In a recent documentary U.S. right-wing commentator Matt Walsh purports to embark on a mission to expose the ridiculousness of modern gender ideology by traipsing around the country (even the world) and asking a bunch of people one simple question: “What is a woman?” I’ll be honest, so far I’m not willing to buy a full subscription to Daily Wire's streaming service in order to watch the whole thing. However based on trailers and his copious body of public writings on the subject it seems fairly clear that his argument goes something like this: if we ditch the reliance on biological difference no one can give a definitive answer about what makes someone a woman therefore modern understandings about gender that rely on other definitions are socially constructed and unstable.
Thus far. Walsh and I are in total agreement. See, the way we collectively think about gender is inherently social and potentially subject to change. All we need to do is look around at the rich and diverse understanding of gender and gender categorization throughout history to see this is true. In some times and places, for example women have been understood as simply underdeveloped men - biologically, mentally, spiritually and socially. In other times and places we view men and women as entirely separate and diametrically opposed biological and social entities. Most commonly, societies have split people into two genders: men and women. However, a surprisingly diverse range of historical and current cultures vary in having third or in-between gender categories or the extent to which people can move between gender categories (for example 1, 2, 3). The truth is, humans as a whole have always been unsure about gender on some level. And, while we all have to make sense of gender there have always been individuals whose existence and behavior especially problematizes the gender standards of their time and place. The fact that we may disagree or change our minds about what it means to be a woman (or a man, or neither) is no different now than it was a thousand years ago. What is different now is perhaps the way we are forced to confront this fact. Due to globalization, various social movements, and vastly increased technological and communication capacities, the potential instability of gender as a way of understanding ourselves or others presses on our reality as never before. Six hundred years ago I would likely be living my life as a peasant in Europe somewhere. I might feel some personal disquiet with my lot in life being understood as a woman. If I was especially brave I might push against this categorization. However, I would have almost no way of knowing that across the globe others lived in societies that conceptualized gender differently (for example that on the other side of the world other cultures had ways of moving across gender boundaries or recognized third-gender status). I couldn’t read blogs and opinion pieces from people around the world asking questions like: “Does this current system of understanding gender work for us?” “Could it be different?” “Does it fit the way I feel about myself?” Now, however, things have changed. Regardless of how we ourselves understand gender categorization we are almost all aware that others think about it differently, and for many of us this is extremely disquieting because on some level this requires us to consider: "Who’s right? Could this important piece of how I understand myself and the world be incorrect?" In an attempt to allay this disturbing thought many, like Walsh, are seeking reassurances to bolster their own understanding of gender. They, like him, turn to the tantalizing argument of “science” and “biology”. Here, we think, lies a reassuring and concrete way to draw gendered lines. This is also not new. As long as humans have been thinking about gender they have been looking to physical differences to help make sense of it. If someone like Walsh argues that ditching a reliance on physical difference gives us a world in which gender is socially constructed and unstable, the implied (or out-right stated) flip side to the argument is often: “However, if we look to physical differences our gender system does not rely on social construction and is therefore stable.” This is where Walsh and I part ways. In the first place, virtually all ways of understanding gender throughout human history have included or are built on physical difference in some way. If they “worked” and were stable we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place. But even if we lay this argument aside and relegate this to the province of unstable and extreme liberals a number of inconvenient facts remain. Our understanding of physical difference comes not from pure “science” but scientists - who are themselves people apt to interpret what they see through their own socially-constructed lens. Where there is large consensus among scientists about human anatomy and physiology, this consensus is subject to change from time to time as new discoveries are made. Further, it takes only a brief internet search or intro biology class to reveal that when we try to rely on biological difference to put people in gendered categories, the very physical bodies we are looking to often defy this categorization. (For a quick introduction to this complexity I recommend looking into the fascinating history of gender differentiation in Olympic sport.) Is it a visual difference anyone can see? What about people born intersex? With unusual genitals? Men with breasts? Women without? Is it based on DNA? What about the varied conditions in which people are not born with just XY or XX chromosomes? Is it based on hormones? Then how do we explain the naturally-occurring variation therein and where do we draw the line? So, Walsh is perfectly right to point out that if we understand gender as something that is socially constructed - a meaning we give to the world around us- we will not all agree and are likely to face some difficult differences and shifts in how we perceive gender. However, he is perfectly wrong to suggest that we can escape this reality by relying on some other way of understanding gender- for his framework too, is subject to social construction. If I’m honest I truly sympathize, not with Walsh’s argument, but with people like him who wish there was a simpler way to understand what gender is. I sympathize because I too am a person living in this world contemplating what gender is and its consequences for how I understand myself and those around me. The paradox of how we understand gender is that it could change. It does not have to be the way it is, and yet our collective and individual understanding of gender is deeply meaningful and foundational at the same time. Even though I know there is no universal way to describe this category, I still think of myself and present myself as a woman. It feels meaningful because I myself and those around me understand it to be. For many their sense of gender identity is so important they risk their reputations and very lives to be socially recognized a certain way. For others their sense of gender identity is so important they become perpetrators of violence, even lethal violence against those who disagree. This paradox is deeply painful for many of us to live with. Is it comforting or more disquieting to point out that this is not unique to beliefs about gender? As humans we are both shaped by and create much of the world we live in. We develop languages that allow us to write poetry and keep us from communicating effectively with those who speak differently. We create technology that allows us to power homes with “clean” energy and destroy lives. Being understood as a woman, a mother, an American, a Christian, a white person, creates (sometimes painful) boundaries around and expectations of my behavior and also allows me to more easily create connections with others and make sense of myself. Of course much of our world is socially constructed! That’s what humans do- we create meaning. But that doesn’t mean it’s not real, and not meaningful. That’s the beauty and tragedy of being human: we make the world and have to live in it at the same time. Our understanding of gender is no exception. Ironically, the quote that comes to my mind again and again as I write was spoken by a character created by J.K. Rowling (whose somewhat narrow understanding of gender has become infamous): “Of course it's happening inside your head . . . but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” I know this reality is frustrating and we all deal with it differently. Some of us rely on religion to tell us what gender is and what it means. Others put stock in our own personal experiences of ourselves and the world. Some ignore the complex nature of gender and simply pick a categorization system and go with it. Some say we should make gender boundaries more clear, some blurrier, and some think they should be undone altogether. I’m not here to argue that one approach is correct (I would be lying if I said I had it all figured out myself) - only that we should expect them to vary and perhaps cultivate a little bit of sympathy and empathy for those who choose a different approach than our own - maybe envision a society in which people with different gender identities and understandings of gender can coexist better. My best advice for those who are either feeling triumphant or embarrassed about the fact that lots of people cannot easily answer Walsh’s question: what is a woman? Is: don’t. To expose the fact that we can’t agree, sometimes even within our own minds, what gender is or even whether it exists or ought to exist is neither a mike-drop defense for “traditional gender ideology” nor a devastating reality check for those who think “traditional” ways of understanding gender aren’t working for us anymore. It’s simply the reality of being a human trying to make sense of ourselves and those around us. To answer “I’m not sure” is not proof that someone doesn’t know what they are talking about but an honest assessment of the complex nature of social interaction and humanity’s meaning-making capabilities.
0 Comments
|