Trans Woman Defends Pete Buttigieg From The "Marcusean Left" of the LGBT Community | LGBT News

With the recent increase in popularity of 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, there has been renewed criticism of his candidacy's effects on the LGBT community from some sections of the community. These criticisms come in a few forms: firstly, that as a white gay man he can't understand or represent non-white trans women; secondly, that his candidacy as a family friendly married gay man serves to marginalize those with alternative lifestyles; and finally, that his refusal to be militant on certain LGBT matters means that he is the 'wrong kind of gay representative'. As I will show, all these criticisms are totally invalid. Furthermore, they tell us how much LGBT activist circles continue to be influenced by Marcusean ideas, passed down from the 1960s and 70s, and why this has an unhealthy effect on us all.

Let's begin with the idea that Mayor Pete, as a white gay man, can't represent non-white trans woman. This really is peak identity politics. Moreover, this assumes that people are primarily defined by their status in the so-called hierarchy of oppression, an idea with roots in critical theory as well as postmodernism. However, this hierarchy doesn't exist in a solid form in real life. Furthermore, people's preferences are informed by many other factors. For example, as a trans woman with a more traditional lifestyle, I tend to identify more with those icons of our community who share this with me. I feel like I can relate much more to Mayor Pete than say, a trans woman who is like the Tabby character in the ContraPoints videos. In fact, I can relate much more to most straight people than someone like Tabby. I think we are ultimately more united by things like personal values, lifestyles and social circles, than by sexual orientation or gender identity.

Which brings me onto my next point. Some LGBT activists who have chosen to live an alternative lifestyle feel like the candidacy of Mayor Pete and the spotlight on his religious and pro-family lifestyle serves to marginalize them. Of course, this is silly. In a free society, we all have the right to choose our lifestyle based on our own values and preferences, and nobody is marginalized by another's choice. This is what makes it a free society. The problem is, there is a faction of the left that is strongly influenced by the ideas of 20th century critical theorist Herbert Marcuse, and this faction is quite prominent within LGBT activism, probably because Marcuse specifically told his readers that the outcasts of society are where his revolution could be started, causing his followers to infiltrate the LGBT community back in the 1970s. Marcuse believed that people were sexually repressed in advanced industrial societies, that the then-dominance of family values were the cause of this, and this so-called repression could lead to bad political consequences. Furthermore, he also believed in advancing his own brand of radical beliefs by the suppression of traditional beliefs, as outlined in his famous essay on 'repressive tolerance' written in the mid-1960s, which showed that he essentially believed the cultural space to be a zero-sum game. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the Marcusean left would be suspicious of someone like Mayor Pete, who they probably fear would take away the so-called 'revolutionary potential' of the LGBT community. Of course, none of Marcuse's theories are proven or well grounded, and therefore Marcusean views are basically no more than subjective thoughts. The LGBT community would do well to avoid such divisive nonsense.

Finally, several LGBT activists have taken issue with Mayor Pete's lack of militancy on LGBT issues in general, including his refusal to boycott a certain fast food chain. This is, of course, the polar opposite of my own view that Mayor Pete's refusal to be divisive is a strength in that it brings people together and allows problems to be solved in a better way. However, those who subscribe to the conflict theory of sociology take the opposite view, that conflict and associated struggle is good for resolving cultural contradictions. The conflict theory of sociology is closely associated with critical theory, which is why the Macusean left generally holds this view. The fact is, this view is clearly disproven by history. History shows that intense conflict rarely resolves problems satisfactorily, and even risks prolonging mutual animosity for generations. On the other hand, the best way to resolve difficult issues has always been to bring people with all sorts of views together, and this is why it's important for a leader to be able to do that.