awth13 [fae/faer, comrade/them]

From my understanding, gender is a social construct belonging to the concept of Superstructure and as such it can be influenced.

Gender is more than that. Just like relations to the means of production in a capitalist society form a class system of capitalists and the proletariat, relations to the means of reproduction in pretty much any society form the class system which we call gender. Reactionary and revisionist thought capitulates to this class system and champions “sex” as the material reality from which gender arises but Marxian analysis must see the relations to the means of reproduction as the basis, the classes of “sex” as the superstructure, and the idea of gender as an all-encompassing term for the basis and the superstructure. The statement in the OP is reactionary and revisionist.

I hope other comrades provide links to more literature, this short read is a good intro to modern thought on gender unburdened by capitulating to the reactionary.

Recently started doing the same, it makes sense to me.

Same

Why is intellectual property in quotes and what is the point I am missing? When did anyone say intellectual property is not real? I genuinely do not understand your response, sorry.

As far as I know, the reality is that patents are harmful to innovation, especially digital innovation, and antithetical to social ownership of the means of production, especially in our age of knowledge economy. China is leading in innovation today but, as comrade blobjim pointed out at the beginning of this thread, this has nothing to do with patents – and I am now also claiming that giving in to the pressures of the global capital and accepting patents as a necessity and a yardstick of success will prove to be stifling to innovation. In light of all of this, I look at the OP and don’t see a reason to be triumphant.

Intellectual property is theft. Does the OP expect us to cheer at how good China is at being capitalist?

I like that the seahorse has little landfeets.