The so-called 'Omegaverse¶

The so-called "Omegaverse" is actually a fascinating illustration of the concept of sex as a social construct.

As I understand it, the specific "rules" are flexible from author to author, but they all follow the general theme of replacing "male/female" with "alpha/omega." (1/13) https://t.co/MVQGaq0qLq That is, it is a speculative social order in which there may or may not be people with physiological traits our society would use to classify "male" and "female," but these are considered subordinate, almost incidental, traits. The focus is traits ascribed to "alpha" and "omega." Alpha and omega are social categories constructed around certain physiological traits. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the most salient trait is usually scent, with alphas having a particular scent that omegas pick up on and vice versa, attracting them to each other. Because it's a loose creative community, individual authors can include whatever physiological features strike their fancy -- alphas might be characterized as more muscular, larger and/or particularly shaped genitals, even sharper teeth and keener noses. Many authors also construct their version of this theme as revolving around reproduction, like in our society, with omegas (regardless of genitalia or other real-world "sex characteristics") being defined by their ability to get pregnant. What's most relevant, for our purposes, is the way in which these biology-associated social constructs almost universally give rise to a highly regimented social hierarchy, complete with gendered conceptions of the respective temperaments and social roles of alphas and omegas. These stories tend to deliberately recapitulate our world's "traditional" patriarchal societies, but assigning the social categories of masculinity and femininity based on "alpha/omega" physiologies, rather than "male/female." In this paradigm, a doctor wouldn't deliver a baby, note its genitals, and proclaim "Congratulations, it's a boy!" The relevant "biological scent" is generally written as emerging during sexual maturity. In such a world, "sex" is an incoherent category to apply to an infant. It's also crucial to understand that even this fictional conception of socially-constructed sex is still rooted in the cultural background of our own world. The writers are picking out and transforming individual elements that are familiar to them, carrying forward extant themes. In some cases, this is meant as a deliberate subversion, in the vein of "Look how silly these stereotypes and interactions are when applied intrasexually!"

I'd wager the more common iteration is simply the authors viewing reified social dynamics as making some "natural" sense. "Of course, this alternate sex hierarchy is still ordered around reproduction -- that just makes the most sense!"

"Of course the social dynamics revolve around aggressive vs. passive, dominant vs. submissive, physically strong vs. weak!" In the end, despite mainly being used as a vehicle to explore a particular sexual fetish -- and specifically, fetishizing one of the oldest forms of oppression -- the Omegaverse almost incidentally acts as a visceral counterargument to the hegemony of sex. And THAT is why the original quoted picture is so heinous -- it just directly reproduces the exact dynamic of real-world sex hierarchy. It subverts nothing.

Omegaverse may incidentally reify the logic of gender hierarchies, but it exposes the arbitrary nature of sex. (13/13)