Beyond Society and the Gender Binary

Gender is no doubt the first product of biological sex. Nevertheless, it is far from correct to only see gender through biological categorizations. As far as the beginning of known human history and until recent decades, gender has been recognized as an exclusive binary under which people are assigned according to innate biological characteristics. More than a mere definition that is attributed solely to biological characteristics, gender is the performative expectation of society, which is mutably dependent upon social contexts. The discrepancy between the adaptability of gender to social norms and the simplistic determination of gender on an individual level is visible, which generates a paradoxical tension implying that an individual, who must have had diverse experiences, can be simply fit into the gender binary. This tension is addressed through queer theory, which deconstructs, fairly successfully, the pre-modern conception of gender in psychoanalytic, post-structuralist, and post- modern literature through examining the performative nature of gender and the elucidation of the identity of women, only constricted loosely, in the context of feminism. Judith Butler, a prominent scholar of queer theory, summarizes and extends pivotal feminist ideas to firmly station gender characterized by liquidity. She argues in Gender Trouble, that the disempowered, systematically categorized by masculinity in a patriarchal society, are harmed when they do not fit societal expectations. In this way, they are at risk of being exposed to gender-based discrimination under oppressive gender hierarchies. To conform to the degrees of masculinity which society expects to observe from each gender, individuals must alter their “pre-individuated” desires, e.g., one must show the socially desired degree of masculinity while it may be unrepresentative of their preferences. One is also prohibited from homosexuality and incest by social law while Butler alleges that both are forms of pre-social desire, only suppressed by the rules of civilization. In place of socially constructed taboos and the gender binary, Butler advocates for a performative gender constructed by actions and inclinations which place people in certain gender categories.1 Nonetheless, this structure is extremely vague, as performative gender depends on social influences and personal experiences. Strictly speaking, there can be no finite genders, as there could be infinitely many different experiences from different people. However, it is also impossible to conceptualize an infinity and to create infinitely many genders, because too many genders would render the concept itself meaningless since it would simply be individuated while the purpose of gender classification is to establish a common social identity between individuals. Thus, we cannot attempt to determine a fixed amount of gender classifications, nor can we see it as an infinite quantity; we can only seek to be as inclusive as possible towards individual experiences, at which point we must consider biological factors, stay open to socially determined predispositions and differences resulting from such, and help individuals understand their true preference of gender with self-reflection. Biology: Biological perspectives are only employed in the initial determination of gender through the presence of X and Y chromosomes as well as certain sex organs. More specifically, it relates

more to the concept of sex than gender by sexual dimorphism, which contains behavioral, anatomical, and physiological traits as determinants for inherent sexual differences. Sexual dimorphism arises from sexual, fecundity, and viability selection, which develop certain traits in each biological sex more fit for their reproductive roles. Fecundity selection deals with the difference in physical abilities between men and women, e.g., the muscle mass and fat percentage, with males having an average of 36% higher lean mass, 65% more muscle mass, and 72% more arm muscle mass than women, and women having ~1.6 times the fat of men in certain body parts.2 All of these physiological differences are mostly the result of hormones, which I will discuss below to explain the role that biology plays in gender determination. Hormones: Prenatal hormone levels play a significant role in the masculinization or feminization of individuals. Elevated exposure to testosterone and androgen shown in a study of girls with CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) demonstrate that these girls, who because of CAH are exposed to higher levels of androgen and testosterone, demonstrate an inclination towards a more masculine play-style and traditionally masculine toys. Furthermore, increased androgen and testosterone levels are also associated with increased violence and aggression, which is a hallmark for the conventional concept of masculinity. The significance of androgen also extends beyond typical behavior preferences and manifests itself in the gender identity of these girls, since a considerable amount of these girls report feeling like boys, thus demonstrating that androgen can influence and alter an individual to diverge from their expected gender roles.3 Nonetheless, the limitation of biology in determining gender is significant, and even while hormones suggest the strongest correlation between an individual’s deviation from their respective gender expectations, there are other associated issues like genital defect and environmental influences on an individual’s preferred gender. However, it is still important to characterize an individual by their biological anatomy because it is an outline for which we can estimate one’s gender identity, since hormone levels are the indicators for masculinity or femininity. Socio-cultural factors: Gender roles based on sex within the gender binary have been essential to pre-modern societies. The gender binary has been a source of regulation and congelation of social structures that prohibited any form of transgenderism or other genders which diverge from social expectations. This was reinforced by religious beliefs and cultural expectations. Traditional Christianity exemplifies a rejection of a multidimensional gender identity because it holds firmly to a binary understanding of gender reinforced by the story of Adam and Eve: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”.4 In addition, Christianity is also associated with essentialism; the belief there are set characteristics in things, driven by its complementarianism, which emphasizes an equal relationship between men and women with complementary roles in the household. Yet this view adheres strictly to the gender dichotomy, and thus it must victimize any threats to its legitimacy such as transgenderism.5 With this set of Biblical values in place, Christianity can only accept transgenderism with great difficulty. Confucianism also establishes its order upon the gender binary. It constructs the family as the basic unit of society, which all relationships commence and cease in. This foundational unit of the family must be based on men and women only because transgender people cannot produce children and are seen as a discontinuing, and are hence a disgrace of the family and its ancestry. Additionally, conformity is the central theme in Confucianism, demonstrated in the five relationships: father and son, friend and friend, ruler and subject, husband and wife, elder sibling and younger sibling. Social order rests upon the conformity to these relationships, and transgenderism escapes or transcends these relationships, hence it is rejected.6 Meanwhile, post-structuralist and post-modernist introduce and champion another set of values fundamentally distinct from traditional religions. The most vigorous wave of post- structuralist and post-modernist thought in feminism arose in France during the 1960s in a resurgence of French Nietzscheanism, marked by Deleuze’s Nietzsche and Philosophy in 1962. The philosopher Nietzsche’s thoughts brought forth a metaphoric and multi-faceted representation of things common to the feminist theme, which “gave rise to a radical new feminism” surrounding the philosophy of “otherness and difference.” French feminism at the time, from Beauvoir to Foucault, advocated for a radical alteration of social norms for the freedom and self-determination of individuals in line with the themes explored in Nietzsche’s works. They rejected the theme of essentialism present in religion and science, defining a more complex notion of gender as a performative social construct with biological, social, and cultural influences and advocating for the destruction of the patriarchal economy dominating social relations.7 In essence, while some religious beliefs prohibit the existence of transgenderism because their core tenets require the maintenance of the gender binary to uphold its legitimacy, other philosophies reject their essentialist view and present constructivism as the emancipator of women and other oppressed genders. Given that Christianity can be incorporated with new progressive ideas under certain circumstances, but there are many other religions that hold different gender views and cannot reconcile as easily with the dissolution of the gender binary. These disagreements are unavoidable because they are deeply embedded in a culture; hence we must be able to incorporate many diverse opinions, often shaped by culture and experience, of how gender should be constituted, and we should always hold an inclusive attitude towards it. Individual questions: It is important that one has a certain degree of autonomy in deciding their own gender as opposed to conforming to social expectations. However, to truly identify one’s preference for gender, one must understand themselves first through being presented alternative views, which serve as a ready choice; then, they must reflect on their interests, seeing whether it conforms with a gender. Lastly they must understand valuable desires that hold them to their present preferences. One must know of an alternative to preconceived societal norms and conceptual boundaries in order to escape from them. To illustrate, in 1930, Danish painter Lili Elbe underwent the first documented transgender surgery to turn into a woman. She was raised as a boy and lived like a boy, and she did not have any conflicts with her identity, even with having a wife in 1905. On an occasion, however, her friend Ernst Ludwig Hathorn Jacobson asked her to try on women’s clothes to model for his art, and Ms. Elbe quickly fell in love with the feeling of being feminine, and ultimately decided to perform a transgender surgery.8 What this instance demonstrates is how societal expectations and traditional gender roles may mask our true gender inclinations, since Ms. Elbe did not realize her preferred gender identity until she had the experience of being a woman. This is the concept of masquerade, a sexual ontology denying feminine desires for masculine desires. In the current social context, masculinity is still the hallmark of an individual’s phallus, one’s social status, and strength physically and mentally is based upon the masculine model. One should attempt to escape the expectations of external influences and understand all the possibilities to gain deeper insight of the self. You must then reflect on the alignment of one’s desires with gender roles. We must see whether what we currently desire is the product of social mores or our true likings. This allows us to create a more genuine and authentic sense of identity, while accompanying it with satisfaction that we can align our preferences, authentic self, and gender identity. However, it is equally important to consider aspects of cultural and social influence that has held one to their assigned gender and roles associated with them. Upon encountering these influences, we can choose which ones to reject, because they may merely be groundless prejudices that we hold. Discarding these brings us into a clearer and more rational position to judge what is most fit for our identity. However, there may also be prejudices or cultural identities that conflict with our gender expression. It is now important to determine what we value the most, and while pursuing freedom of expression may bring individual freedom, it could mean forfeiting another crucial aspect of the identity. This balance is for one to decide by themselves, i.e., whether it is worth it to forfeit another identity for gender, or whether there is a compatible middle-ground between the two identities. Conclusion: In conclusion, the determination of an individual’s gender is a combination of biology, society, and individual will. Each of these determinants cannot stand on their own; biology is essentialist, social impacts are vague, and individual will depends on society and individual experience. Thus, each complements the other, creating a structure which can recognize the fluidity of gender structures, but at the same time understand the impact of social institutions on individual will and existing gender structure

Bibliography

1 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 2015). 2 William D. Lassek and Steven J. C. Gaulin, “Substantial but Misunderstood Human Sexual Dimorphism Results Mainly from Sexual Selection on Males and Natural Selection on Females,” Frontiers, March 28, 2022, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859931/full. 3 Sheri A Berenbaum and Adriene M Beltz, “How Early Hormones Shape Gender Development,” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 7 (2016): 53–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cobeha.2015.11.011. 4 The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared & Revised (New York: American Bible Society, 1986), Genesis 1:27. 5 Alyssa Roat, “What Are Complementarianism and Egalitarianism? What’s the ” Christianity.com, July 5, 2019, https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-are- complementarianism-and-egalitarianism-what-s-the-difference.html. 6 Li-Hsiang Rosenlee, “Gender in Confucian Philosophy,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, February 27, 2023, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucian-gender/. 7 Alan D. Schrift, “Nietzsche and the Emergence of Poststructuralism,” Historical Traces and Future Pathways of Poststructuralism, 2020, 15–34, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367816940-3. 8 “Lili Elbe,” Encyclopædia Britannica, accessed July 5, 2023, https://www.britannica.com/ biography/Lili-Elbe.