I have always been an active dreamer and more than capable of recalling bits and pieces of dreams, following a good sleep. Nonetheless, nowadays I never remember my dreams; at least not the kind of dreams you have while asleep. The majority of my days hold at least ten minutes of daydreaming. I am not merely referring to the inevitable thoughts we have when we are not speaking. I am referring to in depth, lasting scenarios imagined during long walks, driving long periods of time or just moments of stillness throughout my day. Sometimes I will acknowledge occasions when I have had such penetrating daydreams and sometimes I will not. I elaborate on the essence of my daydreaming only to mention one in particular that I have on a reoccurring basis. These dreams are not specific scenarios in which the same things take place, but a positive change of societal norms that my mind finds blissful and interesting enough to venture off into the possibilities of on a regular basis. Usually this type of dream is sparked by acknowledging how someone is treated, being treated or how I may or may not be treated, if it is relevant to the identity that myself or someone else is displaying. I’ll dream of all characters being treated in the exact same manner as the person in front of, beside and behind them. A place where they have sex, but do not have a sex; because it is universally acknowledged that there are as many sexes as there are people (27). I have no reason not to assume that because of the reoccurrence of this scenario in my mind, it must be mentally harmonious to myself at the very least. Buddhists may argue that we are capable of controlling our thoughts through meditation. Nonetheless, meditation is not occurring in the moment of these daydreams, so I have reason to believe that they are out of my control, to an extent at least. If these reoccurring dreams that just so happen to be blissful scenarios are out of my control and I am not personally causing them to be blissful or reoccurring, this only leads me to believe that the reality of them would be even more blissful than they are displayed in my mind. Although I cannot actually prove that these reoccurring idyllic and irrepressible daydreams take place, I intend to argue that because of reasons mentioned, the reality of my daydreams are not only possible in this world but their occurrence would provoke agreeable consequences. I understand that an argument is pointless if its supporting factor lies in one’s claim of daydreaming, alone. I will support my argument with not only my own logical rationalization and scenarios in which a single-gender society would be the most beneficial, but with brilliant ideas from Johnathan Stoltenberg ‘s Refusing to be a Man; “How do men have (a) Sex.” My intentions are to elaborate on matters relevant to how our sex and gender are illogically determined for us at birth, the sexual dilemmas that are funded by society as well as why we live in a world with these issues and what harvests them. In explaining these predicaments I will bring awareness to the idea that a world where sexual individualism is embraced in every instance would be a more peaceful place to inhabit as I argue that this is not out of reach for society.
I find it hard to believe people exist in the world that are aware and not bothered by the idea of picking and choosing biological attributes of newborns that are seen most representative and labeling them into one of just two categories that will socially and sexually define them from that moment on. Biologically, Doctors merely inspect a new human’s outward appearance and give them a label that they must live up to in order to live suitably. We are all being expected to daily exhibit traits that are outnumbered by a vast number of attributes that a doctor deemed irrelevant. “It would be silly to lock anyone into a lifelong category based on a capability of a variable that may or may not be utilized (27).” At birth they are given a sex and from then own they are given a gender but both of what they are given involves standards that these labels are suggesting they adhere to. Higher education at a liberal college should not be required of one to recognize that when someone is categorized by physical appearance alone, there are a vast number of attributes on the inside that are being deemed irrelevant. Although there are no discrete points in which a man can be called a man and a female can be called a female, men are supposed to be masculine and sexually lust for women (women are supposed to be feminine and sexually lust men), in order to be considered masculine and this is all due to a quick physical at birth.
What does it mean to be a certain sex? What does it really mean to be either a male or female and why are such heavy circumstances put on either option, when it takes all of two seconds for a doctor to determine which you are? Men grow and learn in a world that makes them believe that the first valuable thing that they fell comes from their penis. Sex has become only to be known as a form of lustful penetration and little more. Men are supposed to want to “fuck” women and if they do not have this desire, they are considered less of a man. Men supposedly have this erotic wiring and sexual tendency that is genetic stronger than a women’s. So they are expected to have sex (For the sake merely addressing my point we will not discuss the effect that the sexual expectations of men has on women). I imagine a place where we are all different sexes so the term sex as a noun disappears altogether. The term sex as a verb would also then refer to the intimate bond by acknowledging that we are all the same and so different all at once. Is it so absurd to say that ridding of the very short process of determining ones sex at birth could eventually be completely avoided? I envision a place where we are all different sexes so the term sex as a noun disappears altogether. We intimately bond by acknowledging that we are all the same and so different all at once.
We live in a world in which the moment we are born, we are lawfully labeled as either a male or female. Not only are we limited to two categories, but when we enter the world we are blindly instilled with identities that we must live up to in relation to the gender that we were first identified with. Why is this? The only explanation I find evident is the moment in which the first to document a newborn into one of two genders decided to do so. This person must have been influenced by the idea of only two distinct sexes being the first sign of human life on earth. Where would this idea originate? Perhaps the idea was governed by literary works produced centuries after the first human beings existed, funded by word of mouth from lineages of the human species’ parents. Need I elaborate further for you to assume my subtle reference to religion? Statistics are not needed for you to agree that the popular theology– of places in the world that more frequently reject sexual freedom and enforce distinct gender categorization and expectations– consists of religions that very much condemn actions that oppose male and female being the only existing genders as well as the only two genders that should be sexually intertwined. The attribute of condemning anything other than heterosexuality is not shared by all world religions. On trait that for sure is shared is without a doubt “the golden rule” (love your neighbor to a greater extent than you love yourself). What I cannot determine reasoning for is why not all religions will disagree with sexual freedom but will however argue for the demand to love one another. I understand that romantic love is not the love that religious doctrine necessarily refers to when demanding that we love everyone, so using the love doctrine of theology would not withstand arguing for homosexuality. Nonetheless, witnessing the way in which the religious have portrayed their views against sexual freedom make it difficult to believe that it was on behalf of a holy creator or doctrine. Why would they display these views, then? Perhaps because straying from the heterosexuality and gender assumptions that we are born into is something that some have never been provoked to do; so when they witness it, they are uncomfortable and act hatefully not on behalf of their God-induced conscious but because of their unjustifiable discomfort. If you want to reproduce, do it. I do not believe that anything that is changed in the way society functions will take away the ability for you to have children.
An instance that would provoke me to reverse my reason would be to hear from someone (disagreeing with my argument) who has undergone society-induced trauma, due to merely being heterosexual. Matthew was labeled as a male at birth. Matthew grew up and into his homosexuality. Matthew was ridiculed and denied love from not only peers, but family members– after expressing a sexuality that was evident long before he verbalized it. Matthew replaced the love that he was denied with drugs, from meth to prescription. Matthew lived a life of poverty, in and out of jail for the use of his love-substitution, smothered in depression and seclusion. Matthew died from a massive heart attack at age thirty, due to the damage on his body from a life of substituting love with drugs. Obviously the acceptance Matthew lacked from the origin of his life (in a small conservative town) to his last day was very detrimental to him and those who did love Matthew. To you who may disagree with my vision of sexual individuality; are you contributing more to your religious duty (and or moral standards) by attempting to chose who Matthew should love by condemning him for not adhering to a heterosexual way of life that you were convinced before you could walk is the only true sexuality; or by celebrating the capacity he has to love another? My mother, as a heterosexual, is forever damaged from the hatred of those who would disagree with my argument. Although she loved him in every moment of his life, no one person could contribute enough love to replace the love that was hatefully denied to Matthew by the world; because of the stereotype that he was born into and his “refusing to be a man.” Imagine the scenario of meeting someone in which the first few milliseconds of your encounter does not involve assuming their sexuality or whether they are male or female. What if you are not capable of guessing their gender? What if you spend time wondering which categories they fall into? Why would we spend time trying to figure this out? Is it so that we can assume certain attributes pertain to this person according to their sexuality or gender? I envision a place where this does not exist and the time spent presupposing one’s identity is replaced with a deeper and more productive first interaction.
 “We call them sex hormones, they call them individuality inducers (27).”
 Gender can be defined as the range of characteristics differentiating between femininity and masculinity.
 Sex can be defined as either of the two main categories into which animals are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
 “We are sorted into one category or another at birth based solely on a visual inspection of our groins, and the only question that’s asked is whether there’s enough elongated tissue around your urethra so you can pee standing up (31).”
 In a society predicated on the notion that there are two opposite and complementary sexes, this idea not only makes sense it becomes sense.
 I would follow by saying that “women” are supposed want to “fuck” men but they are not supposed to want to “fuck” “men” at all, unless of course a “man” wants to “fuck” them.
 Each person experiences the idea of sexual identity as more or less real, more or less certain, more or less true, depending on two very personal phenomena: ones feelings and ones acts. For many people, for instance, the act of fucking makes their sexual identity feel more real than it does at other times.
But the act of fucking happens to be a very good example of the correlation between doing a specific act in a specific way and sensing the specificity of the sexual identity to which one aspires.
 The nerve networks and interlock of capillaries through our pelvises electrify and engorge as id plugged in together and pumping as one. That’s what we feel when we feel one another’s feelings (34).