There seems to be a consensus that the transgender movement and the movement to abolish gender are in some way opposed. I support the transgender movement completely and am ambivalent in my feelings about abolishing gender, but I see no contradiction whatsoever. In fact, pro tanto, it seems to me that if you want to abolish gender you’ve got a reason to support the transgender movement. Certainly, this is what many conservatives seem to think! Yet TERFS and transgender advocates still talk about these things as if they were opposed.
That's a very rationalist way of looking at support for gender transition, and it's basically the way I look at things as well. But it doesn't seem consistent with some of the ways transitioning is often framed. Transitioning is often described as if it's a matter of changing a social role in order to affirm a crucial aspect of one's inner self, and it seems like for a gender abolitionist, gender shouldn't be affirmed as a crucial aspect of one's inner self.
Consider the analogy, not of jobs, but of citizenship. Imagine Morgan is an anti-state anarchist, and Jesse wants to stop being a citizen of the United States and start being a citizen of Canada. It seems to me Morgan's support for Jesse would depend on Jesse's reasons; if Jesse is trying to escape some kind of oppression, or if Canadian citizenship is administratively necessary to live in a certain place or get a certain job, then Morgan should support Jesse's decision. However, if Jesse wants to become a citizen of Canada because he feels great loyalty to the Canadian state and identifies strongly with it, I don't think Morgan can get 100% behind that.
Maybe I am wrong but advocacy for transgender people having rights and advocacy to abolish gender seem different in kind. One is about individuals seeking rights necessary to live their lives and the other is about which concepts we should use to govern society. The former is necessary not because it is difficult for society to accommodate transgender people as equal to other people but because some people simply don’t want to and are very passionate about it.
It’s a red herring to say that the ‘trans movement’ has some concept of ‘gender’ that if you got rid of the ideas behind the concept you have somehow shown that transgender people should just go away. People are not a theory. They simply exist. Some people do this thing where they are told they are one thing and they simply cannot be that thing but must be another thing. They are told they are a boy and they say ‘no I am a girl’ or vice versa or neither fits. They often do this when they are young long before they know any theories and they do it in different cultures where the concepts may differ.
All that gender critical people say simply amounts to claiming that the particular society they are members of should not accommodate those type of people. They don’t get rid of those type of people. You cannot get rid of them because they keep being born over and over so if you got rid of some of them you would simply have more later on in the future. What gender critical people say isn’t relevant to those type of people. This type of person will just exist as they always did but without any particular rights or ability to integrate into society and will instead be persecuted.
Haven't read the whole thing yet, but I can't help but feel like you've fundamentally misunderstood the gender-critical position. It's not that they want to abolish gender roles; that position is much more aligned with the trans movement. "Gender critical" people are critical of the concept of "gender" as being a category distinct from that of "biological sex"; they see them as being the same thing, and since people can't change their biological sex, they shouldn't be able to change their gender either.
That's a very rationalist way of looking at support for gender transition, and it's basically the way I look at things as well. But it doesn't seem consistent with some of the ways transitioning is often framed. Transitioning is often described as if it's a matter of changing a social role in order to affirm a crucial aspect of one's inner self, and it seems like for a gender abolitionist, gender shouldn't be affirmed as a crucial aspect of one's inner self.
Consider the analogy, not of jobs, but of citizenship. Imagine Morgan is an anti-state anarchist, and Jesse wants to stop being a citizen of the United States and start being a citizen of Canada. It seems to me Morgan's support for Jesse would depend on Jesse's reasons; if Jesse is trying to escape some kind of oppression, or if Canadian citizenship is administratively necessary to live in a certain place or get a certain job, then Morgan should support Jesse's decision. However, if Jesse wants to become a citizen of Canada because he feels great loyalty to the Canadian state and identifies strongly with it, I don't think Morgan can get 100% behind that.
Maybe I am wrong but advocacy for transgender people having rights and advocacy to abolish gender seem different in kind. One is about individuals seeking rights necessary to live their lives and the other is about which concepts we should use to govern society. The former is necessary not because it is difficult for society to accommodate transgender people as equal to other people but because some people simply don’t want to and are very passionate about it.
It’s a red herring to say that the ‘trans movement’ has some concept of ‘gender’ that if you got rid of the ideas behind the concept you have somehow shown that transgender people should just go away. People are not a theory. They simply exist. Some people do this thing where they are told they are one thing and they simply cannot be that thing but must be another thing. They are told they are a boy and they say ‘no I am a girl’ or vice versa or neither fits. They often do this when they are young long before they know any theories and they do it in different cultures where the concepts may differ.
All that gender critical people say simply amounts to claiming that the particular society they are members of should not accommodate those type of people. They don’t get rid of those type of people. You cannot get rid of them because they keep being born over and over so if you got rid of some of them you would simply have more later on in the future. What gender critical people say isn’t relevant to those type of people. This type of person will just exist as they always did but without any particular rights or ability to integrate into society and will instead be persecuted.
Haven't read the whole thing yet, but I can't help but feel like you've fundamentally misunderstood the gender-critical position. It's not that they want to abolish gender roles; that position is much more aligned with the trans movement. "Gender critical" people are critical of the concept of "gender" as being a category distinct from that of "biological sex"; they see them as being the same thing, and since people can't change their biological sex, they shouldn't be able to change their gender either.