Postgenderism, transhumanism

[Missymoo100]

I've recently come across the concept of postgenderism/transhumanism-
The idea is that gender and sex will be rendered obsolete.

"Postgenderism is a social, political and cultural movement which arose from the eroding of the cultural, biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory.

Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species as a result of social and cultural evolution and through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies."

It would mean reproduction would be separate from sex, which would be recreational only.

Transhumanism goes one step further that we will transcend being human itself.

I wonder if all the transgender activism is a move towards this.

As a Christian and think this may be the end game, a kind of anti-creation. An image built not in gods image as per genesis, but in the image of the beast as in revelation.

I wonder if all the transgender activism is a move towards this.

I think transgender activism is about men trying to assert power over women.

One of the earliest expressions of postgenderism was Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex. It argues,

The] end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality Freud's 'polymorphous perversity'—would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would born to both sexes equally, or independently of. either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally.[3]

What do you think of this as part of feminism?
This book was wrote in the 1970s

Has anyone read this book. I'd be interested for some insight on it

I was brought up in the equality, transcend biological difference and have the same opportunities as men school of feminism - I think the classical liberal tradition, although my label may be wrong. My mum’s view was that having children was the quickest way to career suicide and drudgery.

Then I had children and I wondered why no-one ever told me how much fun it could be. I get that it is not for everyone, but it has been the best (and most challenging also) aspect of my life. I don’t want a feminism which denies me my children.

FWIW, my mum does now love her DGC, she has done more of the thing she wanted with her life since being a relatively young mum herself.

I guess my point is that I think being a biological woman is pretty amazing; I don’t want a world where that is erased. I don’t want the oppression that goes with it, and I would rather not have had the rape and sexual violence, the abuse and the pregnancy losses. But the phrase about biology not being destiny means that these things do not define my life, they do not make me lesser or inferior, they should not make me feel guilty or ashamed, they should not be erased by a concept of gender, which is external or conceptual.

Why is there a whole movement of mindfulness, encouraging to get in touch with our physical presence and being, and another which forces us (if we want to be inclusive) to ignore (biological women) or change (trans) the bodies we have?

Emy, thank you- I feel the same as you, I don't want a world where difference is eradicated, I love being a woman.

This article is really interesting from
Institute of ethics and emerging technology-

ieet.org/archive/IEET-03-PostGender.pdf

I'm just making my way through it, but it seems there has been some call to blur the boundaries of sex and gender for quite some time and it seems is now coming into fruition.

Missy Brave New World is more realistic and easier to read.

I disagree.

I think that what you describe is pretty niche, theoretical (and obviously impossible without a truly humoungous leap in medical science).

Its science fiction, and I don't believe many TRAs will even have heard of this, let alone be working towards it en masse.
Lots of science fiction encapsulates social theories and the ideas behind movements, but that doesn't mean its going to happen!

Even if we wanted to erase biological differences (plenty of fiction where this happens) we can't. Its interesting as a "what if?" though; Brave New World described a society where sex was purely recreational and women no longer bore children (although for some reason they still has much less power than men). Interesting way to explore ideas, but it doesn't mean that babies are going to be gestated in cow wombs while we attend compulsory orgyporgys.

Winefred is closer to the mark.

Cross post with dogendsaredogs !

Read section 3, emerging technologies in the article and see what you think.
Yes I do think we're a long way off with some things, i.e. Implanted wombs but perhaps we are being conditioned now to accept this kind of change in the future. Yes it is very brave new world.

I think we are a very, very, long way off from a point when we no longer need female wombs to gestate a child.
That article doesn't describe any technologies that would make that possible - it just refers to theoretical debates around what extra uterine gestation would mean socially. It mentions other technologies, both those we already have (contraception) and those we may have soon, but none of them remove the need for a human female womb from reproduction.

Are none of us former Blamers over at Twisty Faster’s blog “I Blame The Patriarchy” (before the great trans wars of 2012 or whenever it was brought it all crashing down)? Many of the voices I read on here (proper rad fem voices) remind me so much of the Blamers of yesteryear.

Twisty Faster was devoted to Firestone and I first read The Dialectic of Sex because of her recommendation. I confess Firestone is one of my absolute favourite second-wavers. That may be, though, because I’ve always felt that biology constrains women in wholly unappealing ways and wanted as little to do with it as possible (while knowing full well I can’t just “identify out”of it). But I guess mumsnet feminists may not have the same view - the clue may be in the ”mum” part.

Anyway, I think the branch of feminism that you are referring to in your post, OP, is xenofeminism. It is not practically applicable to now. It is a utopian, post-capitalist, post-work, post-identitarian, theoretical ideology. It’s based on a sort of hybrid of Firestone’s technological sci-fi feminist manifesto and the (pseudo) political philosophy of accelerationism (a branch of brocialist theory that thinks we need to speed up capitalism until it self-destructs.) Xenofeminism is not very materialist (though nor, to its credit, is it Pomo identitarian) so I don’t think most rad fems would get much use out of it.

I think transgender activism is about men trying to assert power over women.

I agree. I think transhumanism is a different thing and may well be coming, in fact most likely is, eventually. I can see the potential for sex equality in this, if we all get to choose our actual bodily manifestation in the world freely.

Transgender activism (and I do not include all trans people in this) is about men wanting to make it a legal right for them to declare themselves women and walk right into the supports and protections built up around and for those with female biology.