Jump to content

Is Gender Abolitionism good or bad?


chris_error

Recommended Posts

I know gender roles are annoying, I see the appeal of not dealing with gendered expectations... But gender abolitionism seems pointless, impractical, and even like a form of erasure? I want to like gender abolitionism, as I'm interested in leftist ideas, but it's just not resonating with me. It seems pointless because I still think sexism would exist even without gender; discrimination based on biological sex. Impractical, because everyone would have to agree to not have gender. Without gender there would be no such thing as man/woman/non-binary, cis/trans, or gay/straight/bi/etc. It just seems like erasure of identity. How is that utopia? Many people have very strong ties to their gender identity and sexual orientation. It's important to them, similar to belonging to a certain culture. It has meaning to people... Why throw it away?

 

I'd love to hear others thoughts about this topic. I'm open others ideas and opinions on this.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chris_error said:

But gender abolitionism seems pointless, impractical, and even like a form of erasure?

Agreed with this.

 

I kinda get the point of it, but there are both cis and trans people who really identify with their gender in some way. Doing so is often especially important for some transgender people. Fuck stereotypes and all that, challenge traditional gender roles, speak out against discrimination/sexism, etc., but gender abolitionism just goes too far, IMO.

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all ideas are good XD.

Plus, gender roles are just roles that people can take. It's the expectations that suck.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

And yeah, it's just one of those half-baked utopian ideas that will never happen in reality, so it seems ridiculous to even really contemplate it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there would still be discrimination against women, trans people, gender non-conforming people, and various subsets of the LGBT+ community, but it would be harder to talk about or document it because everyone would pretend to be gender blind.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

No thanks. Being male is a fundamental aspect of my identity, more so than many cis males I've encountered. No one gets to tell me it's a "social construct".

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower State Sin Sigils
23 minutes ago, chris_error said:

I know gender roles are annoying, I see the appeal of not dealing with gendered expectations... But gender abolitionism seems pointless, impractical, and even like a form of erasure? I want to like gender abolitionism, as I'm interested in leftist ideas, but it's just not resonating with me. It seems pointless because I still think sexism would exist even without gender; discrimination based on biological sex. Impractical, because everyone would have to agree to not have gender. Without gender there would be no such thing as man/woman/non-binary, cis/trans, or gay/straight/bi/etc. It just seems like erasure of identity. How is that utopia? Many people have very strong ties to their gender identity and sexual orientation. It's important to them, similar to belonging to a certain culture. It has meaning to people... Why throw it away?

 

I'd love to hear others thoughts about this topic. I'm open others ideas and opinions on this.

As I understand the concept...

Gender abolitionism exists in two distinct forms: post-genderism and anti-genderism.

Antigenderism I am vehemently against, both on paper and in practice. Antigenderists believe that "gender" is a lie, and that only two biological sexes exist. They are the people who will tell you that "transmen are women and transwomen are men". F-- that.

Post-genderism is more akin to what you seem to be describing, and I am very much for it on paper. Post-genderism is tied to transhumanism, and focuses on the trivialization of differences between the biological sexes. It transcends gender roles and stereotypes, and would hopefully eventually transcend biological sex through advances in technology and medicine. In practice, post-genderism/gender abolitionism would likely lead to discrimination on some other basis.

In my estimation, it does become an erasure of the model our identities exist within. In fact, I believe that to be a good thing. My preferred label for my gender is "maleflux". While that is all well and good within the current system, it is dependent on the stereotypes, role expectations, and social constructs of masculinity. "Masculinity" is nothing more than the stereotypes, role expectations, and social constructs we generally assign to, pardon my vernacular, people born with penises. I've yet to meet someone who defines gender as existing without the stereotypes, role expectations, and social constructs based upon our biological sex.

Before anyone get's upset, let me state that I am far from anti-genderist. I am post-genderist, yet I accept that my views are unpopular and reflect an ideal rather than a reality. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower State Sin Sigils
10 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

No thanks. Being male is a fundamental aspect of my identity, more so than many cis males I've encountered. No one gets to tell me it's a "social construct".

Out of curiosity, would you mind explaining both what you mean by "being male" and "social construct"? I don't have any intention of changing your mind or calling your view "wrong", but I am curious to understand it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chris_error said:

? I want to like gender abolitionism, as I'm interested in leftist ideas, but it's just not resonating with me. It seems pointless because I still think sexism would exist even without gender; discrimination based on biological sex. Impractical, because everyone would have to agree to not have gender. Without gender there would be no such thing as man/woman/non-binary, cis/trans, or gay/straight/bi/etc. It just seems like erasure of identity

Well I consider myself as left and I think gender abolitionism is just... kind of bad. You don‘t have to like it or „want to like it“

 

Fight gender roles, YES. YES, YES.

But the solution can‘t be „no genders“, bc this would just lead to a lot of problems (you listed some) and, yes, would be a big erasure (trans or non-binary, agender... but also cis people would not stop to exist, dysphoria would not stop to exist and so on)

the solution is not „no genders“, the solution must be „everyone the gender and the WAY to express their gender they want/are“

and this way can be gender–nonconform but can also be stereotypical and that’s okay!

 

(A bit off topic, but I want to add this: today on social media I read that some self–called feminists judge cis males for using nail varnish and i‘m just like... what... WHAT? Why would you judge anyone for doing what they want with their body... especially when you want to fight gender roles and stereotypes... could you please...NOT?!  it just made me scream)

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Acecream said:

A bit off topic, but I want to add this: today on social media I read that some self–called feminists judge cis males for using nail varnish and i‘m just like... what... WHAT? Why would you judge anyone for doing what they want with their body... especially when you want to fight gender roles and stereotypes... could you please...NOT?!  it just made me scream)

My little brothers both really like nail polish! They get so excited because they like to match with me, haha. ^_^

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower State Sin Sigils
3 minutes ago, Acecream said:

 

 

Fight gender roles, YES. YES, YES.

But the solution can‘t be „no genders“, bc this would just lead to a lot of problems (you listed some) and, yes, would be a big erasure (trans or non-binary, agender... but also cis people would not stop to exist, dysphoria would not stop to exist and so on)

the solution is not „no genders“, the solution must be „everyone the gender and the WAY to express their gender they want/are“

and this way can be gender–nonconform but can also be stereotypical and that’s okay!

 

100% with you on fighting gender roles. When gender as a concept becomes entirely descriptive as opposed to prescriptive, I will champion that cause. Until then, I'm going to grumble in my corner about the system and continue to live within it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chris_error said:

My little brothers both really like nail polish! They get so excited because they like to match with me, haha. ^_^

That’s amazing💚

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunflower State Sin Sigils said:

Out of curiosity, would you mind explaining both what you mean by "being male" and "social construct"? I don't have any intention of changing your mind or calling your view "wrong", but I am curious to understand it.

Being trans isn't just about social identity, it's also about personal identity and that can relate to the body. If you want to 'trivialize' the biological side and the connections, then it's also dismissing what we feel about our bodies (and would feel more in line with the sex that matches our gender). Not everyone feels this way, and it may be more about the social identity for some, but some are trans and don't care about how their gender expression gets treated in society, while some do. The gender roles do matter for some as well.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunflower State Sin Sigils said:

Out of curiosity, would you mind explaining both what you mean by "being male" and "social construct"? I don't have any intention of changing your mind or calling your view "wrong", but I am curious to understand it.

I know the question wasn’t towards me but I wanted to answer something...

To „what you mean by being male“: I find it very interesting what people would answer here, bc I feel like especially cis people ( I am cis by my own, just to avoid misunderstandings) have no real answer to this topic.

 

CN transmisia, genitalia

 

A few day ago I argued online with a TERF who said „trans woman are not woman“. She asked: „so, if they are, what makes a woman a woman then“ and I just asked back „yeah, tell me, what makes YOU a woman?“ she answered with her body. So I asked if she would not a women anymore if she would have a penis, even if she would feel exactly the same way apart from her genitalia (I don’t want to say all trans woman have a penis, bc that’s not true!). Then she blocked me.

for me (I guess) being female is just a feeling, maybe mixed with my experiences, but nothing I could truly describe, nothing that would change if I would have a penis. My genitalia have no specific gender, they have only the gender I have, and this could be any gender.

so, I find it very ridiculous that cis people often have no idea how to describe what makes them male/female, but at the same time they want  a whole explanation from trans/non–binary/agender people...

(I don‘t want to attack @Anthracite_Impreza here! It’s just a general thing I wanted to add, has nothing to do with anthracite)

 

like... when don‘t have to justify myself for being cis and don’t need a real explanation, why do people expect this from people who are not cis??? It doesn’t make sense at all. (Well, bc transmisia doesn’t make sense at all)

 

end of CN


well, back to your questions: I do think that the way we are raised and genders are „told“ us they totally are a social construct; the „two–genders–Modell“ (which is bullshit) is also based on colonialism and white supremacy... so, it just can’t not be a construct.

But still, similar to what @Anthracite_Imprezasaid, being female is a part of my identity which seems (at the moment) unchangeable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gender 'norms' such as "girls wear nail polish and boys play video games" should be abolished as they don't serve anyone and often further isolate people who want to do/wear something not socially associated with their gender. Like an amab child wanting to wear a fairy costume and glittery shoes. Rgardless of whether the child is cis or trans, anyone should be able to wear that if they want to but it's 'expected' that girls wear it and often frowned upon if boys wear it, which is just stupid. Culturally dictated gender norms are always changing too. Like a hundred years pink was considered a masculine colour as example. Therefore they're pointless and silly in my humble opinion.

 

However the biological fact of gender itself should never be abolished. There are some who do not personally associate with any gender and that's their right, but the vast majority of people (whether cis or trans) do associate part of their identity with their gender. To strip that from them is stripping away part of their identity which is just terrible and should never be considered an 'acceptable idea'. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sunflower State Sin Sigils said:

Gender In my estimation, it does become an erasure of the model our identities exist within. In fact, I believe that to be a good thing. My preferred label for my gender is "maleflux". While that is all well and good within the current system, it is dependent on the stereotypes, role expectations, and social constructs of masculinity. "Masculinity" is nothing more than the stereotypes, role expectations, and social constructs we generally assign to, pardon my vernacular, people born with penises. I've yet to meet someone who defines gender as existing without the stereotypes, role expectations, and social constructs based upon our biological sex.

 

Before anyone get's upset, let me state that I am far from anti-genderist. I am post-genderist, yet I accept that my views are unpopular and reflect an ideal rather than a reality. 

I'm not upset at all. I'm just trying to understand how post-genderism is a "good thing"? Like, why is that ideal? It seems a bit like the expression of "throwing out the baby with the bath water" is it not? Sorry if my wording came across as alienating or harsh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gender abolitionism is unrealistic. 

 

3 hours ago, chris_error said:

Without gender there would be no such thing as man/woman/non-binary, cis/trans, or gay/straight/bi/etc.

I call BS on that. It's biologically impossible. We're not algae, we reproduce through sexual dimorphism and until that goes away, it will have some impact on people's lives. Plus sexual orientation in inborn and biological. And so is gender identity. Hormones influence how our brains work. Not to a degree that would result in the sexes being completely different, but they cause different personality traits, likes, dislikes - instincts. You can see it everywhere in nature. 

 

I agree with others tho, that this shouldn't be a basis to pressure people to baheve one way or another just because most people do. Social pressure is pointless in so many ways. If it doesn't harm anybody, why criticise people for something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emery. said:

It's biologically impossible

Yeah even if we threw away gender labels it wouldn't change the fact that humans for the most part are born with one or the other set of sexual characteristics and different things are associated with those characteristics. For example, someone born with a female reproductive system will almost certainly have menstruation, will be at risk from becoming pregnant as a result of sex, etc.. whereas someone with a male reproductive system will have a very different set of experiences. There's also health differences, like male reproductive system: risk of prostate cancer so requires prostate examinations as one example. Whereas female reproductive system requires cervical scans and there can be issues in the ovaries.

 

Also something many gender abolitionists seem to not take into account is something as basic as the different types of heart attacks males and females have :o 

 

we'll never be able to escape or deny biological sex and it would actually be dangerous to do so!!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
8 hours ago, Sunflower State Sin Sigils said:

Out of curiosity, would you mind explaining both what you mean by "being male" and "social construct"? I don't have any intention of changing your mind or calling your view "wrong", but I am curious to understand it.

I have no idea how to describe "being male", I just know I am one. It's the only gender I feel completely comfortable associating myself with.

 

Social construct: gender roles are a social construct, they're entirely arbitrary and have to be enforced by society or they disappear. Gender itself is not that, we would be our gender regardless, even if the words didn't exist to describe them. It would be downright cruel to deny especially trans people the ability to put a name to what they're feeling, to be able to explain what's wrong to others.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So to me at first glance gender abolitionism did seem impossibly utopian and it did seem like it erases trans people, but if some progressives like it, I thought there had to be something to it. Having looked into it for about an hour... yeah still no.

 

So some postgenderists seem to want to make gender and sex disappear with social changes AND techno-biological advancements that would mean anyone with any physical body could birth or father a child, or, alternatively, we'd all primarily live in cyberspace, upload our brains, and just choose our own non-gender-specific avatars. This sounds ridiculous to me.

 

Other postgenderists want to just de-emphasize gender, but well, that's not gender abolition, that's gender de-emphasization (which is definitely not a word). And honestly, a lot of people are pretty dang attached to their genders, and they're going to want to keep them. Not everyone, sure. Gender shouldn't be mandatory, but it also shouldn't just cease to exist. The only way you're going to make it cease to exist is if you basically prohibit genders and like, good luck with that.

 

I'm agender. My life might be a lot easier if gender just simply poofed out of existence, buuut I also know what it's like to not be seen as yourself, and have an integral part of your identity ignored, dismissed, erased, and it doesn't feel good. I don't wish that on anyone who isn't agender or cis-genderless.

 

My main problem with these kinds of discussions is the way the term 'gender' is used. I've said this before and I'll say it again, 'gender' isn't a singular concept. It's at least three disparate concepts rolled into one word. It frustrates me to no end. If we're talking about abolishing gender, we need to be clear about which of these three concepts we're abolishing.

 

Here comes the copy paste. I wrote it a number of years ago. Yes, it's extremely simplified, but it's better than just not defining terminology at all.

Spoiler

Transgender:

Denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.

  • Sex is whether you’re biologically male, female or intersex.
  • Gender is psychological, not biological, and should be separated from sex entirely. From here on, I’m going to leave sex out of the equation.
  • Sexual orientation is even less relevant to this conversation. It's who you're attracted to, not who you are. I'm leaving this out of the equation too.

There are a lot of different aspects to gender.

  • Gender roles/norms/expectations are unwritten rules society has for how men and women should behave. (Men can't wear make-up. Crying is for girls. Women shouldn't be too assertive.) These are not part of an individual's identity. They are part of a society's culture.
  • Gender expression is what your gender appears to be to other people. (Includes gendered things like clothing, colors, make-up, mannerisms, tone of voice, way of walking, gestures while talking, how intensely emotions are expressed etc)
  • Gender identity is a very complicated concept and it is the core of what we are talking about when we’re discussing trans issues. Before you can know what ‘transgender’ is, you need to know what ‘gender identity’ is. 

So there are two main theories on what 'gender identity' is.

 

First you've got the (in my opinion outdated) theory put forward by Judith Butler, Simone de Beauvoir and the like. They resist the idea that any aspect of gender identity can be innate. As de Beauvoir says "One isn't born a woman, one becomes a woman." This basically means that you feel like a woman because it's what you're used to. You behave like a woman because that's what's socially acceptable. In this view people act how they're supposed to act according to the gender roles in their culture. The constant repetition of doing what they're supposed to do gets etched into their brains and becomes their gender identity. For Butler and de Beauvoir, gender identity is the internalization of culturally imposed gender norms and expectations.

(Disclaimer: Butler is still alive and has changed her mind)

 

Then there's a newer theory about gender identity. This one builds on the first one and accepts it as partially correct, but asserts that gender identity is also partially innate. If it wasn't, then it would logically follow that trans people simply can’t exist, because your gender identity would entirely depend on what you were raised to be.

Joan Roughgarden, a transgender evolutionary biologist who wrote a whole book on the science of lgbt identities, is a proponent of this one. According to her, ‘gender identity’ is a deep-seated sense of self that's been established from the time you were born. In her book 'Evolution's Rainbow', she writes:

 

I envision gender identity as a cognitive lens. When a baby opens his or her eyes after birth and looks around, whom will the baby emulate and whom will he or she merely notice? Perhaps a male baby will emulate his father or other men, perhaps not, and a female baby her mother or other women, perhaps not. I imagine that a lens in the brain controls who to focus on as a “tutor.” Transgender identity is then the acceptance of a tutor from the opposite sex. Degrees of transgender identity, and of gender variance generally, reflect different degrees of single-mindedness in the selection of the tutor’s gender. The development of gender identity thus depends on both brain state and early postnatal experience, because brain state indicates what the lens is, and environmental experience supplies the image to be photographed through that lens and ultimately developed immutably into brain circuitry. Once gender identity is set, like other basic aspects of temperament, life proceeds from there.

 

So a cisgender female baby instinctively emulates women, a transgender baby with a female body instinctively emulates men, and a non-binary baby instinctively emulates both. Simple. 

 

The innate part of gender identity is the part that decides which of the two genders (or both or neither) you will instinctively emulate during your life. The behavior of that group of people then supplies you with the learned aspect of your gender identity. So the innate part tells you which gender(s) to imitate and the learned part is what kind of behavior you're actually imitating and internalizing.  

 

Gender identity as Roughgarden describes it, is a deep-seated, immutable sense of belonging or kinship to a gender (either to the social construct or to the group of people). A sense of "I belong with those people, or the other group, or maybe both or not really with either."

 

You can't change this sense of belonging by raising someone differently. There have been cases where a doctor made a mistake while circumcising a baby boy and then cut off the entire penis. For example, there’s David Reimer. That boy was raised as a girl instead, from birth, but still always felt like a boy.

 

Gender identity is at least partially innate and biological, not just cultural, so the argument that your gender identity can't be anything but 'man' or 'woman' because that's the only two genders that exist in our culture is not applicable. Gender identity =/= gender as a social construct. Gender identity is to which degree you instinctively identify with those two culturally established genders.

 

Some brains are simply somewhere in between male and female. Some people feel a sense of belonging to both genders, and others to neither.

Spoiler

I understand that the concept of male and female brains is flawed. But in my view, your consciousness, your personality, your thoughts, your feelings, are all in your brain. Therefore, if you have a gender identity, it has to be somewhere in your brain. An argument against that would have to be spiritual or religious in nature. If you want to make those arguments, fine. I can only say I don't believe in Cartesian dualism, where there's some metaphysical consciousness separate from material reality, driving your body. But it's impossible to prove a negative, I can't prove spirits definitely don't exist.

 

Or you could say that since a lot of the nervous system is located in other parts of the human body, and your gut has an impact on certain emotions or something, your gender identity is not (exclusively) in your brain. Yeah fine. What I'm saying is your gender identity is somewhere in your body, because you don't exist outside of your body. I don't care if it's in your gut, your heart, your brain or your left thumb, it's in you.

Wm1KqL3.png

My guess is agender people don't feel at home in either group, genderfluid babies could emulate their dad during some activities (like boxing) and their mom in other situations (like socializing), and neutrois people sort of feel stuck in between the two groups, but I don't know. The only way to know is to ask them. 

Gender Identity versus Gender Expression

Of course everyone has a feminine and a masculine side, but that's not what we're talking about here. For example, a man can be feminine, he can like wearing make-up and dresses, talk in a stereotypically feminine way, and still identify as a man. Is his feminine side a 'deep-seated sense of identity', 'a cognitive lens that determines which gender(s) a baby will emulate from the minute they're born'? I doubt it. I think it's gender expression, not gender identity. For a nonbinary person, that's different.

 

A nonbinary person is not someone who simply dislikes the gender role they're put into. A guy who likes to break gendered expectations by wearing dresses is a crossdresser, a drag queen or a gender-nonconforming person, not a nonbinary person. Those are terms for people who have non-standard gender expressions. A nonbinary person is a person who has this innate, deep-seated, unchangeable sense of belonging to both genders, or to neither. If their body or the social role people ascribe to them doesn't line up with their inner sense of what they are, this leads to dysphoria. Dysphoria is an integrally important sign of ‘transgenderness’.

 

Gender dysphoria is either a feeling of discomfort/distress with gendered aspects of your body (meaning you'd feel a need to change your body = transition) or a feeling of discomfort/distress because of what gender people perceive you to be (meaning you'd want to take steps in order to be perceived differently = transition).

 

Gender euphoria is the opposite of dysphoria, it's feeling extremely 'right' when you're seen by others as how you perceive yourself. Euphoria can also be the thing to clue people in on their gender identity, sometimes instead of dysphoria.

 

Gender expression includes gendered things like clothing, make-up, mannerisms, tone of voice, way of walking, gestures while talking etc.

The innate part of gender identity doesn't have anything to do with any of those things.

Are NB’s trans?

                                                                Trans people

                                                       ↙                                  ↘

                                    binary trans people                nonbinary trans people

They're all trans.

 

Nonbinary people can transition, so even if you were (in my opinion incorrectly) basing your definition of ‘transgender’ on whether or not transition is possible, you still wouldn’t have a reason to say NB’s aren’t trans. NB’s can transition medically (through hormone treatment and surgery) as well as socially. Social transition isn't easy. It should be taken seriously. http://gender.wikia.com/wiki/Social_Transition

 

An NB transitions for the same reasons a binary trans person transitions, in order to have their body reflect their inner selves more, and in order to be perceived differently. It's true that in this culture NB's won't 'pass' as their true gender, because not enough people know that nonbinary identities exist, so they won't automatically recognize someone as 'Oh, that person doesn't look quite male or female, they're probably nonbinary,' as they would (most of the time) correctly recognize a woman to be a woman and a man to be a man. However, that's a problem with our culture, not with nonbinary people.

 

'Binary trans' and 'nonbinary trans' are two different types of being trans. If individual nonbinary people don’t identify as trans, then there's probably a personal story for why they don't, or maybe they just aren’t aware that nb’s are trans, or maybe they’ve made the common mistake to confuse gender expression with gender identity and they’re actually gender-nonconforming. You won't know until you ask them.

 

NB's not identifying as trans is kind of like black feminists not identifying as feminists. Some black feminists don't identify as feminists because they don't feel represented by white feminism. They feel white feminists aren't committed enough to ending all forms of oppression, instead of just to ending sexism. I believe they call themselves womanists. They're feminists, but refuse to identify as such for personal or political reasons.

 

That's what it's like with nb's too. They're trans, but some refuse to identify as trans for personal or political reasons. These reasons are very diverse. For example, indigenous folks don't conceptualize their genders in the same way western societies do. It's not as medicalized or othered. Personally I could understand why they'd rather identify with the concepts they had before ours came along.

 

7 hours ago, Sunflower State Sin Sigils said:

I've yet to meet someone who defines gender as existing without the stereotypes, role expectations, and social constructs based upon our biological sex.

So yes, hello, nice to meet you. I define gender identity as existing separately from stereotypes, role expectations and social constructs based upon our biological sex, as explained in the copy paste above. I'm not sure what kind of trans spaces you've been in, but the idea that gender identity doesn't exist without stereotypes and roles isn't at all popular in trans spaces as far as I'm aware. It shouldn't be hard to meet people like me.

 

I'd love to abolish prescriptive gender roles, but I would not want to abolish gendered self-expression, and I believe it to be impossible to abolish gender identity.

 

Abolishing gender identity would be like abolishing neurodiversity. Yes, we could abolish the labels and just treat everyone equally, but that doesn't mean neurodiversity disappears. It's there. It's a thing. It's not a bad thing. Some people are going to think similarly, and relate to each other more, and eventually form social groups and identities around that, and that's a comforting thing. Even if you abolish it, it will re-emerge. (No I'm not saying gender and neurodivergency are the same, I'm saying they're both in the brain, aren't purely social, influence how you think and experience the world, and are not going anywhere.)

 

Look, an article on gender abolition and the implications for trans people that I like: https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/gender-abolition/

It's a good read, pretty concise, would recommend.

 

If gender were no longer a thing, I'd be worried that my body dysphoria would no longer be taken seriously. I believe body dysphoria to be a result of a mismatch between your mental body map and the actual reality of your body, like phantom limbs and shit. I don't believe it to be purely social. (Social dysphoria is purely social though.) If we reduced gender to a purely social thing, and then tried to erase that social thing from existence, no way insurance would cover my treatment, because I'd just have to try my best to let go of the toxic mindset of gender and accept my body or some shit like that. I don't want that. I want to express my gender the way I feel it. I want to be seen and treated as me. I want my body to match me. And I don't want to upload my mind to a computer and select an avatar in order to do that.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

As an agender person, I honestly can't say that I have a strong opinion one it one way or another.  Having a less gendered society would be great, but I don't really know if Abolishing Gender could work without somehow altering human psychology and/or biology.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower State Sin Sigils
4 hours ago, Karst said:

Having a less gendered society would be great, but I don't really know if Abolishing Gender could work without somehow altering human psychology and/or biology.

I totally agree there. Gender as a concept disappearing entirely will probably never happen, even if it "should", which I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a friend who is a gender abolitionist we had a weird conversation one day that kind of stuck with me:

 

They said if gender didn't exist I wouldn't be trans and that it would (in essence) "cure dysphoria" which isn't true. I didn't argue it because it didn't bother too much in the moment... but I'd still feel like I was in the wrong body if you took away gender and gender roles... body dysphoria doesn't just disappear with gender. I'd still be distressed with my body and want to change it...

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have body dysphoria, so I can't relate. Bit I still feel that I relate to people with penises better than to people with vaginas and it's all there is to it. So roles... maybe not, rather what people are like. And it would still be there - unless this form of sexual dimorphism would be removed. Can it be removed at all? Maybe it will vanish with time, as the society will put less and less pressure on gender and the differences between sexes with become smaller and smaller. 

 

Edit: Besides, I don't have to try to be masculine. I sort of embody this concept of cultural masculinity without trying to and even contrary to what I was pressured to be. So... people aren't really taught to be feminine, masculine or whatever on the gender spectrum. For most, it's a leg up from evolution, a ready-made how to deal with reproduction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly on topic but related: One time in Reddit, I threw in a hypothetical idea of "what if we never addressed kids by any gender until they are old enough to say it for themselves" (on Change My View Reddit; I was briefly there). It generated quite a many responses, and it brought up some good points. One was that denying existence of gender would be confusing to a child, as gender still is a big part of many people's identity and, admittedly, an existing thing in society. What was seen as a better alternative is to initially refer the kid by their assigned gender but also introduce them early on the concept of transgender and encourage them to speak up of they don't feel right in their assigned gender. Instead of leaving the gender blank at first, it was seen as a better alternative to educate on differences of sex and gender and to normalize genders out of cis-binary. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkStormyKnight

Gender is a construct, but that doesn't mean that it isn't important to some people's identities, or that it does heavily affect some people's experiences in positive or negative ways. I think it's here to stay, although I would hope that discrimination against some genders and gendered stereotypes eventually fade off.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Emery. said:

 For most, it's a leg up from evolution, a ready-made how to deal with reproduction. 

I'm not sure how true is that since I don't find myself following masculine/feminine norms at all as I have rejected these conceptions, and going from that logic, I should had been masculine naturally, but if you were to peg me as masculine or feminine, you'd rate me as 90% feminine. For reference, I'm a male. Pretty sure there are a lot more people like that, and some studies does point to that after factoring into variance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a terrible idea. Erasing people's identities is cruel no matter which way it comes from. People should stop believing they can fit us all into one box, it will never ever happen.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Too lazy to read if this has already been said: To erase genders would be two early, I think. Especially since one of the two traditional ones has kind of always been erased. I guess trying to make men and women 'even' instead of caring for their different and same needs will end in more problems. But I guess trying to erase genders comes mostly from the fact that anything feminine is lowkey or even openly seen as lesser than by men and women alike. I mean, who wants to be worth less by default?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, R_1 said:

I'm not sure how true is that since I don't find myself following masculine/feminine norms at all as I have rejected these conceptions, and going from that logic, I should had been masculine naturally, but if you were to peg me as masculine or feminine, you'd rate me as 90% feminine. For reference, I'm a male. Pretty sure there are a lot more people like that, and some studies does point to that after factoring into variance.

Jesus Christ, I said for most. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...