Oh, don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that this group has ever been non-political. Only that, in order to accommodate a wide range of LGB people, it keeps those politics relatively neutral, affiliation-wise. And that my proposal could potentially conflict with this by verging too much on GC.

Interesting stuff that you bring up about the viability of gender-abolition as a selling point. Really made me think! How, after gender being on the wane from the 1960s-1990s, did we end up... here? With people seemingly going so far in the opposite direction as to not only enforce the old versions via surgery (on CHILDREN, yet!), but also obsessively inventing NEW ones every five minutes? Does this mean that, at least in this postmodern era, we must WANT gender roles, for whatever reason?

Sure, could be... but I suspect that the opposite is also possible.

I say this because the apparent popular embrace of gender seems contingent on a fundamental misunderstanding of what gender actually is. To the point, indeed, of painting "gender" as its opposite.

After all, how is "gender" currently presented? As a means of personal expression and fulfillment. Communicating our individual essence. A vehicle for creativity and whimsy, fun, liberation. FREEDOM.

When in fact gender is a social role in the form of sex-based stereotypes. Thus, it is socially-defined and socially-imposed (not tailored to, or chosen by, the individual). It tells people who they must, and must not, be... and (perhaps most importantly) who they must not ACKNOWLEDGE being.

So: utterly impersonal. Defined and assigned from the outside. Devoted to papering over one's real personality with a set of stereotypes: forcing you to live a lie.

Which suggests to me that what people actually value is everything that gender ain't. And that, if they knew what gender really was, they'd reject it.

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. Still, gender's success does kinda look less like a matter of inherent appeal than deceptive marketing, wouldn't you say?