Gender abolitionism

[Црвена]

Do you think gender roles and the status of gender as part of one's identity should be abolished?

I think these things are harmful to people of all genders, but I'm not sure how they could pragmatically be abolished. Also, I hate using this argument because it has been used to legitimise so many other oppressive things, but is there a biological basis for gender roles, and if so, does this affect whether or not they should be abolished?

[Sinister Intents]

I think the idea that gender is a binary should be eliminated abd gender as a spectrum should be embraced and defined by the individual than other people

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Gender can't be abolished by decree. I wish it could, but then again I wish for a lot of things. What will happen to gender, like the state, family, religion, orientation, nationality, and hopefully those wheeled bags the elderly carry around which always seem to take up too much space on trams, is that it will wither away as the material basis for gender is no longer present in socialism. In the meantime, of course, the workers' state will do everything in its power to prevent the workers from being adversely affected by gender etc. as it is withering away.

Gender has nothing to do with biology; it does have a lot to do with economics. Hence the fluidity of gender roles; a caring nurturing mother would have been a hindrance to the labour-intensive slave-owning economy of the Roman Empire for example.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm never sure if I agree with gender being a social construction or not, I feel exactly the gender I am, and that's female. I tend to view it as a spectrum rather than something that arose from a need or from pitting individuals against each other. To me gender and identity are significantly more personal than a social construction or a binary.

I'm being very quick in my post btw hopefully I'll remember to fix it up better later abd directly quote you 870

[Illegalitarian]

Yeah there are big problems with the assertion that gender is strictly a social construct, and thus can be abolished.

I would say it's equal parts social and biological. Trying to separate the two is an absurdity

[Црвена]

Gender can't be abolished by decree. I wish it could, but then again I wish for a lot of things. What will happen to gender, like the state, family, religion, orientation, nationality, and hopefully those wheeled bags the elderly carry around which always seem to take up too much space on trams, is that it will wither away as the material basis for gender is no longer present in socialism. In the meantime, of course, the workers' state will do everything in its power to prevent the workers from being adversely affected by gender etc. as it is withering away.

Gender has nothing to do with biology; it does have a lot to do with economics. Hence the fluidity of gender roles; a caring nurturing mother would have been a hindrance to the labour-intensive slave-owning economy of the Roman Empire for example.

I agree, but what, then, of hormonal differences that supposedly cause people born as a given gender to be more likely to act a certain way and thus fulfil a gender role? How would you respond to someone who said that, for instance, higher levels of testosterone in men made them more likely to be more competitive than women and that the gender role that is the competitiveness of men is therefore justified?

[Devrim]

I think identity should be abolished.

Devrim

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Let a thousand genders bloom.

[BIXX]

I wish to abolish gender, 100%. Gender is a domestication process, used to reproduce society through our bodies and minds. I would argue that the same is true for race, and many if not all social categorizations (even lower/higher status, or "class", from the birth of civilization). I wish to abolish gender to abolish domestication.

Now people say all the time that we can abolish the bad parts of gender and keep the good but that's bullshit. For one, if we have gotten rid of all the bad parts (by which I assume people mean gender roles and whatnot as those are what limits us) we are left simply with calling ourselves this or that gender without that having any real content. In that case why bother? But furthermore I think then it'd go back to gender essentialism, meaning that the only thing that defined someone as a man or woman was what genitalia they had, which I think would probably just eventually lead to more bullshit gender roles. So I say why not abolish all of it?



Yeah there are big problems with the assertion that gender is strictly a social construct, and thus can be abolished.

I would say it's equal parts social and biological. Trying to separate the two is an absurdity

What are those big problems?


I'm never sure if I agree with gender being a social construction or not, I feel exactly the gender I am, and that's female. I tend to view it as a spectrum rather than something that arose from a need or from pitting individuals against each other. To me gender and identity are significantly more personal than a social construction or a binary.

I would argue that the reason you are a woman has nothing to do with an actual quality of "woman-ness" you seem to be assuming here (if there were no such quality how would you be able to recognize yourself as a woman absent of society?), society had shown you that this or that makes someone a woman, meaning it has taught you "woman-ness", so when you find those things in yourself you can recognize yourself as a woman.

I want this to be clear right now, I'm not saying that trans folks aren't the gender they identify as, but rather that the gender options our society gives us have all been made up by society. So while everyone is indeed the gender they identify as, its important to remember that any gender you identify as is indeed a gender, and as such is a societal bond.

I wanna talk really quick about what I mean when I say gender is a domestication process. That to me means that it is used to ensnare people within Leviathanic logic (in the case of gender the logic we are being locked into is the logic of reproductive futurism).

Anyway just some quick thoughts.

[Zanthorus]

Yeah there are big problems with the assertion that gender is strictly a social construct, and thus can be abolished.

I think it's worth noting that asserting that something is a social construct, and asserting that it can be abolished, are two entirely different claims. For example, in 100 Years of Homosexuality, David Halperin notes in relation to the social constructionist view of sexuality, that because social constructoinism is directed precisely against the assertion that any categorisation of sexuality is natural, it would actually seem to preclude any kind of politics of abolishing existing sexual categories and returning to a 'natural' sexuality. Even in a hypothetical future state of universal sexual fluidity, this sexual fluidity would be as constructed as the contemporary categories into hetero, gay/lesbian and bi, or the medieval categories of celibacy and sodomy.

In fact, it was the idea that sexuality was something transhistorical which only saw deviations in history through being repressed which Focault directed his inquiries against. One could say equally with regards to gender, if gender is a social construct, it still doesn't necessarily mean that it can be abolished, on the contrary, one could make the opposite assertion, that there is no natural state of gender fluidity or genderlessness which we can return to, and that even this would be a social construction of a sort, as much as the masculine/feminine binary.

EDIT:

I want to add that, with regards to Marxism, I don't think it is properly describable as either social constructionist or 'essentialist'. Marx obviously has a conception of a transhistorical 'human nature', but this human nature is not a collection of fixed psychological facts which are distorted only through the lenses of power. In this connection, Marx mocks Bastiat's view that with regards to production, the same relations hold good for all time, and economic history is merely the history of government exercising it's unwanted influence on consumption (the parrallels between Bastiat and the 'repression' theory of sexual history always struck me very forcefully). Marx asks us to consider something radically different from either of these positions, that man is by his nature a social being: "The human being is in the most literal sense a Zwon Politikon [political animal] not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. Production by an isolated individual outside society – a rare exception which may well occur when a civilized person in whom the social forces are already dynamically present is cast by accident into the wilderness – is as much of an absurdity as is the development of language without individuals living together and talking to each other."

[Sinister Intents]

I see what you're saying Echo, I think you're pretty much right, but I'd have to say gender should come naturally from people's individuality, who they feel they are and select their identifications, labels, and so on through there own merit. People shouldn't have gender and other labels shoved down their throats and forced to internalize it.

[BIXX]

I see what you're saying Echo, I think you're pretty much right, but I'd have to say gender should come naturally from people's individuality, who they feel they are and select their identifications, labels, and so on through there own merit. People shouldn't have gender and other labels shoved down their throats and forced to internalize it.

I don't think that's even an option though. Having gender "come naturally from people's individuality" is strange because it seems to assume that gender is permanent, meaning gender (and if I am to interpret you correctly, sexuality) would not be a social construct or a domestication process, but a truth. Something that seems to be false to me. I don't have the book on me right now but in one of the Bædan journals they discuss some accounts of gender in primitive societies. What we learn from those accounts is that primitive societies didn't have a concept of sex/gender/sexuality (or didn't have a very strict one) until they came into contact with outsiders who already did have those concepts firmly engrained in them.

I'm not arguing for going back to primitive gender relations, (though I can see it as desirable as opposed to current gender relations) keep in mind. This is one of my biggest problems with primitivism, in fact, as it assumes that there are natural gender relations whereas I believe there are none. My whole point was to show that gender isn't something that we have within us that needs expression, but rather a domestication process.

One problem in my opinion with seeing gender as something that is always within us and we just need to find the proper way to project/experience/actualize it is that it hides gender in a shroud of individualism, which is where all things go to hide when they need to escape nihilism/wildness, as it disguises itself as something very similar to wildness. Individualism is used to justify acting in ways that actually are detrimental to the individual- mass movement building, being "pro-society" instead of anti-societal, devoting yourself to a spook because "It's what I want to do so obviously its individualistic!" (Which I hear disturbingly often from leftists who think insurrectionary individualist aesthetic is cool so they try to incorporate it with leftism- which fundamentally doesn't work). Some individualists (including me in the past) try to say that it wasn't true individualism, but really what is true or not true is only determined by what its material effect is and what its real-world form is.

Anyway, I don't wanna get any more off topic so I should prolly stop now.

[Raquin]

It is neither preferable nor possible to abolish gender.

[BIXX]

It is neither preferable nor possible to abolish gender.
What an insightful and informative post.

Justify your statement.


I personally do not claim to know whether or not its possible, just that I think it'd be better for me.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Gender roles are certainly constructs, and should be abolished. The question is whether gender itself is. People seem to have an innate sense of their own gender (though most cis people are unaware that they have this sense). Many trans people knew as very young children that the gender assigned to them was wrong, for example.

[TC]

Sex is biological, gender is the social recognition and construction of people according to sex, gender roles and norms are those social expectations and institutions that are associated with (and to an extent imposed on) people according to gender.

Gender abolitionism does not really make sense because biological sex is socially relevant because it is relevant to reproduction and sexual preference. We might instead seek to abolish gender roles and norms and achieve gender equality.

[BIXX]

Sex is biological, gender is the social recognition and construction of people according to sex, gender roles and norms are those social expectations and institutions that are associated with (and to an extent imposed on) people according to gender.

Gender abolitionism does not really make sense because biological sex is socially relevant because it is relevant to reproduction and sexual preference. We might instead seek to abolish gender roles and norms and achieve gender equality.
You're wrong.


Ok, it’s time for an education. *It’s not entirely your fault you’re utterly ignorant since the medical industrial complex AND the hatefilled society in which we all live both actively seek to reinforce the binary at any and all costs and purposefully keep people ill-informed and misinformed about the realities of biology. *But after I take valuable time out of my evening to educate you on how utterly biased and flawed the modern concept of “biological sex” is you no longer have an excuse and choosing to continue to cleave to your bullshit will officially become proof that you are nothing more than a bigotted asshole. *

So let’s take a look at some true facts courtesy of*Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling*who is a biologist and geneticist with a PhD, you know, a doctorate, in science, that thing you seem to be so obsessed with, that thing you seem to think is absolutely “objective” and always right all the time. *There are 5 specific measures of biological sex according to modern medical science. *

Chromosomes (men = XY, women = XX)Genitalia (men = penis, women = vulva and vagina)Gonads (men = testes, women = ovaries)Hormones (men = high testosterone, low estrogen, low progesterone; women = high estrogen, high progesterone, low testosterone)Secondary Sex Characteristics (men = large amounts of dark, thick, coarse body hair, noticeable facial hair, low waist:hip ratio, no noticeable breast development, rough skin; women = fine, light colored body hair, no noticeable facial hair, high waist:hip ratio, noticeable breast development, smooth skin)

The thing is, in real life, very few people actually match up with all five categories. *There are, of course, genetic differences that account for a decent percentage of human births like XXY, XXX, XO, and XYY (apx 1:500 births though it could easily be more than that since we don’t do genetic testing for all people and even at that ratio if there are over 6 billion people in the world 1:500 means there are a whole lot of genetically intersex people out there) but it goes far beyond that. *There are people out there who have XX chromosomes, a vulva and vagina, ovaries, male secondary sex characteristics and male hormones patterns. *There are people out there who have XY chromosomes, a penis, testes, female secondary sex characteristics and female hormone patterns. *There are even people out there with XY chromosomes, testes, a vulva, a vagina, female secondary sex characteristics, and male hormone patterns*and*there are even people with BOTH male*and*female secondary sex characteristics at the same time and people with BOTH male*and*female hormone patterns*at the same timeregardless of their genes,*gonads, and*genitalia* *

And the thing is those people, the people with the “opposite” and/or “blended” secondary sex characteristics and “opposite” and/or “blended” hormone patterns are technically intersex assuming that the two sex system is absolutely true all the time. *If there are only two sexes and there can only ever be two sexes and that’s it then all those hairy women and all those men with breasts and all those men with no noticeable body or facial hair and all those women with massive muscles and all that testosterone don’t actually count as “real” women/men and they are treated by the medical industrial complex and society alike as freaks, as anomalies, or as though they don’t actually exist because their*existence*breaks up the binary. *In order for the binary to exist, to be real, all people everywhere must necessarily match up on all 5 markers of sex all the time. *That’s not what happens in real life. *In real life literally*millions*of people have bodies that are in some way contrary to the biological concept of the two sex system. *Millions.

Millions.

And since there are millions of people out there who’s very*existence*defies the biological concept of a two sex system we have legitimate proof that the concept of biological sex is a social construct. *Biological sex is a social construct. *BIOLOGICAL SEX IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. Seriously,biological sex is a social construct. *It’s not real. *It’s*NOT*something that is objective or unbiased or “natural.” *The concept of biological sex is just as biased, UNobjective, and utterly flawed as the concept of gender is. *Humans created biological sex just like they invented everything else. *It’s a category that humans created and as such cannot be objective, can only be biased. *It’s a category that humans created so they could categorize and control the world around them and when they started to discover people that didn’t fit into their idea of the way the category should function, when they started to discover trans* and intersex people they decided to hide those people, to erase those people, to ignore those people, to murder, destroy, pathologize, lock up, mutilate, and deny the very*existence*of those people. *Rather than simply admit that the categories are wrong, are flawed, aren’t even real they chose instead to rigidly reinforce those categories at all costs even when the cost is the lives and well-beings of people.

So the next time you sit there and claim that biological sex is a real thing, is an objective thing, is an unbiased, immutable, unchanging, innate, natural thing remember that you are actively contributing to the persecution of every single person on this planet who doesn’t “fit” the way they’re “supposed” to. *Remember that and think about what you’re doing. *Remember that and think about the fact that trans* people and intersex people are PEOPLE, people who deserve the same rights and respect that all people deserve. *Remember that biologcal sex isn’t even real, that the only reason you’re a woman and he’s a man is because some person somewhere arbitrarily decided to create the two sex system, a system that’s not real, has no basis in reality, a system that was socially constructed to help control people and their lives. *Every time you hate on trans* people and try to claim that trans* women aren’t really women or that trans* men aren’t really men you are doing the same thing all those other people have done to you. *You are*arbitrarily*creating socially constructed concepts and then using them to control people and their lives. *You are being oppressive, you are instituting, perpetuating, and exploiting a power inequity. *You are just as bad as all the patriarchal assholes you ***** about every single day of your life and, in fact, you are using*their system -*the system*they*created to oppress*you*- to oppress people in ways similar to the ways they’ve been oppressing you. *You are not better than them and it could be said that you’re actually worse since you know first hand how shitty it feels to be oppressed like that and you’re so unsympathetic and blind that you’re actually willing to do it to others.

I disagree with some of the terminology (saying a social construct isn't real is incorrect- a social construct exists, but in the same way as social structures- we made them up) used by this person (and they have kinda an annoying attitude) but their point is sound. Biological sex is just as much a social construct as gender.

[Illegalitarian]

Yeah, no, just because there are intersex people does not mean that sex isn't biological (not a social construct), it just means that there are people capable of being born out of the usual sex binary.

[consuming negativity]

the existence of intersex persons does not mean that biological sex does not exist or is otherwise a social construct

sure, the term itself is a social construct (as is all language) but the sexes themselves are grounded in biology... hence the term "biological sex".

also, that person's their waving around of someone else's credentials pretty much confirms that they don't know what they're talking about.

[Sabot Cat]

To communer and Illegalitarian: I'm curious what these non-constructed biological sexes are then, and how they're defined.

[Illegalitarian]

Male and Female are biological sexes defined by concrete, easily definable traits (genitals, chromosomes, hormones etc etc) , and are not social constructs.

Intersex is just as biological as either of these, it's the gender aspect here that is the social construct.

[Sinister Intents]

I have a penis, but I'd much rather have a vagina, and I'd also like to accurately express myself without risk of violence or verbal torment. I can see how gender is socially constructed and one can look very nearby into advertising to see what defines gender based on social constructions. I fully agree with Danielle in what she said: "Let a thousand genders bloom." Gender doesn't have to be someone's fetters, gender can most certainly be their personal expression, an expression of who they are without boxing themselves up.

[consuming negativity]

To communer and Illegalitarian: I'm curious what these non-constructed biological sexes are then, and how they're defined.

okay.png

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/sexual-orientation-gender/female-male-intersex

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+sex

[Redistribute the Rep]

It would be wrong to say biological sex is socially constructed, maybe they meant that the binary is socially constructed. Sex has its basis in biology, but the existence and prevalence of intersex individuals contradicts the idea of there being only 2 biological sexes.

[BIXX]

Sex itself is just a legitimizing force to define and contain. We have people who so obviously cannot be categorized so easily so we sweep them under the "intersex" rug, an "other" category. Sex itself is a construction for legitimizing gender. It even has the ability to be "seen". But what makes it a social construction has every bit to do with how we use it, more than the fact that we can see it.

[Sabot Cat]

I guess if I were to use a metaphor, biological sex is like race. Race is based on real, physical characteristics, as there is indeed differing levels of pigmentation in people's skin. But even if we question the legitimacy of say a white/'colored' dichotomy, and say there's a racial spectrum of sorts or that there are interracial or biracial people, it doesn't do anything to resolve the arbitrary nature of racial categories. Why is the presence of melanin so important? Why not categorize people by the color of their eyes instead, or by their heights? On the same token, there are different genital shapes and chromosomes, but the clumsy classification system around these various traits isn't any more non-constructed than race is.

[Illegalitarian]

But that is to say the social relations and the way we look at sex is a social construct, not biological sex itself with is irrefutably not just a social construct.

[Sabot Cat]

But that is to say the social relations and the way we look at sex is a social construct, not biological sex itself with is irrefutably not just a social construct.

There's nothing more to biological sex than an imprecisely constructed classification system.

[TheAntiReactionary]

I'd say doing away with gender identity just seems like too much unnecessary work. Quite honestly I'd much rather be referred to as "he" or "him" than be called something like "they" or "them" as a gender-neutral pronoun. If someone wanted that for themselves, I'd see no problem.

[BIXX]

When someone says "biological sex" they are almost 100% of the time trying to prove that a trans person isn't REALLY trans. That is what I believe the person I was quoting was trying to say. Albeit they did some things poorly, but that is the way their argument was intended.


But that is to say the social relations and the way we look at sex is a social construct, not biological sex itself with is irrefutably not just a social construct.
That's all that really matters though.

[Hexen]

What about abolishing gender binaries?

[consuming negativity]

all of our words are just meaningless gibberish that we all agree means X so that we can talk about things and actually make sense to each other

sure, you can say that biological sex is just a social construct... in the same way you can say that the color red is a social construct

and, in fact, if you go around the world to different places and talk to people from different cultures, you will find that some of them are unable to see some colors or have the same name for multiple colors or on the contrary have multiple names for colors that we cannot differentiate

that these things are cultural does not mean that they don't exist in reality.

that intersex is a blanket term for "non-binary" does not mean that there are not males and females who fall into our binary. not just among humans but among almost all living organisms, including plants and the rest. your explanations are plausible, and yes, biological sex is often misused to shit on trans people, but that your explanations are plausible doesn't mean they're not wrong.

[Tim Cornelis]

There's nothing more to biological sex than an imprecisely constructed classification system.

How are they "imprecise"? I imagine that then all biological classification is imprecise, genus, family, species, phylum, order, etc.

[Sabot Cat]

How are they "imprecise"? I imagine that then all biological classification is imprecise, genus, family, species, phylum, order, etc.

Yes, those are all imprecise and constructed classification systems as well.

[Illegalitarian]

There's nothing more to biological sex than an imprecisely constructed classification system.

And, you know, the very tangible, real aspects of biological sex that exist, which is the reason those classification systems came to be (not sure why you think they're imprecise)


When you said "biological sex" is a social construct you're specifically talking about the way we perceive it, not sex itself. This is why terms such as "gender abolitionism" and "race abolitionism" are problematic.


It is the abolition of how these things are treated and perceived by our society, no the things themselves, that is being sought, the latter being an impossibility.



When someone says "biological sex" they are almost 100% of the time trying to prove that a trans person isn't REALLY trans.

That has literally never been my experience. On the contrary, when I hear this term, most of the time it's being used by people to describe what transgender means to those who do not "get" it./

[Sabot Cat]

And, you know, the very tangible, real aspects of biological sex that exist, which is the reason those classification systems came to be (not sure why you think they're imprecise)

They're imprecise because they put chromosomes, hormones, genital shape, et. al. in one basket.

[qupte]When you said "biological sex" is a social construct you're specifically talking about the way we perceive it, not sex itself. This is why terms such as "gender abolitionism" and "race abolitionism" are problematic. [/quote]

I never claimed it a 'social' construct; however, it is indeed a construct and 'sex itself' is not an object, or a physical attribute, but an imprecise pattern about the aforesaid.


It is the abolition of how these things are treated and perceived by our society, no the things themselves, that is being sought, the latter being an impossibility.

Gender is not biological sex; this thread is not about biological sex.


That has literally never been my experience. On the contrary, when I hear this term, most of the time it's being used by people to describe what transgender means to those who do not "get" it./

If we're using anecdotes as evidence, I've only heard this in a discrediting or undermining fashion.

[Sabot Cat]

Male and Female are biological sexes defined by concrete, easily definable traits (genitals, chromosomes, hormones etc etc) , and are not social constructs.

Intersex is just as biological as either of these, it's the gender aspect here that is the social construct.

Female and male are also genders, not defined by any of these things.

[BIXX]

Sex, gender, race, all of it only exists in as much as we perceive it. Meaning the idea of sex, gender or race only matters in its social effects- specifically, domestication.

I do disagree slightly with sabot cat. I think that the classification is (for the most part) very specific. I just think that they were used to domesticate people (arguably some early people had no conception of sex or gender, I doubt race was really considered a thing either). That's what sex, gender etc are. Of course we say sex has a basis in biology- that's what we constructed from. Same with race. Gender I'm turn was built off of the sexual dichotomy created from the sex construct.

I'm gonna turn to a somewhat inaccurate comparison. So, imagine the trees and the rocks and whatnot as the physical things we use to show biological sex. Sex, though, is the houses and cities we build out of those trees and rocks and whatnot. Sex is build out of existing materials, but that does not mean it isn't our creation which was used to domesticate.

From an exchange between SI and I:



I feel like I'd express my thoughts better if I weren't so fucked up, but how could I just improve what I'm trying to say in that gender can be so much more than a box
I understand what you're trying to say I believe- that gender can be an avenue for individual self expression.

The problem with that as I see it is that gender can only appear liberatory when one is already domesticated. Think about a domesticated animal, specifically a dogs collar. When they aren't domesticated they get pissed when you try to put a collar on them, but once they are domesticated they love that collar. That collar becomes the means of being happy- one might even say it gives them an identity. That's how I feel about gender.

If you do not mind I'm going to post this exchange in the thread.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The problem with that as I see it is that gender can only appear liberatory when one is already domesticated.
The domestication is in gender roles tied to a sex binary, not in gender itself.

[BIXX]

The domestication is in gender roles tied to a sex binary, not in gender itself.
No, it is in defining (and thus being able to contain).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

No, it is in defining (and thus being able to contain).
That's defining gender roles and tying them to a sex binary. Comparing gender to a dog with a collar is kinda offensive to me as a trans woman. Defining my gender for myself was liberatory.

[BIXX]

That's defining gender roles and tying them to a sex binary.

No... Its about defining individuals. Has nothing to do with the sex binary (other than its birth in sex). Gender itself cannot exist without its roles (in fact gender is role-based) or else it would be entirely meaningless and we wouldn't be discussing it.

I could be explaining it poorly, too. But my point relates primarily to this: the fact that gender itself, being used to define us, makes us intelligible, which leads fundamentally to society's ability to recuperate, annihilate, or assimilate us. To make us fit within civilization's narrative, even if the narrative has to change a bit. Instead I think the goal ought to be total refusal of defining of us so as to avoid the capture of our bodies within civilized life.

When I say gender is its gender roles, I'm saying that without the roles associated with, for example, man and woman, those distinctions wouldn't exist any further than what body parts we have. Gender itself is the outgrowth, the roles we fill.


Comparing gender to a dog with a collar is kinda offensive to me as a trans woman. Defining my gender for myself was liberatory.

Its intended to be offensive to all people who accept gender. Period. Its like the comparison a lot of people have made here in regards to economics and saying that people have grown to love their chains. Its all the same concept.

I accept that within the context of capitalism/civilization having a collar that fits you better is pretty great, however, so congratulations on finding a way to make this shit more bearable. And I actually mean that- I am happy that it works for you.

However I'm not gonna pretend that strikes against civilization or domestication. Just like changing a collar won't remove the collar, or living in a cleaner cage won't attack the cage itself. But life sure can be easier/better, and I won't fault someone for doing that.

Another thought regarding the actual ability to abolish gender: it may be impossible. I don't know. Abolishing gender I think would strike at civilization but I doubt that one could abolish gender within the context of civilization. So perhaps it is impossible. However for certain individuals this is possible for while they may lead lives in a gendered world they lead non-gendered existences.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Instead I think the goal ought to be total refusal of defining of us so as to avoid the capture of our bodies within civilized life.
Is that some kind of primitivist nonsense?


Its intended to be offensive to all people who accept gender. Period. Its like the comparison a lot of people have made here in regards to economics and saying that people have grown to love their chains. Its all the same concept.
No, it fucking isn't. It's you being transphobic, and trying to dress it up with word salad about "avoid[ing] the capture of our bodies within civilized life."


I accept that within the context of capitalism/civilization having a collar that fits you better is pretty great, however, so congratulations on finding a way to make this shit more bearable. And I actually mean that- I am happy that it works for you.
Dude, do you even realize how condescending you even sound right now?

[Fakeblock]

With regard to to the discussion about sex, pointing out that it is a 'construct' is merely pointing out the obvious fact that it is a concept (all concepts are abstractions - 'the concept of dog doesn't bark.. the idea of a circle isn't round'). Sex, though, is a very important concept in the biology of, not just humans, but most plants and animals, so seeing it merely as a 'legitimizing force' for gender is very simplistic.

[Sabot Cat]

I have to question dirty doxxer's conceit that gender is necessarily dependent upon gender roles, or it's meaningless. The act of declaring oneself as a certain gender, and thus requesting the use of certain pronouns and words associated with that gender [e.g. she, her, etc.], is both a substantive act of affiliation and something that doesn't fall within the confines of limiting, gender-based proscribed behaviors. One can adopt all manner of 'male' gender roles and still be a woman if one identifies as such, and vice versa.

[BIXX]

Is that some kind of primitivist nonsense?
No, its queer nihilism.


No, it fucking isn't. It's you being transphobic, and trying to dress it up with word salad about "avoid[ing] the capture of our bodies within civilized life."
Well, actually its the same argument just applied to gender. People do love their chains. In fact I take that people are upset with the very idea of questioning gender as being evidence that they love their chains so damn much. Then again I shouldn't really expect better from leftists, who devote their entire existence to a more and more domesticated existence.


Dude, do you even realize how condescending you even sound right now?
I was honestly afraid it would sound condescending if I just was like " I'm happy for you" so I tried to flesh out that I really am. But whatever.

You seem to have closed your ears to anything I have to say, so unless something you says intrigues me I'm done replying to you.


I have to question dirty doxxer's conceit that gender is necessarily dependent upon gender roles, or it's meaningless. The act of declaring oneself as a certain gender, and thus requesting the use of certain pronouns and words associated with that gender [e.g. she, her, etc.], is both a substantive act of affiliation and something that doesn't fall within the confines of limiting, gender-based proscribed behaviors. One can adopt all manner of 'male' gender roles and still be a woman if one identifies as such, and vice versa.

Now this is interesting.

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "a substantive act of affiliation" (was it intended to mean that it is legitimate to identify as any gender? Meaning a person with a penis identifying as a woman? If that kind of thing is what you meant I agree, but really I doubt that whatever you meant by this is something I disagree with, also I don't it was the main point of your post.), would you mind explaining?


something that doesn't fall within the confines of limiting, gender-based proscribed behaviors. One can adopt all manner of 'male' gender roles and still be a woman if one identifies as such, and vice versa.

I agree with the bolded sentence. However, this leaves us with a question: how is it that one recognizes oneself as a man or a woman or any other gender if those genders do not prescribe certain qualities that give us an internalized ruberic for defining oneself with gender? Is there an essential "woman-ness", "man-ness", etc that is separate from the roles (major and minor) played by those genders? What about one gender makes it right for us while others are not? I can see wanting a different body (I personally actually want a different body- however there are certain things that keep me from taking the necessary steps to have that body), however I think that most of the desire for another body has to do with the social implications of that body, or rather, the social role that body is seen as playing. That's how I feel about gender- one feels that they match that social role better, deep inside. Those social roles or the feeling of fitting those roles may not be obvious- hell, they may not be identifiable at all. But that is the only way I can see gender being selected and/or existing: within a set of socialized roles. So until I discover another mechanism by which someone is able to recognize themselves as this or that gender I have to say that gender is necessarily dependent on gender roles.

[Sabot Cat]

Now this is interesting.

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "a substantive act of affiliation" (was it intended to mean that it is legitimate to identify as any gender? Meaning a person with a penis identifying as a woman? If that kind of thing is what you meant I agree, but really I doubt that whatever you meant by this is something I disagree with, also I don't it was the main point of your post.), would you mind explaining?

I mean that the mere act of saying "I am a woman" or something to that effect is substantial, and not content-less, as I thought you were asserting in favor of a thesis that suggests gender identity is dependent upon adherence to gender roles.


I agree with the bolded sentence. However, this leaves us with a question: how is it that one recognizes oneself as a man or a woman or any other gender if those genders do not prescribe certain qualities that give us an internalized ruberic for defining oneself with gender? Is there an essential "woman-ness", "man-ness", etc that is separate from the roles (major and minor) played by those genders?

Yes; womanhood and manhood, in of themselves, are not dependent upon gender roles to be meaningful.


What about one gender makes it right for us while others are not? I can see wanting a different body (I personally actually want a different body- however there are certain things that keep me from taking the necessary steps to have that body), however I think that most of the desire for another body has to do with the social implications of that body, or rather, the social role that body is seen as playing. That's how I feel about gender- one feels that they match that social role better, deep inside. Those social roles or the feeling of fitting those roles may not be obvious- hell, they may not be identifiable at all. But that is the only way I can see gender being selected and/or existing: within a set of socialized roles. So until I discover another mechanism by which someone is able to recognize themselves as this or that gender I have to say that gender is necessarily dependent on gender roles.

Your hypothesis that what compels one to associate with one gender or another is somehow predicated upon what social roles they feel they're better suited for is unfalsifiable- and this evasion of a scientific standard of proof is evident with the language accompanying it; that these desires for these social roles are 'deep inside', that they 'may not be identifiable at all'. It's a similar problem that Freudian psychoanalysis most confront itself with in its various claims about the human psyche.

You try to shore up the lack of possible empirical support by claiming that there are no other competing theories with equal or greater explanatory power, but this is questionable as well. I think that a biological cause for gender affiliation in of itself is more defensible, especially when we examine the etiology of gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is characterized by persistent depressive feelings, up to and often including suicidal idealizations, that comes with being perceived as or living as the gender that one was assigned to at birth. Gender dysphoria is 62% heritable [1], associated with certain genes, including those involved in steroidogenesis and hormone production [2][3]. Furthermore, trans men have bed nucleus of the stria terminalis size consistent with cis men, and trans women have a BSTc that is consistent with cis women. [4] Follow up research has confirmed that the presence of gender dysphoria is associated with neurological dimorphism consistent with those of cis subjects of the trans person's gender, [5][6] with similar results in regards to the size of the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus [7] and gray matter [8]. [Also, these studies control for hormone usage.]

Perhaps these biological differences cause certain innate desires for certain gender roles, but this is an unnecessary additional claim without support. I believe that the most parsimonious theory, based upon the above evidence, is that what gender one identifies as is determined not by deep, inscrutable desires for certain social roles, but neurological features that determines satisfaction with one's birth-assigned gender, and one's gender identification itself.

Sources

[1] Coolidge, F; Thede, L; Young, S (4 April 2002). "The Heritability of Gender Identity Disorder in a Child and Adolescent Twin Sample". Behavior Genetics 32 (4): 251–257.

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402034/

[3] Bentz, E; Hefler, L; Kaufmann, U; Huber, J; Kolbus, A; Tempfer, C (2008). "A polymorphism of the CYP17 gene related to sex steroid metabolism is associated with female-to-male but not male-to-female transsexualism". Fertility and Sterility 90 (1): 56–9.

[4] Zhou, Jiang-Ning; Hofman, Michel A.; Gooren, Louis J. G.; Swaab, Dick F. (1995). "A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality". Nature 378 (6552): 68–70.

[5] Gooren, L (2006). "The biology of human psychosexual differentiation". Hormones and behavior 50 (4): 589–601.

[6] Swaab, DF (2004). "Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation". Gynecological Endocrinology 19 (6): 301–12.

[7] Garcia-Falgueras, A.; Swaab, D. F. (2008). "A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity". Brain 131 (Pt 12): 3132–46.

[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754583/

[BIXX]

I mean that the mere act of saying "I am a woman" or something to that effect is substantial, and not content-less, as I thought you were asserting in favor of a thesis that suggests gender identity is dependent upon adherence to gender roles.
Ah, no, that's wasn't what I'm asserting.


Yes; womanhood and manhood, in of themselves, are not dependent upon gender roles to be meaningful.
Would you mind explaining what womanhood and manhood are then, separated from the social roles we ascribe to them?


Your hypothesis that what compels one to associate with one gender or another is somehow predicated upon what social roles they feel they're better suited for is unfalsifiable- and this evasion of a scientific standard of proof is evident with the language accompanying it; that these desires for these social roles are 'deep inside', that they 'may not be identifiable at all'. It's a similar problem that Freudian psychoanalysis most confront itself with in its various claims about the human psyche.
Well I think you helped me find part of a scientific base that would serve to confirm what I'm saying.


You try to shore up the lack of possible empirical support by claiming that there are no other competing theories with equal or greater explanatory power, but this is questionable as well. I think that a biological cause for gender affiliation in of itself is more defensible, especially when we examine the etiology of gender dysphoria.
I did not mean to claim that there was no other competing theories with equal or greater explanatory power, rather that I was aware of none.


Gender dysphoria is characterized by persistent depressive feelings, up to and often including suicidal idealizations, that comes with being perceived as or living as the gender that one was assigned to at birth. Gender dysphoria is 62% heritable [1], associated with certain genes, including those involved in steroidogenesis and hormone production [2][3]. Furthermore, trans men have bed nucleus of the stria terminalis size consistent with cis men, and trans women have a BSTc that is consistent with cis women. [4] Follow up research has confirmed that the presence of gender dysphoria is associated with neurological dimorphism consistent with those of cis subjects of the trans person's gender, [5][6] with similar results in regards to the size of the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus [7] and gray matter [8]. [Also, these studies control for hormone usage.]
I know all of that. I don't know why I didn't connect it to what I said before.

Summed up here:


Perhaps these biological differences cause certain innate desires for certain gender roles, but this is an unnecessary additional claim without support.
Other than the "but this is an unnecessary additional claim without support." I think perhaps this would be correct, unless we can identify a manhood and womanhood separate from social roles.

What are the possibilities for these things?

Are we to say that gender is these biological things, brain structure and hormones? In that case, what is manhood and womanhood? Is it having those biological characteristics? Furthermore, what is the meaning of identifying as this or that instead of simply being? I mean, there are a lot of unanswered questions. One of the first would be why does the identification matter when abolition of gender would simply allow one to just be, act how they wish regardless of gender or sex or whatever?

[Illegalitarian]

With regard to to the discussion about sex, pointing out that it is a 'construct' is merely pointing out the obvious fact that it is a concept (all concepts are abstractions - 'the concept of dog doesn't bark.. the idea of a circle isn't round'). Sex, though, is a very important concept in the biology of, not just humans, but most plants and animals, so seeing it merely as a 'legitimizing force' for gender is very simplistic.

This is what I've been trying to say. It's simply false to claim that sex is not a biological concept, as opposed to gender and race which are almost entirely social and have an extremely nil if any connection to biology, genetics or what have you

[BIXX]

I'm sorry if my reply wasn't any good I had to clock into work so I was rushing.

[Sabot Cat]

Other than the "but this is an unnecessary additional claim without support." I think perhaps this would be correct, unless we can identify a manhood and womanhood separate from social roles.

The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that they are separate, but for you to prove they aren't, a claim which again, has no observable support but quite a lot against. This includes the fact- which you agreed with- that someone can be of a certain gender without falling in line with proscribed gender roles. Not to mention how these roles change by historical epoch and location, although gender usually stays constant.

How can we say either, that a trans person associates with a certain gender because they somehow deep inside want those gender roles, when there's nothing in favor of that etiology of gender dysphoria? It's not parsimonious to assert such a theory.


Would you mind explaining what womanhood and manhood are then, separated from the social roles we ascribe to them? [...] Are we to say that gender is these biological things, brain structure and hormones? In that case, what is manhood and womanhood? Is it having those biological characteristics? Furthermore, what is the meaning of identifying as this or that instead of simply being? I mean, there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Womanhood is the quality of identifying oneself with the community of people who identify themselves similarly; manhood is the quality of identifying oneself with the community of people who identify themselves similarly. The difference lies in the people who belong to these communities, and the words we use to describe them.


One of the first would be why does the identification matter when abolition of gender would simply allow one to just be, act how they wish regardless of gender or sex or whatever?

Identifying with a certain gender does not necessarily limit one's ability to act how they wish. I don't see gender abolitionism as bad or anything, I just don't agree with you that gender is this set of gender roles.


I'm sorry if my reply wasn't any good I had to clock into work so I was rushing.

It's all good; I think you articulated your position well- yet I still disagree.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You seem to have closed your ears to anything I have to say, so unless something you says intrigues me I'm done replying to you.
When you tell a trans person that they're the equivalent of a dog wearing a collar, you really expect them to be receptive to you? And when said trans person challenges you, you tell them you're just going to ignore them from now on? Thanks for making me feel marginalized even on a leftist forum.

[BIXX]

The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that they are separate, but for you to prove they aren't, a claim which again, has no observable support but quite a lot against. This includes the fact- which you agreed with- that someone can be of a certain gender without falling in line with prescribed gender roles. Not to mention how these roles change by historical epoch and location, although gender usually stays constant.
I think perhaps I misstated my position or something earlier. I guess I said it for simplification then got to stuck in trying to defend the incorrect simplification. What I should have said is that gender only exists (meaningfully)in the context of gender roles, and that gender roles can only exist as long as gender exists. For example, with the total abolition of gender roles we lose the content, the meaning behind calling oneself a woman or man, socially (which, by the way, is all I'm concerned with- anything else is irrelevant to revolt). In that way one might see that gender (in any meaningful way) is inexorably tied to gender roles.


How can we say either, that a trans person associates with a certain gender because they somehow deep inside want those gender roles, when there's nothing in favor of that etiology of gender dysphoria? It's not parsimonious to assert such a theory.
Then how else would one determine ones own gender without the reference point of gender roles? I know you have the biological side, but what about that makes them want to be a certain gender without the context of that gender's role?
You may say that they use the other individuals who identify in other ways as context, but what about those individuals? Is it their body parts? We can see that ain't true because there are many folks who don't match the body parts that are traditionally ascribed to their gender. Maybe their brain chemistry? But then how would the individual be able to detect that when choosing a gender? The most plausible one to me would be some sort of scent or something similar- but even that strikes me as strange, as I am absolutely positive there are trans folks who have a scent that doesn't match their gender. The only identifiable thing I am aware of is, once again, social roles. But, I wonder if there is something else I am unaware of.


Womanhood is the quality of identifying oneself with the community of people who identify themselves similarly; manhood is the quality of identifying oneself with the community of people who identify themselves similarly. The difference lies in the people who belong to these communities, and the words we use to describe them.
What is the difference other than social roles and the various biological differences between men and women that is detectable just by observing the person? Again, can't be body parts cause there are trans folks without the body parts associated with their gender.

What is the real difference between them?


Identifying with a certain gender does not necessarily limit one's ability to act how they wish. I don't see gender abolitionism as bad or anything, I just don't agree with you that gender is this set of gender roles.
Out of curiosity I wonder how you think of gender abolition?


It's all good. :)

I think you articulated your position well- yet I still disagree.
Thank you for having actual discourse with me. That's helpful.

I want you to keep I'm mind when I'm asking the questions about the difference between man and woman that I'm not only trying to prove something, I am genuinely curious.


When you tell a trans person that they're the equivalent of a dog wearing a collar, you really expect them to be receptive to you? And when said trans person challenges you, you tell them you're just going to ignore them from now on? Thanks for making me feel marginalized even on a leftist forum.
All domesticated people are the equivalent of a dog wearing a collar. Not just trans folks. And furthermore, having a collar that isn't a god damn choke chain is a good thing, but once again, I can't see it as any successful strike against civilized being (but it certainly makes your life better within a bullshit system which I am totally OK). I don't really care if you're receptive to me, as this is the internet where nothing really matters. But when it comes to real life I've had this discussion respectfully with trans and cis folks, who are willing to actually engage with me when they disagree, rather than provide absolutely no real argument and just hurl transphobia at me. That's why I'm not willing to listen to you. I'm not gonna have a one way conversation where I'm expected to be receptive while the other will not. So yeah fuck your shit. However, if you're willing to actually discuss in a useful way I'd be very happy (perhaps you'll start by answering my questions about the observable difference between men and women).

[consuming negativity]

What about one gender makes it right for us while others are not? I can see wanting a different body (I personally actually want a different body- however there are certain things that keep me from taking the necessary steps to have that body), however I think that most of the desire for another body has to do with the social implications of that body, or rather, the social role that body is seen as playing.I actually agree with this entirely.

Gender is social. Our gender identities are informed by the give-and-take between ourselves, the people around us, and the generalized other that they form in our minds. People feel like they are a certain gender in the same way that we feel guilty if we do something wrong; the feelings are real, legitimate, and should not be dismissed as "dog collars". As a person who struggled with gender identity, and sometimes still has questions to answer about it, it makes a lot of sense to me to put things this way. I've found that a lot of the reason for my identity issues is because I associate masculinity - as a man myself - with abusive behavior, ignorance, and fear. That's completely socialized and not at all inherent to me. But it is a reflection and I am the mirror. And I don't think that that's something you can take away or just remove from us. Gender exists for a reason and it serves a specific purpose, even if it has been co-opted, distorted, and obfuscated by our own psychological insecurities. When it comes to this part, you're just wrong.

The other thing you're wrong about is your insistence that this is the internet and so you have free reign to be a jackass to people who are attempting to engage in an intellectual discussion about a topic that is very sensitive to them. I'm really not trying to call you out here, but seriously, trying to deliberately offend people is a surefire way to make sure that they will be (at the least) hesitant to consider your points. Since you desire intellectual discussion, I'd wager to say you actually do want people to be receptive to your arguments without just dismissing you, and so rationally the only choice you can make here is to treat people with respect.

[Sabot Cat]

I think perhaps I misstated my position or something earlier. I guess I said it for simplification then got to stuck in trying to defend the incorrect simplification. What I should have said is that gender only exists (meaningfully)in the context of gender roles, and that gender roles can only exist as long as gender exists. For example, with the total abolition of gender roles we lose the content, the meaning behind calling oneself a woman or man, socially (which, by the way, is all I'm concerned with- anything else is irrelevant to revolt). In that way one might see that gender (in any meaningful way) is inexorably tied to gender roles.

I don't think you misstated your position- this is pretty much how I understood it, which is why I suggested that the act of gender identification in of itself is meaningful, outside the context of proscribed behaviors based upon gender.


Then how else would one determine ones own gender without the reference point of gender roles? I know you have the biological side, but what about that makes them want to be a certain gender without the context of that gender's role?

You may say that they use the other individuals who identify in other ways as context, but what about those individuals? Is it their body parts? We can see that ain't true because there are many folks who don't match the body parts that are traditionally ascribed to their gender. Maybe their brain chemistry? But then how would the individual be able to detect that when choosing a gender?

The presence or absence of gender dysphoria allows an individual determine whether or not their birth-assigned gender is sufficient, and can help one navigate which gender is best suited to that person. There is no evident dependence on a desire for certain gender roles in this.


The most plausible one to me would be some sort of scent or something similar- but even that strikes me as strange, as I am absolutely positive there are trans folks who have a scent that doesn't match their gender. The only identifiable thing I am aware of is, once again, social roles. But, I wonder if there is something else I am unaware of.

The defining trait of a gender community is that all of the individuals therein identify themselves as members of it, and what compels a person to do this is, again, the presence or absence of gender dysphoria in making this association.

There's even a flip side to this that I've felt sometimes: gender euphoria. It makes me happy when people genuinely recognize and respect my womanhood, or when I feel I'm included with my gender.


What is the difference other than social roles and the various biological differences between men and women that is detectable just by observing the person? Again, can't be body parts cause there are trans folks without the body parts associated with their gender.

This is an interesting question: what are the observable differences between people of a certain gender? In addition to its existence as a neurological phenomena, gender is also a semiotic system, a point I think you've been broaching by stating that it's inextricably defined by gender roles.

It is true that superficial evaluations of gender are reliant upon certain presentation choices, which indeed act as regiment of proscribed behaviors consistent with the concept of 'gender roles'. This has various dimensions, including one's hair and clothing, as well as involuntary indicators that are a result of some conflating gender and sex, such as body shape or facial structure. It goes to symbols and colors [e.g. ♀ ♂], names, and also descriptive terms that derive from identification itself. Genders can be created with new sets of recognized symbols of identification, 'third' genders [III?], which give more latitude for one to navigate their biologically driven, introspective feelings on gender.

Is the presence of symbols, even proscribed visual choices, necessarily limiting in a meaningful sense? Well, it certainly can be when combined with a system of gender-based oppression, and when the presence of certain indicators are used to delegitimatize people's genders. However, having a set of visual indicators that are typically associated with a person's gender but not enforced against others is not an oppressive system on its own, and the mere act of identification through words even less so. It's also important to note that the gender expression is not the same thing as gender identity, and that the visual indicators of gender are not what gender is.


Out of curiosity I wonder how you think of gender abolition?


I think that there are some convincing supporting arguments. One could very well argue that the existence of any division will cause people to take sides, and compete against one another on the basis of those sides. And it is true that patriarchy is reliant on the existence of genders for its oppressive regime to function.

Nonetheless, I think the moment that gender abolition is possible, it wouldn't be necessary. By which I mean, in order to have an effective program of gender abolition, you have to have extraordinary powers to both alter the biological causes of gender dysphoria and identification in people, as well as the cultural clout to reverse the extremely old cultural momentum of gender itself, or have sufficient majorities of people willing to do this voluntarily.

I think at that point, either you have most people so dedicated to the cause of gender equality that they're willing to abolish it- suggesting that such isn't really necessary for them then on the basis of promoting equality- or society would have to be technologically and economically post-scarcity in terms of the means of survival, that is, a future communist society. And in such a society, the life-or-death struggle for resources that plagues capitalism and plagued feudalism or the like, and the division of labor necessitated by a civilization of scarcity, will be things of the past. Thus, the divisions of our society will no longer have as much of a hateful, destructive edge, and most gender-based animosity would have no reason to go beyond the type of conflicts you see between backers of different sports teams, video game consoles, music, films, et. al.

If scientists in such a society show that people will be better off with the abolition of gender, invaliding my hypothesis here, then sure, we should do it then. But I believe that we don't need to abolish gender any more than we need to abolish different languages, or other forms of expression. We just need to abolish the material circumstances which give rise to the destructive divisions of our capitalist society.



Thank you for having actual discourse with me. That's helpful.

I want you to keep I'm mind when I'm asking the questions about the difference between man and woman that I'm not only trying to prove something, I am genuinely curious.

I understand where Danielle Ni Dhighe is coming from though; such debates and rhetoric can often feel like an attack on our life-long struggles, or at least undermining their importance. Nonetheless, I genuinely think you aren't aiming to do that, and I think that our understandings of gender can be progressed with a conversation about it.

[Sinister Intents]

What do people do when gender somehow gets abolished? I think that its wishful thinking to want the whole of the idea of gender to be abolished, but rather the divisive aspects that are entirely socially constructed to box people up should be eliminated. I may not dress en femme very often, but I know I'm a woman and not a man, I know I have a gender and its not the one people automatically categorize me as. What needs to cease are the stereotypical views of gender, the sheer labelling of one group as the lesser that bears children and takes care of them, and the elimination of tge idea that one group is the bread winner and money maker with superior strength. What needs to die is the gender binary and stereotypical gender roles as well as other harmful and parasitic constructs. With the death of parasitism people will be able to express themselves the way they find most natural, let a thousands genders and other personal identifications bloom

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Sex is biological, gender is the social recognition and construction of people according to sex, gender roles and norms are those social expectations and institutions that are associated with (and to an extent imposed on) people according to gender.

Gender abolitionism does not really make sense because biological sex is socially relevant because it is relevant to reproduction and sexual preference. We might instead seek to abolish gender roles and norms and achieve gender equality.


so how does this differ from gender abolitionism?
isnt gender inequality based on the capitalist patriarchal social division of labour?
what is gender when removed from that context?

[Loony Le Fist]

Do you think gender roles and the status of gender as part of one's identity should be abolished?

Yes. It would allow us to get rid of all of the associated identities like homosexual, bisexual, transexual, etc. We should all be relating as human beings.

[Loony Le Fist]

What do people do when gender somehow gets abolished?

They stop associating the fact they might look a certain way with a particular gender. I also appreciate that it allows everyone to relate on a human-to-human level, instead of pre-categorizing others solely based on their basic appearances. Wouldn't you agree?


I think that its wishful thinking to want the whole of the idea of gender to be abolished, but rather the divisive aspects that are entirely socially constructed to box people up should be eliminated.
...


Well, wishful thinking is what we engage in as leftists. :grin:

[Sinister Intents]

I'd still identify the way I feel most accurate whether the label exists or not. Plus with language a lot of the more individualized constructions will persist in a more natural way IMO. I feel gender post capitalism will become nothing more than a personal thing rather than a box to put animals in. Rather I'd say gender will become an "I don't care if you're male, female, agender, et cetera n" kind of thing and people will treat each other as human rather than as a specific animal

[BIXX]

I actually agree with this entirely.

Gender is social. Our gender identities are informed by the give-and-take between ourselves, the people around us, and the generalized other that they form in our minds. People feel like they are a certain gender in the same way that we feel guilty if we do something wrong; the feelings are real, legitimate, and should not be dismissed as "dog collars". As a person who struggled with gender identity, and sometimes still has questions to answer about it, it makes a lot of sense to me to put things this way. I've found that a lot of the reason for my identity issues is because I associate masculinity - as a man myself - with abusive behavior, ignorance, and fear. That's completely socialized and not at all inherent to me. But it is a reflection and I am the mirror. And I don't think that that's something you can take away or just remove from us. Gender exists for a reason and it serves a specific purpose, even if it has been co-opted, distorted, and obfuscated by our own psychological insecurities. When it comes to this part, you're just wrong.
What exactly do you think the point of gender is? I would say its point is to ensnare us withing civilized logic, specifically reproductive futurism. Which is what gender roles then enforce. They preserve society- which I am opposed to. I suppose if the preservation of civilized existence is your goal then gender is chill but that is most definitely not my goal.


The other thing you're wrong about is your insistence that this is the internet and so you have free reign to be a jackass to people who are attempting to engage in an intellectual discussion about a topic that is very sensitive to them. I'm really not trying to call you out here, but seriously, trying to deliberately offend people is a surefire way to make sure that they will be (at the least) hesitant to consider your points. Since you desire intellectual discussion, I'd wager to say you actually do want people to be receptive to your arguments without just dismissing you, and so rationally the only choice you can make here is to treat people with respect.
Well, I was trying to treat people with respect but when someone decides that it isn't worth listening to I'm going to treat them differently. Perhaps this stems from a misunderstanding of what I meant with the dogs collar?


I don't think you misstated your position- this is pretty much how I understood it, which is why I suggested that the act of gender identification in of itself is meaningful, outside the context of proscribed behaviors based upon gender.
OK cool. I just guess I don't see them as opening up an avenue


The presence or absence of gender dysphoria allows an individual determine whether or not their birth-assigned gender is sufficient, and can help one navigate which gender is best suited to that person. There is no evident dependence on a desire for certain gender roles in this.
Then what, when seeking a gender, allows one's gender dysphoria to go away when they've found the right gender? What is it that makes them feel right? I attribute this to the role they play is society.


The defining trait of a gender community is that all of the individuals therein identify themselves as members of it, and what compels a person to do this is, again, the presence or absence of gender dysphoria in making this association.
Same question as above- what about a certain gender community allows one to no longer experience gender dysphoria?


There's even a flip side to this that I've felt sometimes: gender euphoria. It makes me happy when people genuinely recognize and respect my womanhood, or when I feel I'm included with my gender.
And that's social- people socially recognizing you as a woman. I know the feeling you're referring to, though, as a agendered person sometimes I just feel... Good, when folks recognize that.


This is an interesting question: what are the observable differences between people of a certain gender? In addition to its existence as a neurological phenomena, gender is also a semiotic system, a point I think you've been broaching by stating that it's inextricably defined by gender roles.
Him, this is something I hadn't considered before, and in fact would IMO be a good companion to the idea of the social roles defining gender, as symbols are only meaningful in a social context. They they are only valuable inasmuch as they reflect or effect society.

When gender is considered a domestication process this makes a lot of sense.


It is true that superficial evaluations of gender are reliant upon certain presentation choices, which indeed act as regiment of proscribed behaviors consistent with the concept of 'gender roles'. This has various dimensions, including one's hair and clothing, as well as involuntary indicators that are a result of some conflating gender and sex, such as body shape or facial structure. It goes to symbols and colors [e.g. ♀ ♂], names, and also descriptive terms that derive from identification itself. Genders can be created with new sets of recognized symbols of identification, 'third' genders [III?], which give more latitude for one to navigate their biologically driven, introspective feelings on gender.
This is 100% true. It (specifically the part I bolded) also supports my thoughts on gender being a domestication process.

New symbols are created to socialize the thing it symbolizes. They expose a relationship between that thing and society, allowing it to be recognized by society as something social, and thus integrating it into society. This is why I oppose gender. This process of domestication and integration into civilization, society.


Is the presence of symbols, even proscribed visual choices, necessarily limiting in a meaningful sense? Well, it certainly can be when combined with a system of gender-based oppression, and when the presence of certain indicators are used to delegitimatize people's genders. However, having a set of visual indicators that are typically associated with a person's gender but not enforced against others is not an oppressive system on its own, and the mere act of identification through words even less so. It's also important to note that the gender expression is not the same thing as gender identity, and that the visual indicators of gender are not what gender is.
As far as I know, no one here other than myself has given an answer as to what gender actually is. I did a cursory google search and came up with this:
"Gender*describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine." This I feel isn't very good, but it supports my idea that gender is a domestication process in that gender is about recognizing and categorizing someone. I'm not gonna do much more but I'm sure the search will find mostly shit like that.


I think that there are some convincing supporting arguments. One could very well argue that the existence of any division will cause people to take sides, and compete against one another on the basis of those sides. And it is true that patriarchy is reliant on the existence of genders for its oppressive regime to function.
Can't argue with that.


Nonetheless, I think the moment that gender abolition is possible, it wouldn't be necessary. By which I mean, in order to have an effective program of gender abolition, you have to have extraordinary powers to both alter the biological causes of gender dysphoria and identification in people, as well as the cultural clout to reverse the extremely old cultural momentum of gender itself, or have sufficient majorities of people willing to do this voluntarily.

I think at that point, either you have most people so dedicated to the cause of gender equality that they're willing to abolish it- suggesting that such isn't really necessary for them then on the basis of promoting equality- or society would have to be technologically and economically post-scarcity in terms of the means of survival, that is, a future communist society. And in such a society, the life-or-death struggle for resources that plagues capitalism and plagued feudalism or the like, and the division of labor necessitated by a civilization of scarcity, will be things of the past. Thus, the divisions of our society will no longer have as much of a hateful, destructive edge, and most gender-based animosity would have no reason to go beyond the type of conflicts you see between backers of different sports teams, video game consoles, music, films, et. al.
I don't really know or care about the possibility of destroying gender. That doesn't really, in my opinion, make an attempt destroying it less legitimate.


If scientists in such a society show that people will be better off with the abolition of gender, invaliding my hypothesis here, then sure, we should do it then. But I believe that we don't need to abolish gender any more than we need to abolish different languages, or other forms of expression. We just need to abolish the material circumstances which give rise to the destructive divisions of our capitalist society.
And see, I'm against society/civilization itself so referencing a future communist society that'll fix the problem doesn't really interest me. I also think its wrong.


I understand where Danielle Ni Dhighe is coming from though; such debates and rhetoric can often feel like an attack on our life-long struggles, or at least undermining their importance. Nonetheless, I genuinely think you aren't aiming to do that, and I think that our understandings of gender can be progressed with a conversation about it.
I understand their feeling, I'm just not interested in catering to people because of their feelings.


Yes. It would allow us to get rid of all of the associated identities like homosexual, bisexual, transexual, etc. We should all be relating as human beings.
A very good observation as well.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I don't really care if you're receptive to me, as this is the internet where nothing really matters.
What an anti-social attitude. The Internet is not an abstraction, there are actual people behind it all, behind the screen names--it's not apart from "real life", it's an extension of real life.


But when it comes to real life I've had this discussion respectfully with trans and cis folks, who are willing to actually engage with me when they disagreeMaybe you have, but comparing someone to an animal in a collar is not respectful. When you use fighting words, you can't act shocked when someone takes a swing at you, not in meat space and not on the Internet.


That's why I'm not willing to listen to you. I'm not gonna have a one way conversation where I'm expected to be receptive while the other will not.You expect me to eat shit (like being compared to an animal) and not complain about it, then you whine about how I'm not receptive to you? Stop insulting people and maybe they'll be more receptive to you.

I've been expected to eat shit all of my life, and I shouldn't be made to feel that way on a supposedly revolutionary forum. That's not how you show solidarity with members of marginalized groups.


So yeah fuck your shit.Again, you want me to be receptive to you, but you just keep flinging more shit at me.

[Illegalitarian]

So the gist of what some people here are saying is: Biological sex, while grounded in real science, is a social construct in so far as how we look at it, much how we looked at race in the 19th century?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I understand their feeling, I'm just not interested in catering to people because of their feelings.
Callous unconcern for the feelings of others is hardly something to boast about.

[Sabot Cat]

Then what, when seeking a gender, allows one's gender dysphoria to go away when they've found the right gender? What is it that makes them feel right? I attribute this to the role they play is society.

Where did gender arise in society, but from these genetically-driven feelings, regardless of the particulars of any 'roles'?


Same question as above- what about a certain gender community allows one to no longer experience gender dysphoria?

What about feeling loved makes one happy? What about eating chocolates makes you feel pleasure? What about taking antidepressants makes one not depressed? These are similar questions, which ask for further explanation when one can simply be found in the underlying neurological mechanisms but not much else. It's just an effective treatment for gender dysphoria due to biological factors.


And that's social- people socially recognizing you as a woman. I know the feeling you're referring to, though, as a agendered person sometimes I just feel... Good, when folks recognize that.

I think these good feelings derive from internal, biological mechanisms, rather than an internal preference for say, the gender roles of agender or women respectively. That's a possibility, but it's one I don't favor because there's no evidence for it, and thus discard it on the basis of the principle of parsimony.


Him, this is something I hadn't considered before, and in fact would IMO be a good companion to the idea of the social roles defining gender, as symbols are only meaningful in a social context. They they are only valuable inasmuch as they reflect or effect society.

I think gender is largely semiotic, I just don't think it's purely caused by desires for certain roles in society.


When gender is considered a domestication process this makes a lot of sense.

This is 100% true. It (specifically the part I bolded) also supports my thoughts on gender being a domestication process.

New symbols are created to socialize the thing it symbolizes. They expose a relationship between that thing and society, allowing it to be recognized by society as something social, and thus integrating it into society. This is why I oppose gender. This process of domestication and integration into civilization, society. As far as I know, no one here other than myself has given an answer as to what gender actually is. I did a cursory google search and came up with this:
"Gender*describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine." This I feel isn't very good, but it supports my idea that gender is a domestication process in that gender is about recognizing and categorizing someone. I'm not gonna do much more but I'm sure the search will find mostly shit like that.

I think gender is a far more participatory process than the vision betrayed by terms like domestication, categorization, or recognition. Although there's an object component of gender, there's also that of the subject, that of identification, expression, and affiliation, which I feel you're glossing over entirely in support of your theory.


Can't argue with that.

I don't really know or care about the possibility of destroying gender. That doesn't really, in my opinion, make an attempt destroying it less legitimate.

I'd rather not waste time and energy slaying paper dragons; theory without praxis is dead to me.


And see, I'm against society/civilization itself so referencing a future communist society that'll fix the problem doesn't really interest me. I also think its wrong.

I think you extend problems far too broadly and hastily, against vague concepts like gender, or society and civilization. I think people working together in an ordered community is desirable, and that opposition to society is the position of supporting isolated individuals, unless you have a definition of such distinct from most people. Furthermore, opposition to 'civilization' is so vague as to not even suggest a meaning, other than, perhaps, championing the reactionary ideology of primitivism.


I understand their feeling, I'm just not interested in catering to people because of their feelings.

Okay.

[BIXX]

I'm on break right now from work but I just want to say that rather than just making assumptions about anti-civ thought and primitivism and many others, folks ought to research them. If be more that willing to provide references that, even if you disagree with them, are fun reads.

I'll provide a full response to the points here later.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

championing the reactionary ideology of primitivism.
I always thought primitivists were supposed to be restricted here.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm on break right now from work but I just want to say that rather than just making assumptions about anti-civ thought and primitivism and many others, folks ought to research them. If be more that willing to provide references that, even if you disagree with them, are fun reads.

I'll provide a full response to the points here later.

Alright; I'll just note that I have read primitivist works, I just fundamentally disagree with them because I want to participate in the movement for socializing the means of production, not promote a utopian vision of an idealized past which often comes with a dollop of medical pseudoscience.


I always thought primitivists were supposed to be restricted here.

Yes, as primitivism is utopian, reactionary and antithetical to the goals of the revolutionary left, in that they reject proletarian or socialized control of the means of production.

I don't know if dirty doxxer is a primitivist, however.

[Sinister Intents]

DD isn't a primitivist and some probably remember the hostility of my late forum.

I've read primmie stuff but don't care fully for it

Also I'm a women yay my gender!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

DD isn't a primitivist
Fair enough. The talk about civilization/domestication sounds similar, though.

[BIXX]

Fair enough. The talk about civilization/domestication sounds similar, though.
I am influenced by primitivism but there is a lot of shit in it that I disagree with. Ted Kaczynski's critique of primitivism was one of the things that influenced me to not be a primitivist, along with the bullshit returning to the past thing. I hate that. Then also I think their narrative of history (specifically their ideas on the origin of gender, which while related to my own, are incredibly different) is not only boring but presumes too much knowledge. It is a line I upheld for a while (civilization created gender) but it just seems.... Incorrect.

[Illegalitarian]

Nah, Kaczynski's critique is too ideologically driven, not to mention its multiple fallacious attempts at painting a picture of primitive life that literally no serious anthropologist supports.

Primitivism's problem ultimately lies in its stark implications for the vast majority of humanity, for the disabled, for the transgendered, etc. From here primitivists either take one of three positions:

1. They readjust their position and, rather than advocate that society revert back to primitive communism, as Marx called it, they then make their ideas a dooms day prophecy of Malthusian catastrophe, taking the general position of "we don't advocate this, we just recognize it will happen".

2. They still advocate such a society, but they end up entirely dismissing transgender issues by taking the very sneaky position of "gender abolitionism", which ultimately means "your struggles with gender are meaningless and if you really cared about gender issues you would be striving for gender abolition instead of trying to gain equality", which is what DGR did.

I always wondered why primmies never pointed how how highly regarded transgendered people were in some indigenous American tribes and how they were treated very well, but whatever. Primitivists are fucking nuts.

3. They abandon primitivism altogether in favor of green-anarchism, which advocates not a revert back to primitive society, but establishing eco-centric, bioregionalism, re-adopting primitive society values such as very tight-knit, close communities all helping each other and sharing the communal work load, child rearing being a collective effort, etc. This is the far more reasonable and even desirable position to take.


Personally I don't care for primitivism not only for the obvious reasons, but also because I find primitive society boring and undesirable. I like technology. I like the internet. I like modernity. I don't want to be a cave man, that would suck.

[BIXX]

The point is, we can agree primitivism does have flaws. However, it does have some things that I find very interesting that are worth taking into account.

[Quail]

I'm going to post a warning here, specifically to dirty doxxer, but in a more general sense too. (Also just mixed in with some general thoughts...)

I think it's important when we're having discussions about gender that we don't dismiss or invalidate the identities of the other posters here, particularly in the case of people who are oppressed for their identities in wider society. In a society where some "social categories" are oppressed for merely existing, it is imo both important and liberating for those people to assert themselves and claim their identities.

In a patriarchal capitalist society, the idea of abolishing gender just isn't remotely feasible. I don't think the abolition of gender could come about through any means other than the destruction of the current order and the social relations that confine us, categorise us, and oppress us based on arbitrary characteristics. In a new society, with different social relations, with true equality between people of all genders, would people still identify with labels to define their gender and sexuality? I don't know, and I don't know if it's possible to know for sure. What would it mean to be a woman? Again, I find it really difficult to imagine. It's hard enough to define what it means to be a woman in our current society. But, if people did choose to identify as such then really that would be their own business.

I've read over the posts in this thread a few times, and I don't think dirty doxxer intended to specifically target trans people, but I think it's worth remembering that some people have to fight a lot harder than others simply to be recognised as the human beings that they are. So I repeat: It is against the rules of this board to invalidate the identities of marginalised people. If it happens again, infractions will follow.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think people misunderstand what the abolition of gender means. It doesn't mean anyone will stop you from identifying or feeling however you please. It means that gender, as a social structure - a large part of which are gender roles - will disappear. Just as clans, for example, have disappeared with the advent of capitalism, although everyone is still free to identify with a particular clan, take an interest in their culture, history and so on.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think people misunderstand what the abolition of gender means. It doesn't mean anyone will stop you from identifying or feeling however you please. It means that gender, as a social structure - a large part of which are gender roles - will disappear.
Now, see, I don't have an issue with that view. That largely accords with my view that gender roles--which are ideological--will be abolished, and whatever isn't a purely social construct will remain as people will be liberated to express who they are without such limitations. In a sense, a thousand genders will bloom because people will be able to fully express certain aspects of themselves.

[theblitz6794]

Well, in the streets, I more or less identify as cis. I'm totally comfortable with that. But I don't truly feel it is me. I feel like I'm 80% male 20% female but that breaking it into numbers like that gets away from who I really am.

I more feel like I am 65% masculine and 35% feminine (which leads to a slight exaggeration of maleness due to the society around me and people's expectation). But those are personality traits that are associated with gender, not gender itself.

So the idea of people having differing degrees of masculinity and femininity certainly seems to be true (hormones if anything) but gender to me is a social construct originating from that.

So if you wanna call yourself genderfluid or trans or demigendered (maybe I fit better as demi), fine, but I think you're using a social construct that is not innate to describe something that is (fluidly) innate.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well, in the streets, I more or less identify as cis.
Just stop there. Cis was created as a way to describe non-trans people, it's not an identity.

[Illegalitarian]

I had an interesting covo on gender abolitionism last night that got me thinking..


If gender as a concept were abolished, if there were no such thing as gender norms and thus all notions of what are socially considered "feminine" and "masculine" traits were done away with, would gender dysphoria even exist anymore?

Gender is all about identity, after all, and is affected and reinforced by the gender binary and gender roles... I don't see how transgender could even really exist in such a world. We'd be entirely post-gender, would we not?

[theblitz6794]

Just stop there. Cis was created as a way to describe non-trans people, it's not an identity.

I think you shouldn't have stopped right there. Identifying as and identifying as in casual conversation are two distinct things.

Perhaps I should've used better word choice.

In the streets I am comfortable describing myself as cisgender and basically choose to do so though it is not really true but it is not a big deal to me and fits the circumstances I think in the best. Better?

[BIXX]

I had an interesting covo on gender abolitionism last night that got me thinking..


If gender as a concept were abolished, if there were no such thing as gender norms and thus all notions of what are socially considered "feminine" and "masculine" traits were done away with, would gender dysphoria even exist anymore?

Gender is all about identity, after all, and is affected and reinforced by the gender binary and gender roles... I don't see how transgender could even really exist in such a world. We'd be entirely post-gender, would we not?

This is more or less what o was attempting to say in my exchange with sabot cat. With no reference point of what constitutes a gender, how can one be any gender?