"Nobody Told me how Lonely being a Man Is"
Challenging Gender-Derived Loneliness and Essentialism
Everyone’s favorite Twitter account, “Libs of TikTok,” recently posted a video in which a man candidly expressed the unexpected loneliness he experienced after transitioning. The owner of the account likely posted it because she demonstrably wants to do anything and everything to discredit trans people, placing the crosshairs on the wrong target.
That is an ignorant and futile motive, and this account is the result of continually misplaced ire. The critique of ideology presented is, more or less, that traditional gender ideology is correct, and any interrogation of it automatically supports the elite. This is uncritical acceptance of the previous primary justifying ideology surrounding sex and gender and frames the problem around people’s individual choices (choosing to be/remain “brainwashed”).
But if we do not uncritically accept “traditional” gender ideology, while also not uncritically accepting “LGBTQ+” ideology, we can see that both are simply bourgeois justifications for the status quo and just a result of temporary shifts in aesthetic preferences the capitalist class has (“progressive” vs. “conservative,” also factions).
As we reflect on this man’s words, it becomes apparent that “LGBTQ+” ideology lands at a similar conclusion to traditional gender ideology: essentialism – calling into question the contradictions and limitations within the accepted, mainstream understandings of gender roles and society.
He’s Not Wrong… But…
Firstly, we should not act as though “LGBTQ+” ideology is not critiqued; it very much is, albeit, for the wrong reasons. The primary problem it seems a lot of people have with “LGBTQ+” ideology is that it is unnatural and evil.
However, to see the traditional gender ideology as “outdated” or understanding that one’s role or presentation is/can be non-standard is in no way wrong. It is nothing but healthy to interrogate any and all ideology so clearly directed at maintaining a division that assumes one’s connection to power is fundamentally about genitals and that one set of genitals must act/present one way and the other must act/present another.
However, let’s examine what he says in the clip:
Nobody told me how lonely being a man is. I had closer friendships with random women I met in the bathroom before I transitioned at clubs because of how open women are than I've had in my eight years of transitioning.
Because women are just so much more vulnerable and deep than men.
But to have known, and I think a lot of trans men feel this, is we knew what depth felt like before we transitioned. We knew what it felt like to have people want to hug us.
And to have people want to talk to us and have a community. And then you transition and you're just a guy walking down the street that people cross the street so that they're not near you.
And friendships are so much harder to build. And people are colder.
What's hard is none of this invalidates how real and raw women and people who are in marginalized groups feel about cis white men. All of that's valid.
But I also now understand why the suicide rate is so much higher in men. Because this shit is lonely.
And I'm an emotionally mature man. I know how to build friendships and it is still really, really hard. Try to think about how you can, in your small little community where you feel safe,(...) can reach out to the men in your life and just help them feel maybe seen for a moment.
Or do little, little conversations to help their emotional maturity so that they can reach out to people and have deeper guy friendships.
The phrase “Because women are just so much more vulnerable and deep than men” betrays an ideological essentialism that there are “inherent” characteristics that come alongside gender. The underlying mindset is ultimately why “being a man” is so lonely.
Many might respond, “But those are cultural,” and yes; that is a path to an answer for perceived differences between people of different genders. However, the liberal, non-material roots of “what is culture” would most likely not map it onto a real power dynamic (read: class). Thus, the answer to “Why did that become the culture” will default to biological reasons (“women have to carry children”) or “it just did,” which, because of a lack of material basis, is effectively the same.
Gender essentialism posits that inherent and immutable qualities or characteristics are associated with one’s gender. This viewpoint perpetuates the belief that certain traits, such as vulnerability and depth, are inherently tied to one's gender rather than recognizing them as individual variations unrelated to gender.
“Women are just so much more vulnerable and deep than men” is an example of that.
We can see gender essentialism in different stages of society; in feudalism, gender roles and expectations were used to maintain social hierarchies and ensure the transmission of property (and thus, power) within the ruling class. In the transition to capitalism, gender essentialism continued to serve the interests of the capitalist class.
In capitalism, it plays a role in the reproduction of labor. When women are caregivers and men are breadwinners, the workforce is divided – thus, easier to keep compliant, efficient, and productive. This ensured a steady supply of labor power while maintaining social control.
Further, as consumer ideology was fomented, it became possible to use gender stereotypes to create specific consumer markets based on gender identities. Individuals are encouraged to purchase products and services associated with their gender identity and performative gender roles in a pursuit (consciously and unconsciously) to “live authentically,” which is ultimately not possible as alienation is rooted in things well beyond gender. Consumer ideology diverts issues of necessity, unfulfilled desires, and dissent from the state and capital towards something individuals allegedly have control over.
But, as with anything oriented around exploitation and social control, this was eventually questioned. And, as with any ideology promoted by the ruling class, its “replacement” must ultimately have the exact purpose of the original ideology that existed before the new “choice” was introduced.
Current “LGBTQ+” ideology is a rehash of the consumer elements I outlined a moment ago. Now, as our lives are intended to be seen entirely through a market lens, we have “choice!” We can “choose” the traditional paradigm or opt-in to another, giving us even more “choice!” Every choice mentioned provides us with a consumption path, or it’s “lying in some way.” Also, to people who have made any other choice, it’s “lying in some way.”
This is why “non-binary” isn’t treated as a spectrum between the two traditional genders; it is effectively a third gender with its own standards, norms, and expectations. In the consumer ideology, it must be that to be “valid.” In the literal sense, most people are ultimately “non-binary,” but in the “valid” (read: mainstream) expression of gender, it’s mainly a cybergoth derivative. Marketing to that group is much easier than a generalized, non-exclusive set of norms and expressions. Thus in capitalism, that’s what non-binary means. An individual identifying that way might not think so, and good for them! I want people to be happy. But we would benefit from detangling our personal views and well-being from bourgeois ideologies.
Ultimately, the man in the video has many of the same ideological assumptions as the traditionalists, with the addition that he exercised more choice in the market by transitioning.
Why Essentialism Matters
What we call “sex” (effectively which genitals one has) does create some material differences in people’s lives. However, we are not different species. No one is from Venus, and no one is from Mars; we’re all from Earth. We are all human beings and our behavior and presentation aren’t inherent. We are a social species that problem-solves, internalizes information, generates preferences, etc. There is no “human nature” without input.
Marx did not believe in the existence of a fixed, universal, and ahistorical “human nature.” Instead, he focused on the social, historical, and material conditions that shape human behavior and consciousness. That is to say, Marx believed the assumptions one has are due to their environment, providing the basis from which thought and action come. As the world changes, so do people. That doesn’t mean we are non-creative entities or that we can not have original thoughts, but arguing that there is a fixed “human nature” absolutely does.
Certainly, one can disagree with Marx, but it’s pretty hard to argue “human nature” isn’t very different today from what it was in the hunter-gatherer stage of society.
Gender essentialism is just another form of asserting a fixed “human nature.” It is a metaphysical, disconnected, and dead analysis. It is also ultimately against the principle of freedom’s literal definition (“the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without subjection”). Freedom is certainly an ideal but it is what people understand a lack of coercion to be, and generally what people want. There is a material basis for the condition people would describe as “freedom,” and essentialist ideologies divert us from it.
Neil deGrasse Tyson summed it up pretty well as he was discussing gender with Ben Shapiro (who wasn’t particularly receptive, as one might guess).
[An LGBTQ+ publication] wanted my opinion about whether being gay was biological or psychological. And I said, “I don’t care which it is. Find out which it is. Fine! But the answer to that question should have no consequence.” Because for example, suppose it's purely biological. Then you say, “oh, that explains it!”
Then let's suppose it's purely psychological. What are you going to do now? Now [LGBTQ+ people are] going to go to the re-orientation camps or whatever?
Because they say it's psychological rather than biological, all of a sudden people start behaving in ways [that] constrict the freedom of expression of who and what people are. And that is a danger!
Essentialism is an ideology that opposes what people want in “freedom.” The closest thing to “freedom” that can be quantified materially must be critical of relationships of power and the capitalist ruling class as it is where the power differential is and thus where coercion comes from. Because that is not a problem of how people present themselves, sexual and gender minority groups (SGM) should not be viewed as an inherent problem in the way the owner of Libs of TikTok (and many of the outlets that covered this video, including Fox News) thinks they are.
However, the “LGBTQ+” ideology takes that sentiment and plugs it right back into the paradigm it is allegedly the opposite of (this is what I mean by a “Woke Ouroboros”).
“LGBTQ+” is certainly not the original name of SGM (neither is SGM), nor is it genuinely “inclusive.” Every 5 minutes, another letter needs to be added! The fight to be specifically represented in the stupid acronym is just as divisive and futile as the fight to put another stripe on the rainbow flag, a symbol intended to represent everyone. What is more inclusive than a fucking rainbow?
Many SGM take issue with this view of “LGBTQ+,” I think because most seem to take any criticism of it as a threat. Still, I would implore them to take what I am saying in good faith and understand the point here is not in opposition to them but rather in opposition to the ruling capitalist class, which takes their concerns and does anything it can pacify them without endangering its relation to power. To a less important (but not lesser) extent, this also opposes the simple view of gender people like the owner of Libs of TikTok take.
Kollontai
I’d like to draw some parallels to the writing of Alexandra Kollontai, author of 1909’s “The Social Basis of the Woman Question,” who wrote a scathing critique of feminism as a bourgeois ideology that divides people along lines other than class. Many credit her as a pioneer of “Marxist Feminism,” but she repeatedly dichotomized “feminists” as explicitly separate from “proletarian women.”
A stubborn battle was waged between the professional men, attached to their “cosy little jobs”, and the women who were novices in the matter of earning their daily bread. This struggle gave rise to “feminism” – the attempt of bourgeois women to stand together and pit their common strength against the enemy, against men. As they entered the labour arena these women proudly referred to themselves as the “vanguard of the women’s movement”. They forgot that in this matter of winning economic independence they were, as in other fields, travelling in the footsteps of their younger sisters and reaping the fruits of the efforts of their blistered hands.
Is it then really possible to talk of the feminists pioneering the road to women’s work, when in every country hundreds of thousands of proletarian women had flooded the factories and workshops, taking over one branch of industry after another, before the bourgeois women’s movement was ever born?
- Alexandra Kollontai, The Social Basis of the Woman Question
Kollontai argued that feminism failed to address the fundamental class-based inequalities and instead focused on the struggles and concerns of bourgeois women. She characterized it as “bourgeois ideology” for perpetuating divisions among women and diverting attention from the material divide: the class dialectic of relationships to production.
In the context of “LGBTQ+” ideology, we can easily see parallels to Kollontai's critique. Kollontai's perspective would likely encourage us to focus on the shared struggles and interests of the subordinate class, regardless of specific labels or terminologies. She acknowledges variance in the extent of subordination but not in why it is happening (which she sees as a difference in material relation to power).
Further, just as feminism made an enemy of men, “LGBTQ+” ideology makes an enemy of… men. Kollontai provides us with a solution to the loneliness today’s men feel (as embodied by the man in the video): instead of drawing the line on identity, draw it where relationships of production create the true power differential. In doing so, men aren’t the problem.
The feminists see men as the main enemy, for men have unjustly seized all rights and privileges for themselves, leaving women only chains and duties. For them a victory is won when a prerogative previously enjoyed exclusively by the male sex is conceded to the “fair sex.”
Proletarian women have a different attitude. They do not see men as the enemy and the oppressor; on the contrary, they think of men as their comrades, who share with them the drudgery of the daily round and fight with them for a better future. The woman and her male comrade are enslaved by the same social conditions; the same hated chains of capitalism oppress their will and deprive them of the joys and charms of life.
- Alexandra Kollontai, The Social Basis of the Woman Question
The problem described by the man in the video, the ostracized position he came to occupy after transitioning, is a result of the bourgeois tendency to take real struggles and concerns that people of different identities experience to a further extent and turn them into battles between identities rather than classes. The enemy of woman is man! The enemy of black is white! The enemy of the adult who covers their dwelling in fandom merchandise as though they are wrapping a Christmas present is the person who has matured beyond the age of 14!
The ideology that “supported” his transition was not genuinely liberating. It provided his “new” identity as a product which brought him into a new marketing demographic. Rather than challenging the assumptions about these “demographics,” it simply provided him mobility within a consumer market.
This is not the world men, women, or anyone at any point in whatever spectrum of expression and role deserves.
Conclusion
I certainly am not criticizing the man in the video. He lands in a good place: “Be kind to each other.” He is clearly a kind individual himself and even seems to carry a hope that kindness might even help men resist what he accidentally views as inherent in men. He is not the villain but, essentially (pun intended), a hostage to bourgeois gender ideologies, old and new.
This doesn’t come from a place of pity; I simply recognize this situation for what it is. He needs pity just as much as he needs cruelty. In posting this video, I believe he’s taken a step towards seeing what I’m hoping to express: the cultivated identity market of contemporary imperial-stage capitalism can not offer wholeness, for it is designed around preventing us from attaining it.
By critically examining both traditional gender ideology and “LGBTQ+” ideology, we can see that both are ultimately bourgeois justifications for the status quo. Throughout history, gender roles and expectations have been used to maintain social hierarchies and serve the ruling class's interests – why would that change when they make it “inclusive?”
There is no good reason to be a bigot, nor a good reason to adopt a version of free expression that ultimately limits us, divides us, and obscures the steps we’d need to take to improve our lives. We should be free, which doesn’t mean everyone has to understand every single aspect of anything, but rather that it is simply fine to be who we wish to be as long as we’re not hurting anyone else.
We are not each other’s enemies, and our interests overlap significantly more than the ruling capitalist class would ever want us to believe.