---

Crystal Teardrops (on Gender)

My poems are crystal teardrops
born of confusion, crystallized
by its resolution.
They work their way out;
I cannot push them.
Here’s one.

I am the lightest amongst women
and I beat the heavy drum 
amidst the company of brothers—
And why shouldn’t I?

I carry years of 
Knowing and Unknowing,
of the hardening and softening,
of the chortles and the fire;
and it turns out I am all of it,
(or at least a pretty bird or two
has bounced around before me while I
paid attention to my head and noticed
it within me.)

Now if I bow down to your office, 
will you carry me awhile?
Life’s too wonderful to be something;
and all that’s there to choose
are silly beats within a background that is
Orchestral,
so why bother?

That I may be nothing to myself,
I am Yours.

---

Sex and Gender as Narratives: Gender is a Bundle of Expectations

I acknowledge that gender is itself a narrative “placed on top of” the irreducible individuality of the person. Sex is likewise such a conceptual narrative. This is in contrast to the commonly held idea that sex is a “scientific fact” and gender is a mere construct. In fact, both are constructs, and individuality is closest to the real.

I believe that given the construct of sex, there will in any society arise certain stereotypes, or simplified models, of male and female predispositions, which influence the roles and scripts associated with that sex. These simple models associated with sex constitute “gender.” In other words, gender is a sort of bundle of expectations for a sex. In an ideal society, these simplified models, though they arise, would have no bearing on our treatment of others, with all focus being instead on the individual personality. In our society now, gender is fraught with problems. 

Expectations: Normative vs. Statistical

One problem is that people confuse what should likely be (in statistical expectation) with what ought to be (normatively). In fact, they are utterly unrelated. A second is that gender expectations are not even statistically accurate summaries! The simplified models and the reality have become decoupled, if they were ever coupled to begin with. This relates to the third problem, which is that power has influenced gender expectations. In particular, male domination (or “patriarchy”) has forced females into subordinate roles and scripts.

I am partial to the view that while sex as a construct is useful for medical purposes, and is essentially inevitable due to obvious differences in secondary sex characteristics, gender itself ought to be radically reimagined. It doesn’t make much sense to talk about abolishing gender, because as long as sex categories continue to be recognized, gender will arise in the form of simplified models of sexes; but these models should not have normative force. Focus should be on the individual foremost. Perhaps the concept of gender can be shrunk from normative bounds to mere statistical summaries associated with sex.

It ought to be that an individual sexed as male (or female) can freely behave however he or she wants to behave without being classed as not-male (or not-female). It is tautological to say that if you are classed as a male (female), then however you are is within the bounds of how males (females) are. And yet, individual freedom includes the right to request different pronouns; to explicitly and publicly disavow the predominant gender scripts assigned to one’s sex (in one’s personal experience); and also to declare alignment with and the desire to participate in the predominant gender scripts associated with the other sex (in one’s personal experience). I emphasize the point that gender scripts that are rejected or chosen are those understood from one’s personal experience because there is obviously not one definitive account of gender roles; there is no central governing body that says, “All men must behave thusly.” So what it means to be transgender at all is very much dependent on the individual.

Normative Expectations are Harmful insofar as they Restrict Freedom

The normative, proscriptive role of gender expectations is a problem. Transgenderism is a sensible response to this nonsensical system. As long as there are still normatively binding scripts and norms, one should be free to trade one set of scripts for another. Simultaneously, we should work to dismantle the current scripts and their attachment to normative “oughts.”

One manner of dismantling the predominant scripts is through multiplication: a proliferation of positive “gender identities” beyond the man/woman bifurcation allows a means for people to create themselves by declaration. The multiplication of gender identities is driven in part by a technical need: people need search terms and hash tags to find each other. Our identities are created in intersubjective dialogue, and not all at once. We are communal products, constructing and reconstructing ourselves over time.

Declaring oneself a member of a certain gender community will affect one’s reality insofar as it brings them into contact with new individuals who are like-minded. It may also expose one to new gender scripts in their interactions with others. These experiences might in turn inform their self-concept, which may then evolve beyond their initially chosen label.

So we see that transgenderism and multiple gender identities have emerged as part of the radical reimagining of gender that is already underway. Ideally, after so much noise, we will settle on a world where males and females are freer to identify as neither, and as nothing else in particular as it relates to gender. This would be a world in which sex differences are not necessarily erased, but in which sex affects neither equality of opportunity nor normative social expectations. This would be a world in which individual expression is prized and encouraged, though there may still remain statistical differences in chosen expressions between males and females.

Lingering Questions: What of Diversity and Classification?

Does this erase diversity? Clearly not! It erases labels. Does the multiplicity of genders undermine the meaning and significance of gender as a construct at all? Yes, I believe it does. This is for the better. Does transgenderism reify and reinforce gender identities? Not necessarily; but even if it has some marginal impact, we should make up for that effect with our other work as it relates to reimagining gender, rather than invalidating trans-identities.

A number of broader philosophical questions follow from what I have described here regarding gender.

For example: Does respect for irreducible individuality require moving beyond classification systems about persons altogether? Can we retain categories without inevitable normativity, even informally?

Call me an optimist, but I believe that we can. There is nothing about a label for a group of people that is intrinsically normative with regard to their behavior, even if there may be non-behavioral prerequisites to group membership (e.g. race). Most people who confuse statistical expectations with normative expectations don’t even know that they are doing it. People are in general ethically uneducated or under-educated.

However, we already see the seeds of this re-imagining of group labels in the term “gatekeeping.” Members of a particular identity group are told not to “gatekeep” their identity—that is, not to enforce norms on what “qualifies” a person for membership in the in-group. This word has arisen as a means of policing against policing by means of communal shaming. I think that this ethos ought to be extended to all group labels; and in time, with sufficient education in the ethics of conversation and identity formation, it can be.

One may then ask something along the lines of, “But wait a minute, isn’t there a loss of meaning or coherence if identities become totally disconnected from expected expressions?” 

Well, let’s consider an example. I am Cuban-American. This is a conventionally measurable statement of self-identity. My grandmother and grandfather came from Cuba, and we live in the USA. Suppose I go to a meet-up organized by an online community of Cuban-Americans. Might I have a preconception, based on my experience with other Cuban-Americans, of how people in this group might act? Sure. Do I need to have an opinion about how the other individuals in this group ought to act, by virtue of their being Cuban-American? Of course not! I might find at this meet-up a transgender person, a cyclist, a libertarian, a socialist. They might be rude, respectful, shy, loud, and any other number of things. On the other hand, the group could be fairly uniformly behaved and politically oriented. Either way, the ways that I find those people to be will inform my simplified models of what it means to be Cuban-American (in the conventionally measurable sense).

In just this way, I say that expectations (simplified statistical summaries) will arise around group labels in any society, but they need not have normative force associated with them. If surprising features are not actively discouraged, and likewise surprise itself is not understood to be a tacit discouragement, then expectation in the statistical sense need not imply expectation in a normative or ethical sense.

Closing Thoughts: An Evolving Dialogue

I aim to evolve my views on these complex topics in continual dialogue with good-faith interlocutors. I don’t wish to speak unduly for groups of which I am not a member, and I don’t want any voices to be left out. If you disagree with what I have said, or if it resonates with you, then please let your voice be heard!