Categorization is never pure. People can categorize things by any number of ways. Categorizations also changes through time. There have been categorizations made by the cultures of our society, scientific categorizations and legal categorizations. The categorizations of cultures can span from traditional to what is trending, this can be informed by science and legal conceptions but can also be useful categorizations that go against both. Legal categorization is usually playing catch up to both cultural and scientific categorizations. In good law making, it is supposed to be the compromise between cultures within a legal jurisdiction, informed by agreed science and built on the foundation of past law. Science, historically, has been an intense process of categorization, recategorization with new information and cross categorization as a way to understand the world with ever narrower atomization of every aspect of everything into categories. Science can be cutting edge with less acceptance or considered agreed.
Even to use the phrase atomized in speaking about scientific categorization is strange now. When science first began there was no knowledge of atoms so categorization was limited to understanding something by it’s components we could see with our eyes. When atoms were discovered science came to understand the table of elements as the final categorization of the smallest parts of all things. Now science has taught us that there are many things smaller than atoms that make up atoms, so atomizing is now, in some ways an old term.
Cultural categorizations are sometimes in conflict with scientific categorization because it may make things untenable for social relations. It is also sometimes the case that what humans know culturally or religiously to be true has not been proven by science. It may be that culturally our categorizations are limiting to individuals or about preserving cohesiveness and it may also be the opposite. It can be that our cultural categorizations are opening up new possibilities and breaking apart what people may find to be stifling categories for something better.
The legal categorization is more complicated. It may be unsatisfactory for many and serve powerful interests but ultimately it does have to preserve the stability necessary to govern. It can be in support of some cultural categorizations and opposed to others. It can be in line with good science or well behind it.
My categorizations take into account a little of all three but ultimately it’s best described as me trying to do a cultural categorization for my own understanding and maybe as a discussion for the cultures I am a part of. These topics have stirred up a lot of cultural, political and scientific conflicts. I would hope to lesson these conflicts but I can’t do that without challenging a little bit of everyone’s preconceptions and premises. In the end I hope I do an adequate job of explaining why.
Categorizations
Human being: Just a reminder, we are all humans, life is a blessing! The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was declared back in 1948 and is part of international law! The US also has it’s own laws that protect our human rights including the Bill of Rights.
Biological sex: male and female, that’s it as mammals! (See the next line regarding intersex.)
Disorders of Sexual Development: encompassing a group of congenital conditions associated with atypical development of internal and external genital structures. Whereas sex refers to the biology of the internal and external genital structures that is traditionally considered to be a binary categorization. Previously, DSDs were called “intersex” conditions. (This I pulled from a National Institutes of Health study, blame them!)
Genders: women and men, gender refers to the social construct of the corresponding biological sex.
Sexual orientations: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and heterosexual. Or it could be stated as heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Or it could be stated as same sex attracted, opposite sex attracted or both. But that’s all the sexual orientations. (The other letters often found in the rainbow after LGB fall into the below category.)
Sexual culture and practice: this is the cultural, social, religious or psychologically indicated sexual observances, practices, ceremonies, rituals, positions, attractions and more that informs an individual or groups understanding and engagement in sex.
I’ve already angered so many people it’s probably pointless to keep writing, but let me grab my shovel and dig my grave a little bit deeper! I’m sort of joking. I’d like to dig my way out instead by saying that though my categorization might not agree with some people’s I might still meet their desires that underpin their own categorizations. It may get worse before it gets better in conclusion.
Finally, this is based on my understanding of current realities in science, culture and politics. If I can help reduce some of the divisiveness, my thought is that we can improve upon different areas where improvements are warranted. Adjusting the framework of thinking on these topics is necessary to move discussions forward. I hope to broach a less fully formed conceptual vision that will need lots of discussion and debate.
WHY? WHY SAY ANYTHING?
The categorization I have made above is my own construction to make sense of my positions on all this, but it’s probably pretty similar to the framework that most people had before about 10 years ago in the US. Different people might put it differently. Back then most people didn’t feel the need to understand the differences between sex and gender, the words were considered interchangeable. They also had moved from the words homosexual and heterosexual to saying LGB followed by as many letters as they could demonstrate their knowledge of. Today President Biden has given a speech to the UN where he has expanded that out to five letters and a plus. Not bad for a 100 year old white straight hetero man!
In today’s world of divisive politics, my categorization above will be seen differently depending on the person. To the less political it may be seen as an interesting take on what the more political folks are spending a whole lot of time yelling at each other about. To the more political, it’ll be considered to fall onto a side because there can only be two sides. Some saying, I shouldn’t even have an opinion of my own since I don’t have a doctorate, am not a scientist in the field, an acknowledged expert commentator or of one of the oppressed categories. They will also be bothered that I don’t even carry the highest level belief in my convictions on this topic with the absolute understanding that everyone else is wrong! So why say anything? Why?
I’d like to think it’s because I have a calming influence on people and can facilitate meaningful dialogue and that’s why. It might be that I feel that maybe we need to break from a pattern of conflict with some new ideas. Maybe I just like to think and write and I don’t have to have a clear purpose or take a side to use my free speech. Mostly, I feel that my political orientation is as a radical because the problems I see in the US especially are foundational and systemic. Breaking from old paradigms isn’t just a problem for those considered conservatives or of the right, it is also something that those that are considered liberals and on the left need to do. Radical ideas that work can be found in older conceptions reimagined just as much as newer conceptions made real.
Biological Sex
Sex is how life reproduces. Some split in two. Some self fertilize. Some can change sex. However all mammals have two biological sexes, male and female. Those two biological sexes in mammals correspond to different physiology, sexual organs and behaviors. It is the same with humans. Science has evolved our understanding of reproduction but the categorization of males and females are still a useful categorization.
There are differences between males and females, although as humans we are mostly still the same. The most obvious differences are found in sex organs and the physiological differences needed for female bodies in pregnancy, birth and then to feed and nurture a baby. It’s a wholistic difference that has ramifications in many ways some well understood and others less so well understood. There is also great diversity within the human species and by evolution affected over hundreds of thousands of years that make general differences between the sexes observable but with enough diversity to show plenty of exceptions or great overlap.
It is impossible for humans to change their sex. On Star Trek Discovery in a future universe, it is possible, but despite my deep love for everything Star Trek, it’s a work of fiction. A sex change operation in the real world, is not a sex change at all. It is a whole host of possible cosmetic surgeries combined with hormones that must be taken forever that never will achieve a biological sex reassignment. In the future, as science develops, that may change. Now it’s false advertising. It’s currently called sex reassignment surgery, gender affirming surgery or confirmation surgery to get away from the false advertising somewhat. This is not medically necessary surgery or medically necessary medication. It is elective, and negatively impacts a healthy body. Elective cosmetic surgeries aren’t without their sometimes positive mental aspects, otherwise people wouldn’t do them, but let’s be clear that no doctor can change the biological sex of a human.
I’ll bring up trans in talking about these categories because trans advocacy often is seen challenging these categories. I disagree with those challenges in part or in whole. When it comes to biology I disagree in whole, although to be fair most trans do not claim a biological transition. It does come up though in either outdated or sloppy conversations mixing up sex and gender. I also worry that a child might not understand that changing their sex is impossible. I do eventually get to the category I do place trans in, which is the category I call sexual culture and practices. I’ll explain why I think that makes sense and the protections I think that infers on the trans community who get targeted for hate and violence.
Disorders of Sex Development
People used to call this Intersex, which made for the confusion that there were more than two biological sexes. Estimates are that 1 in 2,000 people have one of these class of around 60 wide ranging disorders. Most born with a mild DSD end up living their lives as the biological sex that corresponds to their sexual organs and need no medical treatment. In some cases the genitalia is, initially at least, indeterminant of the sex. In some cases things are mixed up. Someone born with a significant DSD may need medical treatment. This is a very small subset of people with an even smaller subset who have a significant DSD and these are people who should not be mistaken for trans.
Many people might think that trans are just another word for intersex, but that’s not true. The vast majority of intersex (those with a DSD) go on to live as male or female correlating to their genitalia. At 0.05% of the population, these are a very small group of people. DSD and the biological sexes are both subjects that biological and health sciences study in greater detail. I’m sure there are lots of very interesting aspects of these studies but the categorizations of two biological sexes in mammals along with the class of DSD, holds.
Historically, being born with a DSD could mean rejection or attempts at correction and hiding the problem. Similarly to being born with other development disorders. It made for mistakes by doctors and misunderstanding by parents and society. These days we have worked as a society to understand that people with disorders and disabilities should not only be accepted but accommodated under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We still have a more to go in accepting people with DSD and accommodating the care they need.
Two Genders
Gender refers to the characteristics of biological males and females that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviors and roles associated with being a man or woman or boy or girl. As a social construct, gender varies from culture to culture as well as by class and age. It can change over time. In the US we historically have lived in a largely patriarchal society, that has broad class differences, racial divisions and this has played into the construct of gender. This means that the socially constructed gender roles of the US have been hierarchical in nature, denying women’s rights, especially to minorities and poor women. As things have improved for women, the socially constructed gender roles of both men and women have changed and to some extent broadened greatly.
Women have been fighting for their right to vote, to go to school, to work jobs, to own property, to play sports, to dress how they want, to be protected under the law and control their own bodies. Their achievements towards equality have come a long way, slower for women of color and poor women. Still, gender equality under the law is closer now than 100 years ago. Unfortunately, new challenges have risen and we see that some rights and protections are beginning to roll back.
Boys and girls have socially constructed gender roles as well. Generally with children and youth, society has deemed it important to give positive rights to them (such as public school and perhaps more leniency in penalties for mistakes) and deny certain rights until they reach the proper stage of adulthood (such as media age restrictions, driving age, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, legal age for sex, legal age to go to a strip club, age you can get tattoos and piercings, gambling, age you can rent a car, etc.) This is something that also has changed over time. In most of the country alcohol could be drank at 18 or younger 50 years ago, cigarettes as well, then we changed it. Now in Washington you have to be 21 for either. It’s not unusual for their to be debate around what age a person should be allowed to do things.
It has been argued that while someone cannot transition their biological sex, they can transition their gender. This is seen as core to the position of trans now although it is not clear that that was always the case in the trans community. In my categorization I am taking the position that trans should not be seen as becoming the gender opposite of their biological sex. The main reason I take this position has to do with the fact that men and women have historically not been equal. While today, under the law, women and men have more equality, culturally this is still in some ways not true and behind women’s equality under the law are laws that protect women. If these laws are eroded than cultural pressures could grow that erode women’s equality. I don’t think that this is adequately accounted for in the trans movement’s push to be seen as the gender opposite of their biological sex.
Therefore I stand by saying that transwomen are not women. Transmen are women. This is mostly legal concerns but they do cut deeper than that. I feel that I’ve witnessed enough examples of transwomen not having awareness of the power dynamic between the genders to say that they do not get an exception to the rules excluding biological males from the provisions given to women for their equality. Maybe there could be a process whereby biological males could get that exception, but our society has created such a process. The self determination argument that a transwoman is a woman because she says she is isn’t a good enough argument.
I also would say that cosmetic surgeries and drugs used in becoming trans is something that should be restricted by age to adults only. I would argue when their brains are fully formed at the age of 25 but that is debatable. However, even with the cosmetic surgeries and hormones, transwomen will never be women, like they will never be females. I think this is important for the protection of women’s rights, for their socially constructed gender roles and their comfort in equality. Women have gained certain legal rights towards gender equality, these are additional rights endowed at birth, males do not get them, transwomen do not get them, transmen do.
What that also means is that being a man, the socially constructed gender role, also incorporates transwomen. Transwomen need to feel safe and accommodated in all areas of men from spaces to sports. Men don’t generally have specific laws protecting their rights associated with their gender because men had a hierarchal position in their gender compared to women and women had to gain certain legal rights to achieve and maintain equality, a struggle that hasn’t been fully realized. It has always seemed to me that the men’s rooms should be the all gender restrooms and locker rooms. Women, including transmen, should be able to access men’s rooms if necessary as well, like at sports events when the men’s bathroom has no line while the women’s restroom has a long one. If there is to be an all gender bathroom that should be the men’s rooms, women’s only spaces should be for women. If there was a movement to make transwomen feel safe and accommodated in men’s spaces and sports I would fight hard for them. In fact, I already do.
Finally, men have their own socially constructed gender role. While men have benefited from patriarchy, most of that benefit has gone to the elite. In poor communities men and women must negotiate power differences more directly because they are dependent on each other. Much of what is known as toxic masculinity arguably could be seen as seeping down from elite institutions and elite owned media to the lower classes. This mixes the struggles of poverty, the poor quality of education and the anger of men with contemptible notions of the ownership and necessity towards the subservience of women.
The notion of patriarchy, like all systems of abstract dominance, also harms the dominant power. Men become lesser men when they ascribe to such ideas. It limits their growth and development. It steals away their humanity, sense of community and ability to love fully. The rise of equality for women through feminist understandings hasn’t equally given rise to the dismantling of patriarchy because men haven’t engaged in a movement for the betterment of men.
What we end up with because of this lack of such a movement are men in a perplexing situation today. Men who are not achieving as well in education, lower success in colleges, men who are more isolated, more men committing suicide and the struggle of men for a sense of self worth. The ideas of patriarchy still persist in this scenario where men simply aren’t doing as well by many measurements. It’s possible that males may be less adaptable to modern society but it is also even more likely that the male gender roles of patriarchy are still dominating and holding men back because the movement for the betterment of men and the advancement of a more natural and healthy gender role hasn’t gained enough strength.
It is also the case that our societies culture is in general sick and not in alignment with the growth of human culture. The progress seen in the advancement of women’s equality is also under threat of rolling back. Since no major change in power structures have occurred from the sexual revolution, it makes it’s reversal all the more easier to do or it’s weakening to suit power. That’s one major fear I see in today’s struggles regarding all these subjects. It feels that the sexual revolution is being accepted by elite power in a way that makes it instead a sexual reformation towards their benefit at the expense of some of the important aspects that were embodied in the movement originally.
Sexual Orientations
The definition of sexual orientation is: a person’s identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc. That’s it! So in my categorization above, which clarifies that there are only two biological sexes and only two corelating genders, that means that there are just three sexual orientations. Those are same sex attraction, opposite sex attraction and being attracted to both. While it sounds straight forward enough, many people combine this category with my last category, which I call sexual culture and practice.
Why do I keep it separated? There has been a movement to accept that being same sex attracted is as natural as being attracted to the opposite sex, although as a much smaller percentage of humans. Historically, being gay has been something that people kept hidden, having the wrong person find out your secret might mean being a victim of extreme violence. This violence was driven by brutish men and many religions around the world. (Although it’s plausible that some religious institutions also became a refuge, pledging to live a life of celibacy for God.) These days, science has observed in the natural world at least a thousand species that exhibit, usually rare, same sex and bisexual behaviors.
The struggle for LGB rights is important. For their same sex attraction to be recognized as natural to them as humans. For their ability to be accepted in their communities as they are. For their love to be understood as no different than the love that heterosexual people feel. That they deserved the same rights to be who they are without oppression. They are LGB and that we must pass protections that recognize that they have been oppressed and protects them from being targeted based on sexual orientation. It has been only recently that LGB rights have been brought close to equality and protection under the law and acceptance by much of the population. Not being targeted based on sexual orientation is a long due change in our laws that has been mostly successful.
Including heterosexual in conversing about sexual orientation is rarely done but maybe it should be done more so. The LGB movement is a movement like feminism in terms of the power dynamic and oppression. Heterosexuals being the dominant sexual orientation, in this case more or less denying the natural existence of homosexuality and bisexuality or considering it a sin or a disease to be cured. Like with patriarchy limiting the wholesome development of men, the same could be said about the effects of denying for so long the legitimate love of homosexuals on the ability of heterosexuals to love.
A book that needs to be written is one that thanks the LGB movement for their contribution to healthier sexual cultures and practices of heterosexuals. A similar book should be written from men to the women’s movement for opening the door for men to rethink the social construct of their own gender. There is a lot more work to do for men and heterosexuals to fully realize the better more healthier potential they have going forward. The work though must be done by them for them. It’s not enough to be an ally to women and to the LGB community. Men and heterosexuals have to explore and work on understanding their needs, fight the aspects that hurt their progress and build what they want for their gender and sexual orientation.
Sexual culture and practice
Sexual culture and practice would be described as the cultural, social, religious or psychologically indicated sexual observances, practices, ceremonies, rituals, positions, attractions and more that guides and informs an individual and/or groups understanding and engagement in sex. This is a very broad categorization that everyone falls under. The sexual culture and practices followed by a Christian community as well as the sexual culture and practices followed by a swinger community are in this categorization together. Sexual culture and practices are protected by the rights afforded individuals in all the above categories and in addition are protected by freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, rights of privacy, etc. They also must follow all the same legal rules that everyone must follow.
In general, more sexual cultures and practices developing freely in a healthy way, is a good thing for broader society. There is more acceptance than there has ever been in tolerating the existence of different sexual cultures and practices. It is no longer the case that certain sects of the Christian sexual culture can force it’s views on sex, gender, sexual orientation and sexual culture on the rest of society. The broader society has successfully argued the principle to live and let live. That the world will not end if gays marry. There are still sects of Christian society, Muslim society and others that do seek to force their view on sexual culture on the rest of the US and perhaps the world. These folks have been marginalized and shrunken greatly by a broadly accepting society as they failed in respecting that other people and groups should have the right to do things differently. A very small percentage of them will be enticed to achieve their oppression goals by changes in law or maybe even violence.
The sexual cultures who are driven to achieve their moral values over every part of society are supremacist. America has always had supremacist cultural tendencies. Not just white supremacy, male supremacy and heterosexual supremacy but in general a sense that America has supremacy over the world. The US indoctrinates it’s citizens in it’s own greatness. Mistakes were made in the past, but America is already great or being made great again. Either way, the cultural supremacy goes beyond the historical follies of white supremacy to a modern supremacy in culture that truly believes in it’s cutting edge greatness in reforming the repressive sexual cultures of the rest of the world.
The supremacist ego of the US citizenry, finds it’s way into just about everything, the good and the bad. This leads to intolerance, supremacist ideology, hate and violence. This generalized supremacist thought, that rejects dialogue and respect for other cultures in favor of violence and authoritarianism, is found on both sides of the culture wars.
The US has always had a difficulty in accepting and respecting the cultures and practices of others. Humanitarian intervention is the guiding excuse behind every modern war the US engages in. Women’s liberation in the Middle East is repeatedly brought up as an excuse for more death and destruction delivered by the US or it’s proxies with US weapons. US exceptionalism is crafted in elite colleges by people with advanced degrees churning out books championing moral and ethical certitude. Often it’s abstraction and theory with new language that must be used.
These academics give credence to those who assert their righteousness over communities and cultures. These are the priests and priestesses of identity politics, creating careers for themselves as representatives and administrators of the new moral frameworks. It’s not so different then how it has always been done in organized religions, where a priest is educated and sent to a church to lead a flock. Instead in the US it is an Equity and Social Justice Consultant at a state prison or for some giant corporation like Lockheed Martin. It’s not considered ok to criticize or complain against these people. They are the authority, and other cultural leaders who disagree are not tolerated. It’s not so different than priests in a church who teach their studied and updated version of Christianity to the leaders within the church, who are on fire for god, using their framework for shaming and rule enforcing within their community but also pushing out into the larger world as proselytizing and maybe worse. There is also the fact that both frame themselves as the victims and also the heroes.
The goals might be different but the structures are similar. Both could be criticized, the problem is more about how they are able to interact outside their world and with each other. Is the greater world around cultures organized in a concrete way that respects different cultures? Are there aren’t enough mechanisms to encourage these cultures into respecting others who are culturally different? There needs to be cross cultural forums for positive dialogue, which includes listening, critique and debate. Reminders to respect human rights and the rights enshrined by law. Enforcement of these rights. We need real education, that includes debate, that is informed by journalism that is much more independent and ten times as strong. Government should be working more on creating dialogue.
Putting aside the indoctrinating aspects found in both far ends of the culture war, these academics and far out moralizers often have arguments worth hearing if people can overcome the urge towards zealotry and enter into cross cultural dialogue.
A sexual culture must follow the rules of the state
Everyone is either male or female, a man or a woman, and one of the following three, heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. These categories, in reality, do not change for a person. Someone’s sexual orientation may come to be only fully known after adolescence and may take a while to understand or accept, but it doesn’t change either. The perception some have that these categories do change I would argue is only in the richness of knowing what you are. Knowing ones biological body, understanding what it means to be a man or woman in society, fully exploring the real depths of ones attraction to the same or opposite sex or both is a lifetime of growth.
It is a different way of thinking about these topics then what’s trending in popular psychology and at college campuses. There, people have effectively thrown out the binary in favor of theories of a spectrum or of fluidity. Young people speak of being nonbinary. People are calling themselves queer, gender queer and pansexual but that does not necessarily mean they are homosexual or even bisexual. What they mean when they say this is not clear, which seems to be part of the appeal. The ambiguity and mystery, the signaling to people that you’re different, it’s counter culture. A counter culture that rose from hidden nooks to become very mainstream in the present. Unfortunately, it didn’t get to the mainstream where Presidents even mention LGBTQ+ without it becoming changed. Changes that took away many of the challenges towards the dominant culture while leaving all the bits that appealed to the ruling classes.
The US has shown a growth in healthy sexual cultures after the advances in gender equity and rights of LGB. Despite this, much of that growth though is in predominantly heterosexual cultures, especially amongst the more affluent. The US has also seen the growth in sexual cultures that are more demeaning and exploitative. It’s a mixed bag of results. While many people can rightly praise certain growths in sexual freedoms, sometimes it obscures the substantial growths in demeaning and exploitative practices. One area where this is obvious but not talked about is the explosive growth in porn and sex work. These stories of empowering sex work often serves in hiding the downside which is substantial.
I had a 12 year old tell me she was nonbinary and her friend was trans. When I asked why she was nonbinary she said, “Look at me!” She gestured to her wearing khaki pants and a button up shirt. Some people I know would be clapping and saying how proud they are for this brave “person’s” understanding of who “they” were. To me it was a child using some words she found online but only with the depth in understanding afforded by her age. The social construct of gender for children is boys and girls. They have limited rights both culturally and legally. Children also get more protections both culturally and legally. It’s worrisome that the young and inexperienced are teaching the young and inexperienced while the adults are pressured to say nothing. It’s obviously complicated, but shouldn’t we be erring on the side of caution?
Otherwise, sexual culture and practice is, in my view, only protected in free speech, free assembly and rights of privacy. Also a sexual culture and practice can be limited or regulated to the extent that it goes against other laws. Being part of a certain sexual culture and practice also doesn’t seem to me to afford someone any special rights. Someone can criticize sexual culture and practices.
Be the first to comment