are you a gender abolitionist or a gender anarchist?
I prefer the term gender liberationist, but I think that mostly lines up with what is meant by gender anarchist. My ultimate goal isn't for gender to be abolished, but for it (and social constructs more broadly) to be liberated, meaning that they are no longer tools of power and oppression, but are properly understood as constructed/historical and fluid, and purposefully (re)constructed and creatively engaged with by free people in a free society.
Not necessarily. Horoscopes are a form of divination, and I don't think gender liberation means treating gender as a way of predicting divine will.
What gender would look like would ultimately be up to communities themselves. The idea is that gender is acknowledged as constructed, while also acknowledging that the construction of cultural identities is a natural thing humans do, and that people have a right to want to be a part of their culture/s and to engage in social construction.
Gender could still have meaning. I think its a mistake that we think acknowledging something was made up by humans means there is no or less value in it; humans are a part of the world, culture is a natural thing for our species to create as a way of maintaining social bonds and navigating life, our social constructs are no less meaningful or valuable than a dam made by a beaver. It's just a thing we do. Like many things humans do, gender has become a powerful tool for oppressive systems to control people and exploit them for power. But I don't think our options are "gender has meaning to people, and is a source of harm" or "gender is meaningless and thus cannot harm anyone."
It's very similar to my feelings on religion/spirituality & also pretty inseparable from my value of democratic synjectivity.
