Kathleen Stock: Abolish the dream of gender abolition

[EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]

Exploration of her thoughts on gender and radical feminism and intersections with your human need to create and abide by social norms.

Radfems also understand the limits of choice and consent, and that many women will choose to self-harm in various culturally approved ways. They understand that against the combined forces of economic incentive and societal encouragement, people will go along with things that are bad for them. And they also tend to be concerned with problems affecting ordinary women, focusing on typical or worst-case situations rather than unusually good ones. Their motivation is not protecting the income of the occasional happy hooker, rich porn star, or cheerfully altruistic surrogate, but with financially desperate women pushed into prostitution or into selling their babies. Radfems know that taking money for what your sex organs can provide to others is not a day’s work like any other.

This is all great stuff as far as I’m concerned, and there is much else to admire besides. At the same time though, many radfems simultaneously pursue a goal which undercuts a lot of this. They want to “abolish gender”. I think this is barking. Allow me to explain.
…
No matter how officially scathing about social norms they are in theory, in practice the opponents of women’s interests certainly know how to wield them to get the results they want. Male-dominated movements of every political and religious persuasion have never hesitated to lay down the kind of social law for women that suits them: be chaste, have lots of babies, be silent, be docile, be up for BDSM, don’t criticise prostitution, accept males as “women”, or whatever. It’s always about the attempted production of shame…To repeat my first point: women can’t get rid of sex-specific social norms. All they can do is fight to get the sex-specific norms that work for them.

kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender?s=r

@MangyInSeam - yes, I would want as many gender-specific customs as possible removed from society.

Obviously biological facts can't be removed. Women have periods, get pregnant, give birth, breast-feed etc. But that is not the whole of our lives and there are so many other interesting things that a person can do that does not require any consideration of their sex. A dad can love & feed a baby (with a bottle) and it would be great to see more dads doing that and taking a traditionally 'female' role.

And I'm confused by your claim that this would change literature and culture or remove any 'sex-specific structures'. what structures would those be? Again, recognising the reality of physical sex would mean retaining single sex sports / toilets / medical care etc.

But all the aspects of life that concern the mind should be open equally and without prejudice to men & women alike.

[quote parietal]@MangyInSeam - yes, I would want as many gender-specific customs as possible removed from society.

Obviously biological facts can't be removed. Women have periods, get pregnant, give birth, breast-feed etc. But that is not the whole of our lives and there are so many other interesting things that a person can do that does not require any consideration of their sex. A dad can love & feed a baby (with a bottle) and it would be great to see more dads doing that and taking a traditionally 'female' role.

And I'm confused by your claim that this would change literature and culture or remove any 'sex-specific structures'. what structures would those be? Again, recognising the reality of physical sex would mean retaining single sex sports / toilets / medical care etc.

But all the aspects of life that concern the mind should be open equally and without prejudice to men & women alike.[/quote]
Social structures and hierarchies, and cultural products, are all part of gender. That's what gender means.

They also feed into our larger thinking about things like the nature of womanhood, or manhood. Art that comes out of the experience of motherhood is very different than that about fatherhood, or art about male vs female sexuality. If you don't want those things to influence people you would need to limit or eliminate them.

It's very difficult to imagine any society where men and women are totally uninterested in differential sexual signals, as well. Even the Chinese cultural revolution didn't really manage to stamp that out, although they tried.

The idea that the life of the mind should be open regardless of sex is not the same thing as a genderless society.

Gender = ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ = sex stereotypes. So gender is a dangerous, unnecessary limitation on self and others, a source of pain and misery, and has been used to justify abuse and killing and all kinds of injustices against those who transgressed whatever norms of gender are enforced in their culture). The world would be a happier, freer, safer place without sex stereotypes.

What makes you think that gender is the same as sex stereotype? What do you mean by sex stereotype.

The way Stock describes this is idea of abolishing gender is "endgame is to abolish all social and cultural meanings around being a human male or female."

At it's most basic what she is saying is,

• being male or female is a fundamental element of lived human experience


• human beings notice patterns


• human beings are social and live in complex social groups and those social groups will inevitably structured around basic elements of human life such as male and female differences, the realities of sexual attraction both good and those that create difficulty, the fact that we have children which are dependent for a long period, etc


• human beings create culture and interpret meaning based on these basic human experiences and the societies we build around them, such as story, art, religion, etc

So how would it be possible to prevent people noticing patterns around male and female categories, structuring societies around the different needs and life cycles of men and women, or prevent people from creating cultural expressions of those experiences or attributing meaning to them?

I've read "Material girls" and I think @MangyInseam is right in her account of Stock's position. You can look at gender as some inner feeling about who you are and its consequent social expression. But it's also about the way real sex differences are reflected in societal rules. The only way you could abolish gender entirely would be to create a world in which sex had no meaning, or no social implications rather, at all. I can't imagine how that would be possible, let alone desirable. It would mean an end to women's sport, women's spaces, and, in fact, to all consideration of women's needs on the basis of sex.

If you abolish the mystical essentialist nonsense, and look on "womanhood" as being simply the condition of being female rather than some great, transcendent quality nature has imbued you with and which defines your whole being, you are still left with a need to recognise sex differences socially. I think that was her point.

Mumsnet as a whole is a glorious mish mash of opinion and comment which is always gender-based often gender-conforming and sometimes gender-attacking. A lot of Mumsnet doesn't appeal to me but it does appear representative of wider womanhood (which FWR isn't in my view). Mumsnet is gender at work in the way described by Mangyinseam above.

If you abolish gender and all its weakness you would potentially end up with something far less satisfying. I'd rather accept something imperfect and work to control it's unacceptable aspects than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We’re using the same word differently. Gender (for me) is sex stereotypes which allow our sex is weaponised against women whether we gender conform or not. Gender is also used against gender non conforming men. Whereas conforming men tend to be rewarded. That’s how you can tell gender is a political tool to enforce a sex hierarchy.

Women can gender conform or not but gender still limits and damages all women to different degrees. It’s all about fixed ideas (stereotypes) of ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ that don’t allow for individual variation and are applied to a whole group because of prejudice against them. The requirements of sex stereotypes/gender aren’t consistent and can be contradictory, because it’s just a political tool. Gender isn’t (in my usage) about observing or responding to sex differences neutrally. (Only women do the breastfeeding.)
Its things like: women can’t drive well, or boys don’t cry, or girls shouldn’t have short hair, or women should wear make up or should dye their grey hair.

Sex stereotypes underpin the Madonna/Whore complex, lesbophobia and homophobia, the kick back against women and mothers when they try to operate as freely in public life in the way that men are doing, all sorts of other limitations and requirements placed on women that set them up to fail all the time to a greater or lesser extent and divide between them.

My understanding of gender also feels consistent with my understanding of ‘gender identity’. I wonder if people who use gender to mean other things than sex stereotypes, see gender identity differently too?

Gender is also used sometimes as a ‘polite’ way of not saying biological sex, which muddies the water further.

I agree - gender has such a range of meaning. The version Mangy seems to be talking about is under threat by gender ideologues - how can culture arising from our sex remain such if gender is something you opt into. Instead gender ideologues are forcing gender into simplistic restrictive regressive stereotypes.

But then Transwomen are a feature of the male gender using my understanding of Mangy's understanding of gender? If we are to use that understanding then men identifying as women must be firmly placed in the masculine gender - it is entirely a male response to culture and society. It is an experience unique to men. And equally teenage girls identifying as boys falls firmly into the feminine gendered experience. So when we talk about manifestations of male gender we can talk about fatherhood, patriarchy, different expectations of boys and transwomen.

Sorry - sort of thinking out loud. But my conclusion is if we are using gender in this manner then transwomen are part of the male gender. That 'identifying as women' is adherence to simply another manifestation of masculine gender.

I love that idea @Lovelyricepudding. I was also just thinking about how the abolition of gender is actually what my dd's friends (aged 13) seem to be shouting about on social media. So many of them say they are non-binary and for them this seems to be a way of opting out of gender roles/sex stereotypes. Obviously I would argue that they can do this without opting out of womanhood... The other day they were all posting memes and stickers saying things like 'no gender, only swag' (swag as in cool not money )

I love that idea @Lovelyricepudding. I was also just thinking about how the abolition of gender is actually what my dd's friends (aged 13) seem to be shouting about on social media. So many of them say they are non-binary and for them this seems to be a way of opting out of gender roles/sex stereotypes. Obviously I would argue that they can do this without opting out of womanhood... The other day they were all posting memes and stickers saying things like 'no gender, only swag' (swag as in cool not money )

I love that idea @Lovelyricepudding. I was also just thinking about how the abolition of gender is actually what my dd's friends (aged 13) seem to be shouting about on social media. So many of them say they are non-binary and for them this seems to be a way of opting out of gender roles/sex stereotypes. Obviously I would argue that they can do this without opting out of womanhood... The other day they were all posting memes and stickers saying things like 'no gender, only swag' (swag as in cool not money )

I love that idea @Lovelyricepudding. I was also just thinking about how the abolition of gender is actually what my dd's friends (aged 13) seem to be shouting about on social media. So many of them say they are non-binary and for them this seems to be a way of opting out of gender roles/sex stereotypes. Obviously I would argue that they can do this without opting out of womanhood... The other day they were all posting memes and stickers saying things like 'no gender, only swag' (swag as in cool not money)

I love that idea @Lovelyricepudding. I was also just thinking about how the abolition of gender is actually what my dd's friends (aged 13) seem to be shouting about on social media. So many of them say they are non-binary and for them this seems to be a way of opting out of gender roles/sex stereotypes. Obviously I would argue that they can do this without opting out of womanhood... The other day they were all posting memes and stickers saying things like 'no gender, only swag' (swag as in cool not money)

Oh dear. Sorry for multiple posts. It kept telling me it hadn't posted. I will ask for them to be deleted

Gender is a concept. Nothing can be lost or gained by it because it doesn't exist in any real concrete sense. Women's culture and literature are perfectly able to exist without involving the word gender - I can't think of anywhere where you couldn't replace the word gender with sex. To me gender is regressive, society bases it on stereotypes and expectations. I doubt it could ever be abolished - there will always be people who think girls should behave a certain way and have different expectations of boys - but I really think we should be looking to move away from it not getting more and more obsessed with it.

The article was wordy and tedious IMO and I couldn't get to the end. It seems to be suggesting that radfems see sex and gender as pretty much the same thing and by abolishing gender they would also abolish any admission that the sexes might be different in any way. I have no idea if this is what radfems say or don't say but it's not my opinion. To me gender and sex are completely different. Sex is real, visible, biological and the two sexes are different in a myriad of ways many of which may overlap. Gender on the other hand is a list of stereotypical norms that people often feel obliged to adhere to - girls are quiet, kind, thoughtful and look pretty for example.

To me abolishing gender is about cutting out the stereotypes and the feeling that if you don't fit into the stereotypes then you must be something 'other'.

Gender is a concept. Nothing can be lost or gained by it because it doesn't exist in any real concrete sense. Women's culture and literature are perfectly able to exist without involving the word gender - I can't think of anywhere where you couldn't replace the word gender with sex. To me gender is regressive, society bases it on stereotypes and expectations. I doubt it could ever be abolished - there will always be people who think girls should behave a certain way and have different expectations of boys - but I really think we should be looking to move away from it not getting more and more obsessed with it.

The article was wordy and tedious IMO and I couldn't get to the end. It seems to be suggesting that radfems see sex and gender as pretty much the same thing and by abolishing gender they would also abolish any admission that the sexes might be different in any way. I have no idea if this is what radfems say or don't say but it's not my opinion. To me gender and sex are completely different. Sex is real, visible, biological and the two sexes are different in a myriad of ways many of which may overlap. Gender on the other hand is a list of stereotypical norms that people often feel obliged to adhere to - girls are quiet, kind, thoughtful and look pretty for example.

To me abolishing gender is about cutting out the stereotypes and the feeling that if you don't fit into the stereotypes then you must be something 'other'.

Gender is a concept. Nothing can be lost or gained by it because it doesn't exist in any real concrete sense. Women's culture and literature are perfectly able to exist without involving the word gender - I can't think of anywhere where you couldn't replace the word gender with sex. To me gender is regressive, society bases it on stereotypes and expectations. I doubt it could ever be abolished - there will always be people who think girls should behave a certain way and have different expectations of boys - but I really think we should be looking to move away from it not getting more and more obsessed with it.

The article was wordy and tedious IMO and I couldn't get to the end. It seems to be suggesting that radfems see sex and gender as pretty much the same thing and by abolishing gender they would also abolish any admission that the sexes might be different in any way. I have no idea if this is what radfems say or don't say but it's not my opinion. To me gender and sex are completely different. Sex is real, visible, biological and the two sexes are different in a myriad of ways many of which may overlap. Gender on the other hand is a list of stereotypical norms that people often feel obliged to adhere to - girls are quiet, kind, thoughtful and look pretty for example.

To me abolishing gender is about cutting out the stereotypes and the feeling that if you don't fit into the stereotypes then you must be something 'other'.

Sorry it said the server was down and then posted it three times for some reason.

Sorry it said the server was down and then posted it three times for some reason.

Sex is real, visible, biological and the two sexes are different in a myriad of ways many of which may overlap. Gender on the other hand is a list of stereotypical norms that people often feel obliged to adhere to - girls are quiet, kind, thoughtful and look pretty for example.

To me abolishing gender is about cutting out the stereotypes and the feeling that if you don't fit into the stereotypes then you must be something 'other'.

Agreed. Any conversations I've had with other feminists who talk about gender abolition are around removing the expectations of gendered behaviour (boys are aggressive/assertive, girls are passive/nurturing) or gendered abilities (boys are good at logic/girls are good at housework) or gendered toys (cars for boys/dolls for girls) etc. Abolishing gender, IMO, means working towards a world in which your sex is only relevant biologically, and doesn't dictate your personality, career or opportunities.

A world without gender would be a world where men are raised to not be violent, to not be conveniently inept at housework, to not be socialised to believe they are entitled to the use of women's bodies.

Where women are raised knowing that they are not defined by their relationships to men, where they know their work is valued the same, where their bodies aren't public property.

It doesn't mean detaching women from motherhood (though it would mean that men took an active part in child care). It didn't mean pretending that men and women are physically interchangeable. It would still make sense to have separate sports events (but women's sport wouldn't be seen as inferior).

The idea of gender in relation to people (as opposed to grammar) was developed as a way specifically to talk about social and cultural phenomena that are related to sex, but not actually sex themselves.

For example if you wanted to discuss phenomena around maternity customs, the depiction of motherhood in art, or social conventions around flirting that different between men and women, these things are not biological sex, but they are social and cultural reflections of it in some ways.

You could just say "social and cultural ideas related to use found in art" for sure. But the use of the word "gender" was specifically borrowed in order to talk about those kinds of things in sociology and anthropology.

The idea of "gender" as sex stereotypes is, I think, a kind of knock-off from that. But I don't think it holds up all that well, even in terms of trying to talk about something to abolish. For one thing, many stereotypes are in fact true - they are true descriptions of differences found in the aggregate between groups, or they are in some cases cultural manifestations of people expressing those real differences. Are they all bad, by definistion - that seems improbable? If not, what really differentiates them from cultural expressions that aren't bad? Is it possible not to have people notice aggregate differences between groups (probably not the human brain is very sensitive to these and they underpin a lot of our cognitive processes.)

More and more I think this kind of thinking has contributed in a significant way to the place we are in now, where "gender" has morphed to become this real thing that is as or more fundamental than sex. Because cultural and social manifestations of sex, or group patterns, don't go away because we might imagine they should - they can't they are part of the fabric of being human. But if we keep on asserting they aren't really related to our sexed bodies, people start to think of them as having a meaningful reality unrelated to our sexed bodies.

Yes, I think that logic would follow. Being a transwoman would be a male-gender experience, albeit one that references female gendered cultural expressions.

In the same way gender bending stuff, for example in rock music, would be about playing with these cultural expressions of maleness and femaleness, contrasting and exchanging them, whether just as an effort to surprise, or look at them in new ways, exploring their limits, etc.

It becomes a kind of commentary on people's thinking about and experience of living as sexed beings, which changes over place and time but always refers back to certain concrete material realities.

The idea of "gender" as sex stereotypes is, I think, a kind of knock-off from that. But I don't think it holds up all that well, even in terms of trying to talk about something to abolish. For one thing, many stereotypes are in fact true - they are true descriptions of differences found in the aggregate between groups

I think this also ties into the nature vs nurture debate. If you believe that it's more nature, then of course you can't believe that it's possible to have a world without gender (as in sex stereotypes). Whereas if you believe it's nurture then those stereotypes only exist because of social conditioning, so would vanish without the social conditioning of enforced gender.