#i was gonna make a joke about how dworkin wouldnt mind because mackinnon was also quite long winded loll

[lettucedloophole]

hi apologies if youve alr made a post abt this (if u have, then maybe u can add a link to that specific post?) but i just wanted to ask for ur perspective bc this is smth i keep getting hung up on and i rlly only trust u to answer:

why would abolishing gender be harmful to trans ppl if transphobia stems from emphasis on traditional gender roles, and the abolishment would further their focus on relieving dysphoria thru physical sex change instead of relieving it by having to conform to sociological femininity and masculinity as a means to adapt in this patriarchal society?

thank you for taking the time to read and answer this <3

no worries! i haven't made a post about this before since no one's asked, but i'll answer it right here for you.

the answer is, it wouldn't be harmful. abolishing gender would ultimately be the best for everyone, but especially lgbt people & women. however... the contextualization of this point is what makes or breaks it. let me explain--

trans people have a negative reaction when people discuss abolishing gender not only for the same reason cis people might (a kneejerk reaction to protect the status quo), but also for the very valid reason of wanting to defend transness in a transphobic society. it's the same reason why some gay people will react negatively to the fact that homosexuality is a social construct, and therefore cannot be innate; most people use this argument to justify homophobia & patriarchy.

the thing is, to abolish gender, sex must also be abolished as it's the primary method of naturalizing gender. sex is a social construct-- it's not natural. however, terfs and any garden variety conservative will reify gender through the naturalization of sex. they'll say, "cis women and men are natural, but trans people aren't. therefore, they must be eliminated." similarly, "heterosexual people are natural, but gay and bi people aren't. therefore, they must be eliminated." eliminated can mean killed or, forcibly dissolved into the "natural" categories via bullshit self-loathing propaganda.

a really easy way to understand why this is so upsetting to trans people is just comparing their situation to gay people or women's, really, as they are so similar. if you walked up being like "wow i cant wait for gays to be abolished<3" ofc people will assume you mean it in a homophobic sense rather than a complicated, radical feminist sense, and if you're focusing on the abolition of minority groups in particular, it does likely stem from bigotry. not saying that you've said anything like that lol, but those examples are the best way i can illustrate the point.

also, everyone on the internet hates radical feminism, so regardless of how eloquently you explain your point & how sensible it is, if you associate it with radical feminism people will ignore what you say, misinterpret you so severely that it seems deliberate but could very well be internet stupidity, and also throw tomatos at you. 😭 radfems, matfems & a handful of marxist, anarchist, intersectional fems + womanists are the only ones i trust to not be covert antifeminists.

last p.s.: we don't know what a society outside of patriarchy looks like. assuming people will continue getting sex changes assumes the existence of a natural sex binary, though it's possible people may change "sex" characteristics as they please. trans people's issue is not only being forced into gender roles, but a hatred of transness which puts them into a catch-22 regarding survival under patriarchy-- they're "reifying patriarchy" if they transition, but plagued with dysphoria, martyrs to a post-patriarchal world centuries away from us if they don't. perhaps, a similar scenario would be if you told a gay or straight person to simply see people as gender/sexless and to experience attraction, to give affection as though we lived in a post-patriarchal society-- it just wouldn't be possible, and for the gay person who is particularly vulnerable under patriarchy, it would more likely be traumatizing. dworkin put it so succintly in woman hating...

i hope that wasn't too repetitive or long, i just wanted to be thorough. admittedly, this is kind of a loaded answer if you aren't familiar with sex as a social construct, so if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask!