The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Suriyanakhon]

Thinking about gender's relation to society and how it intersects with other aspects, it really is just appearance. Womanhood is something that society treats as revokable the minute you slip up in presentation. A cis woman such as a butch lesbian (or even Michelle Obama bizarrely enough) can be labeled as transgender or vaguely “not a real woman” in general because of how she isn't the paragon of petite, white femininity. I don't know if a parallel exists for men and “being a real man,” but I feel like they're not 100% parallel because I haven't seen cis men referred to as she/her or accused of being trans men because they aren't masculine, it's usually more of an attack on their sexual orientation.

[Galloism]

Thinking about gender's relation to society and how it intersects with other aspects, it really is just appearance. Womanhood is something that society treats as revokable the minute you slip up in presentation. A cis woman such as a butch lesbian (or even Michelle Obama bizarrely enough) can be labeled as transgender or vaguely “not a real woman” in general because of how she isn't the paragon of petite, white femininity. I don't know if a parallel exists for men and “being a real man,” but I feel like they're not 100% parallel because I haven't seen cis men referred to as she/her or accused of being trans men because they aren't masculine, it's usually more of an attack on their sexual orientation.

Men get are accused of not being a “real man” for spurious reasons all the time.

Usually “not a real woman” or “not a real man” is an attack on orientation (your butch lesbian example, or accusations regarding being gay - which is really homophobic).

[New haven america]

1. Thinking about gender's relation to society and how it intersects with other aspects, it really is just appearance. Womanhood is something that society treats as revokable the minute you slip up in presentation. A cis woman such as a butch lesbian (or even Michelle Obama bizarrely enough) can be labeled as transgender or vaguely “not a real woman” in general because of how she isn't the paragon of petite, white femininity. 2. I don't know if a parallel exists for men and “being a real man,” but I feel like they're not 100% parallel because I haven't seen cis men referred to as she/her or accused of being trans men because they aren't masculine, it's usually more of an attack on their sexual orientation.

1. Not really, no. Women in the modern era have so much more fashion and appearance options than men do in basically every facet. Hair, make up, clothes, shoes, etc... In fact, in the 20's, 50's, and 90's it was seen as totally normal for women to cut their hair short.
2. It does, and I experienced it personally!

Yeah, in middle school we were doing a science project that involved splitting up into groups, and then those groups further subdividing themselves. I got put in the group made up mostly of jocks and the guys automatically took control and decided to split up the group between male and female, and they decided that any guy with longer hair would be considered a girl. (Girls with short hair did not get the same treatment, you'll note) I had long hair because until I was ~13 I hated getting my hair cut due to sensory issues, so they made me work with the girls. (If you're wondering how that happened, it was mostly by ignoring me and breaking all my pencils) If you think the girls ended up being nicer than the guys, hah, fuck no, they were worse because most of them were dating some of the most dangerous people in the school and no messed with them. (Most of whom are either teenage daddies cause they didn't know how condoms work or currently serving sentences for assault, robbery, rape, child porn, etc...)

Yeah, I ended up doing the project by myself and getting a higher grade than all of them.

Also, I got called a fag/faggot at least 3x's a day. (Quite frankly, the word is no different than white noise to me now, you can only hear a word so much before it becomes nonsense) God I grew up in a real ghetto.

[Esalia]

Thinking about gender's relation to society and how it intersects with other aspects, it really is just appearance. Womanhood is something that society treats as revokable the minute you slip up in presentation. A cis woman such as a butch lesbian (or even Michelle Obama bizarrely enough) can be labeled as transgender or vaguely “not a real woman” in general because of how she isn't the paragon of petite, white femininity. I don't know if a parallel exists for men and “being a real man,” but I feel like they're not 100% parallel because I haven't seen cis men referred to as she/her or accused of being trans men because they aren't masculine, it's usually more of an attack on their sexual orientation.

The attack over orientation is usually an attack over gender too, since it often carries the implication that gay men aren't "real men" and that by doing a "gay" thing (which is usually an incredibly common and often important thing to do, like basic hygiene) you're "not a real man".

It might not be "you're not woman enough, so you have to be trans" (probably because society/hateful people constantly forget about trans men), but it certainly is an attack on their gender.

[Istoreya]

Thinking about gender's relation to society and how it intersects with other aspects, it really is just appearance. Womanhood is something that society treats as revokable the minute you slip up in presentation. A cis woman such as a butch lesbian (or even Michelle Obama bizarrely enough) can be labeled as transgender or vaguely “not a real woman” in general because of how she isn't the paragon of petite, white femininity. I don't know if a parallel exists for men and “being a real man,” but I feel like they're not 100% parallel because I haven't seen cis men referred to as she/her or accused of being trans men because they aren't masculine, it's usually more of an attack on their sexual orientation.

Men, at least that I've seen, don't get accused of being trans, but they DO get accused of being gay. The whole "Fellas, is it gay to [insert something not gay]" may be a meme now, but wasn't when it started. And we all know that only straight men are "real men", right??

The only time I've ever seen a man being told they're actually a woman is occasionally when people are shitting on men for being under 6', so it's not (that I've seen) a common sentiment. The "[Not gay thing] makes you gay and therefore not a real man" is the prevalent one and really, really needs to stop. Even the memes, honestly, because it just pushes the idea that there's some legitimacy to the idea.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Thinking about gender's relation to society and how it intersects with other aspects, it really is just appearance. Womanhood is something that society treats as revokable the minute you slip up in presentation. A cis woman such as a butch lesbian (or even Michelle Obama bizarrely enough) can be labeled as transgender or vaguely “not a real woman” in general because of how she isn't the paragon of petite, white femininity. I don't know if a parallel exists for men and “being a real man,” but I feel like they're not 100% parallel because I haven't seen cis men referred to as she/her or accused of being trans men because they aren't masculine, it's usually more of an attack on their sexual orientation.

In prison if you end up being the "prison bitch" they often refer to you with female pronouns. And of course we all know how boys will often call other boys "little girls" or "bitches" when challenging then to show how tough they are.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

1. Thinking about gender's relation to society and how it intersects with other aspects, it really is just appearance. Womanhood is something that society treats as revokable the minute you slip up in presentation. A cis woman such as a butch lesbian (or even Michelle Obama bizarrely enough) can be labeled as transgender or vaguely “not a real woman” in general because of how she isn't the paragon of petite, white femininity. 2. I don't know if a parallel exists for men and “being a real man,” but I feel like they're not 100% parallel because I haven't seen cis men referred to as she/her or accused of being trans men because they aren't masculine, it's usually more of an attack on their sexual orientation.

1. Not really, no. Women in the modern era have so much more fashion and appearance options than men do in basically every facet. Hair, make up, clothes, shoes, etc... In fact, in the 20's, 50's, and 90's it was seen as totally normal for women to cut their hair short.
2. It does, and I experienced it personally!

Yeah, in middle school we were doing a science project that involved splitting up into groups, and then those groups further subdividing themselves. I got put in the group made up mostly of jocks and the guys automatically took control and decided to split up the group between male and female, and they decided that any guy with longer hair would be considered a girl. (Girls with short hair did not get the same treatment, you'll note) I had long hair because until I was ~13 I hated getting my hair cut due to sensory issues, so they made me work with the girls. (If you're wondering how that happened, it was mostly by ignoring me and breaking all my pencils) If you think the girls ended up being nicer than the guys, hah, fuck no, they were worse because most of them were dating some of the most dangerous people in the school and no messed with them. (Most of whom are either teenage daddies cause they didn't know how condoms work or currently serving sentences for assault, robbery, rape, child porn, etc...)

Yeah, I ended up doing the project by myself and getting a higher grade than all of them.

Also, I got called a fag/faggot at least 3x's a day. (Quite frankly, the word is no different than white noise to me now, you can only hear a word so much before it becomes nonsense) God I grew up in a real ghetto.

Toxic masculinity and toxic femininity went hand in hand in my school, also a ghetto school. A young woman would use her sexual desirability to wrap a man around her finger and her manipulation combined with his need to show how much of a man he was led to many a violent confrontation. I too got called a faggot alot. Many people did. Ironically one of the guys who called me one later tried to rape me in the school bathroom, so I'm trying to figure out how "being gay" is bad in his worldview but gay rape is okay. Is he taking the Roman view of sexuality?

[Stellar Colonies]

Could be an exaggeration, but it wouldn't be a surprise, really. I honestly cannot wait until/if the general public finally realizes that rape and sexual/domestic abuse are a gender neutral crimes when using non-loony statistical parameters.

Additionally, why is it always Australia...

[Galloism]

Could be an exaggeration, but it wouldn't be a surprise, really. I honestly cannot wait until/if the general public finally realizes that rape and sexual/domestic abuse are a gender neutral crimes when using non-loony statistical parameters.

Additionally, why is it always Australia...

Imagine how this would go if you asked black people to stand as a symbolic gesture of apology for the behaviors of their race to white people.

"Whoops, our bad." would not be the appropriate response, and it really isn't here either.

[Kowani]

Could be an exaggeration, but it wouldn't be a surprise, really. I honestly cannot wait until/if the general public finally realizes that rape and sexual/domestic abuse are a gender neutral crimes when using non-loony statistical parameters.

Additionally, why is it always Australia...

Every time I hear about anything going out of Australia, it’s always fucking bonkers
Who thought this would be a good idea

[Stellar Colonies]

Could be an exaggeration, but it wouldn't be a surprise, really. I honestly cannot wait until/if the general public finally realizes that rape and sexual/domestic abuse are a gender neutral crimes when using non-loony statistical parameters.

Additionally, why is it always Australia...

Imagine how this would go if you asked black people to stand as a symbolic gesture of apology for the behaviors of their race to white people.

"Whoops, our bad." would not be the appropriate response, and it really isn't here either.

Indeed.

It's incredibly aggravating that the statistics are so wonky but a great deal of BS is justified with them.

Could be an exaggeration, but it wouldn't be a surprise, really. I honestly cannot wait until/if the general public finally realizes that rape and sexual/domestic abuse are a gender neutral crimes when using non-loony statistical parameters.

Additionally, why is it always Australia...

Every time I hear about anything going out of Australia, it’s always fucking bonkers
Who thought this would be a good idea

Half the time I hear about something like this, it's always that one country.

[Fahran]

This, as much as I disagree with trans-exclusionary feminists and those who attempt to overtly medicalize trans issues, it is pretty discomforting that they have much more coherent understandings of gender than some who advocate trans acceptance (or coopt it as some sort of revolutionary act or postmodernist statement). Although ultimately, the former's interpretations are motivated by hatred and bigotry and will change at the spur of the moment once they realize that there are trans women who meet their criterion (or cis women who don't).

In all likelihood, yes. TERFs are not often the most reasonable of people despite essentialism arguably giving them a more straightforward path in argumentation. I think the difficulty for a lot of advocates of trans acceptance is that the desire to be as inclusive and accepting as possible doesn't always lend itself to a coherent and well-defined conception of gender. Social construction could theoretically work quite well, but the problem is that, while it's more inclusive and accepting than biological essentialism, it's still more exclusive than not gatekeeping at all.

[Auzkhia]

This, as much as I disagree with trans-exclusionary feminists and those who attempt to overtly medicalize trans issues, it is pretty discomforting that they have much more coherent understandings of gender than some who advocate trans acceptance (or coopt it as some sort of revolutionary act or postmodernist statement). Although ultimately, the former's interpretations are motivated by hatred and bigotry and will change at the spur of the moment once they realize that there are trans women who meet their criterion (or cis women who don't).

In all likelihood, yes. TERFs are not often the most reasonable of people despite essentialism arguably giving them a more straightforward path in argumentation. I think the difficulty for a lot of advocates of trans acceptance is that the desire to be as inclusive and accepting as possible doesn't always lend itself to a coherent and well-defined conception of gender. Social construction could theoretically work quite well, but the problem is that, while it's more inclusive and accepting than biological essentialism, it's still more exclusive than not gatekeeping at all.

Personally, I think that you cannot neatly define gender without leaving at least someone's lived experience. There are general understandings but it's kinda circular, but I think that is not a problem because gender is not at all rational. I have found myself become more uninterested in why someone is their gender and in particular why someone is transgender. Some people are trans and how they realize that is nobody's business but theirs. Some people will say it is because of brains or society, but at any rate, it is immaterial. I live as a woman, I consider myself one, and I am also genderqueer and non-binary. These things are just happening no matter what you feel or think in terms of sociological theory.

[Fahran]

Personally, I think that you cannot neatly define gender without leaving at least someone's lived experience. There are general understandings but it's kinda circular, but I think that is not a problem because gender is not at all rational. I have found myself become more uninterested in why someone is their gender and in particular why someone is transgender. Some people are trans and how they realize that is nobody's business but theirs. Some people will say it is because of brains or society, but at any rate, it is immaterial. I live as a woman, I consider myself one, and I am also genderqueer and non-binary. These things are just happening no matter what you feel or think in terms of sociological theory.

This doesn't provide a good foundation for a socially functional conception of gender, for a coherent and rigorous definition of manhood or womanhood, or for any reasonable or logical argument relating to these subjects. If you cannot define what it means to be a woman, how can you even begin to argue that anyone is living as a woman? If gender is a vacuous thing, what does it even mean to queer gender? Without definition, none of these words have any proper meaning whatsoever. Because in the process of striving to include everyone based solely on self-identification and without reference to observed traits and behaviors such categories become meaningless drivel, especially in the context of lived experience outside of immediate social circles.

More than that, this isn't actually how anyone interacts and/or grapples with gender to my knowledge. Not even those who claim to do so can manage that perfectly because the precepts aren't functional.

[Auzkhia]

Personally, I think that you cannot neatly define gender without leaving at least someone's lived experience. There are general understandings but it's kinda circular, but I think that is not a problem because gender is not at all rational. I have found myself become more uninterested in why someone is their gender and in particular why someone is transgender. Some people are trans and how they realize that is nobody's business but theirs. Some people will say it is because of brains or society, but at any rate, it is immaterial. I live as a woman, I consider myself one, and I am also genderqueer and non-binary. These things are just happening no matter what you feel or think in terms of sociological theory.

This doesn't provide a good foundation for a socially functional conception of gender, for a coherent and rigorous definition of manhood or womanhood, or for any reasonable or logical argument relating to these subjects. If you cannot define what it means to be a woman, how can you even begin to argue that anyone is living as a woman? If gender is a vacuous thing, what does it even mean to queer gender? Without definition, none of these words have any proper meaning whatsoever. Because in the process of striving to include everyone based solely on self-identification and without reference to observed traits and behaviors such categories become meaningless drivel, especially in the context of lived experience outside of immediate social circles.

More than that, this isn't actually how anyone interacts and/or grapples with gender to my knowledge. Not even those who claim to do so can manage that perfectly because the precepts aren't functional.

Like I said gender is irrational and is always flexible and malleable. I question the need to harden the boxes so to speak. There's a lot to unpack from them, but that's effort posting, and I'll probably have to read more theory at this point. But it seems to me that gender is quite idiosyncratic to a point where finding any prescriptive definition is just gonna be an endless game of goalpost moving.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I'm inclined to agree with Auzkhia, but only in the domain of public policy.

A precise definition for gender (or, if none exists, then a healthy debate over a reasonable definition) will certainly be of great scholarly interest and gender as a concept is something that we as a society should continue to study and explore.

But when it comes to public policy: there is no need for the state to dabble in the matter, so they shouldn't. If we are serious about giving men and women equal rights, then it should be of no concern to the organisation charged with enforcing our rights what gender a person is, hmm?

[Fahran]

I'm inclined to agree with Auzkhia, but only in the domain of public policy.

A precise definition for gender (or, if none exists, then a healthy debate over a reasonable definition) will certainly be of great scholarly interest and gender as a concept is something that we as a society should continue to study and explore.

It's not simply a matter of scholarly interest. It literally informs a significant portion of our day-to-day interactions and sense of identity. It even informs how many people arguing Auz's perspective talk about and envision themselves. If the phrase "I am a woman" cannot be said to have any meaning whatsoever, there's no sense in uttering it. And we slide towards gender abolitionism. Such a perspective invalidates all identities tied to gender, and that's a serious critique, not only intellectually, but functionally and practically as well.

But when it comes to public policy: there is no need for the state to dabble in the matter, so they shouldn't. If we are serious about giving men and women equal rights, then it should be of no concern to the organisation charged with enforcing our rights what gender a person is, hmm?

The problem here is that such a perspective makes it utterly impossible for the government or other institutions of public interest to diagnose or study gender disparities in a serious manner. It's pretty much like color blindness in that respect, and we can expect both such perspectives to lead to ignoring racism/sexism. And that would extend to trans issues as well. So much of the ideology that purports that gender is irrational and illogical, with the second of these being the more serious problem, assumes that we're operating within the binary and that we have coherent definitions of man and woman in order to even talk about the subject in a comprehensible way. Largely because these things are socially constructed in reality and might well continue to exist regardless of what we may believe.

[Auzkhia]

I'm inclined to agree with Auzkhia, but only in the domain of public policy.

A precise definition for gender (or, if none exists, then a healthy debate over a reasonable definition) will certainly be of great scholarly interest and gender as a concept is something that we as a society should continue to study and explore.

But when it comes to public policy: there is no need for the state to dabble in the matter, so they shouldn't. If we are serious about giving men and women equal rights, then it should be of no concern to the organisation charged with enforcing our rights what gender a person is, hmm?

I think that is what I was ultimately trying to express in some ways. Like, there are so many factors at play, like mind, socialization, self-perception. Being a woman can mean many different things, same with being a man, being non-binary. Expression, identity, etc are all super complicated. But I dress to what society at this place and time that I am currently in deems to be feminine or typical of a woman, I form myself along those societal norms to some degree, though I do not really strictly observe them for conformity, gender roles can be too stifling of course. There's being a woman, and there's being a queer femme woman that is also trans and non-binary, even there I might have raised more questions.

And to generally respond to Fahran, gender abolition is a a bit of pipedream, though I have tendencies of it, but I just want to get rid of the stuff about gender that is bad, like patriarchy and gender roles. Gender shall not be a basis of hierarchy. So called gender critical radical feminists who claim to be for gender abolition do not actually believe in it, they say they do, but is sex not gender by another name? I dispute the notion that gender is *strictly* biological but it does seem that there are psychological and neurological factors at play, it's just that some people tend to overstate and exaggerate the biological factors of gender identity.

Ultimately, biology vs society seems to be another nature vs nurture question, and also a chicken or the egg puzzle.

[Daves Computer]

What do you all think of the prospect of gender abolition, or the elimination of a gendered culture (i.e. stereotypical clothing, divides between genders, etc)? Gender abolition essentially retains gender binary, but does away with stereotypes and the social divides between genders.

[Fahran]

What do you all think of the prospect of gender abolition, or the elimination of a gendered culture (i.e. stereotypical clothing, divides between genders, etc)? Gender abolition essentially retains gender binary, but does away with stereotypes and the social divides between genders.

It's not abolition if you retain the gender binary. My stance is that gender abolition is either impossible or ill-advised. We're heavily reliant on gender distinctions to remain functional as a society and, as I stated above, they're often an important source of identity. As an example that relates to the whole trans issue, there's a reason that repeatedly misgendering a trans person is not a very nice or moral thing to do - and a lot of that has to do with gender being important. People wouldn't go through the trouble of paying for costly procedures, such a HRT and surgery, if this stuff didn't matter - both to them and to society.

[New haven america]

And I disagree with both of you!

Personally, I think that you cannot neatly define gender without leaving at least someone's lived experience. There are general understandings but it's kinda circular, but I think that is not a problem because gender is not at all rational. I have found myself become more uninterested in why someone is their gender and in particular why someone is transgender. Some people are trans and how they realize that is nobody's business but theirs. Some people will say it is because of brains or society, but at any rate, it is immaterial. I live as a woman, I consider myself one, and I am also genderqueer and non-binary. These things are just happening no matter what you feel or think in terms of sociological theory.

1. This doesn't provide a good foundation for a socially functional conception of gender, 2. for a coherent and rigorous definition of manhood or womanhood, or for any reasonable or logical argument relating to these subjects. 3. If you cannot define what it means to be a woman, how can you even begin to argue that anyone is living as a woman? If gender is a vacuous thing, what does it even mean to queer gender? Without definition, none of these words have any proper meaning whatsoever. 4. Because in the process of striving to include everyone based solely on self-identification and without reference to observed traits and behaviors such categories become meaningless drivel, especially in the context of lived experience outside of immediate social circles.

More than that, this isn't actually how anyone interacts and/or grapples with gender to my knowledge. Not even those who claim to do so can manage that perfectly because the precepts aren't functional.

1. We don't need gender roles, they do nothing but cause harm and restrict individuals into boxes that can easily lead to social ostracization, violence, and gatekeeping.
2. Manhood=Have a penis or identify as male (Or both), Womanhood=Have a vagina or identify as female (Or both)
3. I just did!
4. Most gendered behavior is meaningless drivel though. It's actually been proven that gender roles really only exist for agricultural societies, larger technologically developed societies and hunter-gatherer tribes are much more egalitarian compared to settled tribes. (Some are even totally egalitarian)

Gender is real, but trying to create hard and ridged boxes about how it should be is probably the most destructive thing you could do.

This doesn't provide a good foundation for a socially functional conception of gender, for a coherent and rigorous definition of manhood or womanhood, or for any reasonable or logical argument relating to these subjects. If you cannot define what it means to be a woman, how can you even begin to argue that anyone is living as a woman? If gender is a vacuous thing, what does it even mean to queer gender? Without definition, none of these words have any proper meaning whatsoever. Because in the process of striving to include everyone based solely on self-identification and without reference to observed traits and behaviors such categories become meaningless drivel, especially in the context of lived experience outside of immediate social circles.

More than that, this isn't actually how anyone interacts and/or grapples with gender to my knowledge. Not even those who claim to do so can manage that perfectly because the precepts aren't functional.

Like I said gender is irrational and is always flexible and malleable. I question the need to harden the boxes so to speak. There's a lot to unpack from them, but that's effort posting, and I'll probably have to read more theory at this point. But it seems to me that gender is quite idiosyncratic to a point where finding any prescriptive definition is just gonna be an endless game of goalpost moving.

Auz, I know you don't understand this, but not everyone is non-binary/gender queer, they can't simply pick how they want to identify. Gender does actually have a measurable affect on how people develop and operate in their day to day lives.

I hate pretty much all male assigned gender roles, but I still identify as and understand that I am a male. I don't want to transition to being a woman or become non-binary, because I'm neither of those and I don't want to be either of those, I simply want to destroy male gender roles.

[Kazumazu]

And I disagree with both of you!

1. This doesn't provide a good foundation for a socially functional conception of gender, 2. for a coherent and rigorous definition of manhood or womanhood, or for any reasonable or logical argument relating to these subjects. 3. If you cannot define what it means to be a woman, how can you even begin to argue that anyone is living as a woman? If gender is a vacuous thing, what does it even mean to queer gender? Without definition, none of these words have any proper meaning whatsoever. 4. Because in the process of striving to include everyone based solely on self-identification and without reference to observed traits and behaviors such categories become meaningless drivel, especially in the context of lived experience outside of immediate social circles.

More than that, this isn't actually how anyone interacts and/or grapples with gender to my knowledge. Not even those who claim to do so can manage that perfectly because the precepts aren't functional.

1. We don't need gender roles, they do nothing but cause harm and restrict individuals into boxes that can easily lead to social ostracization, violence, and gatekeeping.
2. Manhood=Have a penis or identify as male (Or both), Womanhood=Have a vagina or identify as female (Or both)
3. I just did!
4. Most gendered behavior is meaningless drivel though. It's actually been proven that gender roles really only exist for agricultural societies, larger technologically developed societies and hunter-gatherer tribes are much more egalitarian compared to settled tribes.

Gender is real, but trying to create hard and ridged boxes about how it should be is probably the most destructive thing you could do.

Like I said gender is irrational and is always flexible and malleable. I question the need to harden the boxes so to speak. There's a lot to unpack from them, but that's effort posting, and I'll probably have to read more theory at this point. But it seems to me that gender is quite idiosyncratic to a point where finding any prescriptive definition is just gonna be an endless game of goalpost moving.

Auz, I know you don't understand this, but not everyone is non-binary/gender queer, they can't simply pick how they want to identify. Gender does actually have a measurable affect on how people develop and operate in their day to day lives.

I hate pretty much all male assigned gender roles, but I still identify as and understand that I am a male. I don't want to transition to being a woman or become non-binary, because I'm neither of those and I don't want to be either of those, I simply want to destroy male gender roles.

What do you define as male gender roles? You personally.

[Auzkhia]

And I disagree with both of you!

1. This doesn't provide a good foundation for a socially functional conception of gender, 2. for a coherent and rigorous definition of manhood or womanhood, or for any reasonable or logical argument relating to these subjects. 3. If you cannot define what it means to be a woman, how can you even begin to argue that anyone is living as a woman? If gender is a vacuous thing, what does it even mean to queer gender? Without definition, none of these words have any proper meaning whatsoever. 4. Because in the process of striving to include everyone based solely on self-identification and without reference to observed traits and behaviors such categories become meaningless drivel, especially in the context of lived experience outside of immediate social circles.

More than that, this isn't actually how anyone interacts and/or grapples with gender to my knowledge. Not even those who claim to do so can manage that perfectly because the precepts aren't functional.

1. We don't need gender roles, they do nothing but cause harm and restrict individuals into boxes that can easily lead to social ostracization, violence, and gatekeeping.
2. Manhood=Have a penis or identify as male (Or both), Womanhood=Have a vagina or identify as female (Or both)
3. I just did!
4. Most gendered behavior is meaningless drivel though. It's actually been proven that gender roles really only exist for agricultural societies, larger technologically developed societies and hunter-gatherer tribes are much more egalitarian compared to settled tribes.

Gender is real, but trying to create hard and ridged boxes about how it should be is probably the most destructive thing you could do.

Like I said gender is irrational and is always flexible and malleable. I question the need to harden the boxes so to speak. There's a lot to unpack from them, but that's effort posting, and I'll probably have to read more theory at this point. But it seems to me that gender is quite idiosyncratic to a point where finding any prescriptive definition is just gonna be an endless game of goalpost moving.

Auz, I know you don't understand this, but not everyone is non-binary/gender queer, they can't simply pick how they want to identify. Gender does actually have a measurable affect on how people develop and operate in their day to day lives.

I hate pretty much all male assigned gender roles, but I still identify as and understand that I am a male. I don't want to transition to being a woman or become non-binary, because I'm neither of those and I don't want to be either of those, I simply want to destroy male gender roles.

I normally don't respond to those in my ignore list, but it is clear you are putting words in the post that I have not written. You are a man, it makes no difference if you cite biology, socialization, or whichever as the why you are your gender, that does not take away self identification that we should take in earnest.

What do you all think of the prospect of gender abolition, or the elimination of a gendered culture (i.e. stereotypical clothing, divides between genders, etc)? Gender abolition essentially retains gender binary, but does away with stereotypes and the social divides between genders.

It's not abolition if you retain the gender binary. My stance is that gender abolition is either impossible or ill-advised. We're heavily reliant on gender distinctions to remain functional as a society and, as I stated above, they're often an important source of identity. As an example that relates to the whole trans issue, there's a reason that repeatedly misgendering a trans person is not a very nice or moral thing to do - and a lot of that has to do with gender being important. People wouldn't go through the trouble of paying for costly procedures, such a HRT and surgery, if this stuff didn't matter - both to them and to society.

I mean what is misgendering but someone else cancelling your gender? It is basically saying no we reject your claim of self-identification.

What do you all think of the prospect of gender abolition, or the elimination of a gendered culture (i.e. stereotypical clothing, divides between genders, etc)? Gender abolition essentially retains gender binary, but does away with stereotypes and the social divides between genders.

As I have said before it is a utopian pipe dream, but I take some tendencies from it. I'd say it's more accurate to say that my theoretical framework is gendered-hierarchy abolitionist, especially as a transfeminist and socialist feminist.

[New haven america]

And I disagree with both of you!

1. We don't need gender roles, they do nothing but cause harm and restrict individuals into boxes that can easily lead to social ostracization, violence, and gatekeeping.
2. Manhood=Have a penis or identify as male (Or both), Womanhood=Have a vagina or identify as female (Or both)
3. I just did!
4. Most gendered behavior is meaningless drivel though. It's actually been proven that gender roles really only exist for agricultural societies, larger technologically developed societies and hunter-gatherer tribes are much more egalitarian compared to settled tribes.

Gender is real, but trying to create hard and ridged boxes about how it should be is probably the most destructive thing you could do.


Auz, I know you don't understand this, but not everyone is non-binary/gender queer, they can't simply pick how they want to identify. Gender does actually have a measurable affect on how people develop and operate in their day to day lives.

I hate pretty much all male assigned gender roles, but I still identify as and understand that I am a male. I don't want to transition to being a woman or become non-binary, because I'm neither of those and I don't want to be either of those, I simply want to destroy male gender roles.

What do you define as male gender roles? You personally.

The protector, the provider, the sexually predatory, the emotionally stoic rock, the disposable soldier, etc...

More specifically:

Protector-The person solely responsible for the safety of family, partners, and friends around them. If there's a dangerous guy with a gun, it's your responsibility to deal with him.
Provider-The money maker and fixer, your main or sole value is how much money/resources/entertainment/utility you can provide to people.
Competitive One-You pride yourself on your physical capability and ability to win. If you don't win your a loser, if you don't like sports, then you're a pussy, I could go on.
Sexual Predator-Fighting for sex. Going after those who you're attracted to and wooing them for solely for sexual gratification. All your thoughts and day to day actions are based on sex and how to get it. It's weird if you don't want sex, actually. Emotional fulfillment in relationships? What the fuck is that!?
Emotionally Stoic Rock-Emotions are for women nd children, any pleasure outside of sex is not something men want or need. You don't show emotion, you don't deal with your emotions, other people don't deal with your emotions. The only emotions you need to concern yourself with is the emotions of your female partner or children, specifically how to help or provide for/protect them.
Disposable Soldier-Your job is to fight when the time comes. Your life is only as important as politicians and those around you think it is, your job is to fight for for whatever group you belong to in whatever conflict thy get themselves into. If you die or can't fight? Oh well, you're nothing more than a statistic.

Yeah, those sum up what's generally expected of men in most societies.

[New haven america]

And I disagree with both of you!

1. We don't need gender roles, they do nothing but cause harm and restrict individuals into boxes that can easily lead to social ostracization, violence, and gatekeeping.
2. Manhood=Have a penis or identify as male (Or both), Womanhood=Have a vagina or identify as female (Or both)
3. I just did!
4. Most gendered behavior is meaningless drivel though. It's actually been proven that gender roles really only exist for agricultural societies, larger technologically developed societies and hunter-gatherer tribes are much more egalitarian compared to settled tribes.

Gender is real, but trying to create hard and ridged boxes about how it should be is probably the most destructive thing you could do.


Auz, I know you don't understand this, but not everyone is non-binary/gender queer, they can't simply pick how they want to identify. Gender does actually have a measurable affect on how people develop and operate in their day to day lives.

I hate pretty much all male assigned gender roles, but I still identify as and understand that I am a male. I don't want to transition to being a woman or become non-binary, because I'm neither of those and I don't want to be either of those, I simply want to destroy male gender roles.

I normally don't respond to those in my ignore list, but it is clear you are putting words in the post that I have not written. You are a man, it makes no difference if you cite biology, socialization, or whichever as the why you are your gender, that does not take away self identification that we should take in earnest.

It's not abolition if you retain the gender binary. My stance is that gender abolition is either impossible or ill-advised. We're heavily reliant on gender distinctions to remain functional as a society and, as I stated above, they're often an important source of identity. As an example that relates to the whole trans issue, there's a reason that repeatedly misgendering a trans person is not a very nice or moral thing to do - and a lot of that has to do with gender being important. People wouldn't go through the trouble of paying for costly procedures, such a HRT and surgery, if this stuff didn't matter - both to them and to society.

I mean what is misgendering but someone else cancelling your gender? It is basically saying no we reject your claim of self-identification.

What do you all think of the prospect of gender abolition, or the elimination of a gendered culture (i.e. stereotypical clothing, divides between genders, etc)? Gender abolition essentially retains gender binary, but does away with stereotypes and the social divides between genders.

As I have said before it is a utopian pipe dream, but I take some tendencies from it. I'd say it's more accurate to say that my theoretical framework is gendered-hierarchy abolitionist, especially as a transfeminist and socialist feminist.

No, I'm talking about the several rants you've gone on in the past about how gender and sex don't matter, and how it relates to what you're currently posting, as a lot of your posts tend to fall back on that logic whether you're conscious of it or not.