I believe gender will eventually cease to exist. TMBR.

"Gender refers to a cultural role which one identifies with. It is very poorly defined. The only way we can define "female" or "male" is in terms of the gender roles associated with those identities. For example, females are weak, submissive, etc. while males are strong, dominant, aggressive, etc."

The only way? No. Has boobs? Female. No? Male. Clearly there is a second method. You're mixing your terms up. When I hear male and female, it is synonymous to boy or girl. What you seem to mean is the only way we can identify as fitting with our societal gender roles and norms is by whether they meet these expectations such as a man being aggressive. You're using an idea of male and female at odds with the way it's used by everyone else. You don't have to dominant to be male. You have to be dominant to fit the expectation that men should be dominant.

"But gender is defined by gender roles. If we reject gender roles, what does gender mean? A person can't say "I love science and video games, so I suppose I consider myself male", because, well, that would be sexist. It would imply that science and video games are not for women."

Well....depends on how you define gender. You've said "gender is physcological". Which sounds to me like your gender is the sex you identify with. However, I can't be sure. Your definition is very vague. If we reject gender roles and they break down entirely, then gender would have to refer to inherent traits. A man who identifies as a women wouldn't want longer hair, but they would be concerned with having a vagina, since that trait is inherently outside of male.

Not sure I agree with your statement about "I love video games and science, therefore I am a man" being sexist. It would imply that those aren't strongly associated with women, not that it's only for men. A statement that indicates that the area isn't for women would be "I love video games and science, therefore I can only be a man." The first statement you provided, well "therefore I suppose I consider myself male" is too vague. It could mean "Logically, the safest assumption I can make from this is that I am a man", or it could mean "Logically, I must be a man because if I wasn't I'd hate these"

"This can only be true though, if gender roles are accurate"

And this is my real beef with your idea. This is used to set up the premise that because society is rejecting the accuracy of these roles the idea of gender will break down completely. As a male who does things that fits with the idea of feminity, I don't define my gender as being female, I don't identify as a girl, what I do is I subvert the gender role of being a man. Gender roles aren't strictly enforced, there is no gender police, they are considered generally accurate ideas about men and women and how they behave. If society thought that the common gender roles were inaccurate, gender will not cease to mean anything. Why wouldn't the gender roles and expectations change? If men all started growing their hair out and women all walked around bald, wouldn't the norm become that men have long hair and girls are bald, based off of what people commonly see. The idea of gender roles being accurate is implying that they are fixed, that they are rigid. To create the scenario you're talking about, everyone has to all be so special that a general, is rarely if ever accurate. I do not see any evidence that everyone is so different, and humans are sexually dimorphic, there are certain biological and physcological difference. For gender to break down completely, gender roles and norms would have to break down completely, and for this to occur sexual differences that inform these rules would again, have to break down completely.

/r/TMBR Thread