayat (verses) of this surah (chapter) say:

وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا يَغْشَىٰ

Wallayli itha yaghsha

By the night when it covers


وَالنَّهَارِ إِذَا تَجَلَّىٰ

Wannahari itha tajalla

“And [by] the day when it appears”

Night and day are a pair, just as male and female are a pair.  They are connected: two things together as one.  Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has created many things in pairs, yet frequently there are gradations or shadings that exist between these two things: night gradually moves into day and then gradually moves back into night.  It’s not just night and then suddenly day in its full brightness.  The movement from night to day and back again goes through stages.  Because it’s not a black-and-white universe, even as it is a universe of countless pairings.  Within each unity of opposites there is a spectrum of possibilities.

Now perhaps we can take a look at a quotation from a famous work by Friedrich Engels who, along with Karl Marx, demonstrated the political theories of scientific socialism, which are based on the objective laws of nature.  Engels writes in Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State:

“The plentiful supply of milk and meat and especially the beneficial effect of these foods on the growth of the children account perhaps for the superior development of the Aryan and Semitic races. It is a fact that the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, who are reduced to an almost entirely vegetarian diet, have a smaller brain than the Indians at the lower stage of barbarism, who eat more meat and fish.  In any case, cannibalism now gradually dies out, surviving only as a religious act or as a means of working magic, which is here almost the same thing.”

Engels is preoccupied with the size of skulls as a determining factor for the development of “the races.”  Phrenology was a “science” (or pseudoscience), based on the measurements of human skulls, that was invented by the German physician Franz Joseph Gall in 1796.  Another “scientist” who promoted craniometry as an objective theory for measuring the intelligence and overall development of “the races” was the French anthropologist Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1854-1936).  The pseudoscience of eugenics claimed to be an objective study of biological characteristics in human beings.  Since these theories were “scientific,” they could also claim to be universal.  Yet they had a subjective goal or purpose: the segregation of “the races” in order to continue the domination by the white “race” of all other “races.”  In fact, “race” and “whiteness” were the inventions of racist Europeans that we use to justify our imperialist and capitalist domination of the world, as well as a means for dividing up the loot of our ongoing conquests.

Today, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs), like Professor Robert Jensen of the University of Texas at Austin, use much of the same pseudoscientific language that “experts” in phrenology and eugenics of earlier centuries used, only this time to promote the segregation of cisgender women and transgender women who have to go to the bathroom.

In a recent article published in the Dallas Morning News and on the TERF-website Feminist Current (“How feminists can challenge liberal [sic] bathroom politics”), Professor Jensen writes:

“The core question: If someone is born unambiguously male as defined by chromosomes, genitalia, and secondary sex characteristics, but claims to be female (or vice versa), what does that actually mean? If sex categories are a product of the biological realities of human reproduction — that is, not about how a person feels but about physiology — what could it mean to be clearly in one category but assert a civil right to be in the other?

“This is a serious question about biology and reproductive-based sex categories, and the transgender movement has yet to offer a coherent answer. People’s internal subjective experiences may feel coherent to them, but the assertion of such an experience does not constitute an explanation, and public policy should be based on claims that everyone can understand.”

Professor Robert Jensen, a cisgender man who calls himself a feminist, apparently demands an answer to this “core question,” as if transgender women cannot authentically exist as women until we are able “to offer a coherent answer”— to him.  In pseudoscientific terms, Professor Jensen– like Meghan Murphy, founder of the Feminist Current website– promotes a subjective political goal (as all political goals are) under the guise of an objective understanding of the material universe.

It should be made clear that the pseudoscientific justifications for Europe’s genocidal enslavement of Africans, and for racial segregation in the United States during Jim Crow and the ongoing New Jim Crow, are not the same thing as gender segregation in regard to bathroom laws.  After all, Black transgender women, who are already experiencing the racist and sexist oppression of U.S. capitalism, also face the violence of gender segregation in bathrooms.  So the violence against Black trans women and trans women of color is not the same as violence against white trans women.  To equate the two is not only inhumane, it is an incorrect analysis.

The average life expectancy of a trans woman of color in the United States is just 35 years.  So far in 2017 two trans women of color have been murdered.  And the continuous endangerment and the violent marginalization of trans women of color are not some accident; the systemic violence they experience is not just a matter of bad luck or bad decisions on their part, or a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Systemic violence against trans women of color is a result of the constant promotion and execution of transphobic ideology, and, like racial segregation, this violence is a necessary function of the existing social, political and economic arrangement: white supremacist, patriarchal capitalism.

A scientific understanding of violence against women and other oppressed categories begins with the recognition that individuals who commit this violence must get the idea to commit it from somewhere– they don’t just invent the violent idea in their own mind.  And misogynistic violence (of which transphobia is a part) is connected to the larger structures and institutions of a society, which are created to promote the ideology of this society’s ruling class.  In other words, if the ruling class of a society is racist, transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, ableist and capitalist, the institutions that it controls will reflect (and perpetuate) their dominant ideology.  And this includes bathrooms– and the sort of gender segregation that is promoted by Robert Jensen and Meghan Murphy.

Professor Jensen writes:

“In patriarchy, an enduring feature of the lives of girls and women is sexual violence — men’s unwanted intrusions into their lives.”

Yet Professor Jensen himself– a cisgender man– is intruding into the lives of girls and women, believing that he can and should define who gets to measure up to his standard of womanhood and who does not.

The African revolutionary Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) said, “Those who can define are the masters.”  The definition of gender is always a political question– a question of who is master of their own identity.  Under the transphobic system of capitalism, the violently cisnormative ruling class believes it alone gets to define who is a woman and who is not.  Reactionaries who defend bourgeois rule may use biological categories to justify their definitions of gender, and claim to be stating “scientific” and “objective” facts in some universally applicable sense, but their need to define is itself an expression of their need to control.  It’s an expression of power.

Since capitalism, by definition, is the rule of the few over the many, and since capitalism is– out of necessity– a hierarchical system of power, then it follows that the ruling class of this system must employ all methods of violence– including the language of transphobic viewpoints– in order to dominate the classes below it.  Therefore, it is tremendously important to reactionary forces against the liberation of trans women (and all women) that cis people alone will get to define womanhood– for all women.

It’s about power.  Professor Robert Jensen’s toxic language is an expression of the power he holds based on where he is situated within a system that empowers cis people like him to move against trans women– further endangering the most marginalized identities in this society (trans women of color).  Professors Jensen’s attempt to control the definitions of gender preserves the transphobic hierarchy that is necessary for capitalism to maintain and expand its power.

The Glorious Qur’an tells us in Surah Luqman [31], ayah 34:

“Indeed, Allah [alone] has knowledge of the Hour and sends down the rain and knows what is in the wombs.  And no soul perceives what it will earn tomorrow, and no soul perceives in what land it will die. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.”

Only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) “knows what is in the wombs.”  But today we have ultrasound pictures and can know the gender of a child before they are born, right?  So one might argue that religion is wrong and science is right.  But this is where our arguments become a reflection of our class status– a reflection of where we are situated in the material conditions of a tiered society that is controlled by a racist, patriarchal, capitalist system.  Because, even today, we cannot say we know the gender of a person until they themselves tell us their gender, according to what Allah (swt) has put in their heart.  If they are the gender that they were assigned at birth, then they are cisgender.  If they are some other gender than the one that they were assigned at birth, then they are transgender, or gender nonconforming.  The presence of certain genitalia– a penis or vagina– can only define gender (along with the presence or absence of other reproductive organs, and the “right” chromosomes) if it is the political goal of a society to define gender according to these biological attributes.

In order to gain a better understanding of the ideological basis for defining gender, perhaps we can examine the “paradox of the heap” (or the “sorites paradox”).  If one considers a heap of sand, which is made from millions of individual grains, and then thinks of what it means when we remove just one grain of sand– it can still be defined as a “heap.”  If we continue to remove grains of sand, and we get all the way down to a hundred grains, it’s still a heap, just a much smaller heap: the change has been quantitative and not qualitative.  Yet at some point we will have removed so many grains of sand that it can no longer be called a “heap.”  And at what point has this object undergone a qualitative change into some other object?  At twenty grains of sand?  Ten grains?  Two?  One grain of sand cannot be called a “heap”– except perhaps according to this paradox.

And so we might ask a similar question about the definition of womanhood: if we take the sum total of all the biological characteristics that define a woman, and begin removing them one by one, at what point is she (or they) no longer a woman?   Is a woman who cannot become pregnant or successfully give birth to a child no longer a woman?  Patriarchal societies have answered “Yes.”  Does the presence of a uterus define a woman?  Then, after having a hysterectomy, a woman– by this definition– would qualitatively change into the opposite gender.  And, of course, this is not the case.  And so we find that supposedly scientific, objective definitions of gender are, in fact, based on political interests– the patriarchal need to control the identities of women.  If removing three or four biological characteristics of a woman does not make her a “man” (or any other gender), then this question follows: how can we objectively define the point at which she is no longer a woman?  We can’t.  This choice (the definition of woman or man) is not based on objective laws of nature but, instead, is a political choice.  There isn’t any scientific way to answer this question.

So what we’re left with now is the fundamental question: who has power?  And, while Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and all these other European socialist theorists certainly had their human flaws, they were still able to demonstrate the historical and dialectical material reality that answers this question: who has power?   Power belongs to the class that controls the means of production in a society.  The oppressed classes then must define for themselves who they are– “What We Want – What We Believe” — and how the masses of their people will organize their struggle against the ruling class for power.

Religious beliefs– like all subjective reality– can either be part of the revolutionary force that moves us toward socialism or be part of the reactionary force that preserves the power of capitalism.  However, it’s important not to confuse objective reality with subjective reality.  A socialist theorist like Friedrich Engels could promote a certain idea as an objective fact when it was based on the subjective interests of his class or identity– because he was empowered to do this by the racist, bourgeois European society.  A “radical feminist” like Professor Robert Jensen can claim to be speaking out against “liberal” ideas that are antithetical to progressive beliefs, and he is only able to do this on account of the power he has in the racist, transphobic capitalist system of the United States.  So, while employing the language of socialist theory (an aspect of  his argument that is lost on the Trump supporters who cheer him on), Professor Jensen is stating a viewpoint which is aligned with the transphobic, reactionary force of capitalism against socialism.

When we consider the role that religion and science in play in transgender liberation, it seems important that we keep in mind that people’s beliefs (even when these beliefs are supposedly based on facts) come from our material situation within the class hierarchy.  The facts may be the same for people in all classes, but how we perceive these facts and how we use them– in order to promote our own interests– are largely (if not entirely) dependent on our material and historical relationship to the existing system of power.  The views of a white trans woman won’t be the views of a Black trans woman.  The views of a cis man who is a professor at a university won’t be the views of a white trans woman.  The views of a 19th century German cis man who belonged to the bourgeoisie (Friedrich Engels) won’t be the same as an African revolutionary cis man in the 20th century (Kwame Ture).

Anyone who claims to have a monopoly on objective truth is most likely attempting to force the ideology of their class identity onto another identity, and their ability to do so is based on their own class’s subjugation of the classes or oppressed identities beneath them.  This attempt to enforce their ideology is just an expression of the power which they have on account of where they are placed within the dialectic of the oppressor and the oppressed.  So we don’t have to answer their questions about our identity, or pay any attention to them at all, if we don’t want to.  If we want, we can confront them, but it’s entirely up to the people who belong to our identity– in my case, transgender women. “Male-to-transgender,” as Professor Robert Jensen states it, is a fabricated term on his part.  He is confusing proof with approval– his approval.

“Facts are facts.”  But when it comes to our identity, we don’t have to prove anything to anyone– we are who we say we are.


Untwisting the Roles of Science, Religion and Class Status in Transgender Liberation