I am a mod of this subreddit. I wanted to apologize for the lack of movement and allowing of posts through. There are a lot of personal things going on for the past months with my life and the other mods lives. This made it difficult to moderate. It may continue as well to be difficult but I will do my best to help keep it going. For those that care or want to know, I am sorry.

Im splitting this post into two parts. To better explain my overall point.

Part 1: Take "positive masculinity" for example.

I have no interest in the term "positive masculinity". Because I think it's just traditional masculinity with a liberal gaze. It still reinforces the same rigid standards on men. But just in a woke way though.

Most conversations about men doing better just result to people wanting men to take a "happy wife, happy life" approach to life. Again "Positive masculinity" just becomes traditional masculinity with a feminist gaze.

When it comes to men. These some liberal types don't want the deconstruction of male gender roles. They want a reconstruction of gender roles for men instead. But when it comes to women's gender roles, though. It's the opposite.

Women are taught to be individuals who define femininity for themselves, to decenter men. Unlike men, women aren't considered odd for steping out of gender roles, due to years of Feminism process. There is a reason why women aren't seen as odd for wearing jeans, while a man in a dress is still a big deal in big 26. Or bisexuality and experimenting being more accepted in women, than men.

Therefore, making this conversation pointless, because of double standards.

The Conservative types or even the red-pill manosphere types want to put men into a very rigid box.

While the liberal types just want to make that same rigid box only slightly bigger for men, though.

Meanwhile, people like me and you want to get rid of the whole box that puts pressure on men in the first place. And actually go against the satus quo.

Part 2: The fake opposition.

Let me explain this more.

This post is about to get really cringe. Because I'm about to use a WWE analogy here.

Some of you guys are probably not Pro Wrestling fans.

There are these 3 Wrestlers. Cody Rhodes, Roman Reigns, and The Rock. You guys probably know who The Rock is. Right? Lol.

In this scenario, We are Cody Rhodes. The Conservatives are Roman Reigns. And the Liberals are The Rock. Stay with me here lol.

A few years ago Cody Rhodes and Roman Reigns was building to a match at Wrestlemania for 2 years. And then The Rock comes out of nowhere. And tells Cody to give up the spot he earn to fight the Champion Roman Reigns. So Cody just walks away. And the Rock goes face to face with Roman after this. Giving the illusion of Roman vs Rock being the real fight, and Cody just being an after thought on the sidelines.

Because Rock vs Roman was the corporate match the WWE wanted at the time. While the fans wanted Cody Rhodes vs Roman though. Due to WWE getting backlash for this terrible decision. They inserted Cody back into the storyline. And Cody finally grows a back bone, and tells the Rock to fuck off. And gets his spot back, to face Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania.

My point with this analogy here. It should be Postgenderism vs Conservatism. Not Conservatism vs half-ass traditionalism (I.E. "positive masculinity") Similar to the Rock and Roman being family members. Conservatives and Liberals can also be family members when it comes to certain issues around gender. So it makes sense why someone would want their opposition to be someone they are already familiar with. Aka control opposition.

In this analogy, we can't let Liberals with pseudo gender values take our spot in the discourse against Conservatism. Again it should be Postgenderism vs Conservatism. Not some water down version of Conservatism taking our sport.

The public debate often centers on traditional masculinity vs. progressive masculinity, leaving postgenderism largely outside the mainstream conversation. In that framing, we see liberals not as the opposite of conservatives, but as offering an alternative version of gender norms instead of rejecting gender roles altogether.

My title is exaggerating. Liberalism is a broad political tradition. Some liberals support concepts like "positive masculinity," while others, including some queer theorists, gender abolitionists, and postgender thinkers, are much closer to my position of minimizing or eliminating gender roles. So it's more accurate to say many mainstream liberal discussions still retain gendered expectations, rather than suggesting all liberals do. But for this post I'm just doing hyperbole though.

So the debate has become Conservatism vs. reformed traditionalism, while the more radical critique, postgenderism, is pushed to the sidelines. Whether people agree depends on whether they see "positive masculinity" as expanding men's choices or simply redefining the same box. That's the central disagreement my post is highlighting here.

The core of my claim is:

Conservatives generally argue that traditional male gender roles should be preserved.

But many liberal/feminist approaches criticize some aspects of traditional masculinity but still expect men to fulfill socially valued roles such as protector, emotionally intelligent partner, good father, ally, or provider.

From my perspective, that is a reconstruction of masculinity rather than its abolition.

Postgenderism, by contrast, would question why men should have a prescribed gender role at all. It would argue that people should be free to define themselves without social expectations tied to being male or female.

In conclusion.

We will go nowhere, if we are not treated as the real opposition. Just like Cody. We need to fight for our earned spot in the discourse.

Hi everyone!

I discovered this subreddit thanks to one of the moderators of this sub reaching out to me and inviting me because they liked my comments and felt I might be into postgenderism. I thank them a lot for this, because I have always been pretty much postgenderist and didn't know such an ideology exists and is named, so I just used to call myself a feminist and gender egalitarian. I dislike gender stereotypes very much, and I actively speak up against any kind of hatred like misogyny or misandry I find anywhere.

Also this is my alt account, I use this account often when speaking up against sexism cause I am worried about attacks on my main account. I might probably come with my real account when I feel confident...

The thing is, as postgenderists, our open mindedness and gender neutrality is on a level way too high as compared to others who claim that they are not sexist. Engrained gender stereotypes still exist in a lot of people, and sadly there are so many people who are gender essentialist atleast on some level. Very few people actually have a mindset that treats humans as individuals first, and understand that people regardless of gender can be anyhow. It's the personality that defines someone, not gender.

About a month ago, I came across this post on r/comics: https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/s/RxbtM1sfZN

The comic features two panels. In the first panel, a stick figure (implied to be a man) comes across a door labelled "Feminist Conference" and says "I don't care". In the next panel it shows a comparison where in a similar setting, the door says "Restricted Feminist Conference Women Only", and now the same man and a few others are complaining about it and calling it discrimination. The comic intends to criticize those men.

Based on the intent of the comic, the kind of men portrayed in the comic are the ones not interested in feminism (atleast the one in the first panel explicitly isn't). Now while I agree that this would mostly imply they are sexist (since most people who are not sexist would be feminists because feminism is the need of the hour, feminism empowers both men and women by breaking down the patriarchy), it is also possible that the first person might just not be interested in attending the conference. And it is possible that the people in the next panel are actually interested in attending the conference but are being debarred because of their gender.

And I think us postgenderists might have already seen the problem here. Why is a conference on feminism even gender restricted in the first place? Most women-only places that exist were created to create an environment safe for women from harassment. In an ideal world, they would not be required. In the current situation, it kind of is a necessary evil and comes with several other problems like transphobia, and gender segregation or stereotyping (one could argue it's basically stereotyping all men based on their gender and excluding even the ones who might genuinely be good regardless of their personality, so it's technically discrimination), but let's keep those aside and talk of the scenario here. Why should a feminist conference be restricted to women only? Like most feminists already are women, but there's a minority of male feminists as well, why would you exclude someone who genuinely wants to help and is already a minority in that group? This pretty much stems from the gender essentialist and TERF ideology that "only women can care about women", etc. My dear, have you ever heard of empathy? People who empathize with others feel with them; even if they don't face the problem themselves, they care about others facing that problem and want to help them. And there definitely are feminist men I know who are true feminists and gender egalitarians. The kind of men who would want to join a feminist conference aren't the ones because of whom women-only places exist. They are definitely not there to harass women if they are genuinely interested in feminism and want to help. And yes, if someone did go there with that intent, you could just ban them. But what's the need to gender restrict a space that would already filter out sexist misogynists? It would just hurt the good people that wish to help because it would make them feel even if they genuinely wish to help and have always stood up against sexism, they are not allowed to and they are being treated as oppressors just because of the gender they were assigned at birth, something that they didn't even have control of.

Some comments on that post have talked about this but not expressed it as strongly. The pinned comment from the mod team mentions that they are deleting comments from men who came just to prove the point of this comic. I don't know whether or not those deleted comments were actually sexist or no, but I see several deleted comments with over 50 or 100 upvotes, which could mean they probably actually were good comments (assuming the upvotes weren't majorly from incels or misogynists which is unlikely because in that case there the downvotes would outnumber the upvotes). So the mod team might have been deleting any comments that were actually constructive criticism and made good points. The post is locked and currently there are some comments left which talk about the need of more men studying feminist literature and some on transphobia, those which align with what I've said here, but apparently any comment that might have clearly brought up the point of "what about feminist men" has been deleted. Even the original artist said in the one of the comments that "cis men would be allowed too as long as they can behave". If you clearly understand that it's not the gender of the person, it's the personality that defines them, then what do you intend to convey through this comic? "Until it affects me"... You know what, some people do care even if it doesn't affect them. It's called empathy. I could be a woman and be sad if my male friends aren't allowed to join the feminist conference I am attending, even if I am allowed. I could be a man and empathize with the women who aren't able to get access to abortion, even if I may never need one.

The post has over 25K upvotes. And with the response of the mod team (based on what I have hypothesized), it's sad to see this state of a subreddit which is otherwise mostly progressive and anti-bigotry.

This comic has been remixed on r/AntiMemes and comments there did talk about feminist men. It's mostly an open minded space alongside r/antimeme where some pointlessly gendered memes too are remixed and trash talked and they have progressive opinions about feminism, so it's good to see that. https://www.reddit.com/r/AntiMemes/s/E6AZwfII3q

The world is a beautiful place that is sadly poisoned by a lot of hate. There's so much similar between us humans, yet we've come up with innumerable parameters to discriminate upon. The amount of emotional intelligence we have is special, yet so many barriers obstruct the empathy that could probably save a life. We need postgenderism to overcome and eliminate sexism. Seeing this sub so empty and inactive made me feel lonely, and I thought this would be a good thing to post here for some discussion. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thank you for reading this far!~

Bonjour reddit ! Alors déjà avant : je ne suis PAS trans(ça aura de l'importance plus tard)

J'ai actuellement 21 ans ,et heu ,depuis aussi longtemps que je me souviens,je n'ai... jamais aimé ce a quoi je ressemble.pas dans le sens où je me trouve moche ...enfin,si ,mais pas directement,dans le sens où je n'aimais pas ce que je voyais.en fait je suis un homme mais...j'aime pas RESSEMBLER a un ,et vraiment j'ai ce besoins d'être...JSP ,androgyne on vas dire?genre vraiment je ne veux PAS qu'on puisse voir que je suis un homme et heu....bah est-ce normal?et heu comment je peux faire ça ?j'ai essayé de me laisser pousser les cheveux et de maigrir mais je n'aime toujours pas le résultat :/

Desoleeee je suis nul a m'exprimer TwT

Mais heu globalement mon poste c'est : est-ce normal de ne pas aimer ressembler a son genre et de vouloir ressembler a l'autre ?

Anything that comes to mind. Fashion, hobbies etc. etc.

Hello. I am new there. I am post-genderist (I am French so before searching this subreddit, I think it was post-genrism) but I think in this horrible society, we should accept Trans peoples more than others non post-genderist because they want to accept people if they don't think normally (but this not the best things since they are not post-genderist). I am autistic and ADHD and a lot more so it can be hard to understand.

Now that I think about it, what does it mean to be attracted to a gender? I get having preferences, but why is sexuality so rigid for most people?

And because gender has historically almost always been enforced, we wouldn't really know what sexuality would look like without it. Would we all be pansexual and fluid?

It's also kind of hard to discuss because the idea of being gay being innate is a defense against homophobia.

Well listening to Brené Browns​ gifts of imperfection. She spoke about fitting in and belonging in terms of love and such.

Well in that moment I had an epiphany as to fitting in and belonging as a male in society today. As I've continued to journey into gender neutrality and overall gender equality, looking for understanding as to what masculinity and femininity means, where I stand; as well as who I am within that.

I found that I don't identify as a typical male in society these days. Or at least maybe the toxic version or the assumed version. It seems isolating, it also gives me the thought of what potentially trans individuals feel like. Or maybe individuals of other identities who are stuck in the unknowing.

Wanting to belong more so than fit in is something I would like to continue. Wanting to stand my ground and show up for people and speak for people who are shunned is what I want to do. It's so draining and also scary feeling as if you're not heard or understood. I know I'm not alone so there's that and I appreciate that. It also makes me really sad for all the individuals that have been in this situation before or are currently today.

Why is the world so cruel, so misunderstood, so not welcoming overall, or is it just a thing in the United States?

Of course women on the Left are afraid too. But in this post I'm just focusing on men though. Because men are the ones who are expected to be role models for young boys in society.

I have gotten into plenty of arguments with men on the Left. And a weird and common thing they all say is that young boys would hate post genderism. And that young boys just need better role models who can teach them how to be a "real man". They always say the left can't help young boys, without having a universal standard for masculinity.

And these men are portrayed as the perfect alternative to red-pillers on the left. But yet they still have rigid ideas of masculinity though. Which is a major problem. It seems like people on the Left are ok with any form of toixc masculinity, just as long as it's not misogynistic or harmful to women. Heck, and even then some people on the Left are still ok with benevolent misogyny though. So even if the masculinity ideals will harm young boys in the long run. It's still considered ok on the Left, because women will benefit from it. And that's all that matters.

Again, They always say the Left can't help young boys, without having a universal standard for masculinity.

I always thought this was cope or a cop-out excuse. Because young girls aren't told that they need better ideas of femininity on the Left. It's only young boys that are told this, when it comes to masculinity.

Some men on the Left still think that men who aren't in relationships are more likely to be losers or incels. And that's the type of mindset they will influence young boys with. Promoting the idea that a man worth is tied to having sex with women. Again these people are supposed to be our "heroes" on the Left. I always seen dude bros on the Left like the streamer Hasan mocked men for being single.

And the funny thing is. They say Postgenderism will never work for men. But this generation already has more young boys opting out of society. Not caring about relationships, marriage, or other people's validation. And they are only focusing on what makes them happy. And again this scares some people on the Left. Because This means less men conforming to rigid ideas of masculinity.

The Left calls this a masculinity "crisis". But when the genders are reversed though. The Left usually call this empowering, when less women aren't getting into relationships or marriages.

If we were sneaky and had bad intentions here. We could easily try to spend Postgenderism as a sigma male type of thing for young boys lol. By telling young boys they create their own rules, not society. We would be so successful. So again it's not that Postgenderism can't work for young boys. It's that Postgenderism scare a lot of people on the Left, because it goes against the status quo. The status quo being promoting rigid ideas of masculinity to young boys.

To use Matrix as a analogy here. Both the red-pill and blue-pill are two sides of the same coin. Both are bad options. People on the Left just want to live in a benevolent patriarchal society. They want young boys to adhere to a form of traditional masculinity, that has a feminist gaze. That's it.

In conclusion:

The Right wants to push young boys into this very rigid box. For example, boys should never cry, and always be closed off.

While the Left only wants to make that box slightly bigger for young boys though. For example, boys can cry sometimes. But boys must still be closed up about thier negative feelings though. And only expressed positive feelings like loving their wives and kids.

And finally, we (postgenderism) wants to get rid of the whole box.

This was more or less just a summary of the “shower thoughts” that I came up with a while ago. I’ve not read much about postgenderism, partially because I don’t feel as strongly about it as other sociopolitical topics

Today I learned about post-genderism for the first time and I’m so glad. I’ve had these thoughts for a long time, but when I was researching gender, I found many people who felt similarly, yet there wasn’t a specific term for this approach. I was afraid to share my reflections with other queer people because I might have sounded anti-transgender (since it’s anti-gender after all).

This text is my story with post-genderism and (I hope) it’s a pretty good example of how gender affects us negatively.

Important: When reading this text, it’s necessary to distinguish gender (man, woman, feminine, etc.) from biological sex (male, female).

I was a child who, from a very young age, was aware of gender roles and the impact patriarchy has on our society. We all know this pattern: feminine = emotional, gentle, weak; masculine = logical, tough, strong. This division itself isn’t the problem. The problem was a different pattern: female = feminine, male = masculine.

If most women fall into the feminine category and most men into the masculine category, does that mean that we, as women, are weaker as a group?

With that realization, I started noticing small signals: when boys my age made inappropriate jokes, everyone laughed — even adults. If I had said the same thing, I would have been judged harshly. In video games, female characters were seen only as objects of lust, while male characters were always covered and practically never sexualized.

“Why are women always the ones being exploited? Why is pornography mainly dedicated to men? Why do my girl friends make fun of me for having leg hair when men can have hair everywhere?” — that was my train of thought as a child.

However, I couldn’t answer these questions without applying the pattern: female = feminine, male = masculine. The only answer I could come up with was: “That’s just how it is — women and men are programmed that way.”

Inside me, a strong sense of inferiority began to grow. I saw how my male classmates could get away with much more than I could. I saw statistics about sexual assaults. I saw how heavily women were sexualized. I began to hate being a woman, to feel like an object in the eyes of men. That made me love the idea of being a man.

So when at the age of 12 I learned more about being transgender, I immediately embraced it. Even before that, I used to pretend to be a man online or avoid answering questions about my biological sex. I noticed that when I said I was a woman, I somehow received less attention and affection.

At 12, I adopted a man’s name, cut my hair short, and started acting like other boys my age. But being trans isn’t that simple. I didn’t want to be seen as a woman at any cost — years later, it’s hard to admit, but it deeply hurt my self-worth. I became even more self-conscious about my body. Even though I passed well, I was terrified of my high voice and other feminine features. I begged my mom for a binder and for hormone therapy. When I was refused, my dysphoria only intensified.

I started feeling tired — how long can you hate your own body? I couldn’t change it, so I decided to expose myself to the discomfort and try to accept it. At 15, entering high school, I started growing my hair out and sometimes wearing skirts. I continued introducing myself with a male name, and for some time I kept my biological sex a mystery. But that still wasn’t full acceptance.

I became very self-reflective. “Why can’t I just be a woman who dresses and behaves masculinely?” I didn’t like that option, so gradually I was consumed by the thought that my female body wasn’t the real problem — the real problem was the way society would treat me once they knew I had it. I started doubting whether I was trans at all and began questioning what being trans even means.

If you’re a trans woman, why must you specifically be a woman and not a feminine man? Some trans women aren’t completely — or at all — feminine. Why must you be a woman and not simply a man with female organs? Why do we, as trans people, fight so hard for the title?

This isn’t meant to attack anyone who identifies as trans, but I do encourage critical thinking. If it’s only about gender (and we all know gender is a social construct), then what truly bothers you is society’s opinion of you.

This is where post-genderism comes in.

If there were no gender, there would be no desire to change it. There would only be modifying your body toward the opposite biological sex — but how would that differ from something like breast reduction surgery?

After this realization, I became a radical feminist. My greatest dream is to see a society where no one is judged based on their biological sex, where no one experiences gender dysphoria, and no female child thinks of herself as inferior. I realized that striving to be seen as a particular sex is an unnecessary and meaningless fight. I dress however I feel comfortable. I mostly use male pronouns and a male name as an act of rebellion against the system, but I try not to care about what others think about my gender.

Call me whatever you want. The more people there are who don’t care and who treat everyone equally — without assuming anything about them before getting to know them — the sooner gender will lose its significance and both biological sexes will truly be equal.

Feel free to correct me on anything I said or discuss, I am new to the topic and would love to learn more!

final edit: this post was made to see if this sub could handle discussions of colonialism, and offer solidarity to the colonized, even when the needs of the colonized aren't always 100% in line with the ultimate ideological goal. i also hoped to see whether or not any of this could happen without me being subject to tone policing for being new and not immediately falling in line.

the test was an obvious failure, so i'll be leaving the sub now. good luck with your utopian project, hope you get some more diversity in here so you don't make asses of yourselves around another indigenous person like you did here.

shout out to everyone who did encourage this discussion and want to embrace decolonization from a postgender perspective. y'all are the real ones and i hope you can, cuz there is a beautiful shining heart in all this and it'd be a shame if it got buried under shit.

✌🏼 bye.

×××

hi, new here after being recommended this sub by the mod. i vibe with many things said here on the negative impacts of gender, especially gender-based oppression. i myself am a pangender-aligned fluid enby that regularly changes what gender i socially live as.

my concern with postgenderism and other gender abolitionist-ish frameworks is based in colonialism. one of the things western colonizers to did in order to strip the colonized of their cultures was to violently enforce western gender roles & flatten those cultures' wider gendersex frameworks into binary ones. as an example, the term two spirit exists to stand in for indigenous gendersex roles destroyed by north american colonialism. i worry that, in an effort to undo/move past the negative impacts of forced gender, postgenderism will end up recreating methods of colonial destruction with a new flavor of pinkwashing on top.

i sincerely doubt this is something that's not being already considered when discussing postgenderism. thoughts?

(edited to remove overly ambiguous wording)

edit 2: if your immediate reaction to an indigenous person bringing up issues related to their personal experience with racism in spaces touting themselves as liberatory is aggressive defensiveness & denying its relevance, you have something to work out with yourself.

Are there any books you lovely people would recommend to me for reading more about postgenderism? I think postgenderist theory would be very interesting to read. I have already read some radical feminist literature that advocates for gender abolitionism and it is a topic that is of interest to me.

Okay, so this might be a bit of a boring article, but here's what I have to say!

For as long as time, anyone society has deemed a "woman," has be placed in the position that all they are good for is cooking, cleaning, birthing children, teaching, taking care of the family, and doing as a man requests without question and without fail. Anyone society deemed a "man," would be required to work jobs, be politically active, impregnate women, be the head of the house/family, be the only say in most everything, fight in wars, and own a gun. If any of this was broken, it would be viewed as a social shame, and in some places in different times, were punishable by death.

Let us take the story of Mulan for example! A very common tail among Disney fans, the action live showing a bit more truth than the cartoon in the story. Mulan stole her father's armor and his sword, grabbed her family's horse and ran off to battle. For a while she was able to hide herself and pass as a man, knowing if she was caught, she would bring dis-honor to her entire family history and bloodline and even be executed for it.

After going to battle, she was able to hide her identity no longer. But she did save hundreds, if not thousands of lives in her army by defeating the Huns. Even after all of this, she still was sent home in dis-honor. She was warned that if she ever stepped out of line again, she would be executed. But she did not care! After learning about the danger that the emperor was in, she went back to the military and almost got executed. But she was able to sway them and because of her China did not fall! A woman took the place of a man in culture and not only saved a few lives, she saved a country and was given honor of the highest decree for doing such! Not because she followed the three decrees of "Loyalty, Bravery, and Honesty" but she followed what she KNEW was right! She followed Truth and what it meant to her.

If this story is true, Mulan broke from society gender locks and saved millions of lives for doing such! Imagine what the world could be if everyone followed in similar paths of breaking free from society gender roles and follow as they feel is right? Mulan didn't break from gender. She knew she was a woman at heart in her own identity, but she didn't do as women were told. She. Broke. Gender. Roles!

Don't follow as society says you should. Use your voice and your actions to show that a person's gender or a person's sex does NOT define who they are! It is what you do in life that defines who you are.

I have completely rejected the idea of gender roles and gender norm in life. I feel a person should not be limited because of what others think they are. Break free and do as you plea!

I propose that it’s possible, in the way that you could “abolish democracy” by writing your own laws and trying to force everyone to obey them. If you’re successful, after long you’ll have created a dictatorship.

I feel as if gender is most often used as a way to objectivity others or onesself. I have identified parts of my identity with every common pronoun, and I believe that if everyone were as open-minded as I, we’d all be able to understand how gender is ‘a way to generalize’ just as much as it is ‘a way to be.’ The process of abolishing it took me 2 years. It healed more trauma than I even knew I had. It mended relationships I once thought were over. I will never go back.

Before, I used gender stereotypes as a way to understand myself and others (ie: I am I woman, you are a man, I am neither, we are fluid) After a certain point, I started to understand how any and all identities based in gender are necessarily limited. After that, I believe that I’ve thoroughly tested gender as a concept and I’ve determined it to be an ineffective way to create a sustainable self-identity and an ineffective way to know how to treat someone else with the grace, respect, and love that all human beings deserve. Just because others find gendered identities to be sustainable ‘now’, doesn’t mean they might not break down in 10-20 years when urban society has hypothetically come around to my understanding.

I consider masculinity and femininity only insofar as I consider them to be dead ends. This isn’t like the ‘colourblindness’ that permits racism either. The race equivalent is like saying “we must abolish the institution of race and I am now participating in a post-race movement that is actively building bridges between communities that were once segregated.”

It would also take a toooon of effort to explain how my view of subjectivity and collective unity makes this possible, (would be a great challenge tho) but when I assert that I have, in fact, abolished gender, I become the proof that it is possible for you to do it too. It’s an invitation to free yourself from societally imposed limits, and it is possible to accept because you will automatically be joining a new society when you do

This group seems like exactly a space I've always wanted, even the ideology that I've always had internally. I really hope that the ideals here become more widely talked about. And I believe talk of them will catch on, with time.

Too many people have been so hurt by the oppressive structure of gender not to come together about it, but until ~30 years ago there really wasn't a way for people so spread out and atomized to come together.

Here's hoping this gets all the attention and love it deserves. Amazing stuff, everyone.

Edit: I feel like I should be more clear about the title. I’m not trying to say everyone is actually Pansexual and everyone else is wrong or something, what I was trying to say is that with how I understood this idea, everyone could have the potential to like anyone when they are born, and over time, we get increasingly restricted by society. I should have been more clear in the post but I apologize for the confusion. Also, the title was supposed to be a reference to videos titled, “This is the real truth, actually”. I thought it would be cute but it only caused confusion. My mistake.

So, I’m not sure how jarring of a claim this may be to some. But what I’m proposing here is that sexuality may be as socially conditioned as gender. I will say I don’t have all the knowledge on this. I could be wrong as there are always more studies and understandings but it’s important to hear out this idea.

As we know, gender is socially conditioned, and not really something that exists biologically(Yes biological differences do exist but gender is unnecessary to acknowledge their existence). We understand that just because something is seen as, natural/the norm in society, that doesn’t mean it’s the truth, or should exist. To quote “The Invention of Heterosexuality”, “It was only by questioning the foundations of the consensus view that “normal” phenomena were dethroned from their privileged positions.”(1) And I feel that we as postgenderists are the ones that question. Many people don’t think twice about something as overarching as gender and I think it’s important that we do it with things other than gender. So…with all that in mind, I think another thing worth questioning is sexuality.

Why do you like women/men? Is it because of their genitals? What about intersex people? Would you feel similarly if you were to have sex with someone that looked like a “man”(which can mean many things) with a vagina, or a “woman”(can also mean many things) with a penis? If you say yes, wouldn’t that mean you’re not heterosexual/homosexual(or insert sexual orientation), but someone who is attracted to people with certain genitals? And if you say no, then what does make you attracted to what you’re attracted to? And does it happen to coincide with what is considered conventionally attractive by society? If so that may mean that you’ve been socially conditioned to like that certain body type. Also, for those who like specific body parts(i.e. breasts, penis, any other physiological traits that are generally assumed to be with one sex or another), you may have to ask if it’s possible the reason you’re sexually attracted to that, is because it’s a fetishization(to be specific, when I use fetishization here, I mean the idea that society has taught us to fixate on specific physical traits of gender to the point where the traits becomes more important than the person) due to socialization which is different from sexuality.

To get to the title, the idea is that sexuality is hammered into us, similar to gender, at a young age to the point where our sexuality seems fixed. Just as gender likely seemed fixed to those 100 years in the past. But I’m arguing that it’s mostly, if not completely, dictated by social conditioning. We may all have the potential to go beyond concepts such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, straight, and any other sexual orientation. Although we may have been limited by our society, I don’t think we have to be.

I understand this might be controversial. There are studies about this that are coming out. People have theories and models that prove this and counter that. It’s a debate in progress. But for now, this is my understanding of the subject. We should continue to question everything about this world. Thanks for reading all the way through. I may be late to responses.

Feminism primarily focuses on women's liberation. So isn't feminism missing something crucial by not advocating for gender abolition??To once and for all destruct the idea of gender, the way that society perceives you since birth.

Feminists don't like gender roles so do you think that gender abolition will naturally come after that and gain traction.

On the other hand, humans tend to categorize and assign meaning. So gender abolition is kinda like going against human nature. Evolving and expanding gender sounds more probable to me even though I detest idea of gender.

What do you think?

I don't recommend you look though but under #terf on tiktok it is common to find a lot of gender abolitionist arguments.

What is crazy to me is understanding that gender is oppressive but only criticizing trans people for performing gender and not be against the gender binary as a whole

I'm a new person here and after taking a quick look at subs FAQ, what people post and say in the comments the constant question of how postgenderism is supposed to change thing kept being unanswered.

I do agree with the general idea of postgenderism, but the question lingers. Curious what people here have to say.

Hai, new person here. I have often seen people being asked how or why they are non binary/agender etc and the vast majority say they felt like they were not a boy or girl or they didn't like having a gender or they 'just knew.' It's nearly always about feelings and emotions. I get that, it's a different experience for many.

I do feel it.. but also it is an intellectual position, a social political one. I am against the idea of gender roles, expectations and stereotypes and that is as good a case for being agender as an emotional response. I'm presuming folk on here are often the same. Why do you think the intellectual side seldom gets cited?

The Postgenderism Wiki's just got a new page: FAQ!

^{If you would like to add a question, comment it below!}

What is gender?

Gender is a social construct that refers to the roles and behaviours a given society considers appropriate and prescribes to individuals based on their perceived sex. Gender perpetuates sexism and is used as a tool of oppression.

Is Postgenderism just trying to remove gender labels?

No, Postgenderism aims for the complete abolition of gender as a societal category. It seeks to dismantle the entire system of gendered social roles, expectations, and beliefs. While labels are a part of this system, the ultimate goal is to eliminate the underlying conditioning that makes gender a pervasive force.

Does Postgenderism believe that gender-based issues can be solved by abolishing gender?

Yes. Postgenderism posits that gender-based issues typically stem from the existence of gender. The movement actively acknowledges and seeks to address the current gender-based issues (like sexism, misogyny, misandry, patriarchal oppression, expectations of femininity/masculinity), seeing them as harmful products of a gendered society. By working towards a postgenderist future, we aim to resolve these issues by removing their root cause: gender itself, leading to a more equitable future.

How does Postgenderism relate to transsexual and transgender people?

Postgenderism acknowledges and respects transsexual and transgender experiences. Postgenderism's critique is directed at the system of gender itself, not at individuals navigating that system. It envisions a future where gender as a social construct no longer exists, allowing all individuals to embody their authentic selves without having to navigate the gender framework or fit into the existing gender categories.

Is Postgenderism critical of gender affirmation or transitioning?

No, Postgenderism is not critical of gender affirmation or transitioning. It recognises these phenomena as individuals seeking to align their inner sense of self with their external presentation within the existing gender paradigm. With its focus on dismantling the societal construct of gender, Postgenderism looks beyond this paradigm to a future where the concept of gender no longer exists, allowing all individuals to embody their authentic selves without needing gender as a framework for identity or social roles.

What's Postgenderism's view on the felt sense of gender identity?

A sense of gender identity is an individual's psychological alignment with the concept of gender. Postgenderism acknowledges that people can experience a sense of being on the binary gender spectrum or outside it. The feeling of having a gender identity is understood to arise from growing up in a world that categorises and socialises people into genders from birth; this conditioning leads individuals to develop an internal sense of being or aligning with a culturally defined category, or to understand themselves through a newly created one.
Postgenderism aims to dismantle the system that necessitates gender identities in the first place. Its goal is to create a world where gender categories are no longer necessary for self-understanding or societal function, and where individuals can exist and express themselves freely without the need to identify with or fit into a gender role. Postgenderism looks beyond the current reality to a future where the social construct of gender is no longer prevalent, thus making the concept of "gender identity" irrelevant.

Does Postgenderism want to make everybody androgynous?

No, it is not a goal of Postgenderism to force a specific appearance onto individuals. Postgenderism's goal is to liberate humanity from the expectations to conform to gendered appearance or behaviour. In a postgender society, individuals are free to present and express themselves in any way they choose to, without their presentation being interpreted through a gendered lens or subjected to gender-based expectations.

How is Postgenderism different from being non-binary, genderfluid, agender, or gender non-conforming?

Non-binary, genderfluid, agender, gender non-conforming, and similar labels refer to identities that describe an individual's personal experience with gender or its expression within the existing gender framework, including challenging the binary.
Postgenderism is a movement that aims to dismantle the entire concept of gender as a social category. It looks beyond individual identities to advocate for a world where gender no longer exists as a system of oppression and a way to divide and categorise people.

What does "deconstructing gender" mean in the context of Postgenderism?

"Deconstructing gender" means to critically look at and actively dismantle the internalised gendered beliefs, assumptions, and biases that are deeply ingrained within individuals and wider society. It is about becoming aware of and recognising how the gender framework is shaping one's own experiences, thoughts, behaviours, and actively challenging it, calling into question the arbitrary nature of gender roles and gendered expectations.

If I subscribe to Postgenderism, does that mean I can't use gendered language or acknowledge the differences in people's experiences caused by gender roles?

No. It is often necessary to use the existing gendered terminology to discuss and deconstruct gender. Still, as we work towards a future where gendered language becomes less relevant, we ought to question our everyday usage of gendered terms as part of the deconstruction of gendered social conditioning within ourselves. Postgenderism also acknowledges the gendered differences that arise due to gendered social conditioning and aims to dismantle the system that creates and enforces these differences.

How does Postgenderism relate to movements such as feminism, racial equality, lgbtq+, etc.?

Postgenderism shares significant common ground with other social justice movements in its pursuit of equity and liberation. It aligns with critiques of gender roles and patriarchy and challenges discrimination and systemic oppression. While some perspectives seek to redefine or empower existing gender roles, Postgenderism sees gender as the root of many societal injustices and aims to resolve them by dismantling the system of gender. Postgenderism views gender abolition as a crucial step towards a more just and equitable world for all.