u/aiutoooooooo

TL;DR: If gender roles and stereotypes are socially constructed, shouldn't we try to make them less prescriptive? But if we remove the social associations between gender and things like clothes, mannerisms, or interests, how can gender expression still exist in a meaningful sense? Is it possible to loosen gender roles without also making gender expression meaningless, or is this a non-issue?

Hi! I've read a bunch of other posts on this sub about gender abolitionism, and I have a question.

From what I understand, feminists generally argue that gender roles and stereotypes are socially constructed, and that there is nothing inherently feminine or masculine about traits like being more empathetic, passive, assertive, nurturing, having a particular aesthetic, etc. So, from a feminist perspective, it would seem desirable to make these social prescriptions less rigid and less prescriptive, so that people aren't pressured to conform to them simply because of their gender. (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or oversimplifying any of this)

I recognize that believing gender is a social construct doesn't necessarily mean believing that there can't be some underlying sense of identity or self-concept that isn't itself socially constructed, and that this can be expressed through pre-existing social categories like "man" and "woman."

At the same time, I'm struggling to understand how gender expression would work in a world without prescriptive gender stereotypes or expectations. I'm not talking about a world where gender categories themselves no longer exist. I'm specifically imagining a society where people are still able to identify as men, women, both, neither, etc., but where there are no expectations about how people of those genders should look or behave.

Let's use a skirt as an example.

Imagine that wearing a skirt is no longer considered either masculine or feminine. Anyone can wear one, and wearing a skirt doesn't communicate anything about someone's gender. The same applies to everything else: clothes, hairstyles, mannerisms, interests, and so on. In that case, people would have complete freedom of expression, but how would someone actually express their gender through those things, rather than simply express themselves?

Or imagine a second scenario where wearing a skirt is still culturally associated with femininity, but it's completely normal for men to wear skirts too. I'm not sure how significantly different this is. The skirt would still have a feminine association, but seeing someone wearing one wouldn't tell you much about their gender identity because you couldn't reliably infer that the person is a woman.

In both cases, gender categories like "man" and "woman" would still exist, and people could identify with one, several, or none of them. But other than explicitly saying "I am X," I'm struggling to see how gender expression would still exist in a meaningful sense.

The only way for it to still exist I can currently think of would be if there are certain traits or forms of expression that are intrinsically associated with men or women, regardless of society. But I don't personally believe that, and I'm worried that assuming this would lead toward some kind of biological essentialism. (but maybe it wouldn't? feel free to correct me on this too)

So my question is: is it possible to completely loosen gender roles, expectations, and stereotypes while still retaining gender expression as something meaningful? Or do feminists generally argue that in loosening gender roles and stereotypes we should also get rid of gender expression? Or am I getting the entire framework wrong?

I hope this makes sense! I'm sorry if this is a repetitive question. I'm pretty new to this topic and I'm genuinely trying to understand how these different ideas fit together.

TL;DR: If gender roles and all the social meanings attached to being a man or woman disappeared, what would it mean to identify as a man or woman? Is gender identity ultimately about something intrinsic, about our relationship with our bodies, or something else?

Hiii! I'm trying to understand different perspectives on gender. I edited the post to include a little summary for anyone who doesn't want to read the whole thing. Also, I've only recently started looking into questions around gender, gender identity, and gender abolition, and I haven't read very much about them yet, so this might be a very basic question, but I'm having some difficulty grasping the concept.

I'm having trouble seeing how the idea that men and women are socially constructed categories fits together with the idea of gender identity as something that exists beyond the body. For example, what would it mean to identify as a woman in a hypothetical world where being a woman carried absolutely no social expectations or implications about how you should behave, dress, think, or relate to other people?

I understand that gender identity isn't necessarily about wanting to conform to gender stereotypes. From what I understand, it can be described as an internal sense of identity that exists independently of gender roles. But then I get stuck on what that actually means. If we remove all the social aspects of gender, what is left for that internal sense of identity to refer to? It seems like the remaining distinction would have to have something to do with the body.

So I can see two possible ways of understanding this, but I'm not sure either one is right.

One possibility is that there is some aspect of being a woman that is neither socially constructed nor reducible to physical sex, something intrinsic about gender identity that exists independently of both social roles and the body. But if that's the case, wouldn't that mean that men and women aren't entirely social constructs? Maybe most of what we associate with gender is socially constructed, but there would still have to be some underlying non-social, non-physical component.

The other possibility is that, in a world where you remove all the social meanings associated with gender, being a woman or a man would only mean something in relation to your body. But then, in such a world, I'm not sure how someone could understand the trans experience without reducing it to something like "wanting your body to look a certain way." I think it would be like reducing it to hormones and surgeries, because what else could you do in such a world to transition? Is being trans about feeling that your body doesn't correspond to your gender identity or does framing it this way reduce the trans experience to something that is fundamentally about the body, when there is more to it than that?

Maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong framework entirely, and there's another way of thinking about the relationship between social construction, gender identity, and sex that I'm missing.

I'm sorry if this is kind of long to read. Also I'm not trying to argue that trans people aren't the gender they identify as. I'm genuinely trying to understand this better. I'm looking for a framework in which I can make sense of gender being socially constructed without feeling like that somehow diminishes or invalidates trans people's experiences.