In my last post, I suggested that sex follows gender. That one’s gender determines presentation and choices about one’s body. I firmly believe this, based on all the observations I have made over the years. But there is still one question that continues to plague me. Why?
I believe anyone I ask will agree that gender (or sex) is a thing. There are men and there are women in our world. And I think most will also agree that an individual’s gender (and sex) are a significant feature of the individual. However, what is this significance? What driving force or work does gender do? If I say I am a man, what does that mean?
As I have described in great detail in many of my previous posts, when I say I am a man, it seems to come preloaded with a great deal of assumptions regarding my preferences and interests. For example, a man likes beer. So when I tell someone I am a man, among the many things I am saying, I am saying I like beer. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words; I think gender is like a thousand adjectives, directing and describing the individual. The problem then, as might quickly become obvious, is that there are only two sets of descriptions out there to chose from.
If I am a man, then I like beer. And I also dislike cocktails. I like trucks, and I do not like small cars. I like blue, and I do not like pink. At least, this is what being a man suggests. What if I am a man because I like beer, and yet I do not like the colour blue? What if I meet the requirements of some of the adjectives and not others?
The first thing I might do is suggest I am not a man, and in the presence of our societal false dilemma I must therefore be a woman. Women don’t like blue and instead like pink. Perhaps that might work for me. But I still like beer. Women do not like beer, according to the prototype. I appear to be frustrated again. I am unable to satisfy the requirements of either of the genders properly.
It seems that the use of gender in categorizing and describing a person fails. Were I to sit down and write out all the things that I like and dislike, I find that more than half the things written do not conform to either prototype. Perhaps I do not like blue, as a man ought, nor pink, as a woman ought. In fact, I do not like alcohol at all, so I prefer neither beer nor cocktails. Where does this place me now?
No, the driving force behind gender cannot be to allow for easier stereotyping of individuals. Inevitably no individual entirely conforms to either description. If I do try to use the model, I end up upsetting the individual because I made an assumption about them that was incorrect. I have encountered this in the course of my life, from both sides. In my youth I thought I understood some people because of some category they allegedly belonged to; I followed those assumptions and ended up in conflicts, sometimes physical in nature. In more recent times, I find it is I who is frustrated by the assumption of others. I very much appear to be a man, and present very well as such. But I still do not like beer at all. I do not like sports, and do not know the names of players, teams, or statistics. When someone approaches me, making their assumption and trying to initiate amenable interactions, I find myself very uncomfortable.
In my younger years, when people made assumptions about me, I got angry. And I, in my naivety, expressed that anger outwardly and violently. For me, I found myself frustrated at not being seen by anyone. Or, perhaps more accurately, to be categorized incorrectly. However, in the defense of those categorizing, their options are few. If there are only two options to pick from, and if I do not fit into either category cleanly, they are in a situation they cannot possibly win. They too are frustrated, though they may not always realize this at first.
As I got older, I found the better solution was to allow acquaintances to think what they think. After all, in most cases, they are coming from a place of positivity and kindness. In many cases, they simply want to be friends, and this is simply the best way they know how. For example, I worked in IT on a machine shop floor for a number of years. Being an IT guy surrounded by machinists, I was often accused of being a geek and a nerd. Of liking Star Trek, for example. While I do not mind that bit of science fiction, it is far from my favorite. I am no Trekkie. Unfortunately for me, however, those machinists all took me for one and used this assumed detail to flavour their interactions with me. The part that frustrated me most in these interactions was that it was clear they had no idea what they were talking about either. They would try to talk to me about Star Trek, but they knew less about it than I did. This led to some very challenging interactions.
In the end, I had to frequently tell myself that it was not malicious. Those machinists were not trying to insult me or make me uncomfortable. Well, perhaps some of them might have been. But there were certainly many of them who really simply wanted to be friends. Over several years, I slowly figured out which was which. And once an individual made the leap from acquaintance to friend, I felt comfortable enough to correct them regarding my interests. It was a very challenging lesson for me to learn. And it also showed me that the number of actually malicious people in our world is not nearly as great as I had originally thought.
All of this is good and interesting, but none of it really answers the original question I posed. Why? If gender causes so much trouble, as do so many other prejudicial categories, then why is it so important? What does it do? What does it tell us that is actually helpful and accurate? In nearly half a century, my answer continues to be, gender tells us nothing.
To be most accurate, I believe that gender provides no useful information about a person whatsoever. I had thought, for a time, that perhaps gender might provide insight into the aspirations and goals of an individual. That perhaps it was suggesting that the individual wanted to be more masculine or feminine. But then I found so many people out there, like me, who use it as a defense mechanism and to hide in plain sight. That the prototype is the furthest thing from my desires, but I also feel like the world will condemn me if they only knew the real me.
To be clear, I have tried exposing my true nature to people over time. Presenting myself as authentically as I possibly could to close friends. The results were disastrous. It might be argued that perhaps those people were not really my friends, otherwise they would have accepted me as I was. There may be some truth to this, as they are definitely no longer my friends. However, it has also strengthened my resolve at hiding. The mask that I wear today is the best it has ever been. I can hide extremely well now.
There is one last area I ought to address with regard to what gender might offer. When I ask this question to those around me, it is inevitably the first reaction they always seem to have. “Gender,” they say, “tells us who can bear the children.” In other words, it is suggested that gender tells us who has a uterus, and who does not. Putting aside trans people for a moment, as they certainly undermine this argument immediately, I will focus on cis individuals and show that even then it is mistaken.
If we accept that gender tells us who can bear the children, then we are saying women can bear children and men cannot. If this is the case, then little girls are not women until puberty. This seems mostly unproblematic, except that little girls are then men until they are women. Perhaps we should grant that those who have not reached puberty are, in some sense, genderless then. Except that isn’t what is being presented. Boys and girls are clearly gendered. Perhaps we might call them gendered-in-training?
To simplify some more, I will take those who have not reached puberty out of the discussion as well. Thus, at puberty, there are women who are capable of bearing children, and men who are not. This seems to work, with a few exceptions of infertile women on account of genetic defect or other calamity. But we do not suggest that a woman who is infertile is suddenly a man. Alright, I will remove those who have those challenges from the discussion for the moment, focusing on those who ought to be able to bear children if their situation did not somehow preclude it.
Then I have to reflect on those who are particularly older. Women are unable to bear children beyond a certain age. The precise age is always debated, based on a plethora of particulars, but it is at least agreed upon that women cannot bear children indefinitely. (Unlike men who seem to be able to impregnate women throughout their lives.) The basic question remains, then, do women who have crossed this threshold and can no longer bear children suddenly become men? Of course they don’t. The idea is as insane as most of my discussion. Women remain women throughout their lives, keeping in mind all the assumptions I have added thus far.
Thus, the original question remains. Gender still is not providing any useful or reliable information regarding an individual. If it is saying anything about the individual, I might suggest it is saying what society is saying about the individual. That is, it is an impression placed upon them, instead of a reflection of them.
In the same way that I suggested that gender provides a template to an individual regarding how to try and present themselves, gender is placed upon them from the outside, from society and from others. It is the community that suggests something about the individual in this case. The community is directing and guiding and oppressing the individual, forcing them to abandon whatever choices they may themselves try to make, overwhelming them with directives to follow.
If the community agrees that an individual is a woman, then that individual is now strongly encouraged regarding their behaviors. They now are being provided guidance regarding the manner in which they ought to attire themselves, and the way they ought to move. In fact, the community is even making suggestions regarding the goals and aspirations for that individual. After all, women’s duty is to bear children.
Similarly with myself. I have been told all my life I am a man. As such, I am supposed to like beer. I am supposed to like sports. I am supposed to walk in two tracks. But it goes much further than all that. I am supposed to spread my seed. I am supposed to take a wife. I am supposed to earn lots of money. I am supposed to “be a man” and “man up” and fulfill my obligations to society. I am supposed to be productive, in a particular way. Whenever I do not conform in these expectations, I am vehemently notified.
I am not here to suggest I am oppressed in a greater fashion than women clearly are. Only that I know my own experiences, and that I do not know the experiences of women. Except what certain women choose to share with me, of course. And from all that I have learned, it seems to me that perhaps gender does provide one important job in our world: it tells us who are the slaves.