How do we destroy Gender?

[Voco]

How do we destroy gender?

I am starting here with the assumption that the very concept of gender is a bad one. It attempts to classify all of human preference and inclination into two opposing archetypes, based largely on historical prejudice and bigotry. Even if we were to (incorrectly) assume that gender roles were inherently benign rather than oppressive, they certainly aren't useful.

But first, we need to explain what exactly we mean by destroying gender. We do not, for example, need to eliminate all differences in clothing worn by male and female people. It is, after all, only reasonable that people should want to wear well-fitting clothing, and biological differences mean that male and female people will require different cuts. Furthermore, beyond mere necessity, it is entirely reasonable that people would want to wear clothing that complements their body shape—which can mean even more pronounced differences than mere fitting would require. None of this, I think, is necessarily bad. Just as clothing can be chosen to complement one's height, girth, or skin tone, so can it be chosen to complement traits specific to one's biological sex.

But what do we need to eliminate? Obviously, all forms of discrimination would fall onto this list. The same would go for the ideals of Manliness and womanliness, masculinity and femininity. These concepts are useless at best and oppressive at worst, and certainly need to go. If we are to have ideals of human behavior, there is absolutely no reason that they should vary by biological sex. As such, if our ideals manliness and womanliness differ, one or both cannot truly be the ideal of human behavior. So they must go. But those are the obvious things. What else? Gender in language, perhaps. All too often a person's gender is irrelevant to the information in question, and yet we are forced to identify it as though it were. True, gendered pronouns can occasionally help reduce confusion when discussing multiple people of conveniently differing genders, but any number of other details would serve as well; age, height, favorite color. And yet we do not have separate pronouns for these attributes, because that would be silly. I posit that gender is every bit as irrelevant as age, and the concept of separating pronouns around it should be examined as incredulously. Pronouns are just one small part of the problem, but language reform is not the only focus of this post and so I will now move on.

But, having established what a world without gender would look like, we are faced with a much more daunting problem: how do we get there? This is the real problem, and the reason for this post—I simply do not know. I fully support the abolition of gender, but I am not sure how I, as an individual, can help achieve this goal.

How can an individual subvert the system? To what degree is one morally obliged to do so? I ask in all seriousness—what do you, the wisest forum on the internet, have to say?

[J the Ninja]

Honestly, reproducing sounds a lot harder and less fun without gender. So does life in general. Gender is something you can learn to have a lot of fun with, if you try, e.g clothing, jewelry, etc. It is not a bad thing. Discrimination based on gender is a bad thing, but I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gender is a natural extension and expression of our biological sex. You stated that this whole idea is based on the idea that gender is useless and an artificial construct. I do not think either is the case. IMO, it is very much a personality thing. Saying gender is a socially-induced flaw is like saying your love of a certain kind of music is a flaw. I don't think it is.

EDIT: Fixed a small typo that made this post seem vastly less intelligent.

[Voco]

Honestly, reproducing sounds a lot harder and less fun without gender. So does life in general. Gender something you can learn to have a lot of fun with, if you try, e.g clothing, jewelry, etc. It is not a bad thing. Discrimination based on gender is a bad thing, but I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gender is a natural extension and expression of our biological sex. You stated that this whole idea is based on the idea that gender is useless and an artificial construct. I do not think either is the case. IMO, it is very much a personality thing. Saying gender is a socially-induced flaw is like saying your love of a certain kind of music is a flaw. I don't think it is.

I think you misunderstand. I am not saying people should not have personality--only that that personality should not be based around one of two established ideals. People can still 'have fun' with jewelry, clothing and all you list, but would not be constrained in doing so to one of two specific patterns. Also, reproduction requires differences in sex, not gender. A female person who behaves closer to what we today consider 'manly' and a male person who behaves closer to what we consider 'feminine' could still have plenty of babies together. Indeed, if those are the people they would have rather rather been--and been with--without the constraint of gender, I argue that it would be anything but "harder and less fun."

[Elvish Pillager]

I say we should destroy gender with BOMBS. Boom, boom.

On a more serious note - the best, and only, way I know for an individual to work towards the destruction of gender is to live without gender themselves. For me, what that means is to base all my in-any-way-gender-related decisions on practicality - for instance, I find it much nicer to maintain long hair than short hair, and so I'd keep long hair regardless of my biological sex. Same set of issues for the clothes I wear, (lack of) jewelry I wear, etc etc. Here's a fragment of a conversation I had a month or so ago:
Me: ...also, I wouldn't go to the "formal" dance because I don't have any formal clothing.
Them: It's not super formal. Just wear a nice shirt and tie.
Me: I don't have a tie.
Them: You're a boy and you don't have a tie? That's like a girl not having a skirt!
Me: If I was a girl, I wouldn't have a skirt either. (Site note: This also has to do with my mother's influence. She always found skirts, dresses, etc., to be inconvenient and pointless. My brother does wear skirts sometimes though... a huge range of styles, my family has)

Doing this is valuable because it makes you a living example to other people that there's no need and no real reason to live with this bullshit.

I also write stories containing people who ignore or subvert gender.

[H.E.L.e.N.]

I'd like to get rid of gender *roles,* but not gender.

(In my ideal world, and it wasn't my idea, people of any sex can pick and choose whatever bits of gender they like. Part of that reduces gender to fashion, but fashion is fun.)

[Jessica]

You can't destroy gender. It is intrinsic to people.

Each and every person has a physical sex, a subconscious sex, a gender identity and a sexual orientation. The subconscious sex and gender identity make up what most people call gender. A simple saying goes, sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears.

Everyone has a gender. It is intrinsic. And it's variable. Some people have a physical sex, which is different from their subconscious sex. Some people have a gender identity which is different from their physical sex. Each of these has a range, and people mostly fall on the end points.

Example: The average male in society falls on the scale as Sex: male, Gender: male, gender expression: masculine and sexual orientation: straight.

Yes. Gender expression or identity is another intrinsic variable. there are women who are feminine. there are women who are masculine. Same with men. this isn't wrong. this isn't something that needs to be fixed. It just is another aspect of humanity. This can not be changed.

If you want to dismantle gender roles, that is different again from dismantling "gender". There should be no expected role based on how they were born in society. Also, dismantling the binary model is also necessary. Men and women aren't "opposites". You can't define one as the negative of the other, as that disregards all the people who don't fit in. It's not a switch. And you can't segregate based on that.

But, you can't destroy gender. because it is part of who we are. You'd be better off destroying arms.

[Voco]

I'd like to get rid of gender *roles,* but not gender.

I see the two as inseparable. What is gender, except a societal expectation of behavior? A pattern of behavior associated with a particular biological sex is a role for people of that sex.

In my ideal world, and it wasn't my idea, people of any sex can pick and choose whatever bits of gender they like. Part of that reduces gender to fashion, but fashion is fun.

That sounds excellent, but if people are free to pick whichever bits of whichever gender they like, where is the usefulness of classifying these bits into "masculine" and "feminine?" Can't we just let people choose to behave, dress, and speak the way they like, and leave it at that?


To Jessica: I agree that people have a biological sex and a sexual orientation, but I see no reason that what you classify as "gender identity" should be separate from mere "personality." Yes, it is possible to classify people's personalities based on which of two archetypes they most closely approximate, but I do not believe this classification to be helpful. I do not believe that two ideals--ideals based on centuries of ignorance, bigotry and oppression--should define every human who has ever lived.

I think these archetypes are no more an intrinsic part of our humanity than are racial ones. It would be equally possible to construct an archetype for every ethnicity and then classify people based on which archetype their personality most closely approximates, but I think we can agree that this would be a very bad idea. The same could be said for archetypes based on height, or age, or sexual orientation. I posit that archetypes based on biological sex are every bit as senseless as those constructed around any other biological attribute.

In response to Elvish Pillager: That's a good point, and pretty much what I do already. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, places in which what makes sense differs from what is expected of me are relatively rare. Am I obligated to do more to subvert the system? It feels like I ought to be.

[Elvish Pillager]

Everyone has a gender.

Heya, what? I find the statement that I have a gender quite insulting. It's kind of like saying "Everyone has some spiritual beliefs" or "Everyone experiences love". I mean, granted, I intellectually know what sort of genitalia are dangling down there, and a lot of other people change their behavior based on my superficial appearance, but inside my head? My mind is purely analytic and creative - I don't have an identity, much less a gender identity, or any feelings about what my body should be.

Either that or maybe you're right and I'm just the one alien on a planet of humans. (This theory seems more and more plausible all the time.)

[poxic]

There is non-gendered, which I supposed is a type of gender. Sort of like how "milk" is a flavour of milk, as opposed to chocolate or strawberry-flavoured milk.

Or not. Definitions can be elusive.

[Jessica]

Because how I identity isn't my personality? The fact that I'm a woman has nothing to do with who I like to fuck or what is between my legs. And the fact that I'm a woman has nothing to do with whether I'm feminine or masculine. The fact that I recently read an article saying that being a woman was a personality trait really made me angry so I'm sorry about any harsh words but you're bringing up bad examples right now.

Also, there are many examples which show that one's gender expression develops independently of one's subconscious sex, or one's biological sex. Look at children at a very young age. Most children by the age of 5 or so start to segregate based on gender. But, there are some children who don't. A very small number of children express themselves differently, and in a manner which is consistent with the other group in general.

These children don't all grow up to be transsexuals either. Many grow up to be homosexual members of their sex. some grow up to be very cross gendered in how they express themselves, but are otherwise heterosexual and cisgendered. And some grow up to be trans.

Many studies on gender variant children have shown that there are around two major turning points for trans people. Around 3-6 and when puberty hits. the first one generally is about expression the second is about sexual traits.

So yeah. Gender expression/identity? Not a personality trait like being shy.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot about the agendered. I apologize.

[Elvish Pillager]

poxic: You mean like saying that "gender" is just an interpretation of the mind, and thus you always have one in the same way that "skin color" is an interpretation of the body and you always have one? Ugh - if you do it like that, then even an artificial intelligence would have a "gender".

In response to Elvish Pillager: That's a good point, and pretty much what I do already. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, places in which what makes sense differs from what is expected of me are relatively rare. Am I obligated to do more to subvert the system? It feels like I ought to be.

Good question. I'm not entirely sure what I would do if I didn't have a single way that makes it obvious I'm not gender-normative.

My first guess is that I would come up with some outward indication of that (e.g. as a man, the long hair or skirts or whatever). It would be impractical in some ways, but also practical because it serves as a signal to other people... I mean, I don't care when people judge me negatively for entirely stupid reasons, but I think it's valuable to avoid being perceived as another faceless man.

[Voco]

Because how I identity isn't my personality? The fact that I'm a woman has nothing to do with who I like to fuck or what is between my legs. And the fact that I'm a woman has nothing to do with whether I'm feminine or masculine. The fact that I recently read an article saying that being a woman was a personality trait really made me angry so I'm sorry about any harsh words but you're bringing up bad examples right now.

Then, forgive me for my ignorance, but what does it mean? If gender is not a classification of behaviors and preferences, nor is it biological like sex, then what is it? Or are you merely objecting to the word 'personality?' I am not trying to be offensive, but I really cannot think of what remains after biology and personality are eliminated.

[H.E.L.e.N.]

In my ideal world, and it wasn't my idea, people of any sex can pick and choose whatever bits of gender they like. Part of that reduces gender to fashion, but fashion is fun.

That sounds excellent, but if people are free to pick whichever bits of whichever gender they like, where is the usefulness of classifying these bits into "masculine" and "feminine?" Can't we just let people choose to behave, dress, and speak the way they like, and leave it at that?

We can invent new words, but we will still want words. Which is why I like "femme" a lot more than "feminine," for example, because it refers to gender as something that isn't linked to biological sex. (As far as I'm aware, the word started with butch/femme designations in lesbian subcultures -- where people ID'd their sex as female but gender as independent of that.)

"Masculine" and "feminine" aren't the only words we have for describing gender. I think there are a lot more than two options, and there will still *be* patterns, and we will want words to express those patterns. Description isn't harmful, when we have enough options to choose from.

[Voco]

In my ideal world, and it wasn't my idea, people of any sex can pick and choose whatever bits of gender they like. Part of that reduces gender to fashion, but fashion is fun.

That sounds excellent, but if people are free to pick whichever bits of whichever gender they like, where is the usefulness of classifying these bits into "masculine" and "feminine?" Can't we just let people choose to behave, dress, and speak the way they like, and leave it at that?

We can invent new words, but we will still want words. Which is why I like "femme" a lot more than "feminine," for example, because it refers to gender as something that isn't linked to biological sex. (As far as I'm aware, the word started with butch/femme designations in lesbian subcultures -- where people ID'd their sex as female but gender as independent of that.)

"Masculine" and "feminine" aren't the only words we have for describing gender. I think there are a lot more than two options, and there will still *be* patterns, and we will want words to express those patterns. Description isn't harmful, when we have enough options to choose from.

An excellent point. I suppose my desire would be to see "feminine" (ore "femme") become merely a style label like any other, with no greater societal implications than the labels "jaunty" or "nautical" do.

[Fat Zombie]

Says you. I view anyone labelled 'jaunty' with deep suspicion.

>_>

[Paranoid__Android]

Because how I identity isn't my personality? The fact that I'm a woman has nothing to do with who I like to fuck or what is between my legs. And the fact that I'm a woman has nothing to do with whether I'm feminine or masculine. The fact that I recently read an article saying that being a woman was a personality trait really made me angry so I'm sorry about any harsh words but you're bringing up bad examples right now.

I don't quite follow you, you said that you being a woman has nothing to do with your sex, but then you said that it wasn't a personality trait... forgive my ignorance but if it's not personality, what is it?

[Van]

I'll admit, I just got up so it's possible I might be reading this incorrect.

Having said that, it looks like this entire thread is nothing more than a giant middle finger to the transgendered. "Oh, you're not doing it right! If only society weren't so normative, you could be the proper girl/guy you were born as, and drop all this 'I should be a guy/girl' nonsense!"... or what have you, since it seems as if girl and guy wouldn't even be words in your vision of the language.

Essentially, I am saying what Jessica is saying, only less eloquently: if you want to get rid of gender, how do you account for people who know their assigned gender/sex combination does not match many, many years before they could actually explain it in words? If it's nothing but a social construct (which is, admittedly, pounded into our heads from the color of the clothes we wear home from the hospital), why does it [airquotes]go wrong[/airquotes] at times?

[Esperite]

Heres a quote from Osha which I think is a great analogy, and is a good backing tom describe how I feel:

I guess you could look at it like a lego block castle kit. You don't have to follow the design on the box exactly, if you at least keep it a castle it will be easier to keep stupid stuff at bay, but you don't have to, and you can add and remove blocks as you see fit.

I don't think that gender in itself is bad, it's kind of (like in the quote) like a set of instructions. Whether you use them or not is completely up to you, and alone they don't really do anything. I think that the barriers that people and society put up need to be removed though. Using the analogy, building a castle is fine. But what if your lego set was a racecar? You'll get alot of people who complain that you should have just made the racecar. Even if you had the castle directions, some people complain unless if conforms to your directions exactly, and some complain even if it doesn't exactly match the directions they have, regardless of what you have. That is what I would like to see gone. I would like people to see our metaphorical castles, racecars, and other designs in the same light, with none being 'right.' There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the instructions, it's all how people respond to them and try to pigieonhole everyone else into what they feel is right.

[Jessica]

What Van said.

Being a woman isn't a personality. I'm a woman. My mind, my thoughts, I'm a woman. No matter what my biology says, no matter how I act. In the same way that who you're attracted to isn't a personality. In the same way that being handed isn't a personality.

[Voco]

I'll admit, I just got up so it's possible I might be reading this incorrect.

Having said that, it looks like this entire thread is nothing more than a giant middle finger to the transgendered. "Oh, you're not doing it right! If only society weren't so normative, you could be the proper girl/guy you were born as, and drop all this 'I should be a guy/girl' nonsense!"... or what have you, since it seems as if girl and guy wouldn't even be words in your vision of the language.

This is certainly not meant as a middle finger to anyone. I do not mean that anyone should "be the proper" anything related to sex. That's the POINT. The idea that there is a "proper" way for people of a certain sex to behave--or even a suggested way--is exactly the problem. My argument is that everyone should be free to behave however they wish, to wear whatever they wish and to think however they wish. I have no idea how you got from wishing "if only society wasn't so normative" to wanting people to "Be a proper guy/girl" because those two sentiments are DIRECTLY OPPOSED to one another. Perhaps someone famous made an argument superficially similar to this one, and you are conflating the two? Because I cannot see how wishing that people not be forced to conform to a stereotype is compatible with wanting them to conform to those stereotypes.

Essentially, I am saying what Jessica is saying, only less eloquently: if you want to get rid of gender, how do you account for people who know their assigned gender/sex combination does not match many, many years before they could actually explain it in words? If it's nothing but a social construct (which is, admittedly, pounded into our heads from the color of the clothes we wear home from the hospital), why does it [airquotes]go wrong[/airquotes] at times?

The fact that it "goes wrong" points only to the fact that the system is a flawed one. Which is just another reason to abolish it.

[Paranoid__Android]

Could we use the really cheesy and overused phrase "Just be yourself" and get on with life?

[fjafjan]

Well I imagine an army of HIV infected Angelina Jolies would do one and lacing desperate housewives DVD's with anthrax would do the other.

Oh you meant the metaphysical thing?
Well maybe if everyone would stop makign declarativa statements of what gender is and isn't when it's clearly an incredibly subjective thing what you mean by gender it would probably help us get somewhere.

[Ivora]

I'd like to get rid of gender *roles,* but not gender.

(In my ideal world, and it wasn't my idea, people of any sex can pick and choose whatever bits of gender they like. Part of that reduces gender to fashion, but fashion is fun.)

I simply ADORE that idea! Fashion would be all the rage in this case!

Where on earth did you get it from?

[Xeio]

poxic: You mean like saying that "gender" is just an interpretation of the mind, and thus you always have one in the same way that "skin color" is an interpretation of the body and you always have one? Ugh - if you do it like that, then even an artificial intelligence would have a "gender".

If gender is entirely in the mind, then obviously an AI would have gender. Now, it wouldn't have a sex, but that's a whole nother affair.

[Voco]

Heres a quote from Osha which I think is a great analogy, and is a good backing tom describe how I feel:

I guess you could look at it like a lego block castle kit. You don't have to follow the design on the box exactly, if you at least keep it a castle it will be easier to keep stupid stuff at bay, but you don't have to, and you can add and remove blocks as you see fit.

I don't think that gender in itself is bad, it's kind of (like in the quote) like a set of instructions. Whether you use them or not is completely up to you, and alone they don't really do anything. I think that the barriers that people and society put up need to be removed though. Using the analogy, building a castle is fine. But what if your lego set was a racecar? You'll get alot of people who complain that you should have just made the racecar. Even if you had the castle directions, some people complain unless if conforms to your directions exactly, and some complain even if it doesn't exactly match the directions they have, regardless of what you have. That is what I would like to see gone. I would like people to see our metaphorical castles, racecars, and other designs in the same light, with none being 'right.' There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the instructions, it's all how people respond to them and try to pigieonhole everyone else into what they feel is right.

Exactly! Why must everything we build be evaluated on how castle-like or racecar-like it is? Why should we not be free to build whatever we like for ourselves without the constraints of catledom and racecardom? Your analogy highlights a lot of the problems with gender--people criticizing you for building the wrong thing, etc.--but I see no positives. What good do the instructions provide? Obviously in the case of Lego the provide the means for people who would otherwise not be very good at building things to make a high-quality product, but I don't think that portion of the analogy transfers; people are perfectly capable of being good people without the aid of a gender template. Instead, let's look at what effect the instructions do have.

Some people will not build what the instructions suggest. For them, the instructions have no effect, except some people will attack them for failing to follow the instructions.
Some people will build what the instructions suggest, and would have done so anyway. For them, the instructions have no effect, as they would have built the same thing anyway.
Some people will build what the instructions suggest, but would have built something else otherwise. For them, the instructions have a detrimental effect, as they have restricted the creativity and expression of the builder. Well, unless we posit that what the instructions suggest is better than what they would have built on their own, which I do not think we want to do.

What Van said.

Being a woman isn't a personality. I'm a woman. My mind, my thoughts, I'm a woman. No matter what my biology says, no matter how I act. In the same way that who you're attracted to isn't a personality. In the same way that being handed isn't a personality.

But being 'handed' is different because in that case there clearly are two opposing extremes, and an easy scale between them. Either you're better with you left hand, equally good with both hands, or better with your right hand. There are no other hands or alternative methods of evaluation, and the basis for comparison is completely within the individual. Such is not the case with gender. Gender is based on the population as a whole, not the individual alone, and is based on comparison to archetypes entirely exterior to the individual. If one person lived in total isolation, that person could easily determine handedness, but certainly could not determine gender.

Furthermore, how do we account of differences in gender expectations? What is 'womanly' in one place is not necessarily the same as what is considered 'womanly' in another--if these categorizations are not socially constructed, why would they differ across cultures?

Well I imagine an army of HIV infected Angelina Jolies would do one and lacing desperate housewives DVD's with anthrax would do the other.

I have no idea what that means.

If gender is entirely in the mind, then obviously an AI would have gender. Now, it wouldn't have a sex, but that's a whole nother affair.

Which highlights the irrationality of the concept, doesn't it?

[Sir_Elderberry]

I have no idea what that means.

That, if there were an army of HIV-positive Angelina Jolie replicas, all males would die. Presumably from an onslaught of AIDS, although that isn't explicit. Also, that if Desperate Housewives DVDs were laced with anthrax, all females would die, as they buy these DVDs with enough frequency to infect themselves with the highly lethal anthrax virus.

It should be noted that anthrax is survivable with modern medical care, and, with retrovirals, HIV need not develop into AIDS. These would, therefore, be poor techniques for gendercide.

[Elvish Pillager]

But being 'handed' is different because in that case there clearly are two opposing extremes, and an easy scale between them. Either you're better with you left hand, equally good with both hands, or better with your right hand. There are no other hands or alternative methods of evaluation, and the basis for comparison is completely within the individual.

It's not as simple as you say. For instance, I'm much better at writing and stirring food with my right hand, but for large-scale gestures, I'm equally skilled with both hands. There's also a few things that I'm better at with my left hand.

I've heard of research that suggests that handedness is learned, too. Can't cite you anything, but it makes the parallel to gender that much more interesting and/or confusing.

Well I imagine an army of HIV infected Angelina Jolies would do one and lacing desperate housewives DVD's with anthrax would do the other.

I have no idea what that means.

It's just a terrible sexist (genderist?) joke. Pay it no mind.

[Van]

This is certainly not meant as a middle finger to anyone.
[...]
The fact that it "goes wrong" points only to the fact that the system is a flawed one. Which is just another reason to abolish it.

Okay, I don't think I got my point across, so let me try again. I'm afraid I'm going to have to venture into anecdote land to do this, but ah well. Specifically, I'm responding to this part of your views:

To Jessica: I agree that people have a biological sex and a sexual orientation, but I see no reason that what you classify as "gender identity" should be separate from mere "personality." Yes, it is possible to classify people's personalities based on which of two archetypes they most closely approximate, but I do not believe this classification to be helpful. I do not believe that two ideals--ideals based on centuries of ignorance, bigotry and oppression--should define every human who has ever lived.

On the day I was born, I went home in a blue blanket*. I grew up sheltered, cut off, alone. We largely lived overseas, in areas where there were no children in the vicinity of my age group to be found. My mom was not particularly feminine, nor did she overly encourage any aspects of gender expression, so by-and-large, I grew up doing what I wanted. Which happened to be reading adult sci-fi novels, playing with legos, and sometimes pretending to be a spy. Despite the absence of things to prompt it, I was critically aware that something was wrong before I turned 5. In the 19 years since, I've actually developed the personality which you mentioned, which while having been built on the foundation of who I was at that age, is pretty much unlike it in all other ways. I've demonstrated the ability to switch my personality through sheer force of will (I used to be a huge bitch. pretty much all of the time. Now I'm cheerful, possibly even nice). My personality is malleable, and completely different than it was 'back in the day', except for one thing which is still exactly the same as it was back then, despite extreme efforts to change it over a several year span. I'm assuming you can guess what I'm refering to.

tl;dr: Gender being intrinsic is, essentially, one of the things that trans-people believe very strongly in. We've experienced it. You may not be intending to flip us off, and in truth, your idea is actually very "open" and accepting, but in the progress of trying to prove your ideas, you end up plowing over us anyway.

*technically I have no idea what color it was, but work with the metaphor, would you?!

[RandomString]

Gender identity is not something that is malleable and within your own control. It's more like how each day when you wake up, there are certain things you know. Most people know their age, know who their parents are, know what their natural hair color is, but they don't have any control over these.

This might get me yelled at by some of my fellow trans-people, but for me, the best way to define gender identity is not based on feminine or masculine personality characteristics. Rather, I think of gender identity as being the brain's idea of what your body should look like. So the fact that my brain thinks I'm supposed to have a vagina and breasts is completely different from the fact that I'm sort of a tomboy. It's not that I'm more of a girl personality wise, and that the binary system is making me want to fit in. I know plenty of guys who are much more feminine in personality than I am, but identify as male. Just as I know a couple girls who are more masculine in personality than I am, but identify as female.

As far as the "goes wrong" thing, that's not part of the binary ideal system. That's just biology. There are structural differences between male and female brains. They're thought to be caused by hormones. There are several genetic conditions that affect how hormones are created or interpreted that strongly support this idea. So it's not the description system that's going wrong, it's likely a hormone imbalance that could be influenced by all sorts of things: mother's age, mother's stress, mother's diet, mother's genes, child's genes, etc...

"Gender identity" should very much be separate from "personality." Personality, on the whole (there are probably some exceptions), doesn't define things like whether you like or dislike your genitals. This argument seems to me to be based on semantics issues, not necessarily a complete disagreement of ideas. As someone mentioned above, perhaps each person defining what sex, gender, personality and sexual orientation mean to them would be very help.

Sex: Physical attributes. Genitals, etc...
Gender: What your brain thinks your sex is.
Personality: How you respond to events.
Sexual Orientation: Whether you like dudes, ladies, or you don't really care.

All of these could be a little more complicated, but I think they give a "good-enough" understanding of what I think.

[Voco]

I think I understand now why you might be offended by the suggestion that gender is an external classification, but I would also like to point out that others might find the opposite suggestion equally abhorrent. Gender Identity plays no part in my conception of who I am as a person, and I feel no more attachment to my particular set of genitals than to my arms or my nose. They are body parts like any other, and the functions they provide, while certainly positive, are no more tied to my identity than those of my limbs. I understand that some people feel differently, but certainly the suggestion that gender is universal goes against my experience as completely as the suggestion that it is fictitious goes against yours. Whatever the case, though, while the initial choice of words might have been poor, I meant to refer to something else. The problem, once again, has come from a difference of definition. Let's correct that.

Sex: Physical attributes. Genitals, etc...
Gender: What your brain thinks your sex is.
Personality: How you respond to events.
Sexual Orientation: Whether you like dudes, ladies, or you don't really care.

All of these could be a little more complicated, but I think they give a "good-enough" understanding of what I think.

The only problem with this set of definitions is that it excludes the very issue about which this thread is focused: The institution of gender. Masculinity and femininity are very real, very powerful concepts, and I would suggest that they are also destructive ones. It is this which I would like to see destroyed. I believe wholeheartedly that individuals should be able to define themselves however they please: if, for some, this includes an attachment to particular body parts, so be it. It is instead the application of stereotypes onto individuals that is the problem. I will reassert what I stated in the opening: gender ought to be irrelevant. Weather real or imagined, intrinsic or societally imposed, it ought not to matter one whit to anyone except the individual in question.

Here is what I really mean: if gender has no connection to preference, physiology or behavior, then it should be utterly impossible to determine someone's gender unless they tell you, and no one should be trying. There ought to be no stereotypes related to gender, no divisions and no restrictions. We ought never to mention it except perhaps in history books and psychology journals, and it should certainly play no part in our daily lives. The archetypes of masculinity and femininity have no relation to gender as you describe it, but are the foundation of the societal institution of gender. It is this institution that is abhorrent and that we should be working to destroy. I tried to explain what I meant in the opening post, but clearly failed. Hopefully now that we have had time to clarify our terms, we can agree that the institution of gender can indeed be destroyed, while individuals can remain free to define themselves however they wish. Indeed, of institutional gender as a facet of society were eliminated, surely many of the secondary hardships (discrimination, etc.) faced by transgendered individuals would be greatly reduced. Obviously only medical science can address the body image dissonance they face, but without the pressure of society to conform to a particular archetype there would be far fewer additional problems and pressures.

[modularblues]

Here is what I really mean: if gender has no connection to preference, physiology or behavior, then it should be utterly impossible to determine someone's gender unless they tell you, and no one should be trying. There ought to be no stereotypes related to gender, no divisions and no restrictions.

If we were all like earthworms who are hermaphrodite but still engage in sexual reproduction in order to maintain genetic diversity -- which would also enable everyone to choose whether to function as a male or female in the said reproductive act, because everyone has both male and female sexual organs. The fact that only one gender can get pregnant right now is an inherent asymmetry that is the root of all gender inequality since time immemorial.

[RandomString]

This is all in response to Voco:

I was tempted to say that I figured most of this was a semantics issue in my post, but didn't want to be to presumptuous. I don't think the ideas line up perfectly, but it seems I was pretty much correct in thinking it was a semantics issue.

I'm not sure that gender (I'll be referring to your definition for this post) has no connection to preference, physiology or behavior. There is a strong correlation between your chromosomes and whether or not you have a desire to have smooth legs. I suppose that's not the best example, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. If not, I'd be glad to try to clarify it for you.

However, this correlation is not a binary set up. You are very correct in the presumption that nobody perfectly follows stereotypes. Stereotypes often have an element of truth to them (thus the whole correlation thing), but are pretty much never completely correct. And I agree, people shouldn't care whether you act masculine or feminine. All it tends to create is hate and destruction. But here's the deal, people like labels. That's how we understand the world. I don't think it's a matter of the concepts being destroyed, but rather just not placing the same importance on them. So "Oh he's just a feminine guy." is fine, and "Being a feminine guy isn't good." is not.

As far as the whole attachment to particular body parts, I believe my definition allows for not having any attachment. In general most people have a preference one way or the other. But just like everything else it's not binary. Some people may have no preference (thus no attachment), and some people may not. There are plenty of different shades of gray.

I think the primary problem is, that society thinks of gender, sexuality and anything that tends to correlate with them as binary. Either XX or XY. And thus these archetypes or masculinity or femininity (which is a crazy word, no? inini) are not used as descriptors, but ideals. Like I said before, I think it's perfectly fine to describe someone in terms of masculinity or femininity (though I think a one dimensional scale is lacking). Most scales need two dimensions to them. Like sexual orientation I think should be at least two dimensional, with male vs. female (anatomy) preference as one, and sexual interest being another. A third dimension of personality preference might also be add: femininity vs. masculinity.

"then it should be utterly impossible to determine someone's gender unless they tell you" and "but without the pressure of society to conform to a particular archetype there would be far fewer additional problems and pressures" don't seem to mesh perfectly. Are you trying to say that there shouldn't be that pressure, or that we should just completely do-in masculine and feminine as descriptors?

[Voco]

"then it should be utterly impossible to determine someone's gender unless they tell you" and "but without the pressure of society to conform to a particular archetype there would be far fewer additional problems and pressures" don't seem to mesh perfectly. Are you trying to say that there shouldn't be that pressure, or that we should just completely do-in masculine and feminine as descriptors?

I don't see how it those two statements fail to 'mesh.' If it were impossible to determine anyone's gender, there would not be any pressure on transgendered individuals. If, more broadly, our society did not attach certain expectations and stereotypes to each gender, there would be no pressure on anyone--transgendered or otherwise--to conform to said stereotypes.

I'm not sure that gender (I'll be referring to your definition for this post) has no connection to preference, physiology or behavior. There is a strong correlation between your chromosomes and whether or not you have a desire to have smooth legs. I suppose that's not the best example, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. If not, I'd be glad to try to clarify it for you.

Being a woman isn't a personality. I'm a woman. My mind, my thoughts, I'm a woman. No matter what my biology says, no matter how I act

I was accepting this definition of gender, here. If gender is unrelated to behavior, personality and biology, then surely it should be impossible to determine it from any of those things. What you describe in your post--chromosomes--are an expression of sex, not gender. It's true that some trends will develop along the lines of sex, and I suggested as much in the opening post. I readily accepted, as an example, that clothing styles will continue to differ along the lines of sex. The same might be true of any number of things. Trends may indeed develop along the lines of sex, but is the identification and codification of these trends useful? I'd argue that it is not. How helpful is it to take an otherwise unrelated collection of behaviors and preferences that each happen to be more prevalent among members of one sex than the other, and put them together into an archetype for that sex? It may indeed be a statistically accurate archetype, but what positive purpose does it have?

It's true that people like labels, but that does not mean they are always helpful or positive. Are racial stereotypes and labels useful? We could as easily find a collection of attributes more common among people of a certain race than people of a certain sex, after all--but that doesn't mean we should. We do, as you say, understand the world through categorization--that's precisely why it is so important that we do away with detrimental categories. Labels have a tremendous impact on he way in which we view the world, and that impact is not always a positive one.

I don't think the problem is that the scale is binary. Surely gender stereotypes would be just as harmful if we had three categories instead of two--again, see race for an example of non-binary unhelpful categorization. The problem isn't that there isn't a sex-linked stereotype for everyone, it's that there is a stereotype at all.

[RandomString]

Okay, I think I finally got you to explain yourself to a level satisfactory to me. Here's the result:

I mostly agree.

Though I'm not sure I quite get the whole impossible to determine anyone's gender deal, unless you're suggesting that you could describe a person's gender, but not in the form of male/female. But that's a relatively trivial matter in the scheme of things.

[DJorgensen]

Well, I didn't read much of the thread, but I have an answer.

The only way to destroy 'gender' is to eliminate all males. Then you have no worries about 'gender', and all people are XX.
Then you reproduce by cloning.

That's about it.
Leaving males complicates matters as both sexes have genetic material, but only females have eggs.

Even still you're not eliminating roles of individuals, but when there are no more males it is rather impossible to compare 'gender' roles. You simply get to do what you really want - assuming there is not any social stigmas against it that you do not wish to go against.

[Chicostick]

Destroying Gender itself is not the problem. Destroying preconceived and stereotypical gender roles would be more along the lines of what you are talking about.

You can't destroy "gender." However, I feel like the current more strict sense of gender roles is starting to become obsolete, especially with the advancement of transgendered people. Calling someone a "he/she" or other things just doesn't really make sense, as it is trying to place them within groups that they don't exactly fit into. Gender "roles" behaves more like a spectrum, with individuals placed somewhere on that spectrum. Unfortunately, there aren't names for every point on the spectrum, just the end points. It's sort of like "gay, straight, or bisexual." Most people place somewhere in between all these things, but can't really accurately describe it because there just isn't a name.

Destroying Genders itself would be impossible. That's akin to destroying all races to eliminate racism. The problem isn't the thing, it's people's thoughts and reactions on the thing.

As for how we fix that, well... that's a question I don't have an answer too. But no matter how you look at it, there's no simple easy solution. There is no shortcut to ending discrimination. All we can do is recognize it when it is happening and try to dissuade it as politely as possible. Reacting with anger and hatred won't get people anywhere. For example, feminists who object to things like baking simply because often times it is associated with gender roles have the wrong idea. We should just accept all people as exactly who they are and do what we wish with who we want ourselves to be (side note, holy crap that is seven words starting with the letter w in a row! That's some alliteration!). If people try and force others into anything, even if it is forcing them to stop discrimination, it is still going against the idea that they themselves had.

I doubt this sort of thing will ever go away though. It is ingrained into us. It is such a fundamental part of our entire society that rethinking it will be nigh impossible, especially because basic biological ques reinforce it through sexual attraction and the like. This issue is a toughy...

Actually, on that note, would it be better to put this into SB? Cause it's definitely some SB

[Voco]

Actually, on that note, would it be better to put this into SB? Cause it's definitely some SB

Maybe, but I don't think I'm qualified to participate there.

[Xeio]

The only way to destroy 'gender' is to eliminate all males. ... Then you reproduce by cloning.

...

Leaving males complicates matters as both sexes have genetic material, but only females have eggs.

What does who has what genetic material matter if you can clone anyway...?

[Shivahn]

The only way to destroy 'gender' is to eliminate all males. ... Then you reproduce by cloning.

...

Leaving males complicates matters as both sexes have genetic material, but only females have eggs.

What does who has what genetic material matter if you can clone anyway...?

Cloning uses eggs, and I'm not sure if we can make eggs from men yet.

Either way, you'd be destroying a sex. But that wouldn't really touch gender under any definition other than as a social construct.

[fjafjan]

Well I imagine an army of HIV infected Angelina Jolies would do one and lacing desperate housewives DVD's with anthrax would do the other.

I have no idea what that means.

It's just a terrible sexist (genderist?) joke. Pay it no mind.

Actually it was satire making fun of sexism, but okay.