»There’s a twisted, neoliberal cruelty in arguing that the primary problem with gender is its impact on the chosen identities of individuals, and not the way it operates systemically, under patriarchy, to normalize and encourage male violence and female subordination.«
Who argues this? The author doesn’t provide examples or support. I’ve mostly seen (liberal) feminists arguing that the problem with patriarchy is the way it shapes, limits and coerces (with violence among other things) what people do with their lives. I’ve also seen arguments that the problem is structural oppression (the above constitutes structural oppression), and seen more radical voices arguing against that oppression by casting it as violence, as the author does here.
Is the primary problem gender? Or patriarchy? The author seems to suggest it’s gender within the framework of patriarchy but is calling it out as “gender” rather than calling it out as “patriarchy”.
Allow me to rephrase: Is the problem people who feel like they’ve moved between genders, within their own identity? or is the problem people who feel like they should enforce their views of gender on others with violence and domination?
It sounds to me like the author is calling out the first group by saying they are cruel to not talk about the second group in the terms the author prefers to use (which are used by the first group in a different way).
Necessary critical feedback can be difficult for a manager to offer to anybody, but as Professor Stacy Blake-Beard has shown, it can be especially uncomfortable when it is given across a dimension of difference, such as gender, race, or age. When giving critical feedback to women, male managers may be especially worried about how the feedback will be received. This “protective hesitation” — the failure to give feedback due to worry that the recipient might be upset — is a critical barrier in having conversations necessary to advance women’s careers.