Why Gender Abolitionist's are Cringe

By the way, on the matter of being cringe ... it's stupid. As with stupid. We're all ... in my mind at least ... some form or another thereof. And also by the way, here's a cool video marginally on that subject:


Now, that person there has such a different perspective on the movie as I had; As also another review I've seen. And that is overall the bigger picture of the matter. Which, yea - does say as much as that gender abolition is ... limited.

As so - the problem with labels is, that we all mean something by using words; But sometimes the thing we mean isn't ... easy to express that way. Now, Populists/Reactionaries/Fascists/whatever make it so, that they'll start with something devoid of meaning and let the crowd fill it with one. So: Let's go Brandon! I mean ... the fact that a lot of people right away read: "F**k you Biden!" says something.

On the other hand you'll have a gender abolitionist shriek away from the term "gender anarchist" because "people wouldn't understand it". But it's not like they understand gender abolition either.


Sure, what gender abolitionists mean ... is kinda "based and poggers" ... and I assume that this term "abolition" scratches an itch of theirs. That in turn might lend itself to a greater movement of sorts which I would call "abolitionists" - but what the term cannot convey is what exactly it is they mean to abolish. Perhaps because it's this vague something - that thorn in the eye, that ... nonsense in the world.
And I'm sure they can all define exactly what they mean. May however be carried away, maybe a bit too much at times, by the concept of abolition as opposed to proliferating that which is good.

I can tell you straight away however, that 'gender abolition' is an effective no-go. And if what you mean by it isn't what I mean by it - yea, is perhaps part of the problem. But that problem at large is about how we individually approach the world. That in other terms means that you live by your terms and I live by mine - effectively we can agree somehow because none of these things do mean anything outside of themselves as we mostly care about the lived experience. I mean, a gender abolitionist isn't going to come up to you and scold you for using gendered language - is the point with that.

The thing though is, that I'm much of a gender essentialist. While I acknowledge that there is something outside of the binary, it doesn't mean anything to me. That certainly comes with biases and such - such as that at some point to me all boils down to what's between your legs. It's a plus or a minus - and if there's nothing then there's nothing. Which ... is OK, I guess ... but not for what I care about, individually.
Well, unless we're getting more abstract.
So do I make a strict and harsh distinction between male and female - sexually - and everything else is built there-upon. So, if sexuality is irrelevant, I don't care about any of it - sure.

This has it, that my position doesn't really hold any political relevance. Or social relevance even. But it matters when the discussion of gender abolition is brought up, that ... it just makes me shudder inside.
To me there is a strong ... let's say area ... in which gender is inevitable. That's how I identify as a Lesbian. Which, in these terms, means that I don't care about much about you - though presenting yourself as a woman, for whatever reason, is like what it takes to be worthy in my eyes. For romantic reasons.

Call it ... the

But so, a keen eye might notice - that's not really what one might understand as 'gender essentialist'. "By any means". For, if I actually don't care about your gender and am yet again for all intents and purposes hyper-superficial, well ... am I not ... well ... either way, I'm not a gender abolitionist - although technically I am?

well. I'm not because to me personally - my own gender is important to me. And so my preferences based on that. Now, whether my Lovers are then gonna be this or that on their own preferences ... that's their thing then. And important for their own's sakes. So, sure could I lean more into a somewhat narcissistic hypocrite direction with it, but ... far be it from me to be a gender abolitionist.

I'd rather call myself a gender realist. And by gender I don't mean 'social construct'. The social construct is what we build upon the gender realism. Cis-heteronormativity ... well ... is in that regard like believing the earth is flat. Let me explain:
    It is so! And thus, so it is! Thanks to listening to my TED talk!

I mean, it may be a bad take - the baddest of bad takes even - but I believe there is something to it. I so had a bit of a personal epiphany recently. There, one thing I've always wondered about is, why I don't like black women. So one day in the subway I was sitting there, and this rather attractive black woman/girl was standing there - and I had to wonder. And suddenly it clicked. What clicked is, that I saw some "man-ish" things - and then I looked to the left where a rather unattractive black woman sat; And I looked at her through that same lens - and all of a sudden ... it made sense for me to say: Black women are like men, and hence black men are like women. Which by virtue means, that to black people, white men are like women and white women like men.
It is to say as much as that what we would recognize, or so - for me it is so, as a "gender" is, as it is this amalgamation of properties, skewed one way or another. If not ... completely twisted. Sure, "gender is a social construct". Although then women, of any color, still come in feminine and masculine - to pretty much the same effect.
A hypothesis were, that while the black man has historically been subjugated for labor a lot more, survival of the fittest would have it, the woman is the more independent sex in that culture; While however still performing the same ol' biological female "gender" role.

It's an impression. To say as much as that there's a different culture - and some things might be gendered for one reason or another, but are actually neutral. And by virtue of those neutrals being gendered - they might in some other culture fall onto the other side.

But so, sure, there's the deeper meaning of individuality, enlightenment and all that. To bring your self to bear - to "unplug from the matrix" as it were. And it is THERE where gender STILL matters. Is what I'm saying.


And maybe that is in part responsible for detransitioners. That they get stuck on the social construct, mean to transition, but during that transition realize, that their issue is with the social construct and NOT their gender.


Peace!

PS: This isn't to say that being myself a culturally white Lesbian - I'm interracially hetero. I don't know how to square that circle just yet.