Communism101

If the CPB is consistent with previous ML literature on this and I’m just writing nonsense

the most nonsensical part of your post is asking if there is anti-trans ML theory. dont assume that an org is legit just because it has "communist" in the name.

Hexbear post attacking this statement:

https://hexbear.net/post/4630686

Note that Wales communists had a much better take:

I would add the text Transgender subjugation or Transgender liberation?, from British maoist group Red Voice Media, that delves into the dialectics behind gender and sex, adding a third position to the debate (a marxist one that isn't neither postmodern like Butler or reactionary like P. Morgan).

I make their words mine when refering to British transphobia

Britain and Transphobia. (For the purposes of this essay, Britain refers to the state that currently exists and does not denote that nations which reside within this state are actually a part of one British nation.)

Britain is one of the main poles of anti-transgender ideologies and attacks across the globe, garnering itself the reputation of being an island full of transphobia. However, although this is seemingly common knowledge in some communities, little investigation is done into why this is the case and why it is so rampant.

Britain was one of the first places in the world to develop capitalism, and thus was one of the first to see the proletarianization of women. As such, and as with the destruction of the feudal patriarchal family, there was a rise in popular women’s movements who agitated and, later on, fought for the rights which the bourgeois revolution had not granted them such as the right to vote and equal rights with men – in short, bourgeois rights. These demands and protests were just at the time, as progressing past remaining feudal customs was historically progressive. However, the demands of these first liberal feminists who later went on to become the slightly more radical suffragette movement could not escape their bourgeois and petty-bourgeois views and did not recognise socialism as the only way for women’s emancipation.

In addition to this, we also have Britain’s status as one of the first imperialist powers to emerge alongside its long colonialist history with the British Empire being formed in the 16th century. Due to this, any ideology and movement back home which could be useful to justifying and continuing the plunder and looting of its colonial empire was absorbed by the bourgeoisie. Thus, alongside the patriarchal ideology and the bourgeois family, the demands and beliefs of the liberal feminist movement was consolidated and solidified in the ruling classes’ apparatus. This explains the origins and the constant support for so-called ‘sex-based rights’ groups which have existed for over a hundred years and now are being directed by the bourgeoisie against transgender people. This targeting directly reflects the attitude towards sexual minorities in the late 20th century where first they were hounded, targeted, and oppressed by the ruling classes, until it became beneficial to co-opt these movements, many of which were led by petty-bourgeois and post-modernist groups and leaders. As such, the blame partly falls down to communists not seizing upon this contradiction in order to agitate towards revolution, and the same fate will befall us if we do not learn the lessons of the past.

Its because they are a deeply unserious party composed of old white men from the 1960s; they idealize a time when being gay was enough to get you sectioned, rape in marriage was legal, women couldnt own bank accounts or goto a bar/pub my themselves - in short they are what happens when you remove socialist feminism from socialism.

They are currently trying to gain traction from having like, 100 active members by latching onto the ID pol surrounding trans people being pushed by the far right. The amount of damage this zombie party does simply by existing and shaping public perception around what communism even is, is untold and far reaching.

From my understanding, gender is a social construct belonging to the concept of Superstructure and as such it can be influenced.

Gender is more than that. Just like relations to the means of production in a capitalist society form a class system of capitalists and the proletariat, relations to the means of reproduction in pretty much any society form the class system which we call gender. Reactionary and revisionist thought capitulates to this class system and champions "sex" as the material reality from which gender arises but Marxian analysis must see the relations to the means of reproduction as the basis, the classes of "sex" as the superstructure, and the idea of gender as an all-encompassing term for the basis and the superstructure. The statement in the OP is reactionary and revisionist.

I hope other comrades provide links to more literature, this short read is a good intro to modern thought on gender unburdened by capitulating to the reactionary.

This is bad.

Honestly, the KKE and CPB are just bad in my eyes.

Despite being SolidNet parties, they are inaccessible for leftists and even liberals.

KKE is too ultra and CPB isn't welcoming to other populations.