>gender may well be here to stay since i personally don't think we
>need to raise androgynous beings in order eradicate gender oppression
Androgyny is a gendered concept, as you can see from the composition of the word itself (the idea of androgyny -- the union of gendered opposites in one individual-- depends upon the world that divides human beings between "males" & "females" understood as opposites), so I'm not talking about androgyny when I say that if we get to abolish gender oppression, we can be liberated from gender. Think of it as liberation of biological & other differences from the modern "opposite genders" model.
Carrol wrote:
>But the interesting thing for present purposes is not whether "gender" will
>remain a category in the future -- the interesting question is why anyone
>*today* would be so obsessed with insisting that the category will so remain.
>Why this desperate clinging to the conviction that our current categorizations
>are eternal? Answering this question may be part of the work of clarifying the
>ideologies of male supremacy and of heterosexism.
>
>P.S. This debate is perhaps even more important when the subject is "race"
>rather than gender. There can be little doubt that anyone insisting on the
>continued relevance of the category of "race" in a non-racist world is racist.
>The belief in the biological reality of race is more or less
>fundamental to all
>racist ideology.
What's difficult to accept for many people is that X -- be it race or gender -- is neither eternal nor biologically determined & that historically determined categories have transient existence.
Yoshie