I subscribe to this list for information without agreeing with many of the views expressed here. I've never posted before and am writing now only to correct a flagrant misreading of the passage cited from Marx's early manuscripts.
Why would Marx write in defense of immutable, biologically given sex roles? He is saying the opposite: the relationship between the sexes is an intrinsically social and historical phenomenon that, at any particular stage, reveals "man's whole level of development." The term "human" in this passage must be read in light of Marx's understanding of human nature as radically social and therefore subject to transformation in the course of historical change. Precisely as the natural function of reproduction comes to be fulfilled in a way that transcends the fixed roles of an animal species does our own species' "natural behavior become human." Note the repeated use of "become"--if the passage were meant to affirm that a certain transhistorical human essence is natural, why would that word occur? The trans movement is not an affront to Marx's insight here but a striking confirmation of it. Alan -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#5427): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/5427 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/79580220/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
