Trigger Warning: References to forced normalization, anti-trans bigotry+violence, cissexism, binarism 
In the current society, it does not appear
 possible to live entirely without gender- it is certainly possible to 
have a genderless identity, and it is possible to perform in ways that 
make it extremely difficult for others to determine a gender, but it 
seems impossible to avoid having others read the performance as 
belonging to one of the two binary genders. (The performance may, 
however, be read as being a defective or incorrect version of one of 
these two genders.)
I claim that it
 is possible to identify with no gender at all due to both knowing 
people who do so and to having run across statements from those who do 
so over the course of research for another project, namely discussing 
the erasure of Queer Autistic people. In this research, I had difficulty
 finding anything academic about
 sexual orientation, perhaps due to assumptions that we are incapable of
 relationships (a false assumption) and that our sexuality would 
therefore be irrelevant (I had better luck with Autistic bloggers, who 
have written both about their orientations and about the erasure of 
their orientations.) One wrote about navigating a world full of 
gendered signals that were invisible to their genderless self, and 
another wrote that questions asking about gender remind him of being 
asked for "miles per gallon" of a vehicle powered by solar electricity. 
(Jack 2012.) Using writings from many Autistic people as well as 
researchers not identified as on the spectrum, Jack discusses a view of 
gender as a copia from autistic perspectives, noting that many Autistic 
people have non-traditional gender identities. Sometimes, these 
identities are a matter of dis-identifying with both binary genders, 
stating a genderless identity, or claiming to lack the internal wiring 
to see gender as an important variable (Jack 2012.) Given this sort of 
identification as part of newly more common questioning if gender comes 
in more than just two flavors (Rosenberg 159,) it's clear that a 
genderless identity is possible.
However,
 I do not think it is currently possible to be read by others as 
genderless- gender identity, assignment, and presentation are three 
different things (Lee and Shaw 107,) and I would argue that attempted 
presentation is not the same thing as how presentations are read by 
others. The idea of androgyny many have is one that emphasizes the 
masculine, viewing it as neutral (Lee and Shaw 109,) so a performance 
that is actually a mix of masculine and feminine will be read as 
feminine. This is the issue I run into with my performance, which 
includes a mix of masculine and feminine pieces and is read consistently
 as feminine, sometimes as poorly done feminine. It is also part of a 
social construction of gender which privileges masculinity as ideal or 
as neutral- men are not often thought of as a gender group (Lorber 127.)
Society
 is, in many cases, terrified of those who may break the gender binary, 
assigning a gender at birth, then using surgery and hormones to make 
those who are biologically intersexed fit (Lee and Shaw 106.) Forcing 
performance in alignment with the gender assigned at birth is often 
considered a part of therapy for autistic children (Bumiller,) noted in 
her essay about autism, political theory, and working against forced 
normalization. This is not, of course, exclusive to autism- anyone who 
veers too far from gendered social standards is subject to sanctions, 
both formal and not (Lorber 127.) These sorts of sanctions are what many
 trans* people run into, having been pushed into one gender box their 
whole lives but fitting better in the other (or in neither!) Trans* 
people are at risk for all sorts of discrimination and hate crimes 
(Rosenberg 160,) which looks like an adult and higher stakes version of 
the sanctions Lorber describes.
This 
fear of those who break the gender binary, or even those who simply wish
 to take the "other" position within an untouched and unquestioned 
binary as Richards seems to (qtd. in Rosenberg 161,) stems from the 
institution of gender as a way of creating social groups to assign jobs 
to (Lorber 127.) If a person steps outside of their assigned place 
within a hierarchical system, people worry that others might wish to 
follow, that the system could be about to collapse, and so any deviation
 must be eliminated swiftly. To make men fit, shame is often the weapon 
with which they are taught that they must not be like women (Wexler 
141,) and women are socialized to be all the things men are shamed out 
of. This shame could not work if femininity were considered equally 
valuable and simply different, but masculinity is
 privileged, and so the ways of making women conform to femininity need 
to be slightly different. They are also less stringently enforced, with 
far more women willing to admit to "tomboy" tendencies than men willing 
to admit to being a sissy (Lee and Shaw 105.) 
It's socialized. It's all
 socialized, everything is culture. Things that are really results of 
socialization, such as the idea that men are more honest, intelligent, 
and courageous, while women are passive and dependent, are often stated 
as "biological fact" and used to push people into jobs that gender 
stereotypes say they are best qualified for. Even when people actively 
rebel against gender norms (or simply fail to understand why they are so
 important and innocently ignore them,) gender is still a huge part of 
life. Others will read us as belonging to one gender or another, based 
on things like a baseball cap, earrings, or choice of shoes (Lorber 
126.) From those readings, we are shuttled along one path or the other, 
sometimes physically separated from those on the other path. When Beka, 
the protagonist in one Tamora Pierce novel asked how men and women could
 understand each other when kept separate, her cat (this is fantasy and 
the cat is also a constellation) replied, "They aren't expected to 
understand one another," he replied. "The women will learn to flirt over
 a friend's shoulder, instead of close. The men will see the women as 
distant and unknowable. Their friends will be only men. The women will 
see men as strong and unknowable. Their friends will be only women" 
(Pierce #.) That is an extreme effect, but men are often taught today 
that they can't understand women because of innate gender differences, 
when it is really socialized gender differences that make it hard for 
members of one gender to understand members of another.
Works Cited:
Bumiller, Kristin. "Quirky Citizens: Autism, Gender, and Reimagining Disability." Signs: Journal of Women  
     in Culture and Society 33.4 (2008): 967-91. JSTOR. ITHAKA. Web. 1 Apr. 2013.
Jack, Jordynn. "Gender Copia: Feminist Rhetorical Perspectives on an Autistic Concept of Sex/Gender."  
     Women's Studies in Communication 35.1 (2012): 1-37. Taylor & Francis Online. Taylor & Francis 
     Group, 16 May 2012. Web. 1 Apr. 2013.
Lorber, Judith. "The Social Construction of Gender." 1994. Women's Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic 
     and Contemporary Readings. By Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher 
     Education, 2011. 126-128. Print. 
Pierce, Tamora. Mastiff. Random House, 2011. Print. 
Rosenberg, Debra. "(Rethinking) Gender." 2007. Women's Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and 
     Contemporary Readings. By Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher 
     Education, 2011. 158-162. Print. 
Shaw, Susan M., and Janet Lee. "Learning Gender." Women's Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and 
     Contemporary Readings. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2011. 105-120. Print. 
Wexler, David. "Shame-O-Phobia." 2010. Women's Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and 
     Contemporary Readings. By Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher 
     Education, 2011. 141-144. Print. 
Later, shorter, or not really relevant thoughts that I still want to say:
- I think I know Lindsay of Autist's Corner who got cited in Jack 2012. A couple others are in Loud Hands: Autistic People Speaking with me. I... am apparently citing a paper that cites the blogs of some people I know. Huh.
- I wonder how much the whole "trouble reading neurotypical social cues" has to do with the number of Autistic people who "don't get" gender and how much it has to do with what I semi-jokingly describe as "My brain is different, and by the way, my brain is different." When I say that, in this case, I mean that Autistic people are definitely wired differently, and that there does seem to be some brain difference component to being LGBTQ+ of any flavor, and the actual neurological differences aren't that well understood for either group. For all we know, the relevant brain differences for each could be related to each other. There is some evidence of correlation.
- I prefer to think of the masculine and feminine spectrum as being two separate sliders rather than one spectrum because more masculine doesn't nessesarily mean less feminine, at least in terms of identity. My levels of each seem to move around pretty much independently of each other, anyways. (In response to the continuum description on page 110 of the text.)
- "Born male" and "born female" along with "man living as woman" and that sort of thing all kind of bother me- what we are assigned at birth should not get precedence over identity as what we "really" are.
- It sounds like Smith is discriminating against transwomen. That's not cool.
- Trans* is a notation I see trans* people use on Tumblr for basically everything other than cis. I'm going with the language choices I see trans* people actually using here.
- I'm still working on figuring out exactly what my gender identity is. It's something in the gender-neutral/androgyne area, but exactly where is a good question. That's why I often say "they" about women.
- Tamora Pierce was the female role model I posted about in my introduction. This is part of why. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where my copy of Mastiff is, so I'm not sure what page it's on.
- I don't know how to walk "like a girl." I've been told there's something about swinging my hips, but that doesn't tell me how to actually do that.
I've never really grokked the whole gender binary thing. I wrote an essay called "Hard and Soft" that pointed out the absurdity of the whole thing. I'm comfortable with my body and its functions, but definitely not comfortable with any society's definition of the function of gender. Maybe that's changed now that the younger generation is paying more attention to it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of no one reading people as genderless/nonbinary is one I grapple with fairly often. It seems that the best I can hope for is stopping people from making incorrect assumptions by confusing them (which I try to achieve by throwing as many masculine cues into my presentation as I'm comfortable with, but don't seem to manage all that often.)
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that some discussion of Baron-Cohen's theories about the extreme male brain would be germaine to this article. Any thoughts on that?
ReplyDeleteIt's an intro course that's not *supposed* to be about autism, so I'm not touching him with a ten foot pole because I won't have time or space to rip him to shreds. (He's not breaking binary AT ALL. He's just saying we're all actually male, even if our bodies aren't. Which ignores non-binary folks and feminine folks alike.)
DeleteWhen I started walking swinging my hips in high school (I'm DFAB and was read as "a girl" so it was supposedly the should), I just got it'd.
ReplyDeleteI also suspect that being autistic and being non-binary are related things about how my brain works. I am totally cool with that because both of those things are awesome, and some awesome people I know are both of those things. I used to worry that I was different in too many stereotypical ways (bisexual, vegan, genderqueer, mentally ill) and that that somehow devalued my differences/meant I wasn't "really" those things and was just doing it for . Now I think it's probably just either coincidence, or that these things are correlated for any number of reasons (mental hardwiring, learned preferences, being common among the same subcultures), and that is perfectly okay. It just means I'm being MORE of myself, not less!
... So many years of angst before I was in a safe enough station in life to come to that conclusion.