Has anyone else noticed when some people call for the abolition of gender (which is a position I sympathise with even though it is ultra-leftist to expect society to do away with it right now) just seem to be asking for all femininity to be erased? Like when people, and I'm assuming its mostly men trans or cis, say that we need to stop having gender, they also say long hair and pretty clothes need to be banned, and everyone should just be strong and masculine. It feels not many people are expecting gender abolition to cause everyone to become feminine. Idk its interesting hearing about this. I'm reminded of the anime Simoune where the baddies are all transmasc industrialists (I did support them when I watched it because they were historically progressive industrialists). That's basically a vision of gender abolition actually being women abolition. When you talk to lots of people you will hear this. Just ask King Lear what he thinks.
>>1971>It's all just fabric bereft of inherent meaning,>wear whatever makes you happy and/or comfortable.these two don't follow. what makes you happy and/or comfortable is socially defined, even if the fabric is just a fabric it has the inherent meaning you have been socialized into. a chair is just a chair but it has inherent value because it circulates as a commodity within society
the only way to truly abolish gender is to socialize the same sense of fashion regardless of your genitals. so yes, cargo shorts and short sleeve shirts for everyone, with rectangular cuts that hide rather than highlight the body shape. you probably have many pseudo-intellectual vague platitudes against this very practical and achievable attitude but I literally do not care because you don't have a realistic or concrete alternative so my approach will always prevail over yours
>>1978>a chair is just a chair but it has inherent value because it circulates as a commodity within societyThat value is not inherent to the chair, that value is derived from its status as a commodity.
>what makes you happy and/or comfortable is socially definedNot entirely. Wearing a puffer jacket in hot weather will never be comfortable.
>the only way to truly abolish gender is to socialize the same sense of fashion regardless of your genitals.You're right that socializing the next generation to believe differently than we do is the only way to abolish gender but you're wrong that the only viable socialization is towards the exact same uniform. It would be just as feasible to socialize kids to understand that they can wear whatever they're drawn to for whatever reason they please.
Your conception of fashion is locked into a Western frame.
>>1975>so i assumeHave you ever considered not being retarded and not making massive vibes-based generalizations based on two not-even-loosely-connected posts from "a long time ago"?
No you haven't because you're a nametard.
>>2042>namefaglol! newfag
>two not-even-loosely-connected postsit was an entire thread and i think i also got flak for posting about gender-neutral skirts on bunkerchan, though don't quote me on that
>>1968>it is ultra-leftist to expect society to do away with it right nowthis is the same as the acceleration debate. people think marx was an accelerationist or gender abolitionist but he did not say that people
should accelerate contradictions or abolish gender he said that as technology increases contradictions increase and the frequency of crisis increases, and that many things we thought were solid will melt away into air exposing what was really beneath them. its not something you do, at least not directly, just like you cant "do communism". social relations change as a byproduct of increasing the material forces of production. you dont get to pick what happens but its likely that the gendered division of mankind will end up on the side of the default, which is man, just like it is white. of course when woman becomes man it will cease to have meaning just as if black were to become white. you dont have to have "men" do the heavy lifting if everyone who lifts things uses remote mech drones, for example.
>>1968Capitalism will restrict personal expression (including as it relates to gender and sex) if that is optimal for the production of capital. Even if it is a detriment to the individual.
Corporations restrict female expression more in full time employment, but educational institutions restrict male expression more during k-12 & arguably in higher education.
The restriction is done in different dimensions, i.e. long hair, clothing primarily for women. For men, it looks like lower educational attainment across the board, worse grades, worse attendance, and worse life outcomes.
It's hard for you to fully understand the other side of the aisle here and how men are repressed. It's not quite as obvious as a hair style or skirt length.
>>1968If “biological sex” is dismissed as meaningless or inherently contradictory, and “gender” is fully detached from material embodiment or social function, then what exactly is being transitioned? You can’t cross into a concept you refuse to stabilize.
Fellow transhumanists should stop reading so much philosophy garbo. Rather than addressing social organization of labor and capital, pseuds end up outsourcing liberation to technology or voting with your wallet or what have you.
>>1968nah its more like this. feels like all trans spaces have been dominated by
enbies cis """spicygenders""" telling trans people how they should behave LOL
>>1968Where do you see this?
Whenever I hear people talk about abolishing gender roles. I usually see anti-masculine rhetoric.
Masculinity is treated as some demonic activity to be exorcised or some modernized spook.
>>2073This.
It's unfortunate that for all the talk about equality, feminists dismiss male distress in academia as exaggeration.
>>1977>>2753I have no respect for these mentalities.
This reads like losers kicking down.
If you think being a woman is inferior, it's because you probably don't respect them as fellow human beings.
Irony is, as a suboptimal male, youd get worse treatment.
You'd have to constantly throw yourself into the meat grinder to get any sort of attention
>>1968it's because of westoid brainrot going back to the Greeks where man = active and woman = passive, therefore man = subject and woman = object. the entire project of liberal feminism is not to critique the underlying reasons why patriarchy exists but rather to manage the inequality symptoms it produces, because as with all liberalism, libfem is not capable of understanding the real material causes of anything but only of managing them so that the contradictions don't become so acute that they start to cause a crisis in production (which patriarchy functions as a part of on the micropolitical level of the household and the reproduction of labor). in practice what this results in is almost every feminist project (with the exception of materialist feminism, Marxist feminism, and their offshoots) not having any interest in the actual liberation of women as a class but having a kind of internalized misogyny where being a woman is seen as an inherently abject state, of being objectified by a ruling class of men, and so the solution to this is to simply make everyone functionally a man (a subject).
this is incidentally also why there is a large segment of feminists (again, most feminists arguably) who come up with reasons for either outright hating transfems within a framework of "radical" feminism or backhandedly hating them within liberal feminism (by viewing all trans people as basically doing a kind of permanent drag performance). the idea that someone could choose to be a woman and essentially affirm the class of woman for its own sake doesn't compute with the genealogy of feminist theory that ended up being the most dominant one in the anglosphere and is closer to the materialist feminism of Luce Irigaray and Monique Wittig, particularly Wittig's theory of lesbianism: that a lesbian by choosing to desire women for their own sake and not because of their utility within the reproductive futurist project of the bourgeois heterosexual family form is not really a woman because she chooses to remove herself entirely from the patriarchal power structure and its encodings of desire.
therefore in the final analysis we must conclude that trans women are not really women but rather are, like cis lesbians, something new and better that has the real potential to overcome patriarchy because they the real movement of women as a class abolishing itself much like communism is the real movement of the proletariat abolishing itself.
>>1968I dunno what gender abolition means outside of techno-futuristic regimes of genetic engineering, cybernetic implants, babies grown in tubes kinda shit.
Certain factions of feminists see feminine traits as a slave mentality. I can't find the quote but it's something like: femininity is shit that fucks women up. So that's one reason you see a desire for more androgyny.
If it's just women dressing like men, congrats picrel from early 1900s.
>>2048No it's a very common grift for people to tell trans people to basically detransition because "we need to abolish gender" and abolishing gender just means keeping trans people from hrt/transitioning. They basically view trans people as cudgel which will usher in gender liberation if they're just non passing enough
>>2742How the fuck is this here! How do I keep encountering my Tumblr post in the wild. What the fuck
>>2829This analysis/view of the world is a symptom of liberalism as a whole. It's in effect lipstick feminism for society. The actual wants and desires of trans people and their material needs are ignored in favor of that person's ideal view of their world.
The ideal view of their world is often one where no men exist or where every trans woman is forced to have a beard because these people are just reactionary liberals
>>2841I mean maybe? But we don't live in that society do we? We live in one where if a trans woman doesn't pass she's liable to be murdered in the street. Telling trans women to be gender nonconforming is just telling them to expose themselves to being harmed. Even if we did it's not really a society where gender norms don't exist if trans women aren't allowed to make modifications to their body/style that are currently associated with feminity is it?
Ultimately trying to force trans people to be a cudgel to dismantle gender norms for cis people is just stupid. You're going to have to liberate yourselves from the ideas you enforce on yourselves. Trans people do not create the gendered system they just live in it
Unique IPs: 30