Lockianism refers to John Locke's philosophy that all humans have always been 'blank-slates'. The New Left are primarily Lockians and dismiss arguments by self-identified incel people and evolutionary psychologists as to why things are the way they are.
Lockianism vs progressivism
Tradcons like to conflate political progressivism with Lockianism, despite both being very different. Progressives who argue that feral humans (who may have similar biological traits) can be socially engineered to behave differently by less feral humans are by definition not Lockianists.
Furthermore, progressives promoted eugenics, the father of economic progressivism Maynard Keynes was a devoted eugenicist both before and after WW2, environmentalist Madison Grant wrote a book about eugenics Hitler called "his bible", Woodrow Wilson racially segregated the government and defended the KKK, which all have an origin in biological determinism rather than just Lockianism.
That people who like political solutions vaguely associated with Keynes and environmentalism nowadays may often hate biological essentialism does not make progressivism fundamentally anti-science.
Lockianism vs biological essentialism
Scientific consensus rejects any hard-line nature vs. nurture stance, including Lockianism and biological essentialism respectively. However, post neoliberalism. the science is clear that most current Western human behaviour is biologically rather than socially determined. Humans are both malleable and have natural impulses/behaviours. Many emotions, tendencies and traits are universal and fixed, while others are not universal across cultures and Y-DNA.
Humans all have basically the same facial movement in response to emotional stimuli, across all cultures. This falls in line with [[biological essent Lockian theory. However, there are more countries with people of E3* Y-DNA haplogroup in countries with the top 50% of violent behaviour, which falls in line with biological essentialism.
Lockians often explain human behaviour as socially determined by wealth and political power. Whereas biological determinists and racialists would state that the poverty/politics and associated ill effects are a direct result of evolution, and economic poverty is likely to be permanent in homogenous E3* Y-DNA haplogroups. Lockians in turn say that sub-sarahan africa could be more prosperous than other countries, but foreign pillaging of E3* haplogroup countries rather than the E3* Y-DNA itself caused resource shortages and led to centuries of violence.
Blackpillers would state that non-R1B haplogroup immigration into R1B haplogroup countries is creating polygamy, violence, and ultimately incel in those countries. And so the solution for blackpillers is an ethnostate and culturally arranged monogamous marriages. Sexual marxists may or may not believe this is happening, but think that with a sufficiently authoritarian state, this would not be an issue, and so their solution would be government arranged, subsidized, or promoted partnerships, rather than an ethnostate with culturally arranged marriage.
Lockians are criticized by racialists for taking an unnecessarily dsmissive stance towards the idea that behaviour is sometimes determined by broad ancestry and Y-DNA.