“The violence of language consists in its effort to capture the ineffable and, hence, to destroy it, to seize hold of that which must remain elusive for language to operate as a living thing.” ― Judith Butler
“There are not two sexes, there are n sexes; there are as many sexes as there are assemblages. And since each of us enters into several assemblages, each of us has n sexes. When children discover that they are reduced to one sex, male or female, they discover their powerlessness … They have been damaged; their countless sexes have been stolen!” — Gilles Deleuze
There’s a spectre haunting gender discourse. The spectre of nihilism.
When Gender Nihilism: An Anti-Manifesto was released, it made larger waves than any other modern work on feminist theory or gender discourse. There was something unique about it that scratched our collective radical itch. Politics around acceptance, validity, and gender essentialism had failed to really provide any meaningful liberation of gender from its socially imposed normality; meanwhile trans men and women are still under constant threats of violence, non-binary genders are still colonially dismissed by many leftists, the “two gender” memes are everywhere, and diversity efforts have been swallowed up by pinkwashing. We’re either appropriated, we’re disrespected, we’re the blunt of a joke, we fear violence, or we become another statistic that gets buried within algorithms of social media.
Trans people of all types still find themselves in a never-ending battle between their authenticity and the weapons of ideology. One example trans anarchists might relate to is the dreaded “left unity”, in which the abstract of “the left” is regarded as more sacred and real than the unique individuals the left aims to benefit. The dominative hierarchies, which we assume give rise to transphobia, still exist in these small anarchist niches when individuals are replaced by abstracts – ironically, always for the “ultimate well being” of those whose narratives they dismiss. It seems clear to me that should capitalism and civilization fall, transphobia would still continue, or perhaps worsen. It’s not just consumer culture killing trans people: it’s the complexities of personal, internalized, and systemic ideologies that perpetuate transphobia, which we engage with more often than we may realize.
Then there’s those who moan about “identity politics” in leftist, post-left, and right-wing circles alike. This always means different things depending on who you ask, but the gist is essentially if you believe in “trans liberation” then you believe in identity politics because you aren’t woke enough to see transness as a social construct, or something. The anti-idpol type will say we need to prioritize economic or state oppression, because this has more of a “material reality” than trans issues (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean). There are some decent criticisms of toxic leftism that come out of identity politics discourse, such as identitarian deference in which we have to prove our expertise to expound upon our own narratives. Ultimately, though, my stance is “identity politics” is too broad in what it aims to articulate, and far too arbitrary. I just don’t have much faith that left unity or a rejection of idpol are going to bring us what we really crave.
What we crave and demand is an ability to express ourselves freely and authentically as unique individuals. I myself continue to live my dual role – authentically agender or neutrois in all of my private moments without the lenses of masculinity or femininity which I find no meaning in – as well as the role of the male that is imposed on me when I enter the workspace or by those activists who would dismiss me as a “gay man” and ignore my own narratives completely, and therefore, my gender itself. We saw something similar when Deep Green Resistance told trans women they were not allowed at an event for Marxist women.
Even feminist theory, a vast school of thought that includes nihilists and anti-humanists, has been stigmatized as something to dismiss entirely lest the explorer be associated with irrational activists, TERFy Marxists, and (gasp) a tendency towards free expression (i.e., the infamous rainbow hair dye). Many will unfortunately miss out on the similarities between Simone de Beauvoir and Max Stirner, and you’d be hard-pressed to find many familiar with Dora Marsden, despite being perhaps the most prominent egoist feminist before the days of gender nihilism. Here is where gender nihilism was able to make its debut: by repackaging much of feminist theory without the feminist label, written through a perspective of anti-humanism and annihilation.
Entering the Gender Void
Antihumanism is a cornerstone which holds gender nihilist analysis together. It is the point from which we begin to understand our present situation; it is crucial. By antihumanism, we mean a rejection of essentialism. There is no essential human. There is no human nature. There is no transcendent self. To be a subject is not to share in common a metaphysical state of being (ontology) with other subjects.
The self, the subject is a product of power. The “I” in “I am a man” or “I am a woman” is not an “I” which transcends those statements. Those statements do not reveal a truth about the “I,” rather they constitute the “I.” Man and Woman do not exist as labels for certain metaphysical or essential categories of being, they are rather discursive, social, and linguistic symbols which are historically contingent. They evolve and change over time; their implications have always been determined by power.
– Alyson Escalante, Gender Nihilism: An Anti-Manifesto
The most intriguing part of gender nihilism is its core in antihumanism. Any fan of Max Stirner might find it extremely meaningful by bringing the concepts of “spooks” into the gender world. Gender becomes a phantasm, because when you get to the core of it, there’s so many ways that our hormones, identity, DNA, genitals, social performance, and expression can be put together that just having two genders is absurd. Take one little pill and even our hormonal makeup can be made to be how we see fit (gender alchemy!). There are as many genders as there are unique individuals, and for good reason, However, if we see gender as a phantasm, according to the egoist discourse at the time, to be the “most egoist” we must reject it as a phantasm. And so the egoist says they’re a gender nihilist, and that trans and NB people need to “be realistic” and fully desconstruct gender entirely, or else you’re propping up a system of violence as depicted by the anti-manifesto, and denying everyone else’s egoism. A lot of objective ethics for those that are so-called nihilists.
However, Alyson is not to blame for the misinterpretations of egoists and post-leftists and nihilists of her work. She put in as much effort as she could have both within the work and when discussing it to make it clear that she still respects the reality of gender issues, and that she identifies as a trans woman. In fact, in her own response to it, she seems to have moved from antihumanism to an even further materialist analysis, leaving much to be desired over your standard Marxist feminist theory. Not quite the direction I’d take, but maybe this piece will help shake that up.
Gender nihilism can be seen as our drive towards the Creative Nothing. Our demand to remove these boxes which limit us. But it also understands that simply saying you don’t believe in gender is hardly any better than the “colorblind” liberals who think they “can’t see race” while, of course, supporting various aspects of white supremacy. In gender blindness, we fail to see the trans women experiencing gender euphoria when she gets her first prescription for hormones. A “gender nihilist” might say that trans woman is perpetuating violence by upholding gender instead of deconstructing it, but the reality is those pills are her freedom from the socially-imposed mental violence of dysphoria. We also fail to see the debilitating dysphoria experienced by the 15 year old non-binary kid who doesn’t fit either binary gender role, and we fail to see that gender still goes right on existing in the minds of everyone else, so the trans person fearing violence walking down the sidewalk does not have their burden eased by someone on the internet deciding that gender is a social construct. Not to mention we may fail to see the ways that we contribute to gendered violence even as a gender nihilist, which sadly happens more often than not.
A total eradication of gender in a classless, communist, nihilist anti-society may sound alluring, but as Alyson points out in her materialist response, gender has a reality that isn’t going away anytime soon, and we can’t ignore its affects on people in the real world. Gender is a big complex tangled web of ideologies and violence and conceptualizations, and, like the spectacle, it’s still there if we ignore it.
“Even maya, as illusion, has a reality as an illusion” – Parahmansa Yogananda
So what do we do with that information? Alyson says herself, “We are not looking to create a better system, for we are not interested in positive politics at all. All we demand in the present is a relentless attack on gender and the modes of social meaning and intelligibility it creates.” Alyson later retracts that in her response, with a totally opposite demand that we “Abandon nihilism, abandon hopelessness, demand and build a better world.”
Yet, isn’t gender nihilism now just a new social model, a new better system, towards a better world? Isn’t the relentless attack on gender from an optimistic standpoint that gender can be deconstructed in a vacuum, as if it weren’t tangled up in the ideologies of the spectacle? We want a relentless assault on all forms of class, and we want to include gender with that whether it’s in gender nihilism or gender abolition, but if we are to embrace any sort of cosmic pessimism in that nihilism, it should be one that disenchants our demand for others to adhere to gender nihilism. Let our critiques be immanent and our insurrections internal, because no matter how much we point out that gender is a social construct, it’s still there. We don’t need to be lashing out at each other for not being “gender nihilist enough” because like it or not, we currently live in a gendered world, even if that gender is just a weed grown out from the void.
I don’t want social models and utopias, as fun as they may be to think about. I don’t want a strictly historical analysis, either. Alyson seems like she would improve with a dialectical approach between the extreme of her anti-humanism, and the extreme of her optimistic communism. I want to stay within nihilism, not go “past it.” I want to go beneath nihilism to the hidden coral reef of nothingness which Timothy Morton describes in Realist Magic. I want to throw gender into the fires of that nothingness, and I certainly don’t want to stop at “materialism” as if there’s some bottom object or monad we can call “the material.”
As Stirner would add in Art and Religion, I may as well also throw my ego into that fire, my personality, my humanity, my individuality, my duality. Once I’ve thrown everything into the Other, including myself as the subject, then the Other collapses and I relate everything to myself, and it becomes the “same nothing from which I as Creator create everything” (The Unique and Its Property). “Here lie all the sufferings and struggles of the centuries, for it is fearful to be outside of oneself, having yourself as an Object, without being able to unite with it, and as an Object set over and against oneself able to annihilate itself and so oneself” (Art and Religion). Only once I’ve torn myself down to the Creative Nothing can I truly have the self-awareness to remake myself as I see fit, because try as I may to eliminate the phantasms, we’re always seeing spirits.
Gender Egoism: Having Your Gender and Eating It, Too
“As you are each instant, you are your own creature in this very ‘creature’ you do not wish to lose yourself, the creator. You are yourself a higher being than you are, and surpass yourself … just this, as an involuntary egoist, you fail to recognize; and therefore the ‘higher essence’ is to you — an alien essence. … Alienness is a criterion of the ‘sacred.'” – Max Stirner
For Stirner, when the subject-object dichotomy collapses, leaving only the ineffable Unique and its seemingly-infinite Property (or “Eigentum,” that which belongs to the self), this is where we realize our own property. If we relate everything to ourselves, if we follow through on Fichte’s insights that nothing we perceive exists outside of our own perception as a reflection of our condition, and that all we can be certain of is that “I Am” even as an ineffable nothingness, then we can embrace the absurdity of our identities built upon their own deconstruction. This is our ownness, our power, our property, and because we’re egoistically selfish, it is everything. The smug critic of the egoist that scoffs to let the egoist know that the “ego is a spook”, then, misses that the egoist and the Unique are not the same thing, as the ego and the human are merely their property (we threw them into the Void, remember?). Our OWN identity that we create from the Creative Nothing is suddenly given a lot more weight than the opinions and egos of those who are not rooted in self-awareness, but rather, phantasms.
“Away then with those pretended influences and operations of outward things upon me, by means of which they are supposed to pour in upon me a knowledge which is not in themselves and cannot flow forth from them. The ground upon which I assume the existence of something beyond myself does not lie out of myself, but within me in the limitation of my own personality. By means of this limitation the thinking principle of Nature within me proceeds out of itself and is able to survey itself as a whole although in each individual from a different point of view.”
– J.G. Fichte, The Vocation of Man
What does this mean for the gender egoist?
It means we can immanently deconstruct gender, and we can create our identity with a gender without contradicting our self-interest. We can take up gender as our property, rather than hold the very concept of gender as something sacred. We can make the case for anti-humanism, and we can go beyond it to “the furthest shore.” Or we can reject it, for the purpose of creating conversations around gender nihilism. Or we can find meaning and validation in non-binary identities. There’s infinite genders to explore because there’s infinite ways that our identities can be composed, so to limit ourselves to strictly two or none is just no fun at all, but ultimately that’s for each unique egoist to decide on their own.
Some might find this answer unsatisfactory, because we’re used to choosing various ideologies and social models and not as used to creating our own egoism and identity. Instead, here, I leave the decision of gender up the reader. Do you want to keep gender, reject it, enjoy it? If we’re really moving past ethics through nihilism, then shouldn’t all be permissible? If you are in your true self-awareness through a deconstructed subject-object dichotomy, that is, in your ownness, and having taken the property of your perception for yourself, then it is only you that has the authority here to answer these questions related to your own uniqueness.
Final Thoughts: Wild Gender
Lastly, I find the concept of wildness relevant here, because wildness opens up the question of “what to do about gender” by leaving the answers up to the individual’s unique choices and beliefs. Although wildness is discussed in relation to anti-civilization thought, the similarities to egoism are undeniable:
Wildness is not an answer, not an ultimate solution that we will one day come upon, but rather a question, a problem to be wrestled with everyday. Thus, the practise of wildness must be for us a perpetual experimentation, which incorporates the willful creation of each moment of one’s life for oneself and the willful rejection, through destructive action, of authority in all it’s forms — and, thus, of domestication and civilization as we know it. Such experimentation will transform us and our ways of interacting with the world around us. Within the context of civilization , this may be the best practical understanding of what wildness can mean for us.
There are no answers here — only questions. But it is by the imposition of answers that we were domesticated and by the most cruel and intense of questioning that we may overcome this and become our unique selves.
– Wolfi Landstreicher, How Then Do We Go Feral
Our limited idea of how gender is “supposed to work”, our insistence on concrete definitions of gender identities, these are products of domestication in the hyper-humanistic subscended object we call “civilization.”
In our egoism, in our wildness, in our nihilism, be relentlessly authentic. Be wholly you. Express yourself as you see fit. Identify with whatever gender you enjoy. Reject gender as a whole. Keep in mind with both that gender is still a social construct and that you are so much more than the human being gendered. If anyone tells you you’re wrong, it’s because they believe in you as the human, not the Unique. They don’t know your full extent, nor theirs. They don’t know the super-sensual nothingness into which all of gender and identity and humanism can be destroyed.
Identity can be a beautiful thing. It lets me relate to you. My identity is pushing me to write these words to you now so that maybe someone will find meaning. It can also be tricky when that identity is based on something outside of myself.
But ultimately, I am a pessimistic nihilistic wild gender egoist.
I am agender, because I still live within a gendered world and this is how I’d describe my experience navigating that world.
I am a gender nihilist because I know that gender can be deconstructed to its empty core.
I am an egoist because I love myself so selfishly and care so much about my own cause that I can selfishly listen to the narratives of others and enjoy their unique company and insights and identities as my property to be consumed, and then enjoy their love as my own for good measure.
I am feral because my wildness has its own cause and it is forever free from external domestication now that I’ve found and recognize it as such.
I am a pessimist because there is a limit to which these words can articulate my meaning, and there’s a limit to which I can deconstruct gender to build the world I want to live in.
I’ll still build that world, and I’ll still destroy this one, because I already do in every moment, and in every moment do I perceive and destroy and recreate myself like Shiva’s cosmic dance. I cannot force anyone else to let go of gender anymore than I can humanism or civilization, but I can have fun with it and I can enjoy Wild Nature and its infinite identities and ways to relate to others.
Gender is validating to some, and problematic to others. It can be both the source of gendered violence and the means to survive gendered violence. Gender does not need to be a “fixed identity” — we can use it as a playful mask in a reality of aesthetic ontological masks, and kill it simultaneously. Or we can deconstruct it if we so choose in a rejection of all identity, but in doing so, gender is only deconstructed *for us*, we cannot force that deconstruction on others, only articulate and explain our meaning. Nor can we force any other perspective. We’re all egoists because we’re all Unique, and, as such, we all live our own cause. I’m a believer in chasing meaning and loving my fellow egoists and taking up collective causes as my own because the well-being of my friends is important to my selfishness, and for that I write this piece in hopes that someone read it and have it set them on a path towards their own gender validation or destruction.
Whatever you do: Do it beautifully, do it authentically, and fucking enjoy it. You’re unique and valid either way.
Just kidding. You’re Nothing to me.
“Each choose that method which expresses their selfhood best.
Condemn no other because they express their Self otherwise.”
Voltairine de Cleyre