Communism

Thanks for replying and I am enjoying the civility.

This view would mean that trans men are oppressors, with all the baggage that comes with it - that they not only choose to be oppressors, but that they become oppressors even though trans men are also discriminated against.

I would argue that this is only true if we consider patriarchy the same as misogyny. Liberals do. Marxist-leninists shouldn't. And I would argue because it stems from liberal conception of liberation is rooted in hyper-individualism rather than the correct understanding of patriarchy as a structural concern.

Let's again make the abstract concrete. You can see how the above plays out in real life in bourgoisie society. It is not uncommon for liberal feminists to do the following: they equate a non-white man who is part of an ethnic demographic that is oppressed under white supremacism is part of the patriarchy if he is a misogynist (or for some for just being a man) and then you will see liberal feminists end up using white supremacist racist tropes to describe men of people of colour as inherently violent/dangerous etc even if the liberal feminist themselves are non-white. This is categorically wrong, but why?

Let's take the US for example. The black person is not in charge of the patriarchy that suppresses them as a group. The black man is often actually targeted for state violence because he is a black man. They are victims too of that patriarchy.

The same can be applied all over the world: the Palestenian man or boy in Palestine under Israel or the Dalit man under hindutva patriarchial society etc are not agents who rule the patriarchial society - they themselves are also victims of the same patriarchy. Palestenian men for example are targeted because they are plaestenian man. How many times have seen in media, in order to attain sympathy from the reader, explain that the Israelis are killing/torturing women and children, ie excluding the adult palestenian male with the subtext that a level of brutality against the latter is more acceptable. Do we really think the Palestenian man is then part of that patriarchal superstructure, here manifested in genocide, just because he is a man? Of course we shouldn't.

Conflating the violent misogyny of the individual with the patriarchal structure that enables it ends up effectively absolving the superstructure of its sins which means one could be amplifying the patriarchal society often manifested above as white supremacism while nominally one says they stand for say women's rights - effectively whitewashing the oppression of patriarchy just so one can uphold the few - one ends up with liberal feminism, TERFs etc rather than the marxist conception of true liberation which submlimates all of the above. We should understand that patriarchy, inherited from feudalism before it, in our society amplifies capitalist exploitation and immiseration.

It's got so bad some marxists are now no longer using the term feminism to equate with women's liberation.

And I need to read more Kollantai.

That’s why I don’t think it necessarily follows that gender itself is a product of oppression, which also puts into question whether it should be or will be abolished/wither away (not exactly the same thing for some abolitionists, but not all). The premise of the essay is that gender can exist without an oppressive structure. It also means it doesn’t automatically follow that abolishing gender (in any way) will also destroy the oppressive structure built around it and the answer must be found somewhere else for proper praxis.

In reference to my previous comment, by gender "withering away" in a communist state, I don't mean gender will not exist, just as race won't disappear. I mean the distinction between class won't be really relevant anymore. A communist state will likely be in the distant future, a society we can only predict under science fiction. I imagine technology, social relations, cultural and social norms will evolve to a point we may not be able to perceive very well today. I imagine that we may have the ability to change our DNA, or maybe go through transhumanism and become cyborgs/machines, etc. The concept of gender may not be as relevant because people will be able to easily change to whatever they are comfortable with using future technology, and there will be cultural acceptance of everyone. There won't be a denial of trans/gender-fluid/non-conforming people, but it may be ubiquitous that the distinction and class differences/exploitation between people won't exist as it does today. Before then and when we are still developing in the early stages of socialism, we won't be "abolishing" or "withering away" gender, nor will gender completely not exist.

As for now, I agree that so-called "gender abolition" is irrelevant and out of scope at this time.