Article (Gender eliminativsm) Sex, gender & their consequences: interview with Louise Antony

[C C]

On Sex, gender & their consequences: interview with Louise Antony
https://freethinker.co.uk/2024/02/i-am-a...se-antony/

(excerpt) Freethinker: One final question. For you as a socialist intersectionalist feminist, what is fundamentally at the heart of this debate about sex and gender?

Antony: I am a gender eliminativist. I believe that gender is real, but I think it should not be. People should be allowed to flourish in all sorts of different ways, depending on their different aptitudes, proclivities, characteristics and so forth. It is a fundamental injustice to try to package people into these socially preformed categories of man and woman, boy and girl. The elimination of that kind of categorisation is very important to me. As a feminist, I think that anyone who is being gender transgressive is putting us on the right road. So I want to give absolute support to trans people... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - -

William Reville (the biochemist): Science is based only on evidence and logic. No genuine scientific conclusion can be “good”, “bad”, “sexist”, “racist” etc – only true or false. The PC a priori rejection of scientific investigations on moral grounds is anti-scientific. Science describes the world as it is; PC describes the world as PC thinks it ought to be.

---

Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender (4.2 Neo gender realism)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femin...#NewGenRea

EXCERPT: . . Haslanger’s ameliorative analysis is counterintuitive in that females who are not sex-marked for oppression, do not count as women. At least arguably, the Queen of England is not oppressed on sex-marked grounds and so, would not count as a woman on Haslanger’s definition. And, similarly, all males who are not privileged would not count as men. This might suggest that Haslanger’s analysis should be rejected in that it does not capture what language users have in mind when applying gender terms.

However, Haslanger argues that this is not a reason to reject the definitions, which she takes to be revisionary: they are not meant to capture our intuitive gender terms. In response, Mikkola (2009) has argued that revisionary analyses of gender concepts, like Haslanger’s, are both politically unhelpful and philosophically unnecessary.

Note also that Haslanger’s proposal is eliminativist: gender justice would eradicate gender, since it would abolish those sexist social structures responsible for sex-marked oppression and privilege. If sexist oppression were to cease, women and men would no longer exist (although there would still be males and females). Not all feminists endorse such an eliminativist view though. Stone holds that Haslanger does not leave any room for positively revaluing what it is to be a woman: since Haslanger defines woman in terms of subordination,

". . . any woman who challenges her subordinate status must by definition be challenging her status as a woman, even if she does not intend to … positive change to our gender norms would involve getting rid of the (necessarily subordinate) feminine gender." (Stone 2007, 160)

[Zinjanthropos]

Biggest problem I see is that a lot of the world isn’t going to buy into it. Back in the sixties you might have thought that by now we’d all be making love and war a thing of the past. All the world didn’t buy that either.

It’s as if nature is always experimenting, trying to find a balance, testing survival methods/threats, discovering what works. If only a portion of the world accepts/abides by this new cultural gender policy does that isolate those societies in some way, thus inviting an evolutionary stimulant to take root.

Result will probably be like all the other ideas, people will still kill each other.

[C C]

Biggest problem I see is that a lot of the world isn’t going to buy into it. Back in the sixties you might have thought that by now we’d all be making love and war a thing of the past. All the world didn’t buy that either.

It’s as if nature is always experimenting, trying to find a balance, testing survival methods/threats, discovering what works. If only a portion of the world accepts/abides by this new cultural gender policy does that isolate those societies in some way, thus inviting an evolutionary stimulant to take root.

Result will probably be like all the other ideas, people will still kill each other.

"Abolition of gender" movements often conflict internally with themselves, if they instead actually want to introduce scores of new genders (non-binary). I suppose the gist of it is that such a plurality of genders will supposedly prevent any particular one from acquiring domination over all the others. (Abolition of binary, really, rather than abolition of gender.)

Almost all leftist philosophy is intellectually descended from Marxism. The obsession with diagnosing every "problem" in terms of systemic oppression, and railing about the existence of hierarchies (which any organization features), and capitalism and a naturalistic worldview being at the root of all evil -- are the tell-tale signs. At the end of the road it envisions, it is ultimately anti-Western. (The political spectrum is a circle rather than a straight line. The ends of the latter -- the far-right and far-left meet -- and incrementally merge into each other when curved into a circle.)

Xenofeminism: Xenofeminism, or the movement that incorporates technology into the abolition of gender, is a concept that is intersectional to cyberfeminism. It is an offshoot of cyberfeminism established by the feminist collective Laboria Cuboniks. In its manifesto, Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation, the collective argues against nature as desirable and immutable in favor of a future where gender is dislodged from power and in which feminism destabilizes and uses the master's tools for its own rebuilding of life.

The movement has three main characteristics: it is techno-materialist, anti-naturalist, and advocates for gender abolition. This means that the movement contradicts naturalist ideals that state that there are only two genders and aims toward the abolition of the "binary gender system". Xenofeminism differs from cyberfeminism because while it has similar ideals, it is inclusive to the queer and transgender communities. The manifesto states:

Xenofeminism is gender-abolitionist. 'Gender abolitionism' is shorthand for the ambition to construct a society where traits currently assembled under the rubric of gender, no longer furnish a grid for the asymmetric operation of power. 'Race abolitionism' expands into a similar formula – that the struggle must continue until currently racialized characteristics are no more a basis of discrimination than the color of one's eyes. Ultimately, every emancipatory abolitionism must incline towards the horizon of class abolitionism, since it is in capitalism where we encounter oppression in its transparent, denaturalized form: you're not exploited or oppressed because you are a wage labourer or poor; you are a labourer or poor because you are exploited.

[confused2]

Let the % of 16-year-old girls that would like to curl up in bed with a prince be x%
Let the % of 16-year-old boys that would like to curl up in bed with a (almost any) female be y%

If both x and y are a substantial majority (are they?) then.. I would need to know before adding anything.