Gender Blender
I've attempted to begin a new policy when filling out forms that ask me to state my "gender": I cross out the G-word and write in "sex" instead. Then I answer male.
Yes, it would work better if people didn't think I was just an adolescent who still thought the word sex was funny, and wanted to see it written on the page. And to be honest, it does make me think of Austin Powers answering the "sex" question on some paperwork with "yes, please." But I like the idea of rejecting the notion of gender as for a few years now I have felt strange identifying in that way.
I was talking with my thesis adviser in December about the terminology being used by the Lutheran church to describe gay couples. Some folks wanted to use the language "same-gender" instead of "same-sex," and my professor was opposed. The idea of gender, we agreed, simply carried with it too many ideas and associations outside of biological necessity. It assumed too much about an individual, and restricted the acceptable ways society suggested that they could express or identify themselves.
Of course, this is all just a bunch of academic bullshit if it doesn't mean something to someone. Lately I've been wondering if it means something to me - if I really have reason to reject a gender identity.
The interesting thing about being gay is that although we are attracted to members of our own sex, we are often looked at as the least acceptable members of that sex in terms of masculinity and femininity. It is somehow considered not masculine to be a gay man, and not feminine to be a gay woman. This is contrary to the logic that if I greatly appreciate the male form, don't show sexual interest in women, and sleep with men, I would be the most masculine type of person. (And similarly, a gay woman would be the most feminine.) But this isn't the case at all. Same-sex couples often have complex gender identities, and even if they don't - even if two of the bro-est guys on the earth are in a relationship - much of our culture would still define them as the antithesis of masculine because of their orientation.
And this has caused many gay people, who have struggled with their gender identity but don't want to mention it, to be on the defensive. I got in an argument awhile ago with a friend who said he was more "masculine" than I was, and realized just how touchy a subject this is for many gay folks. This same person told me later that he felt the need to "bro it up" with straight male friends, trying to be a better athlete than them, a fiercer competitor, more of a dude. For many gay men, the idea of appearing at all "feminine" is some kind of insult.
I have been tempted by this at times, too. And often I have found it easier to simply embrace the notions of masculine and male and gender at their face value, rather than to question them. It's not hard - I am attracted to men, especially the ones most people would identify as more "masculine." (Come to think, generally I am attracted to straight guys, but that's another story.) And I suppose that I like being a boy most of the time, and doing "guy stuff."
Deep down, though, I know that this is mostly bullshit. Most of what we think of as masculine and feminine, even male and female, is all a construction. I'm not saying it's an easy one to cast aside - in fact, the opposite is true - but I can see no evidence that most of our male/female standards are rooted in something biological, essential, or objective, rather than in culture, history, sexism, and fear.
Personally, when I have to identify with a gender, I feel a little piece of me slip away. I feel myself acquiring a lot of things that I am expected to be but am not, and losing a lot of things I want to hold on to but am told don't befit me. I feel myself silencing that part of my brain that I've always felt, since a young age, was somehow female. I like that little voice. She makes life interesting, and makes me who I am. And she's smarter than the male portion.
I'm not saying I'm a woman trapped in a man's body, or that my life is some kind of a gender-bender romcom. But maybe more of a gender blender - with a mix of traits and emotions and ideas that I don't feel add up to an easy catch-all identity like "male gender" or "female gender."
It would be a lot easier if we all fit into check boxes like that, call some things male and some female, some masculine and some feminine. But I'd rather wrestle with life and find my own answers. As Nietzsche said, "Isn't our need for knowledge precisely this need for the familiar, the will to uncover under everything strange, unusual, and questionable something that no longer disturbs us? Is it not the instinct of fear that bids us to know?" That's not the kind of knowledge I want.
And sure, Nietzche may have had a mental breakdown. But at least he was an interesting dude.
13 comments:
Quick Q - is your thesis advisor a Jesuit priest?
Hi
I like your analysis.I too find it difficult at times to reconcile how I feel and how I am supposed to act.As an 'out' gay woman in a long term relationship, my partner and I have been asked many times "who does the 'man' role and who does 'the woman role'.." I have the short hair and sensible shoes and she has the slut shoes and hair products.. so people assume.. but they would be wrong on many counts.. I have no idea how to use power tools and I dont pee standing up.. it is always a negotiation.. I think gender determinism is overated! (Long time since I saw Nietzsche quoted! But that is probably 'cos I dont read the right things! LOL! )
Lemon
Great post!
With the advent of the "straight-acting gay" and the "lipstick lesbian" many gay people have started to try to separate gender issues from homosexual issues, even though homosexuality is at its core a fundamental violation of gender norms (dominant men sleep with subordinate women, etc.) around. No matter how "masculine" of a gay man you are, you have to deal with gender issues, whether you like it or not.
Also, it's been suggested by a lot of scholars that taking away the sex/gender question on forms or allowing people to make one up (the way sometimes people can fill in their own racial category on some forms) would be one step towards greater equality for sexual minorities. Interesting stuff to think about.
Anonymous - no, not a jezzie. She's a member of the ELCA who is very involved in these issues, and a great prof.
No one straight or gay can be completely masculine or feminine. It is impossible. There are butch men who love opera. Masculine and feminine are ideals. I find guys who are not comfortable with their femininity tend to come off as fake.
I do agree that gendered norms are a fictitious nuisance. I especially hate when straight people (and sometimes gay) ask if I am a top or a bottom. Oddly, by asking a very personal question about my sex life they are trying to subtly ask if I am more masculine or feminine.
However, despite the real world experiences, I do think that gender is better than sex on a form such as that. Specifically, one cannot self select their sex. For a transgendered person, asking their gender is a better option. Someone living as a woman, for instance, will always be genetically male and may also not have undergone sex reassignment surgery. It seems ridiculous to me to require them to identify by their male sex rather than their female gender.
Most of what we think of as masculine and feminine, even male and female, is all a construction.
Exactly. It's so common to label things as masculine or feminine, but if we really stop to think about it, how stupid is that?
Physical acts have no gender...it's not innately masculine to change a car battery (or be a top), nor is it intensely feminine to cook (or be a bottom). Those are acts, things, and shouldn't reflect some sort of automatic social assumption of gender.
But we do it anyway. For my part, I've stopped saying ooooh you're so butch when someone does something traditionally thought of as masculine. And then in my head I substitute the word femme for butch, and see how it makes me feel and think.
Just little steps re-educating myself, I suppose. But it's a start.
Nice post! After having thought about gender for a little while I'm now more confused than ever. For instance, who makes the call on what my gender is? Do we decide individually or is there some kind of social consensus based on who we're attracted to, haircuts, preferred sexual positions, etc.? Either way, I'd have a hard time. All the more reason to do away with the whole concept, I suppose?
It would be interesting to hear a trans perspective on this though. Does throwing gender out the window marginalize the experiences of trans-individuals or would it be more liberating?
Gender is a social fact, while dimorphic sexes are natural fact. To confuse one for the other is not only wrong, it is wrong-headed.
There's a great cultural aspect to this: lots of cultures would say that a man without facial hair is a sexless child, or a woman. The ELCA should know all about that, given how long it took Christianity to take hold in Scandinavia. The ELCA is likely to be affected by a breach of ecumenical relationships with other churches no matter what word combo they settle on
I do love your use of the "bro" concept, it's so au courant.
Sex as a "biological fact" isn't exactly that, but it is so in such a great number that it is almost the same. People will always grasp onto what they can themselves experience and see rather than having to stop and think about it, and for the vast majority the two are the same. Gender presentation is distinct from sex, but derives from it, in the common mind.
@billy: maybe they're just trying to figure out who has to prep first and whether you'll be fucking, getting fucked or want it all. It's only personal if you make it. "Masculine" presentation combined with conservative politics usually yields a sub bottom with twisted tastes ;-). People are going to make whatever assumptions they will anyway, so why not use it as a teachable moment?
I have typically perceived gender as performance/presentation. I do find it very interesting to ponder the question of who gets to "define" one's gender, because there is often a large gap between what one is going for and what others perceive/assume about your identity.
I would go further and say that sex is actually a construction of gender (which can get a little confusing). But especially when you take into account that not all "male genitalia" look or even function the same, and likewise for "female genitalia," and that in fact not all bodies can clearly be categorized in this "natural binary," it has to be questioned just how "natural" sex is.
I think that sex is in fact just another way to bind people to the gender identities...a man who becomes a woman is therefore perpetually a "man who became a woman" instead of just being a woman. And if a person has always been informed by their affinity for a "feminine" gender expression, why should they have to answer to their sex category assigned at birth?
yea, gender norms typically suck and are inherently limiting. i like what runlikethewind6 said, about sex being a construction of gender. that raises a lot of questions about those that dont fit. but i think that it might be slightly simplistic, in that it doesnt take into account potential, physical differences between the sexes that *could* exist. differences like brain chemistry, hormones/chemicals, perception, who knows...
its like what kate bornstein (great writer about transgender issues) asks:
"how are you so sure that you're a man?" ...going past the typical, gendered response, we are kinda left with appealing to sex. 'im a man because of the things between my legs' sounds like a pretty lame response. but is it possible that aspects of our sex can lead to completely different experiences, thus reinforcing the gender binary?
can sex (as distinct from gender) lead to an actual notion of woman/manhood? i think so, maybe a little.
I've been pointing out for a long time that "same-gender" marriage is legal; it's same-sex marriage that isn't (except for the few places where it is). A feminine man and a feminine woman can get married; a masculine woman and a feminine woman can't.
The sex/gender distinction can be useful, but it's getting lost because so many people haven't really thought it through. And a lot of people just don't know what they're talking about. Somewhere in Gender Outlaw says that people need to get it through their heads that "sex" means something you do with another person, not that thing/place between your legs! But Bornstein is wrong. "Sex" meant that thing/space between your legs long before it meant copulation, and it still carries that older meaning. Ambiguity in language, as in sex/gender, can be confusing, but that's the world we live in; we need to learn to deal with ambiguity, how to parse it, how to live with it.
Post a Comment