The Absence of Gender Provides an Ideal Society

      Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic reveals an inverse relationship between Alison and her father, Bruce Bechdel. Both Alison and her father express their gender as the opposite of what is socially expected due to their respective biological sexes. Bruce Bechdel, when first introduced in the novel, is revealed to be extremely fond of interior decorating; in fact, a more appropriate term would probably be obsessed. Later on, the reader also learns of his fondness for nice clothes—clothes designed for men, albeit fashionable and somewhat effeminate. Through Bruce’s attraction to nice clothes the reader is also introduced to Alison’s emerging attraction to men’s clothes; she helps her father pick out shirts and jackets, and secretly wishes she could wear them herself. Alison also prefers to wear her hair extremely short and despises her father for forcing her to wear what would be deemed as “girly” clothes (Bruce coordinated her outfits when the family would go out). Bruce, though biologically categorized as male, performs feminine gender. Similarly, Alison, biologically categorized as female, performs masculine gender. Both people also happen to be homosexual, though it should be noted that gender performance and sexuality are not directly related. The conflict between biological sex and gender expectations is prevalent in both Alison and her father, and causes both of them to struggle with their senses of identity. It also leads to Bruce’s eventual suicide, a terrible consequence for feeling inadequate in meeting gendered expectations.
     Alison and her father are not the only people to suffer an inability to fit into their prescribed gender roles. This is but just one problem created by the binary gender system—the system that Western civilization, and most of the world, uses to categorize people as either male or female with no in-between. Other problems perpetuated by the binary gender system, as Miqqi Alicia Gilbert insists, are sexism, homophobia (often expressed through violence), and general discrimination against those who do not fit perfectly into either one category or the other. So, is the binary gender system truly problematic? Would the elimination of this system be beneficial? How? These are the questions I propose to answer in the pages that follow.
     It is obvious at this point that gender is a binary social construct, one in which society is heavily invested. This binary gender system, though perhaps acceptable in times past, is problematic in that it perpetuates sexism and homophobia. Also, gender (or gender performance, rather) is often mistaken for sexuality, which is problematic when people make assumptions. The binary gender system problematizes the concept of identity in that there is a compulsion to place people into categories (male or female, masculine or feminine) instead of simply allowing them to be who they are. Thus, I propose the abolition of the binary gender system to decrease the social problems of sexism and homophobia and to liberate people’s sense of identity, which I believe will lead to a more peaceful society.
     First, I will argue that the origin of the oppressive binary gender construct is none other than the Bible. Drawing from Jerome Gellman’s “Gender and Sexuality in the Garden of Eden” and Deborah F. Sawyer’s “Gender-Play and Sacred Text: A Scene from Jeremiah,” I will explain how the story of the first two people on earth—a man and a woman—undoubtedly establishes the roles of the dominant and supreme male and the subordinate and obedient female, as well as other notions drawn from the Bible.
     Next, I will explain the many ways in which the binary gender construct is problematic. I will draw heavily from Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble as well as “Imitation and Gender Subordination,” as Butler is a significant theorist regarding gender and gender issues. I will also draw heavily from Gilbert, mentioned previously, and her article, “Defeating Bigenderism: Changing Gender Assumptions in the Twenty-first Century;” Gilbert shares my extreme view on eliminating the binary gender construct and provides strong arguments to support this view. I will also discuss the consequences that result from failing to conform to a definitive gender, which will include the It Gets Better Project and the incident that led to its formation as well as Barb J. Burdge’s article, “Bending Gender, Ending Gender: Theoretical Foundations for Social Work Practice with the Transgender Community.”
     Finally, drawing again from Gilbert’s article, I will argue why the binary gender system should be eliminated and the positive outcomes that will occur as a result: a decrease in sexism and homophobia, less confusion/anxiety in regard to personal identity, and an overall more peaceful and happy society.
     First we must ask the question, how came these notions of gender to be? The Bible has played a central role in Western gender construction. Deborah Sawyer asserts in her article, “Gender-Play and Sacred Text: A Scene from Jeremiah,” that “[t]he dominance of the biblical text in Western and colonial history has…both through its content and interpretation, been effective in constructing sexual hierarchy” (100). This sexual hierarchy—masculine males rule above all, feminine females are nearly powerless—is still in existence today. It is a hierarchy based largely upon what genitalia one is born with, which is of course a ludicrous system of determining power. The Bible, as a “[s]acred text cannot be bound to the ancient world; rather, its unique status implies its ‘ahistoricity’” (102). Because of the Bible’s ahistoricity, the male and female gender constructions that have originated from this text have been continuously perpetuated.  “The biblical meta-narrative,” argues Sawyer, “is characterized by phallocentric cosmology which spans the human and divine experience” (100). The Bible indeed celebrates the phallus quite a bit. The main characters are God the Father and Jesus the Son. The omnipresent, all-powerful creator is referred to as the Father, Him, He, etc. and it is not his daughter, but his Son that is sent down to save all of humanity and perform miracles. This is largely a Western religious theme because in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and the more ancient Greek and Roman religions, there are not only multiple god, but there are numerous goddesses as well who are powerful and almighty. The Bible is also celebratory of the phallus in that God the Father created a man in His image before creating a woman.
     Sawyer gives an excellent summarization of the Bible’s role of gender construction in the following passage:
     Central biblical themes can be understood to validate a patriarchal society whose notions of gender are

     prescribed  biologically, that is, where biology is destiny. This identification of biological sex with gender roles is

     clearly articulated from the start. Whatever the relationship between the first woman and the first man might have

     been before the forbidden fruit was taken, by the end of the episode the reader is assured that a patriarchal

     hierarchy is firmly in place for the subsequent biblical narrative. Furthermore, situated within the primary site of

     the creation narrative, it serves as a clear point of reference for levitical legislative prescriptions for male and

     female behaviour. (105)
Gender construction originates from the Bible, yes, but it specifically originates from the tale of the supposed “original” human beings, Adam and Eve. Because they were the first people whom God had created, the implications are that this is how all men and woman are to interact with each other from here on out, forever. Jerome Gellman, in his article “Gender and Sexuality in the Garden of Eden,” insists that “Adam is the normative sexual being to whom Eve is subordinate” (320). Because Adam was created first and, being a male, was created with a penis, Eve, then, being created without a penis, is seen as lacking and somehow inferior.
     Another example of Eve’s inferiority is her lack of communication with God. Eve only knows of God’s words through Adam. As Gellman points out, “[i]n the Pentateuch typically God speaks to men, and it is understood that the men convey God’s words to women, without that ever being mentioned” (326). Even though Eve was created by the hand of God, she is not given the privilege to speak directly with him. In another part of the Bible, Mary, the woman who is to bear the Son of God, is not even given the news from God himself, but rather an angelic messenger; she is important enough to give birth to God’s Son, but not to be given the privilege of direct communication with God. Thus, the hierarchy is created with God at the top, man second and woman third and most inferior.
     Eve’s inferiority is further evidenced in God’s reaction to the consumption of the forbidden fruit. Only Adam is given the privilege to speak to God, of course, so “[w]hen Adam reports (3.12), ‘The woman you put at my side she gave me of the tree, and I ate,’ God immediately turns to the woman accusingly, ‘What is this you have done!’? God accepts Adam’s testimony completely! She is given no chance to offer her version of the story. Male testimony determines reality” (328). Eve is not allowed to speak for herself to the Almighty and is instantly chastised for her actions, regardless if Adam is being truthful or not. According to Gellman, “God…blames Adam. Adam thought he could just give Eve instructions about the tree and sit back and relax. Adam thought his authority could carry the day. God’s punishment to Adam, therefore, is not directly for eating from the tree, but for heeding the woman’s offer to eat the fruit, which then resulted in his eating from the tree” (327, Gellman’s emphasis). God is not angry with Adam for his disobedience toward Him, but rather for his obedience toward Eve, a woman, i.e. Adam’s deconstruction of the hierarchy.
     Eve was initially created
     subordinate to Adam, but God had not taken sufficient care to make her in such a way that she would be obedient

     to her man. Although Adam had told her not to eat form the tree, she was persuaded to do so. God must now

     rectify matters, to add into the women a mechanism to guarantee that she will obey her husband. The mechanism

     is this: she will have such a strong sexual desire for him that she will then have a self-serving reason to want to

     obey his wishes. That the woman will have great pain in childbirth is an indication of how strong will be her sexual

     desire for the man. It will be so strong as to overshadow her fear of the consequences should she conceive and

     give birth. (328)
This mechanism implies that all women will take a husband and that all women will be obedient to that husband. This mechanism also perpetuates the compulsory heterosexuality found in Western society, as discussed by Judith Butler.
     Adam continues his dominance over Eve in his name-giving privileges. Gellman asserts that
     [s]tandardly, scholars maintain that in the ancient world, giving a name implied domination or power over that

     which was named. I can do no better than to quote von Rad, who writes that, ‘Name-giving in the ancient Orient

     was primarily an exercise of sovereignty, of command.’ Hence, Adam’s giving names to the animals and to the

     woman implies his mastery over them. (331)
Not only is Adam superior to Eve in his ability to communicate directly with God, but he is also superior in his being given the privilege to name all living things, including woman. First God, who is gendered male, creates man; man names all living things, including woman, and therefore rules over all. In fact, Adam names woman not once, but twice:
     First, she is…(ishah), simply a ‘woman,’ derived from…(ish), a ‘man.’ Secondly, he names her a second time,

     reasserting his dominion over her after the failure of her obedience with the forbidden fruit. Whereas in the first

     naming, Adam named her directly in relation to him, for she was taken from man, here he names her…(havvah) in

     recognition of her bearing children. It is her sexual desire for her husband and for bearing children that will insure

     her obedience and thus the stability of the patriarchal arrangement. (333-34)
Instead of being derived from man and thus being related to man, now woman is seen as an entirely separate and inferior being, far removed from the greatness of man.
     The Bible, and most specifically the story of Adam and Eve, holds a major part of the blame of constructing binary gender roles in the Western world, thereby perpetuating oppression. The binary gender system is undoubtedly an oppressive structure and is problematic in several ways: it causes sexism, homophobia and anxiety about one’s own identity. To better understand the functioning of the binary gender system, let us define and discuss gender. Judith Butler in her book Gender Trouble asserts that gender functions in such a way that
     acts, gestures, and desire produce the effect of an internal core or substance, but produce this on the surface of

     the body, through the play of signifying absences that suggest, but never reveal, the organizing principle of identity

     as cause. Such acts, gestures, enactments, generally construed, are performative in the sense that the essence of

     identity that they otherwise purport to express are fabrications manufactured and sustained through corporeal

     signs and other discursive means. That the gendered body is performative suggests that it has no ontological

     status apart from the various acts which constitute its reality. (2497, Butler’s emphasis)
In other words, gender is only skin deep; it is a performance seen on the external body, and is not a deep inner part of one’s identity. Gender is not an inherent part of the self, but rather a category one must situate oneself into, either male or female. Miqqi Gilbert coins the term “bigenderism” in her essay “Defeating Bigenderism: Changing Gender Assumptions in the Twenty-first Century” and explains that “[b]igenderism dictates that there are only two categories—female and male—and this means that everyone must not only be in one of those categories, but everyone must also be put into one of those categories” (97, Gilbert’s emphasis). What about those who fall in between, those who cannot identify wholly with either the male category or the female category? These individuals face large amounts of oppression and ridicule. Barb J. Burdge argues in her article “Bending Gender, Ending Gender: Theoretical Foundations for Social Work Practice with the Transgender Community” that “[t]ransgendered people are among the most misunderstood and overlooked groups in our society (Burgess, 1999). Their very existence challenges the traditional gender dichotomy [bigenderism], and by stepping outside these fundamental social norms, they are vulnerable to discrimination and oppression” (244). By not being able to place themselves, or have other people place them, definitively into one of two categories, male or female, trans- or otherwise gendered people face ridicule and often discriminatory violence. Being ridiculed and oppressed simply for being who one feels they are is completely unjust, and this oppression needs to end.
     This oppression stems from what Gilbert names the “gender rules”. Gilbert discusses these “rules” of gender and insists that “[t]he gender rules cover everything we do and say, and they do so without seeming as if we are being coerced or that we are even making choices. These rules, which have evolved over many generations, are exactly those rules that protect the patriarchal framework through which women and sexual and gender minorities have been oppressed and controlled” (94). If these gender rules perpetuate oppression of women and sexual minorities, why have they not been questioned? According to Gilbert it is due to their assumed “naturalness” (94). These “rules” have been followed for so long that they appear as a natural part of society. Thus, anyone in violation of these rules is seen as “unnatural” (94). So, what are these rules exactly? Gilbert cites Bornstein (1994) who insists on these rules as “generally accepted by the general population:
     The Rules of Gender
     1. There are two and only two genders.
     2. One’s gender is invariant.
     3. Genitals are the essential sign of gender.
     4. Any exceptions are not serious.
     5. There are no transfers from one gender to another except ceremonial ones.
     6. Everyone is one gender or the other.
     7. The M/F dichotomy is a “natural” one.
     8. Membership in one gender or the other is “natural” (Bornstein 1994, 46).”
One can see how these generally accepted rules can be oppressive, almost totalitarian; everyone must be either one gender or the other, no exceptions. Gilbert comments on the consequences that entail from these rules for those that do not fit into either category:
     Basic bigenderism obviously has a major impact on those members of society who identify as gender diverse.

     Transsexuals, the intersexed, cross-dressers, gender queers, and androgynes all must follow the rules and

     procedures laid out for what Garfinkel calls “normals.” Since all gender diverse people must constantly choose one

     bathroom, check off one M/F box, and enter one of two possible locker rooms, there is no opportunity to be

     anything but one or the other. One must pass or suffer the consequences of social censure. This has implications

     for such considerations as having genital and other forms of surgery, finding and holding employment and

     housing, as well as the ability to be involved in romantic relationships. (96)
I find this forced placement of people in one of two categories to be analogous to the racial segregation of the early to mid twentieth century. Although there were many of mixed race, one either categorized oneself as black or as white. Also, people were expected to fit a certain mold based on the color of their skin. Similarly in the case of gender, people are expected to act a certain way based on the category they are placed in, or their genitalia. Biological factors, such as skin color or genitalia, often have little to do with someone’s personality. There are even stereotypes associated with hair color! (Blondes are stupid, brunettes are shrewd, and redheads are wild). Is it right to make assumptions about people based on skin color, hair color, or other such biological factors? Then why does it appear to be acceptable to make assumptions based on genitalia and gender?
     Assumptions about gender cause a great many people to suffer from anxiety about their self-identity. Burdge asserts that
     [d]esperation to achieve consonance between gender identity and physical sex may drive transgendered

     individuals to self-mutilate or to use hormones obtained from the street (Swann & Herbert, 1997). Some

     transgendered individuals become suicidal (Burgess). Such behaviors, however, are too often viewed as the

     problem, when external factors (for example, rejection or assault by peers and family, hostile work or school

     environments, lack of supportive people and role models, pressures to conform to ill-fitting gender expectations)

     are the root cause (Burgess). (245)
Anxiety over the “rules” and trying to fit into a category drives trans- and otherwise gendered people to desperate measures; they are not being allowed to be who they are, they are being forced into a category.
     Individuals driven to suicide due to ridicule for not adhering to the binary gender system are the reason for the foundation of the It Gets Better Project, founded by author Dan Savage with support from his partner, Terry. A description of the site’s foundation can be found in the About section on the website: “In September 2010, syndicated columnist and author Dan Savage created a YouTube video with his partner Terry to inspire hope for young people facing harassment. In response to a number of students taking their own lives after being bullied in school, they wanted to create a personal way for supporters everywhere to tell LGBT youth that, yes, it does indeed get better.”  From a young age, children in Western society are taught that girls should act this way and boys should act that way (submissive/dominant, meek/aggressive, etc.); girls should like these things (dolls, pink, flowers, etc.) and boys should like those things (trucks, GI Joes, sports, etc.). As a result, children who do not fit into their prescribed gender role are seen as odd, as outsiders, and are punished for it by their peers. These picked-on children experience a significant drop in self-esteem and some are even driven to self-harm or suicide. However, are the bullies really to blame for this harassment, or is it the binary gender system? If there were no prescribed gender roles being impressed on the minds of young children, no one would be an outsider and thus no one would be harassed for their failure to fit in to their prescribed gender role. People should be allowed to simply be who they are without being forced into a gender mold.
     I feel a personal connection to this issue, which is probably why I chose to write about it. No, I do not consider myself a homosexual; however, I am a masculine female and in fact have been mistaken for a lesbian, and even a male, on countless occasions. In high school, those years of physical and mental growth and development, I experienced a gender identity crisis. Because of the binary gender system impressed in my mind from a young age, I knew that as a person of the female sex I should exert femininity. I was a complete tomboy as a child, preferring to play with my brother and his toy guns instead of my sister and her Barbies. I also loathed bathing and brushing my tangled mess of hair, which earned me the nicknames “Garth” (reference to the character in “Wayne’s World” and his odd hair) and “scrub” (implying my hygienic neglect) from my brother and his friend, Adam. I played soccer and loved to go fishing. In fact, probably the only reason I gained any sense of girlishness was the fact that I had an older sister much more feminine than myself. So I was a tomboy, but that was just childhood, right? At a certain age I had to become a lady, right? I thought that maybe as part of puberty I would develop a sense of femininity and poof! I would be the feminine female that nature intended. I eventually discovered this was not the case. Hence, a gender identity crisis ensued. I was a female but did not feel inherently feminine. “Life would be much easier as a boy. Why oh why was I not born a boy?” I constantly thought to myself. I talked to my mom about it, and she completely understood where I was coming from. She and I are kindred spirits; she is just as low-maintenance and un-feminine as I am. She helped me to realize that not every single female has to be obsessed with makeup and clothes and be ultra-feminine. Thus, I overcame my crisis and over the past few years I have continued to discover and grow into the person that I am without regard to fitting into a certain gender mold; I am a far happier person as a result.
     I am sure many people who have made the same discovery as I did are also living happier lives. There are many negative consequences of the binary gender system as it is largely oppressive; therefore, I move to eliminate it for a happier, more peaceful society. Gilbert argues,
     [b]igenderism, by codifying the distinction between male and female, man and woman, masculine and feminine, creates a virulently sexist, heterosexist, and transphobic culture just because of the valuation of the sexes. That valuation creates a situation in which misidentification of sex category based on gender display leaves no room for tolerance. Hopkins

     offers three possible explanations for homophobia, and then concludes: ‘They reside on a field of unequal, binary,

     sexual, and gender differentiation. Behind all homophobia, regardless of its development, expression, or

     motivation, is the background of heterosexism. Behind all heterosexism is the background of gendered identities

     (Hopkins 1998, 179). (103)
At the root of sexism, homophobia, and other sorts of oppression related to sex and gender, is the binary gender system. “[N]o room for tolerance” (103)? That is certainly a world I do not wish to live in. Heterosexism and the binary gender system are perpetuators of sexual oppression.
     Gilbert presents four gender models: Strict Bigenderism, Soft Bigenderism, Non-binary Genderism, and Non-genderism. Like myself, she argues for the Non-genderism model which she defines as a system that “entails no binary distinction and no societal valuation making masculine more highly valued than feminine” (107). Gilbert continues, claiming that “[w]ith non-genderism there simply is nothing that is, say, feminine: not a way of talking, walking, thinking, or communicating. These ways of behaving, of course, do still exist, that is, a person might be nurturing or aggressive, but there is no further association of them with a gender category” (107, Gilbert’s emphasis). Non-genderism puts the emphasis on the individual rather than their gender; that is, one is not placed into a category but is viewed as having characteristics that are unique to that person. Without the two distinct gender categories, sexuality becomes less of an issue as well. Gilbert argues that “[w]ithout gender, one is attracted to or likes a person, not a bearer of a certain sort of genitals. One might be attracted to soft vulnerable people, but there would be no necessary connection between those properties and any assumptions about sex. Rather than first identifying sex, the opposite might be true” (108). Again, the focus is placed on the individual and their unique characteristics rather than their gender category. People are people; they are not entirely defined by their sex.
     A society without gender would certainly be a pleasant one to live in, but, admittedly, “[w]e are so far from bringing about such a social revolution that concerns about the elimination of the woman/man dichotomy are at this point, to put it mildly, in the abstract. It would likely be generations before any strong non-genderist model could come about” (Gilbert 104). The binary gender system has remained intact since the dawn of humanity, some few thousand years, which means it will probably take just as long to eliminate it. This is very unfortunate, because like Gilbert, “I can imagine many scenarios and many worlds in which gender is not central or does not exist, and most are splendid” (108). Splendid, indeed. No sexism, homophobia or other sorts of sexual oppression; no pressure to fit into a certain category or possess certain characteristics; having the freedom to simply exist in whatever way feels natural.
     This ideal non-gendered world did not exist for Alison Bechdel and her father, Bruce. Bruce felt immense pressure to repress his homosexuality and feminine tendencies in order to assimilate into the age-old heteronormative society; he married a woman, bought a big house, and had a couple kids. Bruce had to sneak around behind his family’s back to fulfill his homosexual urges and often did so with young men. This sneaking around with young men caused rumors to fly and the tarnishing of Bruce’s reputation. If Bruce could have been openly homosexual instead of being forced into a gender category he would not have to sneak around and feel the immense guilt that he felt; Bruce felt guilty for doing what felt natural, for being who he was. Because Bruce succumbed to the pressure of heteronormativity, he felt obliged to encourage his children to do the same; he put Alison into dresses, which she hated, and forcibly coordinated her outfits for family outings or other events, which she also hated. Fortunately, Alison grew up in a more modern age than her father which allowed her to be more courageous and rise above heterosexism. However, it was not until Alison moved out of her house to college that she was able to travel the path of self-discovery. Like her father, Alison was apprehensive in her approach to homosexuality. However, through reading a lot of books, joining the Gay Straight Alliance at her college and talking to members within the group, Alison was lead to her finite discovery and acceptance of her homosexuality. In discovering and accepting her own homosexuality, Alison helped her father come to terms with his homosexuality, which brought the two closer together than they had ever been. This new close bond between the two made them both happier in finding acceptance of themselves; both were much happier after not forcing themselves or being forced into gender categories. Everyone has the right to be happy in this way and eliminating or, for now, ignoring the binary gender system is a step in the right direction. In the words of my elimination-of-gender counterpart, Miqqi Alicia Gilbert, “[t]he freedom that is required is the liberty to be a person, a simple, ungendered, and individuated person” (109). As I always say, people are people. They are not a sex or a gender; they are individual beings and should be viewed as such. Down with gender; up with people!
 

​

Bibliography

Bechdel, Alison. Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic. New York: First Mariner, 2006. Print.

Burdge, Barb J. “Bending Gender, Ending Gender: Theoretical Foundations for Social Work Practice with the Transgender Community.” Social Work 52.3 (2007): 243-250. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Subordination.” 1991. The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Ed. David H. Richter. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford Books, 1998. 1514-1525. Print.

Butler, Judith. “Gender Trouble.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001. Print.

Gellman, Jerome. “Gender and Sexuality in the Garden of Eden.” Theology & Sexuality: The Journal of the Institute for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality 12.3 (2006): 319-335. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

Gilbert, Miqqi Alicia. “Defeating Bigenderism: Changing Gender Assumptions in the Twenty-First Century.” Hypatia 24.3 (2009): 93-112. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

It Gets Better Project. Savage Love, LLC. 2010. Web. 19 April 2011.

Sawyer, Deborah F. “Gender-Play and Sacred Text: A Scene From Jeremiah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 83 (1999): 99-111. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.