At a recent St. Thomas Justice and Peace Club meeting, students introduced themselves by name and preferred gender identification. Carleton College’s Sexuality and Gender Activism Organization encourages making a regular practice of asking people’s gender identification. It also reminds readers not to assume that one person’s preferred identification will be the same in the future. Ask, and ask often, it says.
The issues of people who feel out of place with their bodily sex need to be addressed and have been ignored for too long, but allowing people to choose their gender identification is not the solution.
Over the past four years since transgender issues have gained public spotlight, I have asked several advocates for these gender-identification customs what they think gender is. If they believe gender identification is important, they must have some thoughts about what gender is – that thing with which people identify. I have heard a few answers.
The first response I always hear is that gender is simply how you think about yourself. There are a lot of problems with this view, and that is probably why no one I have spoken with has stuck with it for the entirety of our discussion.
To me, the biggest problem with this view is that it isn’t clear what part of ourselves we are pointing to when we say we are one gender or another. When I say I am 6 feet tall, I am pointing to my height. When I say that I like pasta, I am pointing to an inclination I have. What is it we are thinking about when we think about our gender?
I also think it is clear that we can think about ourselves incorrectly. I think most people would agree that those with anorexia have a mistaken image of themselves. It is possible for people to believe that they are overweight when they are not. But then it doesn’t make sense to put so much emphasis on how someone chooses to identify. What matters is what they are objectively, and of course the view that gender is merely how we think about ourselves doesn’t give us a way of figuring out what this objective reality is.
The second response I get is this: Gender is the conformity of a person’s behavior with certain traditional gender behavior norms. By this view, a person is more or less “male” because they act “like a man” – that is, in those ways commonly associated with men.
This view also has problems. First, I’m not sure why we would identify ourselves by our gender if gender were nothing more than a habit or type of behavior. This view unintentionally seems to make gender trivial. If there’s one thing clear in discussions of gender it is that gender is not arbitrary or trivial.
Second, this view of gender unintentionally accepts the traditional behavior classifications it claims to throw out. This is seen in the following way: I can classify my behavior in one way as studious or as prodigal. I can classify it in another way as sporadic or organized. In what way am I classifying behavior when I classify it by gender? The only answer I can find is that I classify it according to the way in which people in the 1950s stereotyped the behaviors of men and women. And this is supposed to be the progressive egalitarian way of defining gender.
Third, like with the first view of gender, this view doesn’t explain why we should identify people by whichever gender they choose. Just as we can have misconceptions about ourselves, we can have bad (as well as good) habits. But it’s clear that someone’s gender cannot be a bad thing, so gender cannot be a habit.
In response to this line of thinking, I am told that gender is not just behavior, but the sort of behavior toward which a person is naturally inclined. Males feel inclined to act “like men,” and people in between on the scale feel inclined toward both male and female behavior.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, inclinations – like habits – can be either good or bad and are trivial to who a person is. Gender is necessarily good and not trivial. So gender cannot merely be an inclination. Finally, calling gender a sort of inclination fails to explain the kind of inclination it is.
The only explanation I have ever heard for why such diverse things as favorite color, household roles, clothing style, sexual orientation, sensitivity and competitiveness should be grouped together under one category is that “this is how society stereotypes gender.” But if there isn’t truth in the way society “stereotypes” gender, then using the same stereotypes to help turn gender into a scale rather than a binary doesn’t solve the problem.
Elliot Polsky can be reached at pols4319@stthomas.edu.
This needs a MASSIVE trigger warning for trans-misogyny.
a. Gender Identity is not preferred. One doesn’t have “preferable” pronouns, we just have pronouns.
b. “allowing people to choose their gender identification is not the solution”… to what? Gender dysphoria?
c. “over the past 4 years since transgender issues have gained public spotlight”… are you serious? Have you even done the most basic of google searches on transgender history? Transgender issues have been LONG debated in the public spotlight.
d. “I also think it is clear that we can think about ourselves incorrectly. I think most people would agree that those with anorexia have a mistaken image of themselves.” You’re basically saying here that being trans or identifying outside of the binary is a mental illness much like anorexia.
e. I really don’t see what you are offering to the greater community here. Your thinking is unoriginal and hurtful.
I think this is a really interesting article! I just had two comments about the paragraph in which you used the example of anorexia. What you’re describing–the skewed view of one’s body–is actually called body dysmorphia, and is often coupled with anorexia nervosa, but not a necessary part of the disorder. The anorexia disorder focuses on the need to lose weight, whether or not the person thinks he or she is overweight. This weight loss is not an attempt to move from an unhealthy weight to a healthy one; rather, it has to do with a disordered obsession, stemming from other sources of pain or stress. Thus, the subjective perspective is key. For anorexia to even be diagnosed, the internal experience is critical. One is not simply anorexic because they are objectively restricting food intake; other causes could include stress or dieting for an upcoming event. It is the internal obsession with weight loss that defines the disorder. Similarly, I believe one is not simply a “male” in gender because they are externally male. The internal subjective view needs to be considered. I definitely agree that this post has important points to consider in terms of the social context of gender identity and the search for a more concrete understanding, but I think it is unwise to disregard the subjective reality of a human and say that only the objectivity of the matter is important.
Please, for the sake of everyone at UST, stop speaking to the lived experience of others when you do not share that experience. In this case, give trans people the space to share their own existence and their thoughts on identity, self-concept, and self-awareness. As you have no experience with these issues, you therefore have no business commenting on them.
Do your research before you write a piece that reaches so much of the student body. You have the immense priviledge of having such a public platform on which to conjecture and expound your half-baked philosophical BS. Respect that with your priviledge comes power, and right now you are invalidating and harming members of your community.
DO BETTER.
Dearest Elliot Polsky,
I would first like to begin by saying yes; labeling certain characteristics as belonging to one of two genders is definitely silly. The fact that dominant society links a person’s genitals to a color, disposition, or character trait is, as you appear to agree, quite ridiculous. However, just because the gender binary and gender itself are socially constructed and built on fiction, does not mean that they do not exist and operate in very real ways in the everyday lives of human beings. We can’t just say “this concept is wrong, let’s stop identifying people by gender” because we have already given it so much meaning.
That being said, many people do not fit into this binary or do not identify with the gender on it that dominant society has arbitrarily linked to their biology. I would ask you to think about your own gender and ask yourself if you can identify what it is. You can? Well, then I’m sure you can imagine that other people are also pretty positive about their own gender as well. Your comparison of gender identity and anorexia is a hurtful one, implying that individuals who identify as something other than what the binary tells them to has an illness.
I would further advise you to educate yourself and do a considerable amount of research on the social construction of gender. Asking individuals what gender is to them is not the same as academic thought and research. Though it may not have been your intent, this article is harmful and continues the erasure of an already extremely marginalised group of people. I sincerely hope you think about this topic critically and examine the dominant social discourses that have led you to your personal views on gender.
In regards to your comments, Stephanie,
It seems a bit quick to say this article trans-misogynistic. If transmisogyny is “the negative attitudes, expressed through cultural hate, individual and state violence, and discrimination directed toward trans women” (everydayfeminism.com), then I’m not sure how this articles is hateful, violent, or discriminatory. There is no negative language used toward those who are trans, women, etc. It seems the author wants to talk about ideas and about gender and assuming that he is attacking a group of people gives him and the conversation no benefit.
a. If Gender Identity is not something preferred, than what does it mean to “identify” with a gender? What is identifying with something if not preferring to be recognized in a particular way?
b. As he said in that sentence, “allowing people to choose their gender identification is not the solution to … issues of people who feel out of place with their bodily sex”
c. While I’m not sure where the author got his “four years” from, this doesn’t seem to be of vital issue here.
d. The author seems to be drawing comparisons in making an analogy. Those who have anorexia have a mental conception of themselves that is objectively false (I think I am obese when I am not). Perhaps those who have gender dysphoria have a mental conception of themselves that might be objectively false (I think I am a woman when I am not). This only makes sense if gender is something objective, though.
e. I believe the author is bringing up a vital issue that necessitates public discussion. It is obvious everyone is not in agreement about this topic, and if each side believes strongly that what they believe is true, than it makes sense to talk about it, as long as both sides speak peacefully and respectfully about the issue.
f. I would like to pose again the question the author asked, namely, “what gender is” Of course, providing a comprehensive answer to that in a comment on a school opinions piece is a long shot, but I sincerely hope that discussions about this topic dig deeper for the answer to that question.
The transphobia is rampant in this piece. This piece is a prime example of why the Core Curriculum’s so-called Social Analysis requirement shouldn’t be fulfilled by practically EVERY class. If we’re gonna have to take a philosophy class to learn how to develop arguments, we should also have to take a sociology class to learn how we can make sure the arguments we make aren’t simply based off our own privileged experiences and/or incredibly destructive to the whole of society. I don’t know. That’s just an idea if we want to be “advancing the common good.” I’ll add this article to the list of reasons why I’m leaving UST.
Interesting article, thanks for writing it, Mr. Polsky. If comment writers could offer a clearer definition of gender, one that is not already addressed in this article, that would help further a civilized discussion.
Hi Stephanie,
I’ve responded to each of your points below.
Your first comment: “This needs a MASSIVE trigger warning for trans-misogyny.” (I think you need a new word. This would technically mean a transgendered person who hates women or something like beyond or across the hatred of women, neither of which I think is your intended meaning. Further where does he espouse any hate in this article? Questioning an idea isn’t hating on the bearer of that idea, if it were you’d be espousing hate of the author by questioning his ideas. But, as far as I can tell, you just disagree and want to engage in dialogue. I would hope your disagreement wouldn’t lead to hatred.)
a. “Gender Identity is not preferred. One doesn’t have ‘preferable’ pronouns, we just have pronouns.” (The author’s usage is correct, unless, the Gay Straight Alliance for Safe Schools doesn’t know what they are talking about http://www.gsafewi.org/wp-content/uploads/What-the-heck-is-a-PGP1.pdf or the progressive Huffington Post is behind the times http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/01/preferred-pronouns-colleges_n_4367970.html)
b. “‘allowing people to choose their gender identification is not the solution’… to what? Gender dysphoria?” (He answers this in the same sentence: “people who feel out of place with their bodily sex.” What is the point of your question? Is he wrong in saying it is not the solution, if so, actually explain why he is wrong, that way there can be productive dialogue in search of truth.)
c. “‘over the past 4 years since transgender issues have gained public spotlight’… are you serious? Have you even done the most basic of google searches on transgender history? Transgender issues have been LONG debated in the public spotlight.” (Of course he knows they’ve been publicly discussed in the past, but it would be hard to deny they haven’t moved more toward center stage.)
d. “‘I also think it is clear that we can think about ourselves incorrectly. I think most people would agree that those with anorexia have a mistaken image of themselves.’ You’re basically saying here that being trans or identifying outside of the binary is a mental illness much like anorexia.” (He is saying that such is a possibility, not necessarily that such is the case. If being trans is not comparable to anorexia he is inviting others to explain on what grounds the identity is based. He says he has yet to hear a viable solution, it doesn’t mean there isn’t one. I’m sure he’d be interested to hear how you’d explain the rooting of gender identity.)
e. “I really don’t see what you are offering to the greater community here. Your thinking is unoriginal and hurtful.” (He is offering the greater community the opportunity to actually think about their beliefs and not just blindly accept soundbites with emotional appeal. If you think you are right, come up with a good defense of your position so that people can actually debate ideas and together approach truth.)
Peace,
Hannah
Oh wow, there are a lot of comments here all of a sudden….
Dear Madelyn,
A few comments:
“In this case, give trans people the space to share their own existence and their thoughts on identity, self-concept, and self-awareness.” –– He IS asking for dialogue and for people to speak. Nowhere has he said let “let there now be silence on this subject.” Nowhere has he said anyone’s opinion or experience does not count. He is trying to bring clarity to discussions he has had and articles he has read, when there is little to no clarity.
“As you have no experience with these issues, you therefore have no business commenting on them.” –– If this statement were true then it would be impossible for people of different races to empathize or talk about each other. Clearly groups with different experiences can share their experiences and empathize (otherwise what is the point of all the diversity classes?).
“Do your research before you write a piece that reaches so much of the student body” What fact does he get wrong? Further, would research then qualify as experience?
“expound your half-baked philosophical BS.” –– honestly is this how one has constructive dialogue? If he is wrong make an argument. He hasn’t attacked anyone.
“Respect that with your priviledge comes power, and right now you are invalidating and harming members of your community.” –– You seem to be commenting on the author’s background and life experience growing up. You also seem to be commenting on the experience of some others who are purportedly invalidated and harmed by this article.
Peace,
Hannah
Dear Emma,
Thank you for your constructive comment!
I think there is one key misunderstanding here. Nowhere does the author say that “the gender binary and gender itself are socially constructed and built on fiction.” Just because some characteristics that are associated with gender are social constructs does not make the genders themselves social constructs.I don’t think the author wants to throw out gender, or at least he hasn’t said so. I took this piece as an invitation for deeper thought about the meaning of gender and how it is that gender does “exist and operate in very real ways in the everyday lives of human beings.” If we agree that these characteristics are at least to a degree socially constructed, might they not still be built on a reality and not a fiction? Might some be built on reality and others on fiction?
As to your comments on his comparison to anorexia: 1) He never says that people who identify outside of the binary have an illness. Rather, he states that such (that they have an illness) would follow from definitions he has heard. He is asking for a better definition. 2) When is it acceptable to say that someone has an illness? Certainly, just to say that someone might or does is not always hurtful (or even if it is, it is sometimes good to say).
Peace,
Hannah
I read some of these comments and I can’t help but say this: CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE. You’re fortunate enough to be in a socio-economic class that you CAN have a (somewhat) educated dialogue about this, when people in your neighborhood can’t even afford healthy food or basic health necessities (which gender-sensitivity, on a campus steeped in extensive privilege, is not).
Why, why, why must so many people get so butt-hurt whenever someone calls them by their “non-preferred” gender? If you look like a male, I am going to refer to you as a male or use gender specific pronouns. Feel free to correct me and I will refer to you as something else, but not “them” or “they”. Why? It’s grammatically incorrect to refer to one person as plural people.
People are entitled to their beliefs, and YES, people can believe that this gender-identity movement/social concern is less important than say, food insecurity or mental health in our poor, far less privileged communities.
Honestly, I’m just here for the comments… You go, Polsky!