A new political party and its manifesto

Transgenderism is dangerous, and is a bourgeousis concept. When have you ever seen a working class transgender?. I don't think it should be banned completey, but under 21s at least should be banned from changing gender. Seems veyr reasonable.

But you said it would be banned for anyone under the age of 30. So you clearly don’t even know your own manifesto. Why not 18? 30 is a weird age. Also, transgender people don’t belong to a certain class that’s just pathetic. It is not a choice. Perhaps you should do more research and be more clear on your policies.

Yes I said 30 in the manifesto, and I'll stick by thirty, because at the very least you shouldn't be able to change your gender until age 21.

Many 18 year olds are still developing.

Age 30 because by then you've lived long enough to have passed through puberty and are an adult.

And generally transgenders are middle class, because working class people are more preoccupied with their labour and are more concerned with providing food for their family or making a living.

Transgenderism also diminishes the hard work of the gay liberation movement to get rights for homosexuals. Instead of haivng the courage to come out as a homosexual, now you can just change your gender so you can date the opposite sex.

Transgenders are not even liked by half of all homosexuals

Personally, I think it should be around 18-21 not 30.
Also, Why would homosexuals not like transgenders?

Because as mentioned, they undermine the struggle for gay rights. It takes a lot of courage to come out as gay. To avoid becoming a homosexual, maybe one would come out as a different sex so they can just date the sex they like

Transgender honestly don’t feel comfortable in their body. They’re not trying to avoid coming out.

I know a lot of people who have changed gender just because it's become a fad and has become acceptable

Yeh transgender people are more likely to change gender now than in the past because it’s more acceptable which makes it safer. Personally, I think it’s harder to be transgender than gay so why would a gay person change gender to avoid coming out?

You can be anti war and anti capitalist as a Marxist or socialist. Did Stalin support gays? No, he didn't, yet he definitely wasn't a fascist. In fact, most socialist countries are still socially conservative. I'm against transgenderism, and the main communist party in Britain, the CPGB-ML is too. It's only western marxists who seem to think that these radlib ideas are acceptable

You're right in some ways, it is easier to become gay than it was, but maybe transgenderism is just the new gay. The thing that worries me is that transgenderism seems to be too far. I've got no problem whatsoever with homosexuals. But actually changing your gender? What will we do next? Legalise paedophilia? Some liberals already want this.

Absolutely, and these are all viewed as basically fascists by most people and are dying out. Marxism has been successfully co-opted by liberalism. Do you see this changing honestly?

I think the only way forward is a grand realignment which is already basically happening - Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang were heavily supported by the Alt Right and in Europe the Left Wing parties will almost always choose to back neoliberalism over a socially conservative but more economically left wing populist party.

Additionally look at how culturally homogenous these socialist countries are. Sweden was a famously successful left wing country until liberals decided to let in millions of refugees and now its famous for rape gangs and grenade attacks.

———-

Additionally look at this thread- all the left wingers are appalled that you would support Assad and think there’s anything wrong with trans people and all the conservatives think tax is theft and support Zionism . You might ‘hate’ Nazis but for the people you’re trying to attract you are one. So you basically need to pick a side.

A lot of far-leftists/anti imperialists support Assad. George Galloway for example. In fact me, and him are far more similar than you and the alt right. We're both socialists, but at the same time we are somewhat socially conservative. And also like me and him, we also have a faith at the same time.

Allright, let's cut to the chase.

I understand centralisation and planning are the very stuff of socialism; it comes with the territory, let's say so.
Now, how do the workers know what exactly they're going to make under the rule of SFGB, should it come in power? Who is in the know?
What I am asking is, first, what precisely the country must manufacture to stake out a claim to being a country of economic might?
And second, what specific industries are you going to have taken off the ground, ones that calls for the creation of a new party aimed at ruling on behalf of none other than British workers?
And then again, the worker is going to ask how you do know what to manufacture. I take it you want to have the UK be saturated with electrical vehicles. How do you know that it is EVs that need to be made a priority? How has this specific decision been make? Is it because Tesla has blazed the trail and now the rest of carmakers got serious about EVs so as to go as far as to have made investment in them on the order of tens of billions?

Next comes a train network in the SFGB Manifesto. Whilst the private sector all over the world aims at Hyperloop you want to have state-run plants make trains, don't you? If this is the case how are you going to make sure the state-run plant is able to compete with private-funded and run Hyperloop?

Are you ready to stop at nothing to make the UK a country of economic might?