If gender was an energy.

If gender was an energy that powered a 5th dimensional grid, one of action guided by a compass and 4 poles rather than two it would malfunction when forced to divide in two. If gender was a direction rather than a box it would no longer feel constraining. If gender was a vast unobstructed landscape that had been cordoned off and laden with obstruction it would be trying to get free. If gender was the path to freedom and it had been bound in chains, it would seem like a trap. If gender was an entity constantly running between two poles, while at the same time trying to get out of boxes, and avoid those trying to destroy it then it would look like a trans vs radfem battle.

If gender had an essence what would that essence be. Could it be anything once it separated from notions of biological sex. What would its framework be built on. There are many questions. In a sense the idea of two biological sexed create a structure for gender to exist in, as a thing that runs from male to female or masculine to feminine, but even this structure itself and all words used to define gender reference back to sex. It has not always been this way, other concepts have been used to describe energies in terms of polarities. North american indian tribes would describe earth and sky in terms of spirit essence, and they would claim men are sky and women are earth, two spirit combines them both. These were the words to describe a sense of essences, and they did so without referencing them as originating from sex, instead they saw them as part of nature and humans also part of nature. The terms yin and yang together with the spirit element of yuan have also been used to describe how different ratios of  elements exist in the sexes in china. In India concepts of doshas existing as constitutional types in people that combined the elements of earth, wind, fire, water and space were thought to determine traits and physical constitution. The three doshas Vata, Pitta, and Kapha are derived from the five elements. Vita combined air and space, making people lighter and more cerebral. Pitta combined fire and water making people more active and driven. Kapha combined earth and water, making people more heavy and calm. It was said keeping the doshas balanced is good for health, very much like the concept of keeping one’s yin and yang balanced. Its clear that concepts of things that make up the self dont always have to exist as two opposing polarities or be linked to reproductive sex.

In the west there are many theories around gender, these cover how it evolved or how it was constructed. Its clear there is an unnatural structure of gender in this society, just as there is an unnatural structure around sexuality. Its easy to see how sexuality could continue to exist without the boxes and labels used to constrain it, because most of us experience the pull of attraction and have a sense of sexual motivation. If attraction to females was no longer labelled as anything, it would still exist without a label. Going back a few hundred years in the west, what we think of now as attraction was referred to as lust and look down upon, more so in women. Clothing was modest and designed to reduce lust and sex was to be carried out in a way that lead to conception in marriage. The higher up the social class ladder a person was, the more control of their sexuality in both thought and deed mattered. It was not ok to masturbate, to lust after anyone or sit and think about sex, many middle class women suffered from anxiety related conditions that arose from suppressing sexual desire. The vibrator was invented as a medical device to use on women in doctors surgeries as a treatment for hysteria, meanwhile peasant women  were seen as filled with unnatural lustfulness and sin. If you went to a woman in those time to ask her what it meant to be heterosexual or attracted to men, she would not be able to tell you or would be horrified to speak about those things. Sex acts like oral sex and anal penetration have been banned in some US states, even within marriage and having sex while menstruating and less able to conceive is seen as immoral by some religions. The message was clear, sex is for procreation and not pleasure. The act of reproduction itself has always been controlled, and this was done via narrowing down the act of sex and then only allowing it in marriage. It could be said the core reason for controlling sexuality was control of reproduction, by making sure people have reproductive sex and making sure they get married first. That way most of the population reproduces workers, and they do it in a setup where resources are controlled, usually making everyone survive on low income while the system steals their creative ability via work.

So if gender had an essence and an energy of its own, like sexuality does it would have to be tied to human creative ability and how humans interact with their environment, to build civilization itself. It would need a pole for synthesis: the origin of ideas and thoughts, inspiration, planning etc(an undifferentiated pole). It would need a pole for co operation allowing different approaches to come together (an androgyny pole). It would need a  interaction pole (expressive pole) and an action pole (instrumental pole). Synthesis to create an idea, then one could either express that idea to others via art or words to inspire others to action or they could go direct and build the thing they thought of. They may need to create a team who will work together to build one’s idea at the co operation pole.  To complete a project one needs to be able to move freely from pole to pole, unobstructed and not be chained to a pole of action or being forced to pivot between two.

So if the essence of gender is the sum of all human creativity and is responsible for the creation of everything that cannot be created by sex, the point of controlling gender would be to control the creative output of humans. Gender is controlled by forcing it into a binary based around bodies that reproduce in a certain way. This method is a good way to control gender because it means maximum work output can be extracted out of everyone. Allocating different tasks to the reproductive sexes allows for structuring around reproductive roles, and it also allows people to be grouped by body ability for tasks over personal interest in tasks. This way the system can ensure to extract as much time and labour as it can from everyone. To do this you must create a triangular gender system by removing one pole of the gender square, and this was what they did right up until that triangle was flattened into a spectrum. I can assure you this will make sense in time, so stick with me.

At one pole you have instrumentality, males are allocated this script and at the other end you have expressivity and females are allocated this script. The androgyny pole as i mentioned before is the co operation pole, and this was where they put marriage and the basis of male and female interaction. They wanted instrumental and expressive to join together in two people, not in one person and they wanted it to do so under their decision. The 4th pole is the pole of synthesis and this is to be removed from the masses who dont get to have a say in how things are run. Instead they are given one of two scripts and told to come together to co operate in projects set by those who occupy the synthases pole (those in power) rather than their own ideas(or preferences). The control of humans via a binary gender scripted system will result in most of the population running around doing what is asked, with a few at the top making the structural decisions about society. The only other alternative is destruction because everyone’s synthesis base is beaten out of them. They are to become specialized, based on sex. Every single person who inherits the instrumental or expressive script are only living from someone elses ideas. Its refined instrumentality and expressiveness, and its only able to come together and co operate at the androgyny pole if everyone follows these scripts fully. They are like a jigsaw and fit the way they were sculpted by those who made the decisions, so when shaped by sex role scripts the natural connection process is modified. So when movements made changes to the sex role scripts, they no longer fitted together at the androgyny pole, marriage collapsed etc as did other dynamics that were script dependant. The constructed triangle collapsed into a spectrum that ran from instrumental to expressive, everyone moved on to developing bits of each in themselves. The sense there was more gender then just two arrived, but even that is a small slice of what is.

Why would a collective human gender grid with 4 points exist? In my view its because it takes many different angles of views to construct a society,  it only takes two angles to reproduce physically, two directions (egg and sperm) and it takes many others to build a society (synthesis, action, interaction, co operation) and while its possible for all people to be able to navigate around them all, its hard to have everyone carry out all the tasks all at once. For this reason people need to develop orientations around these bases, and its possible these orientations intersect with how we experience our bodies in some way. This diversity does not automatically result in a power hierarchy, not unless there is a set of people forcing the rest to build a society that favours some extracting  resources from others.

To get freedom of sexual orientation a lot of other factors had to change, like laws that banned sexual acts more likely between people with similar anatomies had to be repealed. The idea one could not have sex if it were not for procreation had to go, as did the idea sex could only take place in marriage. Same sex sexuality rights by default changed the way all sexuality was seen and conducted. It upset the apple cart for right ring moralistic society because it made it harder to control heterosexuals who now were seen as having a sexual orientation, rather than just doing the natural procreative act. Today we have a concept of sexuality flowing in many directions, other than same sex vs opposite sex. A lot of people think the pill set women free, but really it never did because there was never a need for all sex to be reduced down to the one act that causes conception.

To get freedom in the dimension of gender will require shifts in how our skills, abilities and resulting creativity is exploited, because this is the core reason why we have a system that marks out who everyone is and what they are expected to do because of it. Its a system where who you physically are is translated into what you will do because of it. The system will allow some new gender freedom while remaining intact, just as long as those identities are still somehow based around the already existing system of reproductive sex and the sex role scripts of masculinity and femininity. But to live truly unbound and without boxes, free from expectations based on anatomy for good, then the very structure of gender control itself must be destroyed.

To achieve destruction one needs to know for sure what keeps the system in place, and i will have a good guess its related to class hierarchy and control of production and reproduction. Think of it like this: Heterosexuality, homosexuality, as terms vs Androsexuality, Gynsexuality, Polysexuality, Pansexuality. The first set reference the person at the seat of the attraction, the second set reference the person one is attracted to. The first set can form an hierarchy, and the second set can’t and this is why things are referenced as they are. This is to remind people which direction of sexuality is appropriate based on their reproductive sex, and because everyone of the same reproductive sex varies so much in how they look it becomes important to create a uniformed look to become the seat of attraction. Controlling what people look like based on reproductive sex is needed to stop the construct of heterosexuality falling apart, more so in a society that also expects the primary sexual parts to remain covered. A side effect of creating this uniformed norms is some people dont fit them and as result appear less appealing. When sex norms go and it gets to the point where there is no single common pattern of look for either sex, it becomes clear there is no single anchor for sexuality that would justify the boxes. It just happens that to meet the two box binary expectation of how one should look, one has to spend quite a bit of money and once again follow someone else’s creative template, a template they will constantly change to sell more goods. One of the first obstacles one has to overcome when choosing not to wear the clothes allocated to their reproductive sex is not being able to follow the trend cycles of one’s peers. Along with not wanting to part with ones acquired clothing once the trends pass, because finding what one wants to fit their body is rare for gender non conforming people, and its something many others are happy to throw in the bin when the fashion changes. If we dont conform to either of the two trend cycles (mens or womens) then its harder to extract cash from us, and making extra trend cycles for a minority is harder. In a sense imposing fashion on us all by default restricts our self expression, regardless of if those trends are gendered or not, if they are it adds another layer. Gender controls could have resulted from years of hierarchy based around sex and social class, its not possible to get rid of the controls until some other inequalities have been removed. Until humans are not creatively exploited, control of human creativity wont end and there will always be a push to suppress originality.

Just as fighting for gay rights never freed human sexuality fully, fighting for rights of certain genders or directions in gender wont free us either. Identity may only be the tip of the iceberg.



Gendurality and Sexuality

Instrumental and expressive gets sorted into the binary of masculine and feminine by sex role scripts. This is done by allocating them based on biological sex in the form of instrumental and expressive roles, these roles instruct the sexes which things to be interested in and how to be as a person. Gendurality is the dimension of self we experience masculine or feminine,  related to gender expression and separate from gender identity(core sex identity) but can be conflated. Gendurality is what culture turns aspects of personality into when it structures it around sex expectations.

Sexuality gets shaped by the sex role scripts too, not just its orientation but its very expression. We learn instrumental and expressive ways of conducting sexuality regardless of sexual orientation. The sex role scripts demand expressive sexual expression from females and instrumental sexual expression from males. Expressive sexual expression demands one operate in the realm of sexuality as they do in the realm of gendurality. For females this is to mean they are to be the one approached, the one who attracts via an expressive display, the one to be receptive and open and the one who must learn to see sexuality in a connected relationship orientated way. Not in a detached way and never as the one who takes the lead or approaches.  Their sexuality must be submissive, not aggressive or dominant,  and they must be willing to put the wants of their partner above their own. Its this aspect that makes it submissive, not the anatomical position they are also expected to take.

The sex role scripts tell males to conduct their sexuality in a direct way, in a detached way and in a decisive way. They are the ones who must pursue , and the ones who are taught not to take no for an answer, instead no means yes if one pursues harder. The sex role scripts say male sexuality must be goal orientated, not connection orientated and the females who are complying with the expressive mandate are the goals to be pursued. If the goals object to being pursued they should be pursued harder until they no longer object, if she says no she is to be pursued until she says yes. The sex act itself is to be viewed as a goal, an achievement to brag about to ones instrumental script comrades and each conquest contributes to his tally of achieving masculinity. To care about her feelings would be just too feminine, because it would mean being expressive, being connected and being all the things coded feminine. Sex role scripts say the expressive one must be female and she must be the fucked, the instrumental one must be male and the fucker. The sex role scripts make all sexuality fall into this dynamic, one where the one who receives is always feminized regardless of if they are female and always seen as inferior.

Sex role scripts are why certain personality types are linked straight away with sexuality, more so by those on the right. This is because an expressive male gets seen as submissive , and this places him in the position of woman and woman is seen as submissive to man. Its assumes if one is open, flexible, cooperative or nurturing that they are incapable of being decisive, dominant or powerful. If that one is male then they are seen as not having what it takes to take charge of a woman, to be the fucker and is instead the one who wants to be the fucked. Instrumental females are seen as dominant, resistive and usually dykes because its assumed the presence of these traits will mean one is unwilling to be fucked or pursued and will instead want to be the one who pursues and fucks.

Sex role scripts have no place in them for equal sexuality regardless of sexual position, not when sexual position and social position are fused. Sex role scripts only have two directions for human sexuality and those are male and dominant and female and submissive. The sex role scripts act to make same sex sexuality difficult because they make it hard to envision sexual relations that are fluid and void of a power dynamic. So what happens is patterns that represent the male dominant and female submissive power dynamic appear in same sex relationships? On some level everyone looks down on the one who appears to conduct sexuality expressively, they become the one who takes it and viewed as submissive.   People also make assumptions about how one conducts their sexuality based on how they conduct themselves in other areas of life and this influences who is seen as a couple that will work and who isn’t. If one has a take charge personality they must like to take charge in the bedroom too, and they must lack the traits needed to fully care about the fucked. This is why we have a concept of sexual tops being aggressives and why the very word we use to describe sex, being fucked is also a word used to describe one who was at the receiving end of misconduct.

Sex role scripts create dependency between males and females, and the illusion of opposite energies of masculinity and femininity that need to be balanced.  Gendurality is given a sexual charge when linked with sexuality via sex role scripts. The very traits that allow males to maintain power become attractive in males and the very traits that keep females submissive are sexualized in females. We must return gendurality to its original state, by freeing it from sexuality and anatomical sex and allowing it to take its original place as humanity’s second creative base. Our first creative base is the ability to reproduce sexually and create other human beings, the sexed body and the sexual act allow this to take place. Our sex bodies and sexuality have other functions apart from this though, we can be creative without imagination and use sexuality in ways that dont lead to reproduction. We can also be creative with our minds and use our bodies to build the structures of civilization and make the decisions needed to do so. There is no reason to exclude people from the second creative base based on how their body carries out the first creative base. There is no reason for sex role scripts that tell people based on reproductive anatomy how to produce other things. Sexed anatomy only says how one produces another person, by depositing a sperm or birthing a baby. Sexed anatomy does not say how one is to use their mind or body in non reproductive related ways, sexed anatomy does not even say one has to reproduce, it says one may be able to and it says how. Sexed anatomy does not even say one is a man or woman, and the sexed anatomy of humanity as a whole does not fit into two clear directions. There is nothing in nature that points to a need for a sex based power structure like the ones humans created.

Gendurality is a set of creative traits and abilities that humans have linked to sex, and sexualized. Without these creative traits building civilization and culture either physically or mentally would not be possible. All the traits that lead to the drive and motivation to be creative, to explore and discover, to work and produce, to connect with each other, build teams and co operate are what makes humans as a specie be able to survive. All individuals are a blend of all possibilities and all with the ability of fluidity.  It just happens culture has taken all these things are attached them to sexed anatomy and later to core sex identity (gender identity) and then sexualized the whole thing. Through this we have a concept of certain tasks making people less attractive sexually, those who find females or males outside their allocated roles less attractive  and those who see those outside their allocated roles less manly or womanly or less heterosexual or more queer. None of these things in themselves are a problem, but what is a problem is the link up between sexed anatomy, core sex identity, sexuality and gendurality.  It matters because if doing certain things or expressing part of oneself makes one feel less attractive, less of the sexual orientation they are, or at risk of having their identity as a man or woman questioned it acts as a deterrent to do certain things or be certain ways. It matters because if having certain anatomy means one has to also have certain personality traits shaped around how that anatomy may function sexually or reproductively, no one gets to be their full potential. It matters because of the underlying power structure needs to be destroyed and doing so will take more than some people breaking the rules.

Out of all the things constructed by the sex role scripts the structure of heterosexuality has to be the most hollow. This is a world where the average het male struggles to tell most females are female if they dont dress in a certain way and even if he can he cant see them as attractive outside the cultural definitions of femininity. Its a world where women are told they look like men if they dont wear make up or long hair, and where the line between attractive to the average het man and repulsive is one not drawn by nature its instead drawn by culture. Nature did not make female looking like what the average het man finds attractive, no did it make them acting what the average het man finds attractive. As nature did not make the basis of femininity, culture did and as femininity and not sexed anatomy is the basis for het male attraction its clear heterosexuality as it stands is a social construct. Outside the social structure attraction will still occur between males and females, and some will have an orientation more in this direction. Its possible without the constructs of masculine and feminine acting to narrow down the pool of who is male or female, the angle of who is found attractive will widen and not narrow. This wont be as confined to anatomical sex as it appears to be now. The difference will be gendurality wont be fused with sex or sorted into a binary so a polarized concept of what a man or woman looks like wont exist. Whats now masculine and feminine as we know it, the very binary of female, feminine and attracted to men(male and masculine men) and male, masculine and attracted to women (female and feminine) will be gone. Once gendurality is turned back into what it should be and away from what the sex role scripts made it, then it won’t be able to create the sexual power dynamic any longer and neither will its associated traits act to sexualize or desexualize a person based on ideas around atomical sex. When ones sexuality is no longer linked to an ego based sense of social power, or an ego based sense of social submission to someone elses power, those who would once be a threat to your social position are no longer so. The repelling force is removed and people can become attractive who were attractive before (like a partner who is stronger than you when you have a social mandate to appear strong).

Post sex role scripts gendurality will be an open landscape (expressive aspect) that all may navigate (instrumental aspect). This landscape is the world post patriarchy or post whatever created the sex role scripts, be it an accident, a class structure or a patriarchy that was intentional or accidental. Something that formed over so many generations where communication between all creators could not have occurred directly. The only way to ensure its survival was to pass down certain ways of behaving, ensuring human creative potential is controlled. The same dynamic is recreated again every generation.

The new landscape will be a place where those who like being strong lift weights. Those with muscles lift things rather than those with penises being told they must grow muscles so they can lift things. Those who are expressive are expressive because they naturally have a lot of expressive personality traits, not because they have a vagina so have had the expressive script forced on them. Those who have a lot of instrumental traits learn they cannot use them to make decisions for others, only for themselves but there is lots they can run and control for the benefit of others, and after a collective decision is made for them to do so. The core of instrumentality here is active creation, not power to fit everyone else into ones plans and not active destruction through warfare. The core of expressiveness here is cooperative connection, not forced connection. No longer will expressive traits like talk time or nurturance be something to be extracted from a person and used to further agendas that oppress these people. Less people will need nurturance in a world where instrumentality in the form of destructive action is not leading to violence and destruction.

The instrumental will become the expressive, action will further connection as we build to share and communicate before we build. On an individual level whats instrumental can become a form of expression, and whats expressive can be instrumented. Social structures emerge that are unimaginable now, but will be greater than any blending together of what exists now. We cant stock guns alongside dolls or hospitals alongside army camps and call it a balanced society just because all things are represented and we no longer code them by sex. Not if we have not ended the misuse of instrumentality and the exploitation of expressiveness and have instead just changed who we put in each role. When the instrumental in us is misused the expressive in all has to pay, co operation and connection will always be a casualty of violence and destruction and nurturance will always have to clean up the mess.

Transgression and The Sex Role Scripts. Time For Transcendence.

Non binary wont present a challenge to gender roles because its gender identity, non binary will present a challenge to binary gender identity.
Unlike biological sex and gender identity, gender roles dont exist along a spectrum and never can. Thats bc roles are something that are assigned and consist of two social scripts. Defining what gender roles are in this current age of identity is difficult, because words that used to be used to refer to these roles have come to mean other things.

Gender roles are not a form of self expression, they are not the authentic expression of gender identity like some will claim, they are instead what gender expression has been reduced to. Gender roles are not even gender roles, they are sex roles and they are assigned based on sex. When people transition they may be expected to fit the new role but still be pulled by expectations of the old sex role, because the chains of sex roles are never fully broken just by the fact new ones are added.

Through different stages in history sex roles have been allowed to lapse and then return, sometimes they are widened so much it looks like they went away but they never did. Their chains are like elastic, they can stretch to the point of looking like they went away, because both sexes are allowed  to do more of what the other one does, sometimes as a result of liberal times or the treads of a generation and other times out of necessity like dure in the war. As sex roles feel strain from challenge they stretch so they dont break, shortly after they contact with great force. This is why times of great liberal sex role fluidity are followed by times of extreme sex role rigidity. Masculinity and femininity in accordance with the sex role scripts are like two rubber bands in pink and blue, when they stretch they allow the two corden’s they create to overlap. When sex roles are stretched the signs they still remain are found in the way everything is still coded, all things still remain masculine and feminine but only difference is that in liberal times its becomes ok to express ones “other side” just as long as one remembers thats all it is. The style of ones transgression must be a passing trend, disposable as a sandcastle about to face the incoming tide. Like the trends of the 60 and 70’s, forever buried in history as they were washed away by the incoming tide of change void of progression.

All transgressions of sex roles will be washed away by the same tide, because sex role scripts are not wrote in sand and instead are carved in stone. Even in times when sex roles appear to change all that happens is a greater degree of “masculinity” is tolerated in women and a greater degree of “femininity” is tolerated in men. What never changes is the very definitions of masculinity and femininity itself,  the scripts survive all transgressions and the very act of transgression preserves the scripts. Thats because when we agree that we are expressing our masculine side as women or our feminine side as men, or whenever we refer to masculine and feminine in the same context as what’s written in the scripts either as an act of celebration of our breaking of the rules , we still are remembering what the rules are.

True transgression can never be found by crossing roles, reversing roles or widening the definition of who can perform the roles. Letting some men be masculine and other men feminine, some women masculine and some women feminine and other people who are non binary be any combination of masculine and feminine they wish wont destroy the roles. The expectation that all women be feminine and all men be masculine still remains in the shadows, anything else is still seen as a passing act and never the true self. This is because masculine and feminine are built upon the idea of an essential male and female nature, that exist in most even if not present in all males and females. This is why those who transgress cannot ever destroy the sex role scripts because they as individuals are only saying they dont possess that essential nature. Those with an expressive nature are coded feminine, regardless of their sex. Those with an instrumental nature are coded masculine regardless of sex. Those who are female are expected to have an expressive nature, and those who are male are expected to have an instrumental nature. This is because an instrumental sex role script is given to males who are then meant to develop the traits,tastes and behaviours needed to perform it. An expressive sex role scripts is given to females and they are expected to develop the traits, tastes and behaviours needed to perform it. If they cant or wont then they are told they have a masculine or feminine side. They wont have an option of fully embracing that because sex roles are not something people get much say in, the expectations for a person do not change just bc a person does not fit them. A female cannot take the instrumental role as an alternative to the expressive role and stop getting backlash for doing so. She can build a bubble of people who will let her, but its a right that has to be earned and depends on others more than her. She may find over time others come to expect it, and pick her up whenever she does something coded as feminine or even worse it be used as a reason as to why she should be that way all the time.

We could decide the only way to get rid of sex role scripts is by taking the definitions masculine and feminine and saying anything can be masculine and anything can be feminine. Masculine can be instrumental and expressive, feminine can be instrumental and expressive. All things coded as masculine now are also feminine and all things coded as feminine now are also masculine. Doing this would not separate those distinctions from sex or sex identity, as having masc and fem on the front still acts to link anything coded as these back to sex or sex identity and back into a binary. In effect this would be another form of transgression, but this time its not about proving that not all females are feminine and not all males masculine and is instead about proving that masculine can mean more things and so can feminine. For example: saying men can be expressive as men and still be masculine and women can be strong and still be feminine, still in most cases translates to men can still perform their instrumental roles and stay in touch with their expressive sides. He can still show he is tough when expected, even wearing a decorative outfit and minding the kids. Women can still perform their expressive roles and still stay in touch with their instrumental sides, and who knows they maybe can still put up the shelves while they mind the kids and cook tea. All that happens is the original expectations remain, and people get to cross over to do the fun things but this time around they get to do so without being told they are any less feminine or masculine for doing so.

We need to bin transgression and embrace transcendence

The fact we have sex roles is why things out in the world are coded based on sex, its down to the roles needing to code actions based on sex so they can be allocated to sex. Once those roles have gone a collective mental template of whats masculine or feminine wont remain and sex or sex identity wont be linked to personality traits, tastes, interests or behaviours. Its possible some patterns may remain, similar to men being taller than women, but these will be nothing more than patterns and so variable no one would notice on a day to day level.

We really do all need to step into the tide, take with us our sandcastles of transgression and carry with us the sex role scripts written in stone and sink them. Let all the definitions of masculine and feminine be washed away by a tide of progressive change. All that will be left is our sex, and our sex identity which all have many different directions, directions no longer obstructed by the chains of sex role scripts. A landscape where things are no longer coded based on sex and the only thing that will draw us in any direction or towards any thing is interest, and interest not carved into us based on sex or expected based on sex identity.


When Identity Becomes a Direction Part 3: Scripts of Extraction

In the current time those who are assigned the blue or pink landscape must remain aligned with its colour, they are sent there based on biological features. There is those who try and wash off their colour, and reject their sex role script. The eyes may read them as the opposite colour even if they have not painted themselves to be read like that, they will still contrast them against the background assigned to their anatomy. An example of this is a person who can be read female as far as anatomy goes will always be contrasted against the pink background (the script of femininity) and any lack of pinkness ( social femininity) or any sign of blueness (social masculinity) will be punished. A person read male in terms of anatomical sex will always be contrasted against the blue background (script of masculinity) and any lack of blueness (social masculinity)  or sign of pinkness (social femininity) will be punished. Im most cases lack of masculinity performance is read as femininity and lack of femininity performance is read as masculinity by the eyes, and the people laugh just as loud. There is no inbetween when everything in the realm of human existence had been coded pink or blue in some way, all interests, traits, activities, opinions, ways of thinking and feeling.

Those who walk the line between whats coded  masculine and feminine in culture, or between whats coded male and female in biology, will be forever in site of the eyes and forever hear the people laugh. There trying to remain whole and follow ones own path in a world where eyes are like laser beams set on dividing one apart and where around every corner is a route only some parts of oneself are permitted to take. It can seem like existence itself  is a contradiction, one where its not possible to be complete and if its hard to be oneself when some parts of us appear to cancel the other parts out due to prompting others to pull us in different directions. A trip along transition highway with only two destinations seems like the only alternative direction but the wrong one.

The only path to freedom is total destruction of the two cordoned off landscapes and this is done by stopping painting them pink and blue. This is achieved by stopping sorting humans into two groups based on anatomical features and labeling them males and females, and giving this social significance through violent enforcement of sex roles. The masculinity role is an instrumental role and the femininity role is an expressive role, we experience our self as masculine and feminine because we all have a tapestry of instrumental and expressive traits. Whats within us and has no reference to our sexed anatomy is divided in half based on that sexed anatomy, as a result unnatural polarization within the self occurs.  Instrumental and expressive are not naturally divided, its only through sex role scripts that they become refined. When they do those assigned male are punished for expressiveness (emotions, certain ways of speaking and dressing, expressive tasks,) and those assigned female are punished for instrumentality (playing rough, wanting to do certain sports, wearing functional clothing that lacks expressivity, direct speech, having muscles, being direct). Instrumentality is not naturally blue and expressiveness is not naturally pink, it becomes so and in this process its true potential is destroyed.

Sex role scripts are scripts of extraction, codes to make people act in ways that serve the system and give up their skills. They ensure people cultivate parts of themselves around their bodies physical capacity for reproduction so the system can get maximum workload out of everyone while ensuring replacement of the working population. Sex role scripts also act to maintain a power structure between those assigned male and those assigned female, but it needs to be remembered the structure that creates the sex role scripts has been here before all those who live today inherited their position in it. This is why its a waste of time chasing out who have the most power in it based on sex or gender, other than for the purpose of recognizing who may be motivated to hold onto the current system. There is no point looking for a direction to deliver punishment, instead all destructive energy must be turned against the very system itself, the system of social hierarchy which sex role scripts form a part. There is also no point in different identity groups based around gender spending time working out who has the most privileged under the current system around gender, because all we do when we do so is further tighten the chains. What can be done instead is look at all those identities as directions and whos direction is most obstructed by this system, then work together on removing the obstacles in the way of their direction.  Remember too that for as long as this system remains the eyes will always see and the people will always laugh, at some directions more then others. Identities can be viewed as erasing other identities just by existing, but directions can only be viewed as erasing another direction if they are directly in the path obstructing it. The person critiquing the things that you see as part of your identity may not actually be in the way of the direction you want to take, they may not be anywhere near  and instead something elses is, probably the system itself. A system thats more than just a collection of bad opinions, a system held in place by something greater then the eyes that see and the people that laugh, many of these eyes are held in the same chains too, along with those that laugh. Most have been conned to think they benefit from a system that sucks the life blood out of them, just bc they have food on the table and a job. The chains of this system are economic and the chains of sex role scripts are part of it.

What needs to be remembered is the system of oppression cannot be overcome by any type of transgression, not by the poor becoming rich or by fluidity in who can perform each sex role script. The poor can never become rich, because the only solution is for all to share one level of wealth and by definition no one would be rich because to be so can only be understood in comparison to someone else being poor. What everyone can have though is material abundance, in equal measure in a world less wasteful. Its for this same reason we can’t all become powerful, because power like wealth is defined by a position in relation to others. What we can all have though is a path in life we get a say in and we can learn how to chart paths in life that dont act to obstruct the paths of others. Until the system that creates sex role scripts is destroyed we are all swimming against its tide in our attempts to go against sex role scripts.

When Identity Becomes a Direction Part 2: Transition Highway


When identity becomes a direction rather than a box a person can see what is obstructing their desired direction, is it their body or something outside them obstructing them bc of their body. Is their desired direction one in biology, and is that need to take that direction in biology there bc another social direction is off the map until they take that direction in biology. Think of it like an highway that separates two landscapes, this highway is called transition highway and its littered with patrols. All around its entry points are eyes, and they are all staring, the same eyes are all over both landscapes and they are watching everyone. On one side of transition highway the landscape is marked male and masculine, its painted blue and all the people there who fit into male and masculine are also painted blue, so the eyes dont see them and the people dont laugh. The other side of transition highway the landscape is marked female and feminine, its painted pink and all the people there who fit into female and feminine are also painted pink, so the eyes dont see them as they blend in and the people dont laugh. Most of the people there dont question the colour of the landscape, or why the people must be the same colour as it. Others know why, its so the eyes dont see them and its so the people dont laugh,  its so everyone blends in with the landscape and are safe. They get on with it bc this is how it is, and they watch other people and offer advice on how to stay blue or pink and not stand out against the landscape so the eyes wont see them and the people wont laugh, but they remain unaware they are the eyes too.


Some people in these boxes cannot keep their colour as it falls off them. When the person’s physical anatomy is determined to be female they are painted pink and added to the pink landscape, they must build a direction in that pink landscape and how well they do so determines if they keep their colour or if it falls off and returns them to the natural state they were born. When a persons anatomy is determined to be male they are painted blue and added to the blue landscape, they must build a direction in the blue landscape and how well they do so determines if they keep their colour, or if it falls off and returns them to the natural state they were born in. How well they adjust is important, so the eyes dont see and the people dont laugh. If a person is born who has taken a different direction in biology to the two medical categories of male and female, they are sent to transition highway against their will and must be restructured to fit into one of the allowed definitions of biological sex before they can enter either landscape. How successful this restructuring is determines if the eyes see and the people laugh when they reach their assigned landscape. They will be painted pink or blue depending on which method of restructuring of the person’s anatomy is rated as more likely working, based on their chances of fitting in either box. This is again based on the eyes not seeing and the people not laughing. The people may never be told they ever went to transition highway, or that it even exists at all just as long as they keep their colour(perform their role).


Many people who want to keep their colour work hard to not have it fall off, other people work hard to wash it off, while some paint themselves other colours in protest to the original colour. No matter what they do though, all are confined to the landscape they were assigned based on their sex and will forever be under the watch of the eyes and listening to the people laugh at all their attempts to get free. This is because when those assigned pink paint themselves blue they will still be looked at against a pink background for as long as the eyes read them female. The fact that inborn anatomical features are coded pink and blue means that presence of those anatomical features in front of the eyes will always cause the eyes to contrast the person against the associated coloured landscape(which represents the assigned sex role). So when people act outside the sex role scripts in any way, be it sexually or emotionally or physically or in identity the eyes always see and in many cases the people laugh.
The only way to get to the pink landscape if you are coded as blue or to the blue landscape if you are coded pink is via transition highway. This is bc one will not be looked at against a different background until they are perceived to be the sex assigned to that colour. Transition highway only allows two directions, blue to pink or pink to blue and in many cases its a one way trip. The journey along transition highway is one that many do not survive, many are crushed by the heavy patrol cars, others give up as the eyes constantly watch and the people constantly laugh. People take the journey for all kinds of reasons, and many would not take this journey if there were alternative routes. Others will always make it even in the times when sex role scripts have gone and transition highway becomes the safest road in town, full of fancy hotels along the way. Transition highway will become a network, in an ever expanding landscape not divided into pink and blue. Transition highway wont be a route people need to travel due to any social reason and doing so will not have social implications in terms of landscape one may occupy or roote one may take because of it.

When Identity Becomes A Direction Part 1

I think some middle ground can be found that will allow people to keep some kind of identity and still allow for the full abolition of gender as a social system. I agree with those who say current identities have just become a series of extra boxes alongside the two main boxes, and people who opt for them (or are opted into them) are punished for doing so and end up feeling like they are alone in that punishment.


In my opinion whats now considered identity needs to be looked at as a direction or the marker of a desired direction, this may be a direction in biology (like physical transition) and or a direction socially in the stuff that has been coded as masculine or feminine. This system only allows two valid directions in biology, and based upon that two social directions are assigned and reinforced by sex role scripts. All outside the two sanctioned directions (male assigned and performing masculinity script and female assigned and performing femininity script) will have their direction obstructed,  they will be pushed back in the direction of whichever social box people perceive them as belonging in.


I think one of the reasons why todays identity system is not working for many individuals and also politically is because it groups the physical traits associated with biological sex with the things coded masculine and feminine socially. There is not a clear distinction between the coding of certain body parts as male or female and the coding of personality traits and behaviours as male and female. There is also a move to deconstruct biological sex but keep coding other things as masculine or feminine, like social roles and personality traits.


Sticking to identifying with ones assigned sex and then refusing to comply with the sex role by not expressing the allocated personality traits or taking part in the allocated social tasks or wearing the allocated clothing is the method gender abolitionists in past decades have gone for. Today this method is seen as still holding up the sex binary and instead the way to create freedom is to allow anyone to build a gender identity out of personality traits, or gendered interests with little reference to anything related to biological sex. This allows more individual freedom but the problem with it is gender is not an individual condition and is infact a social system, there will always be backlash from that system towards those who take an individual route outside the two it sanctions.

There needs to be three moves to break this gender system into three things and deal with those three things separately (sex binary, sexidentity/gender identity and allocated roles (masculinity and femininity).

-The sex binary as it stands now must be deconstructed, it needs to be recognised that humans take many directions in sexed anatomy that are outside the two medical definitions of male and female. It needs to be recognised that different systems of the body wont always take a uniform direction in terms of sexed aspects, so assigning someone male or female based on biology is a rough guess. If it were not for the fact the system needs two sex classes that can be grouped by biological features so it can assign the sex role scripts, sex would not need to be anything more than a medical reference. Biological sex is separate from both gender identity and personality traits and sex roles.

-Sex identity/gender identity this aspect needs to be recognized as not binary, people need to be able to have a right to it and until the source is fully known it must be recognized that its not immune from being shaped by the social system we live in. Sex identity/ gender identity is separate from biological sex, personality traits and sex roles.

-Sex role scripts and the creation of masculinity and femininity roles need to be totally deconstructed. Personality traits and behaviours related to instrumentality and expressiveness get coded as masculine and feminine and contribute to the binding of sex role expectations to the person. Instrumental and expressive traits and behaviour need to remain part of a fluid gendurality landscape that all are free to roam regardless of perceived sex, perceived sex identity/gender identity.

These three things are like a trinity of the gender systems oppression, in effect three chains link them all together. The first divide is the creation of the sex binary, not just an idea that everyone is male and female but that male and female must include a certain set of physical traits and if not something’s wrong. A female is not just got to have a vagina, but one deep enough to fit an average size penis.  This average size penis is a construct too, arrived at because penises under a certain size will mean one cannot be assigned male and if they cannot be assigned male they cannot have a penis so will be altered until they have a vagina of the required depth. The Endocrine system is not free from modifications, hormones will be measured and altered based on average hormone profiles even if the person has no health related symptoms due to hormones. It comes down to giving estrogen and other hormones to meet parameters rather than suited to individual health. Body hair in the wrong places for sex will also be investigated, and often hormones are given when no imbalance is there. A persons ovaries could be balanced, non cystic but the person could still be given androgen blockers to get rid of the small amount of testosterone they do have is doctors decide the person is too responsive to it (again based on sex, not on health). Body fat is another area for regulation, there are norms based on male and female.


Based on this sex assigned the person must form a gender identity in line with it, the gender identity must then act as a reason why the person must also identify with the role assigned, parts of themselves that fit it and the things in society that come with it. Gender identity is meant to be a mix up of body and social identity, but sometimes a person may identify more with their assigned sexed anatomy and other times with the social role. If this tips too far either way its a problem for the system, and thats because for sex role scripts to be effective they must link up the body and the obligation that goes with it.


If a person builds a gender identity too grounded in the body sex and they insist they are a man bc they are male or they are a woman bc they are female and they need no further confirmation on that fact but their junk, then as far as the system goes gender socialization failed. This is because they are not gonna need the roles as much to build their sense of self, they are not obligated towards the system to give up those bodies in service to it. If those assigned male are not obligated to fight wars, no macho things and have satisfied their need for identity by grounding it in biology and that being enough for them to make them a man the system is fucked. If this person is aligned with their assigned role they will defend the role like its their anatomy. If not they can find a gender identity separate and unrelated to anatomy and still get a sense of freedom from the obligation of the sex role scripts.


The sex role scripts depend on the masses being a bit insecure in both their bodys maleness or femaleness and a bit insecure in the masculinity and femininity role too. So it does not want a secure identity forming around either, instead it wants that identity to exist in constant need so people keep playing by the rules. Life in a sense is an interaction between being and doing and in the case of sex role scripts the interaction is between sexed anatomy and performance of the sex role scripts, and identity in the current concept mixes together the being and doing to the point people get tangled in their chains. We have people who experience gender as something they are and others who experience it as what they do, problem is over time what we are forced to do influences who we are.  

As ive said before identity needs to be turned into a direction, rather than being either a static position on a spectrum or another box, being needs to be separated out from doing. A desired direction may be to become something or do something or both, the obstacle in the path of that desired direction may make the desired direction look impossible. Like for example one must be one thing before they can do another or do one thing before they can be one thing. Like have a certain body before they are allowed to do a task that is not related to the anatomical changes they are being asked to make to do it.  

Masculine and feminine are both directions assigned along with sex and are directions in culture both outside in the world and within how we learn to interact with ourself. Masculinity is instrumentality fused with maleness, along with the addition of a social position. It must be remembered that the sex binary itself as a category is the wood and sex roles are the paint, in many cases it is sawn and cut to shape before the paint is applied. A lot of punishment people get based on masculinity and femininity non compliance is rooted in things they cannot actively do anything about, like vocal pitch or speech pattern being outside the box,  wrong build for the expectations of biological sex itself, inability to reproduce physically, developing an hormone imbalance that causes one to not be able to comply with sexed expectations of appearance. The idea all females can grow long hair because of hormones can result in punishment for loosing hair and the assumption one must care about maintaining all these norms. Even health itself is measured in a way thats distorted by biological sex, the same behaviour could be read as normal on one sex and pathological in another. To overcome all this we are gonna need to redefine everything we know now.

Sex Role Mandate, Questioning Gender Expression

In a sense the gender system is there bc humans as a species are fixated on sex and reproduction above all else. Its like before anything else can be done where everyone fits in that has to be put out on the table. The second anyone questions their place in that all the rest of the things are off the table. Transition or feminist type sex role refusal all questions one’s place or the place of others in the system, radfem gender critical questions the system itself. In reality none of them reinforce the system, some just fail to see or question the system itself and take an individual approach.

Trans theorists and radfems have one thing they could say that is the same. There should be no imposed ways of being based on assigned sex anyways. This is the real point, it does not matter if sex is assigned or determined what matters is what happens after. Some think that people should be free to step out of their nature assigned biological conditions along with the social ones culturally assigned because of it. It appears radfem don’t think people should have the right to step out of biology, just culture. I think people should have the right to step out of biology and culture in relation to sex and gender. What i don’t think is that all wishes to do so are related to anything innate in the brain, the culture is universally wrong even if it’s right for some and the reason for that is because it imposes itself on all. Trans and queer theorists see assigning titles like she or he to people based on sex as part of the system, because its something people have a choice in. What trans and queer theorists fail to see is how to separate assigning someone she or he and also assigning them femininity or masculinity.

What i want is for there to be 3 components recognized, determination of anatomy, assigning a social description to that biological anatomy (male or female etc) and then imposing the sex role mandate upon people based on that social description. Boy and Girl tend to mean male+masculine and female+feminine rather than just male and female. This means there’s two layers of things that a person may not agree with rather than just the one. Personality traits can clash with the sex role mandate because in general the masculine sex role mandate requires more instrumental traits and the feminine sex role mandate requires more expressive ones.

First it’s determined if someone has a male or female anatomy or some other anatomy. This has to be done and always will have to be done, because people need to know what system they have and the care it will need. Historically female and male have been descriptions applied to the body based on presence of certain parts. Historically those who develop a combination of whats considered male and female reproductive systems have been considered inter-sexed, and given whatever medical modifications were available at the time, to bring them closer to one sex title. Requirements for a sexed title always include a penis of a certain length and function or a vagina of a certain depth and function, as minimum and function is a measurement based on heterosexual intercourse. Other things related to the sex role mandate are included, including ability to pee standing up and possibly reproduction if any gonads are present. The individual’s ability to comply with their sex role mandate matters more than what their experience will be living in that modified body. They are then assigned a title of male or female along with everyone else in preparation for the sex role mandate, this is a gun to the head thing and people are killed for breaking it. Trans and queer theorists today are now questioning if it’s necessary to give people a social title at all based on biological setup, the problem is they care more about this then about the sex role mandate itself. Those who claim that biological sex and the sex binary is a social construct are not saying the two biological body systems don’t exist, they question how accurate looking at parts while knowing nothing about what’s in the persons head is. They also question how binary everything is biologically.

After biological arrangement is determined as closely as possible,  people are given an M for male or an F for female and literally told they cannot exist on this planet as anything other. They are then told that those letters are binding and that is what they are, wishing to change these titles means THEY have gender identity disorder. Radical trans theorists will say the reverse, there is no disorder just because a person disagrees with a title that has been given by humans. More so a title that already has erased the existence of many other people who were born outside the sex binary. Radical trans theorists are opposed to a system of gender social roles from birth by default, because to them it’s wrong to slot everyone into a title and role without waiting to see what’s in their head(i.e how they identify). If we just got rid of the sex role mandate though, changing titles and having biological modifications made would be easier. Most of the punishment i for breaking the sex role mandate and most of the break from this wrath comes if a trans person does well at performing the other sex role mandate instead. Despite this many will remain angry at a trans person for rejecting their original sex role mandate and for making changes to their body that put them further away from being able to comply with their original sex role mandate. This is because the sex role mandate is a demand and a demand based on capabilities of the body its self and this includes how sexuality and reproduction will be conducted. The sex role mandate does not come naturally to anyone simply because its a demand that tells a person how to conduct themselves in that body.

After people are given a title of male or female (i.e assigned a sex after components of sex have been assessed) people are then unofficially assigned a sex role by being opted into the sex based power structure, as either dominant or subordinate and given a set of gender trimmings to mark the two sexes out and to prepare them for their role. This is the part many trans theorists don’t get because many view the sex roles as natural parts of being that sex identity if the sex assignment happens to match the person’s inner sex identity (or in today’s terms gender). The problem is that they are not, the sex roles are enforced as a mandate and they are the reason why sex is assigned in the way it is.  The fact that a power structure exists around sex is why is such a deal if someone can’t be fitted into it, and it’s the reason why it matters so much if someone changes their place in it. Its also why the response to male and female assigned sex role mandate transgression is different. The reason why everyone cares so much is because everyone is in this sex role scripted system, and its a system that has within it an ingrained definition of man or woman. For most people it’s not about disagreeing with being called male or female or the social description of their biological arrangement, instead it’s a disagreement with what a person with that biological set up and social title they agree with should live like or be like. The sex role mandate given to women is a subordinate one and the sex role mandate given to men is a dominant one, it also includes other things which can move around. This things can be interests, tastes and jobs that over time change social value. Many of these things move on to be done by women as they decrease in value, this applies more to jobs.

Modern trans theorists refers to people who agree with the social title assigned to them at birth as Cis. If your biological arrangement fitted what’s considered female and you were assigned that title and you consider yourself to be female then you’re Cis. Tran theorists will view this as cissexist because it means that because we don’t live under a system that waits to assign a social title like male or female while a person can confirm it, and instead does it based on anatomy. Trans theorists argue that this privileges those who happen to be born with anatomy that matches the current definition of how sex is assigned, leaving everyone else to get misgendered from birth. Radical trans theorists will say that trans women have always been women because they were always living knowing they were missgendered. This is because they see the brain as part of the sexed anatomy and  so the person should have the final say in sex assignment. I as a gender abolitionist agree this should be the case, but i disagree that sex roles are a natural product of sex brains and instead think that whatever takes places in the brain in relation to sex is related to biology and comparability. I do think though that it’s sex roles clashing with personality traits that cause most people to have problems with their sex assignment rather than something organic.Many today dont know the difference between biology and the social sex role mandate.

This is why i’m critical of how Cis is used today, because today its gone beyond being in agreement with one’s sex assignment and into being in agreement with the assigned sex role mandate too. Like for example if a person assigned the social title of female does not wish to strive to attain social definitions of beauty or any form of beauty, or wishes to attain strength and live a life doing things that are socially expected of those assigned male, she may end up under today’s transgender umbrella. Today’s definition of Cis has made it hard for feminists to question the sex role mandate of compulsory hetero-femininity assigned with the title of female, and this is the real problem with it. If Cis just meant agreeing with one’s assignment of the social title of female and nothing else then it would not be a problem. Cis in a sense is being abused to define what those assigned the title of female at birth can DO before they begin to be opted into another category themselves. We are at a point now where society is close to saying to anyone who questions the social mandate placed on those assigned female or male to question their gender identity. When this point is close radical feminists have to begin to ask just what is going one, more so in an era where gender dysphoria has become a condition no longer related to what it was originally about. Today we have people experiencing no body dysphoria, and some no issue with their assigned sex title but still they have social dysphoria around gender as a result of the sex role mandate. It’s no coincidence that as the sex expectations have got more narrow again as the sex role mandate has got more demanding as backlash against feminism, more people are experiencing issues with gender dysphoria. This is something that can’t just be left unquestioned or put in the same category as sexuality and viewed as progressive. It also cant be just seen as the result of a backlog either. People with gender issues suffer in a way unrelated to just discrimination, and transitioning involves many medical changes that are costly on all levels and would be regardless of how much acceptance there is out there. Its for that reason that a rise in people with gender issues at a time when there is so much pressure to push people into more narrow definitions of sex, has to be questioned. More so when some people are in effect being bullied out of their own bodies and pressured to transition for not complying with their sex role mandate. More so in a time when its only ok to transgress your sex role mandate(masculine or feminine) if you disagree with your assigned sex description (male or female) in some way. There is literally no ground left to not be trans and still question the sex role mandate. Just as there is less ground to be trans and question the sex role mandate without being advised to identify as non binary. Whats really happening is anyone trans or cis, who does not comply with the sex role mandate placed on which ever gender assignment or reassignment they are given, are expected to identify as something other than male or female. At all costs the link between female and feminine and male and masculine is being maintained.
A loophole in trans theory, and in all the best intentions of those who are feminist or queer theorists who have tried to be as trans inclusive as possible, has resulted in it being more easier to enforce the sex role mandate on the rest of us. That is because there is no longer any room to opt out of the sex role mandate, or question the social conditions imposed on people based on sex or sex identity without being told to pick another gender. At a time when the range of identities people can have as an alternative to male or female, the definition of what male and female can mean could not be more narrow.

The thing that needs to be questioned the most is not what gender identity means, its what gender expression means or should mean. What needs to be questioned is not who can be female but if femininity is the only valid expression of femaleness and masculinity the only valid expression of maleness. What needs to happen is for the definition of feminine and masculine to be overhauled in the way the definition of male and female have been.