I am attracted to clowns. Not all clowns, but enough of them to raise questions within myself. Why do I find clowns attractive?
To be clear, when I talk about clowns, I am referring to those performers who paint their faces white and apply rather garish red makeup across their cheeks and above their eyes, often adding a ruby, red ball to their noses that frequently makes a honking noise when squeezed. But it isn’t just their faces; they often add brightly coloured wigs to their heads, and dress in brightly coloured baggy clothing. They are typically comedians of physical comedy, sometimes never speaking and only bouncing around in a frivolous manner. They present themselves in a way that is hard to ignore, making themselves the center of attention in any place they perform.
Some hints as to my predilection became apparent to me after a long time watching women. After a time, I realized that many women are clowns. Like clowns, they apply significant makeup to their faces, altering their hair, sometimes wearing garish wigs. Some of these women even choose colours that are bright and unnatural during the process. Most do not add a ball to their noses, and often their clothing is tight fitting rather than loose, but the general assembly is strikingly similar.
These women are not comedians, generally. But for many of them, their goal of entertaining their audiences remains the same. They too present themselves in a way that is hard to ignore, and work very hard to make themselves the center of attention in any place they go. Like clowns, these women are spectacles.
The similarities between clowns and some women is not enough to explain their allure to me. The next piece of the puzzle comes as part of my upbringing. As a boy, I was taught what I should like. I am supposed to like girls. But not just any girls. I was taught to keep an eye out for certain features. Features that will make these girls attractive, according to some standard that others have selected long before I was ever conceived.
In my philosophy of feminism classes, we often spoke of the “eternal feminine,” an impossible standard that most women are held against in our world. A standard that defines beauty and attractiveness. A standard that is the model many women use when trying to present themselves. It may not surprise my reader that this standard bears a striking resemblance to the standard clowns seem to follow.
I admit this is my interpretation, but it seems to me that this is where my fondness for clowns is coming from. For me, I am attracted to these choices and presentations. These cues. These signs.
Which leads me to another thing I have more recently been noticing. When it comes down to it, there is not a lot of difference between men and women. I am referring to the sexes of man and woman when I say this, not the genders. If you place a nude male of the human species next to a nude female, aside from the (hopefully) obvious differences in genitals, their bodies are much alike.
I already know that many readers will immediately disagree with this. They will speak of the musculature of the male and the swelling of the hips of the female. The breasts. But are these features really as generalized as we are led to believe? Are these features genetic and unchangeable, or are they often originating in other places?
I have seen a great many different bodies in the nearly half a century I have been living on this planet. Bodies of a vast variety of shapes and sizes. I have seen women who have the musculature of what a man ought to have. I have seen men with breasts. And following this multitude of observations, it seems to me that while bodies are shaped as they are as a result of one’s genetic code, they are also very much influenced by the individual’s lifestyle and choices.
As a boy, I was encouraged to behave in the ways of masculinity. This meant going out and playing physically. It meant trying to get me interested in sports (though I admit this particular guidance failed on me). Similarly, I was encouraged to take things apart and put them back together again. Encouraged to play with machinery and computers. And, perhaps more importantly, to dress and present myself in a very particular way. To wear pants, and not dresses. To keep my hair short. To walk in two tracks (I initially walked in one track, and was given lessons to ensure I did not continue this behavior).
Meanwhile, my sisters were encouraged in other ways. Different behaviors. That they ought to be interested in different things than myself. To play with dolls and bake cakes. And also to present themselves in very particular ways. To wear dresses. To let their hair grow long. To walk in one track.
These lessons did not cease over time. As I grew from a child into an adolescent and eventually into an adult, my training continued. If ever I faltered in my presentation, I was shamed and ridiculed until I conformed to the standards set out for me. Encouraged to be physical frequently. To solve conflict through physicality. My strength was considered an asset, and one I ought to develop.
When I think upon all these things, it is no surprise to me that I look as I do. Move as I do. I learned to not bounce when I step, keeping my head at the same level as I progressed. To allow my shoulders and upper body to swing slightly from side to side as I walk, keeping my hips relatively stationary. My gait is a man’s gait. I do not wear heeled shoes, and obviously find them uncomfortable. I do not wear makeup. I do not wear clothing that is intended to alter my appearance. No corsets or the like.
But I cannot say this about the women I know. My partner is wrought with anxiety concerning her appearance all the time. Her presentation is a very significant part of her daily routine. And if the occasion is special or sensitive, she will go to great lengths to upscale her appearance through the use of makeup and other accessories. She has a jewelry box. She has heeled shoes. She knows of those conventions and will make attempts to follow them when she believes it is important or appropriate.
My partner is not a clown, however. When she upscales her appearance, it is only under certain circumstances. Those occasions where she knows it is expected of her. Most of the time, she does not bother with such frivolous things. And I am happy she does not, because I find the entire exercise quite strange.
There are other women I know, however, that are clowns. They spend countless hours doing themselves up every day. Hours in the morning spent preparing for the day ahead. Always applying makeup. Always wearing the heeled shoes. Not always wearing the dresses though, as that convention has been slowly changing. But some of them do still wear those dresses.
You may note that as I carry on regarding all these ways of presentation that I rarely, if ever, discuss their actual bodies. The particulars of their hips or breasts is absent in this discussion, for good reason. Because what makes a man a man, or a woman a woman, it seems to me, actually has very little to do with the individual’s body. The concern, it seems, is far more about the sorts of things I have been talking about. Of makeup and accessories. Of attire choices and of heeled shoes.
This is what I’ve come to realize. How a body appears to be is predominantly about makeup choices and attire choices. I recently watched the film Meet the Spartans. There is a joke within the film about painted on abs on the male actors. And it is surprisingly effective. It is actually hard to tell whether their abs are actually their abs or not. Again, I can hear many readers arguing that it is obvious, but I would challenge exactly how easy it is to really tell. Which is why I will start to discuss trans people.
When an individual establishes publicly that they are a trans woman or a trans man, the first thing they seem to do is find ways to signal this change. A trans woman dresses more feminine and a trans man more masculine. It is this presentation that is important, as it is through this presentation that others will be able to identify who they really are. If they have enough money, and if they are so inclined, they may take their desired identity to their doctors to be surgically altered, but this is seldom the first step in their process. It always seems to begin with trying to make others see them as they wish to be seen. For others to make the correct assumptions and interpretations of the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of the gender they were assigned at birth.
The main problem with these standards of presentation is, as I said earlier, that they are impossible to achieve. The “eternal feminine” and the “eternal masculine” are models of the idealized, of the perfect. Like Plato’s Forms, they exist in their own reality. Our reality can only ever aspire for such perfection.
This is why drag queens frequently seem to come off as excessive and extreme. These people understand the challenges of these impossible standards, and pursue them relentlessly despite the unfeasability. Pushing their presentation as far as it can possibly go, and still sometimes further than that. Due to the excessive nature of the presentation, the audience is already cued that something is not entirely what it seems. Not quite natural.
It seems to me that drag queens have created their own culture around this extreme presentation. They have appropriated the “eternal feminine” for themselves in a way that is quite astonishing. Their courage is marvelous! However, the cues and signs of genderhood that they exhibit are confusing, and so others may ultimately be left wondering.
With trans people, this is less likely the case. For most trans, it seems that the goal is not the extreme, but often the more subtle. Not necessarily to draw everyone’s attention to what they are doing, but instead to capture the right level of signaling to present themselves as they wish to be presented. A trans person, if successful, is indistinguishable from a non-trans person. A woman is simply a woman in both cases. Similarly with a man. Prefacing with the word “trans” or “cis” seems entirely unnecessary, in my opinion.
Of course, all of this that I express is my opinion. There are clearly plenty of others out there who feel that the prefaced words “trans” and “cis” are critically important. That it is important to realize that the individual’s assigned gender at birth is a significant part of the identity they wish to present. Or, perhaps, it is more about the others holding significant value in something else that has nothing to do with the presentation. That what was assigned at birth is somehow an incredibly important aspect of who a person is.
So, if that is to be the case, it might be best to look closely at how this gender is assigned at birth. What identifying features are used to determine a baby’s gender? This is obvious. In the absence of the baby expressing some sort of preference (obviously due to the baby’s inability to do so), it is their genitals that will be used to determine what to do. If they have a penis, they are clearly male. Otherwise, they are female. Except that isn’t quite what happens.
In cases where the genitals do not provide a clear cut decision in this false dilemma, because the individual has both a penis and a vagina, or perhaps neither, the doctors and parents have some decisions to make. And sometimes the parents are not even a part of this decision. Because heaven forbid that the individual live out their lives not as one of the standard gender choices we have in our world. Only men and women exist, and nothing else.
The choice made on behalf of the newly born individual comes from outside. It comes from others. Others decide who and what the individual is and will be going forward. Again, this may seem reasonable; after all, a baby is in no position to make such choices on their own. They have to grow up first. Perhaps in adulthood they will be ready to start making these sorts of decisions. But until that time, they will still have to be trained and taught how to be whatever it is that they are supposed to be.
The body, and in particular the genitals, are used to select gender initially. But after that initial selection is made, the body is no longer important. The choice made, all that follows is about how to guide the individual toward the appropriate standard. Early on the concepts of the eternal form of their gender are memorized. This knowledge is constantly reinforced through parents, teachers, other children, strangers, even mass media. The pictures in magazines. The characters in film. At every turn, the standards are being reinforced. Still images are “photoshopped” to ensure conformity, just as moving pictures have evolved special effects. I refer once again back to Meet the Spartans, and painted on abs.
The false dilemma is packaged and distributed for mass consumption by the greater audience. Society knows what is supposed to happen. All individuals, left to a sort of self legislation, can attend to themselves and ensure their presentation is managed appropriately. For those individuals who do not conform, shame and guilt are impressed strongly. The religion of the two genders is not the sort of thing you are simply allowed to opt out of.
Bodies are not ignored completely in this divisive situation. Eventually, there comes a time when what is underneath the spectacle will have to be revealed. The truth about ourselves will be exposed eventually. This is why surgical enhancements are greatly sought. Why corsets are worn frequently, training the abdominal region, like doing push-ups trains the pectoralis major. My body is still important, regardless of how it came to me originally.
One should notice, however, that it is not simply acceptable to allow one’s body to remain as it is. Because no body meets the impossible standards. Work will have to be done to make the body conform, as best as possible. And so it should be clear that the body does not determine gender ultimately. It is gender that determines the body. Gender, however selected, becomes the template for how the body ought to be perceived.