Promoters of postgender politics think that bodies and personalities in a near future will no longer be constrained and circumscribed by gendered traits but enriched by liberty and self-expression.
Internet culture has been a great catalyst for the diffusion of alternative visions of gender and sexual identities. But while today we find ourselves in perpetual social conflict for the fight of feminist and gay rights, a new and radical point of view must reclaimed to finally end with the cultural dictatorship of 20th century post-structural feminist tribalism and contemporary gender politics. Therefore we must start to consider gender as an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species as a result of social and cultural evolution and through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies.
Biopolitics, as shown in this text, is emerging as an axis of modern politics alongside economic and cultural politics. The emergence of biotechnological controversies is giving rise to a new axis where Transhumanists are now the new progressive end of the new biopolitical continuum and BioLuddites (calling for bans on technologies that threaten the “natural”) are the conservatives (HUGHES, 2004). The progresive spectrum of this new politics welcome biotechnologies believing the benefits can outweigh the costs. In particular, they believe that human beings can and should take control of their own biological destiny, individually and collectively enhancing our abilities and expanding the diversity of intelligent life. While Transhumanists assert that all intelligent “persons” are deserving of rights, whether they are human or not, the biofundamentalists insist that only “humanness” (possession of human DNA and a beating heart for example) is a marker of citizenship and rights (HUGHES, 2004).
Morphological Freedom in the current biopolitical scene, a radical sense of “ontological liberty”, has served to make transhumanists natural allies of transgender activists. While populations are of course composed of individuals, these individuals are presumed to be governed by the properties that they share with others, which can be in turn correlated in various ways for policy purposes (FULLER, 2016). The few visions of future landscapes of identity and sexuality in Western contexts that dare to imagine a selfhood without sex/gender, or at least without sexual difference, appear to be limited to a strain of 1970s utopian feminist science fiction and more recently among the theory and prefigurative practices of contemporary anarchist-queer communities (NICHOLAS, 2009).
Anyhow, the right to freedom and life imply a right to one’s body. If we have a right to live and be free, but our bodies are not free, then the other rights become irrelevant. The right to freedom and the right to one’s own body follows that one has a right to modify one’s body. As a negative right, morphological freedom implies that nobody may force us to change in a way we do not desire or prevent our change. is maximizes personal autonomy (SANDBERG, 2001). Today we have the technological means to modify functions in addition to appearance, making morphological changes far more profound. Technology and morphological freedom go hand in hand. Technology enables new forms of self-expression, creating a demand for the freedom to exercise them, so this demand drives further technological exploration. It is not just a question of a technological imperative, but a very real striving of people towards self-actualisation (SANDBERG, 2001).
Assuming that gender identities are produced predominantly or exclusively by environmental conditions -including cultural conventions (FAUSTO-STERLING, 2017)- biological identity should not be a constrainment for a voluntary and directed evolution of homo sapiens. Transhumanism by challenging our conceptions in this regard -and expanding science to further explore the very definitions of “life”, “sentience”, “conscience”, and person- is the only way to give ourselves the means to pursue this quest (KREPELKA, 2014).
If we truly want to advance to a free and foward thinking society, contemporary slogan “the revolution will be feminist, or it will be nothing” should shortly be changed to “the revolution will be postgenderist and scientific”… Let’s work together toward this goal!
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2017) “Against Dichotomy”. Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture. Vol.1-No.1.
Fuller, S. (2016) “Morphological Freedom and the Question of Responsibility and Representation in Transhumanism”. Confero, Vol. 4 – no. 2 | pp. 33-45.
Hughes, J. (2004) “Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond To The Redesigned Human Of The Future”. Basic Books.
Krepelka, J. (2014) “Transhumanism: the next step of civilization”. Originally published on July 29th, 2014, on Laissez-faire.ch
Nicholas, L. (2009) “A Radical Queer Utopian Future: A Reciprocal Relation Beyond Sexual Difference”. Third Space: a journal feminist theory & culture, volume 8, issue 2: “The future landscape of sexualities”.
Sandberg (2001) “Morphological Freedom – Why We Not Just Want It, but Need It”. In: More, M. & Vita-More, N. (eds) The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future. John Wiley & Sons.
*(Pictures: mogai pride flags & member of a Mursi-tribe).