Jiao Sun

This article revisits the philosophical critique launched by Judith Butler in Gender Trouble (1990) against the molecular geneticist David Page’s 1987 study of the ZFY (Zinc Finger Y-chromosomal protein) gene. Butler argued that Page’s study was underpinned by an Aristotelian metaphysics of “active male” and “passive female.” By returning to the primary scientific text and the historical context of the ZFY controversy, this article demonstrates that Butler’s critique relied on a selective reading that ignored Page’s dosage model and other possible philosophical interpretations.

This article presents a critique of the concept "gender identity" based on a synthesis of evolutionary biology, neurology and philosophy of science, finally culminating in an argument for gender abolitionism. The narrative critically engages with mainstream gender theories, revealing logical fallacies within concepts such as the sex/gender distinction, "innate gender identity", "assigned sex at birth" (ASAB), and the cisgender/transgender binary. The author proposes a revolution in the form of gender abolitionism: a framework that strictly limits sex _sensu stricto_ to gametes, dismantles phenotypic sex into a spectrum of sexually dimorphic traits, and advocates for the complete removal of gender as a social, legal, cultural, and self-identity category. Even for readers who do not agree with this strategy, it also provides a physicalist framework to help specific transgender people and onlookers to understand themselves or others.

This autoethnography presents a comprehensive personal journey of a transgender evolutionary biologist examining the origins of their gender identity, finally culminating in an argument for gender abolitionism. The author’s “gender identity” is not to an innate, ontological essence, but to a complex synthesis of internalised social norms, childhood trauma, aesthetic preferences, and reactions to a “pervasively gendered” society that repeatedly assigned gendered meaning to neutral behaviours, objects, and personality traits. The narrative critically engages with mainstream gender theories, revealing logical inconsistencies, circular reasoning, and category errors within concepts such as the sex/gender distinction, “innate gender identity”, “assigned sex at birth” (ASAB), and the cisgender/transgender binary. The author proposes a revolution in the form of gender abolitionism: a framework that strictly limits sex sensu stricto to gametes, dismantles phenotypic “sex” into a spectrum of sexual dimorphic traits, and advocates for the complete removal of gender as a social, legal, cultural, and self-identity category. Furthermore, the article extends its critique to post-structuralist and queer theories, arguing that while their deconstructive intentions are noted, their real-world effect paradoxically reinforces gender-centrism and destructed an intersubjective world, ultimately failing to provide a path to liberation. Ultimately, the work is a defence of universalism and scientific realism as essential tools for dismantling all forms of oppression, arguing that a consistent application of reason offers the most profound and inclusive path toward human freedom, transcending the contemporary identity politics.

Recent frontier research in biology has demonstrated that the concept of “sex,” which we commonly refer to in our daily lives, comprises a collection of traits that are either developmentally or evolutionarily unrelated or only weakly related. There is no fixed standard for determining whether a trait qualifies as “sex” or whether it falls under the category of “gender.” Therefore, the concepts of sex/gender, as well as the binary division between biological and social concepts, are not scientific facts but rather models constructed by humans. This reasoning similarly applies to concepts such as sexual orientation, gender identity, and transgenders, as their definitions rely on the distinctions between sex and gender. This insight prompts us to consider the feasibility and necessity of further deconstructing the sex-gender continuum. Additionally, we further analysed the inherent tensions within the current mainstream frameworks surrounding gender and sex, highlighting significant issues regarding their lack of inclusivity. This analysis reveals that the existing framework often fails to account for the diverse and multifaceted experiences of individuals, thereby marginalising many identities and expressions. Instead, we propose replacing these constructs with a more inclusive framework that acknowledges and embraces the complexities of human identity.