The typical definition is the one defined in this article: "the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women." But if this is true, then gender seems like a rather trivial and fickle thing. If a man wants to be a woman, does that merely mean that he wants to be a person who can wear dresses, makeup and wigs? Are these things the essence of womanhood? If not, then what is? Perhaps what is really at issue here is the fact that our societies have built up rigid gender roles that make people feel uncomfortable taking on roles or behaviors traditionally only exhibited by the opposite gender. The alienation that a person feels might not be related to his sexual identity, per se, but rather the social stigma of aligning with unconventional gender roles. I think the reason I'm having trouble grasping this is because I don't really consider my gender or my sex to be huge parts of my identity. In my mind, I am not "John the male" but rather "John the person."
On discussing this with a feminist friend of mine, I had it pointed out to me that a large part of this may stem from the fact that I'm a heterosexual white male, in a heteronormative white patriarchy (if use of "patriarchy" will be permitted). And this reminded me of something from psychological anthropology - that identity is often more like grammar than some sort of object. When grammar is used correctly, we do not notice; it is when its rules are violated that our attention is drawn to it. I do not understand identity, but I think that much of its existence is the result of some sort of rupture - or a gap between what is normal in society and what is unusual. A "normal" person is not reminded of their weirdness, while a transgender person is, just like a black person might be in a white-dominated society, or an Irishman in Beijing. Overly simplistic perhaps, but I think this has something to do with it. Identity interests me because it baffles me.
What I am trying to understand about the trans* identities is the idea that sex and gender are embodied by cultural norms and physical status symbols. If we strip away cultural context, do we still have men and women? The article admits that gender roles vary amongst societies. So it would seem to me that if a man feels uncomfortable in his society's male gender roles, then it is the society which much change, not the individual. I say this with fear of sounding presumptuous, but speaking honestly I think that the trans* community would do better to encourage more open-minded views on gender roles than to facilitate gender-affirmation procedures. That seems to be the root of the issue.
Take the gender binary, for example; many say that they exist outside it or in between it - this repeats the notion that the gender binary exists in the first place. *As a caveat, when I say this I mean that some parts of said community sometimes express these things - as is the case with any group/discourse, we can never truly say "these people do/say/are".
- Take the gender binary, for example; many say that they exist outside it or in between it - this repeats the notion that the gender binary exists in the first place.
I actually don't see the contradiction there. I don't think the trans* community rejects the existence, or at least perceived existence, of the gender binary. It just does not accept it as it is generally posited to exist -- and nor do I. It is simply the acknowledgment that the issue is not black and white, so in that sense the gender binary is subverted.
Timely.