Challenging the Foundations of Gender Abolition: A Critical Analysis of a Progressive Proposal

Evaluating the Practicality and Implications of Dismantling Gender through Policy Reform and Societal Restructuring

Oct 18, 2024

Policies like universal health care, abolishing the prison industrial complex, establishing universal basics and a care economy, guaranteeing housing as a right, and modifying our bureaucracies can drastically reduce the material reproduction of gender and effectively lay the foundation for a social movement to eliminate its influence entirely. This article will begin by establishing a shared understanding of the terms, history, and criteria necessary to discuss gender abolition before outlining concrete policy steps.
Morgan Pratt: How to Abolish Gender

Too long for email? Click here

Words 8,073 | Read Time 37 min | Enjoy

Introduction

Morgan Pratt’s 2021 Harvard Kennedy School paper How to Abolish Gender offers a bold “plan.” It aims to dismantle “gender hierarchies” by reforming societal structures through policy changes. Pratt’s call to abolish gender has flaws, and it oversimplifies complex issues. It makes impractical assumptions but may also have harmful effects. While pursuing ending oppressive roles is a worthy goal, his argument is a flawed screed. This essay will examine flaws in Pratt’s proposal. It will expose the dystopian notion of achieving a “genderless society,” focusing on the suggested “reforms.” This essay will challenge the belief that a dystopian policy can change deep-seated social, cultural, and biological factors. It will explore other ways to achieve gender equality. These methods should respect individual identity and freedom without erasing gender/sex.

For ease of reading (if possible), each section of Pratt’s paper is duplicated herein, followed by my cogent-minded rebuttal. The footnote number remains in the copied text for your review, if desired, as seen in the attached PDF below. That list and the bibliography are a who’s who of progressives. It includes Karl Marx’s cohort, Friedrich Engels, and today’s Diversity-Inclusion-Equity (DIE) fanatics.

Pratt How To Abolish Gender

210KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Morgan is a Master of Public Policy candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, focusing on human rights strategy, migration, and climate change. Morgan has previously worked in diplomacy, refugee advocacy, and as an elementary school teacher.

I. Purpose

The present structure which dominates gender in our society, patriarchy, is incredibly oppressive, and calls to dismantle it have rung for generations. However, these calls are often entrenched in an oppressive gender binary. What if we did not stop at patriarchy and dismantled gender hierarchies entirely? This article does not intend to make a case for or against this project, but rather hopes to investigate how one could go about dismantling gender from a policy perspective. Of course, because gender has sociological, cultural, medical, legal, historical, and religious influences, its abolition requires a complete rewrite of the most basal aspects of society. Doing so would certainly require much more than policy action alone. However, because our society constantly reinforces gendered material divisions through its institutions and economic incentives, to abolish gender requires the elimination of these structures through policy action. Policies like universal health care, abolishing the prison industrial complex, establishing universal basics and a care economy, guaranteeing housing as a right, and modifying our bureaucracies can drastically reduce the material reproduction of gender and effectively lay the foundation for a social movement to eliminate its influence entirely. This article will begin by establishing a shared understanding of the terms, history, and criteria necessary to discuss gender abolition before outlining concrete policy steps.

The juvenile-like proposal to “dismantle gender” is naive. It would require reprogramming society’s most basic structures. The author overestimates the feasibility of such a project. It also ignores human culture and identity. The idea of dismantling gender is fashionable in some naive academic circles. But it falls apart under scrutiny due to practical and conceptual absurdities. It is a collectivist dream.

The idea that gender is a social construct ignores our profound biological, psychological, and cultural truths. Is it ripe for elimination through policy change? Today, the answer is yes due to the anti-human agenda of today: transhumanism.

Gender, at its core, comes from cultural norms and biology. It distinguishes males from females. Trying to erase these distinctions is unworkable. It ignores the experiences of those who find meaning and identity in their biology. Policies can tackle inequities and discrimination. They should not erase a part of human identity that has shaped civilizations for millennia. But of course, there is also the propaganda that splits gender and sex into a disconnected reality. That is a form of PsyOps, so my friends, do not fall into that trap.

Further, the author claims that eliminating gender hierarchies requires a complete rewrite. That canceling of society’s “basal aspects” ignores the complexity of human institutions. The idea that healthcare, housing, and bureaucratic changes can “abolish” gender is nonsensical. Such policies address economic and social inequalities—not to dismantle intrinsic human characteristics. Universal healthcare or housing can reduce disparities. But they won’t erase gender. But we know that “universal healthcare,” with few exceptions, levels the field so that ordinary people are miserable. Ask people from Canada or Cuba.

More importantly, the idea that gender abolition must dismantle societal structures ignores the consequences. The argument conflates gender with systemic inequality. It calls to end the prison-industrial complex and overhaul the economy to reduce gender’s influence. We can fight sexism and gender discrimination without erasing gender.

This putrid proposal presents a raunchy-romantic and misguided approach. Its basis is the fantasy that humans can ignore their historical, biological, and cultural contexts. We can dismantle oppressive systems without erasing core identities. Any real solution must embrace, not erase, human diversity, including biological gender. The anti-human agenda wants to make everyone the same. It’s the same idea as the crummy elites who tout diversity.

II. Terminology and definitions

Though colonialism, imperialism, and globalization have created major similarities in terms of division of labor and hierarchy, the conceptualization of gender at present varies across cultures. For the purposes of this article, the gender and policy contexts will be that of the United States. Gender is understood to be the socially constructed set of behaviors and presentations aligned to two sexes: male and female. Sex here is also understood to be a social construction, grouping disparate phenological characteristics (i.e. chromosomes, genitalia, body hair) into two categories. Neither term adequately captures the diversity that currently or has ever existed in any society. We need more terms, lest we replicate the violent process through which our society enforces these norms onto people. Transgender people are those whose gender does not match the sex they were assigned at birth, the inverse being cisgender. Intersex people are those who do not fit neatly into either sex construction. Gender non-conforming (GNC) people are those whose gender does not fit into either binary social construction.

This inane argument about gender and sex being purely social constructions falls into a mushy Marxist mind trap. That is, over-theorizing reality and distorting biology to fit a loony leftist agenda. Yes, some nuances of gender roles vary across cultures. Even so, the claim that biological sex is a social construct undermines both honest science and common sense. Both are absent in CNN and its affiliates.

First, the idea that sex—defined by chromosomes, genitalia, and other physical traits—is a “social construction” is absurd at face value. Biological sex is an observable and objective fact grounded in honest science. Every mammalian species, including humans, has males and females. Biology, not society’s arbitrary constructs, forms the basis of their differences. Centuries of medical, anthropological, and biological research prove it. Cultures may assign different roles to men and women. However, biological realities are inescapable. Given that, the highest-level government and medical leaders get confused when asked. For example, what is a woman?1

The view that we need more gender terms to avoid “replicating violent processes” conflates social change with linguistic excess. It’s a dangerous idea. Language is a tool for communication. Adding more gender identities doesn’t always help. It often needs clarification instead of advancing understanding or equality. Respect for individual identity is essential. Even so, new terms for every fiat gender variation may cause more division than they solve. That mental fog is akin to juvenile mind mush. We should celebrate human diversity. But we have no choice but to keep biological humanity intact or end up in an abyss.

Also, the argument’s simple split of “cisgender” [detestable word] and “transgender” identities oversimplifies complex experiences. It fails to capture individual realities.2 We must acknowledge that the regime’s population control harms transgender and intersex individuals. We must recognize their humanity. It’s vital to ensure rights and equality, and framing sex and gender as only social constructs ignores biology. That weakens the argument’s credibility. It’s one thing to critique rigid gender roles. It’s another to imply that society creates biological sex. The realities of biology and individual identity do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The nexus of the issue is the pharma-medical industrial complex in partnership with the Malthusian elites. That partnership aims to deconstruct biological facts. It seeks to replace them with ever-changing social labels. Real progress requires us to recognize two things. First, the biology of sex. Second, the fiat complexities of “gender.” We must do this without losing reason or clarity. Nevertheless, today, acknowledging heterosexuality’s role in procreation sparks “hate crime” accusations.

Of course, we must advocate for fair treatment of transgender, intersex, and gender-nonconforming people. They are victims of a multi-headed hydra monster.3 Others suffer from traumatic injuries to their private parts from accidents, and they all need care and compassion.

III. A brief history of gender

Men and women have existed as categories for a very long time, but modern conceptualizations of gender—in terms of roles and the division of labor—have not existed for very long at all. Early human societies were much more egalitarian and, where there was a division of labor, the different roles were not seen hierarchically until the invention of private property.[1] This innovation drove men to wage labor and created the incentive to modify familial relations and law to ensure property could be passed to future generations. It was not until industrialization that cleaning and other activities now known as chores began to be associated with women. In pre-industrial America, women seldom cleaned and instead focused on creating items for the household such as candles, soap, and stockings.[2] During industrialization, production of these items was formalized and commodified, driving women to adopt different unpaid labor as they were still largely shut out of the wage labor system. Today, we can understand gender as a class system dividing and assigning reproductive labor, including sex, birth, childcare, and homemaking, which helps to reproduce life.[3] In this system, men are the dominating class who benefit from the labor of others with minimal participation themselves.

Throughout the evolution of this system, the roles and performances associated with each gender have been enforced through sexual[4] and structural forms of violence.[5], [6] Colonialism and imperialism are the forms through which European notions of gender, marriage, and patriarchy ossified and spread throughout the globe.[7] This proselytization both severely limited gender variance worldwide and caused the European system to become more inflexible (in order to resist the influence of outside variation it encountered during colonization).[8] Due to the aforementioned incorporation of law into gender relations, enforcing gender relations gradually became an important function of the state.[9] Today, the combination of sociocultural and legal criminalization of gender non-conformity and the increased presence of legal structures in the lives of marginalized populations has resulted in transgender and GNC people experiencing massively disproportionate rates of arrest, imprisonment, and violence.[10] In modern society, gender is not only a psychic phenomena, but one that is reproduced through labor inequalities, law, and violence. To abolish this system requires these methods of reproduction be interrupted.

This text mixes historical revisionism, a twisted view of gender roles, and an oversimplified view of human dynamics. It relies on unproven claims about early societies and jumps to broad conclusions about gender, labor, and law. More importantly, the phrase “legal criminalization of gender non-conformity” is a frightening reality (please see the Parting Shot of this essay).

First, it is debatable that early human societies were “much more egalitarian.” Early societies had different gender roles, but the evidence does not show they were equal or non-hierarchical. Anthropological evidence shows a variety of social structures in early human groups. Many had distinct gender roles before private property existed. Blaming private property for gender inequality oversimplifies human society. It ignores the complex, varied development of gender roles across cultures and eras.

Second, the belief that only industrialization made chores women’s work ignores gender roles. That includes long-established domestic duties. Then there is the absurd claim that women “seldom cleaned” in preindustrial America and instead made households. That is a strange distortion of history. Indeed, women often made goods like candles and soap. But, in most preindustrial societies, their primary roles were cooking, cleaning, and caring for children. This attempt to re-frame history to fit a narrative of labor division as a modern invention deserves the trash can.

Also, the claim that men are the “dominating class” is an oversimplification. It suggests they enjoy others’ labor with little effort. Gender roles are complex. Some patriarchal systems have existed and still exist. Some may perpetuate inequality. Even so, men have played vital roles in providing for and protecting families. That is especially true in premodern societies. There, survival often depended on labor-intensive work that both men and women did. Saying men have gained from women’s labor with little effort ignores the realities. That is the complex inter-dependencies that shaped gender roles.

The claim that colonialism “ossified” Europe is a Marxist construct. This dystopian ploy ignores the rich diversity of gender in non-European cultures. They existed and still exist. Colonialism imposed some norms, but it did not erase all preexisting gender identities or practices. So, that’s the point: it enforced what society already knew: gender is male and female down to the chromosomes. Of course, some societies outside of Europe had their atypical gender role systems. For example, some included roles for people outside the male-female system. But to pigeonhole that into the erasure of the dreaded binary (Marxist mind meld) is nothing more than mental masturbation. The hidden-in-plain-sight tactic: decouple gender and sex. Few realize the ploy, and many fall victim to its Marxist mental virus.

Blaming labor, laws, and violence for modern gender inequality is an oversimplification. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people face difficulties. This essay’s solution to “abolish” gender is not the answer. Instead, reforms that address specific inequalities would be more effective. They should create opportunities for all, regardless of gender identity. Dismantling an entire system of human identity would not work.

I challenge the author to write a paper on the plight of women trapped in a nation where female circumcision is mandatory. He never mentioned it in his goofy parchment paper. We know what religion this entails, but does Morgan Pratt? Not at all, like the silence of the Goofy Gray Lady about the bad treatment of women by this group of people.

The author uses historical errors and sweeping generalizations to present a distorted, dystopian view of gender relations. Gender inequality can be an issue but is more complex than the caricature presented. Real solutions need practical reforms, not the abolition of fundamental human constructs.

IV. Criteria

Just as there is ambiguity in the term “gender,” so too is there ambiguity in the goal of gender abolition, especially in terms of government policy. Could the government just stop recording gender on official documents and law to abolish gender overnight? While this may remove some barriers, especially for transgender and GNC people, this strategy can also be harmful. Instead of eliminating bias, not disaggregating data based on gender more profoundly affects systems by obscuring the harm they do to oppressed groups.[11] Further, this strategy does nothing to address the material conditions and systems that reproduce gender. In other words, a genderless society is not one that is gender-blind, but rather one that has identified and eliminated the barriers to an equal society.

Because our relationship to gender is so deeply rooted in many important structures, including our own bodies, it may help to use an analogy as a goal. An ideal genderless society may treat sex the same way it treats other medical categories: decoupled from social constructions and labor divisions. One example is blood type. In America, most people are aware of what blood type they have and no one denies that it has important—at times life-threatening—medical implications, but we do not prescribe any behaviors or labor onto people of different blood types, much less enforce them with violence. A similar arrangement could be possible for a genderless society.

Finally, in dealing with gender and society, one must also contend with sexuality reproduction. It may be immediately unclear how sexuality would function in a society without gender, but one could look towards LGBTQ+ spaces for examples of sexuality decoupled from heterogenous gender roles, genitalia, and gender. This still leaves the topic of pregnancy and the division of reproductive labor. Transhumanism, the idea of overcoming biological limitations with sophisticated technology, envisions a world where medical technology advances to achieve universal fertilization and for fetuses to develop outside of wombs, completely decoupling gender and reproductive labor. Modern fertility technology already allows for some decoupling, but gendered reproductive labor divisions and biological limitations remain significant.[12] While it is certainly easier to visualize an equitable distribution of reproductive labor with advanced technology, it is by no means necessary. What is important is that society values the work that goes into pregnancy and provides just support and compensation.

While a hallucination at worst or imaginative at best, this text has copious speculative thinking and inane idealism. Once again, it disregards the realities of human biology, society, and even basic logic. Let’s break down this crummy collective mind meld.

The belief that removing gender markers from official documents could create a genderless society or a fairer one is flawed. It is akin to a juvenile joke about sexuality. Removing gender from documents wouldn’t magically erase gender from people’s minds or society. The fear that biological sex oppresses groups by “obscuring the harm” is akin to biological sex-gender phobia (BSGP) or hetero-phobia. The reality only strengthens the case for recognizing biological gender. We need to identify and address inequality, but ignoring gender in policy obscures the very inequalities it claims to want to solve.

Knowing a person’s biological sex is critical for medical care. It affects health in many ways. It influences disease risk, medication processing, and the best treatments. Biological differences can affect how diseases present and progress in males and females. These include hormone levels, organ systems, and genetics. Conditions affected include cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and some cancers. Also, medical interventions depend on a patient’s biological sex. That includes drug dosage, reproductive health care, and tests for sex-specific diseases. It also addresses prostate cancer in men and breast and ovarian cancer in women. Understanding these differences ensures that medical care links to biological reality. That leads to more accurate diagnoses, treatments, and better patient outcomes. Knowing biological reality saves lives, but what else can we expect from the culture of death?

Furthermore, the analogy comparing gender to blood type is simplistic and misleading. Blood type is a medical fact without social or cultural significance beyond medical treatment. Gender encompasses a broader social, psychological, and cultural spectrum. “Gender” can be a complex social(ist) construct. Nevertheless, blood type is a biological trait. Biological reality affects many aspects of identity and interaction. It affects how people interact and how they get medically treated. Reducing the biological reality to a gender fad oversimplifies its role in society. It is a call to “decouple” it from behavior.

The idea of a “gender-less society” is a foolish fantasy. It ignores deep-rooted biological and cultural realities that shape gender roles. While it’s true that societal expectations have shaped many gender roles, it ties to biological realities. Pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing have physical demands. They are tied to the female body, not to arbitrary social expectations. To say anything else is nothing more than an LSD- like a dream. These biological functions cannot simply be “abolished” through policy or technological intervention. This notion of a “gender-less society” is juvenile science fiction disguised as a university-level research paper. Perhaps the author got inspiration from the Star Trek Next Generation Episode The Outcast.

Also, the claim that sexuality could work in a society without gender misses the point. It assumes that LGBTQ+ spaces “decouple” it from heteronormative gender roles. Some simple-minded spaces embrace a fluid view of these concepts. Erasing gender could complicate, not simplify, how people navigate sexuality and relationships.

The last point is that transhumanism could lead to a society where reproduction is separate from gender and biology. That is science fiction, and it is doubly dystopian, like Logan’s Run. Technology has improved fertility and assisted reproduction. But it’s speculative to think we could completely overcome human biology. It is machine-like “thinking” for fetuses to develop outside the womb. Also, even if a future like that were possible, it wouldn’t address the broader issues. The same “trust the science” power and money-hungry group that gave us mRNA-killing technology envisions it. It is about the effects on families, relationships, and parenting in a dystopian world. Decoupling reproductive labor from gender doesn’t solve more profound inequalities. It also ignores the complex emotions and social aspects of parenthood, childbirth, and human connection.

The author’s vision of a genderless society is “creative.” But it fails to address the complex biological, psychological, and social aspects of gender. It is a Frankestrin-like nightmare. We should not abolish gender. Instead, we should allow people to express their identities without fear of discrimination. We must also address the realities of natural gender differences. This balanced approach is far more grounded and achievable than the utopian ideal of erasing gender. How about erasing fiat genders other than male and female?

V. Policy steps

Though it is impossible to completely eradicate the influence of gender on society through policy action alone, because the state mediates the experience of gender and because policy materially reinforces this system, policy changes are necessary for gender abolition.[13] The following is an incomplete list of policies that would greatly reduce the importance of gender (as well as other forms of oppression) in our lives. Of course, these policies are not truly separate and effective implementation would require designing each policy with the others in mind.

This itchy introduction proposes that gender, a fundamental aspect of human identity and society, can be abolished through interconnected policy changes. It overlooks the deep-rooted biological, psychological, and cultural complexities of gender, assuming that government intervention can dismantle intrinsic human characteristics. The suggestion that eliminating gender through policy will also reduce other forms of oppression is overly simplistic and detached from reality. This romantic vision ignores the fact that biological sex is a permanent feature of human life that cannot be legislated away.

a. Universal healthcare

Reforming the medical system is necessary not only because marginalized genders and sexualities have remarkably worse health outcomes[14] and greater unmet gender-affirming medical needs, but also because the medical system itself is used by the state to further oppression and ossify gender norms.[15] Though not a panacea, universal health care, including mental health care and coverage for reproductive and gender-affirming procedures, would undermine the material basis for gender by equalizing and improving health outcomes.
Investigating existing health disparities shows why this is the case. Marginalized genders and sexualities have poor health outcomes not only due to discrimination both within[16] and outside the medical system, but also due to how health care is provisioned in the United States. Because health care coverage is predominantly tied to employment,[17] other structural barriers such as poverty, criminalization, and education also manifest as lack of health care.[18] Providing health care universally eliminates this disparity. Additionally, because most US health care is for-profit,[19] switching to a universal, public system would reduce incentives to promote unnecessary or dangerous treatments to marginalized groups.
Universal health care does not eliminate disparities based upon discrimination, but it does offer some relief. Notably, gender-affirming procedures such as hormone therapy or breast reconstruction surgery are often provided to cisgender people as part of insurance plans (during menopause or after an accident, for example), but considered elective or medically unnecessary for transgender and GNC people with the same aims.[20] Likewise, intersex people are frequently forced to have surgery at birth to conform to binary conceptualizations of sex.[21] Through these practices, the medical field economically and anatomically reproduces and enforces gender and sex norms. A robust, universal system of health care coverage is necessary to prevent this.

Without universal health care coverage, the effects of gender will persist in disparate health outcomes for people with marginalized genders and sexualities.

This silly set of sentences contains flawed assumptions and oversimplifications. In an ideal world, universal health care might address some inequalities. It could be a worthy goal (if the medical-pharma complex did not exist). But the idea that it would “undermine the material basis for gender” is absurd. Health care, in any form, isn’t responsible for gender norms. They are rooted in profound biological, psychological, and cultural realities. Gender identity and the roles associated with it are far more complex than the administration of health care. Even so, universal health care, as demonstrated by countries such as Cuba and Canada, is an utter failure.

The claim that the medical system upholds gender norms ignores its actual role. Medicine exists to heal and improve health, not to enforce society. To improve the health of marginalized groups, we must fight discrimination and promote equal care. Framing gender as an oppressive construct will not help. Universal health care cannot dismantle it.

Universal access to health care won’t erase deep gender and sex biases. The idea that universal health care will disrupt gender norms is an overreach. It undermines the goal of providing health care for all.

b. abolition

Starting when heterosexual, monogamous marriages became the foundation of the capitalist reproductive unit, the state has used law to criminalize sexuality and gender expression that does not conform to this description.[22] The effects of this are felt today, where transgender and GNC people, especially those who are Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), are overrepresented in the criminal punishment system.[23] In addition to imprisonment or deportation, contact with this system can have long-lasting material effects through stigmatization; lack of access to jobs, education and loans; disease and injury; and death.[24] Policing also has a profound oppressive effect through violently enforcing universal conformity to gender norms.[25] Though this especially affects transgender and GNC people, the cultural effect of these hundreds of years of oppression affects how everyone behaves and interacts with others.[26]
Reforming this system is not an option because reform usually means a greater presence of the criminal punishment system into people’s lives, increasing the contact and, subsequently, the criminalization of transgender and GNC people,[27] and because, historically, reforms have been ineffective.[28] To resist criminalization’s material reproduction of gender, we must remove existing structures and redesign the system in accordance with abolitionist principles.
Though a deep review of abolitionist literature is beyond the scope of this article, its main tenets are to meet community needs to address the social determinants of crime, demilitarize the various institutions that fuel punishment, and shift to a restorative and rehabilitative model of justice.[29] This approach understands that the safest areas are not those with the most prisons or police but the opposite, and that lack of access to resources is a primary driver of crime.[30] Here, community needs include access to housing, health care, and dignified employment, which are discussed in depth elsewhere in this section. Some institutions to reform or eliminate include education, surveillance, immigration, and government benefits.[31] Finally, a restorative and rehabilitative model of justice not only centers victims in the process of justice, but also acknowledges that activities like sex work and drug use must be removed from the criminal sphere entirely. From there, one must undermine the institutional and ideological supports for today’s criminalization, including those that cause us to police gender norms.[32]
Without abolishing the prison industrial complex and rebuilding it with abolitionist principles, society will continue to reproduce gender divisions through criminalization, mass incarceration, death, and lack of access to loans, education, and jobs.

This simple-minded belief that we must “abolish the prison industrial complex” to end gender norms is an exercise in overreach. It’s a huge stretch to claim that the criminal justice system’s primary role is to enforce gender conformity and oppressive gender norms. Criminal justice exists to address law violations and ensure public safety. It should not uphold specific gender roles.

The argument becomes a fantasy when it claims that ending prisons will end gender divisions. Crime links to poverty, lack of education, and economic opportunity—not gender. Instead of seeking abolition, we should reform the justice system. It should improve policing, combat discrimination, and ensure access to jobs and education. Equating the flaws in the justice system with gender-based oppression misdiagnoses the problem. A broad-strokes abolitionist approach ignores society’s need for accountability.

Also, the idea that ending prisons would erase gender norms is impractical and unrealistic. Promoting equality and reducing bias is essential. We can achieve this through reforms, education, and better resource access. Destroying critical societal structures for utopian ideals ignores crime and justice. This argument ignores the complexities of the criminal justice system and gender in society.

Transgender women (a fiat woman with the body of a man) in women’s prisons raise safety concerns for female inmates. Biological males, regardless of their “gender identity,” including those with missing parts, have physical advantages. They are generally more substantial. That creates a higher risk of violence, sexual assault, and intimidation in prisons. Many women in prisons are vulnerable. They often have histories of trauma and abuse. The presence of male-bodied individuals can exacerbate this. Additionally, the close quarters and lack of privacy inherent in prison life could heighten the potential for harm.

c. UBI and the care economy

Among the most pernicious economic forces that reproduce material divisions by gender are unpaid and exploitative labor. In addition to receiving higher wages in every country on Earth, men also do less to reproduce their household’s labor (i.e. chores, cooking, childcare). Some estimates say the average American woman does the equivalent of $40,000 worth of unpaid labor each year.[33] These disparities are exacerbated for BIPOC women.[34]Additionally, people of marginalized genders and sexualities are more likely to experience exploitative labor relations,[35], [36] and many do not have the economic security to leave these situations. These structures effectively channel money to cisgender (especially white) men at the expense of everyone else. Policies like universal basic income, monetizing the care economy by paying people who care for dependents, and a jobs guarantee are necessary to interrupt these processes. These policies not only enact justice through funneling more resources towards marginalized groups and compensating them for the work they already do, but also reduce their dependence on exploitative structures—including domestic ones.
Without these policies, gender will continue to be reborn through the unequal distribution of wealth and income as well as the dependence on exploitative structures favoring the privileged class.

This mind-mush suggests that the crummy collectivist notion of universal basic income (UBI) and monetizing the care economy would fix gender inequality. They would disrupt “exploitative” labor relations. It is a biased view. It frames cisgender [detestable word] men, mainly white men, as the primary beneficiaries of an oppressive economic system. This view reduces complex socioeconomic issues to a racist blame game. It paints all cisgender [detestable word] people as oppressors. Quite prejudiced.

Should value unpaid work, like caregiving and household tasks. But do we compensate volunteers at a soup kitchen? Yet, UBI won’t effectively address these issues. It might scratch a Marxist itch, but it won’t change deep-seated societal expectations or create “equity.” In Orwell’s Animal Farm, all animals were free, but some were freer than others.

This wild exercise in language implies that “cisgender” [detestable word] men benefit most from economic systems. It, by default, criminalizes them. It ignores their diverse experiences and circumstances. Not every “cisgender” [detestable word] man benefits from the current monetary system. So, reducing the argument to a gender war is misleading. True equality will come from policies that promote fairness in all areas—gender, race, and class. It will not come from a narrow focus on redistributing wealth by gender.

Labeling one group as oppressed and pushing for simple solutions will not create a just society. It makes it worse.

d. housing

As with other material aspects of society, those who conform to gender norms have greater control over housing. This results in a greater dependence on men within traditional family structures and higher housing insecurity for those who do not conform to gender norms.[37] Not only does the state criminalize—and thus violently enforce gender norms upon[38]—people experiencing homelessness,[39] having a criminal record is also used to deny access to housing in a vicious cycle.[40] In order to break this cycle, there must be a system in place that guarantees housing for all with no exceptions. This could be done through some combination of effective expansion of public housing,[41] increasing regulations on or seizing vacant properties,[42] implementing rent controls,[43] reforming zoning laws,[44] and emphasizing affordability in new developments.[45]
Universal access to housing would help to deemphasize gender in a number of ways. First, because society normalizes dependence on men for housing, it would lessen the control sexist, homophobic, or abusive patriarchs have over their dependents’ housing as they would always have an alternative. Next, it would reduce or eliminate homelessness, both a cause and a consequence of violent gender enforcement by the state. Finally, with universal housing, the state would have one fewer method of weaponizing gender norms through criminality.
Without these reforms, gender would continue to play an important role in people’s lives through maintaining the dominance and control men have over people’s material conditions and regulating people’s access to housing based on conformity to gender norms.

Some people believe that universal housing will reduce the impact of gender norms on housing security, but this belief is flawed. It rests on several false assumptions. Housing insecurity is a serious issue, especially for the vulnerable. But this proposal wrongly blames gender for housing inequities. It oversimplifies the complex factors that contribute to homelessness and housing discrimination.

First, housing insecurity is not predominantly a gender-based issue. It stems from many factors: poverty, unemployment, high housing costs, and unequal resource access. Marginalized groups, including non-conforming genders, face extra barriers. Blaming “patriarchal control” over housing overlooks a more significant issue. Housing affordability and access affect people of all genders. Linking housing issues with gender norms ignores the reality of housing insecurity. It affects millions, including cisgender [detestable word] men, who face poverty and homelessness.

The claim that universal housing would weaken “patriarchal” control assumes that men cause housing insecurity. This view of family dynamics is overly simplistic. Many households, regardless of gender or family structure, face financial struggles. These issues stem more from economic conditions than from “sexist or abusive patriarchs.” We should not frame men as inherently oppressive.

Finally, reforms like expanding public housing or rent controls may help with housing insecurity. Yet, they do not have a natural connection to gender issues. These policies can benefit people from all walks of life without relying on gender as the central focus. Focusing on gender in housing reform distracts from a critical issue. We must address housing affordability for all, regardless of gender.

The argument conflates gender with broader social and economic factors driving housing insecurity. To fix housing inequities, we must ensure affordable housing for all. We should also fight discrimination, including gender bias. That would be a more effective, genuinely fair approach. Policymakers need not make gender the central axis of reforming housing policy.

e. Bureaucratic reforms

What should be the last stage of the policy action to reduce the influence of gender is reforming or eliminating policies and practices that require the disclosure of gender. Examples include drivers licenses, benefits applications, and marriage. This comes from the understanding that measuring and using gender as a requirement to access government services can result in both the stratification of services based upon gender and the exclusion of people from services whose gender does not match societal norms. Specifically, many transgender people find a patchwork of different policies both between and within states on how to change their gender as officially measured by the state. Any discrepancy in their gender between documents or agencies can result in denial of services or harassment.[46] Likewise, though no longer the official practice of the state, jobs with more women tend to have lower wages[47] and services used by fewer men tend to face gendered attacks in the media and then through political action, leading to their degradation.[48]
Thus, the measurement and administration of gender by the state and other bodies causes and enables harm. Ending this is necessary to end gender. However, as is the thesis of this work, doing so before extensive policy action and a successful social movement have interrupted the material reproduction of gender would instead make this process of continuous inequality harder to measure. Therefore, ending the bureaucratic measurement and administration of gender is necessary, but must be the last stage in a society-wide transformation.
Without ending the measurement and administration of gender, it will continue to be reborn through bureaucratic discrimination and the unequal provision of resources to sectors or services with proportionate more people of marginalized genders and sexualities.

This absurd case for reforms to end gender measurement in government processes rests on several asinine assumptions.

First, the removal of records of sex does not end discrimination. For the vast majority, the category of biological gender is an essential feature of their personality. Such a mechanism may now be in the way of transgender and non-binary individuals. How could removing categories make everyone equal? It will erase the specific problems that these groups face. It does not consider special needs for services or protection of “gender identity.” Instead, it should work on improving such existing systems. Focus on biological gender and treat gender dysphoria. Moreover, we must not remove the biological gender category, as it is a critical element of life-saving health care.

The argument views the measurement of gender as causing inequality and hurting people. Yet, policies carried out on such measurements translate to discrimination against people. Rather than listing and focusing on the fiat gender categories, reformists would help by being genuinely inclusive of all.

VI. Conclusion

Though the implementation of these policies will make enormous strides in reducing the material consequences of gender, and although policy action is necessary to abolish gender, policy action alone is insufficient. To truly eliminate the influence of one of the most pervasive psychic phenomena from our society would require a popular mass movement mobilizing and educating large swaths of society. Further, this social movement could not focus on gender alone if it hopes to be successful. The disparities caused by gender are part of the capitalist superstructure, meaning they are inextricably linked to ableism, neuronormativity, and racism. This is reflected in the fact that many of the above policy recommendations also disproportionately benefit those affected by racism, neuronormativity, and ableism. However, as with gender, these policies are not enough to solve these issues alone.
Like those of marginalized gender and sexualities, those with disabilities and/or neurodivergencies are more likely to be poor, homeless, and marginalized by a variety of institutions affected by the above policy recommendations. However, many of the spaces built by and for people of marginalized genders and sexualities are not friendly to those of different abilities.[49] Given the fact that people of marginalized genders and sexualities are more likely to have a disability,[50] and that neurodivergent people are more likely to reject gender norms,[51] a special attention to ability and neurodiversity is necessary in the implementation of the above policies and accompanying social movement.
The same must be done for race. Intersectionality teaches us that women and GNC people of color experience unique oppression not captured when maleness or whiteness is seen as the default.[52] Thus, eliminating oppression based on gender requires paying attention to these unique intersections. Likewise, some antiracists contend that racial liberation can only come with the abolition of gender.[53], [54] That being said, gender-inclusive spaces often reproduce racial inequalities, especially assimilationist LGBTQ+ groups solely focused on bureaucratic reforms.[55] Because of the intergenerational conceptualization of race and unique history of oppression at the intersection of race and gender, successful gender abolitionist policy and a successful social movement to support it must be anti-racist.
Missing from this discussion have been the downsides to gender abolition. The binary, patriarchal gender system in place today has established deep roots in culture, religion, and people’s understanding of themselves. The truth is that, today, this system is something many people are not willing to give up. And sometimes for a good reason: some gendered divisions today exist to mitigate abuse from cisgender men. Further, a movement to abolish gender should not force people to divorce themselves from harmless gender expressions they enjoy, even if those are the present gender binary; policing androgyny would hardly be better than policing patriarchy. Any social movement or policy implementation scheme must carefully contend with these realities to be successful and responsible.
In summary, the road to gender abolition is complex and all-encompassing. It would affect nearly every aspect of society and every individual. That being said, there is a place to start. By implementing universal health care, abolishing the prison industrial complex, establishing universal basics and a care economy, guaranteeing housing as a right, and modifying our bureaucracies, we can severely limit the material consequences of gender. People of all genders would then have much more equal lives—free to dress, act and love without the fear of massive material consequences and structural violence that exists today. A world without gender is then ours for the making.

The crummy collectivist argument for abolishing gender ignores critical aspects of identity. It also ignores the risks of removing gender as a social construct. Fixing the harms of strict gender norms is crucial. Yet, the claim that abolishing gender will create a dystopia ignores the complexities of gender identity. It has a profound impact on people’s lives.

For the sake of humanity, we must recognize that only two genders exist. This is fundamental to biology and society. The biological gender system has given individuals a sense of identity and belonging. For the cogent-minded, gender roles of male and female are a basis for social interactions, culture, and identity. Abolishing gender may marginalize those who find comfort in biological reality.

Also, deep roots in culture and religion pose a significant barrier to the proposed abolition. Disrupting these aspects of life will confuse and anger those not absorbed by the gender diaspora machine.

The author also suggests that removing gender distinctions could reduce abuse by cisgender [detestable word] men. Yet, this line of reasoning fails to recognize that the issue of abuse and violence is more complex than mere gender roles. Gender-based violence comes from power dynamics, cultural norms, and inequalities. Abolishing gender will not resolve these issues. Instead, addressing the underlying causes of violence should take precedence.

The conclusion also raises concerns about “intersectionality” and collectivism. It questions the unique experiences of marginalized groups. Still, it needs to provide a coherent strategy for navigating these complexities. Eliminating gender to create equality is a flawed idea. Not all gender expressions are harmful or oppressive.

In summary, the wish to end gender’s material effects is quixotic. The conclusion oversimplifies a complex issue. A more nuanced approach would recognize the value of gender as man and woman as part of individual identity and social structure. Instead of abolishing gender, society should create an inclusive environment. It should let everyone thrive without fear of violence, like going to jail for questioning “Q+.” It is high time to eighty-six the anti-human agenda called transhumanism and embrace the beauty of natural law and biology.

Fred Smith’s Conclusion

Morgan Pratt’s How to Abolish Gender is a prime example of Pavlovian progressive “thinking.” It shows the troubling shift in modern, dumbed-down discourse. Pursuing social justice and equality would be laudable in a sane society. However, this essay’s extreme stance—dismantling the idea of gender—shows society’s decline. We now see arguments for abolishing critical aspects of human identity. They focus on issues, not on realistic, constructive solutions. This radical, provocative approach ignores the complex biology and culture. Instead, the author opts for a rancid romantic vision that would, in practice, create more harm than good.

It is bewildering, though not surprising that Harvard would consider such preposterous ideas. A once-great center for debate now embraces fringe theories. It values ideological purity over practical wisdom. Including works like Pratt’s in its annals of thought reflects a shift in academia. There, pursuing progressive credentials overshadows the need for fact-based discussion. Pratt’s essay, rich in itchy progressive ideals, is a stark reminder. Higher “education” now promotes ideas once deemed impractical and unrealistic.

Consider the fact that gender pushers use every form of persuasion to transform children. Yet they are the very ones who shutter at conversation therapy to help the victims embrace their biological reality. In our words, it is good to erase biological sex with coercive and subversive tactics and bad to embrace it. The epitome of hypocrisy.

The subject paper is a hellish heterophobic construct akin to an amalgamation of misinformation, disinformation, and misinformation.4 Furthermore, transhumanism is dystopian indeed, and the leaders of this Satanic program can all go pound sand.

Parting Shot

But wait, there is more to consider. In August 2022, Enoch Burke, a history and German teacher, was suspended from Ireland’s Wilson’s Hospital School in County Westmeath after he publicly confronted the then-principal about a transitioning student during a public school event. In September 2024, Burke was sent back to prison in Ireland after he refused to use a student’s preferred pronouns (they/them). Burke has already spent 442 days in jail for opposing transgender ideology. Would Morgan Pratt approve?

Anti-Woke Closing

Look, men and women in clearly defined roles.

Play it often; play it loud. Irriate the Willfully Overlooking Known Evil (WOKE) ecosystem. 📕

Bact to top

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Upgrade to Paid