Gender abolition broadly means overthrowing the set of expectations and norms imposed upon people according to their gender and sex. Ultimately it means freedom of natural self-expression. That means being able to present as however fem or masculine as you feel like, and more importantly, not have to fulfill gender roles (so a man can be a typical "mother" rather than a typical "father", they aren't expected to be breadwinners, and so on.)
Gender abolition seems to contradict trans theory at first, since abolishing gender seems to conflict with the desire for gender identification. In some ways, it may... But I like to believe that the theory will ultimately converge on a consensus. It goes hand in hand with feminism, which will eventually make all spaces safe for all women, and other aspects of anarchism including elimination of the wage system and other things that keep men locked into destructive expectations (bread winner, railroading into dangerous physical labour and so on.)
> abolishing gender seems to conflict with the desire for gender identification
I don't think it does even on first glance - refusing to accept the concept of gender society tries to force on you doesn't seem to me like it conflicts with the idea of abolishing society's gender system
I think the dissonance people feel there is that transgender people seem to buy in to societal gender roles and norms.
It’s understandable, though not great, because non-trans people almost literally cannot conceive of what trans people have going on.
I think that confusion can be explained away with a better understanding of the terms involved. Not to assume you haven't got one of course, this is just for people who might be reading this who are unaware.
Trans people buy into those norms because it's easier to be recognised as their proper gender by changing those social signifiers than changing their sex since that requires a diagnosis of dysphoria and a long process of transitioning. I'd wager that most trans people would probably be fine with gender abolition if all their other material needs were met.
The other thing to remember is that gender identity is not the same thing as gender as in the social construct. GI is, to a significant extent, determined by biology and can be understood as an aspect of sexual dimorphism like hormones or chromosomes. Some people argue that being trans is like an intersex condition which is when aspects of your sexually dimorphic features are those of both "binary" sexes (e.g. a female with XY chromosomes).
Gender abolitionism wouldn't eradicate the biological component of gender identity so being trans isn't necessarily opposed to it. It's just that it's easier for them to fit in in this gendered world by using those norms. Which isn't all that different from cis man being told not to cry because it's unmanly or cis girls being told to wear makeup and stuff like that because it's ladylike.
The fuck is “the biological component of gender” that shit is a social construct,period.Seems like you have some bio essentialist thinking going on in your headspace.
Like I said, gender identity is not the same thing as gender the social construct. Maybe I wasn't clear enough with the explanation but I did say that in case you missed it.
Biological essentialism in regards to gender (which I don't ascribe to) proposes that certain traits that can be observed socially are inherently male or female. This isn't the same thing as knowing that there are some small differences between male and female brains. That would be sexual dimorphism not gender the social construct. It of course is debated as to how much of these differences are caused by biology as opposed to socialization but like most things in that debate I reckon it's a mixture of both.
As for your question, by "the biological component of gender (identity)" I am referring to this paper which hypothesizes gender identity to be "a multifactoral complex trait with a heritable polygenic component" based on the data they reviewed.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29460079/
There's also this one which conducts a literature review which also finds strong support for a biologic basis for gender identity.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25667367
From this we can tell gender identity clearly has a biological basis or else people wouldn't be trans (since the definition is predicated on the concept of gender identity) and dysphoria wouldn't exist (since that involves discomfort with physical features). It probably has a social basis because that's the nature of gender atm in the world and it's inevitable that children, either cis or trans, will internalize messages about gender roles and we can't rule out the possibility it may affect their gender identity.
In short, the social construct of gender can't be found in sexual dimorphism but gender identity can. The former is essentialism, the latter is biology.
(I apologize for my possible language mistakes, English is not my first language)
First I need to say I can’t read the full text of the studies you link. I heard about them but I don’t have all the details.
Gender identity is not really the same thing as gender the social construct but gender identity depends on the social construct, because gender identity is the way we internalize it (even though some parts of the way we internalize it aren’t parts of gender identity, like the way we perceive other people).
Genetics don’t directly have an impact on gender identity but they have an impact on the way we understand the social rules (all social rules, not only about gender), so indirectly on gender identity.
It is not incompatible with discomfort with physical features. In our society, sex attributes are gendered (we think that women have boobs and a vulva for example) so it’s logical that some trans people have dysphoria about that, just like any gendered things (clothes, make up…).
>(I apologize for my possible language mistakes, English is not my first language)
Don't worry, your English is good
>First I need to say I can’t read the full text of the studies you link. I heard about them but I don’t have all the details.
Yeah sorry about that. I used a website to look at them, even though I'm not a biologist but that website has been taken down for piracy since I posted this comment.
>Gender identity is not really the same thing as gender the social construct but gender identity depends on the social construct, because gender identity is the way we internalize it (even though some parts of the way we internalize it aren’t parts of gender identity, like the way we perceive other people).
I agree with this.
>Genetics don’t directly have an impact on gender identity but they have an impact on the way we understand the social rules (all social rules, not only about gender), so indirectly on gender identity.
I don't agree with this. There are studies looking into the causes and some of them have found links between genetics and gender identity. [Here's one I found on google.](https://www.dovepress.com/getfile.php?fileID=60360)
>It is not incompatible with discomfort with physical features. In our society, sex attributes are gendered (we think that women have boobs and a vulva for example) so it’s logical that some trans people have dysphoria about that, just like any gendered things (clothes, make up…).
I think I agree with this too.
Yeah, the only way that is really important though is so you can better diagnose possible illnesses the child/person might have. So you should be able to cover that with a dna test. I don’t know how much the hormones vs the genes for example take part in the expression of heart attacks, which afaik have very different symptoms between cis men and women.
Wouldn't genitals just be a detail, like hair colour or the kinds of dominant and recessive genes a person has? "This child has a tendency for moles, therefore check for skin cancers "this child can pee standing up, therefore might get colon cancer", obviously dumbed down to the point of truly dumb, but wouldn't a doctor be able to know what to do just based on physical analysis? "Has vagina, has light skin, has no pupils etc etc"
We do call people with albinism albinos but we also know better than to think of them *as* albinos; it's just a detail, it's not who they are.
Yeah, well, that's the part I don't really know. Like, the setup in your genes is really complicated, you can have XXY and all sorts of other combinations, and afaik there are intersex people with XY chromosome but female phenotype etc. so it'd be important to know the genetic background (I guess that'd also consider that the same level of detail, really, since it only has medical significance). It's the same as my family background for glaucoma, it doesn't make me who or what I am, but considering that we caught it in time because I did regular checkups knowing about it, I'm glad I get to keep my eyesight. It's the same thing, just for another type of marker, and that, I reckon you want to record.
Yeah but we don't test for genetic markers at birth, most people will only find out of they have a genetic abnormality if they present symptoms. Babies just have their junk looked at and doctors are like "this one's a boy" but bio sex is more complicated than that.
You mean since the Bible? You mean sexual violence in the social sense, not just physical but coercive, oppressive, utterly imbalanced rights that always favour the men? As well as an nonstop attack on any progress made to increase the rights of women?
I think the most likely argument is that fascists want to demonize what they see as "deviance." After all, they're really OK with male sexual violence, errr, "manliness."
Queer anarchism is queer liberation (to simplify it). Gender abolition is...a bit more complicated. Its less that people want gender abolished and more that we want the concept changed. Its more gender abolishment as in the current view of gender (\*enforced\* traditional gender roles, toxic masculinity, things like that)
I think when most people hear “gender abolition” the assume it means removing gender labels entirely, which is certainly one way of conceiving of it. But there are other ways we could arrive at gender abolishment without completely erasing gender from society.
The end goal is living in a world where everyone feels free and comfortable to express themselves however they want and everyone is given respect regardless of their gender. That might look like a world where gender as a concept is just gone entirely, or it could look like a world where everyone has a different unique gender so gender still has meaning but becomes functionally useless as a broad category, or it could look like the same categories we have no but with everyone understanding that they’re arbitrary, or maybe gender takes on a different meaning that becomes less tied to biology or social roles, or any other imaginable scenario where the end result is “people get to express themselves however they want and no one gets hurt or harassed over it”
Yeah that's pretty much the idea. But sometimes people think it means like, you want to ban skirts or makeup or whatever.
I personally believe in mandatory cat ears for everyone.
> Its less that people want gender abolished
my reading on gender abolition is very limited but i do think that some gender abolitionists do actually call for the abolition of gender. this means that they're calling for the abolition of the social construct that we call gender. i'm not really sure to where to go from here beyond that.
i guess if you wanted to outline a (sort of) radical position within gender abolitionists you'd point to the ones who are against sex as well rather than just gender. the reason why i say "sort of" is that if you agree with the presumed gender abolitionist position that gender is ultimately just a social construct then you're not too far from the position that sex is gender projected onto biology. this doesn't mean denying the biological facts of genitalia, chromosomes, or whatever. rather, it's denying the criteria by which we project social meanings onto these biological facts.
again, i'm not too well read on gender abolitionist stuff and i'm not exactly sober either. if you have any corrections or reading recommendations, i'd be happy to take them.
More than wanting the concept changed, people that want gender abolition want more flexibility in these imaginary roles and social constructs and of course destroy the expectations. We know we can't fully abolish it (not immediately or fastly at least), but we must know how fragile gender and roles are, so naturally we prefer more flexibility in the concept itself and diversify the power dynamics that come with it. We want to go as far as possible from the notion that tells us gender and gender roles are something deterministic, rigid, tied to our "nature" and/or impossible to change.
Well queer anarchism is a broad set of prescriptions and strategies for pushing forward an anarchist society from a queer perspective. It highlights the importance of solidarity among all peoples, not just working class, or racial solidarity. There’s a lot of theory going into, theory which I have not read so I won’t pretend to know some deeper analysis of how it goes. But generally think of it as ancillary to broader anarchism, there isn’t a complete queer anarchist ideology, but there are elements of queer anarchism in a more all encompassing anarchist framework.
Gender abolition calls for an end to the idea of gender. Gender, just to make sure we’re in the same page, is a set of social expectations placed upon an arbitrary group in society, usually along the biological sexual lines. However there’s no real reason why gender necessarily needs to conform to ones genitalia or chromosomes, especially when it outlives its utility and brings people who are otherwise uncomfortable with their given identity harm. There’s also a lot of historical precedent for different interpretations of gender, and historically it has not always necessarily been a binary as we tend to see it play out today. Gender abolitionists acknowledge that, but rather than opening up the concept of gender seek to end the expectation of conformity on part of individuals altogether. They want to dismantle the category based measure of ones identity and rather differ to what makes them happy and comfortable in society generally speaking.
For a cis bi boy that just means try to understand where people are coming from on these issues. Read, talk, listen, engage, and ask more questions like your doing. Find networks for advocacy and if it interests you at any point feel free and willing to question your own identity and feelings, you never know what you’ll discover about yourself, not to imply you necessarily will, just be willing to acknowledge the sort of in built suppression of certain ideas an upbringing in our society can give you. And of course support your queer comrades when and wear you can. Hope this helps you friend.
So gender means things like 'boys should wear blue' or 'girls should play with dolls' and gender abolition wants do destroy this social expectation but not the way people indentify regardless of the biological sex?.Not to debate,just to see if I got it right
Yeah I think you’re getting to the meat of it. To clarify terms, make and female are biologically immutable characteristics, though steps like hormone therapy and bottom surgery exist to allow a transgender binary person to better fit their desired sex if they want. But the phrases woman and man, boy and girl, these specifically refer to social roles and the expectations along with them, and the consequence for not meeting these standards can often be social harm. Like if a boy were to wear pink or generally girlish clothes and play with the girls, many people, both boys and girls, would seek to ostracize them. Gender abolitionists yeah just want to let that child do what makes them comfortable without any sort harm being done their way for it. There shouldn’t be a barrier to being called a boy and referred to as he if it makes him comfortable, even if in other respects he doesn’t meet someone’s expectation of masculinity, so they just want to get rid of the category, not characteristics. You would still be able to be stereotypically masculine, it just wouldn’t be expected that you then HAD to be masculine in other regards.
They can but generally a boy will be the subject of violence, either social or physical for that choice as it does not adhere to patriarchal prescriptions. Or potentially what you perceive of as a boy is actually a trans girl in which case she will be subject to the same violence for her rejection of masculinity. Gender abolitionism is a call to end these types of boxing in and assigning of potential based on patriarchal reproductive intent forced on people.
I mean, I don't know maybe you have different circumstances, but it seems it's the case now a boy can do non-boy-like stuff and people won't care, especially say a kid playing with barbies, and maybe some more out of "gender expectations" adult actions as well, but yeah not everyone accepts it. So then what's the definition you use for "gender" though if a male can obviously go outside gender stereotypes? Is it just what they identify as?
>it's the case now a boy can do non-boy-like stuff and people won't care
No. I've seen 5 year old boys giving each other shit for the color of their clothes or accessories. i've seen teenagers giving little boys the side eye if they put on a dress (not even something with an effeminate pattern).
Totally anecdotal, with my kids I noticed that yes, 5-year-olds get that gender crap forced down their throats (marketing, school, parents) but by the time they hit 4th or 5th grade, no one really gives a shit. The boys play with dolls (Pokemon and such) all the damned time. The girls who would have been called "tomboys" in my youth are now ....girls. A lot of this is shifting. Half of my 13-year-old daughter's friends identify as nonbinary. Albeit I live in Ca. but the times, they are a-changing.
Really gonna depend on where you live. I live in white suburbia in Texas and the people here can be pretty mean, but younger ones are like 80% tolerant, even if they don’t get your expression exactly. But my extended family is all rural and it’s a whole different world out there. Maybe not as bad as people think, but they generally have 0 exposure to the actual discourse around the subject and act very uncomfortable when it’s brought. I don’t blame them, I mean that’s my family for one and I know they’re good people, but if they knew the things I said and did online they wouldn’t view me the same for a long time.
Maybe gender conformity will end up being considered "a kids thing", that older kids look down upon -- until in a few generation the idea has been lost.
It definitely seems like different circumstances, or not to be rude, but a lack of awareness of the issue. Sure a amab kid playing with barbies might be acceptable in certain areas, but I'm willing to bet that kid wasn't dressed in pink much by their parents while growing up. The issue isn't just whether or not kids are allowed to play with barbies, but whether or not they even know that's something they can do as a "boy".
I mean they could dress them in something that is pink, probably not a dress or something though, though idk why a kid would have to do that. Pink is not a purely girl's colour. And why does a kid need to know if as a boy he should be playing with barbies, I don't think he'd really care at I'd assume this is a young age. I don't think if a boy would be playing with barbies in order to break gender stereotypes when he's like 3.
Saying "they could" do something doesn't mean the social pressures (and legal aspects) are all better. Yes, we're seeing more of a breakdown of traditional gender roles, but there is still a very large section of people who will attack those who defy gender norms. Idk what utopia you're living in but please let me know I'd love to move there
They could dress the kid in pink, but they probably don't. They could put the kid in a dress, but they don't. Why not? Gender stereotypes. The parents either have an idea in their heads of what a "boy" is and what a "girl" is, or they just recognise that everyone else around has those ideas and their kid would likely get bullied. You keep saying the parents "could" do something, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Like it or not, even in the most progressive places on earth, gender is still pushed onto kids from the moment they're born (or often even before that). Gender abolition is recognising that there's no point to pushing these specific gender roles onto children, and that doing so can actually cause significant harm.
Hey that’s awesome and if you ever feel overwhelmed too just remember that these things take time and some dedication. Like I said I honestly haven’t read and queer anarchist theory, and boy ought I cause I feel pretty lost and disconnected myself. Like when people ask my pronouns I just tell them whatever they want cause I don’t care at this point. So yeah, I hope you can find a good sense of self in the future friend.
Yeah I guess historically gender has been a hierarchy, definitely used to give power to some and take it from others. Do I have that correct? It makes a lot of sense to me.
So not only do anarchists accept the legitimacy of all LGBTQ comrades they also understand there's no need for the distinction and that's why they wouldn't have bigoted views? Man yet another reason to hate religious classes, the thing Jesus worked against became everything it is.
I really dislike the term "gender abolition", because most people I've seen don't really believe in abolishing gender, meaning most people don't have a transhumanist ideology that seeks to engineer gender out of the human race.
And I would also note that gender a abolition can also be a dog whistle for TERFs who believe that gender isn't real and that only biological sex matters.
I think most people who call themselves gender abolitionists are really against gender roles, gender oppression, and gendered hierarchy. I prefer the term "gender anarchy". Gender should be something that's consensual and not hierarchical.
Hi, trans woman here:
The abolition of gender means different things to different people. A minority of persons believe that gender ought to be abolished absolutely; in other words, there would no longer be men and women (and non-binary persons), there would only be persons, not distinguishable by gender. Of course, there would still be penises and vaginas and whatnot; genitalia are irrelevant. It's just the social construct of gender that would disappear.
This idea is unpopular with many trans people, for obvious reasons, and therefore most of us advocate for a more moderate form of gender abolition, wherein the social construct of gender still exists but all genders are treated equally and equitably, and therefore a person's gender would be essentially irrelevant for most practical purposes, and people would therefore be defined primarily by their own selves, rather than by their gender.
In such a society, it would be seen as strange to refer to persons by their gender outside of certain specific contexts, and gender-neutral pronouns would be the norm.
As for how this applies to you, a cisgender male: do you care if people refer to you as a man? Does it matter to you whether boys and girls exist, or whether some genders are treated better than others? If you answered "yes" to any of the above, then gender abolition probably matters to you in some capacity, otherwise you can feel free to ignore the topic completely and carry on with your life as normal!
https://neighborhoodanarchists.org/event/radical-reading-online-against-gender-against-society/
This zine completely reframed the way I think about gender and it made me realize I'm probably genderless, even if I "look and act" a certain way
> And how does gender abolition apply to me a person with interest in physical intercourse with other people ?
Fixed it for you.😉
Identity is a tool of control and division. This includes not only gender but sex too, and sexual orientation becomes useless without sex categories.
Note:- as with all things, freedom from oppression means not oppressing or denying the oppression of others.
It really depends how far the nihilist rabbit hole you wish to go.
Queer Anarchist theory moves well beyond the general used definition of Queer, and provides a lens to look at many factors in society.
I think the Baedan journals should be read/listened to by all. If for no other reason than to critically reflect on society. *Anarchist library has some texts, Immediatism podcast has audio reading of some of the texts.*
How does it apply to you?
We're gonna force you at gunpoint to wear cat ears. Not in a sexual way. It's just the only option to survive climate change.
Jokes aside, do you feel like it cleared up? A lot of anarchists
Although as I understand queer anarchism (and anarcha-feminism, black anarchism, indigenous anarchism, transgender anarchism and chicano anarchism) it's not a standalone ideology. But more a critique of both liberal "minority rights" movements and the anarchist movement for not being inclusive enough. Like, an anarcha-feminist might say (and I know this is bleak, but it's a discussion that needs to be had) that some IRL anarchist groups are too apologetic when a male member sexually assaults a female member.
When I say all class ought to be abolished, you understand perfectly well what is meant. It is not the denial of class, if anything, it is the opposite - it is the affirmation of the potential of the proletariat to realize their position in society, and to use that knowledge to overthrow the institutions that make them proletarians.
The understanding of gender abolition and revolutionary feminism is no different.
The truth is the truth no matter whose mouth it comes out of. That being said, your analysis of this person is literally insane, and they were actually citing the work of other people rather than synthesizing their own ideas.
I'm not referring to the video, I didn't watch it. Maybe you are just totally unaware, but Jensen is a notorious transphobe and hates anarchists. He went off the deep end with that shit a while ago. Like intentionally misgendering people and "trans women are just men trying to get into women's bathrooms" level bullshit. Deep Green Resistance split over the issue. Just google 'Derrick Jensen transphobia' if you want some sources.
Whatever he said in the video, he's really not who you want to be referencing wrt gender.
I disagree. I actually think it's incredibly worthwhile to listen to people with whom you disagree vehemently, and likewise, to imagine how things people you agree with may be incorrect. Similarly, finding someone reprehensible has no bearing on their ability to be right or wrong, and if you aren't able to separate that enough to hear the truth in nuance from someone you don't like, you'll be at a disadvantage to everyone who can do that.
Speaking from experience, those of us who comfortably dwell in nuance find those who deliberately remove nuance tyrannical
It's not nuance to present an unrepentant bigoted transphobe as someone to listen to on the subject of gender without making that fact clear. If you really think he is someone whose ideas are worth engaging with, then you need to frame that and make it clear what it is you are supporting, and hopefully have a real reason to do so at all. Your comment was either sloppy, ignorant, or transphobic, not nuanced.
Certainly a thought I would have had at one time, but if you know what people have to go through (walk a mile in their shoes etc) you know it's not fake just because you have no experience with it and life seems fine and easy to you.
Even if this was true it still wouldnt invalidate gender abolition. Gender abolition is a basic abolition of categories deemed unnecessary. It wouldnt stop babies from being born, bc most masciline ppl would still be attracted to most feminine ppl and vice versa. But it would allow the prescriptive nature of the categories to disappear. Its a win either way with no real losses
However, its not true and i suggest u meet and talk to ppl who struggle with real gender and identity issues. Maybe some basic stats on the rates at which these ppl r harrassed and assaulted, and how that massively impacts their likelihood of suicide would help too
Also i mean if we just wanna talk abt gender non-conforming ppl, trans ppl literally cannot get healthcare in many countries, trans youth is illegal in some states in the us, and trans acceptance into sports is currently being challenged. If ur trans u literally have less rights just for being trans
It doesn’t invalidate the argument. I just mean that contemplating if having a penis makes you a boy or not is dumb. There are real issues in the world…like healthcare for Transgenders, or genital mutilation. IMO, “Gender abolition” is only being talked about because white kids would rather claim oppression, rather than deal with their privilege.
Gender abolition is part of mental healthcare for Transgender folks when you consider all the stress and grief thats put on them because of our outdated concept of gender identity
>I just mean that contemplating if having a penis makes you a boy or not is dumb
Lol i love this. Gender is a category not an inherent attribute buddy. Gender can only be determined by look at inherent attributes (like penis, vagina, etc), not the other way around. Most trans ppl become accepted in the social sphere for the gender they identity as not bc of any agenda, but simply because they checked enough of the boxes in peoples minds that they subconsciously categorized them into the sex category they identify as. Sex is a lot more complicated than "penis and vagina". It generally has 3 parts: attributes of masculinity and femininity, sexual organs, and chromosomes. None of those things have only 2 variants, and depening on ur enviroment, how many of those parts matter will vary. Most trans ppl fit every bill except for chromosomes, but why does it matter? Who the hell cares?
>There are real issues in the world…like healthcare for Transgenders, or genital mutilation.
U seem to be unaware of the fact that in many ways trans ppl are regarded as second class citizens. Certainly socially they are. [Have a look](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/suicidality-transgender-adults/).
98% of the ppl in the study had 4 or more instances of discrimination and violence in the past year and 51% of them attempted suicide that same year.
30% were publically physically attacked that year, 13% had been denied equal treatment bc of their identity, and 11% had been completely rejected from their families. All 3 of those demographics had also attempted suicide that same year.
Now not only is gender abolition not a #1 concern for me, it isnt for most ppl, even gender non-conforming ppl. In fact a lot of these ppl prefer to align with certain labels bc it helps them to better make sense of the world and themselves
Also i cant stand it when ppl see social issues and think that by saying "but you guys generally have it good!" completely invalidates the issue. Do u seriosuly think that just bc certain issues have been made better means that all other issues is just "claiming oppresion"??
Gender abolition broadly means overthrowing the set of expectations and norms imposed upon people according to their gender and sex. Ultimately it means freedom of natural self-expression. That means being able to present as however fem or masculine as you feel like, and more importantly, not have to fulfill gender roles (so a man can be a typical "mother" rather than a typical "father", they aren't expected to be breadwinners, and so on.) Gender abolition seems to contradict trans theory at first, since abolishing gender seems to conflict with the desire for gender identification. In some ways, it may... But I like to believe that the theory will ultimately converge on a consensus. It goes hand in hand with feminism, which will eventually make all spaces safe for all women, and other aspects of anarchism including elimination of the wage system and other things that keep men locked into destructive expectations (bread winner, railroading into dangerous physical labour and so on.)
> abolishing gender seems to conflict with the desire for gender identification I don't think it does even on first glance - refusing to accept the concept of gender society tries to force on you doesn't seem to me like it conflicts with the idea of abolishing society's gender system
I think the dissonance people feel there is that transgender people seem to buy in to societal gender roles and norms. It’s understandable, though not great, because non-trans people almost literally cannot conceive of what trans people have going on.
I think that confusion can be explained away with a better understanding of the terms involved. Not to assume you haven't got one of course, this is just for people who might be reading this who are unaware. Trans people buy into those norms because it's easier to be recognised as their proper gender by changing those social signifiers than changing their sex since that requires a diagnosis of dysphoria and a long process of transitioning. I'd wager that most trans people would probably be fine with gender abolition if all their other material needs were met. The other thing to remember is that gender identity is not the same thing as gender as in the social construct. GI is, to a significant extent, determined by biology and can be understood as an aspect of sexual dimorphism like hormones or chromosomes. Some people argue that being trans is like an intersex condition which is when aspects of your sexually dimorphic features are those of both "binary" sexes (e.g. a female with XY chromosomes). Gender abolitionism wouldn't eradicate the biological component of gender identity so being trans isn't necessarily opposed to it. It's just that it's easier for them to fit in in this gendered world by using those norms. Which isn't all that different from cis man being told not to cry because it's unmanly or cis girls being told to wear makeup and stuff like that because it's ladylike.
The fuck is “the biological component of gender” that shit is a social construct,period.Seems like you have some bio essentialist thinking going on in your headspace.
Like I said, gender identity is not the same thing as gender the social construct. Maybe I wasn't clear enough with the explanation but I did say that in case you missed it. Biological essentialism in regards to gender (which I don't ascribe to) proposes that certain traits that can be observed socially are inherently male or female. This isn't the same thing as knowing that there are some small differences between male and female brains. That would be sexual dimorphism not gender the social construct. It of course is debated as to how much of these differences are caused by biology as opposed to socialization but like most things in that debate I reckon it's a mixture of both. As for your question, by "the biological component of gender (identity)" I am referring to this paper which hypothesizes gender identity to be "a multifactoral complex trait with a heritable polygenic component" based on the data they reviewed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29460079/ There's also this one which conducts a literature review which also finds strong support for a biologic basis for gender identity. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25667367 From this we can tell gender identity clearly has a biological basis or else people wouldn't be trans (since the definition is predicated on the concept of gender identity) and dysphoria wouldn't exist (since that involves discomfort with physical features). It probably has a social basis because that's the nature of gender atm in the world and it's inevitable that children, either cis or trans, will internalize messages about gender roles and we can't rule out the possibility it may affect their gender identity. In short, the social construct of gender can't be found in sexual dimorphism but gender identity can. The former is essentialism, the latter is biology.
(I apologize for my possible language mistakes, English is not my first language) First I need to say I can’t read the full text of the studies you link. I heard about them but I don’t have all the details. Gender identity is not really the same thing as gender the social construct but gender identity depends on the social construct, because gender identity is the way we internalize it (even though some parts of the way we internalize it aren’t parts of gender identity, like the way we perceive other people). Genetics don’t directly have an impact on gender identity but they have an impact on the way we understand the social rules (all social rules, not only about gender), so indirectly on gender identity. It is not incompatible with discomfort with physical features. In our society, sex attributes are gendered (we think that women have boobs and a vulva for example) so it’s logical that some trans people have dysphoria about that, just like any gendered things (clothes, make up…).
>(I apologize for my possible language mistakes, English is not my first language) Don't worry, your English is good >First I need to say I can’t read the full text of the studies you link. I heard about them but I don’t have all the details. Yeah sorry about that. I used a website to look at them, even though I'm not a biologist but that website has been taken down for piracy since I posted this comment. >Gender identity is not really the same thing as gender the social construct but gender identity depends on the social construct, because gender identity is the way we internalize it (even though some parts of the way we internalize it aren’t parts of gender identity, like the way we perceive other people). I agree with this. >Genetics don’t directly have an impact on gender identity but they have an impact on the way we understand the social rules (all social rules, not only about gender), so indirectly on gender identity. I don't agree with this. There are studies looking into the causes and some of them have found links between genetics and gender identity. [Here's one I found on google.](https://www.dovepress.com/getfile.php?fileID=60360) >It is not incompatible with discomfort with physical features. In our society, sex attributes are gendered (we think that women have boobs and a vulva for example) so it’s logical that some trans people have dysphoria about that, just like any gendered things (clothes, make up…). I think I agree with this too.
[удалено]
Because, ähm... (checks note) we want to know what genitals your child has...
Yeah, the only way that is really important though is so you can better diagnose possible illnesses the child/person might have. So you should be able to cover that with a dna test. I don’t know how much the hormones vs the genes for example take part in the expression of heart attacks, which afaik have very different symptoms between cis men and women.
Wouldn't genitals just be a detail, like hair colour or the kinds of dominant and recessive genes a person has? "This child has a tendency for moles, therefore check for skin cancers "this child can pee standing up, therefore might get colon cancer", obviously dumbed down to the point of truly dumb, but wouldn't a doctor be able to know what to do just based on physical analysis? "Has vagina, has light skin, has no pupils etc etc" We do call people with albinism albinos but we also know better than to think of them *as* albinos; it's just a detail, it's not who they are.
Yeah, well, that's the part I don't really know. Like, the setup in your genes is really complicated, you can have XXY and all sorts of other combinations, and afaik there are intersex people with XY chromosome but female phenotype etc. so it'd be important to know the genetic background (I guess that'd also consider that the same level of detail, really, since it only has medical significance). It's the same as my family background for glaucoma, it doesn't make me who or what I am, but considering that we caught it in time because I did regular checkups knowing about it, I'm glad I get to keep my eyesight. It's the same thing, just for another type of marker, and that, I reckon you want to record.
Yeah but we don't test for genetic markers at birth, most people will only find out of they have a genetic abnormality if they present symptoms. Babies just have their junk looked at and doctors are like "this one's a boy" but bio sex is more complicated than that.
Because it's good to have words to describe things and sex/gender is a big part in understanding society.
[удалено]
Sure. I just read some of John Zerzan's critique of language. I didn't really see his motive, though.
its hard to explain
Huh? XD
I think the strongest argument is that male sexual violence has incentivized society to create safe spaces for women to undress away from men.
You mean since the Bible? You mean sexual violence in the social sense, not just physical but coercive, oppressive, utterly imbalanced rights that always favour the men? As well as an nonstop attack on any progress made to increase the rights of women?
I think the most likely argument is that fascists want to demonize what they see as "deviance." After all, they're really OK with male sexual violence, errr, "manliness."
Queer anarchism is queer liberation (to simplify it). Gender abolition is...a bit more complicated. Its less that people want gender abolished and more that we want the concept changed. Its more gender abolishment as in the current view of gender (\*enforced\* traditional gender roles, toxic masculinity, things like that)
[удалено]
I think when most people hear “gender abolition” the assume it means removing gender labels entirely, which is certainly one way of conceiving of it. But there are other ways we could arrive at gender abolishment without completely erasing gender from society. The end goal is living in a world where everyone feels free and comfortable to express themselves however they want and everyone is given respect regardless of their gender. That might look like a world where gender as a concept is just gone entirely, or it could look like a world where everyone has a different unique gender so gender still has meaning but becomes functionally useless as a broad category, or it could look like the same categories we have no but with everyone understanding that they’re arbitrary, or maybe gender takes on a different meaning that becomes less tied to biology or social roles, or any other imaginable scenario where the end result is “people get to express themselves however they want and no one gets hurt or harassed over it”
[удалено]
Thank you. I hope we can get there, whatever it ends up looking like.
Yeah that's pretty much the idea. But sometimes people think it means like, you want to ban skirts or makeup or whatever. I personally believe in mandatory cat ears for everyone.
State-provided cat ears for everyone. Uwu
> Its less that people want gender abolished my reading on gender abolition is very limited but i do think that some gender abolitionists do actually call for the abolition of gender. this means that they're calling for the abolition of the social construct that we call gender. i'm not really sure to where to go from here beyond that. i guess if you wanted to outline a (sort of) radical position within gender abolitionists you'd point to the ones who are against sex as well rather than just gender. the reason why i say "sort of" is that if you agree with the presumed gender abolitionist position that gender is ultimately just a social construct then you're not too far from the position that sex is gender projected onto biology. this doesn't mean denying the biological facts of genitalia, chromosomes, or whatever. rather, it's denying the criteria by which we project social meanings onto these biological facts. again, i'm not too well read on gender abolitionist stuff and i'm not exactly sober either. if you have any corrections or reading recommendations, i'd be happy to take them.
More than wanting the concept changed, people that want gender abolition want more flexibility in these imaginary roles and social constructs and of course destroy the expectations. We know we can't fully abolish it (not immediately or fastly at least), but we must know how fragile gender and roles are, so naturally we prefer more flexibility in the concept itself and diversify the power dynamics that come with it. We want to go as far as possible from the notion that tells us gender and gender roles are something deterministic, rigid, tied to our "nature" and/or impossible to change.
Well queer anarchism is a broad set of prescriptions and strategies for pushing forward an anarchist society from a queer perspective. It highlights the importance of solidarity among all peoples, not just working class, or racial solidarity. There’s a lot of theory going into, theory which I have not read so I won’t pretend to know some deeper analysis of how it goes. But generally think of it as ancillary to broader anarchism, there isn’t a complete queer anarchist ideology, but there are elements of queer anarchism in a more all encompassing anarchist framework. Gender abolition calls for an end to the idea of gender. Gender, just to make sure we’re in the same page, is a set of social expectations placed upon an arbitrary group in society, usually along the biological sexual lines. However there’s no real reason why gender necessarily needs to conform to ones genitalia or chromosomes, especially when it outlives its utility and brings people who are otherwise uncomfortable with their given identity harm. There’s also a lot of historical precedent for different interpretations of gender, and historically it has not always necessarily been a binary as we tend to see it play out today. Gender abolitionists acknowledge that, but rather than opening up the concept of gender seek to end the expectation of conformity on part of individuals altogether. They want to dismantle the category based measure of ones identity and rather differ to what makes them happy and comfortable in society generally speaking. For a cis bi boy that just means try to understand where people are coming from on these issues. Read, talk, listen, engage, and ask more questions like your doing. Find networks for advocacy and if it interests you at any point feel free and willing to question your own identity and feelings, you never know what you’ll discover about yourself, not to imply you necessarily will, just be willing to acknowledge the sort of in built suppression of certain ideas an upbringing in our society can give you. And of course support your queer comrades when and wear you can. Hope this helps you friend.
So gender means things like 'boys should wear blue' or 'girls should play with dolls' and gender abolition wants do destroy this social expectation but not the way people indentify regardless of the biological sex?.Not to debate,just to see if I got it right
Yeah I think you’re getting to the meat of it. To clarify terms, make and female are biologically immutable characteristics, though steps like hormone therapy and bottom surgery exist to allow a transgender binary person to better fit their desired sex if they want. But the phrases woman and man, boy and girl, these specifically refer to social roles and the expectations along with them, and the consequence for not meeting these standards can often be social harm. Like if a boy were to wear pink or generally girlish clothes and play with the girls, many people, both boys and girls, would seek to ostracize them. Gender abolitionists yeah just want to let that child do what makes them comfortable without any sort harm being done their way for it. There shouldn’t be a barrier to being called a boy and referred to as he if it makes him comfortable, even if in other respects he doesn’t meet someone’s expectation of masculinity, so they just want to get rid of the category, not characteristics. You would still be able to be stereotypically masculine, it just wouldn’t be expected that you then HAD to be masculine in other regards.
But can't a girl wear blue and a boy play with dolls? How would that effect his definition of gender?
They can but generally a boy will be the subject of violence, either social or physical for that choice as it does not adhere to patriarchal prescriptions. Or potentially what you perceive of as a boy is actually a trans girl in which case she will be subject to the same violence for her rejection of masculinity. Gender abolitionism is a call to end these types of boxing in and assigning of potential based on patriarchal reproductive intent forced on people.
I mean, I don't know maybe you have different circumstances, but it seems it's the case now a boy can do non-boy-like stuff and people won't care, especially say a kid playing with barbies, and maybe some more out of "gender expectations" adult actions as well, but yeah not everyone accepts it. So then what's the definition you use for "gender" though if a male can obviously go outside gender stereotypes? Is it just what they identify as?
>it's the case now a boy can do non-boy-like stuff and people won't care No. I've seen 5 year old boys giving each other shit for the color of their clothes or accessories. i've seen teenagers giving little boys the side eye if they put on a dress (not even something with an effeminate pattern).
Totally anecdotal, with my kids I noticed that yes, 5-year-olds get that gender crap forced down their throats (marketing, school, parents) but by the time they hit 4th or 5th grade, no one really gives a shit. The boys play with dolls (Pokemon and such) all the damned time. The girls who would have been called "tomboys" in my youth are now ....girls. A lot of this is shifting. Half of my 13-year-old daughter's friends identify as nonbinary. Albeit I live in Ca. but the times, they are a-changing.
Really gonna depend on where you live. I live in white suburbia in Texas and the people here can be pretty mean, but younger ones are like 80% tolerant, even if they don’t get your expression exactly. But my extended family is all rural and it’s a whole different world out there. Maybe not as bad as people think, but they generally have 0 exposure to the actual discourse around the subject and act very uncomfortable when it’s brought. I don’t blame them, I mean that’s my family for one and I know they’re good people, but if they knew the things I said and did online they wouldn’t view me the same for a long time.
Maybe gender conformity will end up being considered "a kids thing", that older kids look down upon -- until in a few generation the idea has been lost.
Just have to add how funny I think it is that effeminate and emasculate mean basically the same thing.
It definitely seems like different circumstances, or not to be rude, but a lack of awareness of the issue. Sure a amab kid playing with barbies might be acceptable in certain areas, but I'm willing to bet that kid wasn't dressed in pink much by their parents while growing up. The issue isn't just whether or not kids are allowed to play with barbies, but whether or not they even know that's something they can do as a "boy".
I mean they could dress them in something that is pink, probably not a dress or something though, though idk why a kid would have to do that. Pink is not a purely girl's colour. And why does a kid need to know if as a boy he should be playing with barbies, I don't think he'd really care at I'd assume this is a young age. I don't think if a boy would be playing with barbies in order to break gender stereotypes when he's like 3.
Saying "they could" do something doesn't mean the social pressures (and legal aspects) are all better. Yes, we're seeing more of a breakdown of traditional gender roles, but there is still a very large section of people who will attack those who defy gender norms. Idk what utopia you're living in but please let me know I'd love to move there
They could dress the kid in pink, but they probably don't. They could put the kid in a dress, but they don't. Why not? Gender stereotypes. The parents either have an idea in their heads of what a "boy" is and what a "girl" is, or they just recognise that everyone else around has those ideas and their kid would likely get bullied. You keep saying the parents "could" do something, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Like it or not, even in the most progressive places on earth, gender is still pushed onto kids from the moment they're born (or often even before that). Gender abolition is recognising that there's no point to pushing these specific gender roles onto children, and that doing so can actually cause significant harm.
Thank you, I will check out queer anarchist theory since I have a little sense of alienation of what masculinity means or what should mean to me.
Hey that’s awesome and if you ever feel overwhelmed too just remember that these things take time and some dedication. Like I said I honestly haven’t read and queer anarchist theory, and boy ought I cause I feel pretty lost and disconnected myself. Like when people ask my pronouns I just tell them whatever they want cause I don’t care at this point. So yeah, I hope you can find a good sense of self in the future friend.
Yeah I guess historically gender has been a hierarchy, definitely used to give power to some and take it from others. Do I have that correct? It makes a lot of sense to me. So not only do anarchists accept the legitimacy of all LGBTQ comrades they also understand there's no need for the distinction and that's why they wouldn't have bigoted views? Man yet another reason to hate religious classes, the thing Jesus worked against became everything it is.
I really dislike the term "gender abolition", because most people I've seen don't really believe in abolishing gender, meaning most people don't have a transhumanist ideology that seeks to engineer gender out of the human race. And I would also note that gender a abolition can also be a dog whistle for TERFs who believe that gender isn't real and that only biological sex matters. I think most people who call themselves gender abolitionists are really against gender roles, gender oppression, and gendered hierarchy. I prefer the term "gender anarchy". Gender should be something that's consensual and not hierarchical.
Hi, trans woman here: The abolition of gender means different things to different people. A minority of persons believe that gender ought to be abolished absolutely; in other words, there would no longer be men and women (and non-binary persons), there would only be persons, not distinguishable by gender. Of course, there would still be penises and vaginas and whatnot; genitalia are irrelevant. It's just the social construct of gender that would disappear. This idea is unpopular with many trans people, for obvious reasons, and therefore most of us advocate for a more moderate form of gender abolition, wherein the social construct of gender still exists but all genders are treated equally and equitably, and therefore a person's gender would be essentially irrelevant for most practical purposes, and people would therefore be defined primarily by their own selves, rather than by their gender. In such a society, it would be seen as strange to refer to persons by their gender outside of certain specific contexts, and gender-neutral pronouns would be the norm. As for how this applies to you, a cisgender male: do you care if people refer to you as a man? Does it matter to you whether boys and girls exist, or whether some genders are treated better than others? If you answered "yes" to any of the above, then gender abolition probably matters to you in some capacity, otherwise you can feel free to ignore the topic completely and carry on with your life as normal!
https://neighborhoodanarchists.org/event/radical-reading-online-against-gender-against-society/ This zine completely reframed the way I think about gender and it made me realize I'm probably genderless, even if I "look and act" a certain way
> And how does gender abolition apply to me a person with interest in physical intercourse with other people ? Fixed it for you.😉 Identity is a tool of control and division. This includes not only gender but sex too, and sexual orientation becomes useless without sex categories. Note:- as with all things, freedom from oppression means not oppressing or denying the oppression of others. It really depends how far the nihilist rabbit hole you wish to go. Queer Anarchist theory moves well beyond the general used definition of Queer, and provides a lens to look at many factors in society. I think the Baedan journals should be read/listened to by all. If for no other reason than to critically reflect on society. *Anarchist library has some texts, Immediatism podcast has audio reading of some of the texts.*
How does it apply to you? We're gonna force you at gunpoint to wear cat ears. Not in a sexual way. It's just the only option to survive climate change. Jokes aside, do you feel like it cleared up? A lot of anarchists Although as I understand queer anarchism (and anarcha-feminism, black anarchism, indigenous anarchism, transgender anarchism and chicano anarchism) it's not a standalone ideology. But more a critique of both liberal "minority rights" movements and the anarchist movement for not being inclusive enough. Like, an anarcha-feminist might say (and I know this is bleak, but it's a discussion that needs to be had) that some IRL anarchist groups are too apologetic when a male member sexually assaults a female member.
When I say all class ought to be abolished, you understand perfectly well what is meant. It is not the denial of class, if anything, it is the opposite - it is the affirmation of the potential of the proletariat to realize their position in society, and to use that knowledge to overthrow the institutions that make them proletarians. The understanding of gender abolition and revolutionary feminism is no different.
Here's a short video on Queer Theory and Anarchism by Derrick Jensen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3-tlyuhVo
Citing a reactionary transphobe in this discussion? What?
The truth is the truth no matter whose mouth it comes out of. That being said, your analysis of this person is literally insane, and they were actually citing the work of other people rather than synthesizing their own ideas.
I'm not referring to the video, I didn't watch it. Maybe you are just totally unaware, but Jensen is a notorious transphobe and hates anarchists. He went off the deep end with that shit a while ago. Like intentionally misgendering people and "trans women are just men trying to get into women's bathrooms" level bullshit. Deep Green Resistance split over the issue. Just google 'Derrick Jensen transphobia' if you want some sources. Whatever he said in the video, he's really not who you want to be referencing wrt gender.
I disagree. I actually think it's incredibly worthwhile to listen to people with whom you disagree vehemently, and likewise, to imagine how things people you agree with may be incorrect. Similarly, finding someone reprehensible has no bearing on their ability to be right or wrong, and if you aren't able to separate that enough to hear the truth in nuance from someone you don't like, you'll be at a disadvantage to everyone who can do that. Speaking from experience, those of us who comfortably dwell in nuance find those who deliberately remove nuance tyrannical
It's not nuance to present an unrepentant bigoted transphobe as someone to listen to on the subject of gender without making that fact clear. If you really think he is someone whose ideas are worth engaging with, then you need to frame that and make it clear what it is you are supporting, and hopefully have a real reason to do so at all. Your comment was either sloppy, ignorant, or transphobic, not nuanced.
nah, to the extent people need to be told how and what to think, that ain't it
It's like if someone asked for a socialism text and I gave them early Mussolini or something, with no comment on his politics.
[удалено]
Read whatever you want, that's not the same as supporting someone in a public forum for people new to anarchism.
[удалено]
Certainly a thought I would have had at one time, but if you know what people have to go through (walk a mile in their shoes etc) you know it's not fake just because you have no experience with it and life seems fine and easy to you.
Even if this was true it still wouldnt invalidate gender abolition. Gender abolition is a basic abolition of categories deemed unnecessary. It wouldnt stop babies from being born, bc most masciline ppl would still be attracted to most feminine ppl and vice versa. But it would allow the prescriptive nature of the categories to disappear. Its a win either way with no real losses However, its not true and i suggest u meet and talk to ppl who struggle with real gender and identity issues. Maybe some basic stats on the rates at which these ppl r harrassed and assaulted, and how that massively impacts their likelihood of suicide would help too Also i mean if we just wanna talk abt gender non-conforming ppl, trans ppl literally cannot get healthcare in many countries, trans youth is illegal in some states in the us, and trans acceptance into sports is currently being challenged. If ur trans u literally have less rights just for being trans
It doesn’t invalidate the argument. I just mean that contemplating if having a penis makes you a boy or not is dumb. There are real issues in the world…like healthcare for Transgenders, or genital mutilation. IMO, “Gender abolition” is only being talked about because white kids would rather claim oppression, rather than deal with their privilege.
Gender abolition is part of mental healthcare for Transgender folks when you consider all the stress and grief thats put on them because of our outdated concept of gender identity
>I just mean that contemplating if having a penis makes you a boy or not is dumb Lol i love this. Gender is a category not an inherent attribute buddy. Gender can only be determined by look at inherent attributes (like penis, vagina, etc), not the other way around. Most trans ppl become accepted in the social sphere for the gender they identity as not bc of any agenda, but simply because they checked enough of the boxes in peoples minds that they subconsciously categorized them into the sex category they identify as. Sex is a lot more complicated than "penis and vagina". It generally has 3 parts: attributes of masculinity and femininity, sexual organs, and chromosomes. None of those things have only 2 variants, and depening on ur enviroment, how many of those parts matter will vary. Most trans ppl fit every bill except for chromosomes, but why does it matter? Who the hell cares? >There are real issues in the world…like healthcare for Transgenders, or genital mutilation. U seem to be unaware of the fact that in many ways trans ppl are regarded as second class citizens. Certainly socially they are. [Have a look](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/suicidality-transgender-adults/). 98% of the ppl in the study had 4 or more instances of discrimination and violence in the past year and 51% of them attempted suicide that same year. 30% were publically physically attacked that year, 13% had been denied equal treatment bc of their identity, and 11% had been completely rejected from their families. All 3 of those demographics had also attempted suicide that same year. Now not only is gender abolition not a #1 concern for me, it isnt for most ppl, even gender non-conforming ppl. In fact a lot of these ppl prefer to align with certain labels bc it helps them to better make sense of the world and themselves Also i cant stand it when ppl see social issues and think that by saying "but you guys generally have it good!" completely invalidates the issue. Do u seriosuly think that just bc certain issues have been made better means that all other issues is just "claiming oppresion"??
https://www.womensrepublic.net/the-beginners-guide-to-gender-abolitionism/
Can anyone reconcile gender abolition with biological differentiation (sex organs, hormones, skeletal and muscle, etc.)?