#i'm not trying to argue or anything either i just really enjoy discussing feminist theory ^.^

[redwavefeminist]

I agree with most of this however there are some points that I would like to discuss with you if that's okay?

"under a class-based system, “woman” is a socioeconomic category: it is a complex & oppressive category that includes everyone who was born female, anyone who has altered themselves to the point of being seen as female by society (a demographic of dysphoric male people– medically transitioned trans women, stealth trans women), and intersex male people who have underwent female socialization. it is not biological reality that makes one a woman, it is the amalgamation of female socialization, capitalist exploitation, and fierce male chauvinism. transitioned & stealth trans men might seem to be the only demographic able to escape this category of “woman”, however, even though they may be granted several privileges; feminism still has their best interests at heart– since they have once belonged to the category of “woman”, experienced female socialization & a misogynistic childhood; they still have a place in feminist circles, and their place will not ever fade. they have their voice within feminist spaces, and they still can speak on numerous female-only problems that stealth, transitioned trans women cannot speak on."

So the category "woman" is created by the combination of female socialization + capitalist exploitation + male chauvinism.

I agree with that but I don't see why transitioned transwomen would therefore be included in that category considering they haven't gone through female socialization, but male socialization. Moreover, although transitioned transwomen are exploited in class society (if they belong to the working or middle classes), that capitalist exploitation is still different from the one female-born women have to face. OFAB women's capitalist exploitation has two sides: exploitation in the household (in the form of housework) and exploitation in the workplace (poorer wages, sexual harassment and assaults, poorer labor rights). I don't know if any studies have been conducted on a potential wage gap between transwomen and other demographics so I won't speak on that, but even if there is one, transitioned transwomen still aren't socialized to perform housework and I doubt they contribute as many hours to housework the same way OFAB women do. Then, when transwomen face sexual abuse in the workplace, it's not because they are women but because they are trans -- the root cause is transphobia, not misogyny.

In short, I don't see how transwomen would be included in the women category considering they aren't socialized female, their exploitation under capitalism is different from OFAB women's, and a lot of transitioned transwomen do take part in male chauvinism by being misogynistic to women. If anything, transitioned transwomen's relationship to socialization, capitalist exploitation and male chauvinism shows transwomen belong to the male category or, at best, make up their own 'transitioned transwomen' category.

The opposite goes for transitioned transmen. As you said, they were still socialized female and they still have to face sex-based oppression. So what privileges do they get by transitioning to men? This is an open and genuine question as I am not the most knowledgeable about transmen's issues.

"... gender is the material base of biological sex. this is not an implication that biological reality is unimportant or grounded in something unscientific– biological sex itself should carry no gendered connotations & no artificial attire; but that is unfortunately not the case, as gender is imposed on our bodies/our biological sex. we regard penises as man parts, and vaginas as woman parts– this is essentially gender being imposed on otherwise neutral human bodies. sex categorization and biological sex are two distinct concepts– biological sex is a clear canvas, whereas sex categorization is what allowed for gender to flourish as a superstructure. sex categorization is, in other words– the gendering of our biological features."

I don't quite understand this paragraph. You start by saying biological sex is based on gender, then you say no, it's actually sex categorization that is based on gender while biological sex is a clear distinction. So is biological sex a social construct or not? (Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you wrote, I'm ESL so some of it may escape me.)

I agree that sex categories are socially constructed however I disagree that sex categorization refers to seeing penises as men's parts and vaginas as women's parts. I think it goes beyond that. When Delphy (and Wittig -- but I haven't read Wittig in a while so I'm mostly talking about Delphy here haha) said gender creates sex categories, the way I understand it is that the ideology of gender (our cultural, religious, ideological perceptions of 'man' and 'woman') creates specific expectations on what the 'male sex' and the 'female sex' should look like and act like. So the 'female sex' is supposed to be composed of a functioning uterus (sterile women are treated as less female than fertile women) and breasts, while the 'male sex' is supposed to be composed of a functioning penis (the shape of which is said to prove how manly a man is). Sex categories also aren't restricted to genitalia: they are also about the hormones the body produces. So the 'female sex' is said to be prone to hysteria because the uterus is said to be a diseased organ, the 'female body' is said to produce emotional hormones while the 'male body' is said to produce rational hormones. That way, scientists are trying to naturalize women's oppression by 'proving' our bodies are just naturally inferior compared to men's.

Finally you say gender is the material base for sex categories. But how can gender be a material base when gender is an ideology and therefore idealist in nature? I think it'd be better to say that sex categories share the same material basis as gender does -- both sex categorization and gender are cultural/ideological notions created to naturalize women's oppression and they are both rooted in the same material basis (the economic/sexual exploitation of women in class society), even though gender predates sex categories and the ruling class relied on gender ideology to create sex categories. In other terms, sex categories are a manifestation of gender ideology but gender ideology itself isn't the material basis for sex categorization. The economic/sexual exploitation of women is.

So the way I understand it, the creation of the women-class takes place in four stages.

First, in the state of nature, where the relations of power of man over woman are non-existent, there are the anatomical differences (I wouldn't say biological sex; "bio sex" as a synthetic category encompassing genitalia + secondary sexual characteristics + sex hormones appears later, with the creation of sex categories) that separate men from women. These anatomical differences are a biological, scientific and observable phenomenon: distribution of fat, muscle and bone mass, exoskeleton, male or female genitals, lung capacity, pelvic tilt, weight and height. These anatomical differences are in themselves devoid of any social meaning.

With the accumulation of wealth at the time of the agricultural revolution, the dominating class weaponizes those anatomical differences to impose a division of labour in order to maximize profits. Since females are incapacitated: (a) when they menstruate, (b) when they are pregnant, (c) when they are carrying a child, (d) in the weeks following childbirth, all females are assigned the task of reproducing the species (bearing and raising children) and are relegated to the home while being required to perform the work also performed by men in the fields.

Since healthy adult males are never incapacitated by menstruation or pregnancy, they are all assigned the duty of performing industrial and agricultural work and they are left with the duty to administer labour (ie, politics) while women are left outside of it.

We can therefore see that the economic exploitation of women in the fields and within the home appears with class society and that it is inseparable from the sexual exploitation of women within the home (rape of women to produce children, i.e. to reproduce the working class).

The economic and sexual exploitation of women in the sexual division of labor is the material basis of the oppression of women (patriarchy). This material basis is at the same time intrinsically linked to the male and female anatomical differences: it's because they weaponized those differences that the ruling class managed to create that division of labour (the economic/sexual exploitation of women) in the first place.

3. To legitimise the economic and sexual exploitation of women, a cultural, ideological and religious system is created intended to prove the inferiority of women: this ideological system is gender. Female and male children are socialized to conform to this ideological system, to support it and to perpetuate it: hence Simone de Beauvoir: "one is not born a woman, one becomes one" by the imposition of social norms from which one can in no way escape because this system is universal, it is maintained everywhere, all the time, by everyone, by force and under the threat of violence (domestic violence, femicide, rape).

Therefore no person born female can escape female socialization and no person born male can escape male socialization. Even after transitioning, people still retain the way they were socialized their entire life beforehand. A post-op transwoman isn't treated as a woman but as a man who stepped out of line and who must be socially punished. A post-op transman isn't treated as a man but as a woman who stepped out of line and who must be socially punished for it.

4. To naturalise gender as an ideology of the patriarchy, the category of sex is created: it is the canonization of a set of biological characteristics (secondary and primary sexual characteristics and, often, the brain and hormones) to "prove" the biological and natural inferiority of women and the superiority of men. It is the idea that a woman is supposed to have a fertile uterus and two breasts, that a sterile woman or one who has had a mastectomy would be "less of a woman" than others. It is the idea that a woman-brain has hysterical tendencies. It is the idea that a real virile man is not a eunuch and has prominent male genitalia. It is the idea, in some cultures, that a real woman must have undergone a clitoridectomy or that a real man must have been circumcised. Hence Christine Delphy: "gender creates sex": our social expectations inform the way we think the male sex or the female sex should look/act like. The creation of the category of sex is also the basis of intersexist oppression: we think that a "real" man or a "real" woman must have well-formed and visible genitalia, corresponding unambiguously to our expectations, and so we mutilate the bodies of intersex babies.

We therefore have a four-step articulation:

The state of nature: natural anatomical differences

Patriarchy: the economic and sexual exploitation of women in the division of labor

Gender: the cultural and religious ideology that legitimizes patriarchy

The sex category: the essentialization of gender as submissive feminine nature OR superior masculine nature

Which is pretty similar to what you said. I think the main difference is the way we see post-op trans people, how we understand socialization, and what "gender creates sex" means?

GENDER; apparatus designed to uphold sex-based oppression

What Is Gender?

the social category of woman was made by oppression and exploitation. through a dialectical materialist analysis, we can observe the numerous ways the system exploits & commodifies women.

while both proletarian women & men are suffering under our current system, we can see the clear differences between the types of oppression. that is because proletarian women are not only oppressed for their very reality of being working-class– but are also made to take care of the family, cook, clean, and reproduce, and on top of that; work outside the home, for smaller wages. under a class-based system, women are compelled to act, be, present a certain way, and are connected to the phenomenon of reproductive labor (explained above). women get paid less than their male counterparts, because although the “women must be housewives” stereotype might seem to be fading in western places (it is unattractive to capitalism), it is still present, and it will be present for as long as class is. housework is unpaid labor, and even though a lot of women now have the right to work outside the home, they are still paid less than their male counterparts. they are still compelled to roleplay the idea of a housewife when they return from their shifts, not getting paid for domestic labor, because it is undervalued. both the proletarian male & the proletarian female return home from work, tired from selling their labor & themselves. but unlike the proletarian female, the proletarian male now gets to rest for a bit. it is his time of leisure. the proletarian female does not have this opportunity. her work does not end here. her work continues. her labor & exploitation don’t ever stop, not even when she is in the home, a place that is supposed to be her safe space; and it is not, because it is her husband’s kingdom. the house is her husband’s kingdom, he is the king, and she is just a mere servant. she takes care of the household & of the children.

families produce commodity, and housework is a form of reproductive labor which women are compelled to execute. domestic labor makes sure children grow into people, people who will be part of the exploited class; people on who the burden of running the country while not owning the means of production will befall. in this way, we can see how capitalism depends on domestic & reproductive labor. women are an essential part of the proletarian class; and “woman” itself is a class– an oppressive cage that enslaves all people of the female sex, a cage that we must destruct if we want total liberation. under a class-based system, “woman” is a socioeconomic category: it is a complex & oppressive category that includes everyone who was born female, anyone who has altered themselves to the point of being seen as female by society (a demographic of dysphoric male people– medically transitioned trans women, stealth trans women), and intersex male people who have underwent female socialization. it is not biological reality that makes one a woman, it is the amalgamation of female socialization, capitalist exploitation, and fierce male chauvinism. transitioned & stealth trans men might seem to be the only demographic able to escape this category of “woman”, however, even though they may be granted several privileges; feminism still has their best interests at heart– since they have once belonged to the category of “woman”, experienced female socialization & a misogynistic childhood; they still have a place in feminist circles, and their place will not ever fade. they have their voice within feminist spaces, and they still can speak on numerous female-only problems that stealth, transitioned trans women cannot speak on.

as capitalism is using our women at workplaces & exploiting their abilities, the patriarchy is efficiently trimming, undercutting & ultimately burning their wings. both those systems are destroying their beautiful, spark-shaded eyes, which resemble some kind of lightning bolts, and sucking all the life out of them. female infants are born with strong, dark, stratified wings; wings that the patriarchy & capitalism, as best friends, promise to ruin & remove through aggressive female socialization and capitalistic standards of life. male infants are left with their strong wings: however, their wings are weakened through male socialization & although they’re given a childhood of leisure & freedom, their freedom isn’t unconditional. they must be the patriarchal capitalism’s strong soldier & behave like a perfect male model for patriarchal capitalism. their strong wings are used for the benefit of the socioeconomic structure, and their life is in hands of the most powerful ones, the males above them. our female & male comrades all across the world are being exploited for their abilities. the most oppressed male has one ability our system cherishes the most: the ability to oppress a lesser being than himself– his female counterpart. he has the ability to tear her apart, to destroy her, to set her already weak & utterly transparent wings aflame; to push the sharpest thorns against them, to cut them off in the most disturbing, most violent ways known to humankind. he has the ability to abase her existence and minimize her humanity. his wings get exploited by the system daily, and despite knowing oppression & understanding the harm it does to him & his male comrades, he still has a roaring desire to do that exact same thing to his female counterparts. he still has a desire to serve the system, be a class traitor, as he believes the system will spare him & raise him to the top. after all, it is better to have weakened wings, than not to have wings at all.

Capitalism and Gender

when discussing societal concerns pertaining to currency, we not only discuss socioeconomic disparities and inequalities but also the tactics that this system uses to ensure the greatest chance of survival for every human being. before discussing any further, we must first make clear how the capitalist system works. in summary, capitalism superseded the feudal era, when it was determined that a worker would be paid fairly based on the type of labor they performed. the capitalists’ role is to concentrate as much as humanely possible, and in this process, the capitalist relies on the servitude of workers– as he cannot climb on the top alone. he needs to exploit others’ labor in order to reach the top. this is how labor exploitation is born. because of this mechanism, an excessive amount of manufactured material is produced, of which less than half will actually be able to be obtained and used. this creates overproduction, and economic chaos every 7 years; which results in environmental crises, pollution, and more.

through class systems, the masculine & feminine gender are created. woman, the feminine gender, is in charge of staying at home to take care of children, satisfy the man’s needs & give him more children. man, the masculine gender, is in charge of the woman, the children, and he goes to work where his labor is exploited. through this, both genders are exploited– but the woman is exploited both by capitalism & another oppressive system– the patriarchy. both depend on gender existing as a division of the working class, and both benefit from female oppression. this sort of division included excessive performing. to be the perfect feminine gender, the woman had to take supplies: makeup, hair removal, meekness, nurturing elements, servitude, submission, cleaning supplies, maternity and more. the man, in order to be the perfect masculine gender, likewise had to take supplies: dominance, rationality, strength, lack of sensitivity, the ability of providing for his subordinates, and more. gender division created infighting between the working class; and capitalism relies on infighting. men enjoyed privileges over women, took advantage of them, exploited them & benefited from their pain. while men were also made to conform to an unhealthy and anti-nature standard; they exploited women, and reached the top from labor that wasn’t performed by them. although the patriarchy predates capitalism, capitalism was not the first class system to ever exist. that being said, capitalism and gender do not have the same material base– but that does not mean that capitalism didn’t significantly influence the development & evolvement of gender. gender expanded to fit varying cultures and eras throughout history– capitalism, colonialism & imperialism all help spread sex-based oppression, and thus all have major influence on gender as a hierarchical class system. gender constantly evolves, expands and develops; and capitalism as our current class-based system aids it in its development.

never forget that women always have worked. throughout history, women have always performed more physically exhausting, more dangerous labor. housework is not the only type of unpaid female labor, and the entirety of reproductive labor isn’t, either. being underpaid, or unpaid, used as a slave and as a servant does not equal exempt from productive labor. even while the housewife stereotype was prevailing, women still worked. women still performed both productive and reproductive labor.

The Origins of Gender

the transition from the hunter-gatherer way of living to settled agriculture during the neolithic revolution led to the development of surplus food and the formation of proto-urban settlements, and class. with the emergence of private property & the need to protect resources, hierarchies and inequalities began to form, including class divisions & the division of labor. these divisions led to the concentration of power, control & resources in the hands of the neolithic period’s privileged few, which contributed to the formation of oppression: including the oppression of female people.

the neolithic revolution brought many new inventions; some of them being wide hoes (helpful for cultivating the land to feed a smaller village), plows (helpful for cultivating the land to feed a bigger proto-urban settlement & early towns), shovels, sickles, artificial irrigation system, looms, ceramic & textile production (which demonstrated the neolithic human’s sedentary lifestyle), tournette wheels and archery wheels (improved mass production), plant cultivation and domesticating animals & agriculture that required selective selection– and, finally, it also brought the market, private property, class; and with that being invented, the neolithic revolution marked the beginning of female suffering & female subjugation. the claim that female subjugation is innate & biological can easily be disproved. why have we, throughout the most of our existence, lived in quite egalitarian communes? if female oppression is biological, innate, and natural– why have our female ancestors been hunting as much as our male ancestors?

this era helped us get where we are today. it brought much progress, and ensured an easier way of living (could be argued otherwise, examining the skeleton of a late hunter-gatherer human and the skeleton of an early neolithic human, we can see how we lost a few inches of height and how we only recovered that in the 20th century- or how the way of living clearly depended on your social status that was just “invented” in this era), but it also invented sex & class-based inequalities, and helped shape violent hierarchies. it is said that, during this era, women after death, had a smaller chance to be buried in a respectful & proper way than males did. unlike in our hunter-gatherer, semi-nomadic & nomadic lifestyle, where both the females and the males hunted and gathered the neolithic women started being restricted to child rearing, domestic labor & reproductive labor (the neolithic women had babies more frequently than the pre-neolithic women– approximately once every two years, unlike the pre-neolithic women, who had approximately once every four), while the neolithic men were doing the fieldwork. the neolithic woman became secondary. she became a second-class citizen; she wasn’t contributing food, and she had no control over it. she was subjugated, oppressed, and exploited.

at this point, the neolithic human achieved the ability of being their own food producer. the neolithic human tamed the sheep, and then other animals– and slowly started relying on agriculture, rather than on hunting and gathering. the neolithic human achieved a better quality of life than their nomadic & semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestors; the neolithic human achieved the creation of something that is the root cause to our never-ending struggle: CLASS.

Gender Abolition

as gender functions as a superstructure– it is vital to understand what is the base, and what is the structure. as stated before, gender is produced by the division of (reproductive) labor. numerous pseudomarxists will go out of their way to constitute that the material base of gender is biological sex– which is a very simplistic & poor view of historical materialism. the contrary is actually true, gender is the material base of biological sex. this is not an implication that biological reality is unimportant or grounded in something unscientific– biological sex itself should carry no gendered connotations & no artificial attire; but that is unfortunately not the case, as gender is imposed on our bodies/our biological sex. we regard penises as man parts, and vaginas as woman parts– this is essentially gender being imposed on otherwise neutral human bodies. sex categorization and biological sex are two distinct concepts– biological sex is a clear canvas, whereas sex categorization is what allowed for gender to flourish as a superstructure. sex categorization is, in other words– the gendering of our biological features. it is only important under a patriarchal system, and feminist action can use sex categorization as a way to help push for female liberation (i.e demanding female-only spaces, etc.), while also understanding that it is not something that should carry special significance under a non-gendered world.

when speaking of gender abolition, it is important to say that our goal is to eradicate gender classes first & foremost– that is, our goal is to put an end to the patriarchy– to strip gender of being a power system. gender identity is a concept distinct from gender class, and different people will define the phenomenon of gender identity differently– but it would be nebulous to claim gender identity could persist and stay as a healthy part of a non-gendered society. it would eventually fade, and that would be proof of a successful abolition of gender. a person’s gender identity is superstructural– it stems from and is directly connected to other concepts; such as gender class, biological sex, sex categorization, neurological disorders (dysphoria, sex incongruency) etc. a person may “develop” a gender identity through interacting with reproductive labor in differing forms– by conforming to their assigned gender class, or by choosing to reject it– the latter being made up of people who either use gender identity as a mechanism to help alleviate their socially produced dysphoria, and/or neurological type sex dysphoria, as well as of people who use it as a tool to promote their seemingly punk subculture of attempt at rejecting the heteropatriarchy, and of (some) generally gender non-conforming people. the fall of gender identity as a concept will be the eventual byproduct of the fall of gender as a hierarchical system.

gender isn’t just used for oppressing people. it inherently oppresses people by existing. it is, in essence, sex-based oppression. the blue & pink boxes & the characteristics that fill them inherently oppress and repress people, by making certain appearances and certain personality types, skills, abilities & hobbies inherently female and inherently male. it’s not as simple as using these heavily restrictive & limiting standards and then assigning one group of people to be dominant, thus privileged; and the other group of people submissive, and thus oppressed. it’s never as simple, never as black and white as that. the problem not only lies in the fact that men are put above women, it lies in the fact that these unnatural categories even exist in the first place– for they are responsible for putting men above women. feminist theory goes against the bio-essentialism of the patriarchy, we believe that the construct of gender is not directed by “male” or “female” minds, however impacted by societal standards and gendered socialization. masculinity & femininity are not biologically fixated, nor ingrained in any male or female person, but they aren’t fixated on feelings or identity either; they aren’t harmless, as queer theorists claim they are: rather, they are the guns that the patriarchy has on us. gender ideologists & queer theorists have always understood that gender was a social construct. that was never the misunderstanding between radical feminists and queer theorists. both sides believe it is a social construct, and both sides can differentiate between gender & biological sex– however, queer theorists misunderstood what kind of social construct gender is. they believe gender is a socially constructed tool of self-expression. we cannot define gender as a socially constructed tool of self-expression, when it has been used for thousands of years for repressing self-expression, which is why radical feminists define it as a socially constructed tool of self-repression.