Tag: gender

Why Gender?

crimson

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.

Clowns and the Simulacra of Gender

crimson

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.