nobody is ready to talk about actual gender abolition.
neither tras, nor radfems.
being deeply immersed in both communities, iâve been observing the way that both of them function, and something iâve noticed isâ they both very often tend to claim to be gender abolitionists, and not only thisâ they both claim to profess gender abolition. they claim it is very near & dear to them, but as an autistic trans radfem whose special interest is gender abolition; i can confirm that both the radfem & the tra âversionsâ of gender abolition fail to be consistent, meaningful & coherent; both versions find the pitiful comfort in laying within the borders of the ever-raging status quo, fearful to challenge & genuinely step at itsâ legs, to meaningfully cross the bordersâ both versions remain adamant on reformism & mere âgender fuckeryâ, all the while fervently shouting how progressive, how revolutionary, how status quo-breaking they are being. both versions advocate liberalism, more âwiggle roomâ & more leewayâ but neither make the effort to go beyond the personal, beyond the individual and beyond free will/choice.
in order to be able to advocate for gender abolition in itsâ truest form, we first have to understand that gender are not merely just aesthetics, outward appearances, self-expressions, or even just silly stereotypes. understanding this is the first step to being able to understand gender abolition, and more often than not, both tras & radfems fail at this very first step. gender is a lethal force, a superstructure, a class-based system; it is a tool of the patriarchy, a very dangerous one. it has a base and a structure.
gender dynamics are created & directed by reproductive relations, and how we engage & interact with reproductive labor shapes our relations to gender. this extends beyond cultural stereotypes & fluctuating aesthetics. it is neither individualistic in the reformist tra sense where Gender is A Social Construct in the way that it is merely our âsense of selfâ, and neither is it individualistic in the radfem sense where Gender is A Social Construct that we must fight on an interpersonal scale. gender cannot be fought on a personal level. gender cannot be âplayed withâ in the tra sense where we all choose a set of attributes to ascribe to & then call them gender, and neither can it be âplayed withâ by attempting to opt out of the gender class system by claiming you are a âgenderless adult human femaleâ in the radfem sense. both are essentially minimizing the significance of gender in our current society, and both are advocating for a utterly western-centric, bastardized, watered-down & individualistic form of âgender abolitionâ. the tra understanding of gender abolition is all about choice, breaking down the notion that women & men must look this or that way, and destroying parts of superficial personality stereotypes. the radfem understanding of gender abolition is similarly also all about choiceâ telling people that gender nonconformity is an inherent act of Gender Rebellionâą [tras also do this!], claiming that gender is oppressive but also refusing to do away with it because âhow will women then speak of their oppression?â [are they incapable of imagining a post-gender world? possibly, because they claim to be passionate gender abolitionists, while holding so strongly onto gender, since that is all they know & they must rely on it to further their theory], claiming that biology has nothing to do with gender yet reverting back to connecting gender to biology when it is convenient to their cause.
both are ultimately misunderstanding both gender & gender abolition. both see it as a mere performance, as aesthetics. both are advocating for reformism & desperate attempts at opting-out [tras try to opt out by promoting medical supplements, creating multiple new genders, messing with mere accessories; while radfems try to opt out by using meaningless words & phrases such as âa woman is an adult human female, nothing to do with gender at all!â, by trying to ignore gender & then assuming that their ignoring will somehow result in gender abolition]. radfems advocate for gender contraction, not recognizing that we cannot ârevert back to sexâ when our own very understanding of sex itself is extremely immersed & rooted in the sex-gender systemâ we cannot ârevert backâ to something that never even existed without the thing we are trying to leave behind in the first place [i am not saying anatomical differences donât exist outside of genderâ our *understandings* of the sex categories do not]. tras, on the other hand, advocate for gender fuckery, not understanding that liberation will not come along if we simply âplayâ with our biology & try to desperately ignore material reality. while radfems claim gender isnât something to be overthrown & rather something to be ignored, tras claim gender is our own internal sense of self & gender roles are the thing we must abolish (again, heavy misunderstanding of gender as a class system from both sides; radfems lean into thinking that gender is this social attribute that only slightly limits women [they see Woman as a legitimate biological phenomenal category, not as a gender], and not a lethal force of the patriarchy that limits female people & influences & creates/goes hand-in-hand with sex-based oppression, while tras lean into thinking that gender is completely disconnected from stereotypes & roles [again, roles & stereotypes {be they external or internal/aesthetical or personified} are only one sect of gender, not the whole of it], their view of gender being limited to Gender Identity/Gender Expression/Gender Roles, with gender roles being *the thing* they are claiming to want to abolish).
both will claim to be the biggest gender abolitionists ever, but both will cling onto it for dear life & get unnecessarily angry whenever you suggest to talk about actual gender abolition. both will say gender is limiting & restrictive, but the second you wish to talk about gender as a system in depth & analyze that the only way to go about gender abolition is by following principles of proletarian feminism, they will go back to treating gender as an extremely important & crucial part of society that we cannot live without. they both go back to proving they ultimately believe gender is Here To Stay. either out of their nonsensical âbiologicalâ reasons (radfem case) or out of nonsensical âself-expressionâ reasons (tra sense). gender is bad, until you actually want to suggest ways to get rid of it (radfem: âignore it and it will go away! do to yourself whatever you want! man=adult human male! woman=adult human female! this is undeniable truth! men can like pink and wear dresses! women can like blue and do sports! this is literally how you do Gender Abolitionâą! thereâs no one way to be a woman!â, tra: âjust do whatever you want to yourself, stomp on those stereotypes! prove that thereâs no one way to be a woman! [real gender abolition lays in destroying the class of woman by the way, and also probably introducing new simple terms for female & male humans that arenât intrinsically linked to gender & contemporary sex categories; the english word woman is literally derived from words wife + man, so this just goes out to show that tras also donât care about leaving the category of âwomanâ behind & only want to talk the talk] chicks can have dicks! lads can have vulvas!â).
perhaps radfems might say that their mere gender contraction is because they donât believe that a woman is a gender, but this just goes to show that most of contemporary radfems have never read an ounce of radical feminist theory. radical feminist theory defines a woman as a social category to be abolished. the faves of many radical feminists, such as andrea dworkin, christine delphy, and monique wittigâ all speak about genuine gender abolition, and they all correctly identify gender as a lethal tool of the patriarchy, not merely a passive social bystander to female oppression; but rather an active participant, encourager, and influencer of it. gender is so much more than mere aesthetics, roles, stereotypes, and attributesâ and we just cannot âdo awayâ with it if we cling onto some parts of it. we have to fully do away with it. we cannot abolish some parts, and leave the others intact. we risk allowing gender to recreate itself in some way by choosing this route. both tras & radfems are afraid of gender abolition because it forces them to challenge their set-in-stone beliefs, and their limited understanding of gender abolition is just not enough for genuine liberation. they donât want gender abolition. in their ideal world, everything would stay the same; except maybe this time, boys would also be told to like pink & play with dolls and kitchen sets, while girls would be gifted action figures & be encouraged to play sports (goes to show how they have just no idea that gender is not locked in timeâ it fluctuates to adapt to new eras & time periods. giving action figures to girls will not end social misogyny nor will it liberate females in any way, shape or form. misogyny was also a thing back when gender didnât take the shape we know it as today). maybe this time, women would regularly have beards and men would walk in dresses. will this stop femicide? child brides? pornography? economic exploitation more broadly? unethical misogynistic practices? no. i donât think so.
