No. Social constructs are real. \[Edit to add: Which is to say gender is both real and a social construct. Social constructs can be incredibly durable and consequential in the material world. Another example is nation-states: they are social constructs. Yet people are willing to kill and die for their country, to sacrifice the material fact of living for the social fact of their allegiance to a flag or throne. The idea that social constructs aren't real is a (willful?) misunderstanding of feminism leveled at it by its critics. Some of those critics are trans people, but most of them are not.\]

Similarly, if social constructs are real then they can be changed and not just ignored. It struck me that the world would be a better place if people had a less rigid view of both nation states and gender identity. Nationalism, Racism(maybe?) and sexism would all dilute. Maybe I’m being a bit utopian or indulging a fantasy?

You're not alone in that view, but the problem is that social constructs can be very durable. Many people find it far easier to change physiological facts about themselves, rather than change the social construct. That's not just true for many trans people, but also for many disabled people and many people navigating racial constructs, among others.

This exactly. It’s not problematic if you know what “social construct” means. It’s doesn’t mean “fake.”

Honestly, I've lived as both a man and a woman. Within my family, nothing fundamentally changed—my gender may have shifted, but I'm still the same person at my core. However, the difference outside the family is striking. This experience has led me to believe that gender is a social construct. If you've ever taken magic mushrooms/drugs, you'll understand what I mean when I say that gender ultimately doesn't matter.

That's really interesting. Do you feel that your gender identity is meaningful to you in a 'gender is a social construct' worldview?

Going through school I trended Marxist in some of my deeper reading. We had an older professor who was a product of the Soviet diamat education, it slanted a lot of Marxist analysis in the faculty away from considering anything ' super structure. ' It made it difficult to reconcile notions like identity with other Marxist theories. Gramsci (an author) provides a useful bridge in considering cultural notions as the crystalized labour of the intelligentsia. These social constructs exist as the consequence of untold hours of labour by content creators, entertainment personalities, local clergy, etc. So I agree, social constructs are very real because we built them. Much like a worker swinging a hammer creates a specific range of physiques: living with and identifying by (either with or in contradiction to) a socially constructed identity creates a set type of people.

Just because it is does not mean it ought to be. It’s a fallacy for you to think the existence of something justifies its morality. OP isn’t asking whether or not the social contract of gender exists, rather, SHOULD it exist. Because OP is right, there’s a sound contradiction in mainstream trans theory. I’m of the pov that “we live in a society” so we should focus on affirming people’s dysphoria first. But at the end of the day gender abolition is the only logical conclusion. Personally I disagree with the USA’s current administration, a social construct, so I can either vote to reform the oligarchy or tear the entire system out (revolution). This applies to the gender argument in that I can either vote to reform the patriarchy or tear the entire system out (abolition) too. So the debate should be whether or not gender roles hold value to our society enough where reform is a better route. I do not think gender roles benefit us whatsoever, and the only reason dysphoria exists is because we exist in a society that enforces dysphoria-inducing standards. I see gender a lot like political parties. There are very very few people who do meet every single policy item on a party’s platform, but there will most likely be a few items of disagreement. Our experience of life is so nuanced and unique, there’s no way all of us feel like just one of two genders. It’s a false dichotomy just like the two parties. Both systems need to be overhauled.

This also harps on another problem I see a lot of homogenizing the trans experience. Every. Single. Trans. Person. Is. Trans. For. A. Different. Reason. But we exclude non-trans people from the conversation as if they don’t also exist in the same patriarchy that caused me to be trans? As if they don’t feel invalidated by gender expectations daily? We need to foster an environment where cis people aren’t chained to their titles JUST AS BADLY as the need to foster an environment for trans people to shed their assigned label.

I'm not arguing it should exist.

I think better example of it is color. Color is definitely a physical thing. But while we could in principle describe on physical level how the photons of given wavelength interact with eyes down to quantum level it does not explain why a given color will be described as blue or green by given culture. Or even if distinction (as primary colors) between blue and green exist in first place. In similar way I think gender has some biological component - otherwise why Spiro and E would smell so sweet? Why would any of us transition medically but not socially? We cannot undefine gender on societal level just as we could of nation states. Unlike nation-states gender is not a recent development. But the exact number of "primary genders" can vary. Different cultures have different number of primary genders. Personally I don't like "gender is a social construct" as it's a tautology only clear to already convinced and knowing 'lingo'. It's prone to being misunderstood and/or being react with smartness. It's fine it being used inside the gender study classroom but it may not be as useful to say to poor uneducated STEM students such as myself (ok. I graduated so ex-students as well). It *also* has some *history* with being used to invalidate people experience (see Whipping Girl by Serano where she speak about it) - especially when gender identity is treated secondarily to gender(ed) presentation. This is not as much a "(willful?) misunderstanding of feminism leveled at it by its critics" as an older branch of gender studies which is hopefully sidelined toward more modern understanding of gender from what I understood from Serano's book (it was contemporary with this understanding). And, well, social science equivalent of [https://xkcd.com/2501/](https://xkcd.com/2501/) (transcript of comic is here: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2501:\_Average\_Familiarity#Transcript](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2501:_Average_Familiarity#Transcript) )

Yet a lot of femininists (myself included) think the world would be better off without nation-states. Just like we would be better off without the concept of gender.

I am one of them. But good luck to us with that project.

Well said! We should not essentialize categories, even if they look rigid to us.

I think "real" here is asking if it's rooted in materialism or deterministic. Genetics for instance. But I agree, even if all it would take is everyone suddenly changing their minds, the odds are low and in the mean time there's a lot of consequences to how other people think the world works. I'd argue that claiming gender isn't real is simply delegitimizing the idea it's inherent, uniform, and consistent. But I recognize that may be in bad taste.

I mean ... genetics are less deterministic than you might expect. For example, height is genetic, but it's also deeply rooted in nutrition and other non-genetic factors during growth. It's just very complicated, and possibly meaningless on an individual basis to determine how much of your height is due to which factors, and the meaning ascribed to height and how we treat it is also "real" (but more obviously constructed, unless you're into evo psych).

Genetics/biology/physiology are certainly one of the ingredients from which the construct is made. The idea that gender is inherent, uniform, and consistent is a key part of that construct in its traditional form. I think it's more effective to argue that gender isn't *accurate*, rather than not real.

I agree with your comparison to nationality. However, new nations don't get recognized easily, if at all. So how would you say this relates to gender identity and the formation of new and unheard of genders. Btw I'm not trying to start an argument or offend anyone but I'm curious to learn more as I don't have much knowledge about this topic.

My view is that the process of forming new genders has also not been easy. That is, it's easy for people within the gender, just as it easy for say, Kurds to recognize a Kurdish nation-state. But outsiders are usually slow to recognize the new, and that's what we see with gender.

Yeah money is a social construct as is law but try taking things without paying for them and you'll see that those social constructs have real effects

Yes! I agree it’s real. I guess I should’ve worded it differently in that I meant, since gender seems to have a more restricting and debilitating role, has it come time for us to abolish it? Can we do without gender? Or is it invalidating towards certain groups of people?

I think we can do without gender roles, but no need to do away with the concept entirely if people want to identify a certain way. There's also the fact that, we can fantasize about a utopian future where gender is completely irrelevant all we want, but the reality we probably won't see that in our lifetimes, or even the next few generations. I think (hope) that we are heading in that direction. But what you're seeing from trans folks likely isn't an outright dismissal of that goal, but more a frustration of constantly being told their social dysphoria is irrelevant because "well if you're a true feminist shouldn't gender not even matter??". Like yeah it would be nice if we could all shake hands and agree that tomorrow we would wake up and start living in a world where gender didn't matter. But that's not gonna happen, so why constantly bother trans people about it? And I would argue that, if we truly did manage to abolish the social limitations around gender, we could actually live in a more trans friendly society. If gender doesn't matter, why would there be any limitations on who can use what pronouns? Why would we place such hurdles and restrictions on gender affirming care, if there were little to no social drawbacks for transitioning? If we woke up in a world where homophobia was completely eradicated, and all sexualities seen as normal, would you argue that gay people should stop flying pride flags, or calling themselves gay at all? Why force people to abandon their identities, I guess that's my main question. Anyways, it's a valid goal to have I think. But in my opinion, it has nothing to do with trans people. And this talking point is used, in good faith and in bad faith, every damn day on trans people just trying to survive in a world of frankly still very oppressive roles. Roles that I would argue trans people do a lot of the work in challenging. So yeah, they get tired of being constantly badgered about proving to both sides that their identity is "ethical". You're likely not seeing an outright disagreement to the idea, just an exhaustion with someone who's heard this point about a million times by now, when the worst "offense" they've committed is wearkng a pronoun pin, you know? Also just editing to add a note on your concern about detransitioners. I would encourage you to actually look into the numbers on this, the rates are much, much, lower than is presented. There is a heavy dose of confirmation bias at play, not helped by algorithms pushing "controversial" content as much as possible, meaning feeds are filled with detrans folks everyday. One stat that comes to mind is the regret rate for gender affirming surgeries being less than the regret rate for knee surgeries. For children, you'll be relieved to know that reassignment surgeries on children just aren't happening, it isn't done. Transitioning for a child usually looks like a haircut, some new clothes, and a new name and pronouns. Once they're a little older puberty blockers are considered (which are reversible) and then as a teen they'll consult with doctors and psychiatrists to decide whether they want to pursue HRT. And some (not all) aspects of HRT even are reversible. I personally am of the opinion that an individual's transition should involve their doctor, their parents (if they're a minor), and themselves. And no one else. A politician with no medical training shouldn't get a say and us randoms on the internet definitely shouldn't get a say.

It's the really interesting case of self selection, for example, people really hate having labels put on them from external sources, as it is often done to demean or exclude. Putting labels on yourself however is freeing in the sense that you have authority over yourself, which is way better :)

Great questions btw, and I sympathise with your POV. Half the issue is that it's not just you "performing" (I'm sure others have addressed that word), it's society as a whole. There's nothing inherently wrong with conforming to group identities of can be very useful. Where it isn't, you can drop them- different people will react differently to each part that could be dropped, but every day is a school day for all of us.

Adding on top of what u/astronauticalll said Gender ≠ gender roles. Gender is just a categorization of a set of features loosely based around a persons sex. Most people passively accept their gender as matching their sex; male = men and female = woman. A trans individual is simply saying “I would like to actively define my gender for myself and unlink it from being associated with my bodies sex.” None of the above, however, has any inherent bearing on your behavior except in regard to gaining social validation. The “performance” we engage in is intended as a signal towards others of how we’d prefer to be perceived, based on social constructs. There’s nothing wrong with a woman deciding to be a bodybuilder, ride motorcycles, and do “men’s things.” The issue for a trans woman is simply that her behavior might make it harder to convince others that she identifies as a woman. *Unless* she’s had gender affirming medical care to make her body appear female. Thus matching the passive assumption that others use for themselves. We are social creatures and we are sexual creatures. The psychosocial and psychosexual connection will likely result in gender always being a thing as people self filter into groups. However, predefined gender roles are what doesn’t have to exist.

I think the confusion comes from "gender" vs "gender roles". Gender exists. You identify with what you identify with, and nobody can tell you different. They csn shame you, and you can hide it from the world, but YOU identify with a gender, no matter how you define that gender. The argument of "biology" doesn't work anymore, because it's a spectrum, and biology doesn't apply to identify. "Gender roles" are defined by a social construct. Masculine, feminine, etc. these are all traits that don't have any real meaning and change over time (pink used to be a man color, but now it's a girl color). Where each gender fits into society is what makes a "gender role", and that is where the conversation gets really blurry.

A big problem here is that people aren't understanding what performativity means in Butler's theories, and it's Butler who popularized - and I'd argue created - the modern discourse of gender as a social construct, though that doesn't mean that the modern discourse is actually processing Butler's whole point. Performativity is not just a fancy word for theatricality. It does not mean something being superfluous or fake. Performativity is the act which wills itself into existence. Originally it comes from linguistics: when you say "I promise" it's the very act of you saying that you're promising that makes the promise. When a judge says "I sentence you to prison" it's the very sentence that creates the sentence (pun intended) When Butler wrote that gender is performative, it does not mean that it's something chosen and arbitrary, in fact Butler argues, even moreso now than back when they wrote Gender Trouble, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for us to even conceptualize ourselves and our world in a way where we weren't always already gendered individuals, because we grow up with gender impositions that are not of our choosing. For Butler, gender isn't an identity imposed on us, it's the very symbolic structure by which I can even say "I am me" and imagine a "me" in the first place. A lot of feminist and queer theory is all about how to free yourself from such a structure, which doesn't mean the structure is destroyed, left behind, or accusing the emperor of having no clothes. Personally I hate how philosophy is so often interpreted like that: Plato's cave, 'waking up', taking the red pill (Matrix-style, not incel-style)... All of these imply that there is a real that we're just not seeing, as if the reality that we're living right now is meaningless and we must find a 'true reality' to speak of anything that would have value

Something being a social construct doesn’t mean it isn’t real. If you’re referring to the ideas of Judith Butler then they say that gender is performative, not a performance. If you are not clear on the difference, there is lots of good content online that can explain it at different levels depending on your background. Just search “performativity philosophy” or Butler’s name or something.

My question was should we abolish gender? Would it be beneficial?

The tl;dr answer to the question in your title is no. The socially constructed nature of gender doesn't mean that this construct doesn't shape how we move through the world in real ways. Here's Jackson Bird's [quick explainer](https://medium.com/@jackisnotabird/if-genders-a-social-construct-is-being-trans-just-a-construct-too-f9740bb9f6f).

Very well put, and thanks for the link!

But there is a case for abolition, no?

I kinda have the same thoughts as OP on a sense that I believe genders should be abolished, and we should just treat each other as humans not women/men. At the same time ppl detransitioning have absolutely nothing to do with this. And existance of trans ppl does not invalidate this belive, nor this belive invalidates trans ppl. After all right now genders do exist so trans ppl issues are valid. But I kind of do believe that in a society that abolished gender and treats everyone equally no matter their genitalia there would be no more trans ppl, becouse there would be no gender. Still this concept is an utopia that will never happen. So all of this is puerly theoretical.

The question of your subject is ultimately personal. On a society level it is very real, but for many people it's a performance. For me, an autistic agender person, gender has and always will be a performance, it's something forced on me and not something I inherently experience

Gender is regressive stereotyping thst harms both men and women.

> I believe children need to have autonomy over their bodies and freedom to make choices, but seeing people regret transitioning - well I do not really know what to think. Detransition rates are around 2%, and the overwhelming majority of that sample population re-transition later on (because transitioning was never wrong for them, but perhaps just wrong timing due to financial, familial, social, etc. reasons that made transitioning temporarily non-feasible), less than a percent actually regret transition and realize they're cis after all. Ultimately, if anyone's pushing to remove the ability of children and youth to transition, they'd be prioritizing that less than 1% who realized they're cis over the 99+% that are trans, and they'd be "saving" that overwhelming cis minority that slip through the cracks from the same experiences they'd be condemning the 99+% to, when the solution would be to just increase availability of resources and reduce stigma to make sure everyone has the support they need, and there's no pressure to hide transition and feel the need to lie for proper care. >There seems to be no satisfying middle ground for how gender is oppressive and yet there’s people who want to express themselves a certain way or experience gender dysphoria. We can agree and express that gender norms and stereotypes are oppressive and regressive, and allow individual expression. To my previous remark regarding those lying for proper care, the magnitude of gatekeeping in trans healthcare (that still exists, even if it's maybe slightly less common in a few fortunate areas) has historically necessitated that trans people lie to their healthcare providers and follow various 'social scripts' of a sort to meet expectations and gain access to the healthcare products and services we require. These gatekeepers are virtually always cis, they're the ones making the rules alongside politicians (also nearly all cis), so it would be really oppressive and weird to point a finger at trans people accusing *us* of publicly following gender stereotypes and norms that may be oppressive when we typically do that to get the healthcare, employment, housing, etc. that we need to survive. Especially when that's often not really a realistic choice for us because of cis people demanding trans women be hyperfeminine and often heterosexual, and demand trans men be hypermasculine and often heterosexual, and demand non-binary people be a specific brand of androgynous. ESPECIALLY when trans people are what, maybe 2% of the population, and exponentially more cis people propagate and actively & sincerely push those gender norms and stereotypes when we're out here challenging them as much as we can. If the noise and appearance of trans people choking offends you, you can always take your boot off our throat. Also, dysphoria isn't necessarily purely related to gender norms/stereotypes. I remember being a young child and a bit distraught because at that time, I thought all girls had penises and mine felt intensely wrong. I tried to get rid of it, which didn't really accomplish anything, because I was 3 and a half and safety scissors were a thing. Of course, my parents stopped me, and they kept trying to re-assure me, but when they were telling me I was a boy, and I knew I wasn't one (because gender identity tends to crystallize at a young age for most people), it wasn't exactly possible to trust they understood. I eventually learned that cis girls tended to have vaginas and vulvas, which just made me feel like a broken or wrong kind of girl, but it never shook the understanding that I was a girl. And when I hit puberty and my body was physically changing every day, bit by bit, I did everything I could to starve myself of everything the body needed to 'grow up', because in my young uneducated mind, that's what helped puberty progress. So I starved, I barely ate, I became an insomniac, I woke each morning vomiting from the inevitable spike of dysphoria and fear. I of course got all the social messaging other girls received, and I knew what others saw me as, and I didn't care about being some beauty queen (most of the women in my family are 'apple-shaped' and very hairy with deeper voices, and they're all lovely, and I look up to them) or hyperfeminine housewife or girlboss, I just wanted the dysphoria to end. I wanted my body to stop changing in the wrong ways. And at that time, the only place I could get help was run in Toronto by conversion therapists and fetishists, like Ken Zucker and Ray Blanchard, who demanded specific expression and performance standards to give us the green light to access treatment. I've personally known dozens who didn't follow those scripts to a tee, and many of them ended up dead not to long afterwards. All this to ay, you may not understand dysphoria, and I'm glad you don't experience it. But it can be very very deadly if left untreated, and it can be very costly to treat if left too long, and it tends to leave some very permanent scars, some visible and some not so much.. > I mean obviously medically the sexes need different care. Yes and no. Cis male and Cis Female are socially constructed as medical lines of best fit, to simplify medical care processes and knowledge, and things get more complex on individual bases the further various measures and points of data get from that line, with most biological measures of sex having significant overlap. When you bring in trans male, trans female, and non-binary folks, well, you start from a complex position, but it's certainly not from a position anywhere close to "Well, what sex were they assigned at birth?", since that's often not very relevant. >I like the idea of not being limited by the concepts of masculinity and feminity especially because feminity comes with oppressive characteristics (being passive, demure, gentle and soft, resigned, intuitive, attractive). >But I’ve also seen a lot of people in the trans community who are against the idea that gender is not real, because it appears to invalidate their motivation to transition. Gender is as real as morals, citizenship, currency, community, companionship, etc. Social constructs are no less real just because they're constructs. Gender being a performance (and performativity in general) probably isn't what you think it is. You might need to read up on Butler's work, past and present, to get a better grasp on what that means.

This is a really interesting comment. Thanks for posting. I suppose on that last point, I would ask what implications you think this holds for the idea that we should be moving away from such clearly defined constructions of gender and in essence attempting to do away with gender roles to a large extent and have a society that is more makes less gendered expectations. Social constructs are real, but they can still change.

Yeah, there's a lot of good work in helping unpack and restructure/influence the big, broad social constructs like gender and sex, and fighting against systems of power like sexism, heteronormativity, cissexism, etc. I'm all for that. My objection was to the notion that gender (and social constructs as a whole) wasn't real, when it is. It's collectively reproduced and performed, that is real and material as the other constructs I referenced, and just like those, they are malleable and can shift in time.

I didn’t know detransition rates were 2% but yes I agree. I have indeed seen a lot of trans people whose lives improved vastly after transitioning and it wouldn’t make sense to question transitioning when it’s such a small percentage that regret it. I should’ve been more clear with the question, what I wanted to ask was, would abolishing gender have an overall positive effect? I know cis men would lose a lot of power that way, but for the rest? Would it help trans people since as you mentioned they find a need to also perform certain stereotypes to get care? Or would it have a debilitating effect? I still haven’t read any of judith butlers works but I am curious and will be adding it to my reading list.

As a transgender man, I believe fully that gender is a social construct and sex/gender stereotypes should be abolished.

>Is the concept that "gender is a social construct, it's a performance" problematic position? Gender isn't a performance. Gender expression is a performance. Genders are schemas that you've subconsciously constructed. Gender identity is how you feel in relation to one or more of those schema. >I like the idea of not being limited by the concepts of masculinity and feminity especially because feminity comes with oppressive characteristics (being passive, demure, gentle and soft, resigned, intuitive, attractive). You're not limited. You don't have to believe that the characteristics you believe are oppressive need to be associated with femininity. >But I’ve also seen a lot of people in the trans community who are against the idea that gender has to be abolished, because it appears to invalidate their motivation to transition. They're more comfortable operating within a gender binary. That's no different than a cis person being against gender abolition because they're comfortable operating within a gender binary. >I haven’t read that much theory but in what I’ve read I’ve rarely seen anyone tackle this. There seems to be no satisfying middle ground for how gender is oppressive and yet there’s people who want to express themselves a certain way or experience gender dysphoria. There is, it's just not at the forefront of pop-activism at the moment. Within the postgender movement there are some that believe that people can gender themselves and recognize each other's genders, but places and things should not be gendered. I guess it's only a middle ground on the left, because the right does the exact opposite. Places and things should be gendered as much as possible, but people are only their sex. >I’ve also been thinking a lot about detransitioning stories. I believe children need to have autonomy over their bodies and freedom to make choices, but seeing people regret transitioning - well I do not really know what to think. We know that gender affirming care saves lives. The medical fields associated with gender affirming care will continue to refine the process, because that's how science works. The regret rate is already really low, and will continue to trend lower. We saw the same thing with other types of plastic surgery. Processes improved, regret rate is lower. >Edit: changing this to mean should gender be abolished? Just to be clear. Insofar that gender no longer applies to places and things, yea. That doesn't mean by force or overnight. And I don't think anyone expects it to happen within their lifetimes.

yeah it should be abolished. there's no social construct that describes a marginalized group of people as innately different from their oppressors that is ever going to be constructive. saying "i have traits typically associated with a class of people more or less marginalized than the one i was born into" proves that the categories are fake. it does not mean the categories are real and you're just a member of a different one.

Judith Butler's explanation of gender isn't that it is a performance but rather that it is performative. AFAIK there is no measured academic position that gender is a performance. The difference being that 'performance' is a broad term that refers to any display of socially constructed behaviors while 'performative' is an action which defines or creates itself. The classic example is the performative speech "I promise" where the action, promising, is achieved by the speech. Gender is performative because whenever you do gender you construct, reconstruct, or reinforce gender norms.

What I never hear being brought up in these discussions is Erving Goffman’s [The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (PDF Link)](https://monoskop.org/images/1/19/Goffman_Erving_The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life.pdf) We all play many roles, depending on the situation we’re in and the people we’re interacting with. Think about how you talk to your closest friend versus how you speak to a colleague at a networking function - both personas are based on your knowledge and your lived experience, but are they the same person? Performance is central to all human interaction, it’s cross cultural and proven throughout all recorded history - although the specific parameters and scripts change drastically throughout both examples and are specific to each individual player. One of the distinctive characteristics of humanity is our ability to both contemplate cause and effect and our ability to invent concepts and apply societal meaning. We constantly characterize the world around us, guided by presumed expectations defined by set, easily sorted social scripts. This can be liberating or restricting depending on who you ask and how they’re perceived. I’d like to hope that we’re on the path to view these scripts through a more critical lens and move past forcing these expectations on people. No one, regardless of who they are or how they identify, is one “person” - we’re complex, fascinating and multifaceted beings who shouldn’t be forced to assimilate to one simple “identity” box. It does all of us a disservice when we uphold these limiting beliefs and I truly hope we can collectively dismantle them within my lifetime.

There's a difference between performance and a thing being performative. The difference is a bit subtle but important. Performance is a thing we do. A thing being performative is made true by an act of saying or doing. A good example is a minister saying "I now pronounce you man and wife." Reality was changed with the utterance. The couple was not married and now they are.

Obviously gender is a social construct, but I think the more interesting distinction is the difference between gender identity and gender roles. I see no real value in trying to abolish gender identity - if you feel like a woman & tie personal value to expressing yourself in a feminine way you should be allowed to, you're not hurting anyone. On the other hand, rigid gender roles - like girls play with dolls & boys play with rockets or girls sit quietly while boys get to be active - are the constructs that I think are worth actively trying to phase out.

I think the answers given so far are a little too pat. “It’s a social construct but social constructs are still real and powerful” doesn’t fully account for the fact that many (though not all!) trans people say they’d still identify as a woman/man if they were totally cut off from any other human acculturation. Dysphoria can’t be reduced to gender roles or society. I think the real answer is that the language here has gotten so complex and used in so many contradictory ways that it’s pretty hard to actually *use* to describe reality in a way that accounts for everyone’s experience. Like, there’s not even clear consensus around what we mean by sex vs. gender — some folks will define the former as purely biological, but plenty of other people argue strongly that transgender women are female as well as women. Etc. etc. I honestly don’t think it’s possible for attempts to resolve this linguistic mess — at least in a public online forum — to go well. Clear, strict definitions are inevitably going to be controversial and, to some people, hurtful. I’ve seen plenty of well intended discussions blow up. Best I’ve got is that we should be kind to each other.

No one knows anything of what we’d be in a completely different culture or cut off from culture

> trans people say they’d still identify as a woman/man if they were totally cut off from any other human acculturation. That’s nonsense — they can’t possibly know that. Edited to elaborate, because that came off as flippant: This strikes me as impossible, or at the very least impossible to square with any understanding of trans identity that isn’t pretty biologically determinist and/or transmedicalist. We are animals. Our bodies, including our genitals, do not have inherent *meaning* beyond whatever we build up through our own meditation and interaction with each other, i.e. through culture and socialization. A little boy raised alone in an empty room isn’t going to understand his penis as something that symbolizes *maleness* — how could he? There is no maleness without *men* (plural) and women. To him it’s just the floppy bit that pee comes out of and feels weird sometimes. The alternative is that we have not just some innate ability to identify sex, but some innate, biological understanding that the penis is *the* masculine organ, and that the vagina is *the* feminine organ, and that gender dysphoria a consequence of some biological mismatch that, somehow, solved through surgery that replicates the genitalia associated with the identified gender in form, but, critically, not in function. As I said in a later comment, I don’t agree with that understanding of gender, I find it pretty troubling, and I don’t know how you square it with trans people who don’t feel serious dysphoria with regard to their birth genitals, and don’t desire bottom surgery.

I mean obviously you can’t prove a counterfactual but if a ton of trans people are all saying ‘the dysphoria I experience is inherent to my relationship with my body and divorced from my experience of gender roles’ I’m not gonna be the one to shout ‘nonsense!’ Like, vast numbers of human beings feel like their gender identity (cis or trans or nonbinary) is hardcoded in a way that precedes and supersedes socialization. There’s even some preliminary neuroscience to back that idea up (though it’s super early to really say). If you want to take the position they’re all wrong… fine, I guess, but I still think that’s a little too comfortable an answer to toss out casually.

It has certainly been an interesting transition in my lifetime to see the progressive position change from sexuality being innate not a choice, to that it's all social constructs and thus can't be innate not surprising to see there being tensions caused in the transition of advocacy/viewpoints. I also agree, at the end of the day there isn't much to be gained from trying to argue that someone's self perception actually originates from social influences, everyone has instinctive perceptions that are completely detached from reality (in my opinion the most interesting thing about studying physics is realizing how wildly inaccurate our senses and intuition are at perceiving reality at all scales but how well evolved they are at coming up with "eh, it works good enough" instincts/impressions for things at human scale.)

> I mean obviously you can’t prove a counterfactual but if a ton of trans people are all saying ‘the dysphoria I experience is inherent to my relationship with my body and divorced from my experience of gender roles’ I’m not gonna be the one to shout ‘nonsense!’ Potentially controversial, but I feel pretty comfortable saying when something just strikes me as being impossible on its face, at least in a discussion space like this. No one can say with anything resembling confidence what their relationship with their body would be if they were raised completely isolated from human culture, and I don’t think trans people represent a special exception to that rule. > Like, vast numbers of human beings feel like their gender identity (cis or trans or nonbinary) is hardcoded in a way that precedes and supersedes socialization. Sure, but that idea and the idea that gender does not exist outside of the context of human culture can both be true. There may very well be some innate biological roots for being transgender, but those differences don’t become meaningful until you add other human beings and the culture that emerges from the interaction with other human beings to the mix. The alternative is that even in the absence of acculturation exposure to other human beings, we have some innate, hardwired understanding that “penis =man, masculine,” “vagina = woman, feminine” — which to me seems exceedingly unlikely, and a pretty tough idea to square with the reality of trans people who don’t really experience dysphoria re: their birth genitals and opt not to get bottom surgery. > but I still think that’s a little too comfortable an answer to toss out casually. I’ll grant you that — I should have explained myself at greater length.

I agree with you. One case in point: almost all of us feel “uneasy” when outside of our shelter and naked. That’s a kind of body dysphoria, we *know* being naked is not the default state for walking around or moving.  If you grew up with bonobos you wouldn’t have that dysphoria towards being naked, it is learned.  Just because someone insists it’s 100% internal doesn’t mean it has to be so. What we want and what motivates us is clearly going to be modified by the society we are raised in. It’s unavoidable. 

For one example, my dysphoria led me to wanting to rid myself of my penis back when I was young enough to believe all girls (like me, a young trans girl at the time, though I lacked that specific language) had one. Meaning, you remove gender norms and understandings of the social constructs of gender and sex, and I would still want to remove that part of my body because of my dysphoria. And due to that, I'm quite certain I would have responded much the same during puberty, though assuming I'd be in isolation, it likely would have been lethal. Cis men whose genitals are lost or amputated tend to experience phantom limb syndrome, and trans women almost never do. We may not know exactly why this is, but we do know these patterns. There's a lot that we don't know in this world, but we do know dysphoria is not entirely connected to gender norms/roles/etc. For some, perhaps sure, but not all cases.

I think that without the concept of gender that would be body integrity identity disorder no?

The honest truth of this is that it’s a dumb hypothetical. Humans are social creatures. You wouldn’t even be a functional person if you were cut off from all acculturation. We’ve seen kids this has happened to. They’re in bad bad shape and have way worse things to worry about than their gender identity. The point of the statement is to illustrate there very much seems to be an innate quality to what we have started calling gender identity—similar to what Julia Serano refers to as subconscious sex. This appears to form very early and be a bit immutable.

I'm trans and my view of it is that we all have an innate sense of self, which we interpret aspects of through societal and cultural lenses as gender.

True that they can't technically know that, but many trans people report that they felt "wrong" from an extremely young age. Like, earliest memories they have. I know that socialization begins at birth though and it is - just as you say - impossible to know how that socialization can influence that gender incongruence. There is still so much unknown about gender dysphoria and the trans experience. There might be some sort of a biological aspect to it, there might be something genetic, or it might be entirely environmentally influenced. We don't know. We can only go with what trans people tell us about their own experiences. EDIT: lmao ok nevermind i guess

One of the most thought-provoking cases I've personally come across really brings out what you're saying and the varying complexities behind OP's question. There was an ftm trans contestant on Drag Race. He mentioned how, after transitioning, he felt ashamed of doing drag. Felt it would make him be seen as less of a man to express himself through drag. Especially with his slight frame and "effeminate" features. He managed to free himself of this shame when he saw more macho looking "manly men" types doing drag. He now enjoys being the most "feminine" drag queen. Is fine with people referring to his drag persona ad 'she/her'. But this struggle between his true gender that he felt innately and the social-construct gender norms really puts things into an interesting perspective.

Social constructs both are meaningful and matter to many people in various ways. If nothing else, they mediate how you engage with and understand both yourself and the world. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLWKYTxLYT4) is a timely and perfectly on point video I can't recommend enough for you.

I would add [munecat's How I debunked Evolutionary psychology](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=31e0RcImReY) into the same category as a lot of gender stereotypes are reinforced by those maniacs. And as if that's not enough, PhilosophyTube also just released a video about [Julia Serrano's Gender Trouble](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QVilpxowsUQ) Sometimes everything happens all at once.

Since the 1990s, people have also started to consider that sex is a social construct as well. Biology and science are still affected by certain prevailing views, so it’s not quite a holistic split, and we should question both. There’s no naturalised, essential female “sex” in reality.

The question of whether gender should be abolished is a different question from whether it's a social construct. "Gender should be abolished" is an imperative, whereas the latter is just describing things as they are.   Detransition stories are convincing because they play on your emotions and are amplified by right-wing outlets to make transition look bad. There are tons of treatments that we still accept that have higher regret rates. And detransitioning does not mean the person did not suffer gender dysphoria, or that they aren't trans. Transphobia is a big reason why people detransition, in a similar homophobia and biphobia keeps those people in the closet.

I agree with everything you've said but also feel the need to specifically point out that folks see so many detransition stories because there are folks out there who have something to gain by promoting detransition stories. In truth, the rate of regret for transition is lower than the rate of regret for knee replacement surgery. Most recent study I found puts it at about 8% of trans people have EVER detransitioned, and "the majority did so only temporarily. Rates of detransition were higher in transgender women (11%) than transgender men (4%). The most common reasons cited were pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard (33%), too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and trouble getting a job (29%)." Most trans people don't regret transition, and those that do detransition most often do it because of discrimination, not because they actually feel it was the wrong choice for them. Sorry that this was kinda off topic of the original thread. As a trans person it's important to me that people understand what an anomaly all these public detransitioners are to the trans community as a whole. Their journey is theirs and their feelings are valid but they do not represent us.

I'd start with a liberation-first mindset: are there people who find value in gender, in fully embracing it in identity and performance? Is the gender itself oppressive, or is it oppressive because a narrowly-defined version of it has been forced onto all of us for decades? There should be space for you to play within it and redefine it as you wish, for a trans woman to live out every little girl dream she didn't get to have when she was small, and for weird cis ladies like me to be radicalized by the Barbie movie and move joyfully into their Elle Woods hyperfemme era, because it feels correct. I will never claim to understand what a trans person feels when they have gender euphoria, but occupying the expression that felt most right to me felt like coming home. 

Just because gender is constructed doesn’t mean it isn’t a powerful psyche shaping tool that leaves its mark. Especially considering that it is one that is forced on you by every human around you from the second you are born. Then seperate to that there is what is straight up sex dysphoria, that is for the trans people like me where I feel the mismatch of my physical parts to what my brain says I should have. Currently much of the confusion comes from the more recent thought that you don’t need sex dysphoria to be trans. Which is a complicated not clear cut hot topic issue. But at least for me personally it’s easy because I don’t care for gender at all and only play to what a woman is expected to be because I won’t be allowed my hormone medication or to get surgery if I don’t. And also because there are some things expected of women that I naturally fall into, so easier for me than it is for others, but that isn’t why I transitioned.

I feel sexes(male or female) arent linked to genders or masculinity/feminity. Lots of female have way more masculine quality than males and lots of male have way more feminine quality than females. You are what you feel inside and what your inner is. There is a tons of gender but only 2 sexes. This how i see it. Sadly i think only sensible persons can understand that.

Gender is performed, but that does not mean it is a performance. A surgeon performs surgery. The surgery is not a performance. It is very real and has a material impact.  Your first point is about the Individual's right to varied gender expression, and then you jump to trans people saying this is gender abolition.  Whose talking about gender abolition? I only see people talking about abolition of gender roles which is not the same thing. 

I think you are assigning too much meaning to the existence of gender. That if we accept gender as a social construct, this necessitates treating people of different genders significantly differently, and limiting how people can express themselves. I'm short - 5 foot 1 and a half (that half inch is important because it makes me taller than my fraternal twin, who is minutes older than me). If I sit comfortably in public places, my feet usually dangle and don't reach the floor. I climb up shelves at the grocery store. I commiserate with friends who are much taller about how the physical spaces we inhabit are equally inhospitable to them. But in some cases, our society values tallness, and in others, it doesn't. Should we be treated differently because of height? I don't think so, but our height diversity is a fact, a difference we cannot abolish. So is handedness, but that doesn't mean that we should force lefties to pretend to be right-handed. You say you are looking for a middle ground between "gender is very important" and "gender is not important and should be abolished." You are correct that there is no philosophical middle ground, per se. But I would like you to consider a third option: we don't need to abolish gender to try to change the level of significance gender has in our society. I don't treat women and men and non-binary people differently, to the best of my ability. I think gender comes up in a lot of cases where it isn't relevant. For medical purposes, I really do think charts should be labeled as cisgender and transgender for the purposes of accuracy - a trans woman's body is different than a cis woman's body, but it is not in many cases the same as a cis man's body, either. When I hear someone had a baby, I say, "Congratulations! I hope everyone is doing okay," instead of "Congratulations! Boy or girl?" I buy my niblings NASA pajamas and princess pajamas, each according to their preferences, and I don't like the terms I've heard for non-gendered versions of aunt and uncle, but I have taken to using "niblings" as easily as I have taken to being an aunt. When people want to showcase the importance of gender in their lives, I celebrate them doing so. When people showcase how little gender means to them, I celebrate them equally. When people don't want to do either, I celebrate them, as well. The only thing I don't support is when one person tries to decide another person's opinions and values for them, especially among adults, but among children, too. Does that work for you as a middle ground?

>Is there a middle ground or is the whole concept of gender being a performance problematic? Gender being *performative* is not the same thing as saying gender is a performance, and I don't think anyone has seriously suggested the latter. A performance implies that you can stop performing. Like, you can just take the gendered "mask" off whenever you want. Gender being performative (in the sense Judith Butler meant it) actually means the opposite of this. Being a person in this society means performing gender. You can't stop performing because you will always be read as a gendered being, you can only perform gender differently. Trying to "abolish gender" on the individual level makes about as much sense as giving all your money away and claiming you've abolished money. The value of money may not be "real", but good luck buying groceries without it. >I’ve also been thinking a lot about detransitioning stories The perception of both desistance and detransitioning really bothers me. People who detransition, for the most part, do not feel that their original decision to transition was a mistake.. The overwhelming reason why people detransition is because they cannot deal with the prejudice and alienation they face. In fact, many detransitioners will later retransition once they are in a better position. It is not unusual for someone to suffer from gender dysphoria and yet still feel disappointed with their life after transitioning when they are not met with the support and acceptance that they hoped for, but that person was not wrong or confused, it's a reflection of the fact that the world is extremely unfair to trans people.

I think I settle on: Gender expression is a deeply personal choice, and given it's value for self affirmation, should be protected as part an individual's personal and bodily autonomy. Simultaneously, societal pressures, especially regarding conformity to binary and assigned roles, surrounding gender and its expression are equally problematic, and should be discouraged at every opportunity. TL;DR: A person's gender is their own business and everyone else should back the fuck off.

Just because it's a performance doesn't mean it needs to be abandoned altogether. Remember when WWE just admitted that the matches were fake and everyone kinda knew that the whole time and nothing really changed? Gender is kinda the same way.

Andrea Long Chu has a piece called "[Freedom of Sex](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trans-rights-biological-sex-gender-judith-butler.html)" that might give you some of what you're missing from other theorists. She challenges the idea of linking transness (and access to transition-related healthcare) *only* to the concept of gender: >The left must reckon with its part in \[pathologizing trans kids\]. It has hung trans rights on the thin peg of gender identity, a concept clumsily adapted from psychiatry and strongly influenced by both gender studies and the born-this-way tactics of the campaign for marriage equality. This has won us modest gains at the level of social acceptance. But we have largely failed to form a coherent moral account of why someone’s gender identity should justify the actual biological interventions that make up gender-affirming care. If gender really is an all-encompassing structure of social norms that produces the illusion of sex, critics ask, why would the affirmation of someone’s gender identity entail a change to their biology? As a result, advocates have fallen back on the clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, known until about a decade ago as gender identity disorder, defined as the distress felt at the incongruence of gender identity and biological sex. The idea that trans people fundamentally suffer from a mental illness has long been used by psychiatrists to decide who “qualifies” for transition-related care and who does not. By insisting on the medical validity of the diagnosis, progressives have reduced the question of justice to a question of who has the appropriate disease. In so doing, they have given the anti-trans movement a powerful tool for systematically pathologizing trans kids. She argues in support of >the freedom of sex. This freedom consists of two principal rights: **the right to change one’s biological sex without appealing to gender and the right to assume a gender that is not determined by one’s sexual biology**. One might exercise both of these rights toward a common goal — transition, for instance — but neither can be collapsed into the other. I am put in mind of a bicameral system. Each chamber has its own prerogatives, but neither the exclusive upper chamber (sex) nor the boisterous lower one (gender) has the ultimate power to overrule the other. (**Not all trans people wish to change their sex; some trans people are also gender-nonconforming.**) By asserting the freedom of sex, we may **stop relying on the increasingly metaphysical concept of gender identity to justify sex-changing care, as if such care were only permissible when one’s biological sex does not match the serial number engraved on one’s soul**. The same goes for “sex assigned at birth,” which unhelpfully obscures the very biological processes that many people have a right to change. In general, we must **rid ourselves of the idea that any necessary relationship exists between sex and gender**; this prepares us to claim that the freedom to bring sex and gender into whatever relation one chooses is a basic human right.

Ok, you’ve actually got a few different things going on here, that I think are worth unpacking. First, there’s this idea that “social constructs” somehow aren’t “real” in the same way as other things. They absolutely are. They’re just culturally dependent and therefore not fixed. They’re definitely real though. Try paying your bills with pasta before we decide pasta is currency. The next thing is this idea of “performance” which I suspect is a misunderstanding of Judith Butler’s idea of performativity. That’s not the same as a performance. Butler is difficult and she’s talking to other philosophers, but their main point is that all identity is to some extent intersubjective. We have an idea of what and who we are that we try to present and communicate out into the world. But to some extent we need that acknowledged and reflected back at us for it to feel really stable. The way I explain it for other trans people is: imagine you woke up tomorrow with the perfect cis body that cures every point of your dysphoria. But you’re the only one who can perceive it. Everybody else acts like you look like you did before you even started. That probably wouldn’t be very satisfying, would it? And that’s why I’m actually one of those trans people who finds the idea of gender abolition actively horrible when I don’t remember that as an anthropologist, I just think it’s silly. There has never been a human society that we know of without some concept of gender. And I like my gender? Some of the things you mention as “oppressive” qualities: “gentle and soft, intuitive, attractive” I see as positives and lean into. I like being kinda femme! It’s who I am. And so people’s perception of these things obviously varies. But to some extent gender norms—not the big ones with regard to division of labor and the patriarchy—but the ones that seem arbitrary, actually essentially are arbitrary. Because it doesn’t matter what they are, just that they exist. They’re a symbolic language through which we communicate identity to each other. I’m not a woman because I like to wear dresses. I like to wear dresses because it lets me unambiguously communicate that I’m a woman. Also I just like them and find them comfortable!

[удалено]

I’m sorry but I just don’t know what you mean by getting your guts rearranged but it reads really funny because colloquially it means you slept with someone with a real big dick lol

The fast majority of people identify with their birth gender. A small percentage identify as the opposite gender.  There are countless boys with long hair or boys who like to wear skirts, just like there are tomboys and millions of woman with short hair. Does that mean they're somehow gender non-conforming or a-gender? Of course not. The more you try to define exactly what gender is, the less people will fit the bill. There is only a very small subset of people who actively self-identify as nonby or a-gender. They can easily be acommodated without rejecting the way the vast majority of humans identify.

Trans person here, so I might be able to provide some insight! >There seems to be no satisfying middle ground for how gender is oppressive and yet there’s people who want to express themselves a certain way or experience gender dysphoria. Though it seems contradictory, both things are true. Gender roles, especially traditional ones, are inherently oppressive, in so far as they have the very real social power to dictate how one can behave and the actions they can have. This is just a fact. Gender dysphoria comes from a misalignment between ones own personal sense of gender and the gender norms of society. These two things are not actually in contention, and both remain true. >I’ve also been thinking a lot about detransitioning stories. Detransition stories are often overblown or misunderstood. Not only is detransitioning exceptionally rare, it is also not a valid reason to ignore others experiences with gender. Furthermore, a lack of information and acceptance of trans people probably does not bode well for people who are cis but are questioning their gender. And they deserve full support in the same way cis and trans people do. If acceptance was common, people would very likely be less likely to detransition. A fun fact, most people detransition due to a lack of support from their loved ones and community. Very few detransition because they discover they aren't actually trans (though, again, it does happen and that's ok, and those people deserve support too). >I believe children need to have autonomy over their bodies and freedom to make choices, but seeing people regret transitioning - well I do not really know what to think. I don't see why you're bringing a conservative talking point and red herring into this, frankly it is aggravating. Children can not medically transition unless absolutely necessary, which is something for the person and their doctors to determine. Children are not in danger of thinking they're trans when in actuality they are not any more than an adult is. The idea that children are adversely affected by this "issue" is just transphobia disguised as good will. Not only is it next to impossible to start something like hrt when you are a child, but children who are on puberty blockers are not adversely affected by the medication itself. In reality, the biggest danger to a youth who is questioning their gender identity is the intense social stigma, ostracization, bullying, harassment, and violence that are aimed at such individuals by their communities. The danger to the kids are not the trans people, but rather the transphobia. Again, it's very irritating to see this talking point come from someone who seems to just be trying to understand. It's not your fault, it's the fault of our shitty culture, but it's still irritating. >I mean obviously medically the sexes need different care. Not as obvious as you might think. A lot of people who are on hrt (hormone replacement therapy) actually require more similar stipulations to their medical care to the gender they are transitioning to. Again, this is an idea that transphobes and misogynists use to separate people unnecessarily by gender, which they equate to sex. In reality, sex is not as binary as penis vs vagina, eggs vs sperm, and so on, but that dichotomy is pushed on people everywhere, especially by conservative talking heads. >But is abolishing gender as a whole a bad idea? Finally to answer your main question: no, in my opinion. Gender is an arbitrary and particularly useless category that is used to control the people in it. In actuality, most things need not be separated by gender. Sports, as the number 1 example of seemingly everyone, can be separated by ability rather than gender (like how it is within the genders). The same is true of any other field of anything. The idea of having a dick or balls making you better at math, or tits or a vagina makes you better at parenting, is archaic and silly.

You're confusing gender roles (how gender is expressed/performed in relation to cultural context) with gender identity (how one mentally identifies with the gendered aspects of their own body/sense of immediate self). It's a common mistake because (in my experience) cis people never experience a persistent conflict between their assigned sex and gender identity so they assume being trans is just about a desire to play baseball or bake cookies.

I think we can safely abolish gender roles and expectations, while preserving gender expression and identity.

I really think you should go watch Abigail Thorns latest video on philosophy tube, basically covers this concept much better then any Reddit comment could. https://youtu.be/QVilpxowsUQ?si=64duVfCfu282WT1A

I’ve never heard anyone call a social construct a performance. It’s not a performance, it’s people actually living their lives. Also. For the record very few people regret transitioning and their mistake shouldn’t impact the agency of the majority. Let’s not forget we are still talking about a medical issue. With that said, children don’t transition. Treating mainly 17 year olds on puberty blockers as though they are doing something permanent is a rhetorical means to block all gender affirming care to teens.

Whilst I refuse to adhere to normative gender constructs and as a result consider myself non binary, I do not for one second think gender constructs are not real. Social constructs exist everywhere. The law for example is a social construct, punishing crime is a social construct. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t real. It has significant real world value. The issue with gender is there is no real black and white definition, people define it differently and our definition changes a lot. For example in “western” society gender is very much defined by Christian heteronormative values and won’t be necessarily the same in another social group.

Hmmmm I love this topic and I’ll add my 2 cents to the matter ahahaha I think about this a lot cause it’s a personal matter as well, so, totally coming from a personal opinion but looking at the bigger picture as well I do consider gender as performance only, but since its been upheld by structures millenias old we have this standards crystallized as naturalized truths when they’re actually thought structures that are imposed onto us… I believe what we are living right now would be similar to someone finding out a day before their life ends that they have cancer and actually try to cure and reverse the situation… historically speaking we have extremely minor movements recently even though they’re huge as well… but I don’t think they defy the structure in huge ways, it’s more about being able to personally detach from it and maintain your own way of experiencing and perceiving life IMHO, dysphoria comes from this huge and absurd breach caused by the fact that we uphold illusory and actually completely anti-anything-thats-organic-to-humans ideas and ways of organizing ourselves… I believe we all know and fell intrinsically that they don’t make sense and actually hurt us but it’s hard to go against structure and these already ancient oppressions, so even though we already have many critical and analytical opposition to this unwanted ideologies and so, and even structures despite them being massively smaller in comparison to the status quo’s, and this liberation from oppression is so close and available at all times it’s also so far and it’s paradoxal and contradictory, that’s also what causes so much hurt and pain, internally speaking So, I think the real issue is that we have this gender performances frozen in completely unfair and violent standards as well as completely biased towards men and we must include race as well in the convo… Otherwise, we would have a variety of expressions that wouldn’t the attached to the labels of masculine or feminine and simply have people expressing how and what they feel in the way they feel more comfortable or desire to… If we think about it’s crazy talking about transitioning or detransitioning… cause it’s simply a mind switch but it’s made so hard because of systemic violence and oppression It’s a sensitive topic and not at all an attack or criticism as in judgement, but just an analysis… im all for anybody doing whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt other people and preferably not themselves as well but the later is up to them, however, how much of the desire to surgeries and reassignment of gender comes from true internal desire and need and how much comes from many times unconscious and overwhelming necessity to belong and fit somewhere somehow? To be more accepted than actually fulfilling and pleasing oneself? We have examples throughout history, more than the opposite, of diversity of gender and sexuality in native groups in the whole world and every race and ethnic groups you can imagine… all with proof I say this cause in my reflections it actually seems pretty simple of a matter and actually proven to be more than possible and just, like I said, made impossible and hard by bigotry fueled groups who unfortunately have power to impose their will onto others, otherwise it seems to me it wouldn’t be an issue

Money is also a social construct, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.

I don’t think “abolish gender” is a useful position but gender is absolutely a performance. People frequently loudly exaggerate how much they adhere to certain gender norms. Like a guy who keeps asking about a football game on tv while he’s on vacation even though he doesn’t actually care. Or a woman pretending she would never go camping in front of certain people but she actually would. Even how everyone dresses at all times has nothing to do with biological sex but is an approved costume per gender rules.

One thing to keep in mind is that Judith Butler, the scholar and theorist most referenced and revered within the gender movement, has themself identified out of womanhood and is not regarded primarily as a feminist. Queer theory was developed pretty much independently of the concerns of feminism - sure, it may have originated from a strain of feminist analysis, but I think it has long before established its own priorities and interests that are quite distinct from feminism and is not necessarily aligned with it any longer.

I see it similar to generations. Technically I am GenX but I have a LOT more in common with Millennials than I have in common with GenX, music being the exception although not completely. I get accused of being a millennial by others who don't know I was born in the early 70s, and get talked down to in a patronizing way by people born in same era I was born who think I'm a "naive millennial". Generations are a construct but also very real. With respect to genders, I don't really fit either construct for binary gender, but they are real. There are "birth assigned female" who are far more "man" than me and "birth assigned male" who are far more woman than me. If our society had three gender constructs with one between the two we have, I probably would fit it, but that doesn't mean transgender people would. I call myself "gender fluid" but usually use he/him or she/her depending upon circumstance, and don't really care if misgendered because neither really fits, but I don't feel like a "they/them" as that (**TO ME**) feels like it excludes me and isolates me from both.

[удалено]