>>32
It's the whole notion of gender, as a social construct. Now, before anyone objects on fuzzyness grounds, I welcome you to google how many combinations of chromosomes and expressions of their genes affect ``sex'' in the first place (hint: google AIS women).
No reason why everyone shouldn't be treated the same. Feminists didn't invent the notion that everyone should be gender-blind on everything except for sexuality, it's actually just common sense. It's true, people's brain pattern matching will always trigger when they encounter someone who isn't in the usual {boy, girl} set, but they're quite free to ignore it. One's gender doesn't concern you at least until you get to the bedroom with them, so I doubt that should be an issue most of the time.
Egalitarianism I have never heard as a serious movement, but I find it quite a bit retarded that feminists seek to place women and men ``equally represented'' on all levels of hierarchy, disregarding the obvious root cause.
Socialism or egalitarianism both imply gender-blindness in everything (except sexuality). Last time I checked
my doubles, socialism didn't try to fight discrimination and inequality with
more discrimination and inequality; by definition I'm a socialist, but I'd never associate myself with a movement that doesn't shy away from immorality, discrimination and unfairness, all while pretending to fight all of those.