You’re braver than me. I’m terrified to ask about a lot of things of this nature, especially in leftist spaces. Labels often get perverted and exploited in capitalist systems, but man are they useful.

Gender is a fuck. Historically and culturally contingent, an artificial designation created by early humanity to separate those performing different roles in reproduction. Shitty thing to do, but it’s why most cultures assign one gender to those with dicks and a different one to those without. Bad system, totally vestigial.

People on the left broadly want to remove expectations that people of gender X should behave in ways Y or Z to validate their gender. Take hunting as an example. In many cultures, hunting is a distinctly male activity. You probably agree though it’s wrong to see women hunting as an intrusion of any sort, or men who detest hunting as any less of men. This is true for pretty much any aspect of gender expression, be it hobbies, personality traits, clothing, etc. Dresses are gendered as feminine, but should they be? Why? Who benefits from this? All sorts of personality traits, careers, hobbies, clothing, entertainment, etc. are gendered. Not all of them, but many. That’s how gender roles manifest, that how what it means to be masculine or feminine is constructed. For every single one of them, there’s nothing gained by society by gendering them. You might disagree, but that’s an entirely separate discussion. If you think that we should keep some activities as the distinct doman of men or women, and see those of another gender participating in them as outsiders (even welcome ones), then our views on gender are too fundamentally different to have a productive talk about abolition, we’d have to start at a lower level.

Assuming you’re with me so far, the big question is this: when you de-gender all these things, what’s left to identify with? If we don’t as a society say “men do A and B, women do C and D”, what’s left of masculinity and feminity? Some talk about gender like it comes from an innate place inside you, either your soul or your subconscious or something like that. To be a gender abolitionist is to reject that and recognize that gender is a social construct, imprinted from without and not something that eminates from within. Again, if you disagree that’s fine, but it means our priors are too different to have a meaningful discussion

Gender has multiple aspects, performance, identity and expression. I believe gendering any form of expression is needlessly restrictive, benefitting no one and harming those that want to express themselves in ways outside what’s typical for their gender. Gender performance has similar problems, in that they only serve to restrict and not to empower. Calling back to the hunting example, in a hypothetical gender-free world, anyone could hunt. Masculinity wouldn’t need to be invented to allow people to hunt; it only ever served to discourage women from hunting. No one benefits from this. Should you remove the other two pillars (which I believe is a moral imperative), the third collapses.

That’s my stance at least, I hope I’ve explained it well enough. To address your specific points:

1- If you like your gender, you can keep it. This would be a very long and slow social process, something to keep in mind as a directional goal rather than something you try and roll out by sending the gender police on everyone. The idea is to push for the kind of cultural change that renders gender a meaningless distinction. Calling back to the three pillars example above, the goal is not dissimilar to the marxian idea of the withering away of the state. But the withering away of the gender instead.

2- Sexuality, like gender, does not eminate from some place in your soul or subconscious mind. You can’t measure someone’s skull and figure out with certainty whether they like cock. Rather, it’s shaped by the world around you in conjunction with some genetic or hormonal biasing.

Have you heard about how sexuality was viewed in Roman times? The joke goes that for men, sucking another man’s dick was super gay, but having another man suck your dick was extremely straight. It’s not quite so simple, but it is true that the categories of straight and gay, and even bi don’t really fit when you try and apply them backwards in time. If anything, their sexuality was divided into bottoms and tops. Of course it was also deeply misogynistic, so I don’t condone that, but the point is that your sexuality is much less innate than even many on the left often think, subject completely to your cultural setting. As our understanding of gender changes, sexual relations will no doubt change as well. People aren’t inherently attracted to men or women, not in a vacuum at least. New cultural context will bring in new standards of human sexuality as it always has.

3- Honestly I just disagree with your premise. People have trouble relating to one another due to severe late capitalist alienation, sure, but gender doesn’t play some big role in assuaging that. If anything, it exacerbates it. We’re socialized to feel that half the population is inherently separate and psychologically distinct from us, and those halves are socialized in vastly different ways, which makes the artifical distinction a real one. If you find it easier to relate to men because you share a gender identity, I totally understand, but that’s only because gender pushes people apart from one another. It’s not that shared masculinity allows men to relate to one another more, it’s that the artifical distinction between masculinity and feminity causes men and women to be even further alienated from another than they already are with members of their own gender. I might be misunderstanding your question though, I really just have a hard time seeing how gender helps people relate to one another at all so I’m not sure how to address it.

It’s a pain in the ass