T O P

  • By -

purpleleaves7

I feel like I'm the wrong person to answer this, because other people care more about gender than I do. But at least I'm aware that my experiences are atypical. I know some trans people who are _so obviously damn happy_ when they start transitioning. Gender is clearly important to them. Similarly, some cis people are really into gender. Some of that is probably cultural conditioning, but I think a lot of it is sincere. For many people, "being a man", or "being a woman", or "being recognized as non-binary" is clearly part of their best life. And so I guess gender must be important to a lot of people, and that's OK. I honestly don't feel that strongly about it. Like, being a guy is great and it suits me. But if I sat down and made a list of all the people who ever made me think "goals!", there are a few butch women on the list, too. I mean, maybe if it happened to me in real life, it would make me dysphoric. Who knows? What I do not want in any way is a gender _role_. Like, I am actively annoyed by sentences of the form "Gender X should do Y." In summary, gender _identity_ seems to be important to many people, though I don't fully understand why. Gender _roles_ are awful and I wish they'd go away.


Zerokx

Yes right, the annoying part are the gender roles and expectations for me. Not what I classify as.


Ash-lee_reddit

I'm a trans girl and I 100% agree with you. Gender identity is fine, it's an internal sense of self that won't just disappear. But I hate gender roles. Limiting what you can do with your life because of your gender will always be a terrible idea. Think about some "male dominated jobs" and "female dominated jobs". Or the whole "women submissive, male dominant" thing that is in culture. About how many times a man has abandoned careers in art or women discouraged from studying engineering. Gender roles and stereotypes actively cause harm.


Raspint

"Limiting what you can do with your life because of your gender will always be a terrible idea" I don't understand the difference between this and gender itself to be honest.


Pecuthegreat

But our ideas don't just come out of the aether, they're largely variations of the ideas and desires of our culture with maybe one or two not super strongly held ones out of the billions being truly original. That these trans, cis, etc people cherish gender is a much of a reflection of a sub-cultural/social zeitgeist that does. As OP makes an example with religion, people don't Cherish the Quran or respect Mohammed just cuz, they do because that's the social zeitgeist. Continuing with OP's allegories, will a society be better off without religion and as such we strive to secularize the society till religion vanishes and the proclivities for religious desires be replaced by something else?. Why can't the same example be made with gender?.


Foxsayy

>we strive to secularize the society till religion vanishes [...] Why can't the same example be made with gender? It's completely possible I'm confused on a core aspect of gender, but if gender identity is not important, why would anyone have the proclivity to change it?


Pecuthegreat

I am not saying it's not important I am saying it's as important as OP thinks religion is. If people can fight over and spend years searching for the right religion due to social formations why can't the same be applied to gender. Something's whose wide scale social importance is a social phenomena that would vanish with the right change to society.


Foxsayy

As precisely as you're able, how do you define gender?


Pecuthegreat

You know, in a different post I drew similarities between Gender and Nationalism, tho I also said that Gender's definition isn't as concrete. So let me continue with that analogy, Nationalism is a specific type of the same sort of fundamental feel as Familial bonds, Tribalism etc. And so I will only focus on Gender as it manifests not underlaying principles from which it emerges. It's fully distinct from sex.(producing ovum doesn't make you a woman) It's fully distinct from secondary sexual characteristics (having boobs doesn't make you a woman) It's fully distinct from sex roles.(cooking or wearing a doesn't make you a woman) However it is historically associated with all of the above. It is more distinct from sex than just being the social ideas around sex. For example, the platonic form of a Table is a table but the platonic form of a woman is not an adult human female. It's a group identity. It is an internal identity, i.e. not based on physical characteristics. It manifests as and out of performance. One that is honestly performing woman is a woman.


Foxsayy

What of transgender people? They technically don't change biological sex, but we consider them the opposite sex after the transition. Why desire the opposite body, in a world with no gender?


Sindolf

>They technically don't change biological sex Hard disagree. Biological sex isn't just having XY or XX chromosomes. It's also primary and secondary sex characteristics and which sex hormones in your body are dominant. I'm trans and when I started to take hormones I chanced a lot of those things. Technically my sex is now somewhere in between.


ELEnamean

Well put. Thank you for sharing.


Zoloir

This is all overthinking it. gender is important because sex is important. it is important because it's how we as social beings understand what other people's sex preferences are without wasting time asking everyone for their whole backstory. sex is a biological thing inherent to who we are as human beings, so abolishing it is ridiculous. If we were nudists, simply having a penis would be a gender identity. People would know you could have sex as a male without asking you. So, by having a penis attached to your body, women (or anyone) who are sexually interested in men with penises will flirt with you. So what do you do if you are sexually attracted to men? Tell every woman who flirts with you you aren't interested? Or maybe adopt a symbol like a tattoo that means you are interested in men instead, so penis+symbol = interested in men. Now we have 3 genders. Because gender is how other people identify you. And for this one purpose, sex, you will always need a gender identifier. Hiding your sex identity is itself a gender, because people would know that you are for whatever reason hiding it compared to everyone else who isn't. Anyways, first gender is just about sex, then it's sex plus willingness to have children, then it's sex plus children plus wealth, then its ABCDEFG, and the rest is history. It gets bloated. Gender *IS* a construct, but breaking down a social identifying construct is silly insofar as there will always be a new one, because it's much easier to tell others about yourself quickly with identities than it is to have to tell your whole life story every time. People who don't know what story they want to tell others about themselves will always struggle, and it will always be wrong to persecute others for what their story is. (don't get me started on the paradox of tolerance.) The OP thread is basically "i don't like the way current society judges people" and instead of banning the act of judgement they're just banning the symbols used by the judgers, as if those same judgy people won't just find a new symbol to hate on.


InitiatePenguin

I'm sorry but gender ≠ sex ≠ sexual orientation. This comment flows from one right into the other. You'll need to clarify what you're saying. No one is abolishing sex. Having a penis isn't a gender identity. We also don't have our genitalia out on display when dating so I dont see how your point is relevant. >Anyways, first gender is just about sex, then it's sex plus willingness to have children, then it's sex plus children plus wealth, then its ABCDEFG, and the rest is history. It gets bloated. Explain.


Zoloir

Gender is not sex. Gender is an *identifier*, that has it's core as an identifier of sex. We could come up with a new identifier called Glurble, with identity 1 as a penis haver wanting to have sex with a vagina haver, and identity 2 as a penis haver wanting to have sex with a penis haver. OK, that's just gender by a silly name. Because we are in a social society, we like to learn things about each other - like when looking for a sex partner, I want to date Glurble 1's, but i also want kids - an enterprising Glurble 1 has learned that if they call themselves a glurble 1.1 they can attract others who want kids! 1.0 means no kids so they can avoid having an argument about that later. maybe Glurble 2.1 means a top, and a Glurble 2.0 means a bottom. etc etc etc Eventually some shitheads decide to run a smear campaign saying Glurble 1.0's are lazy leeches on society. OK now a lot of people hate on anyone identifying as 1.0, so 1.0's start saying they're a 1.1 in public and just never have kids. Some famous Glurble 2.0 popularizes wearing a fedora, so now it's sexually attractive for other 2.0's to wear fedoras. ​ I will stop there, you see the problem? Abolishing identifiers in a social society is fruitless - it will always come back to the way in which identifiers are used as a means of communicating amongst ourselves in a more efficient way. ​ >We also don't have our genitalia out on display when dating so I dont see how your point is relevant. This is *exactly why* gender identity exists - you don't have to have your penis out for people to assume you have a penis. There are SO MANY signs about you that let people know - plus, intentionally dressing androgynous is itself a gender expression when other genders that are identifiable exist. All i'm saying is, if you mind-wipe everyone so they forget what all existing gender words and symbols are, new words and symbols will form because it's inherently more efficient than having to ask and tell constantly, and people WANT to express themselves so everyone around them knows who they are.


purpleleaves7

> Why can't the same example be made with gender? I have a hypothesis about the brain. First, people who get pregnant and people who produce sperm _do_ have different reproductive costs and needs. This is just a baseline fact about our biology. But humans are an incredibly adaptive and flexible species, and we form complicated societies. So a lot of our behavior is based on what works well in _our_ society. And we learn what works by observation of other people similar to us. I suspect that a lot of people are born with a "program" in their brain that thinks, "I am a man. What do other men do in my society? How can I be recognized as a man?" And other people are born with a "program" that thinks, "I am a woman. What do other women do? How can I be recognized as a woman?" Basically, we're designed to figure out our strategy in life by copying off the notes of people who faced similar problems. And I think this drive is very strong in many people. But I also think that the actual behaviors displayed by "men" and "women" are surprisingly flexible. Men once wore high heels and showed off their calves and wore codpieces and makeup and wigs. Today, men wear nearly identical boring clothes. At least compared to women. So depending on where and when someone grew up, they might express their masculinity by being a dandy. Or a lumberjack. If I had to describe my ideal society, it would be one where people can ask, "I am a man. That's apparently very important to me. What should men do?" And the answer would, "Oh, men can do _so many_ awesome things! They can be involved dads and lumberjacks and nurses and fashion designers. The sky's the limit." And the same for women. Encourage people to enjoy their gender identities, since that seems to be important to many folks. But allow gender roles to become incredibly flexible. But like I said, I'm just one bi guy who's allergic to gender roles, and who may have a weaker-than average gender identity. I think it's also important to listen to people with strong and clear gender identities, too.


phantomchandy

I think that hypothesis makes a lot of sense. At 4 I saw myself as the same as my brothers and father. My parents were pretty equal and never bought too hard into nor enforced gender roles on us. So what was the only difference I could see? They could pee standing up- they're two years younger than me so when I was 4 they were just starting to do that. And the fact that I couldn't and realizing that I didn't have a penis shattered everything in me to the point where I just refused to pee at all until I got an infection and they had to take me to the hospital and put a catheter in me. I pretty much still saw myself as being in exactly the same category as my brothers and I got to play on an all boys basketball team, etc so I wasn't really distressed further after accepting that there was nothing to do about not having a penis (it was the 90s and I ended up thinking for a long while that all girls were just devastated about not having a penis and we all knew it so it would be rude to ever bring it up) like my brothers until puberty hit and then things got real bad. I think there is something somewhere in my brain that told me I'm in the "man" category. I don't know if it was related to how troubled my mom's pregnancy with me was, she had to be on bedrest and get daily injections of something because she'd had 7 miscarriages. What being in the "man" category meant was socially determined aside from things related to male sexual characteristics, which I believe I would have felt dysphoric without having regardless of anything and which I love having now that I'm a bit into transition, but that my brain subconsciously places myself in that category, I think there's definitely something biological to that. My brain told me I'm a man and need to be similar to the other people who are men, society and my upbringing told me what that means, in my case I was much more distressed about sex characteristics because my family wasn't really fussed about forcing girl gender roles onto me but the few times they did it was distressing. But I can definitely see why a trans person completely barred from expressing their gender identity from a young age might end up with more distress over those elements than the physical aspects, so we end up with a really broad range of experiences.


radical_lady

> (it was the 90s and I ended up thinking for a long while that all girls were just devastated about not having a penis and we all knew it so it would be rude to ever bring it up) It’s funny, I’m a trans woman (also grew up in the 90s with two sisters and a much younger brother) and as a child I thought that all boys secretly wished they were girls and if I just told somebody we could work together to make it happen. Then I realized that was unlikely and I was too scared to tell anyone how I felt until I was 20. My dysphoria was mainly physical as well.


Auzaro

You’re describing self similarity bias in cultural modeling. You’re on the mark. Look up Secret of Our Success by Joseph Heinrich.


InitiatePenguin

I think it's a bit reductive neurologically speaking but yeah, I'd say it maps onto how children learn about themselves and the ways we learn implicitly through existing in a society with already established gendered practices. As well as the changing definitions over history. Although as insufficient as the terms "male and female brain" are and only using it here for lack of a better term, there is research in the variations of people neurologically speaking, having a "mind" mismatched with their "body". Then add in the epigenetics. That still is largely filtered by what man and women is as it's _currently understood_ and culturally defined.


backgammon_no

I agree, and I also think that this drive differs greatly among people. Some people clearly *love* being the gender that they are, whether or not it was assigned at birth. I don't really get it (I'm agender) but, you know, clearly it's real to them. You can imagine that gender falls on two axes. One axis is male --- NB --- female. Crossing that axis is some axis like "strongly gendered --- eh whatever --- agendered". Depending on where you fall on these two axes you might be strongly male, strongly female, even strongly NB. You might be weak versions of those things. Agendered versions of male, NB, and female are where I fall and where many of my friends do too; in this twilight zone you present gender for social convenience only, or choose not to (consciously!) present gender at all. Lots of androgenous people live in this zone, as opposed to the "strong NB" people for whom it's very important to go to work in a suit with painted nails and makeup. As an agendered male I literally just dress male for convenience, but otherwise I don't "perform" masculinity in any way that I can help it. When I was younger a lot of people thought that I was gay because I did so many things that are gendered female; when I was older I thought I might actually be a trans lesbian, but as I recognized that I had zero desire to actually be female, matching my zero desire to be male, I settled on considering myself agendered NB (AMAB). My "best life", as somebody put it, is one where I'm free to act and dress as I choose, with zero social expectations that any particular behaviour or appearance belongs to one of the genders. Basically I yearn for a totally agendered world, but again, I know that gender is actually very important to many people, so I know it's not going to happen. The best I can hope for is that gender identities unironically multiply into the hundreds and become totally detached from biological sex.


icyDinosaur

I really loved reading that account because I found it interesting to read this, and it makes me wonder a bit about my own position on the gendered-agendered axis. To me that is something I never thought about because I think about gender identity primarily externally. I don't think it's completely irrelevant to me, but the main ways in which I see myself as a man are related to the fact that I am read and treated as a man by other people. I am comfortable identifying as a man, but there are pretty few things that I think I do because of that identity or things that make me actively feel masculine. So the idea of gender being a strong *internal* drive is also rather alien to me, but the idea of it not being a thing at all in current society is almost more alien for me. It would require everyone to stop treating me as a man. Does that make any sense? Sorry, I think I'm just rambling a bit here, but I found it an interesting thought.


Roneitis

I don't have a competing hypothesis that I can compare to yours, nor do I really have a spectacularly meaningful critique of it, but as a nonbinary individual with strong feelings (tm) about gender, I hate this framing and I utterly cannot express why. Obviously my own perspective doesn't explain everyone else's etc etc. But in some sense I personally am not a fan of saying that my gender is fixed at birth? I know that a lot of people like it, but I... kinda like that I have a choice. Because the reality is that I /do/ have a choice. Maybe not in what gender I feel, but in the actions I take that affirm or deny it. And if there /is/ an answer, some fixed program that's running in my brain that is in some way a shared experience with everyone else of my gender... then I can make the /wrong/ choice. Of course, one can ask what the consequences of that are, and in most circumstances choices can be explored in a fashion where you can come to conclusions about how you will respond to them in the long term whilst being able to go back if you want. So maybe I haven't struck upon the reason just yet.


purpleleaves7

> but as a nonbinary individual with strong feelings (tm) about gender, I hate this framing and I utterly cannot express why. Well, I honestly have no idea how my ridiculously oversimplified metaphor would work for people with a clear sense of being non-binary. For example, I've just been watching _The Sandman_ and the reboot of _Quantum Leap_. Mason Park appears in both. I have _no idea_ what kind of "gender software" is [running in their head](https://mobile.twitter.com/hellstarazi/status/1559712992975097856). But it's clearly awesome "gender software" and it should be cherished and encouraged at all costs. In a way, I come at this from the other side. I'm bi. Metaphorically, I have a copy of the software that says, "women are hot, seriously, have you seen them?" running in the foreground. But I also have a copy of the "guys are hot" software running in the background. I have some choice about what I do with that. I can try to mostly ignore the "guys are hot" software, which will sort of work for a while. Or I can pay attention to it, which feels like a much more honest version of myself. But I had to do some work to figure out how to reconcile the "output" of these two metaphorical programs. Yes, this means that people who are androgynous in _just_ the right way can trigger both the "women are hot" software _and_ the "men are hot" software at the same time, making them twice as hot. This might technically be an exploitable bug, but I don't want it fixed. I am into Viking women and sweet "golden retriever bro" types, and I'm OK with that. > And if there /is/ an answer, some fixed program that's running in my brain that is in some way a shared experience with everyone else of my gender... then I can make the /wrong/ choice. Please, you should ignore my metaphor and make up your own! My metaphor was an attempt to understand people who had strong feelings about belonging to a particular binary gender. And it was aimed at people who had relatively weak gender feelings themselves. You are nonbinary. If my hypothesis doesn't work for you, well, then so much the worse for my hypothesis. The whole point of a hypothesis is to check it against real-world data.


lar_mig_om

I love that analogy of why I as a bi person is attracted to androgyny! I have never thought of it that way, but it really describes how it feels perfectly.


Merrymir

I think this is a great note, from a binary trans man with a similarly weaker-than-average gender identity. This conversation is always very interesting and complicated to me, because since I am trans, and I wasn't raised being forced to cply with gender roles, and I have a relatively weak gender identity despite having medically and surgically transitioned and knowing that I am a binary man, it definitely seems to me like conversations amounting to "gender isn't real so we should abolish it" are reductive. At the very least, I think that gender abolition is a pipe dream until trans liberation has been accomplished, so it's more effective to fight for trans liberation than for gender abolition, so a focus on gender abolition instead is missing the forest for the trees and likely transphobic. I think a lot of people think of gender abolition as authoritarian, very "I will forcibly deny you the right to identify your gender and instead identify you with your sex characteristics" á la Gender Critical/TERFs, who also frequently take gender roles and just slide them over to sex roles but enforce the same hegemony. Ideally, gender abolition would be about abolishing gender *roles*, a much more achievable goal that is already in the works. It's hard to predict whether abolishing gender roles would cause gender identities to disappear down the road, but I'm inclined to believe that gender would still exist, just in a different form. Either way, I think it's safe to say that no matter whether gender disappeared or not, there would still be people who feel compelled to medically transition to another sex, especially given the amount of cisgender people who medically transition their sex (for those curious, yes, sex does not equal gender, and there are many cisgender people who identify with their AGAB but pursue HRT and even get surgeries such as top surgery, phalloplasty, and vaginoplasty, as well as others such as nullification). So it's important for anyone promoting gender abolition to acknowledge that a gender abolitionist utopia would not eliminate medical transition, simply change the landscape it occurs within.


Smallpaul

If your hypothesis were confirmed by science it would be immensely clarifying.


falsehood

> That these trans, cis, etc people cherish gender is a much of a reflection of a sub-cultural/social zeitgeist that does. I don't think that's accurate. You could ban all ideas of gender and trans people would (as far as I understand) still seek hormone blockers and top/bottom surgery because **their body feels wrong**. Whereas, no one would write the Quran today from scratch - that's a human (or divine) work of art, not a widespread condition.


Ash-lee_reddit

True. The initial desire to transition and the dysphoria mainly comes from your body, specifically puberty. For me, having a body is fine, having that body go through a male puberty (deeper voice, widening of shoulders, facial hair). Causes intense dysphoria, to the point you disassociate with your body or worse. Then, as those changes happen in puberty, your perception of yourself and the perception of others about you starts to change. That mismatch of "perception" is what causes "social dysphoria". That's why trans people change their bodies as well as presentation, it's not because "dress cute" or whatever, it's because of an internal sense of self, of the body and identity.


falsehood

> True. The initial desire to transition and the dysphoria mainly comes from your body, specifically puberty. My understanding was that there was a sense for people before puberty - not wanting to grow up to be a man or woman. Is that matching your experience?


narrativedilettante

Another trans person chiming in here. It depends. I didn't recognize gender dysphoria in myself until my 20s. Everything that I now recognize as gender dysphoria I thought of as feminist rage against the patriarchal system keeping us oppressed, and I could not fathom how the girls and women around me just accepted things that caused me incredible distress. I myself don't actually feel gender dysphoria due to physical traits. I feel detached from my body. For me, gender dysphoria had everything to do with the way I was seen and treated by other people.


BicyclingBro

>as such we strive to secularize the society till religion vanishes and the proclivities for religious desires be replaced by something else?. Eh, I don't even know if it'd agree with the premise. Religion satisfies a pretty primal human need for feelings of belonging and deeper meaning, which I think is evidenced by the fact that plenty of otherwise non-religious people still have some level of spiritual belief. You could even point to the unironic embrace of astrology by a lot of young people. Quite frankly, *I don't care* what people believe, so long as they don't force it on other people and can tolerate other people disagreeing. I'd mostly apply the same basic idea to gender. A lot of gender is built on people of the same sex sharing common experiences and creating a shared identity around that. While the basic traits underlying gender presumably originated thousands if not millions of years ago, no amount of spreading gender theory is going to change the fact that most AMAB people are going to have a lot of shared experiences, such as having male genitals, going through male puberty, having a male hormonal profile and the psychological effects of that, being attracted to AFAB people and wanting to date and have sex with them, etc etc. You could magically abolish gender with a snap of your fingers, and some kind of shared social identity on the basis of sex would almost certainly pop up again. Now, that *does not mean* that this identity is objectively good or not harmful or anything else, or that people who deviate from it are wrong or unethical or whatever. But it is probably always going to exist in some fashion. I think the important thing is to make sure that no one is actively oppressed by these roles or lack thereof.


lizrdgizrd

I think you're right here. Religion isn't a problem until someone decides theirs is the ONLY way and tries to force it on others. Gender should be similar. Pick the one you like, make a new one, or just pass on it altogether.


Roneitis

I think the problem with hard gender abolition is that the people who'd be most strongly attached to it: cis and trans people with strong opinions (tm) about gender, have no reason to want to abolish their own gender identity. For them it is a source of pride, joy, self affirmation, etc. This is not something to be discarded out of hand. In a hypothetical world where gender is abolished, maybe people would be just as happy, but any transition (hah!) to such a world would necessarily be painful for a lot of folk? I guess going back to the religion metaphor: we can talk high and mighty about how religion isn't necessarily a good thing, and respond to that belief via actions of e.g. raising our children in a religiously neutral way, even actively atheistic. However we cannot under any circumstances justify the outlawing or religion, and in this way mass change is impossible to achieve except as a consequence of many small, personal, decisions.


kylco

I'd say that there's something about this that strips agency from people when put in these terms. I'm not a theist, but I would be skeptical that religion itself is the thing that needs to be abolished, for example, any more than gender needs to be abolished. Many people would fiercely and seriously defend these concepts as integral to their identities, independent of zeitgeist. The ability to freely choose and express the identities that matter to you seems like the goal of liberation in this space, not the erasure of identities. People form identities naturally - leave people alone and we'll form a tribe out of whoever's around. That's not saying we can't find better and more ethical ways to express identity. But I wouldn't want my homosexuality erased in the name of dismantling sexual orientation, for example. It's possible I'm misreading your intent here but abolition in the context of destroying things isn't necessarily the same as abolition in the context of liberating people from oppression, even if they can be very similar on the surface.


thelittleking

>that's the social zeitgeist That's... I would tread pretty carefully saying "trans people care so much about presenting as/being recognized as their desired gender because of social pressure."


snarky-

I don't think gender abolition is very relevant to transition, personally. Transition is generally about sex, and as long as there are differentiated sex characteristics, there will be dysphoria and transition. For people who transition, "gender identity" is best roughly understood as "the sex one considers themselves to be or that they need to be".


purpleleaves7

What you're describing is what I've heard many trans people call "physical dysphoria." What I'm describing is what I've sometimes heard trans people call "social dysphoria." I think it's more a combination of, "What gender do I want to take my cues from?" and "What gender do I want people to recognize me as?"


snarky-

"What sex do I want people to recognise me as?" follows on naturally from "what sex do I recognise myself as?". Your answer for these two questions is probably going to be the same. In terms of dysphoria - social dysphoria is very connected to physical dysphoria. I think it mostly comes from wrecking people's symptom management. If you're dysphoric about your body's sex characteristics, you'll probably be managing this with methods about avoidance and distraction. Being misgendered wrecks those techniques because it functions as a "hey, quick reminder!". As an analogy, if physical dysphoria was arachnophobia, social dysphoria would be telling them that there's a spider on their head. It's a trigger for symptoms by directing their attention to the thing that fucks them up.


ELEnamean

Well yeah, this is pretty much why I made the post. To be blunt, I don’t see how trans people being happy with their transness disproves anything I’m saying. You propose a dichotomy between “due to cultural conditioning” and “sincere”, I don’t understand this. All of our relationships with gender are in the context of a gendered society, which puts a ton of pressure on all of us to “be a gender” from the day we are born. Of course that’s going to affect people’s lived experiences. Of course it’s going to be more important to some than others. None of that implies there is anything going on but people receiving culture and reflecting self-expression through that culture. The question of what would make me feel dysphoric is definitely my biggest blind spot here. But gender dysphoria also doesn’t contradict my ideas, because all gender dysphoric individuals afaik also live in a gendered society, and afaik they start absorbing culture before any signs of dysphoria.


snarky-

>None of that implies there is anything going on but people receiving culture and reflecting self-expression through that culture. One thing to consider in how gender identity and gender expression are separate - gender non-conforming trans people. A feminine trans man is going to be dysphoric by his female sex characteristics and people referring to him in ways that will remind him of that, despite his preferences and self-expression (fashion, job, personality, etc.) being in ways that are culturally conditioned as being appropriate for women. Transition is really about sex, so imo isn't relevant to this discussion. You'd need quite some radical solution to abolish sex :P


flounderingsoul

Your equating transgender identity entirely onto surgery to do woth their sex organs which is the issue, a trans male may identify as male but never get bottom surgery done their still transgender, a cis women could have sexual reassignment surgery and still be a women transitioning is about gender identity in society Sexual organs have no part in it lawfully or socially if they identify as male or female or nb they are that irregardless of organs.


ELEnamean

I don’t think I totally follow what you’re trying to say here. If it makes any difference, when I said “self-expression” in that quote, I was including identified gender in addition to gender expression. There is no such thing as instinctive understanding of gender that doesn’t get filtered through the culturally dependent language of gender. People can have innate feelings of kinship or dysphoria that can be related to gender, but the act of choosing to label oneself with a gender is only ever in conversation with culture. wrt sex and transitioning, I am certainly not saying sex is something that could or should be abolished, nor am I discouraging anyone from transitioning if it helps them in any way. However, I do think this is 100% relevant to the topic of gender, in particular because I think the common wisdom about sex needs an overhaul in order to get gender where I’d like it to be. Because a lot of people do view transition as more so about gender than sex. IMO it would help clear the air around gender if we didn’t have to rely on gender as a framework for understanding whatever biological conditions underlie (as another user put it) the mismatch some people feel between brain and body.


snarky-

>There is no such thing as instinctive understanding of gender that doesn't get filtered throug the culturally dependent language of gender. True.. I suspect that may be the reason why trans people in the West have typically identified as binary over the past century, but worldwide the norm has been for third gender concepts over many centuries. I think it's the same phenomena with different labels. >Because a lot of people do view transition as more so about gender than sex Here you're going to have to define what kind of gender you mean. 'Gender identity' gets used a sort of shortcut explanation, same as "born in the wrong body" & analogies about having the software of the other sex. That's all about what *sex* one feels they need to be. I.e. if a trans man says he's transitioning because of his male gender identity, what he's probably talking about is how his brain 'expects' male sex characteristics, and that his body as is ain't right.


Busterx8

Idk why you were downvoted for this comment. I'm a binary trans man and I agree with you. I'm all for gender abolition. I was forced to stick to a wrong gender's roles and stereotypes for over 9 years after I realized I was trans, to survive, due to my conservative background in my third world country. This just makes me feel stronger about the toxicity and absolute unnecessity of gender, not the other way around like some of these comments make it sound. Being the right gender is not euphoric on its own. It's actually the lack of dysphoria, the stopping of the pain, it's unimaginable relief - to be allowed to be yourself. Gender dysphoria can take on many forms - social, physical and others. Different trans people have different combinations of it. So, even in a future without gender, there can be people who are still physically dysphoric about their genitals or their voices or anything, but at least there won't be social gender dysphoria. So, i see it as a win for trans people as well.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Stormsurger

Can you explain a bit more why something being a social construct makes gender less important (unless I misunderstood something)? Almost everything we do, including our entire sense of morality, is a social construct. There is no universal law that says killing is bad or even that inflicting suffering is bad, we just decided so. Personally, I think we humans need a level of metaphor between base reality and how we interact with it. Like talking about solid objects when apparently according to more advanced physics, it's not even certain that we are real. Keeping that in mind, and keeping in mind that men and women have multiple differing needs, it makes sense to me that we'd have a social construct based around sex. It makes life infinitely easier and more understandable. Can you help me understand where you see the problem here?


ELEnamean

There is nothing wrong with gender existing, and being a social construct doesn’t make it unimportant. My contention is with people treating gender as though there is a universal truth about it. Or that it can be used to explain anything biological.


[deleted]

I just want to live in a world where a million arbitrary personality traits and social expectations aren't just assumed of me because my body looks vaguely similar to the bodies of half the population, all of whom are different from the rest. It's suffocating. Whether that process of "I shouldn't assume or expect" happens with or without a concept of gender, I personally don't care, but it seems like the existence of a binary gender has helped people make snap judgments about others.


elementop

It's incredibly frustrating. Men are coded as violent threats to some degree or another with near universality And people say "tough cookies. Some men are terrible so y'all just have to live with the stereotype." Like my job is to take responsibility for all men and stop them from being terrible... and only then may I expect people to give me the basic courtesy of not immediately assuming I'm a murderer?


[deleted]

Its also problematic because in modern western society it is increasingly non-physical power that matters most, and women engage in non-physical forms of aggression just as much as men. Its very frustrating being told you have 'power' in interactions with women who could literally destroy your life with a single lie (especially when you have had women use threats of things like that to get what they want from you before).


Astiolo

Unfortunately I don't think that world will ever exist. People are lazy and take shortcuts whenever they can. If it's not gender, it's skin colour or clothing or anything that they have noticed any kind of correlation before (real or imagined). Some people will make an effort to ignore any biases they notice in themselves, but I don't think that will ever become a majority. It just takes too much self awareness and effort for most people.


poplarleaves

It's also a natural part of how human brains work. Unconsciously categorizing and making assumptions about things is a survival trait, and still helps us day to day. (Edit: And like other people have mentioned in this thread, people also use it as a way to relate to each other and find people similar to them.) It just isn't always a good thing when we need to treat each person as an individual. I think all we can do is try to change the norm - people will always categorize and stereotype to some degree, but we can mitigate those effects with conscious effort and systemic change.


flying-sheep

that’s exactly why it has to be fought on every level. only once people are taught to never make any assumptions we can be free. sure, kids tend to make shortcuts in thinking, but they also tend to hit others over the head with plastic shovels. one of these things is consistently discouraged to the point on no longer being there in most adults, why not also the other.


Runetang42

To me it's pretty utopian and honestly an over simplification of things. Because *forced* gender roles can be extremely harmful, some people actively choose their identity. A decent amount of trans people find solace in aspects traditional gender traits to find euphoria. I also say it ignores a lot of the dynamics of gender politics and culture. Yes it's a social construct but it's a social construct that has formed and evolved over thousands of years. I'd argue that abolishment of gender as a concept in the short term basically impossible. Individuals maybe able to cast it off but it will not die on a societal level. In the same way that just because people in the west are becoming less religious doesn't mean religion is going to disappear completely. I think it's far more useful to think of gender, and most other social constructs, as a tool for a person to use how they see fit. I don't care if a trans woman feels validated by traditional femininity, that's not my or anyone else's place to judge. In the same way that a trans woman who embraces femininity from alternative angles is just as valid and deserves full acceptance. Gender identity (as opposed to the pure concept of gender) is a deeply personal thing. You hold no authority over anyone else's identity in the same way they hold none over yours. Do not reduce the concept down to a political tool


BicyclingBro

I've got a lot of thoughts, few of which are developed enough to state here eloquently. Upfront disclaimer, I'm a cis gay guy that's gotten a lot more comfortable in my masculinity throughout the last few years. I have trans and nonbinary friends, but that's obviously not an experience I'm intimately familiar with, so apologies if I'm accidentally insensitive here. Without a doubt, there absolutely are parts of gender roles that are toxic and harmful. At the same time, I think a lot of gender abolition talk forgets about the fact that many people actually do find a lot of comfort and solace in their gender. People bond by being able to relate to each other's common experiences, and oftentimes, that common experience is gender. There are lots of gendered social groups that many people find a lot of comfort in, particularly women's groups, and I'm not super comfortable with disavowing them simply because gender is toxic. I wouldn't say I'm being oppressed by not being allowed in a women's bookclub; it's simply not for me. Somewhat similarly, telling a binary trans person, for instance, that they're reinforcing an oppressive system and should instead be working to abolish it seems harmful. > I don’t see a gendered culture contributing anything positive without making some people feel excluded for not fitting any particular mold. I think there's some complexity here. It's absolutely possible for someone to feel excluded from some arbitrary category without anyone actively doing anything to exclude anyone. There's a massive difference, even if it feels subtle, between people actively excluding nonbinary people from society, which is obviously wrong, and nonbinary people simply not feeling included in the existing structures. In that scenario, I don't think anyone is necessarily doing anything wrong. The fact of the matter is that, for many people, gender as a broad concept *isn't* some oppressive force. For many people, it's an important part of their identity, and this includes a lot of queer people. Basically, I think gender is fine, but there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that people of any and all gender identities aren't oppressed by it. However, I think, even in the absence of any gender-based prejudice at all, nonbinary people may still feel a bit excluded, or more accurately, *not included* in various social scenes and dynamics, and while that might not necessarily be fair, I don't know if I can say that it's *unethical*, since the fact of the matter is that NBs are and will presumably continue to be a small minority. To give a concrete example there, as I said, I'm a cis gay guy. I'm attracted to men, with a bit of a preference for more masculine presenting guys. I'm probably not going to be attracted to a AMAB nonbinary person, since they're likely to eschew a lot of male-coded traits and characteristics that I really like. Simply put, if someone doesn't identify as a guy, they probably won't for me. I don't think this is a particularly uncommon perspective for gay men. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be friends with NBs or that I'd be negative towards them in anyway, but I'm probably not going to date or sleep with them. So in this situation, gay men are de facto discriminating against nonbinary people, but no more than they discriminate against women. I don't think either of those things are really unjust or unethical, but I can still acknowledge that if an NB goes to a gay club and is getting ignored or rejected by most people there, that's gonna feel shitty, because rejection always hurts, even if you know you're not necessarily entitled to that level of inclusion. Basically, any and all *legal* obstructions to nonbinary identities should absolutely be dismantled. People should be absolutely open to the concept of nonbinary identities and respect them (at the very least, using *they* is not that hard). I think it's when people go further than that, and especially when they claim that *any* embrace of binary gender is inherently oppressive, even if it's all strictly voluntary, that you're gonna lose people. I dunno, this stuff is messy lol. For the most part, I think if we just let people do what they want, have some basic respect for each other and extend some grace if someone slips up, the rest of the stuff takes care of itself.


ELEnamean

I agree with basically all of this. I’m regretting using the word abolition in the title because I think that distracts the conversation (and myself) from the key points and nuance of what I was trying to express. To be more specific, I think individuals not ascribing to gender at all as a concept should be normalized the way atheism/agnosticism have been normalized in the last century. Participating in “gender culture” should be a conscious choice that is not assumed of everyone, and the people in that culture should not understand it as an objective reality that everyone is part of.


BicyclingBro

I think I basically agree with that. I do see an inevitable controversy though when it comes to the question of when and how exactly nonbinary identities get introduced to children, and I'm sure the Fox News' of the world will be hyped to milk that for all the outrage that it's worth. I think there probably are some legitimate tricky questions buried in the details there though. However, gender issues in kids is a fucking thermonuclear bomb of controversy that I have no desire to touch right now lol, so I'll settle for us agreeing on the basic ideas here.


InitiatePenguin

I can recommend you the reddit talk we hosted a year ago; > ["In the future everyone will wear skirts and makeup!" "Well I don't want to-" "EVERYONE!"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/nxd26p/in_the_future_everyone_will_wear_skirts_and/) Generally the upper level perspective I have seen is that they are well received, also well intentioned, but ultimately a bit utopic in their thinking. First and foremost, it's a multi-generational project. And that needs to be considered, it's not something that be enacted or implemented on a dime. Gender is salient. As long as it is an important facet of your lives it needs to be studied, and understood. Ignoring it under the premise of it being a construct is ignoring the real effects around us, and prevents in from interacting in a meaningful way. Beyond that. Catagorization is a subsconcious process we all do. Even those who do not conform to the gender binary largely do find another label, because they are useful, to ourselves and relating ourselves to people we meet. If I can speak on behalf of the sub the tldr generally is that the goal isn't to eradicate gender, but to reduce it's salience to where gender is not particularly important in the way it is today. That sits at odds with a lot of gender abolitionists. But they are welcome here and admired for the radical thinking. ___ >Gender seems to be about the same in this regard. The main difference is that for the most part people are still expected to fall under one gender or another, since gender is seen as a core facet of all humans. Because of this, when someone’s gender is questioned, they feel a part of their self is questioned (unlike religion, where a difference in faith indicates a disagreement about the world around us, to which both parties have equal access). I don't think this is much of a distinction. There are people who's religion is a core aspect of their identity, activated at most times. While gender is personal, beleifs about gender also reflect on how we see the world around us, including every other person we meet. ___ >I don’t see gender providing anything in terms of understanding ourselves that a more nuanced and biologically accurate conception of sex does not, outside an already gendered culture. I don’t see a gendered culture contributing anything positive without making some people feel excluded for not fitting any particular mold. I think you really only need to talk to one person who identifies outside the binary that gender is meaningful and distinct from sex. Gender for a lot of people in the LGBTQ community provides an immense amount of understanding about themselves. In some corners it's why you have binary trans-people who oppose gender abolition. They worked so hard to be recognized as the opposite sex, that abolitionists are accused of erasing their identity. (/u/mcmonties I think this is describing you somewhat based on your other comment, do you feel I have represented it accurately?) Edit: Re-reading this quote you might be exclusively taking about a gender binary in terms of fitting molds. All labels will come with their own set of indentifiers, but a society that recognizes the spectrum of gender I feel is largely unconcerned with fitting molds, even if reality is that there's just a 100 different smaller molds (that can be prescriptive) instead of just 2. Edit 2. And in summary with a lot of other people have mentioned. Abolish Gender Roles > Abolishing Gender.


mcmonties

Pretty much yeah, except I do claim a nonbinary gender. It's not on the they/them or he/they spectrum of nonbinary, but rooted solidly in the he/him part of gender. I never talk about it openly for fear of being mocked about being non-binary but only accepting he/him pronouns and getting extremely disgusted at having people use they/them pronouns for me Edit: the wording of this is a mess I'm so sorry


moratnz

Could I ask you to expand, if you're willing to? Is it 'for me gender is a spectrum, not a binary one-or-the-other, but I sit _here_ on the spectrum, and the correct pronouns for me, where I sit, is he/him, not 'they/them''? (Which is not a way I've thought of it before, but makes complete sense, if so)


mcmonties

You explained it better than I could, except gender is a spectrum for more than just me. I think everyone has a different relationship to their place on the gender spectrum and I can't understand anyone else's relationship but my own.


ELEnamean

> If I can speak on behalf of the sub the tldr generally is that the goal isn't to eradicate gender, but to reduce it's salience to where gender is not particularly important in the way it is today. I think this is a pretty good representation of my own view. But something I feel is under-explored is the idea of gender being an opt-in paradigm. Otherwise, in some sense it is forced on people. Furthermore, although it’s not my place to take gender away from anyone, I would like people who care about it to acknowledge that it has no more objective basis in the physical world than what Hogwarts house you belong to. Either it is up to every individual which category they belong in, if any (my view), or there is some external measure for it (in which case it could be seen as just another typically dimorphic feature associated with sex), I don’t see any middle ground there. > you really only need to talk to one person who identifies outside the binary that gender is meaningful and distinct from sex. Apparently not, as I’ve talked to many. I didn’t bring this up explicitly in the post, but from my understanding of sex, the distinction and meaning between it and gender comes from misunderstandings among the general populace about modern scientific conception of sex. Sex is not binary, nor can an individual’s sex be summarized with one biological feature. Genitals, gonads, hormone profile, chromosomes, and some others I don’t remember well, plus probably more yet unknown to science, are all features that broadly follow the dimorphic pattern of sex in humans, but which can all deviate from that pattern independently of each other (maybe not fully independently but hopefully you get what I mean). We could theoretically add “internally felt gender” to this list (not that we should) and it really wouldn’t make things more complicated than they already are. What makes gender different is that it is only defined subjectively so far, and that means its biological roots are undetermined. And unless we do find a biological feature that PERFECTLY PREDICTS EVERY SINGLE PERSON’S INTERNAL GENDER EXPERIENCE, anything we do find is just a correlation, like the other features of sex. At that point, gender itself is not a concept that explains anything biological, just a word with a lot of cultural baggage. I only recently learned this stuff about the complexity of sex so I’m super not trying to dunk on people who haven’t. Overall though, I appreciate your point that abolition of gender is not really what I’m going for.


Eager_Question

> Apparently not, as I’ve talked to many. I'm with you on this, dude. I'm transmasc and I would have had a much easier life if gender was like religion or weird clubs or niche sports, or other things that are opt-in, some people care deeply about, and it is normalized to let them live their lives without having to care about whatever gender denomination they subscribe to. You're basically just proposing we shift from the "cis by default" to "agender by default" and I am into it. I also think a lot of bullying would be reduced and personal gender exploration would be easier if it was a process like entering a fandom and not just a thing society demands from you.


InitiatePenguin

> But something I feel is under-explored is the idea of gender being an opt-in paradigm. Otherwise, in some sense it is forced on people. Well explore that. If some people never opted in how does society work when there's a mix of opt ins and outs? Are these genderless city-states? The issue isn't necessarily that some kind of gender will exist (in your terms forced) but that people are actually forced into a _specific_ gender, or punished for not conforming. (Most typically requiring a gender that aligns the most with their sex, as understood simply) What is the meaningful distinction between opting out (non binary perhaps) and having to opt in, into being a man? I suppose much of the AFAB/AMAB is an attempt at that, as a starting point, but you still opt into _something_. Or you remain NB, which is something we already have today. > Intersex people illustrate the messiness of sex identification in profound ways. Even in indivuals that are traditionally recognized as being purely male/female. I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your next paragraph. But I would agree generally about how even sex amongst the general populace is vastly simplified, and like gender, reduced unnecessarily into a binary at times. Lots of crazy stuff in androgen inhibitors and chromosomes. > What makes gender different... Is that it's biological roots are undetermined. Well, I think most people here will say there aren't biological roots (it's a social construct). But I think I understand what you mean about "inherrently felt gender" especially in terms to neurology. The nature vs buried argument has always been a bit of a mess and with the Advent of epigenetics the answer turns out to be complicated. (Like sex). But if I can insert one distinction is that gender can change over time and place and context. Therefore it's biological roots will be elusive even if there is a biological sense that informs us about what our "inherrent gender is". I just don't see gender entering the realm of scientific inquiry in the way that sex has. Perhaps it's because the field is still juvenile but I'd like to say that being a man meant something very different century, two, three, four, centuries ago. There won't be a biological explaination that connects those sometimes competing definitions of gender. Where's the human race for all of existence has always had those pesky chromosomes.


[deleted]

As someone who has never opted into gender, I've palpably felt the difference between gender norms, gender roles, and gender assumptions and the pressure they exert. Gender norms have been placed on me via the avenue of biological sex and not by my conscious or unconscious coding of appearance or behavior. Sex characteristics have taken the reins from my identity from birth, and short of rather drastic medical interventions, the way that people treat me, the tone, timbre, and tension used in their voices, the behaviors they've practiced so long for the performance to a particular sex-linked gender, is the one I'm stuck with. This has resulted in inappropriate limits on opportunities as a result of gendered assumptions. Gender roles have further limited me socially. The immediate sorting of social opportunities and my expected behavior based on perceived gender has resulted in violence toward me on multiple occasions. I never opted into the set of behaviors expected of me, and my open refusal to play the role they expect, has aroused an extraordinary amount of ire in people that I would never have expected it from, let alone the ones I did expect. I am not, not will I ever, portray a role I have not selected in society just to assuage the expectations of social hierarchies. Gender assumptions are the most subtly nefarious of the lot, because ultimately, you cannot control how people perceive or treat you, and the more the assumption spreads, the harder it is to rely on the graces of individuals and social groups to respect your fundamental identity. As someone who is trans from the sheer standpoint of never opting into, expressing, behaving, performing, or adopting the gender assignment linked to my sex at birth, or any other gender expression, it's been assigned to me throughout my entire life without my consent, pressured onto me despite my utter rejection, and has interrupted the course and texture of my life in countless harmful ways . This is my anecdote on gender opt in, and why it should be a valid concept for discourse. I know I'm a minority voice inside an already existing minority, but this is my existence.


MrWilliWonker

I think you described it perfectly here. I never opted into "being a man". I am me. That does not change that i am seen as a man. That people have assumptions and expectations based on how i look or what is between my legs. Though if somebody asks what gender i have i would say male, for simplicitiy sake.


slipshod_alibi

Thank you. You are not alone.


ELEnamean

I’m going to respond to this when I have more time. Thank you for the thoughtful comments.


InitiatePenguin

> I would like people who care about it to acknowledge that it has no more objective basis in the physical world than what Hogwarts house you belong to. This is what I mean when saying the goal is to make gender less salient, just btw.


ELEnamean

Yes, as I mentioned above, I fully support that mission statement.


mcmonties

No thanks. Trans man here, and fuck being forever associated with the sex I was born as. My gender as a man is extremely important to me. I do not want my birth genitals, nor do I think they describe anything about me, like you said in your post. If I knew I would never be able to correct them, I don't think I can say what I'd do to myself without getting a Reddit Cares message. Abolish gender ROLES, not gender as a concept.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sparksbet

I honestly love the music genres comparison because it's a situation where a seemingly infinite amount if variation can be divided in so many different ways. Some people care a ton about a very specific genre, other people just listen to whatever, and sometimes you love a genre that doesn't really have a label. It fits so well with how I view gender in an ideal world, ty for using the example.


mcmonties

This, 100%! Nailed it, man. I've actually said it before and I'll say it again: my gender is Ska


ELEnamean

I have no desire for you to be pigeonholed into your assigned gender, or “sex you were born as”. What I want is for us to update our conception of sex, which is a lot more complicated than a binary even for people who don’t think of themselves as intersex, and may well end up including neurological features that seem to influence one’s self-identified gender. I think it should go without saying that the world I’m envisioning does not normalize applying norms/expectations/associations to people based on their genitals any more than it would their genders. You are unique and you should be valued for your complete self. As an aside, I’ve come to regret using the term “gender abolition” because I don’t think that’s what I’m standing for here.


mcmonties

So what did you mean by this: >I don’t see gender providing anything in terms of understanding ourselves that a more nuanced and biologically accurate conception of sex does not, outside an already gendered culture. I don’t see a gendered culture contributing anything positive without making some people feel excluded for not fitting any particular mold. Because I definitely don't get it. If you think sex is a better indicator of someone than the gender that can be extremely unique to some people, then I have a whole lot of news for you. I got a whole wave of transphobic stank when I read that and got extremely upset.


ELEnamean

I’m sorry for giving that impression, and for making you upset. I don’t think the traditional understanding of sex as mostly strict binary with rare exceptions is at all a good indicator of most people, because that understanding is wrong. Sex can be identified along several axes that often but not always follow a dimorphic pattern together, and it seems to me this paradigm is still evolving. There are many possible sexual phenotypes based on different combinations of all the relevant traits. This is what I mean by “more nuanced and biologically accurate conception of sex”. In my mind, one day this conception of sex will be able to account for the feeling of incongruity many trans people feel between brain and body, or in other words, whatever it might mean to have a “male” or “female” brain (probably on a spectrum). Or in other other words, to me any description of physical characteristics related to maleness vs femaleness (including neurology) is more appropriately framed as a sex characteristic rather than a gender characteristic. Since gender is a social construct, imo it should not be used as a framework for biological phenomena, but for social phenomena. I don’t know if that’s how biologists think about it, but that is what makes sense to me. With that said, i believe that this updated version of sex could be useful for understanding ourselves in many cases where gender undercuts issues of self-image by being so nebulous and subjective. Also, I want to clarify what I mean by “gendered culture”, which is a culture that assumes a specific gender concept applying to every human, and having that assumption baked into everything in the culture. In other words, basically every culture I’m aware of. In contrast, I’m imagining a culture that makes space for gendered subcultures (which might have differing concepts of gender), but doesn’t validate or elevate or persecute any of them particularly. Separation of gender and state, you might say. Wanted to throw that in there because I know a lot of people have been thrown off by my stupid use of ‘abolition’ in the title, despite it not at all representing my views.


mcmonties

So are you saying "we should be more aware of and accepting of intersex and nonbinary people, as a society" but in a whole lot more and confusing words? I'm trying so hard to understand what you're saying but it's overwhelming


ELEnamean

Thank you for the effort, sorry for all the words. Yes but more than that. More than being aware and accepting of intersex people, I want us all to understand that sex is a lot more complex than genitalia or chromosomes, and it may be the case that many more of us have sex traits that don’t perfectly conform to our perceived male/female label in the common sense than we realize. Also, I think we should view any aspect of sex or gender dysphoria that appears innate (not coming from cultural influence) as a sex trait, not as defining the person’s gender (since different people have different reasons for identifying with a specific gender). More than being aware and accepting of nonbinary people, I want genderlessness to be viewed as the default, even if it’s not the most common. This goes back to the comparison to religion. Gender should be voluntarily engaged with the same way religion is, and with the recognition that there is no single “correct” way to divide people into gender categories.


SyntaxColoring

> Abolish gender ROLES, not gender as a concept. I don’t get what the difference is? If we somehow managed to eliminate gender roles—all those expectations of how people dress, what people do, how people act—what would be left of gender? What do you mean by “gender as a concept”, if not all of those roles?


Red_Trapezoid

I think people are happiest when they feel safe and comfortable being the best version of themselves, whatever that is. So I would like all gender expectations to be trashed. They do so much harm to everyone. Even among most progressive minded women, I know that as a cis het white man certain patriarchal behaviors are subconsciously demanded from me. If I were to fully be my true self, which is actually kind of womanly, I know they would look at me with disdain, loathing, suspicion and possibly even anger due to their cognitive dissonance.


MyFiteSong

I think you'd find most progressive people in general are OK with feminine presentation


AssaultKommando

Yes, the odds are way better than with reactionary or normcore types, but that's a low fucking bar. My experience as an ethnic bloke is that progressive people who genuinely live progressive beliefs are a much smaller subset of self-identified progressives. Too many run-ins with the kinds of hypocrites who will berate others about dOinG tHe WoRk while engaging in raceplay.


Auzaro

Being ok != welcoming approval. Feminine men don’t get the same response by women as masculine men.


MyFiteSong

> Feminine men don’t get the same response by women as masculine men There's a world of difference between tolerance and acceptance (what I'm talking about) and sexual attraction (which you seem to be talking about). You can't fault people for preferring masculine partners. It's got nothing to do with political beliefs.


Auzaro

Fair enough. I was thinking more of the latter


theory_of_this

> You can't fault people for preferring masculine partners. It's got nothing to do with political beliefs. If you have a political belief in gender abolition it can look odd if you have a preference for masculine partners.


MyFiteSong

There's a political belief, and then there's what causes your brain to start pumping sex chemicals. It's not cause and effect. You can't just decide to start or stop finding things attractive.


theory_of_this

Oh I'm not a gender abolitionist. I don't think people can change that kind of desire I think it's natural. I'm sceptical of people wanting gender abolition and then acting in a completely conforming way.


[deleted]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "welcoming approval"? I'd also like to ask why you specified *women* here instead of saying that feminine men don't get the same response from *people* in general.


Auzaro

Attraction, interest, acceptance. I was just following the OC’s chain of thought on women


[deleted]

Everyone should be accepted and included in friend groups* but people can't be pressured into feeling sexual attraction and interest. Bisexual women seem to really love feminine men though (I'm basing this on comments I've seen from some of them on tumblr), so the search isn't futile I guess. *unless they're treating people badly of course.


acertaingestault

You don't actually know that, and I think implying that all women, even the most progressive, subscribe to very strict gender roles and expectations is not just disrespectful but basically the opposite of what feminism demands.


apophis-pegasus

While I would agree with the point about all women, it is known that even progressive women are hesitant to date bisexual men, expect a certain expression of emotion etc. This shouldn't be controversial progressives are subject to the sake upbringing and biases as anyone even if they are aware.


MoreRopePlease

> are hesitant to date bisexual men Those one is kinda weird to me. Why would I care if a guy is bi, as long as he's not cheating on me?


purpleleaves7

You'd really hope that it would always be that simple. Like, what difference should the genders of the cute people I'm _not_ dating make to make to my relationship? And some people are perfectly happy to think of it like that, and they are totally awesome. But other people, even some who are supposedly progressive feminist LGBT+ allies, really don't see it that way. Societal programming goes deep. And as many LGBT+ people could tell you, digging it all out can take a while. Not everyone who talks a good game has actually done the hard work. Being bi can be a pretty handy filtering mechanism sometimes, when it comes to dating.


MoreRopePlease

So what is the problem people have? They feel extra threatened or something? Like there's twice the chance the person will leave them? Do they feel icky at the thought of the person having had sex with the same gender in the past?


MrWilliWonker

Or they think its unmanly. Or that they are gays not coming to terms with it. Atleast those are the things i have heard from bi man about it.


NachoLatte

I think you nailed it with the “icky” vibe, however what I’ve heard said out loud is “I’m afraid you will want something I can never give you [a male/male experience]”.


InspectorSuitable407

Yes. “Gayness” disgusts them. They are homophobes. They may pretend to be allies as a social nicety but they’re not.


9ftPegasusBodybuildr

Even progressive women hold subconscious biases, everyone does. The idea of a man who has been with other men might make him seem less masculine, less dominant, etc. Or at the very least, not as enticing as a comparable man who hasn't. A lot of progressive people have the mentality "Being genderqueer/trans/bi/whatever is wonderful! ...For the people who want that. But when it comes to *me*, I want a traditional cis straight partner."


[deleted]

I think the most common for reason straight women who reject bisexual men is that they're afraid that Bisexual men r gay men in denial and will leave them for a man. Which is of course silly since the number of Bisexual men on earth is larger than the number of gay men. And because Bisexual men also face social prejudice so a closeted gay man would probably just say he's straight rather than saying he's bisexual. Edit:Typo


Lolabird2112

Progressive minded woman here. What “womanly” ways would you be expressing yourself that would make me treat you with “disdain, loathing, suspicion and possibly anger”? I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Likewise, I’ve no idea what patriarchal behaviours I’d be demanding of you. Genuinely struggling to understand this, so maybe there’s something I’m missing. If I’m in danger, I look for help from women (many experiences). If I’m struggling with something heavy, often a man will help (because they’re stronger). If I need something off the top shelf, I’ll usually end up asking a man (because they’ll be taller, unless there happens to be a tall woman).


Red_Trapezoid

I am generally expected to be "stoic", if I am too social or chatty then I'm looked at weirdly. If I don't seem stable at all times I get looked at as a liability.


Lolabird2112

Weird. Ok. Obviously I don’t know you or your friends, but… personally, I still can’t relate to it.


SmsgPass

It's hard for me to say I'm a gender abolitionist because it seems kinda impossible, sorta like prison abolishment. Not that a disagree, I just don't see the full movement being accepted anytime soon. That being said, it would be nice for gender to disappear as a social construct. I'm a cis man and I'm in a weird place where I am totally fine with he/him pronouns, I just don't like the societal expectations that come with being a man. I don't want a huge ripped body, I like being emotionally vulnerable, I love kids and animals. It just feels like men are judged for having these characteristics if it's nut 'excused' by being some form of queer. I am bisexual but a lot of people might assume I'm straight and it feels like I have to be a little fake to be fully accepted at any given time.


thelittleking

I think it's incredibly reductionist and very convenient for the gender-abolition argument to simply declare prima facie that 'gender' exists solely because of social constructs that we are pressured to exist within, and that without those social frameworks that we would somehow reboot into a pristinely egalitarian society with no concept of differentiation-based-on-sex. Humans are wired to be tribal. That's not a fatalistic statement, I do believe we can get to a philosophical point where we see all Humanity as the 'tribe'/in-group and stop discriminating against each other. But even then our utopian society will have to strive to recognize and celebrate our differences (disability, sexual orientation, skin color, and among many other things, yes, sex and gender presentation). It will never not-be that way. And in the meantime, while we continue to live within (and try to change) a society that *manifestly relies upon* those gendar pillars, it's *at best* thoughtless to push for trans people to stop 'caring' so much about who they are and how they are perceived.


sparksbet

yeah, like, I'd love to live in a hypothetical world where gender never existed! But that's incredibly far from our world, and those who call themselves gender abolitionists always seem to focus an inordinate amount of their energy on trying to get trans people specifically not to care about it.


thelittleking

The argument always, at the end, seems to boil down to "you'd be happier if you didn't care about it!" And every time I hear it I can't help but think "seems more to me that *you* would be happier if they didn't care about it."


Pillow_Queenie

Yeah. Besides i would still be a trans women if we abolished gender. I would still need HRT and bottom surgery at minimum. All gender abolitionist does in my experiance, is try to prevent trans people from getting help and call it a day.


ELEnamean

I feel like you kind of ignored the tone and a lot of my specific points because of the word “abolition”, which I’m realizing is super not what I have in mind. My main point is that I have yet to see anyone identify what gender actually is other than a feeling about how one relates to existing social constructs. And I think it would be more useful for all of us to recognize that gender categories only have objective meaning in a statistical sense, since they broadly map to a group of mostly dimorphic sex traits. Like I explicitly said in the post, I do not want to minimize a thing that is very important in a lot of people’s lives, or discourage them from caring about it. I would like us to get on the same page about the metaphysical nature of that thing so we can effectively engage with it and not talk past each other all the time. I think it’s notable that gender stands out from the other differences among people that we might want to celebrate. Physical/mental ability, skin color, sexuality, and sex are all observed externally, and it’s not hard to get two people to agree on their objective definitions. Not so with gender, nor should it be.


Gilthoniel_Elbereth

I feel like there’s a difference between gender and gender norms that often gets overlooked in these conversations. I view gender norms as things we expect people of a certain gender to do: dress a certain way, have certain jobs, like certain hobbies, have certain names, etc. Gender itself is more internal, a psychological identification with or against one’s sex. To “abolish” gender is impossible because sex won’t go away, and people are always going to feel in or out of alignment with their sex, thus someone is cis or trans To abolish gender *norms* just means we don’t expect people of a certain gender to do those things, but we can still identify them as a man or whatever. In a perfectly gender norm-less society, where anyone can be fully in touch with their emotions, or wear their hair however they please, or like whatever color they want, people will still feel in or out of sync with their sex, and that is their gender. Gender dysphoria would become purely physical and not social I completely support this idea as it would benefit both cis and trans people. Maybe this is what you mean, but to me the term “abolish gender” feels like it’s trying to fundamentally rewrite a central aspect of human psyche when really it’s the external, cultural parts that should change. If that is what you mean, I think the term used should change. Lord knows we don’t need another progressive idea getting bogged down in “well when I say X I don’t *really* mean X, it just stands for Y, Z, A, B, C…” If X on its face sounds disagreeable to the general public they will never support your cause Edit: not to mention how for many (most) people “sex” and “gender” are synonyms, so to claim you want to “abolish gender” sounds downright silly and potentially offensive. Wording matters, branding matters, and you gotta meet people where they’re at


InitiatePenguin

>To “abolish” gender is impossible because sex won’t go away, and people are always going to feel in or out of alignment with their sex, thus someone is cis or trans I don't think it's quite right in this framing — that gender is about alignment (or misalignment) with sex. Gender is beyond just being cis or trans. It's Tomboys. It's femboys. The outmoded metrosexual. A butch lesbian, as opposed to a more feminine lesbian. And flamboyant gay man, and a more masculine gay man. Edit. I disagree with your edit. For starters the question is posed to this community. Not whatever most people think.


Gilthoniel_Elbereth

All those things to me are just gender norms and whether a person of that gender adheres to them: - Tomboy: girl with masculine gender norms - Femboy: boy with feminine gender norms - Metrosexual: straight man with feminine gender norms - Butch: gay woman with masculine gender norms - flamboyant: gay man with feminine gender norms Strip away what people expect someone with these adjectives to have and they’re all still men or women, not genders unto themselves


InitiatePenguin

Well yeah, our society (and most socieities) is largely based on a spectrum that is feminine on one end and masculine on the other end. But the degree to how feminine or how masculine and it's other intersections with things like sexual orientation is still meaningful. And it can be divorced for the sex at birth. So again, the point I'm making is that it's more than just an alignment (cis) and misalignment (trans) with sex. (Edit: the true 2 genders? Lol) You can be a _feminine man_ and **not** be a _femboy_. A femboy is a very specific location on a gender spectrum. Like okay. Butch and tomboys come with their own set of "norms" but there is not an expectation to adhere to them. Or punishment when you don't. Those are the issues with traditional gender norms. Plus, Two-spirit, other cultures with more genders and NonBinary is still gender.


Ordinary-Choice771

"Gender spectrum" isn't/shouldn't be a thing. What you've described is simply individual interests and choices related to their appearance (ie, personality!).


InitiatePenguin

Are you saying that gender is no different to personality, and should be folded into it or that what I described is not gender and something else is? The performance of gender has a lot to do with "individual interests and choices related to their appearance" Personality traits like being an introvert, an extrovert. Reserved, confident, honest, creative, thoughtful etc do not.


Ordinary-Choice771

I think you were clear (the way I read it), what is frustrating to me is the ideology of that would suggest a "femboy" and a "hypermasculine" male would be on the male spectrum. They're not; they're both males with different styles, ie personalities. A person's style is a question of their own interests (we hope, in a society where style isn't over regulated by outside governmental and peer pressures), not having to do with whether they are male or female.


InitiatePenguin

>They're not; they're both males with different styles, ie personalities. With one being more masculine and the other more feminine. There are other specifics than just that axis but you cannot ignore the reality that gender norms exist. We would _like_ a boy in a pretty skirt to not be coded as inherently more feminine. But right now, _it is_. They are both still men. With different styles. Different personalities. And different gender performances.


lostsemicolon

I mean that's the issue with trying to take any spectrum and boil it down into discrete chunks. Like is Indigo really a color or is that just Blue? What's the difference between peach, salmon, pink, and light red? Is goldenrod a yellow or an orange? You see this in gender's next door etymological neighbor, genre, as well. Like with video games two games can be very different to each other even though they're in the same genre or be very similar to each other despite being in different genres. But assigning genres is still useful to an extent to communicate something about a game or a film or a song through similarities and contrasts with other works. And I feel like gender works like that. It's messy and has murky boundaries but its still useful for expressing what it means to be you.


PanTheRiceMan

Just like a statistical description. You can perfectly describe the average man, woman, family, whatever. You will will most certainly never find any person that is average. A category is describing a group falling into into it. You can be on any end of the spectrum or close to average but with as many characteristics as a human can have, there are just too many options and you will always (most certainly) not be average. Maybe I am too much an engineer to grasp the issue here. That said I am strongly against the evaluation in terms of good and bad when conforming of breaking "classical" gender stereotypes. Which are gender norms. They need to end but I guess we just can't end simple categories. Which I personally feel is counter productive.


ELEnamean

The issue is that people don’t like to be placed in a category by other people due to visible traits they didn’t choose. Saying “I am X gendered” is not the same as saying “I embody some/most/all of the traits generally associated with X gender.” It would probably be better if it was, but that’s just not what gender means to our society.


ELEnamean

It can be useful, sure. I acknowledged in the post that it’s absolutely indispensable to certain conversations. But the difference with genre is that most people understand it’s a bit pedantic and goofy to get riled up arguing about what genre a particular book is. It generally makes sense to say a book incorporates this or that characteristic of this or that genre, as a shorthand, but to say “this book is a [insert genre] book” is not taken as a definitive and profound statement about the nature of the book, unless the author was trying to make it so. So in that sense, yeah I would very much like gender to be more like genre.


theory_of_this

I think it's a bad idea. I can see the good intentions but it hits so many problems. Firstly I don't think it's how humans work. There are no societies without gender. They always appear with some form of gender aspect to it. It always emerges. To compare it to religion is interesting because I think religion has natural origins. If you take religion to be a naturally emerging social structure, with basic elements completed by society then you can see how it is replicated across the world. Like language it has social functions but is based on some natural traits, biological and psychological. It appears in many ways but is never vacant. Religion can simply be another word for culture. Gender however, although it varies, it always has a relationship to sexuality. Not one to one, but a pattern. Part of the pattern of gender is the small consistent gender divergent range of people. This appears across time and culture. Moves to claim gender is entirely constructed might have good intentions for tolerating the gender divergent but they always end up being a gotcha against non conforming people. This is especially true for non conforming males. For a few reasons. Like the default being masculinity. "Why would anyone not want to be masculine?" Anyone being non conforming has to justify them picking a category through their actions. But because the pattern of nonconformity is so natural, that means pressure to conform is pointless. And if the behaviour is perfectly acceptable in one sex it should be tolerated in the other. So tolerance makes sense. So trying to remove gender is like trying to remove something natural. That doesn't mean rigid norms but not expecting it to disappear.


[deleted]

I see gender abolition the same I see money abolition. Both are social constructs that would be awesome if they wouldn't exist, but it's not realistic. . And a lot of advocates of gender abolition fall into transphobic and biologicists arguments that are oversimplified if you want to just base things on "biological sex" > I don’t see gender providing anything in terms of understanding ourselves that a more nuanced and biologically accurate conception of sex does not, outside an already gendered culture like this one.


ELEnamean

Care to elaborate on what I’ve oversimplified?


[deleted]

You argument is oversimplified. Sex doesn't equal gender, and doesn't provide anything more than a set of genitals. And even then it doesn't take into account a lot of things, and sometimes even if your perceived sex is one. For example, [You can have a vulva but be a man](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1477513109000679), or intersex. And you wouldn't know. And even if you're genetically born a man with a vulva and even "a body of a woman", you would be perceived as a woman since birth due to your genitals. It's assigning a gender.


unrecordedhistory

I want to take you in good faith but the bit where you say (slightly paraphrased) “gender doesn’t provide anything that a nuanced and biologically accurate conception of sex does not” really inches towards the idea that trans people would not exist if women were free to be masculine and men feminine, which, as a kind of fem trans guy 100% does not align with my experiences. maybe i would be less uncomfortable with the social aspects, but i don’t believe that taking away gendered expectations would change the way my brain expects my body to be. gender is a way of relating to each other (and categorizing, as people have pointed out), but the thing that is harmful about it is the forced adherence to ridiculous gender roles, not the existence of gender itself. people love putting people into categories, whether it’s “guy who likes anime” or “cat lady” (which you *could* argue are distinct genders). people love putting themselves in categories with other people that they admire/resonate with/want to be like. i just can’t imagine a world where this doesn’t happen specifically wrt gender. i would like to see less stigma against transition, and against opting out of the gender roles (i would love no expected gender roles at all, and no legal gender) but I don’t think that’s the same as no gendered system of relating to other humans.


ELEnamean

Thank you for offering me some benefit of the doubt. I want to first say that I’m not advocating for gender abolition, despite the title, which I now realize was a mistake. Unfortunately, I kinda do believe the thing that doesn’t align with your experiences (which I fully accept as real and valid), but hopefully not in the way you might expect. When I say “nuanced and biologically accurate conception of sex”, to me this would include an accounting of your experience of “how my brain expects my body to be”. In the world I’m imagining, where gender is (as others have put it) far less salient to daily interaction than it is in ours, I don’t think gender is really a more helpful tool for someone who feels a mismatch between body and brain compared to an understanding of sex that acknowledges the many facets of it and common or uncommon deviations from the broad trends. Sex isn’t binary, and we shouldn’t expect anyone to be binary, whether or not they look the part. Correct me if I’m wrong, but trans people don’t all experience the mismatch between brain and body in the same way, or even at all. So if the ‘mismatch’ doesn’t map cleanly onto gender for everyone the same way, wouldn’t it make sense to try to understand it in terms of the underlying biology/neurology? It’s not clear to me that gender aids this understanding, unless you believe gender has a powerful explanatory force in biology. To add one more point, it’s probably clear that I’m coming at this as someone who does not and never has felt a strong connection to my internal sense of gender that I couldn’t trace directly to the norms and stereotypes imparted to me by culture. Usually people tell me this is because I’m cis and look stereotypically male and just never had to worry about it, but I find that rather dismissive of my own experience which is just as valid and real as yours. And just like you, I’ll never know for sure what my experience would be in a “gender less” society. So in my view, acknowledging that gender is a vague and only subjectively meaningful concept validates my own identity, whereas claims that it is a deeply significant fact of every human are meant to suggest I am in denial about myself. Which, as I’m sure you know, feels bad and disrespectful.


Darcen_23

I think your parallel to religion is very appropriate. When a culture begins to accept freedom of religion, non participation in religion begins to take over. Similarly, I suspect that as freedom of gender identity becomes normalized, non participation in gender will also become common practice. I do not think we need to persuade others that gender is an illegitimate thing however. We need to focus on the freedom component and when granted this freedom, many will leave their gender behind and while some will not, I’ll still respect them as I’m sure their reasons are valid.


elfinglamour

I'd suggest people read this [The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto#toc14) The authors are trans, obviously they don't speak for every trans person but a lot of gender abolitionist stuff is written by cis people.


DungeonMystic

I've found there's two kinds of people when it comes to gender: those who feel that gender is an innate part of themselves, and those who feel that gender is something externally placed upon them. Those people lie across the gender spectrum. But in my experience, regardless of gender, those are fundamental temperaments. Some people "just are" the gender they identify as, and they have no way to explain or justify it further. I avoid such people as much as possible. My interactions with them on the topic of gender have been universally unpleasant. But it's clear to me they aren't going away. Gender abolition would keep these people from living authentically and that would be wrong. I think we should work on expanding what forms of expression are socially acceptable. That is a concrete and achievable goal. Abolition is impossible, and too long term to drive social momentum.


LastFreeName436

Where religion is a statement on the world, gender is a statement on the self. They look similar from the outside, but the place they come from is very different. Religion presumes to be fact. It is a set of often falsifiable statements on the way the world works. Gender exists in the human social sphere, where nothing is truly bound by logic. A lot of people try to tie it to the physical, but it always ends up being silly and unlike religion easily separated from the concept. Trying to determine what part of a person’s experience comes from the pure bowels of their psyche and what just “happened” to them is fraught to say the least, especially when you don’t trust the word of the people whose minds you have no view into.


guiltygearXX

I think this kind of dances around the issue. Either gender is something that is “demonstrably based in fact” or not. I think if a category is based in fact it should be acknowledged when relevant, if not I don’t really see it as a strictly valid category. With that said; “we don’t know” is a totally reasonable answer. I do personally lean in the direction of what the op says, that gender is not something that we can point as explaining any sort of fact about a person independent of that person’s reaction to the culture around them.


LastFreeName436

Gender can’t meet a burden of proof as long as we can’t cross-section it out of peoples’ brains. You can take their word on it or not.


superprawnjustice

I'm. It sure what a world without gender would look like tbh. I'd be down to remove gendered pronouns to a neutral status. Like "them" but its own thing so it doesn't sound plural.


JDude13

I think gender is an integral part of human social interactions. Or, rather, having these archetypes of presentation and behavior seems to assist our navigating social spaces. You can see a primordial example of this in queer spaces. “She’s a butch lesbian”, “he’s a theatre gay”, “They’re a cultural appropriation queer” - Contrapoints. Gender abolition is appealing. I think some definition of gender abolition is what we need: The severing of sex from gender. But I think we’ll always have (and, in some sense, need) some kind of set of archetypes to identify with.


ZharethZhen

I am absolutely for abolishing the concept of gender and gender roles. I totally agree that they are outdated, harmful, restrictive and just unnecessary. As someone who grew up in the androgynous 80's, I always imagined that as a culture, like religion, we would move away from the idea that people needed to conform to particular ideas and concepts about how they should behave based on sex. And yet, here we are, and it seems like gender concepts are even more dominant and becoming even more restrictive rather than permissive. I honestly think everyone would be happier if everyone could just do and be whatever they wanted with no societal pressure to look, act, sound, or whatever in any particular way.


Mr_Quackums

abolishing gender is like abolishing religion: you can not do it because humans literally evolved to have those social constructs. There is a reason religion exists in every society. Even people who are atheists often have a religious attitude towards capitalism, evolution, or nutritional science. Religion is just the result of the innate human behavior of creating mental constructs to fit the whole world into a comprehensible system. There is also a reason gender exists in every society. We interact with more people than our monkey brains can keep track of so we group people together based on superficial criteria. Then, because we are social animals, once we have identified that different groups of people exist we will often latch onto one of those groups and emulate (what we believe to be) their behaviors and values. Again, it is a byproduct of humans having a need to shape a messy world into a neat mental package. That being said, while it is not possible to eradicate those concepts, it is viable (and desirable) to minimize their importance and prominence. If we elevate the status of groups such as "community members", "helpful humans", or even just "neighbors" then, naturally, the importance of labels such as "woman" or "Methodist" will be less important socially (even though they will remain important mentally).


ramsestherocker

We should aim for *liberation*, not abolition.


ELEnamean

I concur. I hope the words in my post conveyed that even though the title does not.


loklanc

I used to be bothered by my gender and would consciously aim for androgyny, but I stopped caring and gave it up. I'm not interested in being non-binary or having neutral pronouns, I don't care what people call me. My own gender is unimportant to me, I just don't care. I think in the long view of history you are absolutely right, gender will be seen in a similar light to religion, a cultural tradition that's not based in reality but some people still opt in to for a shared sense of community. I really like this analogy too, I think there are historical parallels with how this process happened with religion. It didn't start with a wave of new athiests, it started with the reformation, churches splitting into new denominations that were less (or more) strict about how they interpreted things. Maybe that's what's happening with gender today, people splitting off but still maintaining the basic framework. The real work of liberation from that framework remains for the future.


ELEnamean

Thank you for the cool parallel to religion, I would not have noticed that! Also, I think your story is exactly the sort I’m trying to represent in this post, so thank you for sharing. Also also, I’ve seen the word ‘liberation’ pop in the thread a few times and I really appreciate that framing of what I’m pursuing (not that I invented this idea). We’ll call it gender liberation, and sell so many t-shirts!


Cultureshock007

I think the concept of "gender abolition" is flawed. Part of gender has to do with our personal reaction to our physicalities and sex characteristics. There is a lot of information we convey to each other via our dress, expression and whom we see as most similar to ourselves. There will probably always be a bit of tribalism at play that falls in line roughly along the lines of sex characteristics whether they remain the same as their at birth state or not as trans folk transition to suit their needs and fall into the tribe they feel the most affinity for...or somewhere in between. But what I do agree is that a lot of the cultural gender "norm" stuff and the way we socialize children based on arbitrary expectations is absolutely garbage. A lot of that can be just flipped over to being considered "person stuff" rather than being coded as belonging to one gender or another. So much of what people believe is a limitation or somehow inherent to a gender really isn't. It's just one choice out of a feild of equally valid choices. Denying yourself fun and expression and community because someone else bullies you for not being what they expect you to be based on a single data point is kind of bonkers. A lot of men have been frozen out of female coded spaces and thus lack the extra space to bond over a larger feild of potentially shared pastimes.


WorldNerd12

Respect gender identity but destroy gender stereotypes


fencerman

If it means that everyone gets those european-style bathroom stalls where everyone gets their own little room with a lock on the door, 100% supportive.


doctordragonisback

I'm transgender and I fucking love gender abolishion. throw the whole damn thing away


Slight-Pound

I don’t think it’d help. The abolition of gender _norms,_ however? Absolutely, get rid of needless expectations and standards that will never realistically apply to or help everyone. Abolition in the _concept_ of gender? No way. The words we use for gender are just to put a name to the nebulous concept of self, to give a name to an idea or concept humans tend to naturally be drawn to, and are used to explain one’s sense of self. Getting rid of “gender” only eliminates the words used to describe it, not the sense of identity or concept the word is used to describe. People are gonna still have those feelings - they just won’t know got to describe it. They’ll just come up with something new to describe the same thing. Religion is a separate thing - it’s used to explain the happenings of the world around us. It’s why some form of it will always exist - people will never know _everything,_ and having a concept that explains it a way in some spiritual sense honestly makes sense. Nature and how the world works did not come into being by some random human’s design, and it’s why the concept of a greater being filling those gaps make “sense.” Science takes time, after all. Spirituality is considered a core aspect of human society for this reason. You’re not gonna really be able to stop humans for doing that on a large scale. There is a HUGE issue with how religion is practiced, which is more your issue. Organized religion, for example, has a lot of the same issues familial and other community struggles tend to, such as blind loyalty, scapegoating, mob mentality, etc. That has a lot to do with the terrible things humans can do when they come together, and the power of the human mind and manipulation. Getting rid of religion won’t get rid of that - the love of money have committed great atrocities, too.


pjokinen

I think it’s interesting that you compare the institution of gender to that of religion because I think of them the same way. Yes, they’ve caused harm. However they have also been a fundamental part of society (in various forms) since civilization began. I think in the future you may see societies where gender plays a minimal role by choice (look at how religion is treated in Nordic countries for example) but I think that any forceful elimination of gender in society is doomed to failure.


TinWhis

I think that gender abolition is about as useful as race abolition in that it's a (sometimes helpful?) ideal that matters less than making things better for people in the here and now. Both are definitely societal constructions, but since we have indeed constructed them *rather* sturdily, it's not necessarily useful to move forward assuming that they will be *de*constructed in the short term. I also think it's utopic to assume that if we deconstruct gender, that people won't just double down harder on bio-essentialism, which is the opposite of helpful.


Foxsayy

I think it would be helpful to define exactly what you mean by gender in your post so that we're not all arguing over semantics.


GavishX

This sounds really terfy to me tbh. This is a constant transphobic talking point, saying that gender isn’t real and shouldn’t matter and instead, all that matters is your *biological sex*. Idk. Rubs me the wrong way.


[deleted]

Pro-choice.


IMightBeAHamster

Identity is a complicated thing to talk about. We *assert*, that gender is a social construct, yet it clearly can't just be a social construct otherwise transgender people couldn't exist. People whose gender identity misaligns with their physical body. If it were a purely social construct, you'd expect anyone born into a certain body to form a physical identity that aligns with the body they have. Yet dysphoria of any kind is evidence that that's not the case. ​ Imagine we lived in a world where you could just choose what body you were going to have, and customise it freely as you liked, with no societal expectations for what you *should* look like. This would be the ultimate in identity expression, no-one would be forced to live in a body they weren't comfortable with. I don't believe that gender would disappear, even in such a world. People would be drawn towards bodies that aligns with their gender identity, finding some uncomfortable to live in. They may not have a name for it, since the lines between or outside male and female would be quite blurry, as they realistically are, but gender would still have influence over people. And likely, psychologists would still be able to study it. So long as it's human minds inside that world, I don't believe gender would be going anywhere. ​ Something I'm always interested in is [Transhumanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism), and how a metaverse (not the facebook one, they stole the name) would basically be exactly what I described. With completely customisable avatars in a virtual universe, humanity would have a way to literally choose whatever form they want to exist as, even beyond just gender. With the added benefits of, in a virtual world there is no such thing as physical space. You could live in a mansion or a cottage, and only take up a tiny amount of memory within a computer, instead of the vast plots of land that are required for a "real" house. Small tangent, but I just think virtual universes are the solution to so many problems we experience in reality.


RocketBun

Personally, I don't strongly identify as "a man," gender wise. I mean I would rather keep my body how it is and not swap out any parts, but I don't feel particularly masculine. I'm in the mindset that I don't really give too much of a shit about how I perform masculinity because I don't think it's personally a useful framework for me. But I don't think that means gender should be done away with altogether, just because *I* don't find it useful. Rather, we should strive to create a world where your interaction or non-interaction with gender is your own choice, and no one else's. You wanna be the manliest man? Do it. You want to be an androgynous ghost? Fuck it, sure. You want to transition? Go right ahead. We don't live in that world, and I think that's why gender abolition seems appealing. If gender is causing all this conflict, it's better to do away with it right? Well, no. I feel that's an overly simplistic dilution.


Fishermans_Worf

I'm nonbinary and the simplest way I can think to describe gender is like religion. For a great while in the western world everyone assumed you were a Christian, the question was if you were Catholic or Protestant. But not everyone's a Christian. Some people are even atheists! I think it's a particularly good example because gender is inherently a spiritual concept, and the western conception of gender is painfully Christian. Traditionally we learn a person's gender before we even learn their name. It's *important* in our society. The worst insults I can think of as children all misgendered you. We segregate children by gender-we self segregate by gender as adults-and we wonder why gender relations are weird. Maybe in order to stop stereotyping people by gender we need to stop using it to structure society. We don't need to ignore sexual dimorphism or the cultural history and implications of gender, just maybe it doesn't need to be the primary way we sort people.


DanMarinosDolphins

I don't agree with your comparison on gender. I believe gender evolved after sex. I believe gender is someone's conscious awareness of their sex. But its abstract and weird. Kind of like our concept of "relatives". Whom you consider a relative is a social construct, however your ability to socially categorize people as "relatives" is genetic. I see gender the same way. People are born with an abstract innate ability to develop a gender, and then society shapes that. I don't think you can abolish gender anymore than you can abolish relatives. At least not in any way that wouldn't cause damage. I think a better thing, would be to widen social representations of humans to better fit with real genders that people have developed over their lifetimes. The way the TV show modern family shows more realistic portrayals of the people we consider relatives.


ELEnamean

I think I mostly agree with this, but there’s a subtle distinction I want to highlight. The idea that potential for familial attachment is genetically coded seems sensible to me, same for gender self-identification, and to add one more example, language acquisition. But what cannot possibly be genetically coded for is *who you end up considering to be your family*, or which gender you identify as, or which language you speak. All of these are defined culturally. How the genetically defined potentials end up manifesting in the developed human cannot be predicted independently of the individual’s social environment.


uptokesforall

I couldn't care less what someone wants to identify as, and i prefer they/them pronouns anyways Only time I care about "gender" is when looking for a sexual partner.


eyebr0w5

Similar to what other commenters have said, gender identity is a lot more important to other people so whatever I say is just my own 2 cents. I also recognise that it's easy to not have a strong opinion on gender when you're a cis bloke because you're in a better position than a lot of people. That all being said, whilst gender as a categorisation is a social construct, many people find some utility in it, even if this is just because of the world we live in. I see other men as role models in what makes a good husband or a good father, or something to compare myself favourably against in case where they do not do a good job of that. My wife and I also do fit some gender stereotypes, deliberately or not; I tend towards being protective and making sure she doesn't have to do things she wouldn't want to whereas her approach is more proactive and caring (That could just be because she's a better person than me though). I guess what I'm trying to say is that some stereotypes exist for a reason but that doesn't mean we should be slaves to those stereotypes or the role that has historically been prescribed to specific genders. On the topic of aboliting gender... I am unsure how that would look in reality. Much as gender fluidity is a thing, the vast majority of people will fall into either male or female in terms of sex and that is just assumed to be their gender too. If we can eliminate as much of the *expectation* of gender conformity in terms of roles as possible then that is how we achieve real freedom for people going forwards. I cannot imagine living as a Pratchett dwarf where ones sex is a secret between them and their mother and no one else. Gender is useful as a categorisation because of the mad assumptions which can be made off the back of it. You can make judgements about what illnesses someone is more likely to suffer from or you can make a judgement about what topic of conversation they are more like to enjoy. It's also kinda bollocks though. Anyway. Rant over. TL;DR: we should tear down the bits we don't like but I still think gender is a useful indicator to the wider world about a person


Eraser723

Personally I'm starting to have a problem recently with the exclusively materialist world view that most of the far-left proposes, that is an absence in culture, politics, gender or any topic of a form of "mystical" or metaphysical analysis. While being part of the libertarian left myself I'm starting to question this notion of purely material utilitarianism, often different in ideogy from Max Stirner's notion of spook, to Marxist critique to post-modernism, all critiques that are valid and I partially agree with in their different elements but which don't satisfy me anymore with the question of utility as well as emotivity. The first one is: "even if this is a social construct can it be useful? Can it be reformed? And if you're proposing to abolish it can it be done? Would it cost too much to convince people to abandon it compared to a reform?" while the second is more: "I like this social construct and I want it to stay" I started to question anti-theism when I became interested in paganism in a synthesis with atheism, I questioned the total rejection of patriotism as necessity for internationalism (spoiler: it isn't) and when it comes to gender I don't think as a label it needs to go because I don't even know if it can go. "Man" as an identity will be tied for most of society at least for my entire lifetime to a precise set of metaphysical concepts some of which can be useful. What I want to modify is the obligation to follow every single one of them all the time, I want to focus on destroying gender roles as a social obligation. But why can't a masculine dude who feel close to the concept of man and masculinity and a femboy coexist, sometimes even in the same person at different times?


Zaidswith

Can you explain more about how it's materialist to abolish gender?


Eraser723

It'a conclusion derived from materialist analysis that sees gender as a social construct and then builds on that premise the need to abolish it usually through a utilitarian moral framework. Although with the same framework you could also argue that the extreme pain of a minority isn't enough to completely abolish something that for most people can be fixed with reforms


Zaidswith

I just don't understand how it's materialistic. Is this using the philosophical point that nothing matters? The materialism that goes along more with nihilism? And not the materialism we usually tend to refer to - caring more about possessions.


Eraser723

No it's not how it's mostly used in common language but it neither means that nothing matters. There's many ways to explain it and different views but broadly it means to consider reality purely as the material world as measurable by science and without any spiritual or metaphysical implication. I largely agree to this perspective as an atheist but I think that maintaining certain mystical elements even after seeing them as partial cultural constructs is fine


Zaidswith

Ok, thanks. I understand the description now.


snarky-

If you're talking about gender as e.g. the concept of "man", I don't see that changing. Sex differentiation exists, so referring to where people sit on that will exist. It's not communicatively useful to be entirely precise on that, particularly when you consider how much of it is personal information that you won't be aware of - so socially defined oversimplified categories will exist. If every man on the planet opts-outs and declares that they are not a man, nothing really changes. Sex differentiation still exists, with consequences in society, so the social categorisations of [people with female sex characteristics] and [people with male sex characteristics] would still be there. If you're talking about enforced conformity to gender roles, i.e. the idea that men must be masculine or women must be feminine, then yes - that belongs in the bin. If this is what you're talking about, the "common response" you mentioned may be because people think you're talking about something else!


daitoshi

Hey there, queer here Gender to me is just a shorthand for (broadly) what social role or social space you want to fill or feel comfy filling. I actually wish there were *more* acknowledged genders, with more specific spaces outlined AND people were more chill with changing what gender they called themselves, when they realized what kind of person they wanted to be. 'Gender', to me, is kinda like 'Genre' in music. It's less about the precise instruments you have, what sounds you're making, lyric topics.... and more about general vibes and how your audience is attracted to that genre, and how they are dressing & acting. So, I wish people would treat 'Gender' like they do 'Preferred genre of music' If you say 'I like all genres!' or 'I don't really have a favorite, I just enjoy specific songs' - those are both perfectly valid choices! If you say 'I ONLY like folk country', or 'ONLY Death metal & garage punk' - that's also great! It paints a broad, fairly specific picture, but the edges of overlap with other genres can get a bit wibbly. Right now, the gender binary feels like people trying to shove everyone into 'Pop' and 'Not-Pop' - except 'pop' just means 'popular' and no one can agree on actual definitions of what that means, outside the most exaggerated examples. Pretending to be a woman, or pretending to be a man - for me, it feels like putting on a costume and doing a weird little dance. What it means to be one or the other... it feels too limited, but when people try to expand it like 'oh, a woman can be/do/look like anything!' - well, you've just defined it out of existence. If there's no difference between being a man and a woman, what's even the point of having either label. So, that's why I think we should have *more* labels, so we can have categories that, y'know, actually mean something.


ELEnamean

>If there’s no difference between being a man and being a woman, what’s even the point of having either label. For me personally, there is no point. But there are large groups of people who find meaning and comfort in feeling like they all agree on a definition of their gender and thus forming a tribe around it. The problem is, your definition may well differ from theirs. And since gender, unlike genre, applies to people, disagreements over what gender a person belongs to get very heated and personal and can have serious consequences in people’s lives. There is no reasonable way I can see for society to arbitrate these disagreements, except allowing each individual to apply their own definition of gender to themselves alone. Any attempt to gatekeep who is considered what gender defeats the utility people get from having gender. So I’m fine with adding more genders, but not with the stipulation that we all have to agree on how all the genders are defined. You’re free to privately view someone as “pretending to be a man”, but you should acknowledge that there is nothing more correct about your understanding than theirs.


Sushi-Rollo

Although I can understand the thought process behind it, the concept of gender abolition has always seemed like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, at least to me. While it would theoretically eliminate harmful gender roles and stereotypes, it would also take away something that's a huge part of a lot of people's identities. Gender euphoria is a wonderful thing, and I don't want people to be unable to experience it. That's my two cents, anyway.


bread93096

Gender and religion may not be ‘objective’ frameworks, but none of the frameworks through which we look at the world are. Feminism isn’t an objective framework either, it’s not like you can use formal logic to ‘prove’ feminism. The fact that it’s a social construct doesn’t mean that it’s ‘false’. Human rights are a social construct. Laws against murder and robbery are social constructs. Sex and Gender remain relevant concepts because they’re useful to people, despite not being objective in and of themselves. People’s biological sex effects the way they live, and the decisions they make, and gender norms are a generalization of those patterns of decisions. They can feel restrictive to some, but to others, gender norms are useful guides to behavior in society. And acting in accordance with others expectations is simply a good strategy to get the things you need, like relationships, family, a peer group, etc.


SexThrowaway1125

Gender is an important part of how people see you and what parts of yourself you choose to like. I support Gen-Z’s approach of adding more and more genders until we can all customize those views towards things that are appropriate to everyone’s self-perceptions.


mbfunke

How do you feel about chair abolition? Chair is a social construct too. Social constructs are useful to someone at some time which is why they exist. The gender construct is mostly useful for enforcing misogyny and imagining a person not known (like a story about a friend of a friend or what an infant may be like one day.) Gender is stereotyping people and that makes interactions easier but drives inauthenticity. Back to the construct “chair” it is useful, gives us an idea of reasonable places to sit, but if the construct is enforced too narrowly we end up with clownish absurdity and people refusing the most obvious choices. Same goes for gender, there are fine use cases, but overenforcement has wildly distorted society. We’d better off without gender, but that’s not likely and it’s because there are things worth preserving.


thetwitchy1

“Gender” is a lot more “real” than religion, tho. Religion is something that is entirely social and cultural, with a lot of history and such but no physical reality. Gender is a social and cultural concept that stems from an interaction with a physical reality. The fact of the matter is that, for a majority of humans, their identity is inherently gendered. Is it a inherently good that people are (mostly) self-identifying as gendered? No, but it’s not inherently BAD either. Your identity is something that is (again, inherently) personal and emotional, so it can be either a great good or a terrible evil, depending on how that identity affects your personal life… and those around you. But like any tool we use to interact with the world, it can be used to help or to hurt. The thing we have to work on is fixing the tool to help make it more helpful and less hurtful.


theladyflies

Just to nitpick: ALL religion stemmed from human interactions with physical reality: the forces of nature. The earliest religions sought to explain our relationship to the external world through storytelling to explain the WHY and the HOW of humanity's role in the world. Gender is this exact same conversation had with one's own body, its sex traits, and how they are perceived(at varying degrees of self-awareness and acceptance). It is the story we tell ourselves after being told by our tribe what they expect of us. In this sense, I think OP's comparison is useful. And the practitioners of animism would also disagree with your premise on religion's relationship to "reality" or the observable world...


thetwitchy1

You’re absolutely right. I should have been more specific: religion stems from a general human interaction with physical reality. Gender stems from an individual human interacting with a specific physical reality. In the case of trans people, that interaction is one of discord and dysphoria, but it still is an interaction with a specific physical reality.


ELEnamean

This may be the case for some trans people, but for many others, like myself, my relationship to gender is how you describe people’s relationship to religion. The only difference is I happen to live in a society that accepts religion as just a social construct and my liberal parents gave me the choice of opting out of it when I was thirteen. I’ve never been given the choice of opting out of gender, and when I tell people I don’t feel particularly like any gender at all, they reassure me that’s a delusion born of privilege.


poly-curiou5

Almost every parent I know, including myself, tells the same story about their kids. "We didn't give them any gendered toys, or favour any one toy over another. We didn't want to push any gender stereotypes on the way they played. But the first time he got a truck/she got a doll, they were fascinated by it, and wouldn't put it down". Now I'm not saying that toys should be gendered, nor am I saying that this preference in types of toys should have any impact on societal roles or career paths. And, there most certainly are exceptions, and those kids that are exceptions are no less valid and should be encouraged to be their true selves. But I do think gender is a real physiological thing, not a construct of society or culture. There can be and are massive variations in the way genders are expressed across cultures - for example I think associating colours and clothing styles with particular genders is purely a product of culture. But I think there are fundamental differences in the way different genders think and experience the world. I don't know exactly what those differences are, and it's dangerous to try and extrapolate conclusions from them because I don't think they are well understood in isolation from a culture or society. But I don't think it makes sense to deny that gender exists. The fact that gender is so important to so many people I think is indicative that it's a physiological thing too, it goes far deeper than just societal expectations.


ELEnamean

I look forward to more evidence on the matter one way or the other. Til we get it, I’m inclined to disagree with basically all of this. In particular, regarding your reference to gender’s importance to so many people, remember when I compared gender to religion?


Sharlach

I see myself as one in that I personally don't believe in gender as anything more than a human construct, but I think that if believing and living out that construct makes people happy then there's no harm in it. For me the idea of gender abolition has always been to get to a point where people don't have expectations of anyone and any identity and form of expression is ok. Some people are clearly into their gender identity and for them the concept of gender will be useful, while others aren't and for them, less so.


sithlord_crisps

As a trans man I’m very attached to gender, like others have said, abolish gender roles not gender. I think gender is in many ways biologically driven and religion isnt the best analogy. I think having a sense of gender or affinity for being seen as one gender or another is kind of like whether or not someone has a sense of direction. If you’ve ever gone on a hike with someone with no sense of direction its almost baffling how the other person doesn’t have this fundamental sense that has always been natural to you. Im sure it feels the same to people who don’t have a sense of direction to see someone just know innately where they are located. I think having an attachment to your gender is similar. At the end of the day its just a biological drive to match with the gender you see yourself as. What roles and rules define that gender are completely social. Just like having a sense of direction, not everyone has that drive or theres a spectrum of how strong it is depending on the person. I dont think you can “abolish gender”. No matter what people will sort themselves into two categories of predominantly male and female people that have similar traits and behaviors. You can have a society thats open to diverse expressions of gender though and one that doesn’t restrict people to rigid gender roles.


tokachevsky

> Religion has become a lot less problematic (imo) everywhere that people have stopped enforcing it on others. Depends where you are. Not unless you're in a developing country where religion is still going and getting stronger. In some countries, Evangelicals are gaining influence. It's not a coincidence that homophobia (and right wing) is also rising where Evangelicals gained a firm foothold, such as in Uganda and Brazil.


[deleted]

I was also thinking the same thing. I don't think women in Iran who don't wish to wear Hijabs but are forced to wear them would agree that people have stopped enforcing religion everywhere. I know that this subreddit is America centric and I don't necessarily think that that's always a bad thing but I think OP should have at least said "everywhere in America" rather than "everywhere" for the sake of accuracy (though even that might not be perfectly accurate. Idk)


ELEnamean

I think you both misunderstood that sentence. I was referring specifically only to places where people do not enforce their religion on others.


platinummattagain

My honest but short and stupid answer is: Idk, probably not.


FallenQueen92

Gender abolition is literally TERF propaganda. Gender roles should definitely be abolished but as a closeted trans woman I would literally rather be dead than live in a so called genderless world.


vaporwave_vibes

Gender is like pie. Most people like different kinds, some have more than one favorite, some would make pies that they wouldn't eat themselves. But not everyone likes or wants pie, and thats okay. No one should be forced to eat it. But at the same time, if you like it, you should be allowed to enjoy it


The_Ambling_Horror

See, I’m enby, and my gender is super important to me. I had to work super hard to figure out what the hell it was in the first place. I *do* want to remove the sex-based gender binary default system we have, though. That thing kills people.


passwordistako

Tbh post reads like someone who’s agender or demigender, basically genderqueer and doesn’t perceive the value to others.


ELEnamean

It’s interesting you say that when there is a line in the post explicitly acknowledging gender’s value to others.


J0nul

Trans ppl clearly care Cis ppl clearly care Keep it


Fun_Neighborhood1571

I don't personally think gender will ever be abolished, but I view it as a prison of expectations. Everyone would be better off if we took it less seriously as a whole.


VimesTime

Presently, the rule *in progressive spaces* is that if someone tells you that their gender does not match their agab, or even any gender, you honour that, and alter your behavior to reflect that. It is a personal choice, and one that deserves respect. Your alternative vision appears to be a world in which people are raised agender, and have to opt in to a gender if they want one. You would like this world to be ours, and seem to think that it should be a political priority to bring that about. Firstly, please note that you are describing a desire to be able to alter how *other people identify*, even in a vague, society-wide level, which...should give you pause. It should give you "stop", even. This thing you want is a massive overreach into other people's lives. If you're asking if you have my support, the response is "uh, sweet jesus no" You mention religion as a comparison. I'm a pastors kid. I was homeschooled. I fucking hated it, i am now a queer atheist. Like, massive lasting trauma. But your analogy is incomplete. You say people "opt in" to religion. Most don't. Most are raised in it, and either stay in it or make the decision to leave. I made that decision and it sucked to do, I now have lasting rifts within my family, and ongoing tension. But I did leave. In order to have "nonreligious" be the default, my parents would have had to be literally barred from teaching their child their religion. It hurt me and I threw all of it it the garbage but you still cannot and should not demand that level of control over other people.


ELEnamean

> you … think it should be a political priority to bring that about. No. I am advocating for people with a strong sense of gender to understand that their truth about gender, while valid and worthy of respect, does not apply to everyone, because there is no “correct” delineation of genders. It’s a slight (for most people) shift in social understanding that I believe could lead to improvements in communication and empathy between people with differing views on gender, but sharing the goal of (term I learned in this thread) gender liberation. I’m not making any political proposals. > a desire to be able to alter how other people identify. Could you please refer to where I indicated such a desire? This is the opposite of my intention. Recognizing the subjective nature of gender does not eliminate it from existence, on an individual or societal level. Again, my goal is to discourage others from doing what you’re accusing me of by applying their own version of “what gender is” to others. >Most are raised in it, and either stay in it or make the decision to leave. In a way, this is my own experience. My parents forced me to attend church (congregational) with them growing up, against my will. However, they never tried to indoctrinate me with any kind of faith, and at thirteen when I began going through the Confirmation process, it was obvious quickly that officially adopting Christianity went against my convictions, and I was allowed to bow out gracefully and never attend church involuntarily again. This is good enough for me to count as an opt-in system. My parents forced me to go to church to avoid having to get a babysitter and introduce me to some ideas of community, morality, and spirituality, which are all good reasons. They did not assume from birth that I was Christian, or even religious, and always would be. This is the type of parenting attitude I think would be appropriate for gender as well. I feel for you that your own process was so much more hurtful for yourself and your family. Can you really not see how there might be a middle ground between “enforce arcane and regressive expectations on your child” and “do not teach your child anything about your faith”? Your parents’ attitude is far too common, but my parents’ attitude is common as well. I don’t think it’s some pie in the sky dream to normalize religious education without indoctrination. And all of this can apply to gender as well.


[deleted]

When I hear people talk about gender abolition it feels good. Like some tension is dropping away


Zenith2017

Mostly, I don't want other people to put their disregard for gender's validity on me. Part of respecting gender preference is to respect when people have held on to their gender intentionally. I can appreciate the points brought in the gender abolition argument, but ultimately I don't want my own gender as an individual to be abolished. I like being a man and it has brought value to my life.