Yang: Performing Gender

By Lorelei Yang, Staff Columnist

Published on Tuesday, May 8, 2012

  • Print
  • Report an Error

We are categorized into a gender before we are even born, squeezed and confined into tightly defined conceptual boxes for the sake of easy identification. Expectant mothers are often asked, “Is it a boy or a girl?” There is an assumption of a binary system of categorization that assumes the child is either a boy or girl. This harmful practice constrains our potential for understanding ourselves and others while also othering those who fall outside its bounds. As members of a progressive society, it is our responsibility to question and challenge this construct.

Reducing gender to an either/or linguistic proposition — that a person can be either a woman or a man but not an amalgamation — generates false distinctions that define and demean non-heterosexual individuals and those who do not identify as one gender or the other as outsiders to the realm of “acceptable” society. Applying this heteronormative standard to all sections of society makes sex, gender and sexuality unassailable monoliths, insensible to the plight of those who exist outside a narrowly defined set of norms.

American philosopher Judith Butler argued that the apparent coherence of the categories of sex, gender and sexuality constitutes a set of “regulative discourses,” making gender a more insidious concept than merely the answer to the question of what color to paint a nursery. Rather, gender is a culturally constructed prison that, despite our unawareness of its presence, pre-limits our experiences.

As a mechanism of control, gender is remarkably effective and is hardly ever singled out as a cause for concern. Apart from gawking human-interest pieces or athletic controversies (the case of South African runner Caster Semenya comes to mind), intersex and transgender individuals are shunned or ignored by society at large. While the “gay rights issue” is a perennial election season topic, public debates on same-sex marriage and the theology of homosexuality miss the core issue: Why do these things matter so much? If everyone has equal rights, why should one’s sexuality or gender identity affect one’s treatment under a system of laws purporting to hold equal rights as its theoretical foundation? Furthermore, given the shift toward “gender-neutral” language (for example, “police officer” instead of “policeman”), why is the acceptance of gender-nonconforming people so much more difficult to achieve?

The answers to these and similar questions reside in our concept of gender itself. Our binary understanding of gender blinds us to the existence of non-heterosexual sexualities and non-binary gender identities. A world where we can ask, “Is it a boy or a girl?” without recognizing the inherently problematic nature of such a question is one that fails to leave conceptual space for those whose identities subvert the status quo.

This is where parody comes in to expose gender as a performative practice. Parodies destabilize gender by subverting and re-appropriating normative expressions of gender in new contexts. They blur the distinction between inner and outer psychic space, mocking both the expressive model of gender and the notion of a “true” fixed gender identity. Drag in particular is a double inversion, allowing one to make the contradictory claims of feminine appearance and masculine persona or vice versa, with the first character set embraced during the act of drag and the second embraced when out of drag. These concurrent contradictory claims reveal gender as more than a matter of choosing between a male or female identity. As an imitative practice, drag reveals the imitative structure of gender itself. By separating sex and gender, then combining them in an “unnatural” way, drag dramatizes their fabricated unity, revealing them as distinct.

Parody destabilizes the very concepts of sex and gender, showing the absurdity of a binary gender economy. It undermines sex and gender by mocking the notion of an original predetermined gender-signifying economy, leading to the realization that there is no original. The realization of this fact propels the movement away from the gender binary.

Because parody reveals gender’s constructed nature, it establishes the political nature of the very terms — “man,” “woman,” “male,” “female” — that define sex and gender identity. By revealing gender’s construction, parodies liberate us to move beyond limiting questions such as “Is it a boy or a girl?” to a society that can not only comprehend, but also embrace, those of non-heterosexual and gender-nonconforming identities.

Comments

This column is proof of the existence of the “Sasquatch” intellectual. When all you have to occupy your massive excess time on earth is deconstructing everything, what you are left with is nothing. Lorelei has achieved nothingness right here in this column. “She” has deconstructed “herself.”

By on May 8 | 10:22 am

Good work on this fine essay explaining Judith Butler’s profound reconsideration of gender as performance. Your deconstruction certainly would give you an “A” in my class, but perhaps you should edit it before sharing with the general public?

By on May 8 | 1:08 pm

The article isn’t very good. This is primarily because it doesn’t do enough/anything to differentiate between gender and sex, aside from its completely ridiculous premise that it is wrong to ask if a newborn is a boy or a girl.

There are only two human sexes as a biological reality – male and female. Those binary categories are established by nature, not society or Judith Butler. This is why expectant mothers ask if their child is a “boy or girl.” Because those are generally speaking the only two options. Fewer than 1 in 10,000 people are inter-sex, and they are not a separate sex, they share traits of both sexes. Fewer than 1 in 200 people are transexuals, and they still are born with one or another sex, they just legitimately identify as the opposite sex and may seek corrective surgery later. There is absolutely nothing problematic about the question “is it a boy or a girl?”

Gender is different. The author is right in that gender is the problematic binary cultural role attributed to sex. However, the overwhelming majority of people, including heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and incidentally transexuals, are very secure in their gender identity. Parents who have attempted to raise ‘gender-neutral’ children have failed, and several books have been written by those adult children about their experiences. Attempting to de-program sex or gender is as ludicrous and intrusive as attempting to de-program gay people.

Very bad article.

By on May 8 | 3:13 pm

It’s great to see such a rich, complex piece in The Dartmouth’s opinion section. I hope the author will take a careful look at the world and see that far from being a “culturally constructed prison,” gender identity in the early twenty first century in the United States allows individuals a wide range of options to develop their unique talents.

By on May 8 | 9:05 pm

the ‘13 who commented above is seriously mistaken. biology is gendered. think about that. let that sit in your brain for a bit. the separation of sex and gender is does nothing more than re-establish a binary mode of understanding human beings. i pity you.

By on May 14 | 7:58 pm

Comments are closed on this article.

Most Viewed | Latest Comments

  1. Miller: Are We Really Talking?
  2. Guarini ’46 will donate $10 million to College
  3. Female seniors share personal stories
  4. Vann Island
  5. Mehring: Theory and Knowledge
  6. Johnson fields questions online
  7. UFC approves $1.2 mil. budget for organization
  8. Despite lack of major, architecture offerings abound
  9. Daily Debriefing
  10. Senior injured in fraternity prank