29.05.2025

Trans rights and open polemic

We are obliged to fight opportunism in all its varieties. To avoid that fight is a form of opportunism in itself. Ian Spencer reports on the May 25 aggregate

We in the CPGB are distinguished by our culture of open debate and forthright polemic. We also stand in solidarity with transgender people - unlike some on the left, such as the Morning Star’s CPB/YCL and Counterfire. They supported the recent UK supreme court decision that a woman is defined by biological sex (part of a conservative backlash against trans people). The latest membership aggregate opened with a discussion led by Mike Macnair, who presented draft theses on communism and trans liberation.¹

The importance of this issue is seen in the context of attempts to split trans people from the wider gender liberation movement. We are in a period of the transition from capitalism to socialism. In a situation where the working class has already taken power, there would be things we could put in place before the full realisation of a communist society, which would not insist on compulsory binary gender identity.

Prison

Stan Keable later raised the question of whether there should be compulsory gender segregation of prisons and other facilities. But comrade Macnair pointed out that such segregation was a feature of late 18th and early 19th century prison reform movements, and women constitute a small part of the total prison population. As communists we take the view that prison should be a last resort. It may also be the case that women themselves may demand separate prisons as safe spaces.

The formulation that ‘gender is socially constructed, but sex is biological’ was discussed by comrade Macnair, who pointed out that the social conception of gender is also grounded in biological sex and the social construction of gender is at a deep level in society.

Even in the ancient world and the Middle Ages there were gender rules, though very different from those of the present - the transition to capitalism has changed gender relations. One of the difficulties of seeing gender as wholly the product of social construction is that it leads to an alliance with liberal human relations management.

The critique of feminists, such as Judith Butler, with her attempt to efface gender binary division, is that the underlying oppression is an embodied one. Similarly, Michel Foucault was hostile to Marxism on the basis that culture is dominant and economic production is secondary.

By contrast, the labour theory of value is grounded in biology, because it advances the view that the capitalist class cannot force down the cost of labour-power below the reproduction cost of labour (in a closed capitalist society). The proponents of marginal utility theory posit that unemployment is a choice, and from that point of view the claim that culture constructs biology is anti-emancipatory. The Marxist perspective is concerned with emancipation as the realisation of what it is to be truly human.

Debate

The aggregate was then open to debate from the floor. Comrade Farzad Kamangar, who chaired the meeting, made the point that it is important to distance ourselves from intersectionalism, because it creates the conditions in which the proletariat is divorced from what the class experiences. She made the point that the theses on trans liberation are written for communists rather than an attempt to attract trans people as members.

Comrade Carla Roberts welcomed the theses put forward in the Weekly Worker and comrade Macnair’s presentation, which clarified things further. She raised the question of whether the backlash against trans people was part of the general move to the right and a culture war aimed at splitting the left.

It was notable, for example that the Morning Star’s CPB had come out in support of the supreme court ruling. This is a move which can be seen as a way of pushing in the direction of male supremacy. Comrade Roberts stressed the historical specificity of gender relations, as we have seen in anthropological studies of original communist society. She went on to criticise ‘no-platforming’ as a tactic, on the grounds that it is one which is often used against the left.

Australian supporter Marcus Strom spoke in support of the theses, given that there is not a deep collective knowledge of theory on this issue. The right is using trans rights to divide the working class and that did not necessarily start with the Tories. He posed the question of why this is about self-identity. For example, we do not normally self-identify our ethnicity, although some have tried to do so, particularly in the context of Australia, where it can form the basis for state support on the basis of Aboriginal heritage. After all, we understand that ‘race’ does not exist outside a history of a construct tied to imperialism and exploitation.

Comrade Strom went on to argue that it is essential to defend communities and support the idea of a diversity of gender. This stands in contrast to the old Militant organisation, which once opposed gay rights.

Jim Nelson drew an analogy between the use of ‘anti-Semitism’ and the way it was used to attack Jeremy Corbyn. It was used because it was effective - and now the attack on trans rights is being used in a similar way, as part of a wider attack on what is portrayed as the ‘left’.

The importance of social constructionism and its critique is important to have in the theses, argued Scott Evans - after all, there is the question of the impact on the medical decision of whether someone gets treatment for gender dysphoria.

The question of how one sees oneself, is of course a matter of personal choice, said Peter Manson. However, there may need to be constraints on young people, who may want to transition early in life, where gender identity may not be wholly fixed. The gender segregation of spaces can be important - for example, in mental health hospitals. However, in other areas there can be a degree of flexibility.

While the trans issue is being used to attack the left, it is worth remembering how far we have come, I argued. It is not so long since section 28 of the Local Government Act was used to attack gay and lesbian family relations. Subsequently, it was a Tory government that legalised gay marriage. Gender segregation was a feature of mental health hospitals from their inception, but more recently there has been a trend to re-enforce this, as some patients can be highly vulnerable.

Jack Conrad expressed some scepticism about the labour theory of value ruling out wages dropping below the level of subsistence. The comrade also took up a number of arguments. Historically, there have always been people unhappy with their gender. However, this current attack on trans people has been created by the conservative media as part of a rightwing “defence of the family”. The call for ‘traditional values’ is being used as a means of dividing the working class. Comrade Conrad pointed out that, for all the progress of recent decades, it could all be easily undermined - or indeed reversed.

He went on to argue that our species is divided by sex and class. We are not just individuals seeking equality - a liberal argument. Women are an oppressed sex, and it is wholly legitimate to demand safe spaces for women, as well as measures to address women’s oppression, without conceding to feminist arguments.

In summary, comrade Macnair concluded that this is an area that needs theoretical work. Trans rights have become an issue, because, now that gains have been made on gay rights and the principle of gender equality, it has become the basis of a rightwing counterattack, without raising the question of class. There have been attempts to treat social class as a question of discrimination. Class, however, is different because of the possibility of transforming society by the call for the abolition of class in its entirety in a socialist society. By contrast, for liberals, trans rights can be the ‘next good cause’ and struggle can be portrayed in terms of a broad front of ‘oppressed minorities’, distinct from class struggle.

Conservatives tried something similar on gay rights, when they campaigned around Section 28, arguing for ‘family values’ - which came unstuck after it was revealed that several Tory MPs had high-profile affairs and were mired in ‘sleaze’. An important defining moment in the gay movement was the high-profile support of lesbians and gays for the miners, which broke down some of the more entrenched prejudice in the labour movement.

It was agreed that there would be further discussion on this whole question and so comrade Macnair’s draft theses were not put to the vote.

Our culture

Current discussions on forging communist unity between the CPGB, Talking about Socialism and part of the editorial board of Prometheus have raised the question of our party’s internal culture. Comrade Conrad led on this second half of the aggregate with a fulsome defence of open debate.

Whatever the outcome of the fusion process, he said, it has been a positive step, because it has forced Prometheus and TAS to address the programme question, illustrating differences with the CPGB. Attitudes to the middle class and the nature and duration of the transition from capitalism have been among the most prominent. This is a process that comrade Conrad argued should be as “short as possible but as long as necessary”.

However, we are up against a society where bourgeois ideas dominate. Commodity fetishism exerts an influence on class consciousness. In addition, the ruling class controls the media and the education system. Moreover, we are not only leading a struggle against bourgeois ideas; we are also against those on the left with a trade union and opportunist consciousness. This needs to be an open fight. Those in Prometheus and TAS who complain about frank and open polemic are arguing for concessions to their political positions, which are often mistaken - for example, on the Ukraine war. Those in Prometheus who are also members of Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century are in an organisation that supported the Nato proxy war against Russia. Since then RS21 has disaffiliated from the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign, but we have had no explanation of who did and who still does support social-imperialism.

Language

Comrade Conrad went on to say that using terms like ‘useful idiots’ is perfectly acceptable and those who object to such usage are often just as pejorative. Comrade Roberts agreed that we have a good culture and we defend it in polemics with TAS and Prometheus. However, she made the point that we use different language in different situations - for example, when dealing with relatively inexperienced comrades. Language can be used tactically to achieve different objectives. To do otherwise is to give ammunition to our opponents.

Comrade Kamangar argued that people who challenge our culture are in fact, usually opposed to our politics. That real political differences exist between RS21 and the CPGB is clear, according to comrade Macnair. What counts as ‘insulting language’ is subjective. While there was no open political debate in RS21, their position on the Ukraine war has changed. Thomas West made the point that we can avoid ad hominem insults because what is at stake are the ideas, not personalities. Crucially, it is important to expose ideas that are wrong.

In summary, comrade Conrad pointed out that in We Demand Change there are already attempts to restrict debate, to effectively enforce a ‘code of conduct’ on the language used - not to make things more comradely, but to shut down discussion on crucial political differences. In the current climate the CPGB conducts its activity through the existing left. It is important to have robust debate, while encouraging new members.

The CPGB and Weekly Worker attempt to educate members, supporters and readers. It is important that we criticise those on the left who conciliate with social-imperialists - that is part of our fundamental duty.

1. ‘Communism and trans liberation’: weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1536/communism-and-trans-liberation.↩︎