Short Thought: Gender Ontology

Yes, gender, like money, is a social construct. But that doesn’t mean gender doesn’t hold real-world weight, context, and implication just like money does. Gender is a social tool of expression. We should have the freedom to flex and evolve these identities as we please, as we feel it represents ourselves. However, this does not mean the weight of today’s particular constructed identities are not valid representations. People can and do identify with today’s conception of woman or man. The issue at hand is that the nature of the binary today has served to restrict and suppress alternate expressions of the woman and man, or gender in general. So the effort to abolish the binary doesn’t mean “what it means to be a man or a woman means nothing” it simply means it can hold multiple definitions. However, the weight of identity does not dissolve itself (people who are anti-idpol pull it together). Just as much as if we were to abolish the use of money tomorrow there would be chaos. It’s a gradual and carefully articulated process. That’s where we can employ identity politics which deemphasizes the binary, those rigid expressions of gender, to open up further possible gender identities. As we transition into a less codified age of gender we can find comfortable expressions of our social identity without being forced into a homologous group the of inflexible conceptions of “Man” or “Woman”