Going beyond the Western gender binary - unlearning our backward cultural conditioning
In Western colonial society (which dominates many aspects of the globalized, capitalist world today) we operate under the presumption that there are only two genders, male and female. But gender is a social construction. One’s options for what gender they identify with are shaped by the culture they are born into. Biological factors are most-often the primary driving forces that choose among the available socially-constructed gender categories.
Cultures around the world have different ways of talking about, thinking about, and identifying gender. It’s often a challenge for (particularly cis-sexual) Westerns to think about other ways gender can be socially constructed. Westerns have the false equivalency of gender and sex drilled into their eternal psyche from the time they are very young, and re-enforced through examples in popular culture. There is no biological reality to gender. Many Westerners have the bizarre belief that one’s XY-sex-determination should also inform one’s gender identity, a socially constructed role in society.
In some cultures, there is no distinction made between gender and sexual orientation and the same can be said for sexual orientation - our culture socially-constructs the options and our biology helps us identify which socially-constructed option feels most ‘right’ and best resonates with us.
I’ve attached some photos to offer some examples of non-colonial, non-Western construction of gender. They’ve all been uploaded onto our Facebook page photostream in case you’d like to ‘like’ or ‘share’ them there. There are literally hundreds of ‘third-gender’ identifying peoples around the world. The eight I’ve chosen are mostly examples I remember from some of my anthropology courses but if you google ‘third genders’ you can find many lists and examples.
Who cares? Why it matters.
The most obvious reason to care about the way our culture has constructed gender and sexual orientation is to deepen one’s capacity for solidarity with people who identify as transgender, transsexual, and others whose gender or sexual identity exists outside of binary Western culture.
But there are other reasons as well. Western culture’s binary nature often creates non-sensical, problematic binary identity constructions that are inherently problematic. For example, I believe that Western masculinity (dominance, aggression, lack of communication, lack of emotional expression, etc) is inherently problematic. I believe that to be the reason why most acts of large-scale-violence and terror are committed by men (see: 100% of the mass school shootings in the United States), and I believe it fosters a degree of internal misery within people who heavily adopt these particular ‘masculine’ traits.
In the age of information, and the age of global connectivity, there is no longer any reason (particularly for young people) to feel isolated or restricted to Western definitions of gender, sexual orientation and identity in general. I think the social ramifications of a generation where more and more people begin to identify outside of the gender binary would be tremendous, and I think we should all consider how we can unlearn our cultural conditioning to embrace other, perhaps less exploitative and dominating identities.
Background information on the identities depicted in the above images:
Hijras Hijras are male-body-born, feminine-gender-identifying people who live in South Asia (mostly in India & Nepal). Many Hijras live in well-defined, organized, all-Hijra communities, led by a guru.
Although many Hijras identify as Muslim, many practice a form ofsyncretismthat draws on multiple religions; seeing themselves to be neither men nor women, Hijras practice rituals for both men and women.
Hijras belong to a specialcaste. They are usually devotees of the mother goddessBahuchara Mata,Lord Shiva, or both.
Nandi female husbands Among the Nandi in Western Kenya, one social identity option for women is to become a female husband, and thus a man in society’s eyes. Female husbands are expected to become men and take on all of the social and cultural responsibilities of a man, including finding a wife to marry and passing on property to the next generation through marriage. Female husbands may have lived their lives as women and may even be married to a man, but once she becomes a female-husband, she is expected to be a man. Women married to female-husbands may have sex with single men uninterested in commitment in order to become pregnant, but the female-husband (who is often an older woman, often a widow) will father the child of said pregnancy and treat the child like her own.
Two-spirited people Two-Spiritis anumbrella termsometimes used for what was once commonly known as‘berdaches’,Indigenous North Americanswho fulfill one of many mixedgender rolesfound traditionally among manyNative Americansand CanadianFirst Nationscommunities. The term usually indicates a person whose body simultaneously manifests both a masculine and a feminine spirit.Male and female two-spirits have been “documented in over 130 tribes, in every region of North America.”
Travesti InSouth America (with a large presence in Brazil), atravesti is a person who was assigned male at birth who has a femininegender identityand is primarilysexually attractedto masculine men. Therefore, sometimes the distinction betweengender identityandsexual orientationis not made. Travestis have been described as athird gender, but not all see themselves this way. Travestis often will begin taking female hormones and injecting silicone to enlargen their backsides as boys and continue the process into womanhood.
The work of cultural Anthropologist Don Kulick (a gay male by Western definitions) in Brazil demonstrated that gender construction in Brazil is binary (like Western gender construction), but unlike Western gender construction, instead of having a male-female binary, there is a male-notmale binary.
In this particular construction of gender:
Males include: men who have sex with women, men who have sex with Travestis but are never on the receiving end of anal sex, men who have sex with men but are never on the receiving end of anal sex.
Not-males include: women, men who receive anal sex from ‘male’ gay men or from Travestis.
Fa’afafine Fa’afafine are the gender liminal, or third-gendered people of Samoa. A recognized and integral part of traditional Samoan culture, fa’afafine, born biologically male, embody both male and female gender traits. Their gendered behavior typically ranges from extravagantly feminine to mundanely masculine
Waria Waria is a traditional third general role found in modern Indonesia. Additionally, theBugisculture ofSulawesi (one of the four larger Sunda Islands of Indonesia) has been described as having three sexes (male, female andintersex) as well as five genders with distinct social roles.
Six Genders of old Israel In the old Kingdom of Israel (1020–931 BCE) there were six officially recognized genders:
Androgynos: both male and female
Tumtum: gender neutral/without definite gender
Aylonit: female-to-male transgender people
Saris: male-to-female transgender people (often inaccurately translated as “eunuch”)
Kathoey Australian scholar of sexual politics in ThailandPeter Jackson’s work indicates that the term “kathoey” was used in pre-modern times to refer tointersexual people, and that the usage changed in the middle of the twentieth century to covercross-dressingmales, to create what is now a gender identity unique to Thailand. Thailand also has three identities related to female-bodied people: Tom, Dee, and heterosexual woman.
EDIT:So let me clearly say that in no way am I intentionally encouraging white people (or anyone else) to appropriate these identities. Rather, I hope that this post and conversations like this will lead to an understanding of cultural diversity and other gender constructions/identities and an understanding that there is no biological reality to gender, and that gender manifests itself in many beautiful ways across many cultures.
I AM encouraging people in colonial society to have a less-binary, more nuanced approach to gender that doesn’t lead to so much domination and exploitation.
I also understand that in order to talk about these things, words like ‘male-bodied’ or male are inherently western concepts. Each of these societies and cultures have other ways of talking about these identities. Although I wasn’t born in the U.S. I have spent most of my life and the entirety of my adult life in the United States. I speak no languages other than English. There are concepts that I can’t understand, that my language limits me from even talking about, and in order to communicate these ideas, I am restricted by the only language I have available to talk about these concepts with. My perspective is etic. I do not belong to the above cultures, so when I talk about these things and use the English language to describe them, I am limited in my options for describing a concept as abstract as gender. The very categories of gender and sexuality belong to the cultural lens through which I view the world and I could not possibly provide a comprehensive emic analysis of the way the things we call ‘gender and sexuality’ actually are understood (if at all) within these cultures. In that way, mine is a very limited perspective. But it is geared toward other people living in Western society and it is aimed at changing this culture, not to appropriate these others but to not be so terrible toward gender and sexual variant people in this culture and to begin to question the implications of how we define gender and sexuality both personally, and as a whole culture.
Also, there’s some problematic stuff in the way I framed this and some of these only have one source.
Although, some foundation attribution could be given to the government. But I never claimed the government did create it. I simply stated that capitalism did not create it. What created it was the investment of savings by the people who thought it would be a good idea to have thumb drives. These individuals were not capitalists. They were inventors and marketeers. I’m sure capitalists bought it from them, but they certainly did not invent it.
You literally gave the definition of capitalism to claim that it wasn’t capitalism. Inventors and marketeers are the drivers of capitalism as an economic system; they are the capitalists. Capitalists are more than just bankers; your understanding of the issue ranges from nominal to fictional.
“They were marketeers not capitalists” Oh dear.
I can see the Disney version now. “The Three Marketeers!”
Don’t ask me why. I don’t know why.
Some people think they are so smart that they usually end up out-smarting themselves.
I actually hate how all these idiots try to redefine capitalism simply because they hate the current system and falsely believe it to be capitalism.
knowledge =/= “whoever agrees with me”
briefly; saying “these idiots dont understand capitalism” is literally saying “these people do not agree with my definition of capitalism”: which is generally used by american libertarians— starting in the early 20th century”. compare this to a universal: not only was the term capitalism first used to describe a system of exploitation and privilege wayyy before libertarians started to use the term, almost everyone in the world except libertarians would disagree with the libertarian understanding of “capitalism”. try reading what is seen and what is not seen by bastiat. try reading the wealth of nations by adam smith.try to find the term “capitalism” in either one of these works. you won’t find it. they didn’t use that word. 2 works that are extremely important to libertarianism’s understanding of “capitalism” that never used the term. you can’t “redefine capitalism” if capitalism is our reality. either distinguish between theory and reality, or stop using that definition for both.
oh and yeah, “capitalism created it”. that flash drive is a product of capitalist society. what the fuck else could have made it. BUT if your definition of capitalism = the free market, i am actually wondering how you would agree that it was created by capitalism. we dont have a free market, and all kinds of government privileges are involved with making this (specifics are unknown, but there is definitely 1. division of labor—explitation 2. capital accumulation 3. externalized costs via US tax code 4. some sort of government regulation of the market) to say “markets made this” is wrong because you’re holding this ceteris parabis— which completely ignores the point of explaining why/how it exists. if you think “capitalism made this, because capitalism *is* the free market” you’ve made the same mistake— this was mentioned earlier i believe. not only are you holding it constant, you’re necessarily defining it in the most simple terms: innocuous & ambiguous human action. reality is more complex than that. if you ignore the material conditions of capitalist society, and that economic environment— you have not even begun to answer the question of whether or not capitalism created it. you’re dealing with a hypothetical reality, where you have explained the existence of objects that dont actually exist. we’re not dealing with something simple like “the market for flash drives”, we’re dealing with radical monopoly. state capitalism, corporate capitalism, late capitalism, or as libertarians like to say “crony capitalism” (even though im not sure that that actually means because i only see it used in situations where you want to admit that capitalism is fucked up just in certain situations, not as a whole). everyone in the this thread is wrong. hail satan, see u in full communism u fckn liberty dorks
Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank, and buy a revolver.Countess Markievicz (1868 - 1927), a politician, revolutionary nationalist, suffragette, and socialist. (via unladyliketales)