Read on Twitter
This is a gross abortion of dialectical materialism, this person is essentializing people as defined by their birth genitals. The sexuality of animals (ncluding humans) is obviously more complex than that based on material observation of behavior. https://twitter.com/theserfstv/status/1283126844779184128
If a woman is materially defined by her vagina and womb, what does that mean for intersex people? What does it mean for women who can't have children? If males are defined by their penis what does that mean for male dogs who love to fuck male dogs?
Dialectical materialism does have the notion that the ideal follows the material but that doesn't mean dialectical materialism is REDUCTIVE and denies the incredible complexity of the PHYSICAL properties of the goddamn HUMAN BRAIN
We don't even have a clue how consciousness works. Not a single frickin idea, we're totally in the dark about that. So sitting here and saying "oh gender is defined by your peepee parts" is just about the biggest leap of non-materialistic bullshit I can think of.
Identity and sexuality and gender spring from consciousness and in terms of physical processes alone, the brain is so overwhelmingly complex that trying to pretend you understand its physical material properties is massively arrogant and complete bullshit.
I do believe that eventually we'll begin to understand the physical, chemical, material properties of the brain that influence our gender and sexuality but it's already demonstrable that gender and sexuality aren't defined by sex organs. What rubbish immaterialistic hogwash.
Like... God DAMN this is annoying. Dialectical materialism means arguing from objective material EVIDENCE, it doesn't mean "heyyyy your penis is MATERIAL therefore you're a man!" That's fucking ABSURD
