Sexual or gender equality? If homonism is taken seriously, meaning that the individual comes before and above any collective, then any group discrimination should be impossible in principle.

How does this rule concern sex and gender questions?

Collective and individual

Let us consider genders first. Each of us identifies with one gender or another. Such identification is like any other identification to a nation, region, sports club, or company. That means anyone should be free to identify with any collective, as long as that collective does not interfere with individuals’ freedoms within any other collective. As long as they are transparent, they are free to use their internal identifications.

If a certain individual wishes to identify himself at a gender level, he is free to use any identification, as it is his internal freedom to use whatever he wants. But he has no right to force other identities to identify with a collective he belongs to. As much as Slovenians, for instance, have no right to force Italians to use the Slovenian language, one gender has no right to force anyone into it. I, as a Slovenian, am not offended if an Italian uses his mother language. I have no problem with as many nations and languages as there are on earth, as long as none of them forces me to use a language I personally do not identify with. I do not want to enter into the question of how language is connected to nationality; I used language as a nationality trait.

Even more: as much as Italians are not obliged to understand Slovenian, a representative of one gender is not obliged to understand another. I have no problem with any possible gender-identification-based identity, as long as I am not forced to understand it. There are zillions of companies around me, but I decide which I want to connect with and which are of no interest; they physically exist, but do not exist for me. That they do not exist for me does not mean that they are unequal or discredited. I cannot discredit them in principle, for I don’t care for collectives that are not important to me. In the same manner, I cannot discredit any gender; I cannot discredit a person who identifies with a gender I do not care about. I might care about his other identities, and I might accept or reject him regardless of his gender identity.

When a collective fails…

Being gay identifies you on the same level as being a fan of the Atletico Madrid football club or being a Christian.

But why, then, do Atletico Madrid fans hate Barcelona fans? Why do certain collectives hate another collective, for that matter?

Because they take their identification with their collective as primary and identification with themselves (individuation) as secondary, as dependent on the collective, they take the collective as the agent and their individuality as reduced, as derived from the chosen collective.

Subjectivity means being a subject to oneself only. As we can see, there is a paradox written in the term subjectivity. By this, I mean we also use the term when we want to say that someone is subordinated to something outside himself. So, we can say that someone is subject to a collective, such as ‘Barcelona fans’, but then he is no longer a subject in himself; he has lost the opportunity to be individuated.

We all identify with different collectives, but individuation, which creates individuality, does not beg for isolation. It is a subtle but important distinction that makes a difference; the difference of where one places the agency. If a subject is an agent that actively seeks identifications, they have to put a lot of energy into engaging in a relationship as an agent. And, as we know, energy is costly, so it is much easier to subject oneself to the collective agency; it is often easier to trade individuality for communality. It is much easier to be a humanist than a homonist.

Collective pressure

Since subjectivity exists on a memetic level only, and since a human as an individual is the sole agent of such subjectivity, no additional identifications make any difference. (And here I use the term ‘subjectivity’ as a description of a human process that is sharply separated from objectivity.) That is why it is important to counteract Western societies’ political correctness of the last few decades to demand and enact collective pressure on gender identification. That is why I strictly use the masculine gender in speech and writing solely. Since the only subjectivity that homonism takes as real is a human, using a masculine denotation is purely symbolic. It is as symbolic as using the word ‘table’ as a meme that symbolizes certain properties of a particular objective reality.

Sumbolization versus biology

For a homonist, all forms of language are equally symbolic. Language gender is symbolic and should not be subjected to any collectivist act of political correctness.

And what about gender identification and sex equality?

What a stupid question! Sex is genetically predefined. It is biologically objective. It is only affected by biological laws, by gene expression and sexual reproduction. From another angle, gender is a memetic entity subject to memetic laws. Sex as a property of biology is just there. No symbolism. No memetic questions, just biological reproductive mechanisms. The evolution of sex belongs to biology, the evolution of genders to memetics.

The coevolution of genes and memes plays a crucial role in human evolution. But that does not imply the possibility of mistaking memetic rules for genetic ones. There are two sexes and several hybrid biological deviations that cannot reproduce. There is no option for an individual to choose regarding genes. He might use all sorts of masks to circumvent this rule, but he creates a mask, not a change to his genetic code.