This document follows my second-year dissertation on Gender titled “Gender Redux”, informed by materialism. It itself followed the first-year “Gender!!!” and the way to political presentation I gave to my parents when I told them I want hormones.

Abstract

Gender is a big word that means a lot of things to a lot of different people. My conclusion, however, is simple. Everyone should be whoever they want to be. The concept of “gender” is useful insofar as we use it as a categorisation tool, and to simplify explaining ourselves to others. This conclusion depends on a materialist ethic of autonomy, a rejection of metaphysical essences, and a pragmatic view of language as an instrument.

Further discussion

In my preliminary document “Gender Redux” my thesis was the construction of three categories: Sex, Gender, and the Inner Self.

Sex is a set of mutable characteristics relevant in medical and sexual contexts. While chromosomes are typically considered immutable, primary and secondary sex characteristics are very mutable. It is conceivable that in the future chromosomes could also become mutable.

Gender is a set of societal expectations. It is inherently tied into the societal structure and is rooted in historical oppression. Gender is traditionally based on sex. In the preliminary document, the argument is that all genders are part of the societal gender hierarchy, even “new” ones that intend to break it. For example, “non-binary” in theory represents an alternative to the gender binary, while in practice the term conjures up expectations of androgyny.

The Inner Self is a material component to gender. It’s material is brain signals and it’s expression is in social interactions and presentation (traditionally: gender). It is a signal within the ongoing adaptive system that is our brains. Misalignment between the inner self’s expected sex characteristics and/or gender presentation can lead to emotional distress.

A large part of this thesis is the idea of the modern gender breakdown. It is socio-economically concerned, and argues that as capitalism necessarily blurs gender roles to keep itself afloat (women in the workforce) it contradicts itself with its reliance on the gender binary. This conflict has caused many to re-evaluate the concept of gender. The idea of a non-binary identity is one such conclusion to the conflict; one that relies on the already existing societal structure.

My contemporary emphasis is on mutability. Each of these three aspects change constantly; we are not confined to their past definitions. Even sex, traditionally considered immutable physical aspects, is constantly in motion. Not only as qualitative processes like puberty, accident, and surgery take their effects. This includes that one’s physical person is not identical to one’s former self, merely somewhat similar.

To reach this conclusion

I believe most of the bulk in my former dissertations on gender were too concerned with trying to justify this conclusion. I attempted to educate the reader on social constructions, provide an overly simplified overlook on the history of gender, its meaning and evolution. I discussed the philosophical and scientific realities of sex, the meaning of chromosomes and characteristics.

But I do not believe the arguments to the conclusions are useful, because the conclusions don’t rely on the arguments. They rely on a certain philosophical outlook. A blend of critical theory, materialism, ideas of what is practical, and ideas of what is possible.

Capitalism (A necessary header in any leftist position)

The arguments around a gender breakdown caused by the processes of capitalism too don’t really matter. They give important historical context, but it is a historical contingency and not a justification for abolishing gendered norms. The primary historical point to be made is that gender has not always existed in the form of a social construct.

The Material Self

In a material understanding of consciousness there is no transient property of being that delivers us self-reflection and thought. Our inner self is no more than a bio-mechanical product of our complex brains. It is our desires, our preferences, and our habits.

There exists a mechanical means to change the inner self: time. We are never the same self as much as our matter is never the same as it was. It is conceivable that one day we will know exactly how the inner self works mechanistically, and we may be able to intentionally alter it. If we reserve the ethics of the implication, philosophically it would be no different than unintentional alterations of the inner self.

I generally do not concern myself with morals. However, a very basic appeal would be a minimisation of suffering with respect to

Gender, really

My contemporary issue with gender is it’s reliance on modern history and the mechanisms of oppression employed by society. While I partially hope this term becomes solely an aesthetic category used in direct relation to specific scenarios, in truth I believe the term too evolutionary and subjective to be genuinely meaningful.

My modern thoughts are to internally abandon gender, and hope the same of our future society.

I am forced to continue its use. Language is closely tied to gender, and telling people I am a woman presumes feminine pronouns which aligns the social expectations of my inner self with social reality. Using the term transgender, for now, conveys me as someone who would have male sexual characteristics with inaction, but with an inner expectation of female sexual characteristics that I intend to physically meet.

The term is not perfect. It does not apply to me, but many transgender women are okay with some of their primary sexual characteristics. This is an ambiguity in the term “transgender woman”, where anyone without an expectation on a transgender woman’s expectations of their primary sexual characteristics would have to inquire further if relevant on one’s true expectations of one’s physical body.

The term is not perfect because depending on the subjectivity of the person receiving the term as an explanation of another’s inner self, it will define certain expectations from the other and not define others.

I generally avoid examples, but here’s one. I may remove it later, if my point is clear regardless.

Alice, Bob, and Charlie are the characters here. 
Charlie tells Alice and Bob that they are a trans woman. 
Alice expects that trans women want to go on hormones and get bottom surgery, 
and nothing more. 
Bob expects only that trans women want to be called by the feminine, 
and be called by a new name. 
In reality, Charlie wants to go on hormones and doesn't want bottom surgery, 
wants to be referred in the gender neutral where possible, 
and won't be changing their name.

The issue here is that Charlie now has to actually tell both Alice and Bob what they actually mean when they say they are a trans woman.

If the term was abandoned entirely, in fact if gender was abandoned entire, Charlie would only need to tell Alice and Bob the things they actually needed to hear.

The concept isn’t only applicable to the transgender identity. If we abandon the assignment of gender at birth, someone may later in life decide that they are comfortable identifying with the masculine gender. However, they may enjoy things that are traditionally not masculine, like dresses, make-up. They may even want different primary sex characteristics to that which is male.

If the term was abandoned entirely, people could be themselves without incurring unfounded expectations from others.

The point tackles both the ideas of gender in language and gender as a social construction. They are intrinsically linked. Language is a descriptor of our social condition while our social condition is re-enforced by our usage of language.

I aspire to this reality, while also accepting that in modern society it is useful to call myself a trans woman. Gender is not practically abolishable without first deconstructing the need for normativity.