I'm confused by this because "abolish gender" is practically the gender critical slogan.

Really? Then why is it called "gender critical" rather than "gender abolitionist"? I guess I should have been more precise and said that I don't think any of the "gender critical" people I know and those who post here would say abolition is a realistic, achievable or desirable end goal.

In answer to your question: I think a society without strict, deeply regressive sex stereotypes would be a good thing - but I don't believe in getting there by trying to abolish them or through abolition. Abolish means to

formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution).

Abolition means

the action or an act of abolishing a system, practice, or institution.

Both words come from the Latin word meaning to destroy.

In my view, abolition would mean action from a government or another authority (like a religious leader issuing a fatwa or papal edict) to make something illegal. With practices like slavery, child labor, apartheid, criminalization of homosexual sex, I think abolition can work and has worked.

But sex stereotypes are ideas that exist in people's heads and which speak to something in their hearts. IMO, it would be a very bad move for any government or other authority to pass measures meant to make it illegal for people to have particular thoughts, feelings and ideas. And doing so would inevitably backfire. Coz nothing is more ineluctably alluring than that which is forbidden.

I think anti-discrimination laws and other measures can go - and have gone - a long way towards getting rid of practices based on rigid, regressive sexist sex stereotypes. For example, it used to be that it was legal to fire women from their jobs once they married or got pregnant, to not allow women to apply for certain jobs, to limit the number of women allowed in certain professions or to bar them entirely, and to refuse to provide bank loans, mortgages and credit cards to women unless they had male guarantors co-sign for them. Making those practices illegal helped to eliminate them. However, I think it would be foolish and way, way too authoritarian to try to make it illegal for anyone to have any of the ideas used to justify and rationalize such practices - such as married women & moms shouldn't work outside the home, women aren't equipped to be firefighters or stevedores, women aren't suited to surgery or engineering, women can't handle or understand money. I think those ideas are silly, insulting and can be harmful if taught to children and turned into practice - so I think it's reasonable to bar them from being taught in public schools and to be used as the basis for public policies. But I don't think it's the place of government - or people who share my views - to tell adults they can't believe in those ideas, that they can't express those ideas, and that they're not allowed to communicate those ideas to their own kids.

Moreover, I'm keenly aware that the way people in the past made the greatest social progress in women's rights, civil rights and gay rights was by making arguments - not by decreeing that sexism, racism and homophobia are now verboten or illegal. And I'm also aware that radical efforts "to destroy" what exists in one fell swoop in an effort to create an ideal society don't work. Sometimes they have tragic and truly horrific consequences, as in the USSR, the Third Reich, the Iron Curtain, North Korea, China, Chile and Cambodia in the 1970s. And even when extreme measures like diktats, revolutions and warfare work, they usually only go so far. In the US, the Emancipation Proclamation, Civil War and a constitutional amendment were effective in putting an end to (most) slavery, but eliminating the ideas that led to slavery, justified it and allowed it to continue is another matter for the much longer haul.

In short, my view is that any society where certain ideas are not allowed to be thought is a tyranny. I have always objected to strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes and made efforts in a variety of ways towards reducing, eliminating and laughing at them. But I don't think it's desirable to attempt to abolish them because doing so would mean taking measures to control what other people are allowed to think, feel and dream about. Enough societies have tried that sort of thing already, and it has never worked out well.