What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto
A manifesto about the slow death of gender and trans and queer liberation through accelerating this process.
39 pages, Paperback
First published April 23, 2019
15 people are currently reading
1301 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
January 31, 2021
this slaps
January 20, 2021
This text has all of the hallmarks of someone who has read two pieces of theory and thinks they understand enough to write in the same fashion. The assertion that gender is a classist system is something to be legitimately understood as there is merit to the argument, however, the extreme amount of moon logic that it takes to go from gender being a classist system to actively calling for a violent revolution against the entire society that has been built is frankly ludicrous. There is absolutely no way that anything in this text can be taken seriously as there is such a lack of understanding for the difference between the reality in which we live, and the theoretical.
Gender abolition is an idea that is rather appealing, but the idea that, as the text puts it, that people no longer assigning themselves to gender would lead to the destruction of all gender, and all of the societal norms that exist, is incorrect, and lacks any kind of reasoning or citation in the text itself. Were a communist system to be applied to the world from a capitalist one, a baker could indeed choose to not be a baker, though that is also a realistic proposition under capitalism as much as it pains me to say, but the identity of being a baker is not going to fade if that baker still chooses to be a baker. There is a significant lack of mention to the underlying issue with identity and human nature, the in group and the out group. People will always find a way to identify, not for themselves, but as a counter to others.
There are also many issues with how the authors seem to understand communism, but to sum that up as this review is rather lengthy, communism is not when baker can choose not to be baker, it is when the baker, the cake decorator, the financier, the waiter, and anyone else who works in the bakery own that bakery. As such, they can redistribute the wealth that is created by the bakery to be equal based on the amount of labor being put in by each worker.
All in all, not worth the read, needs citations and expansions of the ideas suggested, as well as justifying the conclusions being drawn.
Gender abolition is an idea that is rather appealing, but the idea that, as the text puts it, that people no longer assigning themselves to gender would lead to the destruction of all gender, and all of the societal norms that exist, is incorrect, and lacks any kind of reasoning or citation in the text itself. Were a communist system to be applied to the world from a capitalist one, a baker could indeed choose to not be a baker, though that is also a realistic proposition under capitalism as much as it pains me to say, but the identity of being a baker is not going to fade if that baker still chooses to be a baker. There is a significant lack of mention to the underlying issue with identity and human nature, the in group and the out group. People will always find a way to identify, not for themselves, but as a counter to others.
There are also many issues with how the authors seem to understand communism, but to sum that up as this review is rather lengthy, communism is not when baker can choose not to be baker, it is when the baker, the cake decorator, the financier, the waiter, and anyone else who works in the bakery own that bakery. As such, they can redistribute the wealth that is created by the bakery to be equal based on the amount of labor being put in by each worker.
All in all, not worth the read, needs citations and expansions of the ideas suggested, as well as justifying the conclusions being drawn.
May 6, 2021
The central premise: that gender is a classed system created by the relations formed around reproductive labor, prove too inflexible for later analysis. The authors attempt to use the base/superstructure to model onto gender. While that exercise can throw out new aspects of understanding gender as labor, Storm et al. neither adjust nor add the complications of how gender is expressed and (re)created onto this model. It's very much a one-for-one substitution to basic marxist theory. Inside this manifesto are interesting, if underdeveloped ideas about gender as a totality. This manifesto should've just been the latter half of the piece. However, it is muddled in some pretty slipshod assumptions that take away from the central argument for what the authors terms 'gender communism'.
There are two ideas that Storm et al. keep referring to that I find particularly take away major credence from the work. I will add to this if ever go back to this piece again:
1) I read an online version and this might simply be a mistake in the porting process etc. but the piece begins with a reference to the Bugis (or Buginese) as the Bugi? This might sound like a small point, but it is indicative of a larger issue: the author brandishes 'other' cultures and their gender systems wildly without either context, respect or voice given to people who are from those communities and take up those different gender positions. They are painted with broad brushes that homogenise and flatten their own gendered ontologies, for the simple purpose to creating contrast to our current binaristic gendered system. Quite simply put, what was the reason? There is none, in my opinion.
2) The authors seem to be insinuating a strict relationship between men and women in terms of reproductive labor, with the people who don't have the same relationship with that labor being classed as queer. There needs to be further teasing out of gender and sexuality within the spectrum of queerness. Secondly, even within a heteropatriarchal system, cishet women have different relationships to reproductive labor. Whether that's due to the natural course of menopause or any other myriad of biological, socio-cultural, classed, or racialized factors. These are not miniscule factors, and Storm et al's model once again proves too inflexible for considered analysis.
All in all, an editor was sorely needed to help the authors rearrange their ideas. The lack of citations and a bibliography is a little troubling, but also raises questions about its intended audience. If this is your first foray into viewing gender through a marxist lens, I will recommend Sophie Lewis' work to you.
There are two ideas that Storm et al. keep referring to that I find particularly take away major credence from the work. I will add to this if ever go back to this piece again:
1) I read an online version and this might simply be a mistake in the porting process etc. but the piece begins with a reference to the Bugis (or Buginese) as the Bugi? This might sound like a small point, but it is indicative of a larger issue: the author brandishes 'other' cultures and their gender systems wildly without either context, respect or voice given to people who are from those communities and take up those different gender positions. They are painted with broad brushes that homogenise and flatten their own gendered ontologies, for the simple purpose to creating contrast to our current binaristic gendered system. Quite simply put, what was the reason? There is none, in my opinion.
2) The authors seem to be insinuating a strict relationship between men and women in terms of reproductive labor, with the people who don't have the same relationship with that labor being classed as queer. There needs to be further teasing out of gender and sexuality within the spectrum of queerness. Secondly, even within a heteropatriarchal system, cishet women have different relationships to reproductive labor. Whether that's due to the natural course of menopause or any other myriad of biological, socio-cultural, classed, or racialized factors. These are not miniscule factors, and Storm et al's model once again proves too inflexible for considered analysis.
All in all, an editor was sorely needed to help the authors rearrange their ideas. The lack of citations and a bibliography is a little troubling, but also raises questions about its intended audience. If this is your first foray into viewing gender through a marxist lens, I will recommend Sophie Lewis' work to you.
March 19, 2021
i love seeing allocishets pressed about this manifesto lmaooooo i personally think it’s great
November 17, 2021
The image of Foucault holding his head is probably an apt reaction to this.
It starts off interestingly enough, applying Marxist understanding of production to reproduction and presenting gender as a result of division of reproductive labour just as professions form as a result of division of labour. It also brings up alternative forms gender roles in other cultures which is a good way to argue for the difference between sex and gender and how there are different ways in which reproductive labour could be organised. However, it goes downhill really fast. It quickly becomes virtually undistinguishable from right wing parodies of leftism, constantly talking about social construction and having head to far up its own behind that alternatives to something all too easily deemed as oppressive are proposed without concern for reality. There is so much wrong with this short text. If I had to point out two things it would be 1) that biological reality can not be so easily dismissed, even if it is not the material base in a very narrow Marxist understanding of the world and even if our understanding of biological terms is ideologically conditioned ignoring it is still like ignoring geography in history and how resource distribution shapes class relations, and 2) that it becomes dubious how contemporary developments in gender relations are the result of the division of reproductive labour when sexuality is more and more separated from reproduction, a point can be made that the explosion of gender identities is a result of exactly this erosion of the material base of gender, but that is never made clear in the text. This whole thing presents itself as a new form of communism, but really it is a perversion of communism. It relies on Marx, but moves into idealism and can therefore only be referred to as being "cultural Marxism" in the most derogatory way.
Still, it is not completely terrible so I won't be giving it a one star rating. The core idea is something worth exploring although it is taken to all the wrong places. As is the idea of gender eating its own tail and the explosion of gender identities leading to the abolition of gender which might even be in the interest of culturally right people. It is a shame this union of opposites is not explored any further. If this was longer, missed opportunities and bastardisation of something good in there would make the manifesto even worse, but because it is so short it is really not a huge waste of time to read and making my gears turn is a good thing so it gets more than one star.
It starts off interestingly enough, applying Marxist understanding of production to reproduction and presenting gender as a result of division of reproductive labour just as professions form as a result of division of labour. It also brings up alternative forms gender roles in other cultures which is a good way to argue for the difference between sex and gender and how there are different ways in which reproductive labour could be organised. However, it goes downhill really fast. It quickly becomes virtually undistinguishable from right wing parodies of leftism, constantly talking about social construction and having head to far up its own behind that alternatives to something all too easily deemed as oppressive are proposed without concern for reality. There is so much wrong with this short text. If I had to point out two things it would be 1) that biological reality can not be so easily dismissed, even if it is not the material base in a very narrow Marxist understanding of the world and even if our understanding of biological terms is ideologically conditioned ignoring it is still like ignoring geography in history and how resource distribution shapes class relations, and 2) that it becomes dubious how contemporary developments in gender relations are the result of the division of reproductive labour when sexuality is more and more separated from reproduction, a point can be made that the explosion of gender identities is a result of exactly this erosion of the material base of gender, but that is never made clear in the text. This whole thing presents itself as a new form of communism, but really it is a perversion of communism. It relies on Marx, but moves into idealism and can therefore only be referred to as being "cultural Marxism" in the most derogatory way.
Still, it is not completely terrible so I won't be giving it a one star rating. The core idea is something worth exploring although it is taken to all the wrong places. As is the idea of gender eating its own tail and the explosion of gender identities leading to the abolition of gender which might even be in the interest of culturally right people. It is a shame this union of opposites is not explored any further. If this was longer, missed opportunities and bastardisation of something good in there would make the manifesto even worse, but because it is so short it is really not a huge waste of time to read and making my gears turn is a good thing so it gets more than one star.
February 18, 2022
A brilliant and necessary look at gender & sex in relation to capitalism. I absolutely love the way that it defines sex. I will obviously be going back to this text in the future.
July 9, 2021
“Gender means the domination of all and sustained violence against women and queer people.”
GENDER ABOLITION NOW!
This book, as short as it was, taught me a lot about gender, identity, abolition, communism, and it’s ties to our capitalist society. Gender will always be oppressive unless we reject it as much as possible. It allows for the continuing of oppressive labor forces. This made me think about how many republicans/conservatives/religious people will be anti-abortion/anti-trans and of course it’s because they’re bigots but also in relation to capitalism they just want to use women to pump out babies to maintain the system, so in turn when women would like to terminate their pregnancy, politicians will criticize, along with religious people. Trans and other queer people get in the way of them doing so because they threaten the same gender binary that keeps women oppressed. Rejecting the binary interrupts how gender is used to perform specific types of labor (women are the homemakers, men are the breadwinners). No wonder why they want to maintain the status quo. But also, liberalism will perform intersectionality and want to force assimilation but that will never be because both parties harm queer people through police violence and lack of protection from sexual violence. In all, women are used to produce new labor so of course political parties would want to maintain gender because without it, who will produce their beloved working class.
This book also examines how sex reinforces gender and is forced upon us. It wasn’t always like this and there’s chance for a better life ahead. This reminds me of the way Black women are constantly told we’re not woman enough or our testosterone levels are tested in sports. It’s all very colonial. Are bodies weren’t made to fit the white supremacist view of a woman or what makes a woman. Nobody should have to fit into a category!! Also notable is how colonialism and religion affect this. Other gender systems existed before European colonialism and took into account queerness, but the European system swept them under the rug. Different cultures had languages, terms, and practices that accounted for those of a different gender (not necessarily trans/queer, just themselves).They held a place in their society and accounted for gender identity, societal role, orientation, and spiritual identity. Christianity also being forced upon people made those who were once celebrated the most marginalized. And with this, cultural practices were destroyed making European traditions the dominate practices.
Really glad it touched on sex workers in relation to trans women, cis women, and queer people. The sexual violence faced with added violence coming from police, lack of reporting, and the need for a queer militant group. Gender is enforced through sexual violence as seen in the book. A militant queer organization will protect those who need to transition safely, steer clear of sexual violence, empower women, sex workers, those who aren’t referred to by their pronouns, provide space for those who are different, and fight cops and fascist counter movements. It’s also interesting how the patriarchy comes into play. Marriage, the two gender power structure, sex, biology, and economics all were drained out through the new system Europe forced upon the places it colonized. I also learned that the gender class system is patriarchy. How men are the head basically and women are meant to follow. Queer people break this mold because their relationships break how gender and the patriarchy are viewed.
Individuals should hold themselves accountable also by how our language upholds gender being assigned upon young children before they can understand it for themselves. “Boys will be boys.” “Only girls can play with this.”
I also loved that this book added a communist approach to abolition in the future. “A movement against the present social order, one seeking the liberation of those oppressed.” I like the way this book broke down multiple themes in our society without having loaded academic language. “A revolt against the present state of things.” I liked the critique on intersectionality also. How liberals have several movements and not one fighting for all. We need that. Liberals want to assimilate and ask to be treated fairly but queer people need more than that. Demand that! That’s the bare minimum. All forms of oppression are connected.
This book also touched on how queerness is always referred to as a mental illness because it interrupts enforced labor. I never thought about that. Capitalists making members of the working class feel guilty because they refuse work is similar to queer people refusing to engage in gender the “proper way”. “Queerness ultimately decouples love and reproduction.” I like this quote because for me I don’t plan to marry or have children. And I think it’s interesting how just by me saying that it will turn heads. That’s how much gender and the patriarchy has influenced the world. God forbid a woman reject the institution of marriage to a man and anyone in general, but to not have kids?? That crazy. We should be able to choose whether or not we want to be confined by this system. Fighting capitalism through refusing work is similar to rejecting gender by saying “no”. Existing beyond the binary is revolutionary.
GENDER ABOLITION NOW!
This book, as short as it was, taught me a lot about gender, identity, abolition, communism, and it’s ties to our capitalist society. Gender will always be oppressive unless we reject it as much as possible. It allows for the continuing of oppressive labor forces. This made me think about how many republicans/conservatives/religious people will be anti-abortion/anti-trans and of course it’s because they’re bigots but also in relation to capitalism they just want to use women to pump out babies to maintain the system, so in turn when women would like to terminate their pregnancy, politicians will criticize, along with religious people. Trans and other queer people get in the way of them doing so because they threaten the same gender binary that keeps women oppressed. Rejecting the binary interrupts how gender is used to perform specific types of labor (women are the homemakers, men are the breadwinners). No wonder why they want to maintain the status quo. But also, liberalism will perform intersectionality and want to force assimilation but that will never be because both parties harm queer people through police violence and lack of protection from sexual violence. In all, women are used to produce new labor so of course political parties would want to maintain gender because without it, who will produce their beloved working class.
This book also examines how sex reinforces gender and is forced upon us. It wasn’t always like this and there’s chance for a better life ahead. This reminds me of the way Black women are constantly told we’re not woman enough or our testosterone levels are tested in sports. It’s all very colonial. Are bodies weren’t made to fit the white supremacist view of a woman or what makes a woman. Nobody should have to fit into a category!! Also notable is how colonialism and religion affect this. Other gender systems existed before European colonialism and took into account queerness, but the European system swept them under the rug. Different cultures had languages, terms, and practices that accounted for those of a different gender (not necessarily trans/queer, just themselves).They held a place in their society and accounted for gender identity, societal role, orientation, and spiritual identity. Christianity also being forced upon people made those who were once celebrated the most marginalized. And with this, cultural practices were destroyed making European traditions the dominate practices.
Really glad it touched on sex workers in relation to trans women, cis women, and queer people. The sexual violence faced with added violence coming from police, lack of reporting, and the need for a queer militant group. Gender is enforced through sexual violence as seen in the book. A militant queer organization will protect those who need to transition safely, steer clear of sexual violence, empower women, sex workers, those who aren’t referred to by their pronouns, provide space for those who are different, and fight cops and fascist counter movements. It’s also interesting how the patriarchy comes into play. Marriage, the two gender power structure, sex, biology, and economics all were drained out through the new system Europe forced upon the places it colonized. I also learned that the gender class system is patriarchy. How men are the head basically and women are meant to follow. Queer people break this mold because their relationships break how gender and the patriarchy are viewed.
Individuals should hold themselves accountable also by how our language upholds gender being assigned upon young children before they can understand it for themselves. “Boys will be boys.” “Only girls can play with this.”
I also loved that this book added a communist approach to abolition in the future. “A movement against the present social order, one seeking the liberation of those oppressed.” I like the way this book broke down multiple themes in our society without having loaded academic language. “A revolt against the present state of things.” I liked the critique on intersectionality also. How liberals have several movements and not one fighting for all. We need that. Liberals want to assimilate and ask to be treated fairly but queer people need more than that. Demand that! That’s the bare minimum. All forms of oppression are connected.
This book also touched on how queerness is always referred to as a mental illness because it interrupts enforced labor. I never thought about that. Capitalists making members of the working class feel guilty because they refuse work is similar to queer people refusing to engage in gender the “proper way”. “Queerness ultimately decouples love and reproduction.” I like this quote because for me I don’t plan to marry or have children. And I think it’s interesting how just by me saying that it will turn heads. That’s how much gender and the patriarchy has influenced the world. God forbid a woman reject the institution of marriage to a man and anyone in general, but to not have kids?? That crazy. We should be able to choose whether or not we want to be confined by this system. Fighting capitalism through refusing work is similar to rejecting gender by saying “no”. Existing beyond the binary is revolutionary.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 7, 2022
Somewhere around the halfway mark, I thought to myself, "this must be satire. Nothing serious could be so backwards, inside-out, and absurb. I must be reading satire."
But alas, I was not.
I was reading a fantastically male mess of logical fallacies, nonsense, and fingers-in-the-ears denial.
When one declares a trans identity, say, "trans woman," one does not "refuse" or do violence to gender. In fact, one whole-heartedly embraces gender and tells gender that if it were to go, there would be nothing to transition to! Transing gender is impossible in a post-gender world. To trans from one gender to another requires the existence of gender, and thus cannot be a method of gender abolition.
"Reproductive labor." "Sex is a social construct." Oh? Pray tell, which is the reproductive sex? Which sex has been systematically and violently oppressed since the beginning of humanity on the basis of our ability to reproduce?
But, of course, if sex isn't real, then Storm can sit back and pretend he's not a part of the problem. If sex isn't real and the patriarchy disadvantages everyone, then he isn't personally responsible. There's nothing he can do, so he might as well take up a gun and fight for free HRT!
I'm getting worked up now, and people have already left comprehensive reviews, so I'll finish up with a quote and a question:
"[An armed queer militia] can also provide queer people with a framework for fighting against misgendering and deadnaming. When people continuously and knowingly use the wrong pronouns and names for others, it is a form of violence against them. Doing so frequently leads to self-harm and sometimes suicide by queer people. As such, we need to defend and back other queer people up. Such violence against queer people cannot go unanswered and cannot be acceptable."
If you claim to be against the violence of gender systems, how can you justify physically subduing those who don't play along with your gender system?
But alas, I was not.
I was reading a fantastically male mess of logical fallacies, nonsense, and fingers-in-the-ears denial.
When one declares a trans identity, say, "trans woman," one does not "refuse" or do violence to gender. In fact, one whole-heartedly embraces gender and tells gender that if it were to go, there would be nothing to transition to! Transing gender is impossible in a post-gender world. To trans from one gender to another requires the existence of gender, and thus cannot be a method of gender abolition.
"Reproductive labor." "Sex is a social construct." Oh? Pray tell, which is the reproductive sex? Which sex has been systematically and violently oppressed since the beginning of humanity on the basis of our ability to reproduce?
But, of course, if sex isn't real, then Storm can sit back and pretend he's not a part of the problem. If sex isn't real and the patriarchy disadvantages everyone, then he isn't personally responsible. There's nothing he can do, so he might as well take up a gun and fight for free HRT!
I'm getting worked up now, and people have already left comprehensive reviews, so I'll finish up with a quote and a question:
"[An armed queer militia] can also provide queer people with a framework for fighting against misgendering and deadnaming. When people continuously and knowingly use the wrong pronouns and names for others, it is a form of violence against them. Doing so frequently leads to self-harm and sometimes suicide by queer people. As such, we need to defend and back other queer people up. Such violence against queer people cannot go unanswered and cannot be acceptable."
If you claim to be against the violence of gender systems, how can you justify physically subduing those who don't play along with your gender system?
January 16, 2022
What an interesting book… Overall, it has some good ideas as regards how gender and peoples relations of production are important in understanding gendered labour/oppression. However, I think where it falls short is in its vague mentioning of concepts/thoughts without further expanding: the sweeping comments about specific cultures’ relations with gender w/o any references; the anarchist undertones — “pink terror” “queer militias” “misgendering doesn’t warrant murder”; the notion that the enforcement of gender is contingent on sexual violence, predominantly. I would’ve given it a lower rating, but despite all of its flaws i think it is still a really accessible and informative read if you’re new to queer theory!
January 12, 2022
"We cannot stop part way or allow for our defeat. Gender means the domination of all and sustained violence against women and queer people. We cannot allow for our defeat and our eyes must be upon victory. This isn’t merely a choice, it’s a necessity."
Cool read, I liked it. It was pretty inspirational and really educational, however I do think the writing was pretty cringe at times. Completely agreed with the intention, abolish gender! Aufhebung!
Cool read, I liked it. It was pretty inspirational and really educational, however I do think the writing was pretty cringe at times. Completely agreed with the intention, abolish gender! Aufhebung!
July 22, 2019
A cool zine with a Marxist approach to gender accelerationism. Perhaps due to space constraints, the writing could be a tad lazy at times and it could do with some very slight re-editing but an interesting read nevertheless. I found it online at the Anarchist Library.
November 24, 2020
One quote of many I could have picked:”Queer power needs violence to destroy gender. A sustained terror against those who seek to enforce gender and prevent gender’s death, a pink terror, is a necessity in the revolution against gender.”
July 17, 2022
I don't recall how I found out about this book but this is probably the most pseud accelerationist book I've ever read. It also reads and is written in prose like that of a 13 year old anarcho-communist who just found out about politics that are not mainstream.
June 29, 2021
if you're considering reading this, please do.
November 26, 2024
Upon reading my first manifesto!
The current cutting-edge state of gender identification is an exciting time, don't you agree? It's high time, too. You can tell just how exciting by the angry backlash to it.
I wanted to read some current nonfiction about the LGBTQ+ movement, not a bloaty book, looking for just the high points for now. That's how I stumbled on this manifesto. "Manifesto?" I've never read a manifesto before. Are they all written like this?
Although this may not be the be-all-to-end-all on the subject, it did provide one answer to a simple question that's nagged me, "Why do politicians care so much about gender choices?" They can't all be fundamentalist Christians or self-hating non-cishets, surely. According to this work, the gender topic has them up in arms because it is destabilizing to the power structure and they are the power structure gate-keepers and favored privileged. Ah, yes, greed, why didn't I think of that?
Sigh. Employed against the gender movement are the same tactics used against social justice movements for ages. Even the magic tricks of outrage and distraction are old--religion, pseudo-Science, tribalism, outlandish worst-case predictions, name-calling, and more. Meanwhile, they quietly continue the real business at hand, that of enriching themselves.
Probably the most interesting concept presented here is the observation that various movements work as allies but not as the same movement fighting the same underlying oppression, which, according to these writers, they should be. Hm, yes, probably.
The manifesto could sorely use some re-writes. The piece aspires to a high intellectual style but is riddled with clumsy, bad grammar that undermines it. In a work like this, I would have liked to see citations listed as well. Or, scratch all that and re-write it a whole other way. You know, for us proletariats.
Ultimately, the manifesto did not convince me of their conclusion/solution: communism by revolution.
If it's written for Western capitalist readers, that is not realistic for any foreseeable future. Spitting in the wind, my friend. Communism, in its present real life manifestations, is distinctly highly unappealing. (Anybody keen on moving to a communist country?) But what do I know because neither is Nationalism appealing any in any of its current or historic manifestations, yet that apparently is in vogue with the masses. And with the powerful, too, as they disdain us pleebs all the way to the bank.
Until a better solution comes along, we are stuck with the way things work now: a slow and painful cultural evolution, making progress by millimeters.
I read the pdf copy here:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...
The current cutting-edge state of gender identification is an exciting time, don't you agree? It's high time, too. You can tell just how exciting by the angry backlash to it.
I wanted to read some current nonfiction about the LGBTQ+ movement, not a bloaty book, looking for just the high points for now. That's how I stumbled on this manifesto. "Manifesto?" I've never read a manifesto before. Are they all written like this?
Although this may not be the be-all-to-end-all on the subject, it did provide one answer to a simple question that's nagged me, "Why do politicians care so much about gender choices?" They can't all be fundamentalist Christians or self-hating non-cishets, surely. According to this work, the gender topic has them up in arms because it is destabilizing to the power structure and they are the power structure gate-keepers and favored privileged. Ah, yes, greed, why didn't I think of that?
Sigh. Employed against the gender movement are the same tactics used against social justice movements for ages. Even the magic tricks of outrage and distraction are old--religion, pseudo-Science, tribalism, outlandish worst-case predictions, name-calling, and more. Meanwhile, they quietly continue the real business at hand, that of enriching themselves.
Probably the most interesting concept presented here is the observation that various movements work as allies but not as the same movement fighting the same underlying oppression, which, according to these writers, they should be. Hm, yes, probably.
The manifesto could sorely use some re-writes. The piece aspires to a high intellectual style but is riddled with clumsy, bad grammar that undermines it. In a work like this, I would have liked to see citations listed as well. Or, scratch all that and re-write it a whole other way. You know, for us proletariats.
Ultimately, the manifesto did not convince me of their conclusion/solution: communism by revolution.
If it's written for Western capitalist readers, that is not realistic for any foreseeable future. Spitting in the wind, my friend. Communism, in its present real life manifestations, is distinctly highly unappealing. (Anybody keen on moving to a communist country?) But what do I know because neither is Nationalism appealing any in any of its current or historic manifestations, yet that apparently is in vogue with the masses. And with the powerful, too, as they disdain us pleebs all the way to the bank.
Until a better solution comes along, we are stuck with the way things work now: a slow and painful cultural evolution, making progress by millimeters.
I read the pdf copy here:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...
Read
March 10, 2024"Since this third class is defined by its difference from those of the first two classes, it is named queer. Queer people are all those who relate differently to the division of reproductive labor assigned to them by patriarchy. Because of the different relations, queer people are inherently subversive to the class system as a whole and constitute the revolutionary class under patriarchy."
This fuckin slaps, I'm using this as my definition of 'queer' all day everywhere. Good manifesto.
This fuckin slaps, I'm using this as my definition of 'queer' all day everywhere. Good manifesto.
March 8, 2022
LOVE. One of my first intros into leftist theory and it was great. It's a quick read but essential to rethinking how one sees gender.
May 20, 2023
pretty accessible read about gender abolition. highly reccomend it
May 25, 2025
Interesting
January 10, 2022
3.5/5
i <3 gender communism. this manifesto is short and digestible for those just dipping a toe into communist/queer theory. it fails to elaborate on some arguments but that is likely due to the length. overall, good to read for any burgeoning gender commie :)
i <3 gender communism. this manifesto is short and digestible for those just dipping a toe into communist/queer theory. it fails to elaborate on some arguments but that is likely due to the length. overall, good to read for any burgeoning gender commie :)
August 14, 2020
This was really interesting and eye opening. The two authors really focus on the idea that gender is a class structure that itself perpetuates societal issues. I had never heard gender being referred to as such but they make a really compelling argument for this classification.
I also really like the discussion of multigender societies that do not exsist within the western notion of
a binary gender system. I thought the discussion around considering multigender societies their own system instead of intrinsically comparing them to the binary system was super eye opening.
Overall a very interesting and radical read.
I also really like the discussion of multigender societies that do not exsist within the western notion of
a binary gender system. I thought the discussion around considering multigender societies their own system instead of intrinsically comparing them to the binary system was super eye opening.
Overall a very interesting and radical read.
September 23, 2024
this book is very intense and ultimately i cannot get behind this analysis entirely because while gender is rooted in a division of labor, that division is not a class division imo. this book is based on the premise that gender is class. i like the idea of just doing whatever tf we want with our genders :) as much as i believe in keeping our communities safe, the red guard stuff is sort of a lot. lol. two stars for a wacky, entertaining, eyebrow raising time.
October 17, 2024
Some interesting arguments, but with them major issues. The manifesto is so ideological that it at times loses touch with reality. The role of (non-queer) women is reduced to being subservient the gender system, with no vision for women's revolt against the patriarchy. Different systems of dominion are treated as analogous without analysis of real differences. The strategy is radical but seems to be derived from ideological conviction rather than an analysis of actual conditions.
November 1, 2024
به این سوال خیلی خوب ما که «آیا ترنسجندریسم جنسیت رو بازتولید میکنه؟» جواب میده نه، ترنسجندریسم اتفاقاً نه به سیستم طبقاتی جنسیتیه. و توضیح خوب و کاملی براش ارائه نمیده. این که جنسیت رو طبقه میدونه رو هم توضیح نمیده. یهویی میگه همه باید ترنس شن که جنسیت از بین بره و یهویی میگه باید نهادهای مسلح کوییر تشکیل بدیم. مطالعهی کوتاه خوبی بود و یه سری مسائل تو ذهنم رو صورتبندی کرد، ولی در کل غیرعلمی و ناکامل به نظرم رسید.
March 16, 2021
This manifesto is pretty basic, there's nothing here that's going to blow your mind if you already know the basics of gender abolition. But it's still a good and extremely accessible work. my main criticism is that it could have used some editing as it was wordy and had a few spelling and grammar mistakes that made it more difficult than it needed to be.
July 13, 2021
I think basically everything about gender in this book is very good but most other things are very flawed. The definition of communism they use is completely detached from what it actually means and the idea that the way to queer liberation is through queer militias fighting against rival facist militias and the government is pretty laughable.
February 3, 2021
Very interesting concept but needs citations and further development of ideas.
April 9, 2021
not sure when i read this so i picked a random day in february, i think that’s around when i read it anyway. thank u sunny for recommending ! <3
September 9, 2021
This book underlines gender as a violent institution born from the social reproduction of labor, something that ultimately eludes liberal feminists, and for obvious reasons. The relation of gender abolition to communism as the "movement which abolishes the present state of things" is of course inherent to gender abolition as the abolition of all work and labor as a necessity of life, which i wish the author would have gone more in depth with (the abolition of work as invariable to the abolition of the present state of things as it relates to the reproduction of class relations).
Where things sort of fall, and this is much more of a disagreement of a concept, is that of what communization really entails. This book seems to take inspiration, at least somewhat, from the Invisible Committee/Tiqqun, which all have rather questionable concepts of communization -- communization is already occurring, so they say. I think this quote from Dauve's Capitalism and Communism is much more telling: "Communism is not an ideal to be realized: it already exists, not as alternative lifestyles, autonomous zones or counter-communities that would grow within this society and ultimately change it into another one, but as an effort, a task to prepare for." The communist movement rises from the conditions of the present, but it is not necessarily communism when a person refuses work -- the communist movement exists, but starts to communize society when social relation start to to fundamentally shift; it is the process of becoming.
Aside from this obviously nit-picky criticism, the books call for the dictatorship of the queer was a nice inclusion and reinforcement of the class systems of gender.
Where things sort of fall, and this is much more of a disagreement of a concept, is that of what communization really entails. This book seems to take inspiration, at least somewhat, from the Invisible Committee/Tiqqun, which all have rather questionable concepts of communization -- communization is already occurring, so they say. I think this quote from Dauve's Capitalism and Communism is much more telling: "Communism is not an ideal to be realized: it already exists, not as alternative lifestyles, autonomous zones or counter-communities that would grow within this society and ultimately change it into another one, but as an effort, a task to prepare for." The communist movement rises from the conditions of the present, but it is not necessarily communism when a person refuses work -- the communist movement exists, but starts to communize society when social relation start to to fundamentally shift; it is the process of becoming.
Aside from this obviously nit-picky criticism, the books call for the dictatorship of the queer was a nice inclusion and reinforcement of the class systems of gender.
April 21, 2024
So...there were a few things about this I think the authors really glossed over.
1. I like the connection of capitalism to patriarchy through the infinite growth imperative. However, IDK if queerness as such is a revolutionary force that can independently reverse this. Rather, maybe modern queerness or gender liberation movements are historically specific allowances (immigration does a lot of work to "solve" the imperative to reproduce...but it won't work out forever and conservatives are freaking out over demographic transition and causing another reactionary wave of patriarchy). Glossing over the need to at least replace ourselves--if not to create infinitely more happy humans (laborers) a la Nick Bostrom--in the "No Future" section does this text a disservice.
2. Sure, reproductive labor is the material base of sex. But reproductive labor is not just a social role that can be changed easily. It's also a physical thing that takes 9 months (sure, 9 months out of 18+ years but still 9 months). Marx would even agree that emphasizing "labor" over "nature" as if labor is anything but nature is stupid and bourgeois (see Part I in the Critique of the Gotha Program).
3. The authors greatly underestimate the liberal/identitarian/assimilationist tendencies in modern queer movements. Even if "queer" is a historically specific class reacting to the modern colonial gender binary that has the potential to bring about the destruction of the entire modern gender system, I don't think that that is a given by any means. We've already seen queerness basically be successfully assimilated into the modern gender system IMO.
1. I like the connection of capitalism to patriarchy through the infinite growth imperative. However, IDK if queerness as such is a revolutionary force that can independently reverse this. Rather, maybe modern queerness or gender liberation movements are historically specific allowances (immigration does a lot of work to "solve" the imperative to reproduce...but it won't work out forever and conservatives are freaking out over demographic transition and causing another reactionary wave of patriarchy). Glossing over the need to at least replace ourselves--if not to create infinitely more happy humans (laborers) a la Nick Bostrom--in the "No Future" section does this text a disservice.
2. Sure, reproductive labor is the material base of sex. But reproductive labor is not just a social role that can be changed easily. It's also a physical thing that takes 9 months (sure, 9 months out of 18+ years but still 9 months). Marx would even agree that emphasizing "labor" over "nature" as if labor is anything but nature is stupid and bourgeois (see Part I in the Critique of the Gotha Program).
3. The authors greatly underestimate the liberal/identitarian/assimilationist tendencies in modern queer movements. Even if "queer" is a historically specific class reacting to the modern colonial gender binary that has the potential to bring about the destruction of the entire modern gender system, I don't think that that is a given by any means. We've already seen queerness basically be successfully assimilated into the modern gender system IMO.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews