George Dvorsky supposedly coined the term Postgenderism and it might be considered a strain, since lots of Transhumanists might not think about it much, and might still want genders in their enhanced future, but its also kind of central to Transhumanism to not be constrained by any vestiges of our biological evolution, isn't it? And being constrained to one gender and having to reproduce with someone of the other gender is definitely something that EVERY Transhumanist would agree is something to overcome.
I've written on this topic elsewhere, if you want to pursue it beyond this exchange. Whatever else one might want to say about Dvorsky's piece (which is interesting, even if I focus mostly on my disagreements and concerns about his ideas in it), you certainly can't sensibly attribute the coinage of that term to him, and neither does he claim to do. I mean, he cites the influence of Donna Haraway (he mostly misreads her in my view) who used the term in work predating his by nearly a quarter century, for example. And I doubt she coined it either, to be honest, or even thinks she did, or would care in the first place about such things.
I quite agree that there is a real strain -- in more senses than one -- that one discerns among many of the superlative technocentrics, the transhumanists, extropians, singularitarians, cryonicists, cypherpunks, and so on... a horror or disdain of the vulnerable, ageing, messy, desiring "meat body," and there is no denying that a pining to be beyond morphology, beyond death, beyond materiality (in many senses) recurs in much of their literature. To be "beyond gender" or "post-gender" in their accounting of it is very likely of a piece with that tendency.
It is interesting that this "post-gender" attitude is often mistaken by the transhumanists (or by sympathetic readers of theirs) as a kind of feminist tendency in their movement -- but I think there is a crucial difference between the feminist desire to resist and overcome patriarchy and what seems to be afoot in most of the transhumanist pining after a post-gendered post-embodied post-historical and somehow thoroughly instrumentalized agency.
It is useful to note that Judith Butler's wonderful book Undoing Gender indicates in its title at one and the same time, (first) its commitment to a feminist project to undo the patriarchal sex-gender system, (second) its commitment to a "performative" understanding of embodied materiality in which gender to be a thing we "have" must be understood in a key sense to be a thing we "do", and (third) its commitment to an understanding of gender as a site of a desire in which subjects are "undone" in ways that constitute our freedom in both its real danger and real pleasure/productivity. Think of the richness available to a feminist and queer gender politics so construed!
Glib discussions from transhumanists (and, as usual, mostly other people) about "overcoming gender" seem to me rather comically beside the point, inasmuch as gender is a site in which we are invested with the agency that "overcomes" in the first place. To be sure, I find "post-gender" manifestos like those of so many of the transhumanists too typically to signal a complacent declaration of an "accomplishment" of post-sexist consciousness and practice that usually amounts to a kind of dumb "post-feminist" sexism when all is said and done, and certainly manages at best a facile engagement with gender-work as it actually plays out in the world.
The comment goes on to mention that humans are "constrained" to one gender, and then genuflects to the notion of a "natural" biological act of heterosexual reproduction as well. Let me point out that both intersex and transsex people and lifeways actually do exist, right here in River City, and so the "constraint" to which the comment refer so confidently and which seems so foundational to so many of the commenter's assertions is quite simply a facile falsehood.
There is no need to invoke techno-utopian or techno-dystopian teledidonics or chimeras or metamorphs to find yourself in a world underconstrained by the iron limits you speak of, you're already soaking in it.
I leave to the side the fact that the comment uses the word gender rather than sex though all of this, since I'm assuming the terms are are being treated roughly interchangeably, even though it is a convention to use the word "gender" to describe the extraordinary historically and socially contingent and multivariate roles taken up by individuals marked by sex and marking them in their sex, something which hardly lends credibility to the evocation of a gender "constrained" to a stark reproductive imperative and pristine sexual dimorphism.
(None of this is to deny the real costs exacted by the force of socially specific gender-typicalities on those who are seen to deviate from them. One of the strengths of performative accounts that make them worth their complexity is that they really try to do justice both to the contingency and to the density of the historically embodied lifeways in which humanity is materialized.)
But quite apart from the fact that the world seems to me already considerably more contingent and multivariate and deviant from the strict heteronormativity that the comment seems to take for granted, I would also point out that even heterosexual sex scarcely seems to pass muster by the standards of "naturalness" it seems so invested in, really.
"Conventional" reprosexuality, playing out here and now on our streets and on our screens and on our bodies, its desires, its significances, its capacities, are all inextricably embedded in the contingent formations of patriarchy, "natural" only in the sense that its typical forms are indeed the customary ones for the moment. For "straight" folks as well as for queer ones, gender is already a site in which we overcome and are overcome (and sometimes when we are lucky, come).
When one speaks of overcoming gender it takes us to the heart of the work of gender in history, a history bound up in hideous sexist and heterosexist violences, to be sure, but not exhausted by these.
Bringing clones and male pregnancy and avatar sex and all that hype into the discussion and then getting all hot and bothered by it -- whether in a bioconservative reactionary sex-panic or a transhumanist adolescent circle-jerk -- seems to me to indicate a rather impoverished take on the matter, when it comes down to it.