A Brief Critique of Dan Lazare on Gender: For a Revolutionary-Critical Attitude Towards Gender, Not Ambiguous Polemic

(A response to 

http://forum.permanent-revolution.org/2026/02/materialism-and-gender-theory-anatomy.html)

Daniel Lazare's article raises important concerns about the postmodern roots of contemporary gender theory and its dangerous results (including uncritical medical interventions for youth) and highlights its contradictions with scientific materialism. The critique of Judith Butler's performative framework as ultimately unscientific is poignant and necessary. So too is the exposure of silencing tactics, uncritical adaptation to the liberal mainstream in some leftist groups (e.g., Spartacists/Internationalist Group/ICFI pushing puberty blockers & surgeries without engaging evidence contradictory to the new gender orthodoxy), and the political costs - including how the Democratic mishandling of the issue contributed to Trump's 2024 victory and the failure of radical groups to establish a solid Marxist position for the working class.

However, it is not only (limited) Marxists but traditionalists and "TERFS" that have made (often valid) criticisms of the contradictions of "gender ideology." A Marxist text targeting the same issues therefore demands critical clarity. However, the piece as written risks political ambiguity at best, and at worst alignment with right-wing narratives.

This one-sided polemic downplays dialectical nuance, simplistically overemphasizes gender as a biological phenomenon, and fails to advance a revolutionary-critical stance that transcends both liberal "gender ideology" and reactionary "biologism."

By framing trans-related developments predominantly as a bourgeois-radical train wreck and devastating bourgeois deviation and not clarifying a Marxist attitude towards gender - and through phrases like "invasion" of women's sports/changing rooms, "vicious hate campaigns" against (ultimately right-wing) TERFs, and emphasis on "horror stories" (e.g., the reference to JK Rowling), it can read as echoing right-wing narratives that portray trans existence as inherently threatening. This risks tailing reaction rather than advancing a revolutionary-critical stance that defends trans dignity against bigotry while exposing the limits of "gender ideology" and the contemporary trans movement.

Unlike proponents of "gender ideology" who - despite the supposedly "subversive" character of their anti-scientific theories - objectively accept the framework of gender as formed within class society and seek only the freedom to maneuver within it, expand its horizons, etc., Marxists adopt a revolutionary-critical attitude toward the social forms of gender as they exist under class society. This is part of the broader struggle to abolish all the outmoded, reactionary "muck of ages" sustained by capitalism and class society. It also means resolute opposition to reactionary forces that exploit the contradictions in "gender ideology" to advocate "turning back the clock" and who propagate bigotry and chauvinism.

None of the legitimate materialist critique of gender theorists should be taken to mean that Marxists "defend" the social forms of gender that have taken shape under class society. Rather, we defend a scientific and materialist understanding of their roots. Nor should it be taken to mean that the current chapter in the evolution of thought on gender and the parallel changes in social forms of gender taking place - despite being bound up with real contradictions, including inappropriate "gender-affirming" medical procedures and social/political confusion - has been reactionary "through and through." To the extent that archaic, rigid gender roles have been objectively undermined - the latest stage in a long process of transformation stretching back generations - this is a progressive development that revolutionaries seek to push forward. Lazare's narrative omits these important points.

Lazare rightly points to capitalist decay as a factor fueling the surge in gender dysphoria, but the deeper issue is class society as such and the gender framework to which it gave rise. Strictly economic pressures are not the only factor. The very existence of gender roles - developed over thousands of years of human history as part of the cultural superstructure - establishes the framework in which gender dysphoria emerges. This is why gender dysphoria is not a new phenomenon (though the recent explosion is) but one that has appeared across time periods and cultures. A dialectical analysis must take into account the complex interaction of base and superstructure, without reducing gender dysphoria to the stresses and strains of capitalist decay.

The solution is not retreat into "biologism" or reaction, nor liberal half-measures, but socialist revolution to overturn the social forms of gender formed through class society and its legacy of oppression.

The Spartacists' and Internationalist Group's uncritical calls for "hands off trans kids" and affirmation for minors - based on the "facts" of "men and women" and "society as it is currently organized" (what Trotsky called "worshipping of the accomplished fact") - illustrate the dangers of tailing liberal ideology. But Lazare's framing veers too close to employing the same method, only with opposite results: amplifying fears of "invasion" or taking an ambiguous attitude towards gender in ways that can play into right-wing narratives and disorient the working class.

A genuine Marxist analysis must defend trans people against reactionary assaults, critique bourgeois gender ideology's scientific and political limits, and fight for transcendence through class struggle. The article raises vital questions that must be built on with radical, dialectical clarity - not ambiguity or simplicity.