(untitled)

Hello, Lainons. I don't know if this is the specific board for this subject, but it is something that has taken me out of sleep recently. It is about gender neutral, genderfluid and transgender. Talking to some friends about this topic, I realize that there is a lack of material to speak both for and against gender theories. I would find it ideal that a gender-neutral ontology / metaphysics be promoted, or something like that, it would help both the pro and the opposing side to discuss this idea. I don't know if the question I'm bringing is something new, but I think about it a lot and I think it's extremely important, but I never know how to research to find this type of material, if you could recommend something (anything, it can be a "feminist" metaphysics or something from the right-wing, like Metaphysics of Sex).

>>5364 I like Gender Nihilism and general pieces about gender abolition. I feel like gender is kind of an inherently void thing to write theory about though, unfortunately. You can write about how gender has influenced society and how contemporary understandings of gender were formed, but there's not real intrinsic knowledge to be found researching gender itself because it's really nothing more than a socially built system, wrapped around the messed-up biology that basically tries to kill the people who give birth.

>>5366 It has socially built factors, but I don't think it's totally devoid of essentialist components. I mean I've never seen transgender people who truly act like their assumed genders. I think there's some built-in parts. And why does the idea that something is socially constructed seem to invalidate it in this way? Seems like we might socially construct certain things based on instincts just like anything else that eventually develops into the hereditable parts of our personalities. They are just group instincts instead of individual instincts. Like ants building an anthill. The anthill is socially constructed, but it's also totally an essential and hardwired behavior in the ants. Seems like one doesn't always preclude the other. I do think parts of it are chosen/projected upon us by others/made up in surprisingly recent times. But I don't think it must be strictly all one or the other. Some parts of us are definitely essentialist, and it's just a postmodern academic fad to declare that everything is a social construct. As if those dummies know anything. They're just bored failures wasting their parent's trust funds; the waste products of elite overproduction. What they "discover" are little more than fashion trends for them to use to elevate and separate themselves from those who they perceive as being beneath them. Mostly the poor (that they lie about caring for).

>>5364 I recommend the Evola book, just because it gives you the deeper metaphysical foundation of the issue beyond the social/biological/speculative level that's common in all these conversations. I don't see how you can have a meaningful discussion about this without actually bothering to go back to first principles. The book also accounts for phenomena like homosexuality and transgenderism. I recommend Weininger's Sex and Character as another basic read. Oh, and I don't get why people think "socially constructed" means "arbitrary". Money is a social construct, but the basic laws by which it operates are not arbitrary in the least.