Or another gender
Judith Butler explains that being a woman is optional.
In the last few years, protests in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere have objected to an “ideology of gender”. Elections in France, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Brazil have pivoted on a candidate’s account of gender roles. In the US, both Catholics and evangelicals have opposed a host of political positions linked elsewhere with “gender theory” or “gender ideology”: the rights of trans people in the military, the rights to abortion, lesbian, gay and trans rights, gay marriage, feminism, and other movements in favor of gender equality and sexual freedom.
That’s a lot of disparate concepts thrown into the blender and served up as “gender equality.” It also puts feminism last, which is odd when you remember that women are half (or slightly more than half) of all people, except in places where selective abortion has slashed their numbers. I don’t consider feminism a minor part of a grab bag movement for gender equality and sexual freedom; I consider feminism a stand alone movement for an end to the patriarchal subordination of women.
Arguably, this backlash against “gender ideology” took shape in 2004 when the Pontifical Council on the Family wrote a letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church signaling the potential of “gender” to destroy feminine values important to the Church; to foster conflict between the sexes; and to contest the natural, hierarchical distinction between male and female upon which family values and social life are based.
What, because until 2004 the Catholic church was all for feminism? Don’t be ridiculous. Popes and their councils have been cranking out blather about the proper role of women since forever.
In The Second Sex (1949), the existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir famously wrote: “One is not born a woman but becomes one.” This claim created space for the idea that sex is not the same as gender. And in the simplest formulation of this notion, sex is seen as a biological given, gender the cultural interpretation of sex. One may be born as female in the biological sense, but then one has to navigate a series of social norms and figure out how to live as a woman – or another gender – in one’s cultural situation.
So gently she slips that “or another gender” in there, between two dashes as if it were just an aside. Relax, honey, it will only hurt for a second. But it’s not just an aside, it’s a fucking reversal. Living “as a” woman while resisting the rules for women is feminism; living as “another gender” i.e. a man is the opposite of feminism, it’s a god damn cop out. People can see this with no trouble when it comes to race, but somehow now with “gender” it’s the hip thing to do. Imagine the reaction to “One may be born as black in the biological sense, but then one has to navigate a series of social norms and figure out how to live as a black – or another race – in one’s cultural situation.” What does “or another race” mean in that sentence? That one perfectly legit and healthy way to escape the “social norms” of living as black, to wit racism, is to transfer to the privileged aka dominant race. What does that say? It says a viable alternative to combating racism is just to stop being the despised race you are and become the race of the despisers. That leaves racism untouched but simply pretends it’s voluntary, because people can always simply announce that they are white and bam, they are freed from racist oppression.
It’s obviously both ludicrous and insulting, not to mention regressive, but it’s what Butler is saying to and about women.
The funny thing is, though, many “black” people *could* and *did* ‘pass’ for white people, especially in the decades (the *mere decades*) between abolition of slavery and the high-water mark of the Civil Rights era, and not an insignificant number of these simply moved to a different state and chose to live as white people. One of the forgotten planks of black solidarity was in fact the concern of the black community of these voluntary exiles, who left their brothers and sisters who couldn’t ‘pass’ to face the brunt of the systemic racism that such assimilation did nothing to challenge. It sounds ridiculous today, but it was a serious topic in the ’40’s and ’50’s.
Oh, I know, that’s what I mean. It used to be a thing but as anti-racism grew stronger, developed a vast literature, made changes, it became a thing held in contempt.
This essentially makes the same point – not fighting against injustice, but giving in to it.
There are a number of men who can easily pass for women, being somewhat smaller and lighter of build, and delicate enough features, that they can appear indistinguishable from natal women without any change of hormones or surgery (well, at least with clothes on). Same goes for women. There are many women who have a build that doesn’t automatically give them away as women.
None of this constitutes the existence of “other genders” or them being “the other gender”. It’s just the way of life. My voice is such that I am often mistaken for a man on the phone; this does not mean that I am a man when I am on the phone (and not a man in person? Since my build gives me away as a woman immediately?). It does mean I could add a bit of authority to my words by accepting that designation, and since my name is one that is used for either sex, I could become a man for certain purposes – pass – but that wouldn’t make me a man.
Some random thoughts on ‘passing’…in my younger thinner days I was androgynous enough to often be mistaken for a man at first glance, or by people not paying attention, and that was perfectly understandable (and certainly not the horrendous offence ‘misgendering’ is now meant to be)–but it hasn’t been that long since older, fatter me, with a pronounced hourglass figure, a G cup, and clothes bought from the ‘women’s’ section of shops and catalogs (because with my curves I can’t really wear ‘men’s’ clothes, much as I might care to), was mistaken for a man because I have short hair and a brisk walk. I guess the point, if there is any, that ‘passing’ is in the eye of the beholder more than the ‘passer’. Which suggests to me that it’s possible for societies to pick and choose how we decide to ‘gender’ or ‘misgender’ people; I mean, certainly in my lifetime we’ve gone from identifying anyone with hair longer than the jawline as a woman, to not assuming that, to assuming that again.
Guest, years ago my partner and I were watching one of those UK shows in which a women is made to stand in the street while random passers by scored them on their looks and gave sometimes detailed critique as to why they gave that score. After a makeover the process was completed. *
It really bemused both of us how many people, mostly men, gave a women only the most cursory of glances before reaching a conclusion as to attractiveness. often the critique revealed they were looking at style of clothes and hair and presence, or not of makeup before reaching their conclusion. They never actually looked at the woman.
It just goes to show how powerful gender signals are in our society and how little the actual person matters.
* Yes, we die a little from shame admitting to having watched the entire episode.
Oh, yeah–and also I don’t wear makeup (never have)–but I don’t think people who ‘gender’ me are paying that much attention to my face–they seem to be looking at hair style/length body language, and possibly general cues from clothes (I said I always buy from the ‘women’s section’, but mostly wear jumpers, loose trousers and flat shoes, and carry a backpack or tote bag rather than a handbag) for the most part.
I don’t know if you remember Susie Bright, from more innocent pre-internet days, but I remember hearing her say at talk that she doesn’t think she’s particularly attractive, and in a lot of ways falls short of the physically ‘ideal’ feminine form–‘but I have long hair, red lips and a short skirt, and that is literally all you need to be branded ‘sexy’.’
Guest at #6, that Susie Bright quote nicely encapsulates what we observed (and the reverse).
When I was younger, I was traditionally attractive, but was constantly criticized for not wearing make up or high heels (I do wear my hair long because my hair is such that when it is short it takes forever to control it in the morning; long, I just brush it through and it behaves).
“You know, if you would just wear make up, you would be an ideal woman”. What if I don’t want to be an “ideal woman”? What if I am already tired of that dude ogling me and wish he would stand further back or just jump off a cliff? And what is it that pretends a woman’s face must be doused in chemical color concoctions to be acceptable? My face is my face; if you don’t like it, then I’m probably not wearing it for you.
And having already been someone’s trophy wife (without my realizing it until too late), I had no interest in “presenting” for anyone. My husband thinks I’m fine the way I am.
The shallowest signals are enough to trigger the whole mess of Gender Assumption.
I’ve read that a French woman ‘passed’ as a male sailor on an early expedition to Polynesia. The Tahitians instantly recognized her as female, while her male colleagues—even in the enforced intimacy of the forecastle—had not. In 18th century France, women were just not ‘seen’ separately from the elaborate signals of costume etc.
Having long hair in my pre-adolescence, I was regularly ‘read’ as female. Into the mid 60s, hair-length was a sufficient signal for a substantial proportion of the public. While any actual observer would have no problem recognizing my actual gender.