Is Cocona's Surgical Choice Truly Gender Liberation?
If a woman resents being labeled as traditionally feminine because of her body, the more radical response would be to challenge social expectations, not to physically erase parts of that body. Cocona’s position, at its core, becomes an absolute attack on the female body itself. If breasts are equated with being disciplined and labeled, and the proposed solution is their removal, then the goal is no longer “to stop the sexualization of women,” but rather “for the female body to disappear so that sexualization can end.” This is an extremely dangerous line of reasoning. If liberation requires the elimination of sexualized female traits, then functionally, it is already aligned with misogyny.
The term non binary itself is meant to reject fixed classifications and preserve ambiguity. It is, by nature, a mode of existence that is open to misreading. Removing female organs may seem like a way to prevent the world from misreading you, but the reality is that the world will always find new ways to misread. Every form of the body can be reclassified, reinterpreted, and reassigned meaning. If one begins to reduce the body in order to minimize misinterpretation, the logic can only lead toward the gradual erasure of the body itself, not toward genuine freedom of the self.
Supporters of Cocona often impose a chain of reasoning. First, I feel pain because I am female. Second, this pain comes from being perceived as female by others. Third, this perception exists because of biological traits such as breasts. Fourth, removing these traits will eliminate the pain. Fifth, this becomes a justified act of self liberation.
But this chain collapses under scrutiny. The fact that I feel pain does not mean my body is the source of that pain. Pain operates on a psychological level, while the body exists as a physical fact. The real mechanism is that female bodies are assigned specific meanings by society, and through that process become disciplined and associated with suffering. In this sense, the body is merely a medium through which interpretation occurs. To equate social interpretation directly with the body itself is a fundamental failure of causal reasoning. Moreover, there are multiple ways to respond to this problem, such as transforming how society interprets the female body or expanding the definition of what “female” can mean. Yet Cocona and her supporters focus almost exclusively on modifying the individual. If the problem lies in social oppression, why should the individual bear irreversible physical consequences?
The entire logic used by supporters can be dismantled. The idea that removing breasts and identifying as non binary alleviates the pain of social definition ignores the fact that gender is never a single variable. Your body, age, face, behavior, and even your name will all be subject to categorization. No single organ determines identity. In reality, individuals like Cocona who undergo such procedures may still be disciplined, misread, and subjected to new forms of scrutiny and violence. If an action cannot reasonably protect the very goal it claims to achieve, it should not be celebrated or promoted.
At its theoretical core, non binary identity rests on the premise that gender is not determined by biological sex. Yet Cocona’s action directly contradicts this premise. The idea that one cannot escape being perceived as female as long as a certain organ exists reassigns decisive meaning back onto that organ. In choosing to remove her breasts, Cocona effectively re objectifies her own body. Supporters are therefore left with two possibilities. Either they accept that breasts define womanhood, returning to the logic of objectification, or they admit that the surgery itself, and the reasoning behind it, is ultimately unnecessary.
2026.01.12