#Gender is more of a ball of timey wimey-
1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
So like, gender isn't really a spectrum? Because the idea of their being two points along the line is an error
spectrum doesn't require a bimodal line
Being a woman and being a man aren't actually two genders, they're encompassing political classes that are assigned to a bundle of peoples genders that have nothing to do with eachother
What does this have to do with TTS Discussion. Surely would've been better to create the thread under off topic?
The reason I tend to avoid spectrum for gender is mainly because it implies a linear range, as with Autism 'spectrum' it tends to refer to the variety of symptoms and the difference of the number of them present
it branched off from a comment in the tts-discussion channel, we moved it here to not take up space
we are literally doing that to not spam chat. leave if you don't like it.
Whereas gender I personally feel like has more utility in just not attaching spectrum to it, cha feel?
yeah you can just leave the thread
Because 'gender spectrum' implies that things can be inherently gendered to some degree when they're not, gender is dumb and made up
for me I see Gender as a valuable tool to an individual, a way to help you explore yourself and learn more about who you are and what you're comfortable with and how you feel best, it is a tool for exploring identity and self more than it is anything else
The more I trans my gender the more I realize how gender identity is kinda a mythology
while gender is a social construct i dont think putting it on a spectrum somehow canonizes it as something inherent to our biology, where is that implied?
my gender is very solid i just hate explaining it to cishets lol
Gender isn't like, an inner characteristic, it is how you interact with other people and is in fact quite surface level
The only reason it feels so important is because of caste systems
i mean my gender is pretty intigral to my identity and i wouldn't call it surface level because of all the implications it's had for my life
if anything i'd argue is'a a deep fuckin rabbit hole
I get that, and as an abolitionist I recognize that gender does bring some positivity to peoples lives, but the way I put it is that without gender being a sort of necessary part of our identity- without its presence people wouldn't need it as a tool to explore because you would just define yourself in more of a loose nebulous way without pre-supposed attachments to concepts
Like the skirt go spinny spinny? Cool! Want rock hard abs and to slam a monster? Neat.
i also dont believe gender is like, a binary spectrum, it's a lot of things, i guess, but surely calling it a spectrum isn't unproductive, right?
No need for it to be masc or femme
Oh not at all, Im not saying like youre doing something bad Im saying that its better to not
Spectrum doesn't, in my opinion, mean two points, but I guess that would be the definition. How about scope as a better term: The range of the effect of an operator such as a quantifier or conjunction (aka a graph with no specific points that has no defined ends).
It is an abstract representation that isnt accurate. Models are always simplified
how should i explain to my grandma that some people are "between man and woman" or other are "simply neither" in a way that isn't just "gender is a spectrum"
this is where things get weird, that's the reason I just tend to stick with Gender and 'Gender Expression'
Gender is legit so dumb
like if it's not binary, then what's a good word for it, i guess
I mostly agree with this, but I haven't been able to reckon how this accounts for the difference in gender between two people who present basically the same way - say a feminine man and a feminine woman, or a twink and a tomboy
Gender is a spectrum when you need to explain gender to granny, but it is more complicated than that
No like I get that its useful thats not my point
ok, sure
What Im saying is that IDEALLY we work towards just getting rid of it period end stop
am i mistaken about my definition of spectrum? does a spectrum have to be between two points?
bimodal is a useful word, it describes there being two clusters that don't sort into A or B full stop
Get rid of gender except for the fun and consensual stuff
Spectrums don't have to be bimodal but it imples a limited range.
Yea, like gender is a personal thing, that's kinda what I was getting at
i'm a masc woman and that's integral to helping me find community and understanding within the world. it won't go away if we "get rid" of gender somehow
Abolish Big Gender and let everyone have their own bespoke gender they made themselves
a wide range, yeah
Well yeah. Abolishing stuff like this is a multigenerational project potentially
I relate to society as a transfemme. I wish I didn't have too. But people take deeper meanings to superficial appearances because of the class system
as another transfemme i would also like to advocate for the abolition of gender
See I agree with that- but here's the thing, why define yourself along the lines of masc woman if gender didn't exist but rather just define yourself along those qualities that you like?
Like Im happy you find use in it now!
And Im glad it makes you happy being able to get that label and it helps you explore your own identity- but you get what I mean when I say like the reason we do it is because it exists now in society and without the enculturation of gender it wouldn't really be a thing to even consider in your identity
I like this. We don't need 'male' 'female' etc. as a defined from birth gender. We should be able to define ourselves on qualities like masc, fem, [insert term here]. But we should not be required to confirm our identity one way or another.
No, get rid of masc and femme too
Stop putting people in boxes, even if they're more benign
I think it should be allowed still.
Legit could just say "Hey you have a penis? A Womb? Both? Neither? coolio."
and on a more serious note because "those qualities that you like" tend to cluster together naturally and people make up words for those clusters
Gender's a generic term for systems of sociocultural conventions and, usually, structural power, relating somehow to sexed differentiation (which is. its own range of constructs), """someone's gender""" can be roughly taken to be shorthand for their relationship to gender. is the best I've got
because butch womanhood is the only way i relate to womanhood in the current day, and whatever form it takes in the future will be where i fall, regardless of how accepting people become or how wobbly we make gender.
I mean the labels, not what is not completely described with the labels
I just want to be myself in public without having my nagging doubts eating back at me and having to worry what people think. I'm very not public with my transness and I wish I could be more public without having to worry about fitting in and fitting with people's preconceptions
But here's the thing- take out gender, you have a set of qualities you like and you strive to achieve those, are we really going to define Spinny Skirt Wearers on a BIMODAL SPECTRUM
(In reference to using gender to refer to sex commonly as we do now)
Why is it such a problem? I think masc and femme are legitimate terms if we stop comparing them to gender.
So what you're saying is you want a term for bodies of a type
everything about your gender continues to exist in a genderless society, it just stops being gendered
Personally I do think that gender roles and general broad strokes gender stuff she be gotten rid of, but I do think that gender, in a more personal context, is super valuable to a person's understanding of who they are. Honestly I believe that people should contemplate their gender, everyone should ask themselves how they relate to their gender and how they feel like they want to interact with gender
but this doesn't account for the fact that different people can be spinny skirt wearers and still identify differently and relate to their gender differently. Identity =/= expression, and all that
I don
Because, for example, a person might want to wear a spinny dress and put on make up, and might not want to be labeled as fem
yeah, we should have non-gendered words for those bodytypes
Actually its accounting for literally that- that spinny skirt is associated with gender now and I want to remove that completely
well yes historically it is bimodal in anglo culture at least. it might (and hopefully will not) stay that way in the future
Gendering/presentationing someone without their consent is bad
Then make up a new label! No one but you can put a label on you.
I dont want to be labeled at all
But yea this is one of those pipe-dream leftist ideals that I try to advocate for but don't want to like get into arguments with other people over, especially not other trans/queer folks.
I'll settle for disassociating stigma for now, baby steps and praxis and all that
I'm okay with arguing about it, just not with cis people or transmeds
so how would you propose differentiating between say feminine men who wear spinny skirts, and feminine women who do the same?
yea same except im on the make more genders side. pic related
that's understandable and noble but throwing butch womanhood, limp wristed fruity (i say this in the most endearing way) manhood, and other groups that find community and understanding with eachother is throwing the baby out with the bathwater
at least imo
100% this
In my earlier post I said, "But we should not be required to confirm our identity one way or another." Labels can be used, but shouldn't be required.
it's a utopian proposal for sure, but one i agree with and think is possible as a cultural transition which takes multiple generations
if we're posting relevant memes
this is more or less where I'm at. Let people use gender as a landmark, but don't force people into a box
Oh, should I leave? I happen to be cis, but I'm very passionate about trans issues. If I was born a man, I would one hundred percent be a trans woman, but I happened to be born the gender I identify as.
Im not saying these communities dissipate at all which is where alot of confusion is generated, what I'm saying is that you remove gender from them- they still exist as they're still expressions that tend to group together, and they define themselves along the expression that they enjoy
But what you would have is a group who express the same way, uniting because of their mutual identity with oppression or stigma attached to it
But that community cannot exist without oppressive power structures.
When you get rid of homophobia/transphobia etc, things will change. You can't stop that. The question is how they will change
It is interesting to think about how much of the LGBT community exists due to oppression
Well, and wanting companionship, but mostly oppression
Woof, I'm not quite ready to open up that can o brain worms today
all the benefits you get from gender i could honestly see still widely existing in a genderless society, just without the pain gender causes.
Like, the community you find with people who are like you would be the same cis people find community in people like them. It's just not gendered. Nothing is "masculine" or "feminine" and in some regards i honestly find gender to be kind of an advanced form of gatekeeping
but the expression is not the only thing that matters - I don't identify with and don't want to group with effeminate men (in a gender sense), even though I am very similar in my presentation to them. I want to group with tomboy/stem women because that's more where my identity is
But I mean a 'gay' club would still exist in a world without gender for sure
ITs just where those who hang go to hang.
we should cause issues to get people to band together to stop those issues. it builds character 😎
Then you would do that.
Because at its core, there are differences between the groups!
Idk, I feel like if we got rid of homophobia the population would be a lot more gay/bi and there might not be a need for exclusively queer spaces
I guess what I'm saying is - I don't see the harm in keeping gender around as a shorthand for those differences
75/25 on agreeing with this and disagreeing
Let me ask you a question-
If I want to go play warhammer 40k
do I go into the general populace or do I go to a games workshop store
Essentially spaces would exist the same way they do today but without the stigma since its more just the grouping of characteristics etc etc
Well, 40k is a niche hobby. I dont think that is a reasonable comparison?
Like, I'd just go to a game store, where people are playing 40k, x wing, magic, etc
Yea this works so
You go to a place for a specific activity
If I enjoy penis havers, and want to get involved with other penis havers, I'd go to the place where they tend to congregate
but "40k fans" is an identity that exists and is useful. I see gender as being similar to that - very useful for grouping in that regard
so you'd end up having pseudo-queer spaces
But if homophobia and stuff wasn't a problem, why not just go to a general population bar and flag wanting to sleep with x?
Like, there are more than enough 40k players at the normal game store
And Im not sure what the tournament analogy would be
A convention lol
if we no longer have people labeling themselves as "x" how do we signal that?
Also like, when you get rid of gender, don't you kinda have to acknowledge that our model of sexual attraction is completely useless?
I agree, I just think that it ultimately falls shorter of utility than completely removing gender from society and grouping by traits you express by
The issues you have with a gendered society exist in a genderless society too though, people feel attachment outside of the oppression to their gender identity, gender is something that can't really be separated from identity in that sense, your gender is a part of who you are, even if you are outside gender and don't have one that's still a form of gender. To quote the excellent band Rush "if you chose not to decide you still have made a choice". Totally removing gender is like totally removing a part of what makes us people. I can understand wanting to remove the rules and trauma/oppression around it but I don't see how you could totally remove it, even if you did communities would simply come up with new terminology for the same thing
That is a fair point.
Assuming there is no more misogyny, maybe people would just hit on people theyre attracted to in a normal and healthy way?
Oh don't get me wrong
I think that if we have a gendered society but lacking any and all attachment to sex
we've basically abolished gender
And thats real good
in a genderless society, there is no oppression in relation to gender identity in the same way no one in our current society is oppressed for like, having blue eyes or whatever.
because the trait I want to group by is "masc-ish women"? not "masc-ish people" in general
the gender part is actually important
or more precisely, the gender part is one of the traits
What is gender in this case?
gender is important to denote in our current culture where gender exists, yes
No like not joking your case path, what is 'woman'
someone who chooses to identify as "woman" instead of something else
And that matters to you why?
I don't know why, it just does
yea ofc
So anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman
I understand wanting to hold onto labels though. Like, being a lesbian is very important to me, even though I acknowledge that it is kinda not actually possible to be 100 percent straight/gay(because those terms are simplistic reductions)
So what you're doing here is saying that the label woman is important, despite it only meaning that you're choosing that label for it
precisely
So my question is
so if we substitute woman with like 'chair'
Does it make a difference?
Okay, so in this hypothetical society without gender: What about medical issues? How would those be handled?
For example, biological females have different treatments for depression than biological males do. Would there be a system for 'birth gender' to inform doctors, and only doctors, of the gender assigned at birth?
Like if everyone in the group you choose to be in and want to be in subscribe to the same label
You're confusing sex and gender.
And binary sex is also fake, medically
it's the history and associations of "woman" that appeal to me, so yea the specific label matters
What history and associations?
Reductively, sex is a spectrum
can i just say as a gender abolitionist, i will probably never stop identifying as a trans woman, personally? it's a multigenerational thing. We're talking about a future society of future people who dont yet exist
Sex then. Would that still exist? And it is not entirely fake. Though the depression example may not be the best one.
Gender abolition means many things friend, most primarily removing its impact from stigma/oppression first and foremost
all the million subconscious associations in my mind that exist between that word and other concepts
So
Sex is socially constructed, watch the philosophy tube thing on social constructs
So theoretically what matters isn't 'woman' so much as everything associated with it
so I guess for clarification do you like the aspect of inheriting a legacy of 'woman' or just because its linked to those previous concepts
sex isn't binary but there is a real medical difference in many cases, no?
this solution is impractical. trans fems who take estrogen and a t-suppressor are more within the range of cis women's medical risks, ie: breast cancer. medical should be handled based on body parts, hormones, and intersex conditions based on those categories, not broad A or B full body categorization based on a single trait (in this case genitals).
Yes, but grouping those differences into two sexes isnt necessary and reductionist in a way that can cause harm
tru
It actually has been shown if men were screened to the same degree women's bodys are ALOT of deaths could be prevented
You can say what you want about philosophy. Generally speaking, people of the male sex cannot get pregnant, people of the female sex can. (Unless, like you said, there are hormones involved, but in a genderless society, why would we need hormones?)
additionally sex already determined by a number of factors medically, not just genitalia (which is what sex is defined by social, and that's a construct).
both. any replacement term for "woman" in a hypothetical gender-free society would need to basically map 1:1 to the term in order to replace the value I get from the label/landmark, which imo renders the replacement pointless
Not really, when you get into the actual biology of sex you realize that what sex a thing is is basically a big as melting pot of mixed up genes and traits that sometimes dont even match the usual expected outcomes. Essentially there are like a million different things shift and stuff so it's impossible to be like "This is male sex stuff and this is female"
To look the way you want
Gotchya gotchya so this is a core disagreement we can't reconcile with eachothers positions
Okay, fair. So, should doctors know sex and medical history then to make informed decisions?
because my body and mind felt like a foreign entity warping me from the outside, and that would still be the case in a genderless society.
What about infertile females, are they another sex?
I think that gender brings more negative utility through its presence in society than the positive utility that it brings individuals who want to inherit a legacy of formerly associated people, whereas you think that the legacy is too important to give up
I think both positions are valid, because its not like I can verify mine
I think so. I do agree with you that this is a very down-the-road kind of disagreement, and honestly if grew up in the society that this argument actually belongs in, I would almost certainly have different opinions on the matter
What about people with both sets of genitals, in different arrangements? Should we create a different sex for each one? Best to do away with the classification system entirely, as biology is discreet not digital
"Generally speaking," I don't think people who cannot get pregnant are a different gender, but I think that knowing whether someone's sex is male or female can help identify issues.
So
This is REALLY hard to prove
yeah no one here is advocating for gender to suddenly be erased today, it has utility in describing the people of today. Just like race does. But i mean, i advocate for a society where races dont exist and there's just people, y'know?
does that make sense or did i make it worse lol
Man I love talking about gender with trans folks, always leads to soemreally interesting discussions
Because if you're not expected to look a certain way or enculturated to associate things like that- and you would theoretically have access to more or less pursue the puberty you want
Exactly - like race is dumb and a social construct but to remove it entirely today would be like trying to remove a brain tumor with your bare hands
Being a gender abolitionist and seeing hormones as a way of body hacking and not as a dysphoria relieving mechanism because you're already so confident in your gender
You'd do more harm to the people suffering the consequences of its current existence and its legacy than you would help anyone
God just can we get to transhumanism yet
in specific medical context it can be useful to know "this person has a vagina" but it is equally important to know "and he has been on hormones for 36 years and has different risk factors for specific things" both are true.
I work and slave under capitalism so that my descendants can be cat boys.
You can't just stop acting like a social construct doesn't exist to end it, you actually have to take steps to resolve it
Gender 2.0, now with no historical baggage and way more options
that makes sense, and I'm not against that kind of advocacy so long as it's only done in spaces (like this) where we're all on the same page about sex vs gender
i think u meant "continuous" vs "discrete"
Only if this is released in a press conference with Natalie Wynn coming out in a black turtleneck dress
if i had access to hormones during puberty i would have taken them in a heartbeat, regardless of societal expectations for manhood and womanhood
yeah a list of medical history is the most useful thing w/r/t medical treatment, way moreso than just "this is what this person was assigned at birth"
Please, let me be a formless angelic being of flame and eyes and feathers but also with bangin' tits and a huge hog
Hell yea!
Thats the idea
Well I meant analog and digital but yeah, my bad
You should be able to help yourself along to the body you want
big same.
But I think sex should be included in the medical history as a basis.
yea ofc. a list of the person's sex/biology would be one of the first entries in the history
But you dont have to define their biology into a sex
Just give them the medical info without sexxing them
Dude I couldn’t have this conversation with the cissies because fuck am I tired of explaining the metaphysics of gender lol
yes, and i would still be as butch as i am, and would want to feel less alone in that butch womanhood, and throwing out the entirety of the things that define those feels like a total loss of that
Gender is a quark, it simultaneously exists and doesn't
Not everyone has the same biology, I get that. But we need a term for 'mainly female' and 'mainly male' as well as terms for different mixes and presentations.
idk anything about eyes but in a reality where different eye colors need different treatments and you can like change your eye color or whatever, yeah. Sex should have about as much implication as that.
i feel like i've been sayin real stupid shit today i need some water lol
correct, but at current, that is all certain things are covered under, which means trans women who need mammograms, or trans men who need cervical cancer screenings get left with the bill because they "don't need those"
No we don't except as medical jargon in emergency situations. Just give people the more accurate information possible without labeling people
cis ppl be like "this contradicts what was stated in biology 101" to the biology professor teaching bio 102
People really don’t understand lies told in education of children make things easier to build on later
Like gravity for example
I don't know what it would mean to live in a genderless society. I know that I don't, that I'm a constituent and product of a cultural history shaped by a long history of wishing to justify various imperialisms and heterosexual family structures, that this heavily impacts how I experience and construct reality, and for most purposes this is what matters. y'know
I don't agree with the way things are done at all, no. But, we can't completely erase biological reasoning from the picture.
Why
i think we're arguing in favor of the same thing with different wording.
Your argument is that we cant just say the basic description of a thing
Sex binary =/= biology, in fact it simplifies things in ways that are often contrary to biology
We might need to dip back into all chat
things are getting transphobic again
We just got a 'the gays are best at blaming others' comment lol
hey guys we have more idiots in #tts-discussion btw incase you're fullscreened
Good talks, really fun and productive
It's a good simplification though. It can be quickly used as a substitute for a thorough look at someone's biology.
Thank you all for being nice and welcoming. See you around.
in emergency cases sure. but i would hate to be put in a men's ward again despite being a woman because "tall + butch = man" in the doctor's eyes.
in the the context of the society we talked about where they asked if it was reasonable for sex is denoted in medical history, men's wards wouldn't exist. Just wards
true but they currently exist and i was put in one with mostly male nurses
yeah that's fucked up
Oh geez
that is incredibly messed up
(A long rant on mental wards)
woot
there's a lot to look through here but first of all hello ^^
what are your pronouns?
Who dares necro my thread
i dare. i thought it was interesting
Fair lol
I forgot about this thread
there's a bit to read through, what happened near the end of it
I'm one of them He/Hims
Basically it ended with me disagreeing with Lori I think? Or Zombified?
Where basically we agreed to disagree because they felt that their attachment to the concept of womanhood based on its historical precedents matter more than the negative utility gender as a whole brings to society
Since we're both civil we just agreed that's the good stopping point because we can't resolve that ethical contention really
ah that's an interesting topic.
Feminist Metaphysics (what are the definition of words)
I was reading something a while ago about the definition of woman and the category of woman.
there are several definitions in feminist thought, each with their own issues and problems
I don't fully understand all of it
The negative utility of gender has more to do with the negative utility of society, imo
but it is something that feminists interested in metaphysics sought to figure out.
because after all, if you can't define, who is a woman, how can you fight for the rights of women?
But I understand that this is a small branch of feminism and there's so many aspects of feminism beyond this
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/feminism-gender/ this was the article i read.
do note that due to the date it is written it is behind on the state of the art in feminist metaphysics
Yea it’s hard to separate them I’d the thing
Is*
Because we define gender by grouping traits and expression but we also have to look at experience of that gender- how can you separate the experience of womanhood for example without the specific experiences of it
TERFS take advantage of that grey zone
I have a hard time here, because IMO intersectionality makes it impossible to separate experiences of womanhood from experiences of blackness, or poverty, or any number of other constructed identities.
Oh for sure
as the above article would say, not all woman have the same traits or experiences, and that there is no unifying experience or trait that all woman have
Agreed!
but early on, when it spoke of that, it was talking about white women primarily at the exclusion of black and brown women
Im at the grocery right now so it’s a little hard for me to take this on super hardcore right now haha
POP QUIZ TIME, DROP THE GORCERIES DROP EVERYTHNIG
no worries i'm just here to go about the gender is a spectrum thing
that's why i shared my chart ^^
(To give you an idea I’m a double major double Minor- BA in CS Philosophy, minors in Sociology and Queer Studies)
awesome! you know more about this than I do
So I love these take
Talks*
No no no
I’ve studied it a lot but that doesn’t mean I know more or what you do!
i am willing to take that bet ^^
A lot of it is too hard for me to understand
I work more with tangential things in advocacy, with a vague understanding of the feminist thought that apparently supports it
I wish I had studied more stuff involving gender and sexuality in college. I kind of tangentially touched on it for my paper in my last 400 level course.
It’s cool- it’s just having any sort of like disagreement in there gets tense
C/W: Sexual assault discussion in the book Stone Butch Blues. || Once we read a book called Stone Butch Blues, and in it the Author (Ze, Zin) tells a story of basically them hooking up with someone at a wedding who was yelling transphobic homophobic stuff earlier||
there's a lot of external threats to our community
||And they um, came wearing a strap to the wedding, and ended up hooking up with this person in the dark so they never realized||
||That they weren’t a man||
while i do enjoy the mention of stone butch blues
||And uh, you could hear a pen fucking drop when I said out loud that it was rape||
I think we do have to follow the #rules
and also be aware that as queer people we should follow some stronger rules (such as not mentioning sexual assualt without spoilers because we know better)
Stone Butch Blues is really amazing. That book was very formative to me
Yea good book
Just it was uh, how can I put this- I took that queer lit and film class the same semester as I was in an ethics 400 course
So it was an interesting read at the time lol
I keep trying to write a glowing comment about it talking about how excellent it is and how good of a book it is and they all feel so shallow to what that book is. It is a beautiful and impactful book that is very hard for me to read due to the content but important for that exact reason
The book is a hard read for sure- the first few chapters alone were really hard because of (C/W Sexual Assault) ||Basically being extremely related to my own rape story literally in both context and feeling||
Like I legitimately had to set the book down for a few days after that because of how bad it hit me
I think it is a good story- but I think my after thoughts of the book were tainted by the point I talked about earlier, where after that happened my compassion turned into somewhat guarded sympathy
(It doesn't help that when trying to discuss that in class in the midst of still working our way through the book, I kind of just got shouted down by people saying I was wrong and sort of refusing to listen to me on that)
the conditionality of consent is a hard thing to get for some reason
Which is a shame because it is pretty simple
well it can get complex if you don't have full information but that goes for any kind of non-documented agreement
this might be necro'ing again, but that may have been me? my thing though is I don't agree that there is any negative utility inherent to gender - what negative utility we see is caused by forcing people into boxes rather than intrinsic to the idea of gender
so like, if we stop forcing people to conform, let people identify and express how they want, and treat gender more like a landmark than a bucket, I think all the negative utility would go away
But without that negative utility gender literally does not exist as we know it, so I think trying to separate the two is literally more in my court of abolition
Like if we created a Society with “gender” but no ties to sex (or enforcement of gender norm related to sex) then abolition achieved we did it Reddit
hm if that's what you mean by abolition, then I'm on board lol
I wouldn't call that gender abolition, any more than we've abolished "being a star wars fan" because you can identify and express that fandom however you want
I mean I would because then you no longer have gender roles
It means “woman” and “man” literally mean nothing
As at that point you’ve divorced it from any sort of categorical association or oppression
It’s effectively the same as saying “I’m a goth” it’s a grouping of aesthetic traits from that point forward
While I agree- that's because of the role the gender role enforcement plays in our society
If you gouge that out, which you would be doing by completely removing its association with sex and expectations of anybody to conform to any specific gender
Society effectively becomes genderless, how you define it is up to you- it becomes aesthetic
Whereas now, because it is heavily associated with sex and oppression of anything that deviates from ASAB, that defines gender's role in identity because it's what roles you want to portray that relate to your self-perception
this might be an agree to disagree then, because I don't see it that way. like, I could be a star wars fan, and somebody else could be a star wars fan, but we could have no overlap in which movies or characters we like (aesthetics), but we both find meaning in the term "star wars fan"
I think in this case of you example where the 'aesthetic' of star wars fan is broad- your defining specific relationship with that aesthetic- in this case 'star wars fan' would be something akin to 'woman'
and like prequel fan, originals fan, sequels fan, etc would be the the refined identity within that group
(e.g. Butch, High Femme, etc)
basically yea
Okay yea cool, but if there is nothing binding you to that, it's something you define based on your self perception
(your love of star wars, and whatever specificity within that)
It is at its core
aesthetic
Its your relation of your self-perception into a societal role
I disagree that that is aesthetic at its core
No at its core
its about expression of self-perception
But that expression becomes aesthetic rather than a mandated role
the expression does, but the identity does not
Yea the self-perception doesn't shift
(Self-Perception, basically the way you view your own identity)
It may shift without external pressure a bit, but thats natural with any change in life
right
I just don't see how you're getting from there to "gender becomes purely aesthetic"
So if Im not being clear-
Even without 'gender' applying, your identity does not change. "Gender" itself more or less becomes a labeling system for that inner self-perception. Gender as it exists now cannot be defined without roles that it includes (Roles including how to behave in society, how to present publicly, voice and tone inflection etc)
So for example one of the problems now is the conflict between identity and gender expectation- a good example is Butch women
I would say that the roles are a part of expression, ie forcing people into the box
Yea exactly
but the identity has little to nothing to do with that
I'm not sure if we even disagree that much then lol
rather than our current shitty interplay between the two
So like Butch Women like I said are the perfect example of a strong identity present within womanhood but still contradicting societal gender roles
My ideal world is to completely cut out the role so its just the identity of 'Butch Women'
so, a clarifying question: how would you differentiate between say a twink man and a butch woman who present/express nearly identically, but identify differently?
Most Gender Abolitionists are Gender (Role) abolitionists
How they define themselves.
Let me put it like this
Is a woman who presents zero femininity still a woman?
ok so I think we actually agree, we've just been getting hung up on terms
yea ofc
yep
so yea I think maybe I miscommunicated on the nature of abolition
I guess I just got confused because I had a different idea of abolition in my head
Because Gender (Role) abolition helps people understand it a bit more in depth
Nah Im not talking like us all becoming agender and living without anything
yea saying gender (role) abolition makes it a lot clearer to me
Because ultimately if we got rid of those labels
we'd just come up with new ones based on our identities we end up choosing and defining ourselves along because we tend to flock to like minded people
So whats the point lol
Keep the term women, get rid of any baggage it could carry baddabing badda boom
that is a clearer way of stating what I was trying to say in the original discussion a couple days ago
coolio
i can agree with this being a doctorwho fan 🙂
same
This honestly..