I want a world without hierarchy and inequality. Basic income isn't enough; everyone must have equal access to consumption. The gender distinction itself functions as a form of oppression and needs to go. There's nothing inherently wrong with wish-fulfillment fantasies; if you don't know what you seek you'll never find it.
The great demand the democratic left must strive to be equal to in my view is our ongoing negotiation of the paradoxical dynamic of our valuing both equity and diversity, a dynamism I prefer to denote as a kind of circuit, equity-in-diversity, to emphasize their difficult inter-implication. Your declaration that basic income is "not enough" followed by your wholesale rejection of any distinction articulated by what might pass for a performance of "gender" both suggest to me that you value equity to the cost of diversity, to the eventual assurance of tyranny.
Basic guaranteed income is for me one leg of a tripod also including basic healthcare and lifelong access to education, training, and reliable information (these are ideal outcomes for which the heartbreaking ongoing convulsive compromised struggle for welfare, healthcare, education, media, and regulatory reforms provide ever ongoing emancipatory accomplishments) together with actually democratically accountable constituted authorities (enshrining no taxation without representation, elimination of permanent informal status, strengthening separation of powers, subsidiarity and federalism as checks on corruption and abuse, democratization of contemporary corporate-militarist global governing bodies, authorizing planetary oversight of environmental, health, education, labor conditions provide the diplomatic and activist agenda for struggle here) better ensures that people can actually consent in an informed, nonduressed way to the terms of their cultural/prosthetic self- and lifeway-determination, peer to peer, and that there are ongoing checks on the vulnerability to abuses inherent in any institution of alternatives for the nonviolent adjudication of disputes arising inevitably out of plurality and facilitation of collaborative problem solving and creative expressivity.
In my view:
[one] to pine for the dis-invention rather than the democratization of the state seems to me a recipe for chaos and tyranny masquerading as concern for injustice, usually arising out of wish-fulfillment fantasies of spontaneous order either based in parochialism or denialism about the ineradicability and demands of human plurality;
[two] to pine for the dis-invention of sex-gender altogether rather than for its more capacious re-elaboration through the creative and subversive citations of its norms seems to me an evasion of the problem of patriarchy masquerading as an intervention in it, usually arising out of wish-fulfillment fantasies that one might simply will oneself into genderlessness or post-gender, as though gender were a suit of clothes donned or doffed from a hanger, when will itself is not so much willed as enabled through the ongoing elaboration of norms, among them, yes, sex-gender norms;
[three] to pine for techno-transcendence -- superintelligence, superlongevity, superabundance as deranging hyperbolizations of security, healthcare, sustainability -- rather than for democratizing technodevelopmental social struggle to ensure that the costs, risks, and benefits of technoscientific change are equitably distributed to the diversity of their stakeholders seems to me to indulge in wish-fulfillment fantasies masquerading as consensus science and serious science policy, usually in the service of incumbents fraudulently seeking outcomes that amplify their interests or from the vantage of marginal defensive faith-based subcultures suffused with irrational fears of impotence and dreams of omnipotence among True Believers and would-be gurus.
There is nothing wrong with animating ideals (mine are democratization, equity-in-diversity, consensualization, and nonviolence) but there is everything wrong with wish-fulfillment fantasies that arise from confusions and sow confusions.
Any greedy asshole or squalling infant can howl that they want! more! now! Any charlatan or crank can peddle an anti-aging skin cream or sex-rejuvinating elixir or perpetual motion machine. There's nothing new or radical or revolutionary in giving vent to such desires or giving in to such temptations.
That the struggle for justice and sense seems heartbreaking in the belly of the beast is no justification for indulging in deception or self-deception just because you are scared of death, or fear the contingency of history, or hanker after comfort and ease, or dream of the perfect control of circumstances, or despise the demands of reconciling your differences with the peers with whom you share the world.
You really can be a dreamer and still be a grown-up.
Or maybe that's my own wish-fulfillment fantasy?