The comments in the badpost often followed a similar line, with users identifying as personality types that are technically not part of the system. And this is actually valid, since in mbti you are actually the type that you say you are. What these comments show is resistance to a form of categorizing people, but it is even more than resistance, they are not even taking it seriously. The comments are metaphorically sending a giant PPB to the idea of separating people into new categories. And it's pretty obvious how this relates to gender, since both are attempts at limiting us within a binary system. Especially the thinking or feeling part, unfortunately, is connected with people's expectations of gender roles. But just as the badposters are the resistance to this typology, we are the resistance to the idea of gender under the constraints of capitalism. I think that the gender accelerationist manifesto articulates well what I've been thinking of better than I can, even though I didn't read it until today (If you haven't read it yet, perhaps you should...) Some of it talks about how the modern gender binary is a result of colonialism; that sort of relates to this week's megathread topic about gender in different cultures.

So I know that this personality stuff isn't widely used as a class to oppress people, although that is sort of what it is used for when it is used. But the way it creates boxes, it is easy to dismiss. But the typology being wrong doesn't mean that people don't have personalities. It just means that there are more than 16 expressions of personalities, since last I checked, I think that there's at least 16 people alive right now. The more "scientific" way to measure personality is through measuring traits on a multidimensional continuum. There is no need for labels to express your personality. The same goes for gender, the only difference being that gender is oppressive when used as a class. Maybe gender is also something that is multidimensional, and while some people can easily be labeled as a man or woman in the same way that others can be labeled as an extravert or introvert, there is much more variation in reality.

You know how AI language models store words as vectors? In this fashion, an analogy is represented: king is to queen as man is to woman. Here my observation is that there is some way to mathematically represent the idea of royalty, as well as some idea of gender, although most likely in this situation a reactionary version of gender is represented. But here gender is probably stored across multiple dimensions, and the gender binary could be a projection of some underlying phenomenon.

I would like to end this comment discussing the part of the manifesto about gender identity under communism.

Many people fear that, through the abolition of gender, our own gender identities will be taken from us. That, in abolishing gender, we will force you to stop identifying with your gender, however much you might enjoy that identity.

That was me, before yesterday. Now I am fully in support of gender abolitionism.

The end of gender as a system of power is our goal, and the end to gender identities is an eventual result, if it will happen at all, not something of importance or which we should strive toward.

The only way I can describe gender now is like brainwashing. We do what we are told, and we must comply. And almost everyone complies because they're all cis. If institutions didn't enforce this rigid interpretation of gender, life would be so much better for all of us here.

Sorry if this makes no sense or if some of what I am posting is obvious. Feel free to correct anything I said if it is brainwormed.

I love my trans comrades