Gender Abolitionism is Inherently Transphobic

← Back to all essays | Author's essays Gender Abolitionism is Inherently Transphobic

by Annamarx
Published: 2024-08-17 (last update: 2024-08-17)
60-95 minutes

I've been noticing a trend with certain comrades, where said comrades (particularly whom are cisgender) are supportive of transgender people, yet their analysis of the woman question didn't change much from the 1960s.

Understanding the Roots of Gender Abolitionism

Gender Abolitionism, like many other ideologies, has not came from nowhere. To understand Gender Abolitionism, it's more important to understand its roots so that we can understand what it advocates for. In fact, some people in this section may not describe themselves as Gender Abolitionists, either because the term did not exist at that time, or because they were advocating for a different ideology. However it's important to see how it comes to fruition.

With that point, let's start with Friedrich Engels, a Marxist who in circa 1884 wrote the "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State". This book was revolutionary as it shows the roots of private property, family, state, and oppression as a whole. However what this book states is not perfect, and it is most definitely outdated today. I bring this book up, precisely because most Marxists don't change their views on Feminism, and cling to the book dogmatically.

Engels, being a man of his time, clearly views gender and sex as being synonymous with one another. There is no doubt nor need to fact check this. In his book, he denotes that there had always been a natural division of labour between a man and a woman.

To procure the necessities of life had always been the business of the man; he produced and owned the means of doing so.^[1]

This sentence may lead to an overly mechanistic overview of how oppression had existed in the first place. Engels was the very first marxist to state that the sexual division of labour was the first form of oppression. In other words, 'biological sex' is the cause of women's oppression. Reading on, it shows that it is the case:

All the surplus which the acquisition of the necessities of life now yielded fell to the man; the woman shared in its enjoyment, but had no part in its ownership... The division of labor within the family had regulated the division of property between the man and the woman. That division of labor had remained the same; and yet it now turned the previous domestic relation upside down, simply because the division of labor outside the family had changed. The same cause which had ensured to the woman her previous supremacy in the house – that her activity was confined to domestic labor – this same cause now ensured the man's supremacy in the house: the domestic labor of the woman no longer counted beside the acquisition of the necessities of life by the man; the latter was everything, the former an unimportant extra.^[1]

So Engels believed that this division of labour in the first place was oppression, even if he did not say so. It is clear we can pinpoint our first view of gender abolitionism. And consequently, we can say how revisionists can argue for feminism, by simply citing Engels instead of doing their own work in anthropology.

Another thing of interest to note that in an earlier section, Engels noted that if women went into the workplace, the oppression in a proletarian household would be gone,

And now that large-scale industry has taken the wife out of the home onto the labor market and into the factory, and made her often the bread-winner of the family, no basis for any kind of male supremacy is left in the proletarian household – except, perhaps, for something of the brutality towards women that has spread since the introduction of monogamy.^[2]

This is simply untrue. Women nowadays are doubly exploited under capitalism, both for their reproductive and their productive labour. Putting women into the workplace, allowing them to partake in STEM projects and embrace gender equality, does not rule out reproductive labour. Engels is stating that women's oppression disappears if the woman goes to work. We have seen women working, however, and this form of the work-day means they are exploited in the sense of domestic labour, and performing labour at their workplace.

So now one might think: Why is it bad that Engels states the cause of women's oppression is biological sex? Well the truth of the matter is, Engels and Marx still remain foundational that the cause of women's oppression is class, not the sexual division of labour. Despite of this notion, there are marxists and radical feminists who argue that biological sex is the primary contradiction of women's oppression.

Let's consider the Radical Feminist side. Radical Feminism, a product of removing class from feminism and being an essential part of the New Left. In one case let's look to 1970, where Kate Millet, a Radical Feminist who wrote a book titled 'Sexual Politics', could be officially considered one of the first gender abolitionists. An Indian Maoist Anuradha Ghandy who wrote on the situation in the US New Left stated:

Here [Kate Millet] made the claim that the personal was political, which became a popular slogan of the feminist movement. By the personal is political what she meant was that the discontent individual women feel in their lives is not due to individual failings but due to the social system, which has kept women in subordination and oppresses her in so many ways. Her personal feelings are therefore political.
In fact she reversed the historical materialist understanding by asserting that the male female relationship is a framework for all power relationships in society. According to her, this ”social caste” (dominant men and subordinated women) supersedes all other forms of inequality, whether racial, political or economic. This is the primary human situation. These other systems of oppression will continue because they get both logical and emotional legitimacy from oppression in this primary situation. Patriarchy according to her was male control over the private and public world. According to her to eliminate patriarchy men and women must eliminate gender, i.e. sexual status, role and temperament, as they have been constructed under patriarchy.^[3]

Ghandy also talked about Shulamith Firestone, another radical feminist who made the book known as the "Dialectics of Sex".

Firestone focused on reproduction instead of production as the moving force of history. Further, instead of identifying social causes for women’s condition she stressed biological reasons for her condition and made it the moving force in history. She felt that the biological fact that women bear children is the material basis for women’s submission in society and it needs a biological and social revolution to effect human liberation. She too was of the opinion that the sex/gender difference needs to be eliminated and human beings must be androgynous. But she went further than Kate Millett in the solution she advocated to end women’s oppression. She was of the opinion that unless women give up their reproductive role and no longer bear children and the basis of the existing family is changed it is not possible to completely liberate women.^[3]

It's interesting how someone like Firestone believes that women must stop bearing children in order to liberate women. We can see how these Radical Feminists can and do plague movements. Even if they don't affect Marxists, the fact Marxists can link with Radical Feminism at all in regards to the cause being biological sex is concerning.

Nowadays, trotskyist groups like the Revolutionary Communist International (RCI, formerly known as the International Marxist Tendency) state a question in their articles such as: "[W]hat is the point of denying the existence of the male and female sex, with all their anatomic and biological differences?",^[4] alongside with their trotskyite nonsense which includes thing such as blaming anti-LGBT notions on "Stalinism".

The Ideology of Gender Abolitionism

Finally, we understand the initial roots of Gender Abolitionism. That being the idea has its roots out of biological essentialism (also known as biological determinism). Marxists may argue that women's oppression comes from class, but they may also argue about the biological standpoints (or the sexual dimorphism) in regards to the division of genders, in the same way as Radical Feminists do, thus making them no different from Radical Feminists.

In other words, to view the eyes of Gender Abolitionists: Sex and Gender are synonymous; the primary social contradiction of women's oppression is biological sex, not class; therefore to truly liberate women, abolition of gender is a necessary goal. However this presents an issue. What happens when we abolish gender? Does this mean that everyone must be androgynous? Perhaps lacking any gender whatsoever? Does this mean that sexual differences can be eliminated by utilising some form of transhumanist philosophy?

It is truly a bizarre thing to see, where people argue about the sexual division of labour. To see more of this nonsensical worldview, we should consider the concepts of gender abolitionism in more details, and perhaps understanding the "postmodernist" terms too.

Are sex and gender synonymous?

To consider this question would mean that a man and woman are themselves defined by whatever standard. So the next question becomes: What does it mean to be a man and a woman?

We have these conceptions of a man or a woman yet we don't exactly know what they are. We could surely define it from the standpoint of those with the ability to reproduce. This would mean that men are those with a penis, and women are those with a vagina. That should be it, right? However defining men and women from the standpoint of reproduction would exclude intersex people. Intersex people are often assigned a particular gender in the modern day, and intersex people don't necessarily have either genitalia at birth. Even if they do have presenting genitalia, their chromosomes may be different, and we cannot currently change sex chromosomes. So if their reproduction capability should take precedent, we can't have a proper definition of a man and woman without excluding intersex people. The goal posts then shift and another question is brought to me, considering I mentioned sex chromosomes. What about combining common characteristics, such as hormones, sex chromosomes and genitalia? That would be better but it would mean that transgender people wouldn't fit either that's due to their transitioning through means of hormones or surgery. Some cis people wouldn't fit either, as some cis people have the opposite sex chromosomes of their assigned birth.

We can't define sex in the manner which society does nowadays. Most of the so-called "marxists" consider sex, only in the fact they consider the majority, in other words by excluding trans and intersex people. Leslie Feinberg, a person who made the book "Transgender Warriors", had a conversation with an indigenous person of that societies had more than 2 genders:

Chrystos, a brilliant Two-Spirit poet and writer from the Menominee nation, offered me this understanding:"Life among First Nation people,before first contact, is hard to reconstruct. There's been so much abuse of traditional life by the Christian Church. But certain things have filtered down to us. Most of the nations that I know of traditionally had more than two genders. It varies from tribe to tribe. The concept of Two-Spiritedness is a rather rough translation into English of that idea. I think the English language is rigid, and the thought patterns that form it are rigid, so that gender also becomes rigid.
"The whole concept of gender is more fluid in traditional life. Those paths are not necessarily aligned with your sex, although they may be. People might choose their gender according to their dreams, for example. So even the idea that your gender is something you dream about is not even a concept in Western culture—which posits you are born a certain biological sex and therefore there's a role you must step into and follow pretty rigidly for the rest of your life. That's how we got the concept of queer. Anyone who doesn't follow their assigned gender role is queer; all kinds of people are lumped together under that word."^[5]

It's clear that in pre-class societies, there was a conception of more than 2 genders. If people in pre-class societies could abstract gender from sex, we can as well. Therefore we can dismiss the concept that sex and gender are synonyms, refuting one point of the Radical Feminist talking points. It also means we cannot exclude trans or intersex people nor talk about a gendered division of labour as if its a given or a rigorous and strictly-defined entity.

Does there exist a Gender Identity?

Marxists seem to struggle with the concept of a gender identity. In fact, they call it idealist, because it states that social consciousness precedes reality! Or so the marxists who do not have any idea about the self.

The self, identity, personality, whatever we may call it, is an essential aspect to the human person. It is not individualist to try and analyse the self, it is only individualist if it is prioritised over the needs of the collective. Note that collective here means the collective of all peoples, including trans and intersex people. In other words, to liberate the self, we must first liberate the collective.

Our identity is material, it is conditioned within our society, and based on our means of subsistence. Then comes Gender Identity. When we argue that Gender Identity is itself a part or an aspect of identity, we are suddenly called "unmarxist", because gender is a social construct. A construct. As Marxists, we wish to deconstruct. We don't believe that things exist for the sake of existing. Capitalism exists not because it is human nature, but because it developed at such a point that capital became the dominant form of society. So gender, must be deconstructed as well, if we wish to rid of gender. The act of calling gender a social construct is the crucial act of the gender abolitionists. To put it plainly, everything about gender is fake. Nothing about gender is real, it's just as made up as sex is. Therefore gender identity is not real either, and if you argue it's real, you are an idealist!

We can certainly agree that sex is socially constructed, and therefore we wish to abolish the current model of sex, but is gender a social construct as well? Calling gender a 'social construct' would only harm trans people. It harms trans people by stating their existence, the way they portray themselves is nothing more than just them having body dysmorphia. Yet this rhetoric is popular all the time. All the time on subreddits such as r/MtF I see the term all the time that gender is socially constructed.

If gender is socially constructed, why had gender existed before the form of any oppression? Why construct something that wouldn't be used for anything other than oppression? But then they argue that "Gender has been oppressed since the sexual division of labour!" which we already can dismiss since I addressed it earlier.

I think it is time us trans people dismiss the term 'social construct' for gender and instead call it a social phenomenon. It hit me when I realised it hurt another trans person when I tried to educate them about how it feels to be a particular gender. I stated it is a social construct, and their eventual response was "I just want to keep the idea of always being a girl, as I was finally accepted as one. I feel like now my feelings aren't valid". It was clear that I was not correct at the time. Some may state, "sure it may be a social construct, but your feelings aren't". As if that eliminates the problem of it being called a social construct. Suddenly, I feel like I'm not a woman anymore, because it is made up. My feelings still exist, but I cannot say why they exist. Saying that I am a binary trans woman makes it better for me, than just saying I am a particular person. It is reducing their identity when you eliminate their gender identity.

Does the Queer Identity come from Oppression?

I expand from a trans to a queer identity solely because this issue applies to queer people as well. The thought of Gender Abolitionism, and how gender is a 'social construct', means that if gender identity is a social construct, so is sexual or gender orientation, meaning many LGB people are affected by this too. For queer trans people it's even worse, they're not gonna be a transbian (transgender lesbian), or gay trans person, they won't be gay nor trans anymore, because those terms that exist form out of the basis of oppression!

In other words, the existence of these labels, gay, bisexual, trans, pansexual, asexual, aromantic, these labels don't exist anymore in our future society, supposedly. One gender abolitionist stated a woman is: "that which is not a man and is oppressed by a man, and only exists in relation to the man." I responded: "Are non-binary people women too?" The existence of non-binary people merely makes their definition worthless, regardless of what dialectic they could make up. We can argue either: non-binary are oppressed, therefore they are women, or they are not oppressed, therefore they are men. Either side lands in a direct contradiction because non-binary people are neither man nor woman.

Then the goalposts shift, now instead of a woman, it's a non-man. So now non-binary people are included, right? Then the question becomes "what about trans men? or non-binary people who present masculine?" Are they oppressors? Do they want to be oppressors? What about genderfluid people? They want to be masculine or feminine or neither! Just because the goalposts shift doesn't mean we can't see this is a flawed argument.

Man, Woman, Non-Binary, Agender, etc. are not defined by their oppression, but rather through gender being a social phenomenon, as I stated earlier. We can state that gender, by itself, is not inherently oppressive.

We can dig into this further. Maybe this gender abolitionist (by intention or not) would put trans men or masculine non-binary people into the non-man category. In that case, they would be transphobic, because trans men are clearly not "non-man". It is a direct contradiction, despite their 'good fortune' of trying to make trans men appear to be oppressed.

Imagining the Future of No Gender

Let's ignore our arguments and just assume, for some reason, that gender abolition is a logical position. In that case, we will try to be as beneficial to these gender abolitionists, we will assume that gender sublates, not necessarily abolishes (although that is a direct contradiction to the label "Gender Abolitionist") and future in time gender ceases to exist. Let's say I, a trans woman who is no longer, now belong in this time period.

We don't need to know the background (although it would be in a "communist society"), and we can assume that technology had developed at such a point where sex abolition is done (there is no difference between surgical and "naturally born" genitalia). Even with this in mind, there comes the question: "What about my dysphoria?" I have changed my penis to a vagina, I can now be a woman. Oh wait, I cannot because the term "woman" doesn't exist anymore. Neither does the term "male", or "AMAB", since these terms don't need to exist. Okay, I haven't heard these terms before (or I may have in history and think it's stupid that humanity must've been using gender) and that means I'm okay since my identity is still there. However I still yearn to express myself. What can I express myself as a person? Just a person? A person with a vagina? That would be fine in academic contexts, but not when people are directly communicating with each other. What do I express myself in a society where, I have estrogen in my body, I have a vagina, and my body is shaped in a way that is... feminine? That's where the issue lies.

Dysphoria is biological, but it is also social too. Dysphoria exists as we trans people are born with it, we are born with levels of discomfort with our bodies. In that case, it wouldn't be "dysphoria" but body dysmorphia instead. Trans people are now merged with cis people (note that trans and cis don't exist as terms since they both refer to gender), and we don't have anything unique about us. We have nothing unique because we cannot converse about how our dysphoria is different from body dysmorphia. Neither is euphoria, which I argue first is that what makes people transgender, since our euphoria, our enjoyment and contentment for our identities, is locked away. Leslie Feinberg describes this feeling better.

"No wonder you've passed as a man! This is such an anti-woman society," a lesbian friend told me. To her, females passing as males are simply trying to escape women's oppression—period. She believes that once true equality is achieved in society, humankind will be genderless. I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't predict human behavior in a distant future. But I know what she's thinking—if we can build a more just society, people like me will cease to exist. She assumes that I am simply a product of oppression. Gee, thanks so much.^[5]

Thanks so much indeed. Our euphoria, our desire to be trans is what our identity is based on. Being trans is often treated as a cause for concern, especially by cis people, and even within our own community, but we trans people must realise, that us being trans is not a cause for concern, it is not something we wish to avoid. It is something we strive and want to strive for. We should be proud of being transgender, we do not need to look cis. Think of it another way: if I was born cis, I wouldn't be trans, I would lose a part of myself, and I would not be myself anymore.

Gender Roles and Passing is the Product of Oppression, not Gender

Gender is often misattributed to what we call "Gender Roles". Gender Roles, which stem from Gender (supposedly), is the product of gender itself, to which we should abolish along with gender roles. This line of thinking is overly simplistic. First of all, if gender created gender roles, would class oppression not be the foundation of the world's issues, thus making us a part of the radical feminist and liberal camp? Secondly, if gender roles did stem from gender, why do trans people need to exist? The existence of trans people innately demolishes gender roles, because it no longer has a rigid layer, therefore there can be no role attached with gender. Not all trans people want to be part of the opposite binary, after all.

But then there comes a certain topic which relates to gender roles, Passing. Passing is what we humans perceive as being cis, if a trans person can easily look the part of a woman or man and their desired gender. This is where the real oppression lies.

Trans people have always existed, and the existence of the rigidness of the gender binary has not always existed. The rigidness stems from slave society, from class struggle. Even in the bible we can pinpoint examples of transphobia:

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.^[6]
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.^[7]

The rigidness comes at a point where it exists: Passing. A man and a woman have now defined roles, no longer as they are peasants, they are now factory workers with defined roles. Woman works the spindle, the sewing machine, and the man works with metallurgy, while children work the chimney. This meant that trans people were, more or less nonexistent (from the perception of cis people) during this time for many people. The need to pass, became more and more of a priority since with each mode of production, the level of oppression succeeded the last, the level of oppression became greater and greater.

I am not the first nor most likely the last to state that passing is a production of oppression rather than gender. Leslie Feinberg argues the same, arguing that passing is what leads to trans oppression, not gender:

I have lived as a man because I could not survive openly as a transgendered person. Yes, I am oppressed in this society, but I am not merely a product of oppression. That is a phrase that renders all our trans identities meaningless. Passing means having to hide your identity in fear, in order to live. Being forced to pass is a recent historical development.
It is passing that is a product of oppression.^[5]

Gender abolitionists ignore the aspect of passing, how one trans person needs to pass in order to not be actively oppressed. Their oppression still exists if they successfully pass, because if they do not belong to the roles of their gender, they will not pass. If this "passing" thing is abolished, along the concept of gender roles withering away, trans people can finally fluorish as to what they want to be. In other words, trans oppression ceases to exist when passing no longer becomes an issue. This may also fix cis people too.

Trans Men are an Enigma to Gender Abolitionists

If we consider gender abolitionism to be true, the question becomes how do trans men fit into this?

We can both agree that trans people are oppressed under capitalist society, but does that mean trans men are well? Gender abolitionists just fail to consider the other side of the equation, where there exists trans men who wish to be men. That means for the gender abolitionists, they state the following things:

Trans men are oppressed, because their sex is a woman
Trans men are not oppressed because they belong to the patriarchy
Trans men are just women who want to escape oppression

The first argument is transphobic, no question. It may be true they were assigned female at birth, it doesn't mean their genitalia are considered to match the typical vagina. Some may be intersex, for example. Secondly, this stems from the issue of passing. Some trans men do not pass, at all. Though passing may be less of an issue compared to trans women, trans men will be oppressed. And even if trans men do pass, they still aren't necessarily oppressing women, because they are oppressed by the patriarchy, not because they are women, but because they are trans. Third argument falls into TERFism. If is true that trans men are women who want to escape oppression, why aren't we seeing many trans men doing this? This ties in with my second argument which states that their oppression stays.

It's extraordinary to see that the only advocates for gender abolition are cis men, and trans women. It is strange to me, given that trans women are just basically saying they don't want to exist! It just shows a bit of cognitive dissonance to me.

Patriarchy Oppresses All People, Even Cis Men

What I may say in this chapter may regard me as a 'reactionary' or 'privileged' person, but I continue on.

Marxists don't know or don't care to recognise the existence of 'Toxic Masculinity', a term originally appeared within feminist circles. Toxic Masculinity, a term which describes masculine people, shows that men can also be oppressed by patriarchy, as ironic as that sounds.

The concept of patriarchy, not only divides women and trans people into the oppressed category, but it consequently presupposes that the role of the man is to oppress them. Of course, not all men are oppressors. Gay men are oppressed, often being compared to crossdressing. Gay men are oppressed because capitalism supports the eventual reproduction necessary to elevate itself, which gay men can't do. Gay men can be oppressors to women, and in fact sometimes are, but not all gay men advocate for this. Nonetheless, it shows that the concept of patriarchy is too binary, in other words, Men oppressors, Women oppressed, when patriarchy is itself a can of worms, which shows that trans men, gay men, feminine men (sometimes known as Femboys) can be oppressed too.

There is a tendency in Marxism to think in a binary manner, "Bourgeoisie oppressors, Proletariat Oppressed", yet we see that some can be oppressors and some can be oppressed depending on national conditions (for example the national bourgeoisie can be oppressed, like what Mao described in China, and there are certainly oppressor proletarians described as the 'Labour Aristocracy' by Lenin). We must stop being reductive, especially when it comes to the patriarchy. Men certainly do benefit from the patriarchy, but it is not all men. Femboys, Gay men, Trans men, they are all 'classified' as men, yet they are oppressed, not oppressors, because they do not conform to the standpoint of patriarchy. Each and every one of them have their own reasons to not conforming to patriarchy, but despite the differing reasons, they are nonetheless, oppressed.

There is a systematic mode of thinking which generally says that men are indeed oppressors, but this systematic mode of thinking will and does alienate us from the masses. This systematic thinking is what Mao and Lenin opposed, Lenin outrightly stated this in regards to the Practicality of Self-Determination:

Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favour, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.
If, in our political agitation, we fail to advance and advocate the slogan of the right to secession, we shall play into the hands, not only of the bourgeoisie, but also of the feudal landlords and the absolutism of the oppressor nation. Kautsky long ago used this argument against Rosa Luxemburg, and the argument is indisputable. When, in her anxiety not to “assist” the nationalist bourgeoisie of Poland, Rosa Luxemburg rejects the right to secession in the programme of the Marxists in Russia, she is in fact assisting the Great-Russian Black Hundreds. She is in fact assisting opportunist tolerance of the privileges (and worse than privileges) of the Great Russians.
[...]
The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support, At the same time we strictly distinguish it from the tendency towards national exclusiveness; we fight against the tendency of the Polish bourgeois to oppress the Jews.^[8]

This systematic mode of thinking is what leads to the "Kill All Men" form of Radical Feminism, who perceive men as nothing more than a mere threat to be eliminated, regardless of their actual character. When in reality, those radical feminists are only assisting the men that benefit from the patriarchy, even if they state otherwise. It leads to Feminism being thought as nothing more of a joke, and thus being used as a punching bag, with people dismissing the First, Second, and Third waves of Feminism which surged before.

When I speak of patriarchy, the means of abolishing it does not mean despising the men who are oppressed by it, either because they want to have a feminine appearance, are gay, or are transgender. It means eradicating the cisgender, heterosexual men who do actively benefit from it. A group of men talking and demeaning women is one case. It shows the background of their privilege, how they actively benefit from the reproductive labour and productive labour of women. Indeed, these men do benefit. It may be a general tendency, a tendency that isn't reflected in all men.

The Issues of Viewing Marxism as a "System"

The 'System' in this case is like a function. With any function, we can analyse its inputs and outputs, and make a map of what it does. In the context of Marxism, this 'system' would be extended within the Dialectical (or in the case of what I'm arguing Historical) Materialist framework. I am in full belief that the Materialist Dialectical framework is a necessary step to approach the nature of science, as metaphysics fails to take into account how nature works despite science advancing from it.

We can view the each trend of the mode of production as a gradual transition from which each power gradually is destroyed and replaced with another. The exception to this is the socialist mode of production, and sometimes the capitalist mode of production, where the French revolution came to be. However this view takes on another point, the point of that being the masses.

The Juche philosophy explains the issue of Marxism-Leninism as it stands:

The creators of Marxism set as their main task overcoming the idealistic and metaphysical view of social history which served to justify the reactionary exploiting system and applying the materialistic and dialectical principles to the field of social history; they clarified that society, like nature, exists objectively and it changes and develops according according to the general law governing the material world. They however failed to elucidate the essential differences between the movement of nature and social movement and the law inherent in the socio-historical movement. The new era implies that the most important requirement for making the view of social history of the working class perfect, is to clarify the law peculiar to the social-historical movement whose motive force is the working masses. This historic task was fulfilled with credit by the Juche philosophy.
[...]
Since it viewed social history with the main stress on the objective material and economic conditions, Marxism considered the development of society to be the history of replacement of the mode of production by the law of adaptation of the relations of production to the character of the productive forces. According to this opinion, one can understand that revolution is carried out in the main when a socialist mode of production has been established and therefore it is concluded that there remains only work to consolidate and develop the socialist mode of production. This can be said to be one of the reasons why the Marxist-Leninists classicists failed to provide details for the continuous revolution for the building of communism after the triumph of the socialist revolution...^[9]

The Juche Philosophy states that Marxism-Leninism fails to take into account the differences between how nature changes and how the social being changes. In other words, it is true that Men make their history, but they do not make it as they please.^[10] Man is bound to the laws of nature, but the Man is "neither a purely spiritual being nor a simple biological being. Man is a social being who lives and acts in social relationships. The fact that man is a social being is the major quality which distinguishes him from other biological beings."^[11] The Juche philosophy does away with any form of determinism that is present within Marxism, that which Juche states that "Man is the master of everything and decides everything".^[12] This is not an admission of "Great Man Theory" or an idealist nature, as some may say, but how man connects itself as a social being towards nature.

There is a lot of connection between the Juche Philosophy and being Transgender. In being Transgender, it just further shows us that we are human beings, we are social beings, our biology does not determine us. What makes us different from other species in the fact we are Creative, Independent, and Conscious, the three characteristics representative of the Juche idea.

If truly, our simple biological characteristics determine the makeup of ourselves, why do trans people exist? Why are intersex people not belonging to a single (or even multiple) category? This should make us realise that indeed, maybe it is not biology characteristics that make us, but how we interact with our environment through our means of subsistence. Consider the antinomy (or paradox):

Were one to ask an eighteenth-century writer, say Cellier, how man’s ideas take shape, he would reply that they are a product of the social environment. But what is a social environment? It is the totality of those very social relations which, Cellier Dufayel himself asserts, originate in human thought.
Hence we have before us the following antinomy:

The social environment is a product of thought;

Thought is a product of the social environment.

As long as we are unable to escape from this contradiction, we shall understand nothing either in the history of ideas or in the history of social forms.
If you take, for instance, the evolution ot literary criticism in the nineteenth century, you will see it has been, and in part remains, quite powerless to solve this antinomy. Thus, Sainte-Beuve holds that every social revolution is accompanied by a revolution in literature. But where do social revolutions come from? They are caused by the development of human thought; since, in civilised societies, the evolution of thought finds expression in the evolution of literature, we come up against the same antinomy: the development of literature hinges on social development, while social development is conditioned by the development of literature. Hippolyte Taine’s philosophy of art suffers from the same shortcoming.
We shall now see how Marx’s understanding of history successfully solves this antinomy.
Marx’s materialist understanding of history is the direct opposite of the eighteenth-century understanding.
In a comparison of his own method with that of Hegel, Marx says in the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital:

“To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea’, he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea’. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing but the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.”

This is a materialist understanding of the history of human thought. Engels expressed the same in a more popular form when he said that it is not consciousness that determines being, but being that determines consciousness.
It may, however, be asked: what does a way of life derive from if it is not determined by the mode of thought?
Social man’s way of life is determined by his means of subsistence, which in their turn depend on the state of the productive forces at the disposal of social man, i.e., of society.^[13]

We have already determined that gender identity is itself not idealist. Therefore we can state that gender comes from a pre-class mode of production, where our means of subsistence, our necessity for survival, comes from us wanting to be other than a 'man' or 'woman' as our assigned sex. We will be a separate gender, or take part of the opposite gender, so we wish to stay in the binary. It is totally apparent to do so, given that trans people exist. Stating that it is a symbol of oppression completely falls into the trap of what the Juche philosophy avoids, in other words, the Human is not a master of their destiny (to use gender neutral words this time), their biological makeup determines gender oppression. This is completely unmaterialistic.

Trans people will be the masters of their own destiny, to which they understand and have the need to transition within the current conditions of the self, the self has a desire of being another gender instead of what they were assigned. To say otherwise is to fall into the antinomy, to say that which determining their biological makeup makes thought (which in of itself can be considered a 'social environment') and thought which continues the social environment (in this case it would be the 'gender oppression').

Why do Transgender People Support Gender Abolitionism?

Now a legitimate question comes to us, which is already said in the chapter title, but to put it further: "Why do transgender people support gender abolitionism then?" In essence this seems to be a perfectly reasonable question. The fact that trans people support the idea of a gender abolition should immediately disregard this essay.

Leslie Feinberg said this before and I will repeat this phrase once again from my previous essays: Being transgender does not make you inherently progressive. There can (and does) exist reactionary transgender people, or specifically transphobic transgender people, which is an oxymoron that will make more sense later.

If anyone read my "Welcome to TERF Island" essay, they saw that I written in a specific section regarding the Daily Mail, a proven transphobic publishing outlet. In that article which advocates for conversion therapy was spoken by none other than a "transwoman" (there is no space between in the article) Debbie Hayton. I called her out for being a reactionary, stating that it is 'ironic' for someone to be a transphobic person while being transgender.

You do not need to read that section (though it is recommended you do regardless), but I am pointing out as an example that the transphobic media, can and does use transgender people to make transphobic statements. Certain transgender people are now authorities in the matter, using their words to disregard the lives of transgender people. In the essay, I used the label Identity Traitor to describe transphobic transgender people, for one; not only to dismantle this (seeming to be) oxymoron and two; describe them as who they truly are. In this sense, we call Transgender Gender Abolitionists to be Identity Traitors.

It is not oxymoronic to see that there does exist transgender people who would disregard their own identity. It makes sense inherently, one which is born in a transphobic environment, who utilises cognitive dissonance and their means of subsistence involves a transphobic social environment means their internalised transphobia is projected onto others, they are transphobic because they are being transphobic to other trans people.

That dismantles the idea of 'transphobic transgender people' to be oxymoronic, but it does not explain the idea of why transgender people choose to be gender abolitionists. Trans people may choose to be gender abolitionists as a means to reconcile with cis people, who also advocate for gender abolition. In other words, their means of subsistence states that they choose to be gender abolitionists to no longer be considered different. After all, Why should I be treated differently when everyone else is unique? This idea of gender abolition makes it appetising, because it removes their idea of dysphoria, or mitigates it to the point that it does not matter anymore, since it wouldn't be a special case but something rather generic. However when trans people want to enhance and embrace their own identities, there leads to a certain issue where in the process of enhancing their identities, they are removing what makes them feel like they are transgender. I already stated it before, that it is not gender that is the issue but the issue of passing. Eliminating the requirement to pass means that people won't be so judgmental, it also means that being trans is something to be proud of, you are special, instead of being a "mistake". In that case, this speciality would be removed when we conform to gender abolitionism. They are not special, rather they are just 'human'. We are all humans, but being something 'more' than just a regular human being is what makes us feel like our self is unique. Our self wouldn't be our self if we removed the concept of gender.

Comparing Race and Gender Hurts Both People of Color and Transgender People

I've been seeing common rhetoric from not only "marxists" but also from reactionaries over the idea of a 'transracialism', that is: "If I can change my gender, I can change my race, since they are both social constructs". It's more of the typical "I identify as an attack helicopter" line of "jokes", except these types of jokes are so hurtful that even Joe Biden identified himself as a black woman (Just before anyone says I am transphobic, note that he will not mean anything by it, he himself is a caricature).

Firstly, Gender is not a social construct. It is however, a social phenomenon, but so race in this regard. However with race, we call it a "social construct" because it was constructed (by intention) to discriminate people and support colonialist ideas. Gender on the other hand, would not be considered as such because while gender is a social thing, it is not a thing which was constructed to artificially oppress people.

I am not transphobic, nor racist to call out a transracialist. The idea of being a different race is not an aspect of one's identity. The identity of being black, person of color, or white is absolutely constructed. The racial identity, what it exists, is prescribed rather than described. The description of one's identity is a material thing. Its prescription is not. Gender is inherently descriptivist, 'I am transgender'. It is true that one can be prescribed as "transgender", but it is transphobia that does this, as we do not know if one person is trans or not without asking. Race on the other hand, is prescribed. One may describe themselves as black, but almost everyone judges one based on their skin color alone. "You are black", "You are white". It is inherently prescriptivist. One does not innately describe themselves as "black" or "white". More often than not, it is tied to their culture. For example, two "white" identities would be "I am British" and "I am Irish", however historically Irish people were not considered white. Thus we can see that race is not only a simplistic overview that judges purely skin color (and also their cultural background) to be more or less superior, race is constructed and therefore must be deconstructed. Therefore transracialism does not exist.

If one person really wants to identify with a specific culture, one has to interact with their culture in an organic way. For example, a person does not just identify as part of the culture that they live in, without being part of said conditions living in an organic manner. We see this effect sometimes within diaspora communities. However certain people of the diaspora community (i.e. the Black community) cannot become acquainted to the culture they live in because they have been rejected due to being discriminated. Therefore a new culture arises in that instance. We can see that, therefore, black people in the US constitute a nation. This is not parroting race, rather culture is now a factor, the culture centering first forming around oppression.

The idea of transracialism does not align with either the views of race or gender. Race can and absolutely should be abolished. Gender on the other hand arose due to entirely different circumstances. We can pinpoint the origin of race (that being the beginnings of colonialism), but the origin of gender is still a great mystery to most. Mayhaps someone of their previous culture may embark into a new culture, thus becoming part of that new culture (an example would be a Mestizo forming back connections with indigenous communities and becoming part of said indigenous community). But one cannot abandon their race and state they are now suddenly another.

Moving on, there is a lower level of transracialism, one which gender and race are used as analogies. What is an analogy? An analogy is using another form of reference to give a general idea. In the case of gender, the gender abolitionists use an analogy of "The skin colour and ethnicity of a person makeup their race", thus making the comparison of "the genitalia of a person makeup their gender".

Analogies work when they try to pose a general idea. What Analogies do not state is that they are 'facts' to that general idea. In other words, the analogy of race and compounding it onto gender fails. When we compare race and gender, we are not learning anything. Neither about its roots, or about whether its character is progressive or not. Thus we have a dilemma, what do we do about this? The idea is that we should stop comparing race and gender entirely. Race and Gender are two separate aspects, which have some correlations due to both being inherently social. But correlation does not imply causation, nor does it mean that they are linked in anyway. The linkage of race and gender is entirely coincidental.

Thus we should no longer use this comparison. It is both racist and transphobic. We should consider them as two separate things. The abolition of race is a necessity, but the abolition of gender is not.

Gender Abolitionists Divide over Definitions

Not all gender abolitionists actually advocate for the abolition of gender, to be specific. It's interesting given the level of cognitive dissonance people will go through to make gender abolitionism seem valid.

There seems to be a divide on the definition of gender abolitionism. Maybe it is due to lack of experience, maybe it is due to wanting to fit in. Either way, some people define gender abolitionism as the abolition of gender roles rather than the abolition of gender entirely. This is contradictory, if they are called gender abolitionists yet only want to abolish gender roles, then why do they call themselves gender abolitionists?

The name itself gives away the ideology. Gender abolitionism: The abolition of gender. Which includes the abolition of gender roles, but also includes gender expression and gender identity. Thus they are shooting themselves in the foot if they wish to express support for the gender identity, yet don't want gender to exist as they describe themselves as 'Gender abolitionists'. I do not disagree that gender roles should be removed. However it will wither away, since the inherent existence of transgender people and intersex people will naturally dissolve the idea of gender roles to begin with. The abolition of gender roles would also mean the abolition of passing, a big victory for the transgender people.

However by obscuring themselves under the label 'Gender Abolitionists', it means they still wish to abolish gender entirely, regardless of their actual thought process. That or they are not actually gender abolitionists.

Reviewing More Gender Abolitionist Literature

The Disappointment of the Red Clarion's article

The issue with gender abolitionism is that it is a commonplace (and easily arguable) ideology. There are plenty of works, but I want to start with something that I consider of upmost importance. Unity–Struggle–Unity, an organisation formed from a minor party splinter, aims to educate the masses through its project known as the Red Clarion. A recent article published the RC titled "Communists and the Queer Question"^[14] shows that the USU has an active issue with their gender abolitionism. I have interacted with the members of USU before, they were dismissive of me and another comrade's points. I will not list out any examples nor will I consider to post the discussion in any full detail as it was on a private server.

Regardless, this article was a disappointment to read. I made an essay almost a year ago regarding the LGBT question, and I feel that article makes a further dissection onto what it means to LGBT rather than what this one did here. Maybe it is the fact that I wrote an essay while this one is meant to be a work for the masses, though I fail to see which one is harder to read.

The Article on the Queer Question begins with absorbing LGBT identities into the status known as "Queer". This is fine, I don't see anything wrong with being inherently inclusive. Oh and the second reason is because "they like it". The article beings with strange wordings, including that "The queer question is as old as class society itself"^[14] and "queer people have always and everywhere, in some cultural form or other, formed part of class society".^[14] Does this imply that Queer people are formed as a result of class society? Or rather they are a part of class society? We can give them the benefit of a doubt in this case, since it is likely they meant the latter. As for the former quote, we can state that it is likely rhetoric. Or is it?

Their next paragraphs start on dismantling the arguments of typical Patriotic 'socialist' and actual anti-Marxist rhetoric. That is until we get to this argument:

Others argue that “Some queer identities, such as the homosexuals, are recognized by Marxism as having a material basis. However others such as the transgender and transsexual identities ignore or contradict the material basis of sexual biology, are therefore idealistic in nature, and must be discarded in order to arrive at a materialist position.”^[14]

They denote (correctly) that sex is a social construct based on the division of labour. However something concerning appears when they state that "Men and women became defined in dialectical contradiction with one another." We can take this two ways. The first way would be "What about non-binary people?" If we state that sex itself a social construct, where would non-binary (or more specifically a 3rd gender given the earlier paragraph quoted Engels) be in this case? How would they be defined in this contradiction? If we do not include non-binary people in this contradiction, we would not be inclusive. Second, If they were referring to solely biological standpoints, then it wouldn't be "woman" would it? Wouldn't it anyone capable to childbearing? Also note that it states "One common theory is about childbearing", where it just notes that "women were biologically equipped to nurse newborns and men were not". Nursing in this case meant breastfeeding, raising their child.

Note that natural forms of HRT did exist, breastfeeding from a "man" was biologically possible. It may not have been common, but it was a possibility.

Today some opponents of sex-reassignment argue that sex-change is merely a high-tech phenomenon, a consequence of people being squeezed into narrow cultural definitions of what it means to be a woman or a man because surgical and hormonal options are now available. It's true that the development of anesthesia, and the commercial synthesis of hormones, opened up new opportunities for sex-reassignment. However, the argument that transsexuals are merely escaping rigid sex roles doesn't take into account ancient surgical techniques of sex-change developed in communal societies that offered more flexible sex and gender choices.^[5]

To quote Leslie Feinberg another time, it was observed that it was the job of the whole family to raise the child, not just the women. However this was not always the case:

It's true that women's ability to bear children and breast-feed in many cases helped to determine an overall division of labor. Human babies go through a long period of infancy during which they need to be nursed and nurtured. But by all accounts, childcare in communal cultures was a collective task, not the responsibility of each mother, nor of every woman, since not every woman bore children.
I would suggest that we haven't had all the information with which to challenge the cultural construction of the modern view of childcare. For instance, in some pre-class societies, both parents went through the ritual pain of bearing a child and both were responsible for infant care.^[5]

We can see that the ideas that forms from this suggests that it is not always true, and they state that the women's reproductive labour (not the surplus produced) is the primary acquisition of wealth. Note that Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is too. Nature would given us this form of wealth, would be the primary acquisition, not necessarily women. Women's reproductive labour is important, but what drives the Man to be the "breadwinner" is through the beginning of trade. This is the formation of how people would consider 'gender oppression' and therefore how people would be gender abolitionists. They state by biological differences (i.e. the biological makeup which makes the social environment as we stated earlier), determines the patriarchy of the state (in other words "thought"). We landed right back into the antinomy.

If we think of women's oppression, not as a quantitative to qualitative transformation (as we do with class society), we can instead refer to it an often unused term in dialectical thought known as 'Negation of the negation'. Thought about this way, we can see that the negations are true:

The first negation occurs after the overthrow of communalism, the end of matrilineal society. Women, often not holding the instruments of labour yet nonetheless are essential for reproduction, means that they are reduced to no longer being considered, while the men hold themselves to private property.
The second negation occurs during the 15th century, of which Leslie Feinberg argues that it is where trans (and women's) oppression finally surfaces. Due to colonialism, the witch trials, the woman finally becomes objectified, the woman no longer has any rights she had before, trans people were especially oppressed, being considered nonexistent.

There proceeds it: The negation of the negation. Both events which occur to the totality of the oppression of the elements of people which the patriarchy considered 'undesirable'. Even in Europe, where first women's oppression lay in its totality, the man of a serf family cannot control the woman's subordination. Rather the lord did. And there is evidence to show that women had shared use of the common land with the man.

Up until the fifteenth century, a great majority of the world's population lived in communal, matrilineal societies. This was true throughout Africa, large parts of Asia, the Pacific islands, Australia, and the Americas. If all of human history were shrunk to the scale of one year, over 360 days of historical time belong to cooperative, matrilineal societies.^[5]

They now begin to compare gender to race, comparing that gender and race are social constructs because they use the same biological makeup. Of course they argue that race is an ideology which its birth came from colonialism, and they should, but the analogy shows that they compare race and gender. Race and Gender are not the same, a gender abolitionist knows this. But the gender abolitionist incorrectly assumes that since race is a social construct, gender must be too! They taken a page from the book written by the Conservatives in this regard.

The next paragraph continues on to state how feminism first arose, and the next paragraph (rather boldly) states: "How does the queer question figure into this analysis of sex?" At least they mention that gender has existed before class, by using the example of a "Two-Spirit". This does not absolve them from criticism.

But they move on, stating that there are now two "classes", an oppressor man, and an oppressed woman. The first issue is that they ignore the existence of transgender people. Second, where do transgender men belong? Thirdly, what does "class" in this context even mean? In my TERF Island essay, JK Rowling addresses women as a "political class" who share a common experience. This is, of course, false. Not all women share a common experience. Some women are actually oppressors, and they are nicknamed TERFs. Women are not a "class", not even a social class, they are a group. A group which we made (socially constructed or not), and our categorisation depends on what we define to be a woman, which I do not define it by sex alone.

Continuing on, they cite examples of a woman having sexual relations to a woman and a "woman can simply become a man, or something else outside the binary dichotomy". In other words, their sex matters more than their actual gender. Maybe it is true they were a woman. It does not mean they are. Note that they cite cis women specifically, not trans women, not gay men, to further continue the trend of women being oppressed.

Next they say that capitalism requires the sex dichotomy to continue to function. Maybe that could be true, but also capitalism perpetuates pinkwashing, something which I vehemently oppose. Capitalism "supports" gay people in such that they "support" the proletariat. Except while the imperial proletariat are given superprofits thus becoming the labour aristocracy, the LGBT people are fine with Lockheed Martin doing a pride parade. Or maybe not the LGBT people, but rather LGBT Liberals, or even cishet people who want to be allies. Note that production doesn't concentrate in the imperial core, it concentrates within the imperialised world, which the imperial core is now "post-industrial". Note that they said that the women must continue to be exploited for their reproductive and not productive labour. Interesting choice of words given that reproductive labour does not matter in a capitalist society for increasing productivity, rather productive labour does.

I will conclude my critiques there, as the rest of the article is filled with nothing else of importance. This author does not claim to be a gender abolitionist, but USU is a definitely an organisation advocating for gender abolitionism.

The So-Called "Unburial" Theory of Dialectical Feminism

This critique will be based on an essay made by May Peterson, who in her bio calls herself a "transsexual". Indeed, off to a great start. But we will push on.

The title of this essay is "Dialectical Feminism: An Unburial Theory".^[15] What is this unburial theory? We will get to it. Peterson wants to contribute to Feminism, by making a new one "Dialectical Feminism". Not that Marxist Feminism or Proletarian Feminism already incorporate dialectics.

The first thing Peterson does is define what is Feminism. She believes there to be two characteristics. The first characteristic is that it "pursues a female perspective". She elaborates further when she denotes that female to be an adjectival way to speak about women and girls. In other words, a female perspective is the perspective of women are girls. In other words, they believe gender to a social construct, which it is not. They do not argue that gender is biological, but they do argue that it is a perspective, in other words how gender manifests within culture, which can only affect their gender expression and not their identity.

Gender Identity is material, and we cannot say the femaleness "perspective" changes our gender identity. Gender identity can take various forms, but these forms manifest as a makeup of themselves, as who they want to be. For example, Two-Spirit, a gender who belongs to the indigenous, is different from Non-Binary, though both could be compared. This is because non-binary is a makeup of someone's identity while Two-Spirit is a makeup of someone's indigenous connections to their culture while also expressing the same feeling of "I am neither man nor woman". Hence, gender could not be a social construct, and perspective is limited on gender.

The second characteristic is where a feminist philosophy is concerned with the conditions of female life and its causations. She correctly notes that society is male (note that she specifically says male, and doesn't bother to mention trans men or intersex men, etc.) dominated. Thus becomes the theory of the "burial" of the woman. And what feminism does is to "unbury" it, to set new perspectives from the modern ones. However she does not only state a new perspective but rather a female perspective, and not only a female perspective but also of female lives, interests and bodies. They view femaleness from aesthetics it seems, and they seem to imply the concept of a "female" mind and body, one which would be considered judgmental, and not only that, rule out trans women and men.

Next, Peterson goes over the types of Feminism. The analysis on Liberal Feminism is shallow, and by what 'Liberalism' states, it does show that it is centered around 'individualism'. But a better critique of Liberal Feminism would be centered around capitalism, where 'girlbosses' do not challenge patriarchy nor do they challenge capitalism. Replicating fire does not make feminism work, rather water is needed to extinguish said fire.

Next is Radical Feminism, which she states that with radical feminists is that it is "more formal" and "more theoretically rigorous". Indeed radfems would be given the credit for seeing patriarchy as a systematic issue, however she does not state why this issue exists from the perspective of radical feminists. We saw beforehand that radical feminists oppose society on the basis of reproduction not of capitalism.

She also defends Radical Feminism (and denies its misandry) by stating that hating on Radical Feminists is directly validating their points of patriarchy. She states that it is because of society that it is socially acceptable for men to hate and fear on women, rather than the reverse. She just completely disregards the misandry of the Radical Feminists, and not only that, she disregards the tactic of fighting fire with fire on men as nothing bad, when it should be done with water. My critiques of Radical Feminism are more of the same with Liberal Feminism, since I view them as synonyms, more or less.

Aside from these, there's nothing that needs mentioning, so I will move on.

Next is 'Dialectical Feminism', a new term which she invented. She invents a term for events known as 'processes' and using the idea of Dialectics. She states that gender has "distinct but related layers". The first process is "Normative gender" which she argues that biology and apparent sexual reproduction has a place in the social order. She even states it's a "shocking assertion" but she just said "Read on". The second process is "Emergent gender". Which she argues that from the perspective of sex (she uses the term body but she definitely is referring to sex here). In other words, the feeling of not belonging to a certain category, if we go by her perspective, it means that Peterson directly admitted to sex being the factor, thus making her transphobic. Definitely a "transfeminist" (she calls herself that). She states that this emergent gender as a collective effort to standardise human behaviour, which she is not wrong. She states in the essay that why does this normative gender system persist? She answers this in the third process "Gender regulation". In other words she states punishment for that regulation. She outrightly calls herself a gender abolition advocate which she states gender regulation is the fundamental function of the gender system. She cites the example of body regulating its temperature as a means to support her argument, which fails since she is arguing about punishment, an active response. The fourth process is the "Adaptation". She states that gender is an ongoing process, which it is.

This "process" may seem fundamentally rudimentary, but the problem becomes of one similar to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Where does gender come from? This system of processes, we cannot reverse each process, since each process is an effect while also a cause. A process in this way may be considered a one-way function (or many-to-one), where we cannot trace its origins without repeating the same cause. Unless if we consider the first process to the beginning, in which she considers sex to be real, and she would be transphobic.

Next she applies the "spiral principles", which she states "A spiral incorporates elements of both a circle and a line without really being either." She continues to state that internal opposition is necessary for the process to continue. In other words she is arguing against what Hegel suggests, with the proposal of a synthesis-antithesis-synthesis principle, which is something Hegel never proposed himself.

She uses the examples of male-dominated society often having a narrative of 'female greatness'. She states that it is to 'sweeten' the pot, to make women subordinate to the gender system and male-dominance. If it was the case, how come gender existed before class society (and therefore patriarchy) did? No, the status of womanhood and male-dominant societies praising female goddesses comes from the fact that people uphold relics of the past, sometimes thousands of years. Female goddesses were upheld, then eventually replaced by male ones in gradual transition. The examples she cited in regards to Christianity may seem to uphold the woman (as citing Saint Mary), but are actually a mockery of women, no longer being as powerful as they were. This is what the spiral principle should be, not about female subordination, as it is not the intended effect, but rather the picture and smear of male dominance.

Next she puts Radical Feminists and "Cultural Feminists" against one another. I ignore cultural feminists for a reason. She correctly states that Radical Feminists uphold gender abolition, while "cultural feminists" want to enforce the gender division but make it more balanced. In other words, Cultural Feminists wouldn't be too different from Radical Feminists, in fact I would say they are a part of it, especially TERFs.

In fact Peterson would agree, but not on my analysis, but rather that they both agree on 'something'. They agree on a 'layer' (whatever that is), but disagree on a different 'layer'. This forms the layers of abstraction. She also argues the gender dialectic looks different depending on what view of abstraction it is based from. In other words, we just hide (since that is what abstraction is defined as in some fields such as Computer Science) the fundamental issues and sweep them away under the rug. Truly dialectical thinking, just ignore the underlying the issues. No, we cannot ignore the issues of other feminist ideologies, we must bring them up and see whether they are transphobic or not. That brings us to the next chapter: "The unburial of trans women".

I will skip over the anecdotal paragraph and the opposition to TERFism and immediately bring us over to the "question" that Feminists find hard to answer without being transphobic. That is, Feminists observe that people are ordered into sex categories, but trans people require that this does not exist.

She states the argument regarding 'sex denialism', which she states that separating the sexes is a condition of male dominance, which feminists should change. She states that in this view, defining it this way to no longer depend on the sex system is inherently anti-feminist.

She presents not one but two counterarguments to this. The first counterargument is the 'counter-process argument'. Which she states that "transness" doesn't represent sex denial but rather as a counterprocess. She again sweeps the contradiction between Radical Feminists and Trans women under the rug, by stating that somehow they are at natural harmony at higher levels of abstraction. If you are a trans woman, you know interacting with TERFs, despite both of them advocating for feminism, they are odds with each other, regardless if both want the liberation of women. TERFs exclude trans women, and so they are transphobic. She states the reason why trans people and feminists are in harmony is because the sex distinction is 'important' to trans people. Important in what way? If we judge importance by its oppression, then sure, but importance of its continuation? Certainly not.

The second counterargument is the 'female reclamation argument'. She argues that although they wish to topple the gender system that gives women context, they still call themselves women (note the gender abolitionist undertones there). She states that we are aware of this system but don't agree with it. In other words, this second argument is shallow, despite the length of it.

Concluding this essay, we can tell this essay clearly ignores the existence of trans men. What do trans men do in this situation? Are they oppressors? Do they want to be oppressors? I repeated it before, but it is clear she ignores trans men so that feminism can be upheld.

Gender Abolitionism is not About the Abolition of Gender Roles

To conclude my reviews on literature, we will look into an example of this "gender abolition definition" divide. The case being this article, on a newspaper called 'Cherwell', a student-run newspaper. The article is titled "Gender abolition: Why it matters".^[16] The title suggests that it is inherently advocating for gender abolitionism.

The first paragraph denounces the idea of "gender equality", that being reductive and overly simplistic. The author states that it "lacks critical thinking". This is a critique of neoliberal feminism. They propose the idea of the abolition of the structural system known as Patriarchy, however they state that the real solution must be the abolition of gender.

This is what we call postmodernism, an abstraction of class struggle and instead advocating for purely academic ideas which are abstracted from nature. Clearly they state that gender is not innate nor inevitable. This is false. If language is innate to ones speech, so would be gender to ones identity. Both are social phenomena after all. They argue that gender is socially constructed (which of course it is not). They also state that TERFs have indeed appropriated certain gender abolitionist terms. This is not by mere accident, Gender Abolitionism in its origins is from Radical Feminism. It would be inherently transphobic since it focuses on reproduction, rather than production being the basis of society.

They define sex on the basis of physical and biological characteristics, very broad and vague. Does my eye count as a sex characteristic? And they define gender to describe behaviours and attitudes attached to sex. We see that this author does not separate sex from gender, and instead sees that one causes the other. That means this author is inherently transphobic, despite wanting to advocate for transgender people. Indeed there's nothing inherently masculine about the colour blue, but they are not arguing in regards to gender roles and assigning gender to things, but rather say the entire gender system is predicated to it.

They also argue about the gender roles of Masculine and Feminine people which I agree with. They also argue about colonialism trying to establish the gender binary, and ruin their identity and self-expression. What this author forgets to include is that gender existed before class society.

Thus becomes an important question this author answers. What is Gender Abolitionism? The author states that Gender abolitionism is the abolition of gender roles and cultural norms. Which is incorrect. Gender is not Gender Roles. They are not synonyms and are separate from each other. They state that so long the social classes of a man and woman exists, gender is inherently oppressive, which is also incorrect. Their definition is skewed. We can abolish gender roles, but it is not the abolition, more so it withers away with the existence of trans people. Gender roles become superfluous when trans people are allowed to self express themselves outside the binary gender. Therefore it dies out, it doesn't become abolished. This does not mean gender as a whole dies out.

The next question becomes "What if I want to keep my gender?" This is an important question, however they fail to answer it. They just say that gender abolition does not prevent people from self-expressing themselves, which is objectively untrue, and it results in transphobia. They hypocritically say that while the concept of a man and woman is abolished, it doesn't prevent people from using masculinity and femininity and constructing identities from those concepts. It is a direct contradiction yet this author fails to realise it.

It's funny at the end of the paragraph they say that the abolition of gender is a utopian dream. If it is, why must it be advocated for? Utopias are by definition impossible to create. They then go with the usual liberal tropes of seeing with policy action, and thus reduce themselves to mere liberals by advocating for a culture war. At the end they say that women and nonconforming people have a unique experience (not mentioning trans men) and thus should be considered.

I mention this article not just because it is low-hanging fruit, but because ths article shows the common line of thought with most gender abolitionists. Those who cement themselves in gender abolition more often than not have no idea what they're advocating for, even if they're trans.

Is Feminism Outdated?

To consider what is outdated, let's consider the timeline of Marxism (or most likely socialism in general).

Marxism appears from Europe primarily. The French with its Paris Commune, Germany with Hegel Dialectics, Britain with its Political Economy. This is not to say that Marxism is a eurocentric ideology, rather it is to say that the most revolutionary line of thought appeared in Europe. This formed the core centre of "Marxism", and it is term which not only Marxist-Leninists abide, but also other ideologies too.

Marxism has a presence even after Marx and Engels' deaths. It had reached Russia, where Lenin advocated for the Bolshevik revolution and Leninism. Stalin later synthesised Leninism and Marxism to form Marxism-Leninism, the general line of thought today.

We can call ourselves 'Marxists', but there are plenty of other people who call themselves 'Marxists'. Kautskyism, Trotskyism, they existed before, but they are outdated and thus considered revisionist (and dogmatic) for not evolving into the current line of thinking in Marxist-Leninist Thought.

To this, we can apply to Feminism. Marxist Feminism, which the first people like Alexandra Kollontai can be applied to, then Proletarian Feminism, which is usually adopted by maoists. So now becomes the question: Should we abandon the term feminism?

Feminism, as it name suggests, turns itself toward the woman. In this case, Feminism, by its very shallow definition, would be considered the emancipation of the woman. Emancipation from the partriarchy.

If we expand this further with radical feminism, it would also be the abolition of the patriarchy. Marxist Feminism, gender equality under socialism, and the abolition of unequal reproductive labour. Proletarian Feminism, using Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

But no matter how we expand the definition to be more inclusive (and expanding our viewing angles) of women's oppression, we are still viewing it from the eyes of the woman. And that is the important thing. Indeed, women are oppressed and must be liberated. But so too must transgender people.

Trans women can fit into the idea feminism, thus becoming transfeminists, and talk about transmisogyny. But trans women are one side of the binary transgender coin. The other side is trans men too. I already talked about how trans men are an enigma to gender abolitionists, but so are to feminists. If man is inherently oppressive, why do trans men want to continue the oppression (supposedly).

Trans men are oppressed under the patriarchy, not because their "sex" is a woman, but because they are trans. This does not make them feminists. Thus I would consider feminism in this case to be an outdated term.

Feminism, by its very definition, focuses on the woman. Trans men, Gay Men, Feminine Men, they are ignored as a result. Thus we can say that they are ignored under feminist line of thinking despite being oppressed under the patriarchy.

Instead of Feminism, we should instead consider Gender Liberation. Liberating all genders, including non-binary people and other genders I didn't include. Thus, we are now inclusive. Gender liberation has a different definition. That is the liberation of gender by means of abolishing the patriarchy. Gender roles do not matter to the gender liberator, as it is already fizzling out of existence by the mere existence of transgender people. With gender liberation, we advocate for gender equality, and also advocate for the abolition of passing. Thus we have generalised feminism to include the oppression of men under the patriarchy, while also removing its gender abolitionist component.

Concluding Remarks

Gender abolitionism is inherently transphobic. It claims to advocate for more self-expression, while in fact it reduces it. This conundrum seems to be fine for most gender abolitionists, even for trans people, since trans people have internalised transphobia and cognitive dissonance.

I am not a feminist. I do not call myself a feminist. I am a trans woman, I write about feminism and transgender liberation, but that does not make me a feminist. I am advocating for the ideology of Gender Liberation. Gender equality across all genders through the abolition of passing and the withering away of gender roles.

Gender Abolition claims to be something higher than itself, what requires more critical thinking, when in actuality it requires little. It's more akin to destroying buildings through arson rather than renovation. We gender liberationists (Construction workers) renovate the building because we still see there is nothing inherently wrong with its foundation. It needs to be polished, and certain issues need to be addressed, but once it is renovated, it is finished and now in better condition. Gender abolitionists (arsonists) would rather throw a molotov cocktail so that the house would be fully burnt, thus reducing its use as a shelter. This means the arsonist has no place to live, impacting itself. The arsonist would still survive and live, but they are now homeless. While the person who did the renovation would be able to live more comfortably and even live happily, embracing their reformed shelter.

I hope this analogy serves well for the understanding of Gender Abolition.

References

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 Friedrich Engels (1884). Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State: 'IX. Barbarism and Civilization'.
↑ Ibid: '4. The Monogamous Family'.
↑ ^3.0 ^3.1 Anuradha Ghandy. "Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement"
↑ Alessio Marconi (2017-09-12). "LGBT: Liberation and Revolution" In Defence of Marxism.
↑ ^5.0 ^5.1 ^5.2 ^5.3 ^5.4 ^5.5 Leslie Feinberg (1996). Transgender Warriors. [PDF]
↑ Deuteronomy 22:5 NIV
↑ Deuteronomy 23:1 KJV The reason I chose KJV and not NIV in this instance is because the interpretation is clearer in KJV for some reason compared to NIV.
↑ V.I. Lenin (1914). The Right of Nations to Self-Determination: '4. "Practicality" in the National Question'.
↑ Kim Jong-Il (1990). On Some Problems of The Ideological Foundation of Socialism. [PDF]
↑ Paraphrase from this book: Karl Marx (1852). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: 'February 1848 to December 1851'. [MIA]
↑ Kim Jong-Il (1994). Socialism is a Science. [PDF]
↑ Kim Jong-Il (1982). On the Juche Idea: 'The Philosophical Principle of the Juche Idea'.
↑ Georgi Plekhanov (1898). On the Alleged Crisis in Marxism.
↑ ^14.0 ^14.1 ^14.2 ^14.3 Cde. Winter (2024-07-22). "Communists and the Queer Question"
↑ May Peterson (2024-05-15). "Dialectical Feminism: An Unburial Theory"
↑ Iseult de Mallet Burgess (2021-10-09). "Gender abolition: Why it matters" Cherwell.

[:0-1] 1.0 ^1.1 Friedrich Engels (1884). Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State: 'IX. Barbarism and Civilization'.

[2] Ibid: '4. The Monogamous Family'.

[:1-3] 3.0 ^3.1 Anuradha Ghandy. "Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement"

[:2-4] Alessio Marconi (2017-09-12). "LGBT: Liberation and Revolution" In Defence of Marxism.

[:3-5] 5.0 ^5.1 ^5.2 ^5.3 ^5.4 ^5.5 Leslie Feinberg (1996). Transgender Warriors. [PDF]

[6] Deuteronomy 22:5 NIV

[7] Deuteronomy 23:1 KJV The reason I chose KJV and not NIV in this instance is because the interpretation is clearer in KJV for some reason compared to NIV.

[8] V.I. Lenin (1914). The Right of Nations to Self-Determination: '4. "Practicality" in the National Question'.

[9] Kim Jong-Il (1990). On Some Problems of The Ideological Foundation of Socialism. [PDF]

[10] Paraphrase from this book: Karl Marx (1852). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: 'February 1848 to December 1851'. [MIA]

[11] Kim Jong-Il (1994). Socialism is a Science. [PDF]

[12] Kim Jong-Il (1982). On the Juche Idea: 'The Philosophical Principle of the Juche Idea'.

[13] Georgi Plekhanov (1898). On the Alleged Crisis in Marxism.

[:4-14] 14.0 ^14.1 ^14.2 ^14.3 Cde. Winter (2024-07-22). "Communists and the Queer Question"

[15] May Peterson (2024-05-15). "Dialectical Feminism: An Unburial Theory"

[16] Iseult de Mallet Burgess (2021-10-09). "Gender abolition: Why it matters" Cherwell.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]