Post-genderism (A future without gender)
(Here's a note from this blog before quotes from the linked article. This is a topic I'm in the process of studying; an interest and not a definitive identity I have. There are things in this article I disagree with, and also things I find intriguing. Feel free to discuss this subject in the comments or send asks.)
"Postgenderism, often associated with transhumanism – the movement to transform humanity with science and technology – is not just a rejection of the gender binary of 'male' and 'female,' but the rejection of the trendy idea of a gender spectrum between male and female as well. George Gillett makes the case in the New Statesman why we should fight to abolish gender rather than establish gender equality: 'belief in a gendered spectrum still upholds the idea of one-dimensional variation between two extremes of maximal ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’, and 'most perversely, creating an array of gender identities to pick from doesn’t eliminate the apparent need for society to establish pre-determined moulds for people to draw their identity from'... Gillett begins his article by saying, 'Gender is flawed – no set of social scripts will ever represent the wonderful diversity and intricacy of human behaviour.' Calling the belief in gender 'archaic' and its existence 'inherently oppressive,' Gillett adds that it 'undermines ideals of personal freedom and liberation'... Gillett sums it up by saying, 'The aspects of a gendered identity which one person deems to be positive will equally act to oppress another member of the same sex, who would be unrepresented by such a definition.' Furthermore, 'the noxious idea that we can associate a positive set of behavioural characteristics with a physical sex is intrinsically flawed'... Even if transgender people are not so hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine today, the very fact that they insist on transitioning suggests that they cannot achieve something as a member of their 'assigned' gender – that this gender is inflexible. In this way, transgenderism actually may just reinforce the gender binary and stereotypes of men and women, which enlightened gender reformers loathe... Reilly-Cooper, describing gender as 'a system that ties biology to personality and behaviour, and puts people into pink and blue boxes according to the set of genitals they possess' puts it this way: 'The solution to that is not to create ever more boxes, nor to allow that some special non-binary individuals get to be gender revolutionaries who are able to move between the boxes at will, while the rest of us must stay put, and are told that we like it that way. The solution is to get rid of the boxes – to abolish gender altogether'... As far back as 1970, radical feminist Shulamith Firestone wrote in The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, 'The end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally'... The adoption of genders like 'frostgender' and 'lunagender' increase the number of possible genders only by conflating gender with personality. Postgenderists, instead, are trying to eliminate gender and leave personality. Nonetheless, given that on Nonbinary.org your gender can be (Name)gender like johngender or janegender, gender may be rendered so meaningless that it eventually disappears. There has also been a push toward androgyny in dress and general appearance à la Prince, David Bowie, and Ruby Rose. Again, androgyny is not by any means necessitated by postgenderism; a pink tutu and sparkly Hello Kitty shirt might be perfectly acceptable attire, it would just ideally not be viewed as female or male. Nor does androgyny necessarily mean a rejection of biological sex or even the gender binary. However, it still contributes to a dulling of the separation between men and women..."
