💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › hellothere314-gender-abolition-praxis-and-analysis.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:46:51. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Gender Abolition: Praxis And Analysis
Author: HelloThere314
Language: en
Topics: gender abolition, situationist, post-situationist, egoism

HelloThere314

Gender Abolition: Praxis And Analysis

1. Introduction

1.1 Importance Of Gender Analysis

Gender has an impact on much of life. From the moment one is brought

into the world, they are immediately labeled as a boy or girl. This

affects much of how one is raised; boys are mostly given “boyish''

clothing while girls are given “girlish” clothing. The more boyish

clothing usually has a darker color scheme and simple aesthetic, while

girlish clothing is more flairy and bright. Even if one accepts that

gender is a natural facet of the human experience one must admit that

having different styles of clothing besides changes based on body shape

is strange. Boys are embroiled in more sporty activities such as

football, basketball, or any other given sport. Girls, while having many

who do sports, mostly participate in more flairy, spectacular

activities, such as dance, cheerleading, and gymnastics. While the

female sex has less strength in general it does not make sense that

girls as a result of that would find themselves in more flairy,

objectifying roles or that men would be far skewed towards participation

in sports. The responsibilities taught differ by sex as well, while this

has certainly lessened in recent years girls are taught chores of more

traditionally feminine futures, such as houswivery, this usually

manifests in girls being given the responsibilities of cleaning and

other low strength yet highly tedious responsibilities; in contrast,

boys take on far more hard labor, such as mowing the lawn, assembling

house items, etc. One might say that this is mostly due to the

differences in strength between the sexes; in many ways, this would be

correct, however, this difference constitutes a great impact on future

careers and expectations; as that is the case it should be noted. This

difference in environment and social expectations at that early age is

very daunting. It changes basic personality and expectations toward

oneself that could never be explained by simple biology. Many of these

changes seem even nonsensical with no material backing.

These impacts continue into adulthood with societal expectations rampant

for both sexes. The woman is expected to put much work into her

appearance, through makeup, beauty products, etc. Interestingly much of

the expectations of looks placed on women are quite new in our history,

created by corporations to sell products. While the products used have

changed, the expectation stays the same. Meanwhile, men have much less

maintenance when it comes to clothing. That is not to say that they have

fewer expectations for clothing, if a man wears a dress, traditionally

feminine clothing, they will be quickly socially ostracized, however,

this expectation requires far less maintenance and is thus far less

affecting. Women’s appearances are far more flared in contrast to men

who have far more simple clothing. When it comes to jobs women now have

far fewer expectations when it comes to jobs, this seems to be a result

of the modern feminist movement; however, there is still certainly a

subconscious expectation of femininity even in these roles. Along with

that, there is certainly still a slight expectation of women fulfilling

traditional feminine roles such as houswivery. Men traditionally fulfill

work for their families. This is certainly still an expectation, even

simply getting married is still an expectation. Unlike the feminist

push, men’s social role when it comes to the workspace has remained very

much static.

All of this constitutes great importance towards gender and great

importance towards analyzing and understanding gender. Gender is the

system we have been indoctrinated in since birth, gender affects our

relationships, our jobs, our clothing, our personality and general

expectations. Gender must be understood, analyzed, and inspected.

1.2 Definition Of Gender

No discussion of the definition of gender would be complete without at

least a mention of Judith Butler. They defined gender as preformative,

as in gender not as an inherent characteristic or even a chosen identity

but as a performance of specific characteristics associated with the

gender in question. Our performance is acting to the expectations of a

certain gender. When one picks their clothes in the morning one is

performing, in the sense that one has a set framework to pick one's

clothes. This framework is preformative, set to the expectations of

outer society. “Masculine and feminine roles are not biologically fixed

but socially constructed. There is no original or primary gender a drag

imitates, but gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no

original.” In many ways this framework is chosen, gender is a chosen

phantom in the stirnerite sense. One might question the injection of

Stirner into a discussion of Butler; however, Stirner’s framework is

quite useful here. Stirner defines himself as a unique, one not bound by

any concepts of humanity and the like. He sees humanity, gender, race,

etc as mere phantoms that only hurt the individual. Stirner, like

Butler, thinks of these phantoms as in some way preformatory. Stirner

made it a point that abstractions came from the individual, by their

perception and reverence for sacred causes. Thus Stirner’s analysis of

abstractions and Butler’s performative definition of gender naturally

follow each other. If gender is performative, what of things such as one

“feeling” like a certain gender, wouldn’t that make gender somewhat

inherent, contrary to Butler’s definition? Butler has said that while

gender is assigned to us at birth it is constantly being reassigned

throughout life. They have said that this common queer opinion is

essentialist and ignores the utterly baseless conception of gender. This

opinion has made them quite controversial but their opinion seems to be

correct considering the differences in gender systems throughout

history. For example, many Native American cultures had different gender

systems that were standardized and ostracized by European colonizers.

Butler never suggests that these identities are wrong in any way or that

people are foolish to have them, merely that they are frameworks

performed in everyday life. Butler even identifies with the constructed

framework of being nonbinary. They just see gender’s preformative

nature.

While Butler defines gender as performativity Vikky Storm and Eme Flores

in their manifesto Gender Accelerationist Manifesto define gender as a

class system relating to the division of sexual labor. There have been

many systems of gender in different cultures however as stated before

they have been standardized into the rough binary system. They seem to

agree with Butler’s definition of gender as a preformative system

however they analyze gender in a marxist sense. It is made clear that

gender is just a grouping of qualities. They cite the example of female

athletes kicked out of sporting events due to their chromosomes, a

discovery at the time which previously was not included in the

definition of a woman. They see three classes in the modern binary

gender system, the masculine, the feminine and the queer. The masculine

is the ruling class in the sense that they, in general, hold the power

in the division of sexual labor. This dominance forms the patriarchy,

the ruling class in the system of gender. Meanwhile, the feminine class

is dominated, they bear children, they take care of them, and they are

put with the hardest labor in the sexual division of labor. The males on

the other hand get jobs to provide for the family. This archetype that

almost all households followed has been slightly subverted in recent

years; this is mainly due to the modern feminist movement, however,

expectations and dynamics are certainly still there. The final class in

the stormian model is the queer class. Queers subvert the sexual

division of labor by not conforming to it. They may actively identify

with either man or woman but they still subvert it. Take the gay man, he

identifies with the male gender yet his sexual interest is with other

men. Thus he subverts the sexual division of labor. The stormian

definition of gender takes both Butler’s theory of performance and

marxist class structure to understand gender. One must now consider the

problems with marxist class structure and see if it applies to Storm and

Flores’ idea of a gender class structure. The problem of class structure

is simply class reductionism. Class is merely an abstraction, an idea

that groups people together. These classes can be useful for analysis

but they are often overemphasized and treated as actually real instead

of mere useful abstraction. Take Marx’s theory of dialectical

materialism, which posits that the dynamics of class define the

relations of history. This is extremely misguided as it treats class as

a sovereign entity with uniform interests. Class certainly has played

some role in history as can be seen by slave revolts and the french

revolution however it cannot be seen as the whole force. History may

have a logic in the hegelian sense however it certainly is not driven by

one force; history has no metanarrative. What does this make of the

stormian analysis? Storm and Flores do not seem to fall into some of the

traps of Marx as those who do not fall in either class have a class of

their own, the queer class; however, their certainly is some class

reductionist tendencies present. They treat the interests between these

classes as uniform which severely oversimplifies matters. Even with

this, the analysis is quite useful and if one keeps class reductionism

in mind it can help matters quite greatly.

Gender is preformative, a stirnerite abstraction, and a class system all

simultaneously. Its definition doesn’t really exist as it itself is

merely a phantom, an abstraction. Yet, even still, this phantom has

extreme influence on all facets of life. Understanding its dynamics, its

effects is tremendously important. Thus we will understand gender as an

abstraction, performed, and morphed into a class system. Gender is

non-existent, constructed by the mind. This is the base understanding of

gender I will use to dissect it so be warned if you do not agree with

the definition.

1.3 Gender Oppression

Gender has historically existed in many forms and many different

systems. While most have used something resembling the modern gender

binary many others have existed. As an example, take the third spirit

gender of many Native American communities. Gender oppression can be

understood historically through both modern gender class dynamics and

the oppression of other gender systems by Europians. Women have

historically been subjugated in a large number of societies and

cultures. The reasons for this seem to be the natural differences in

strength and the evolution of cultures and roles that came with that.

This is not to say that this suddenly makes it just, it is still

oppression whether based on nature or not. These societal roles have

been insatiably oppressive and have alienated women for long swathes of

society's history. They have been treated as mere sex objects only to

produce a child for the man. This has constituted the gender class

system for most of modern history. Oppression has been the standard

language of gender for the entirety of our history. Gender has a long

history of oppression that continues to modern times.

The standard form of oppression, to not only gender but all marginalized

groups, has been beauvoirian othering. The process of treating some

group of people as other, as subhuman. This in the terms of gender has

been to women and queers. The woman is treated as another, as an object

to the man’s satisfaction. Just the word woman shows how entrenched this

is in culture, woman is comprised of wo-man. The language itself treats

women as another. The entirety of society is poised against women. By

this othering women is alienated from humanity itself. They are treated

as sub par, an object. This has been the standard form of psychological

oppression if cultures did not resort to physical oppression, which they

often did. Beauvoir seems to agree with Butler’s assertion that gender

is preformative, saying “One is not born, but becomes woman”.

As said before gender expectations constitute the performance of gender.

These expectations psychologically force this oppression. While gender

is a stirnerite phantom, which is always individually accepted, gender

is so interwoven into society that one is expected to be a certain

gender, to perform it. This expectation constitutes much of society, one

is expected to act boyish or girlish, or in modern times, queer. Gender

stereotypes, queer steryotypes hold all down. These expectations are

oppressive and as will be the subject of the next section needs to be

abolished. Overall gender is oppressive, a stirnerite abstraction,

forcing expectations and stereotypes that forces individuals to perform

their assigned gender.

2. Gender Abolition

2.1 The Necessity Of Gender Abolition

Gender, as discussed in the previous sections, is an oppressive

stirnerite abstraction. Thus it seems quite simple that it should be

rejected, at least its coercive forces must be rejected. Many may be

inclined to be negative toward this proposition, especially those who

hold their gender identity close; for this I must clarify that when I

talk of the elimination of gender I do not refer to its potential for

identity but merely its coercive power. Someone, for example, may

identify with the female gender and its traits, however as long as one

makes it as a conscious choice, takes it as her property in a stirnerite

sense, nothing is a problem. I may not identify with any gender as I see

it as oppressive, but to each their own. Even with that assertion many

may still be dismissive towards gender’s abolition, so I will lay out

the reasons for gender abolition. First there is gender’s

performativity. Gender, as has been previously explored, is preformative

to some certain traits. Why might one perform? Simply, gender’s

performance is coerced by society. Society labels one as some gender

from the moment one is born either, in our current binary gender system,

boy or girl. This labeling is synonymous with certain traits that one is

expected to follow. This leads to gender being performed. As we continue

it will be helpful to analyze the impacts of labeling in general, a

short example of labeling's negative effect will follow. Imagine a

student in high school who everyone sees as a good student. This becomes

a cognitive part of their identity as it is the main object of praise by

those around them. Let’s say that there is a social gathering tonight

that they would like to attend; however, there is an exam coming up in

two weeks that a good student would start studying for. They know that a

day’s worth of studying won’t make much of a difference when it comes to

their ability to do well on the exam; however, a good student would stay

and study. This label, typically seen as positive, has had an impact on

behavior that was detrimental. The student performs their label of being

a good student much like one performs their gender identity. Just like

the student can still act like a good student without being labeled as

such one can still act like a certain gender without being labeled as

such, and thus performing their identity. The second thing to consider

has been gender’s negative effect on the structure of society, creating

societies with both matriarchal and patriarchal domination. Usually,

like the case of our current society, patriarchy forms. In both cases

both physical and psychological oppression takes hold, with abuse and

beauvoirian othering taking hold. This has been the target of the

mainstream feminist movement. It must remain our focus as well as

freedom from gender oppression and the goal of ownness in the stirnerite

sense. If one is reading this they are most likely familiar with

feminist talking points so I will not dwell on it.

With all of this considered the necessity of gender abolition should be

made clear. In the following sections we will explore different gender

abolitionist strategies and analyses.

2.2 Stormian Gender Accelerationism

The stormian gender analysis has been discussed in previous sections,

however Storm and Flores also agree with the thesis of the annihilation

of gender. They suggest the acceleration of gender identities until the

logic of gender does not make sense, along with this they suggest

marxian class struggle between the genders. Let’s analyze the conception

of class struggle from where it is most commonly found, that being the

marxist dynamics of proletariat and bourgeoisie. The marxist dynamics

are founded on the division of labour in the economy. The bourgeoisie is

the commander class while the proletariat is the worker. From the

marxist lens, these class dynamics are the commander of history, viewing

history from the conflict of classes. This leads to the quite simplistic

view among many marxists that classes have common interests that lead to

class conflict. This is obviously false, classes are merely groupings of

people who share similar positions in society compared to others. A

class is only created when everyone agrees a class is there. Thus the

problem of class reductionism, which has already been analyzed, is

created. Do Storm and Flores differ on this? Well, as discussed earlier,

stormian gender classes are all encompassing, however they do at times

fall to the trap of the standardization of class interests. There are

many queers who do not follow the class intrests described in stormian

class dynamics. Take the youtuber JJ who has identified with the

homosexual identity, yet is a conservative. It can be argued that these

classes are made only with rational actors and that these analyses of

gender classes are arguments for what classes should do. This can be

seen by Marx viewing the class dynamics of the proletariat and the

bourgeoisie who he sees as making capitalism unstable as their interests

are opposed, with the proletariat wanting to work with higher pay and

lower working hours and the bourgeoisie wanting the most money possible.

This does not apply much to Marx with his theory of dialectical

materialism assuming that communism was inevitable. However the stormian

analysis does seem to assume any inevitability, only suggesting the

abolition of gender. This is very important as marxian class

reductionism has much less effect.

What then of the method proposed, that being gender accelerationism.

Accelerationism in general can be quite dogmatic, assuming some grand

narrative that will inevitably lead to some form of salvation, whether

moderate or radical. There are exceptions to this of course - the most

prominent being unconditional accelerationism, which is disillusioned

with any goals or praxis whatsoever. In most other cases, might it be

right or left wing in nature, dogma and in many cases technophilia

accompany it. Gender accelerationism seems to fall into many general

dogmas associated with accelerationism. It states that in the modern

gender system gender is coming to a state of disassociation with the

sexual division of labour. Take things like xenogenders, a concept

recently thought up by the lgbt+ community. They identify gender as mere

identity, with the case of zenogenders, genders can be identified with

things such as colors or animals. Gender accelerationism posits that

this trend of genders being disassociated with the sexual division of

labour should be accelerated, breaking the logic of gender all together.

They hypothesize that when gender’s logic is broken it will be

abolished. Note that when they suggest that gender will be abolished

they simply mean its connection to the sexual division of labour. This

strategy has many pros, especially in its analysis of the current state

of gender. Gender is indeed becoming detached from the sexual division

of labour; to anyone who agrees with the goal of gender abolitionism, or

at least general freedom of gender - this is good news. The proposition

of speeding up this process also seems alright, if this process is going

in one direction and said direction is desirable it makes sense that

accelerating the process would be one of general positivity. However, it

is in no way guaranteed that accelerating the process of gender will

lead to its abolition. In general, accelerationism can be quite short

sided in that respect. This of course can be said of all means of

praxis, however accelerationism in most cases actively gives power to

the structure it wishes to destroy. There are of course exceptions, many

right wing accelerationists hold the view that accelerating capitalism

will lead to the vanquish of socialism and left wing thought in general

or unconditional accelerationists who hold no care towards any political

goals. The case of giving power to what you wish to destroy is

definitely present in gender accelerationism. This is not to say gender

accelerationism and types of accelerationism like it don’t hold warrant.

If one thinks that a structure is unstable and wants to get rid of that

structure, accelerating said structure may have warrant. There are of

course problems with this view, take the acceleration of capitalism in

modern neoliberalism which while certainly facing resistance, most have

accepted it as a fact of life. The fisherian concept of capitalist

realism has taken hold. Many would retort that capitalism is certainly

still unstable, we’re just at a point where it is not ready to collapse;

maybe the ongoing climate crisis will cause its collapse. Others will

say that capitalism might be stable, this does not apply to gender.

Gender class structure has faced avid resistance from the modern

feminist movement and lgbt+ activists; what Storm and Flores suggest is

the acceleration of resistance. This certainly has warrant, however

while it is certainly resistance it still comes from the language of

gender. The logic of gender may be broken by this resistance, however

this is in no way guaranteed. It may only strengthen gender repression

by new gender systems. It would certainly be better to have more

inclusive and spanning gender systems, however oppression still remains.

What could be even worse is reactionary pushback, as seems to be

mounting. Gender acceleration simply may not be the best means of

praxis.

While the accelerationism advocated by Storm and Flores seems overall

positive, if not a bit short sighted their idea of the dictatorship of

the queer is far more troubling. To understand this means of praxis we

must analyze where they derive it from, that being marxism. Marx and

Engels have the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the

oppressed workers assert themselves under full control. It is important

to clear some general misconceptions surrounding the dictatorship of the

proletariat. First of all it is not communism, or even socialism. It is

the mere assertion of one class above another. For example, Marx and

Engels viewed the Paris Commune as a dictatorship of the proletariat,

however they don’t consider them socialist or communist. Lenin did not

consider the Soviet Union communist or socialist, merely a dictatorship

of the proletariat with the goal of socialism and then communism, or as

Marx describes it, higher and lower stage communism. This may confuse

some, who view the dictatorship of the proletariat as socialism in the

leninist sense. This is untrue, socialism or lower phase communism is

classless, unlike the dictatorship of the proletariat, it uses labor

vouchers as a means of incentive for labour. This is only Marx’s

thoughts, however Lenin holds generally the same views, with some

differences. He held the same view of Marx, merely rewording it with the

socialist communist dichotomy; along with this, he thinks the

dictatorship of the proletariat should be led by marxist intellectuals.

This was what he viewed would work best for Russia as it had little

labour organization and was quite feudal. He expected the proletariat to

be able to lead on their own in industrialized countries, like what was

espoused by Rosa Luxembourg and the spartacist revolt. This of course

did not happen, which led to the socialism in one country view espoused

by Stalin. There are definite problems with this strategy, that being

authoritarianism that can easily lead to corruption, even in democratic

dictatorships of the proletariats. Secondly class reductionism is

present here with the proletariat and bourgeoisie not being the only

classes. Anarchists critiqued this a lot during the first international.

Any encompassing authority will be alienating and harmful to

individuals, even those among the class. How does this apply to the

dictatorship of the queer. Well it essentially is the same premise with

the queer class asseting itself above other classes. In fact, Storm and

Flores hold that this is gender communism. Holding that class conflicts

of all forms, whether that be racial or classial form a totality that

forms the basis of the fight of communism. Most of the critiques of the

dictatorship of the proletariat follows to the dictatorship of the

queer. It is authoritarian and in many ways alienating. It is not fully

class reductionist, as is their analysis of gender classes. Overall it

could be viewed as an effective means of praxis. Effective does not mean

without flaws. The dictatorship of the queer could easily enstate a new

gender system, one quite essentialist. The modern queer discourse holds

many essentialist talking points, like that one is born with a gender.

Of course this gender system would be far more encompassing and much

less alienating, yet it remains a system. The reason Storm and Flores

think that gender systems would be eradicated through the dictatorship

of the queer is the break of logic in gender caused by the aformentioned

acceleration. Of course this has merit but it is weak at best. Breaking

the logic of gender is quite positive however using the acceleration of

gender to reach it could work, however the danger if it doesn’t seems

far more concerning.

2.3 Gender Nihilism

Gender nihilism, unlike gender accelerationism, finds no use in the

modern movements of feminism and queer liberation. It seeks not to

liberate gender but to annihilate it, the expansion of gender is, in its

view, synonymous with the expansion of oppression. This is not to say

they dismiss oppressed groups, but that they see groupings in general as

fundamentally oppressive. In Gender Nihilism: An Anti-Manifesto they

cite anti-humanism as their main influence, thus let us start by

analyzing anti-humanist thought. Anti-humanism, as the name implies, is

a philosophical rejection of humanity. Anti-humanism can be seen to have

two schools, one rejects humanity for individuality while the other

rejects humanity due to a hatred of humanity. The book follows in the

individualist camp of ant-humanism. This type of anti-humanism was

strongly popularized by Stirner. Stirner sees humanity as just another

label, like gender. He views labels as property that we take on as we

please when we are in a state of ownness. This label of humanity, in

Stirner’s view, is the basis of liberalism. Liberalism sees humanity as

the defining essence of political thought, engaging in solidarity and

the like. It is important to note that Stirner sees socialism as just

another form of liberalism, even more socially inclined. Stirner sees

humanity as just another sacred cause to the involuntary egoist. “I am

neither God nor the human being” - Max Stirner. What does this mean for

gender nihilism? It sees gender as just another sacred cause. It sees

itself as just a specific facet of anti-humanism. What then does it say

in the way of praxis? Well it does not supply a praxis of its own,

however it critiques other forms of praxis. It sees gender

accelerationism, for example, as very flawed as it gives power to gender

structure. This comes out of its view that the expansion of gender

systems to be more equitable merely extends the control of gender. It

encourages a strategy of rejection of labels. To completely withdraw

from identity politics and gender identity. This leads to its general

nihilism, as its title implies. Gender nihilism may seem to delve into

the realm of anti-praxis. It is true that it does not hold wide praxis,

instead preferring micro-politics at the level of the individual. It

also engages in radical critique of most praxis, including the

aforementioned gender accelerationism. Its problems with gender

accelerationism are synonymous with most other forms of gender

abolition. Along with this, it provides a critique of the modern liberal

feminist and queer movements. This critique is almost synonymous with

Stirner’s critique of liberalism just specified towards gender and

modern day liberalism. If liberal feminism’s goal is the expansion of

gender then it should be viewed as the enemy of all. Along with this,

arguments are made very similar to the postmodern and poststructuralist

critiques of identity and its politics. Labels and general can be made

very oppressive, this has been discussed in the previous sections,

however labels can also be very essentialist. This also has been

discussed in the previous sections by means of class and by extension

gender. The reductionism remains even without a class structure. Even if

men and women are equal there are still expectations, essentialism, and

the essential performativity of gender. This essentialism is very

harmful to authentic social development. Just like Stirner’s critique of

liberalism and humanism, even if all are equal, oppression still

remains. Gender nihilism engages in a rejection of labels, at least in

the context of gender. It is, as previously stated, quite similar to

stirnerite anti-humanism and theory of ownness. It rejects it, plunging

into the void of emptiness, disunity, and nihilism.

2.4 Xenofeminism

Unlike other means of gender abolition, which have focused on

psychological factors and psychological resistance, xenofeminism takes a

physical approach. It holds that the physical factors that differentiate

individuals form the basis of the oppressive facts of gender. This does

not mean that they want complete physical equality, merely they use

transhumanist praxis as means of gender abolition. Physical states, in

the view of xenofeminism, are tied to mental states, not just of us but

of those around us. This alienates us from ourselves, the body in which

we inhabit is plagued by associations with different identities, whether

that be race, gender, etc. This is not to imply complete equality, as

this would just further alienate individuals; instead, free control of

the body would be established. Let us analyze xenofeminism from the

context of its parental ideology, that being transhumanism.

Transhumanism can fall into technophilia quite often; however, its

critique of bodily authority has many points. If the body is limiting,

destroy the body! Along with this many theorists of transhumanism hold

anti-humanist beliefs; many also see it as a mere extension of humanity.

The transhumanist humanist seems analogous to Nietzsche’s Übermensch,

seeing humanity as something to be conquered, to be overcome. This is

not a rejection of humanity but an extension of it. As xenofeminism

falls into the anti-humanist camp of transhumanism it will be discussed

below. Anti-humanist transhumanism sees humanity as oppressive,

something to be rejected. This can be merely physical, seeing humanity

as a merely physical concept, or psychological seeing the transcendence

of the physical act of humanity as a liberation of the psychological

torment of humanity. The latter is where xenofeminism falls. This

concept of physical liberation consequently leading to psychological

liberation has much evidence; for example, when a transgender person

wants a sex change they want to end the dysphoria caused by the

imbalence of their psycological gender identity and their physical sex

associated with their gender; the physical change fixes a psycological

problem to which it is associated. With this the praxis of physical

abolition of sex and other physical class structures naturally follows.

This means of praxis, while possessing great points on the connection

between physical and psychological states, falls into the obscurity of

transhumanism, that being the infeasibility for the praxis to work in

the current state of technology. The current rejection of gendered

clothing norms seems in the lane of xenofeminism, as we can see from

this current state of resistance it falls quickly into dogmatic identity

politics and seems quite futile as means of resistance. With this it has

been appropriated by modern spectacle and media to commodify this means

of resistance. This does not show failure in xenofeminism, just that the

ideology of physical and mental states found in xenofeminism has become

appropriated. With this xenofeminism may seem ideal, with the free

manipulation of body and the abolition of gender as a consequence,

however it is certainly not relevant to modern political struggle. Along

with this, it is not certain that gender will be abolished with the

physical side of gender groupings abolished. Gender is a grouping that

has changed throughout history, it is not clear that gender or even our

current gender system would disappear. This is problematic, as the

entire basis of xenofeminism is that a change in physical states will

naturally lead to a change in mental states. That is not to say that

xenofeminism would lead to no change, it would certainly be a net

positive, as the free ability to change bodily appearance would lead to

the alignment of physical and mental states; however it does not follow

that gender groupings would be abolished.

3. Conclusion

3.1 Individual Rejection Of Gender

All means of praxis that have been discussed and analyzed, besides

gender nihilism, has relied on a grand political project or futuristic

technology. Gender accelerationism offers a strategy for gender

abolition, albeit one with considerable flaws, gender nihilism offers no

means of praxis and seems overall quite against praxis as concept, and

xenofeminism works in the means of transhumanism, known for being quite

irrelevant to modern political struggle. This does not provide much

wisdom on how one should live their life without gender and how to begin

living without gender. Rejecting groupings such as gender is all well

and good, however society, as discussed in previous sections, forces

these groupings quite forcefully. This is not to say gender cannot be

rejected in the modern political and sociological context, merely that

it requires a full realization of stirnerite ownness, one must be fully

oneself rejecting externalities. In modern society with its hierarchy,

social expectations, etc this can be quite hard to do without omitting

key things one values. This is not to say that this rejection of labels

authority over the individual should not be done, as egoists have

written substantially about, this process of ownness can be very

rewarding as it leads to the full realization of oneself and one’s

goals. It merely means that this process is with peril and is truly a

way of living. What then too do to achieve this state, not with grand

political projects or senseless nihilism but with actual goals in mind.

This will be listed in the paragraphs below.</strong>

What first must be introduced is situationism, espoused by the

Situationist International and subsequent theorists. The group was a

merger between the surrealist avant-garde art movement and libertarian

marxism. Of course not all in the group were marxists but they were all

strongly influenced by Marx. The core pillar of situationist theory is

the spectacle. It was originally defined by Debord as the transition in

society between being and appearing. This simply means that instead of

having meaningful interactions we now have the appearance of meaningful

interaction. Take Hollywood, it creates movies showing supposedly

meaningful interaction. These patterns of interaction espoused by movies

are imitated. Or take fashion, do people really think a piece of

clothing is fashionable because they actually believe it to be

aesthetically pleasing, or because models, celebrities, and the wider

industry aspous support? With a bit of analysis the answer becomes

clear, these opinions are not genuine, they are instead based on

appearances. The second relevant situationist theorist is Voyer. Voyer,

unlike Debord and the wider Situationist International, believes that

instead of spectacle being merely a facet of late stage capitalism, it

is a fundamental aspect of human civilization. Take the roman

gladiators, was that a real form of battle, of conquest or was it a mere

spectacular appearance of battle. Spectacle, by Voyer’s analysis, merely

is a structure of distraction that pacifies the populus. This is

fundamental to any structured civilization. What does this have to do

with gender? Gender could be seen as a micro-spectacle, as it acts as

distraction from oneself and one's goals, manipulating oneself into a

viewer of oneself. The other facet of situationist theory are

situations. Situations are situations without the influence of the

spectacle. For the Situationist International this consisted of mainly

art and walks. The art they created was sarealist, avant-garde. It

participated in active resistance against societal standards, comprising

their art of surreal imagery. They had an idea of the politicization of

the arts, resisting the mainly apolitical art scene. The walks they

participated in held no respect for private property, resisting what

they felt where values consisted of pure spectacle. These situations

constitute the revolution of everyday life, as described by Vaneigem.

This relates to gender in forms of creating situations against gender

authority and gender expectations. To create, if not even a moment, a

place in which one is fully themselves!

This concept of the situation is the main basis of my suggested praxis,

of pure self affirmation. How would this apply to actual movements?

While a politics of everyday life in the situationist sense is certainly

very useful and should be the basis of political struggle, for systemic

change or in this case an insurrection against gender this does not seem

to apply. The creation of collective situations is the answer. This was

used by the Situationist International, just in their normal walks

disregarding property rights and other means of spectacle, or in the may

68 riots in Paris, in which the ideas of situations had great influence

and in which the Situationist International participated. Collective

spaces with the rejection of spectacle, in particular the

micro-spectacle of gender. Bob Black and anonymous in their short essay

My Preferred Gender Pronoun Is Negation wrote of a queer

insurrection/situation that occured during the 2009 protests of the G20

Summit in Pittsburgh. This is an example of queer anti-gender

activities. This should be the basis of the wider struggle of gender

abolition. Of course, as the basis of gender abolition comes from the

individual, the main basis of praxis should be the self actualization

found in individual situations.

Gender is a micro-spectacle, a stirnerite abstraction, all performed. As

such it should be eliminated as a base for identity. The basis of

resistance should be self actualization, the realization of the

stirnerite conception of ownness through situations, both individually

and collectively. Gender constitutes so much, limits us so much, we must

actualize ourselves, free ourselves, for ourselves!