Why Abolish Gender, What It Would Look Like, and How To Do It

Radical feminists aim to abolish gender. Not just transgenderism, but all gender. Not just femininity in women and girls, but masculinity in women and girls too. Not just the fashions and behaviors of domination and submission, but the referential paradigm of gender in our own minds. Can we even imagine what that would look like and feel like? We’re going to try here to imagine a non-gendered world, because we don’t think we can abolish gender unless we have an idea of how a non-gendered culture would look and feel, and unless we have a plan for getting ourselves to that place.

When gender is a pervasive system that each woman has internalized from the culture (as it surely must be to some degree), free choice in matters regarding our own presentations and behaviors is an illusion, because what feels like a choice is so heavily influenced by our  internalized system of gender. For this reason, radical feminists don’t primarily examine personal presentations and behaviors as to whether or not they were freely chosen; they ask whether particular presentations and behaviors support the liberation of the sex class composed of women and girls.

This article is not a criticism of any individual who engages in gendered behaviors, either intentionally or not. It is intended as a critical look at the existing system of gendered culture (i.e., a system of male domination and female submission), and as a plan for abolishing that system.

Each author is a member of either the Lesbian Caucus (Lauren Levey), the Desisted and Detransitioned Women’s Caucus (Fern Lopez), or the Black Women’s Caucus (Lorraine Nowlin). While our intention is to present our analysis and strategy from all three perspectives, the views expressed in this article don’t necessarily reflect those of the caucuses.

We start with some of Sheila Jeffreys’ ideas that she discussed in a 2023 video review of her book “Beauty and Misogyny,” written in 2005 and now in its second edition.

Jeffreys describes how specific beauty practices – which exaggerate and enforce biological differences between the sexes – are typically framed either as natural or as freely chosen; and in any case as being without generalizable, culture-wide significance. She describes how these practices harm women individually and collectively, and for the purpose of enforcing the subordination of the female sex class. They harm women’s health, diminish women’s strength and mobility, and undermine women’s dignity and ability to thrive as full humans entitled to full civil rights. A partial list of such beauty practices includes “transgender medicine,” labiaplasty, anal bleaching, lip fillers, breast augmentation and mastectomy, body piercings; and clothing fashions such as shoes with high narrow heels and pointy toes, tight short skirts, long decorated fingernails, and plunging necklines. A fashion device that Jeffreys didn’t mention, but that we want to add, is form-fitting clothing with either nonexistent or tiny/useless pockets.

That such practices are not freely chosen, says Jeffreys, can be seen in the denial of privileges in public life to women who fail to adopt them. Women in most high-paying jobs must comply with the rules of gender as a condition of employment and advancement. The purpose of this requirement is to support the domination-subordination core of gender with visible badges of subordination for women. While a man wearing business attire has both feet firmly on the ground and has his body covered in a dignified manner, his female counterpart is teetering precariously in shoes, showing cleavage and other bare skin, unable to fully use her long-nailed fingers, and continuously having to move her long hair out of her face either by touching her hair or tossing her head. To gain precarious and conditional male acceptance of her participation and inclusion in public life, gender dictates that a woman divert part of her attention away from her work and instead toward her self-conscious awareness of her impractical appearance and posture.

The exaggerated differences between the sexes due to gender make it easy to recognize the sex-class distinction instantly. Jeffreys observes that in other cultures, the veil or full-body and head covering for women serves the same purposes as clothing designated for women engaged in public life in the West: Wearing it allows women some limited access to public life, and even that limited access requires wearing the badges of subordination, making the members of the subordinate female sex class obvious at a glance, so that they can be treated accordingly.

Jeffreys talks very briefly in the video discussion about what a non gendered presentation might look like in a woman: Feet flat and firmly planted, body covered (but not the head), hair and nails short, body unmutilated. The messaging of such a presentation would be dignified, unselfconscious, fully human, and free to enter all public spaces and participate fully in public life. Jeffreys goes on to touch on how we can get there: (a) Eliminate porn and prostitution (which presently drive women’s fashion), and (b) refuse to participate in gender in any way. This means collectively refusing to comply with gender no matter what the short-term cost. It means saying that femininity has nothing to do with being female; and it means insisting on acting consistently as a free, dignified, full human being with full agency.

A core principle of radical feminism is that the personal is political. The abolition of gender requires a revolution in both the home and the public spheres, and it could begin with women deciding to stop performing gender completely. Jeffreys makes a point of including compulsory (and unpaid) motherhood here: Women could start telling the truth about motherhood. Mothers could tell everyone that in fact motherhood is not naturally or universally wished for, joyful, fulfilling, or healthy for women. This is especially true as motherhood is currently weaponized under patriarchy to restrict mothers’ access to paid employment and other public life.

What would the abolition of gender look like for lesbians?

1. The stigma of “lesbian” would end. The Lesbian Bill Of Rights defines a lesbian as “a female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted.” By definition, lesbians are taboo in patriarchy because (a) they deny sexual access to all men, and (b) they demonstrate that women have sexual agency – that sexual desire and satisfaction occur for them without male involvement. Both taboos exist as a consequence of gender, i.e., the patriarchal requirement of universal male supremacy. There must be no viable exceptions, or else the rationale for patriarchy disappears. Without the dom-sub component of gender, the stigma of being a lesbian disappears along with patriarchy itself.
2. The institution of state-sanctioned marriage would disappear. Its purpose has always been for the state to regulate and be a party to long-term sexual relationships in order to support patriarchy: to manage the ownership and inheritance of property accordingly, and to encourage heterosexual married couples to have lots of “legitimate” children, especially sons/heirs. Its marketing strategies involve romance, religion, soul-mate ideology, and tax breaks and immigration privileges. Some of these “perks” have no value to the collective interests of women and girls as a sex class or lesbians in particular; others should not be tied to marital status. There are ways of organizing communities other than isolating each woman, away from her birth family, in a household headed by a man.
3. Lesbian motherhood would no longer be valorized. Once women, including lesbians, are understood to be fully human, with equal access to productive public life, lesbians (like other women) would not be pressured to bear even one child. And the choice to become a mother would not be made or seen in the context of femininity (or “women’s nature”). Furthermore, lesbian motherhood would not be lamented as “how sad the poor baby has no daddy.” Being raised by a community of lesbians could arguably be quite a rich upbringing for any child, especially in a culture where gender has been eliminated.
4. The lesbian gender identities of butch and femme, discussed by Sheila Jeffreys and Lauren Levey in February of 2024, would disappear. “Butch” means masculine, and “femme” means feminine. Some lesbians make an attempt to reframe butch as simply “not feminine” or as “nonconforming to gender expectations for women,” but in common usage “butch” maps the swagger of male entitlement and domination. Although some lesbians feel strongly that lesbian genders are innate and immutable, and that butch or femme, for instance, is who they are, there is no scientific evidence to support biological innateness. Without the power and romance and mystique of masculinity and femininity, butch and femme would no longer have a cultural foundation. So we predict that lesbians would not only be functioning workers in the public sphere, as most are now; but would also appear as fully functioning workers. 
5. Absent social stigma,there would be a lot more women living openly and visibly as lesbians, for two reasons: (a) Lesbians would no longer be excluded from public life generally, and (b) lesbian communities would be welcoming to new lesbians, to women who are wondering if they might be lesbians, and to women who wished to become lesbians. And many of those open and visible lesbians would undoubtedly be taking the lead in creating new and more just structures of social organization post-patriarchy.

What would the abolition of gender look like for women who have desisted or detransitioned after having identified as “transgender”?

The most universal unjust power imbalance is based on sex, and enforced through gender (i.e., sex-role stereotypes). Using gender as a tool for sex discrimination, men contest women’s abilities to make judgments and learn concepts and skills. The working premise of gender is that women and men must enact different roles and behaviors because of sex-specific hormonal compulsions that are presumed to be inflexible and invariable. This fallacy implies that women have more behaviors and attributes consistently in common with female animals of other species, rather than with males of their own species. This idea serves to deepen the divide between the human sexes and enables men to dehumanize women, and use this excuse to deny them opportunity. Men often weaponize female biology against women with claims that women’s own hormones and menstrual cycles make them unfit for responsible decision-making due to accusations of “emotional fragility,” “mothering instincts,” and “female hysteria.” These sexist accusations implicitly insist that men possess humanity that allows them to act above their own hormonal instincts and biology, but that women do not possess this humanity.

By contrast, gender abolitionists know that women are human; therefore it is reasonable to deduce that women and men are intellectually equal because they are members of the same species. The fact of our shared human intellect underscores how unjust it is to limit, harass, and control other humans on the basis of something like sex. Gender abolitionists fight to eliminate discrimination against women, because reproductive function does not determine intellectual ability, leadership capability, or depth of emotion.

Even so, the concept of gendered behaviors is still widely accepted as natural and inevitable by society. Women are taught from birth to downplay their own humanity. Directly as a consequence, there are many women who question their identities and validity as female because of their struggle to conform to feminine expectations. Because of the harms transgenderism has done to women’s rights, women’s self-perceptions, and the health of women and girls who undergo transgender-related medicalization, it is imperative that women come together and understand the distinction between the neutral female sex-class and the fictional concept of gender, and disown the feminine “gender identity” and any other “gender identity.” Disowning femininity is as simple as understanding that no behavior, style, or preference defines womanhood. The only thing that makes a woman is her sex.

Here is how the situation for desisted women, and women in general, would change if gender were abolished:

1. The sense of discontentment with imposed sex-role stereotypes felt by women, also sometimes conflated as “gender dysphoria,” would resolve in the large majority of cases. An absence of gender means there is no gendered/feminine point of reference from which a woman’s neutral existence could be scrutinized. This type of “dysphoria” would not recur once resolved because the root of sex-role stereotypes would be eradicated.
2. In contrast to the two objective sex classes of female and male people, the artificial class known as “queer,” which was created by the faith-based belief of gender identity, would disappear. Feminine gendered behaviors would not be expected as default in women, and masculinity would not be expected in men, therefore no one could be “queered” in comparison to these expectations.
3. With no artificially constructed gender classes, including feminine, masculine, and “queer,” to obscure the neutral and objective reality of female and male biological functions, there would be no justification to debate women’s access to healthcare. It would be understood that pregnancy and abortion are neutral, biological capabilities of female biology, and there would be no stereotypes against which a woman’s character could be called into question. With no feminine expectations, there would be no one correct way to be a woman, and menstruation, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and abortion would not be shamed or stigmatized. With no shame around the neutral female body, women and girls would not be driven to heavily dissociate from theirs, and thus “gender dysphoria” for this reason would not exist.
4. Without the artificially constructed gender class of “queer,” any internal related sense of oppression on this basis would cease to exist. The internalized perceived stigma and rumination of those who believe, or once believed, themselves to belong to the artificial “queer” class is known to take a harmful and heavy toll on mental health. Without the societal rejection of being unfeminine, unusual, or “queer” among their sex, mental health outcomes for these women and girls would improve.
5. Women would gain access to opportunity. Self-expression would not be restricted based on sex; therefore neither would hobbies, interests, and access to opportunity. Women would not be restricted from achieving their dreams, goals, and potential due to stereotypes about “lady brains” and “male brains.” The false narrative about women being, on the whole, incapable of logic and reason to the same degree as men would end, and it would follow that women would gain wider access to leadership. Parents would not prime their daughters early in life with the idea that they are incapable of effectively learning mathematics, spatial tasks, and logic. Women would be sought out for their exceptional achievements, traits, and skills and awarded with visibility and recognition, just as men have done for each other in patriarchy, while excluding women. Women would not feel compelled to try to escape or hide their sex just to live their fullest potential.
6. Women and girls would be aware of their own power, boundaries, and self-worth. No longer would men have the ability to leverage womens’ value against them to conditionally grant them a sense of acceptance, worth, and safety in exchange for their autonomy or dignity. Women would not be afraid to withhold consent, to be honest about their needs, and advocate for themselves.
7. Men could not identify into women’s spaces. Without gender-based stereotypes, men could not claim to possess “lady brains” or “woman thoughts” or feelings, because it would be clearly understood that women and men are intellectual equals. It would be understood that there is an equal potential distribution between both sexes of exceptional intelligence and incompetence, and exceptional good and evil. With the abolition of gender, society would encourage intelligence, civility, and cooperation in both sexes equally from the time of birth. Emotions and morality, logic and intelligence would not be solely the spheres of one sex or the other. The masculine-gendered excuse of “boys will be boys” would no longer be perpetuated. Men would understand themselves to be accountable for morality and fairness; thus women would be free of the burdens of “parenting” grown men, cleaning up after them, and taking on emotional labor to fix the results of their amoral and entitled behavior.

There is no need to wait for sweeping societal change to resolve the problem of sexist discrimination. Each action creates change. If each woman reading this understands that her sex does not control her humanity, her behavior, or preferences, that is the beginning of the abolition of gender.

What would the abolition of gender look like for Black women?

Black women probably don’t think much about how harmful gender is even though it has been nothing short of catastrophic for Black women. Whether through beauty practices, limitations on our response to mistreatment, or motherhood, gender has harmed Black women.

1. Straightening hair is not freely chosen and sometimes has professional consequences if avoided (for example, the need for California’s Crown Act, which prohibits discrimination based on natural hair). Black women have already started to reject this gendered practice by ditching relaxers although we still have a long way to go. It’s even spoken of negatively as “the creamy crack.” Not only must hair be straightened, but it must also be long. Long hair is considered feminine, while short hair is deemed masculine. I believe this is the driving influence behind the popularity of weaves and wigs. Even though many of us reject chemical straightening, wigs and weaves are still popular. In other words, hiding your natural hair is still prevalent.  It should be evident that these “gendered” standards are only applied to women. But imagine if this gender standard didn’t exist at all. If gender didn’t exist, ALL Black women would feel free to wear the hair that grows from their heads and without hiding it. No Black woman would need to straighten her hair to get and keep employment or attend social gatherings. Abolishing this gendered practice would eliminate the commodification of vulnerable Asian, Central, and South American women’s hair.  My point is the hair mandates imposed on Black women creates a domino effect that harms other women as well.  A world without gender frees  vulnerable women from oppressive and harmful practices and from commodifying themselves and each other.  
2. Abolishing gender would also lead to women and girls not feeling as though they have to expose themselves, whether in person, online, or in the entertainment industry. There are so many women singers and rappers with extraordinary talent, but the industry requires them to leave little to the imagination regarding clothing for performances. They certainly could have made it without a sexually provocative persona, but the powers behind them don’t present them on talent alone. Sheila Jeffreys’ assertion about women and plastic surgery is particularly timely. Women in entertainment are changing themselves in ways that make them unrecognizable, whether as themselves or as having the body of an adult human female. The infamous BBL (Brazilian Butt Lift) is just one example. It generally looks unnatural. Again, this is a gender mandate imposed on women. In a world without gender, plastic surgery for “beauty purposes” would not exist. 
3. Currently, many Black women are trying so hard not to appear “masculine” due to racist stereotypes, but racist stereotypes aimed at Black women would not be possible without the existence of gender. In other words, gender provides the framework for racist/sexist stereotypes. Black women, all women, would be free to express their full range of emotions without being called angry, aggressive, or bitter. To go a step further, women would express their emotions without the constraints of caring how we are perceived.
4. Black women would greatly benefit from the abolition of marriage in its current compulsory form.  A woman’s worth is tied to being “chosen” by a man. It can be exhausting watching woman after woman waste her precious time preparing, praying, and hoping for marriage. To be chosen is a burden placed exclusively on women.  It’s not only a burden on Black women, but all women. It’s even worse when you are bombarded with messages that as Black women, we are unlovable, unmarriageable, and certainly not chosen. In a world without gender, women would realize marriage isn’t what they want after all. The need to be chosen is probably the most influential driving force behind women’s pursuit of marriage. In a perfect world without gender, women would flat out reject the need to be chosen and realize the emperor has no clothes. The “emperor” in this case represents men. In other words, women would realize that there isn’t anything specific about men that would lead them to want to partner with or even be attracted to them. Women would have the education and resources to survive without marriage or attaching themselves in any way to a man. Survival is also what fuels the “gender mandate” for women to marry and having the necessary resources would alleviate that. Gender roles require submission. Submission requires the one submitting to be dependent on the one submitted to. The only way we will achieve liberation is for women to cease dependence on the male class. In a world without gender, women would not only be independent in their personal lives but “institutionally” independent. That means women would have some control of healthcare, education, and security. Why? We cannot be liberated if we are still dependent on the oppressor.   It’s all about the burden of being chosen. In a world without gender, marriage would merely be one choice or not chosen at all. Marriage is not without great risk to a woman’s life and health. Marriage carries the risk of domestic violence that at times leads to women’s deaths. Marriage is a risk to health due to the prevalence of adultery which can lead to sexually transmitted diseases. It must be noted that heterosexual marriage/nuclear family often isolates women from each other; so it is not a social structure that women should venerate, with or without gender.  
5. When gender is finally abolished motherhood would be a choice made after carefully weighing the pros and cons and not out of compulsion. Women who can’t have children AND those who choose not to have children would be able to live fulfilling, childfree lives without question. Women with fertility issues would not go into debt trying to have children. Little girls would not be groomed into motherhood. They would be given toy trucks just as quickly as they would be given dolls. Women would not be pressured to be married or attached to a man in order to have children. Risks that are now associated with single motherhood would be alleviated not through marriage but through education, financial resources, and a community of women. Mothers and children would be able to survive and thrive with or without husbands/fathers.

Conclusion

If women are going to refuse to perform gender either privately or publicly, we need to be able to think outside of gender. That’s hard, because patriarchy does not even give us the words to do it. We think it’s not enough merely to recognize gender and refuse to participate, although that’s a good start. But in addition, we need a different paradigm to displace and replace gender, so that when we need to act, we have an entirely different structure to consult and refer to instead of gender.

Gender is the opposition of two polar opposites – masculinity (domination) and femininity (submission).

We propose the substitution of a scale from functional to decorative.

It is humans who do intentional and valued work; it is inanimate objects that can be decorative. Humans create art, among other products; but the art is not itself human.

There is a saying in the world of design that form should follow function. That’s why tail fins and rocket-shaped tail lights on automobiles were always silly. We think that if women understand that all women are currently members of the subservient sex class, that the personal is political, that we have the collective power to resist participating in our own oppression, and that human dignity and human rights are derived from being perceived as essentially functional rather than decorative, we may be able to collectively create a successful, survivable, revolutionary movement to liberate all women.

Lauren Levey
Fern Lopez
Lorraine Nowlin

Subscribe