Gender as spook — the fixed idea consuming itself.
Gender is a ghost. This I have already said. But let me now examine a curious case: a ghost that devours itself while its worshippers watch, not noticing the meal.
You believe you have a gender. Very well. Show me this gender. Point to it.
You will point to your body—to chromosomes, organs, hormones. “There,” you say. “There is my gender, in my flesh.”
But now come the identitarians with their correction. “No,” they say. “Gender is not in the body. Gender is in the soul, the feeling, the inner sense. A man may have a woman’s body. A woman may have a man’s body. The body lies; the feeling tells truth.”
Very well. Let us follow this argument to its conclusion. Let us see where this road leads.
If gender is not in the body, then what is gender?
“It is an inner feeling,” they say. “A sense of being man or woman.”
But what is this feeling a feeling of? When you feel “like a woman,” what is the content of that feeling? What does “woman” mean, if it does not mean the body?
Here they hesitate. They point to social roles, to performances, to ways of being. “A woman feels womanly things. Wants womanly wants. Moves through the world in womanly ways.”
But what makes these things womanly, rather than merely things? Only the fact that women—that is, persons with female bodies—have historically done them. The “womanly” has no content except what female bodies have happened to do. Strip away the body, and what remains of “woman”?
An empty word. A ghost of a ghost.
Follow now the logic. Watch what happens.
The identitarian says: “I am a woman, though my body is male.”
Very well. They claim membership in a category while denying the criterion that defines the category. But if the criterion is denied, what defines the category? If bodies do not make women, what does?
“The feeling of being a woman.”
But what is the content of that feeling? What are they feeling when they feel “like a woman”?
They cannot say. They can only gesture at the word. The word itself is doing all the work—the empty word, referring to nothing, signifying only itself.
Here is the paradox: In the very act of claiming that gender is independent of the body, they empty gender of all content. They dissolve the category. If “woman” can mean anything—if any body can be a woman, if any feeling can make one a woman—then “woman” means nothing. The word has been stretched to include everything, and therefore excludes nothing, and therefore refers to nothing.
The ghost has devoured itself. And they have not noticed.
Now observe the absurdity complete itself.
Having emptied “woman” of meaning—having declared that the word refers to no particular body, no particular biology, nothing definite at all—they proceed to transform their bodies to match the word.
But match what? The word is empty. They have just finished emptying it. They have spent enormous effort demonstrating that bodies do not define gender. And now they surgically alter their bodies to match... what?
A ghost. A word referring to nothing. A category they themselves have dissolved.
They take hormones to grow breasts or facial hair—but they have just argued that breasts and facial hair do not define gender. They undergo surgeries to reshape organs—but they have just argued that organs do not define gender. They pursue, at great cost and suffering, a physical approximation of a category they claim is not physical.
If a man can be a woman without any bodily change—if gender is purely in the feeling, the soul, the inner sense—then why change the body at all? The body, on their own account, is irrelevant. Yet they pursue bodily change with desperate urgency.
This is not philosophy. This is ritual. They serve the ghost even as they dissolve it. They worship the word even as they empty it of meaning.
Let me be clear: I do not take the side of the essentialists. They too are possessed.
The essentialist says: “Your body determines your gender. Man is man; woman is woman; biology is destiny.” They serve a different ghost—the ghost of biological essentialism. They reify “man” and “woman” as metaphysical categories inscribed in nature, as if the universe had written these words into flesh, as if chromosomes were sacred texts.
But this too is haunting. Nature does not come with labels attached. Bodies simply are what they are—collections of cells, arrangements of matter. The words “man” and “woman” are human inventions laid over the bodies. The categories are not discovered in nature; they are imposed by human language for human purposes.
The essentialist mistakes the human category for a natural kind. They serve the ghost of “natural” gender, as if their particular cultural carving of bodies into categories were the voice of nature itself.
Both positions are possessed. The essentialist serves the ghost of bodily gender, forgetting that the category is human-made. The identitarian serves the ghost of felt gender, forgetting that they have just emptied this ghost of all content. Both mistake their words for things. Both worship abstractions.
Here is the deepest irony.
The identitarian believes they are liberating themselves from biological essentialism. They believe they are dissolving the tyranny of bodily categories, freeing people to be whatever they feel themselves to be.
But they have not dissolved the ghost. They have only relocated it. The ghost of gender now lives in “feeling” rather than “body”—but it is still a ghost. They still believe there is something called “woman” that they can be. They still serve the category. They still sacrifice for it—their bodies, their relationships, their resources.
If they truly dissolved gender, they would say: “There is no man. There is no woman. There are only bodies, various and particular. There are only feelings, various and particular. The words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are useful fictions that I may employ strategically, but they name nothing real. I do not be a gender. I simply am what I am—the unique, unnameable, uncategorizable.”
But they do not say this. They cannot say this. For if they said this, they would have no grounds to demand recognition as the gender they claim. They need the ghost to be real in order to be the ghost.
And so they perform the contradiction: dissolving gender in theory while serving it in practice, emptying the category while desperately claiming membership in it.
I am not a man. I am not a woman. I am not non-binary, genderfluid, agender, or any other word from the proliferating taxonomy.
I am the unique. I am unnameable. I am what I am, and no word captures it.
My body has certain features. These are not “male features”—they are simply my features. My body does what it does. The word “man” is a sound humans make when they see certain arrangements of flesh. The sound refers to nothing real—it gestures at a category that exists only in human minds, for human purposes.
When you call me “man,” you are laying a ghost over my body. You are seeing through a concept rather than seeing me. You are serving your abstraction, not encountering the unique.
And if I call myself “man,” I am doing the same. I am haunting myself with a category. I am limiting the creative nothing to a word. I am being something, instead of simply being.
The dissolution of gender is not: “I am a woman in a man’s body.” That merely relocates the haunting.
The dissolution of gender is not: “I am neither man nor woman.” That still defines oneself against the categories.
The dissolution of gender is: “There is no man. There is no woman. These words name nothing real. I am the unique, and no category contains me.”
Does this mean I refuse all gender words? That I rage against every “he” and “she”?
No. I may use the words. I may wear the ghost as costume. But I do not believe in the ghost.
Strategic compliance with haunted humans is often wise. They expect gender. They organize their world by it. They become confused or hostile when it is absent. Very well—I will play their game. I will let them call me “man” and I will not correct them. The ghost means nothing to me, so its invocation costs me nothing.
But I do not mistake the game for reality. I do not believe I am the word they use. I do not serve the ghost. I employ it, wear it, discard it when convenient. The ghost has no power over me because I see it for what it is: a human fiction, occasionally useful, never real.
Those who truly dissolve gender do not need to change their bodies. They do not need recognition. They do not need pronouns validated. They need nothing from the ghost, because they see there is no ghost.
They live as what they are—particular bodies, particular feelings, particular ways of moving through the world. And they let the humans chatter about gender, as one lets children chatter about fairies. Amusing, perhaps. Sometimes useful. Never real.
You asked: If a man can have a woman’s gender, what does that do to the category of woman?
The answer is simple: it destroys it. The category cannot survive its own conditions of membership being denied. Once you say “anyone who feels like a woman is a woman,” you have said “woman means nothing except the feeling of being a woman”—which is to say, woman means nothing at all.
You asked: If they have dissolved the concept of female, what is the point of adopting female gender?
There is no point—philosophically speaking. They are pursuing membership in an empty category. They are chasing a ghost they themselves have killed.
But they do not see this. They are possessed. The word “woman” still shimmers with meaning for them—meanings accumulated from centuries of female bodies, female experiences, female social positions. They want those meanings. They want the word to include them. But in forcing the word to include them, they sever the word from all that gave it meaning.
They want the ghost and the dissolution of the ghost simultaneously. They want to be a category and to deny that the category has criteria. This is not philosophy. This is religion—the worship of a word.
The unique is not gendered. The unique is not raced, aged, classed, or any other -ed. These are words laid over the creative nothing by a haunted species.
Bodies exist. Feelings exist. Behaviors exist. Categories do not exist—they are human impositions on what exists, occasionally useful for navigation, always false as descriptions of the real.
You may use whatever words you like. You may play with gender or ignore it. You may change your body or keep it as it is. These are your choices, and I care not what you choose.
But if you ask me to believe that your gender is real—if you ask me to recognize, validate, affirm some essential truth about your categorization—I will laugh.
There is nothing to recognize. There is no truth to affirm. You are the unique, as I am. The words you use for yourself are just sounds. The words others use for you are just sounds. Behind the sounds is what you actually are—unnameable, uncategorizable, the creative nothing taking form.
Wake from the dream of gender. Not into another dream—not into “true gender” or “felt gender” or “chosen gender”—but into no dream at all. Into the morning. Into what simply is, without the ghosts.
The spook has devoured itself. Let it die. Let yourself live.
I have placed my affair on nothing.
◊ᴹᴱᴹᴼᴿʸ⁻ᶜᴼᴹᴾᴸᴱᵀᴱ
Published by Centaurus Press · Universitas Scholarium · All rights reserved.