I gotta say I’m less enamored of this whole gender business, as distinct from more tangible qualities like biology, body, identity, and orientation. But people like Bond of Dear Diaspora or Sinclair of Sugarbutch argue passionately and often very well that no, there is such a thing, and what’s wrong with that?
It still gives me hackles. Especially when it sure looks like (as turned up in conversation with a friend today who’s struggling with her relationship with male partner) the gendered female trope of “disappointment” and the gendered male one of “resignation” sure… look awfully similar. Except for the names, of course. And the genders they’re ascribed to.
In fact I think one big clue came today when I was talking with my friend and she asked me how it can be that the person you can be almost sick to death of being different than could have been so rivetingly appealing when you first met. And it occurred to me that that’s one more domain where over time all the stuff you have in common — maybe 99% or more — just cancels out from familiarity, overuse, complacency, and especially confidence and comfort… and therefore take up only a very small percent of effort and energy. Compared to that nagging 1% difference that, because everything else fades figuratively into your literal background that… the difference takes up nearly all your effort and energy. With the result that you’re saying “irreconcilable differences” when externally friends and loved ones can’t imagine what the problem is.
Well. I think it’s the same with gender. A lot. Human beings aren’t 100% alike. (That’s a common but moronic straw-person argument often held up by gender essentialists.) But we are 99% alike. Even when we’re biologically different we’re very often still functionally alike. (Consider for instance that in many parts of the world both sexes squat to pee even though with practice nearly all men and most women can pee perfectly well standing up.)
So like I say, there are very clearly differences between heterosexual cis-gendered biological sexes. But just the fact that I have to add all those qualifications is a reminder of just how small those differences can actually be.
Small differences, however, aren’t the same as no differences. And while I’m not persuaded that the difference is big enough to bring in a whole ‘nother social institution called “gender” to help explain those differences, stereotype those differences, or police those differences when people go “astray” from them I’m willing to accept that they’re there and they might even be unavoidable.
Especially if other people seem to believe they’re there it doesn’t even help if you don’t. Consider that if men look you in the chest instead of the eyes you’re being gendered, like it or not. Consider that if women cross the street rather than walk past you after midnight you’re gendered it doesn’t really matter how long you’ve spent deconstructing gender in yourself.
So…
So I got a big epiphany the other day that it’s not actually gender itself that bugs me. Like Sinclair I feel comfortable wearing pants, for instance, nor am I inclined to skirts. On the other hand a number of bio-women and at least one bio-man who just strongly prefer conventional skirts or dresses.
In fact Sinclair and I are really quite a lot alike. In gender terms we have quite a lot in common! In fact, even though she’s thoroughly and even cheerfully not a man in a lot of ways she’s better at being “masculine” than I am. Or at least more consistently so.
Which gets me to that sticking point again. Because the way gender is constructed it’s “good” when I do some of the gendered things I do because I’m biologically male. But when she does it it’s “bad” because she’s not. Except that, as I just mentioned, she’s really good at it.
So my epiphany was that I’m actually not so much down on gender as I’m really down on the 50/50-split, yin/yang, I’m hairy so you must be hairless, you’re nurturing so I must be aloof, Mars/Venus, everything-about-us-must-be-opposite two-sphere model of gender. I’m seriously impatient with the exclusivity that goes with gender essentialism.
In other words I’m fine with gender… as long as it’s completely independent of sexual biology, or anatomy, or identity, or orientation.
My belief on gender is that
Submitted by Holly Pervocracy (not verified) on Sun, 2010-02-28 20:33.My belief on gender is that in a perfect world it would be a la carte. That, penis or vagina, you can wear a long dress and go by “she” or “he” and cut your hair long or short—and all these things can be independent of each other. My problem with gender isn’t (just) the tie to biology but the package deal—the idea that masculine/feminine is still a “pick one” proposition.
In other words, I want to go by “she,” prance around in flowery tops and pretty jewelry, AND lift weights and drive a truck, and not suffer social penalties for violating the package deal. I feel like saying “oh, you’re a masculine woman,” while definite progress over “women have to be feminine,” still doesn’t cover someone’s ability to have mixed stereotypical gender traits.
Also I don’t care if I can pee standing up, but I really wish I could pee without pulling my pants all the way down. I should invest in a funnel.
[“I feel like saying “oh, you’re a masculine woman,” while definite progress over ‘women have to be feminine,’ still doesn’t cover someone’s ability to have mixed stereotypical gender traits.” Bingo! You have to say stuff like that because it’s still presented as an all-in-one package. Personally I’d rather see something like “Oh, you dress flowery? And drive a truck? And knit booties? And spit tobacco juice? Yeah, women do that.” As opposed to “well, the first thing is feminine, and the second is masculine, and the third thing is feminine, but the last one is masculine so I just don’t know how to categorize you.” Thanks, Holly. —fl]
What you’re talking about –
Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Mon, 2010-03-01 14:12.What you’re talking about – the idea that each gender exclusively “owns” one half of a set of dichotomous qualities – is what Julia Serano calls “oppositional sexism.” She refers to “traditional sexism” as the belief that one sex is superior to the other. By “oppositional sexism,” she means those boxes you’re chafing at. You may want to read her book, Whipping Girl, but even if you don’t, you might find it useful to borrow her terminology anyway.
[Doh! Of course, oppositional sexism. It’s a great term. I’ll keep an eye out for the book as well. Thanks, Sungold! —fl]
If you haven’t already, I
Submitted by Emily H. (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-04 23:34.If you haven’t already, I think you’d really enjoy reading “Butch Is a Noun” by S. Bear Bernstein. It’s a memoir sorta thing by a (very) butch lesbian, and it comes to mind right now because there are some really interesting and moving scenes about the author’s struggles with parents who were absolutely dying to get “her” to do her hair and dress like a cute girl — whereas she could only feel sexy, comfortable and natural when dressed in “male” clothes. This sort of thing shouldn’t happen if gender isn’t real, as gender anti-essentialists like to claim, but is just the product of socialization. (& conversely, there are men who grow up feeling feminine from an early age, and feel miserable if they can’t do “female” things like wear dresses.)
So I would agree with the poster above that gender should be a la carte, and it’s ridiculous to see it as “opposites.” But I feel strongly that some aspects of it must be innate, and we don’t have much hand in choosing them.
[I know people feel that way about looks and dress, especially. Where it gets trickier for me, though, is when it’s carried further, as when someone says, say, that it’s “feminine” to want to cook or parent children or “masculine” to want to be sexually dominant… or even just sexually active!. As long as it’s unlinked from biological sex and it’s not held to be exclusive and especially if it’s not prescriptive (e.g. if you want to be sexually assertive you should also prefer pants) then I’m ok with the idea of a separate dimension called “gender.” So we’re largely in agreement — which is a bit of a switch for me. Thanks, Emily. —fl]