Is it possible to abolish gender?

submitted by moody_ape from self.GenderCritical

One of the ideas that permeate radical feminism is the abolition of gender becaue it is a hierarchical system that opresses women (and also because of the gender politics that leads the third wave). I've seen an ex-friend of mine (who is also an ex-radfem and has gone full queer) say that nonbinary people have done much more to abolish gender than radical feminists. And it got me thinking... Do you, as gender critical feminists, truly believe that gender can be abolished? If so, how can that ever be achieved? Do you think NB people in fact have a good strategy with their neutral pronouns and stuff?

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]artetolife 31 insightful - 2 fun31 insightful - 1 fun32 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How can nonbinary people claim to be abolishing gender when the entire concept is based on how they assume other people see their gender identity? It's absurd.

[–]DistantGlimmer 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Being GNC yourself but reinforcing the belief in gender roles for other people through your beliefs which I believe NBs do is extremely shitty and hypocritical behavior IMO,

[–]Spikygrasspod 28 insightful - 1 fun28 insightful - 0 fun29 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, I don't believe we can ever abolish it all together. Males and females are different, and culture will always accumulate and crystallise around those differences. My guess is the best we can do is make sure our cultural options for being men and women are flexible, non-heirarchical, and positive, and that non-conformity is not punished.

[–]VioletRemi 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Two genders can't be abolished, but they can be widened and their borders can be blurred. You know, what feminism and LGB communities were fighting for. So woman in pants is normal, man in red shirt is fine, and so on. And it was done pretty successfully, process was going on, gender differences were thinner and thinner. Until this Gender/Queer Theory hysteria started, and old gender stereotypes are forced back, so man in red shirt or woman in pants is now "non-binary" or "born in wrong body".

[–]Spikygrasspod 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Also, non-binary doesn't eliminate gender, it disappears sex.

[–]sisterinsomnia 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you look back in history then clearly gender roles can be seen as something that change. They are different in different cultures, too. So yes, I believe that it is possible to reduce the impact of gender stereotypes and gender roles, though perhaps the concept cannot be completely erased.

The nonbinary option does not abolish gender because it is totally dependent, by definition, on everyone else being binary in terms of retrogressive gender roles and beliefs about femininity and masculinity. I doubt that strangers, for instance, would treat a nonbinary-identifying female person any differently from a woman. But who knows? I think in practice the nonbinary identity mostly affects someone's pronouns, though there are nonbinary people who take hormones and so are best viewed from the trans angle.

But nonbinary male people will still gain male privilege over nonbinary female people and so on.

On the pronouns: We could just decide, as a country, that everyone is now going to be 'she,' 'hers.' But I think Mandarin Chinese doesn't have gendered third person singular pronouns and the culture is quite sexist.

[–]moody_ape[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

in the end, pronouns don't really matter. it's all about the material reality of the biological sex.

[–]anfd 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In general I agree with Spikygrasspod. And personally, rather than talk of abolishing gender, I would talk of getting rid of sex stereotypes, expected sex roles and structural inequalities, even if it meant the same thing as "abolishing gender"; I think it's more understandable to ordinary people.

In any case abolishing gender will be more difficult than abolishing capitalism (which is already quite difficult :-). The social relation between the capitalist and the worker is necessarily mediated by a thing: the means of production. Once you take away the means of production from the capitalist, they cease to be a capitalist in any material sense. However, with gender oppression (or racism for that matter) there's no thing (at least as far as I can see) that you can take away from men (or racists) that will accomplish the abolition of sexism (or racism) in the same way.

To that extent there probably can be no revolution against sexism/gender (or racism) as there can (in principle) be against capitalism, if by revolution we mean some distinguishable, relatively short event that changes the prevailing order. (Of course you could say a revolution can be a process that takes 500 years, but I think that would mean using the word metaphorically.) For example, no revolutionary expropriation will change men's greater physical power which, along with the threat of it, will be at their disposal against women.

[–]GConly 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I would talk of getting rid of sex stereotypes, expected sex roles and structural inequalities

Most of the structural inequality we deal with is caused by biology. We get stuck carrying babies, babies need their moms because men don't have the milk to feed them. Add to that the cost of childcare and the safety issues that leaving your kids with childcare can raise, and it's a slippery slope to the mom staying at home and screwing up her career.

I'm a die hard la Leche League 'breastfeeding is best' supporter. Bottle milk should only be a last resort.

There's also the issue that sex stereotypes have a certain basis in biology. Science has been able to show for decades that androgens given to mammal embryos leads to more aggressive behaviour.

I know radical feminism is quite focused on the concept that it's all down to socialisation, but most of biologists don't see it that way.

[–]anfd 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with you in principle about biology. I used to believe in socialisation much more strongly (one could say exclusively) when I was 20-something, and that is still the prevailing tendency on the left, where I situate myself. That is not to say that much of the time there aren't good reasons for emphasising socialisation and social/political factors, but the record is pretty one-sided in this respect in the publications of the left I find.

Anyway, since then I've been convinced by some evolutionary psychology that some "bio-psychological" difference (manifesting in behavioral tendencies on average) does make evolutionary sense, and that it would be more surprising than not if there weren't at least some "evolutionary psychological" adaptations that are sex specific, and not just "dumb" physiological ones that are sex specific. One relevant book in this respect is Griet Vandermassen's Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating Feminism and Evolutionary Theory (2005).

This is not to say that most of human psychology isn't the same for men and women (that's what I currently believe), or that "men and women have different brains" (something that I don't currently believe is credible).

Anyway, these are all just working hypotheses, not statements about "how things really are". The struggle against sex stereotypes and structural inequalities is relevant whether or not it can in fact be achieved in the sense of total gender abolition.

[–]moody_ape[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

rather than talk of abolishing gender, I would talk of getting rid of sex stereotypes, expected sex roles and structural inequalities, even if it meant the same thing as "abolishing gender"; I think it's more understandable to ordinary people.

very well said! i'll definitely keep that in mind next time i talk to someone about this issue. and yes, gender seems more difficult to abolish than capitalism. i think there is a material reality to biology that is greater and stronger then the material reality that permeates the relation between capitalist and worker.

[–]Catbug 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nonbinary just reinforces gender norms. If you say you’re not a woman because you like more male coded things despite having a pair of ovaries, you’re defining woman as stereotypes.

There is nothing that is not stupid about the entire non binary mess.

Gender seems pretty easy to abolish. All it takes is not assigning an object or emotion or behaviour a sex. It gets more complicated once men find themselves having to actually respect women. Gender can’t really be taken care of until men as a whole to be willing to perform a few minutes of introspection and listening to women. It starts looking pretty damn impossible after that.

[–]moody_ape[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it does sound easy to abolish gender in theory, but i don't think men are the problem. well, maybe they are the root of the problem. are men the ones who invented gender? i guess if it benefits them, it makes sense to attribute its invention to them... anyway, humans have a gendered culture and gender seems to be (unecesserily) important to most people. i think the difficulty in abolishing it is in this culture. if someone one day decides to abolish gender (with power to do so) using the strategy you just explained, i don't think it would work. people are too attached to gender to just let it go.

[–]VioletRemi 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Non-binary people embraced gender stereotypes. The simple fact that they are "non-binary" means that they are accepting "binary" gender stereotypes of how man and woman must look, act and live. It is only makes problem worse, not better.

If all murderers are killing with right hand, and you "non-conforming" by killing with left hand - you are still murderer. That is it.

[–]Anna_Nym 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think whether gender can ever truly be abolished depends on the question of how much of gender-based preferences are truly innate versus culturally determined. I don't know the answer. But if there are sex-linked differences, I think gender will always be with us in some form because humans observe and generalize. I know of no examples of cultures that have managed to eradicate all subtle pressures to conform to the general expectation for one's greater identity group.

However, I do think those pressures can be reduced or heightened. I believe we were making great strides to reduce those pressures for both women and men prior to the Tumblr microidentity explosion. I think we are seeing a huge step back.

I wouldn't be on this site if I believed contemporary gender ideology was working as it markets itself. I wish NB people had a good strategy because then I could simply change my pronouns and opt out of sex-based oppression. But it's a fantasy based on the transgender and transhumanist wish (in some cases, delusion) that sexed bodies aren't real. Sexed bodies are real, however. I can call myself agender, but anyone who looks at me knows that I am a woman.

[–]moody_ape[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think gender will always be with us in some form because humans observe and generalize

THIS! we wear clothes and we come in all shapes and sizes. we don't have access to people's genitalia to identify their sex, but we can observe other features. in that sense, i think gender can be useful (specially for dating). we categorize and i honestly think it's impossible not to do so... that makes me think that gender will never ever be abolished.

[–]fuckupaddams 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

By seeing the oppressive gender binary that exists and opting out of it as opposed to dismantling it, non-binary people are still just enforcing the gender binary and all the stereotypes and roles that come with it. "Women do this, but I don't therefore I'm not a woman" still equals "women do this."

[–]purrfect 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, I don't believe that gender can be abolished, because:

  1. Sexual dimorphism and the biological roles we evolved to fulfill will inevitably lead to cultural differences between the sexes. I don't think any radical feminist is blind to that.

  2. However, "gender abolition" can help women escape the roles imposed on them without fear of consequences, ideally and hopefully in law. F.i. Clothing, make-up, expected character traits should be considered non-gendered or subject to discrimination in law.

  3. Nonbinary people have done nothing to abolish gender. In fact, they are as genderists as TRAs, because they attack sex categories, not gender roles. They consider themselves neither female nor male, so that they can dress accordingly (in theory, but we all know in practice many NB women are "not like the other girls" women. They alter the physical, so that they can justify the cultural. They are as revolutionary as I would be if I wore a saddle after declaring myself a horse.

[–]jkfinn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"...nonbinary people have done much more to abolish gender than radical feminists" So drag queens and Dustin Hoffman have done more to abolish gender than Susan Brownmiller and Andrea Dworkin.

There can be no equality or no vision of equality without the abolition of gender. The feminization and sexualization of women, is how male superiority and female inferiority is effected. Gender is simply a way to target women as Other, to mark them off via stereotypes and caricatures, and to make them vulnerable to violence.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. Won't happen. Men want to dominate women, that will never change. The burden of childbirth and raising children is forced onto us not matter what. That won't change, either.

[–]cybitch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's beyond impossible, women and men instinctively view and treat the opposite sex differently. If we didn't, there would be no reproduction either. It's akin to conversion therapy, sometimes human behavior just won't fit into whatever mold you think it should fit into, even if the person themselves would want it to. The whole reason this trans nonsense was allowed to flourish in the first place is this non-productive head in the clouds dreaming about utopias instead of looking at practical things to do to improve how women are treated in the here and now. No matter how hard we police human behavior, humans are animals, we have instincts that are beyond our conscious control.

[–]mangosplums 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Gender can’t be abolished because it doesn’t exist. It’s a made up term. What people really mean when they say the word “gender” is “sex roles”. Sex roles won’t ever go away completely because they’re formed based on the roles women and men have in making babies and from the differences in our bodies. That will never fully change. They can be vastly reduced though, and be less authoritarian, allowing people to just act however they want without being judged.

[–]moody_ape[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

although i agree with some of the things you've said, i don't think it makes sense to say that gender doesn't exist. it is very present in human culture and it is strong enough to cause harm when people don't conform to the stereotypes (sex roles). irrespective of actually existing or not, i agree that we as a society can work to accept gender non conformity.

[–]mangosplums 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know rad fems don’t align with me on this. I think the invention of the term gender was stupid and doesn’t help anyone. What they’re actually talking about is sex roles and should have stuck with that term. Using the term gender is harmful imo.