Rye The AnCom Gender Abolitionist Theymab Chud

I told a transgender friend of mine my birth name(which I shall not mention here due to being overly freaky, and plainly do not wish to be associated unless I decide to be on a case by case basis).

They proceeded to tell me they are choosing to forget it, despite me not even necessarily disliking the name.

There's an understandable answer, most dislike their deadname, and as such my birth name (sharing the same attributive nature through being names at birth while having names outside of such) evoke negative feelings, and thus lead to the intentional negation of such (that such name is *NOT* me).

I do dislike being called it when told of my nickname that is my preferred name, purely as a test of whether you will respect me. If you do not call me rye, what else won't you do?

That is to say:

If we abolish gender, what shall happen to trans women (and men, for that record)

It's a very interesting question, and one I've seen throughout my time in gender abolitionist thought.

Mathew J. Cull in 2019 would use this exact argument in Against Abolition

2a.The abolition of the category womanin a society entails that one cannot identify as a woman in that society.

2b.Trans women identify as women (and trans women in future societies will continue to identify as women).

2c.If one cannot identify as a woman in a society, then trans women are wrong to identify as women in that society.

2d.Thus a society in which the category woman is abolished misgenders trans people.

2e.Thus we ought not seek the abolition of the category woman(Cull, 2019).

However, this is a misconstrued understanding of just what gender abolition is

The argument does not revolve around an ought claim with such certainty. Instead, we must focus on the social factor of gender, and how that must necessarily cease.

As well, we must present ourselves after a revolution, and ask ourselves whether said identity will even be necessary, and thus challenge 2b. I theorize for many, this urge for identification as woman or man, will cease.

Indeed, I do not think people will all be androgynous, all the forms of identity we currently have will simply be reduced into their separate factors, the woman will be the feminine, the non feminine woman will be the non-feminine, and neither shall be woman, but merely differing aesthetics.

I as well hold to that there may very well be a concept of womanhood, but it will not exist without the emptying of the category. That is to say, it will be a tautology, a woman is a woman.

After gender is no longer considered, woman and man, and perhaps pronouns may still exist, but they shall not have concepts of feminine nor masculine within them. The masculine may be the woman, or the man, and the man may be the she, or the woman the he.

Thus, I do not see the necessary collapsing of the logic within. This is indeed an attempt to look at the future with the present eyes, just as when one looks at the past with present eyes, they will see the flaws within the logic. The logic is not for the people of current times, but future times, in which the Gordian knot shall finally be slashed, and we shall be free to be as we wish. Prior to the knot being slashed, it shall seem near impossible to unravel, but once that necessary slash takes forth, the knot shall certainly unravel. I am holding this slashing to be the revolution.

Seize the means of feminization NOW.

I'm the pol pot and lenin of gender. Want to gender? To the death fields with you, capitalist swine. Wanna be a girl? Face the wall.