Not Just Sacks Of Meat!

When it comes to issues of the body, extreme sensitivity is usually advised. However, as you might know - if you're an avid reader of my writs on here - I don't necessarily believe in dressing my 'controversial realities' with a nice red bow and a "thank you" card. Rather, with the diversity of people I have as friends and acquaintances, I don't believe many of the thoughts we commonly agree upon are necessarily that controversial (-to me, at least). Hence, they are more factual realities that one sobers up to, once confronted with the necessary evidence: Or "A-ha!"-moments. The other day, I was confronted with yet another a challenging perspective that made me think... - the stunted notion that we are just sacks of meat, myopically denies and diminishes our conscious capability to form our own (gender) identities. And so it is these identities I wish to elaborate on, although not specifically the detail of individual gender identities, but more our various gender constructs and how they differ from biological sex. Yet, I wish to clarify; in using the word 'sex' in this context, I aim to distinguish it from coitus (intercourse). Instead, I would like to interrogate 'sex' as but one of the various constructs through which we can understand our conscious human identity. Yes, I know it's complicated and for the life of me, I don't know why I always choose such difficult topics to converse about, but just stick with me. There is a method to my madness.

As the title suggests, we are "not just sacks of meat" - with this I aim to convey that besides our biological bodies, we possess a social consciousness which allows us to form gender identities (regardless of our physiology). Yet, whether this is a product of nature or nurture, is something even expert scholars argue about to this day. As our entire biological and social systems are too complex to merely reduce their individual sub-factors into restrictive dichotomies. Especially when it comes to gender and sex. For there is much more to it, than what meets the eye. Therefore, let us then define 'sex' and 'gender', shall we? The term 'sex', according to Adams' 1982 book The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, is defined as originating from the Latin, sexus which translates to "sexual part" and is thus referential to biological sex, rather than gender identification. In contrast, the Latin word coitus which refers to "a coming together" invariably denotes sexual intercourse. However, when it comes to 'sex' as a biological construct, this brings into play a person's reproductive system and other secondary sex characteristics which are other external 'sex identifiers', besides genitalia (primary sex characteristics), usually occurring during puberty that collectively defines a person's biological sex. Two examples of secondary sex characteristics in women are: breasts and widened hips. Whereas in men, Adam's apples and facial hair constitutes as secondary sex characteristics. And these are but the visible characteristics... Although, some of these characteristics are not absolute because sex is biologically determined by Chromosomes. The XY genome produces biologically male DNA, as opposed to the XX genome, which produces biologically female DNA.

However, there are even exceptions to these 'norms' due to certain mutations of the SRY gene which could cause a male to be born with female genitalia, despite having XY chromosomes. Furthermore, variations in the number of sex chromosomes are very common, especially in men. And thus the XXY variation is considered to be a result of Klinefelter syndrome. In addition, there is also the 48, XXXY, as well as 49, XXXXY (a.k.a Fraccaro) syndrome. These have more than the phenotypically 46 human chromosomes, hence the additional 48/49 placed in front of them. Even though these are pretty rare, and the 49, XXXXY affects only 1/85 000 - 100 000 males, they still contribute to the complex dilemma facing even biological sex, which your aunt Bertha or uncle Bob might dismiss with "the Bible says god created them male and female..." -and consider absolute. Yet, your aunt Bertha and your uncle Bob aren't exactly micro-biologists, are they?! And furthermore, anyone who uses the Bible as a viable premise for sexual identification and gender norms might be disappointed, but we'll get to those 'juicy bits' in a moment. Yes, that was a terrible joke to make - I know, and I revel in it...

Nonetheless, if you thought biological sex was complicated, well, newsflash! You are in for a hell of a surprise with gender identification because on the one hand, biological sex has largely to do with our bodies and biology (which can only alternate to a certain extent). However, on the other hand, gender owes its multiplicity to being a socially constructed ideology, as here we are not dealing with tangible identifiers but a downward spiral of social "norms", pertaining to mainly characteristics ascribed to 'femininity' and 'masculinity'. And relative to- or depending on context, these ideologies are occasionally equated with biological sex, sex-based social structures (gender roles) or gender identity. Furthermore, sexologist and psychologist John Money, was the first to introduce the terminological differentiation between biological sex and gender in the 1950's because before then, gender was only considered to be a grammatical categorisation. However it only became prevalent later in the 1970's when feminist theory adopted this narrative of a distinction between biological sex, and gender as a social construct. Even though some societies are predisposed to gender binaries like boys/men (he/him), and girls/women (she/her); other individuals who do not restrict themselves to these binaries are considered non-binary or gender-queer (they/them). Throughout history, there have been cultures who identified with specific genders other than just that of "man" and "woman" - to name but two: the Native Americans with their Two Spirits tradition as well as the South Asian Hijra (a.k.a Kinnar/Aruvani) people who identify with three genders.

In our own Western context, we have to date approximately 64 terms that describe gender identity and expression. You might think, "well, this is preposterous!" And it might feel that way to those of us who don't identify with these labels (as they carry no meaning to us), yet they remain important nonetheless for the same essential reason why it's important not to call a homosexual person a *insert homophobic slur* or a person of colour *insert racial slur* and so forth. Language plays an important role in being affirming and supportive of another person's conscious identity. There are several reasons why people don't associate with their biological sex, as gender identity is also understood as 'psychological gender', therefore reasons may vary from things like trauma to gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID); the latter which is a valid mental illness according to the DSM-5 and should not be stigmatised nor shamed. Although that's a discussion in and of itself...

Nevertheless, as promised earlier, we now get to the juicy part! Sex-based social structures (Gender roles). The next time your aunt Bertha tells you the Bible says that ol' Yahweh only created two genders (Adam and Eve), you may inform her that Paul the Apostle also writes in his first letter to his apprentice Timothy, "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" (2:12). This scriptural passage (among others), is one of the many prevalent examples of sex-based social structure narratives that still persist in modern society today; even though the letter was written for a 1st century, middle-eastern audience. It depicts a social order where women are to be submissive to men, which can be found in most conservative/traditional Eastern, Western and African contexts. These imbalanced social structures expect an authoritarian, bombastic narrative as definitive of masculine men, whereas women are supposed to be timid, kind nurturers and child rearing housekeepers. Such social structures also reject and stigmatise men who exhibit more 'feminine qualities' like a passion for generally considered non-masculine things. And even women are rejected for being too independent, for being 'tomboys' (too masculine), choosing to remain unmarried (to a man) and so forth. Yet these are but basic socio-cultural identifiers of hegemonic (patriarchal) social systems and I engage in more depth on the matter in discussing our societal sex-conundrum along with the dangers such tendencies pose to contemporary female sexuality and body autonomy.

Thus, I posit that there exists absolutely no justifiable reason why one sex/gender should rule over another purely because of their biological/sociological predispositions. It's a toxic, unsustainable and narcissistic model that only produces destructive, unhealthy and unstable relationships. There is also no pre-determined divine order, promoting the proverbial Adam above Eve. As such is already a hegemonically biased and archaic narrative that has no place in contemporary society. Furthermore, these outdated structures should not dictate what people may wear, do, say, feel and enjoy as they are individual prerogatives we all have and choose for ourselves, based on who (and what) we are. Therefore, we are not just sacks of meat to be thrown around at the whims and wills of others. We have the conscious capacity to form our identities independently; associating with a label which best accommodates our identities (...if any at all). Therefore, our gender identities could perhaps objectively be seen, in a word, as androgynous. For the sole reason that it does not equate itself with binary social constructs or norms (which in themselves are not absolute), until we do. And so, in theory, we're actually all born genderless until we decide otherwise... - or until society decides for us?