Man Up, Woman Down: The Social Construct of Gender in Modern Society

I've been reading and thinking about the new book "Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars: The Politics of Sex" by Dr. Finn Mackay.

I entered this book looking for women's thoughts on what it means for them to be manly because too much of the sex/gender argument centers on "what is a woman?" and males go mostly untouched. But the question that remained in my mind was:

Why Are We Incapable Of Defining Women Without Reference To Men        

Lingual Warfare: The Battle for Inclusive Communication

As I read the book's analysis of social views on sex and gender, I couldn't help but feel that language is at the heart of the issue because there isn't a word for "female masculinity" that isn't connected to the male sex.

A male athlete, for example, might be thought of as existing at the absolute edge of what the human body is capable of in terms of strength, speed, or endurance. They are certainly one type of masculine archetype, but there isn't a feminine counterpart. We don't define femininity by looking at a female who exhibits the highest level of human performance for her sex. Instead, society is much more likely to view them as being in some way manly, so supporting the idea that the admirable traits they are exhibiting are ones that are connected to the expectations of maleness.

The issue is that masculinity and femininity are linguistically set up in antagonism while still being strongly related to sex. I apologize if this is not really a unique insight. Because no adjectives exist for strong, athletic, domineering, or powerful women who express and embody what it is to be a woman.

The idea that the masculine and feminine are opposites (and related to the male and female sexes, respectively) establishes a hierarchy where favorable traits for males to possess are perceived as negative in females and vice versa. This is the kind of remark that feminists have been making forever.

The main problem with the contemporary discussion of gender and gender identity is that the loud, forceful activity that has done so well to establish itself in our institutions does nothing to dispel this association; rather, it only serves to strengthen and essentialize it. That leads to this absurd position where nonconformity is impossible: the attempt to hold onto the characteristics of masculine and feminine while believing they correspond to fundamental characteristics of men and women or male and female. In other words, expressing yourself as a "woman" implies that you are indeed a "woman" in some way; this is known as having a "gender identity" that transcends your sex.

Nobody appears to wonder why a transwoman is even given the name "transwoman" in the first place. This is a social construct with a recent history and a clear purpose; it is not an unchangeable universal truth. According to Wikipedia, Leslie Feinberg first used this term to describe "a male-to-female transgender or transsexual individual" about 25 years ago.

This name, therefore, refers to the notion that a man may transgress his gender or sex in order to become (or at least be perceived as) a woman. The desire, for the guy to be renamed as the woman they want to be, is part of the naming process. A trans woman.

Why not a transman, though? Speaking about the man in terms of "away from the gender or sex they started at" or "towards the gender or sex they wish to become" makes just as much sense logically. The naming is motivated by desire rather than by logic or utility.

This alternate phrasing would fit much better as a descriptor for all gender non-conformity, given the following shift away from talking about transsexuality in terms of bodily change and towards increasingly optional gender expression. a man who refuses to fit into the gendered stereotypes that society has for them. The trans man.

All of the problems we are currently dealing with stem from the simple linguistic choice to refer to trans persons in terms of a fixed gender they are heading toward rather than one they are moving away from. "Woman" must be a predetermined endpoint if "transwoman" is to make sense. According to stereotypes, gender must still exist in order for a transwoman to be any kind of woman. Because the language they employ is wholly dependent on the presence of those same boxes, individuals who wish to break down the regressive gender box find themselves in conflict with others who ought to be their natural friends but aren't.

Bluntly, if males who were "transgender" were termed "transmen", then the last several years of legislative craziness just wouldn't have happened. The statement "Transwomen are Women" would only imply that gender nonconforming women are women and that regardless of how they were portrayed, all members of the feminine sex were females. that no woman should be stigmatized because of their "masculine" appearance. The underlying yearning to be perceived as, or actually become, the other is not satiated by this more polite language.

But despite the fact that we are where we are, I find it amazing how many individuals are eager to criticize biological sex as a social construct and offer no analysis of wholly manufactured terminology with a sketchy past. Our ability to even conceptualize an alternative is constrained by the language that seems to encircle our mind on this topic.

Man Up or Step Aside: The Changing Face of Masculinity

Finn spends considerable time on the reality of being a gender-nonconforming woman and the social punishment meted out to those who deviate from accepted norms in the section of the book that I personally found most insightful. It is really simple to stand on the sidelines and advise nonconforming women to "just be a nonconforming woman" if you do not experience the same types of frequent societal stigmatization. A series of interviews with gender-nonconforming women of various self-identifications are included later in the book. In these interviews, all of the women discuss masculinity in a manner that is consistent with how they see masculinity and what it means to them to be a masculine female. All of these interviews have made it abundantly evident to me that a masculine female is not a guy.

In "Feminism, Interrupted" by Lola Olufemi, the claim is made that the term "woman" serves as a political umbrella term for everyone who is subjected to "patriarchy" and oppression. This applies to both transmen and transwomen. Men group under the umbrella term "non-men" everyone they wish to exclude. My opinion is that it is a profoundly destructive mindset that is somehow praised as progressive.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that it is added as an afterthought to the claim that "transwomen are women," it does make it plain that transmen are not men. When they are discussed at all, that is, there aren't many people who sincerely contend that they are, at least not in the same way that they contend that transwomen are women. The majority of the time, transgender people are praised for giving birth rather than being lauded for their leadership in politics or business.

Because males have spent decades influencing society and language such that women are already the objectified objects of the male gaze, it is much easier for men to convince people that they can be women than that women can be men. A guy is a woman if he can be made to resemble the sex object a man wants a woman to be. Men are said to lose their masculinity and become emasculated, which results in a downward spiral into a weaker, more effeminate state.

Consequently, gender-nonconforming men are "othered," which upholds male gender standards, and women are further objectified. Recognizing transmen as "different" promotes the interests of men and upholds rigid gender norms, just as accepting transwomen as women does.

Transmen would be the last to use any technology to truly make a penis that functions even remotely like a real one because it does not exist.

Everyone is aware of this to some degree. That all the billionaire men would purchase custom twelve-inch penises if we could truly surgically produce one.

Is it really that far-fetched to think that the bodies of society's most disposable and scorned individuals—gender nonconforming women and lesbians—are being utilized as a testing ground for experimental procedures that wealthy men will eventually profit from?

Despite this, a great deal of time and energy is devoted to the dismantling of masculinity and manhood in an effort to prevent the penis from being central in order to allow women to be classified as men. Nevertheless, I believe that this is ultimately ineffective and fools no one. If your very first action is to disregard the phallus as a point of reference, you will not be able to critique thousands of years of phallocentric psychology and cultural supremacy. Without that, gender nonconforming women are basically spinning their wheels trying to figure out where exactly masculine women fall on the non-man scale.

Gender Bender: The Dichotomy of Identity and Expression

The book by Finn, in my opinion, offers one of the better explanations of an alternative point of view for someone who is deeply involved in the sex/gender discussion and falls on the "sex is real, unchanging, and significant" side (as I do). It is important to note that this is largely coming from the understandable perspective that societal acceptance of diverse sexuality and gender fluidity is under threat from the forces of the reactionary right. I did not always agree with what was put forward, especially those elements that are framed as "anti-trans," and much of what was said I was already aware of, but I believe it is important to stress that this is largely coming from this perspective.

On the sex, gender, and trans discussion, various groups arrive at seemingly similar positions from a variety of angles. This is important because it shows where you should go from there. Some people desire a more progressive future where there is no hint that a child who identifies as neither gender is in any way the "opposite gender," while others want to go back to more traditional, conservative ways of behaving.

Finn is correct to highlight the risk of political coalitions between parties with drastically divergent ideologies and the way those with a progressive viewpoint are sometimes exploited as a front for others with more reactionary agendas, to the cost of women and LGB people more broadly. Even while this is a more nuanced view than that of Judith Butler, I didn't feel there was much recognition that the authoritarianism that has replaced claimed liberal action is what led to those coalitions in the first place. An absolutist worldview in which there is only one path forward and everyone who does not follow it is labeled a tool of the right, a bigot who harbors hate, or at the very least, someone who is bigot-adjacent. Fear of coded language and dog whistles, as well as the possibility of being exploited by a right-wing bogeyman to justify an argument through discussion, are what prevent the "left" from creating a safe environment for rational discourse.

Finn's statement that she will be addressed as she/her in more mainstream society but as he/him in "queer" places caught my attention. This, in my opinion, is a crucial point: the acceptance of pronoun fluidity is mostly a subcultural phenomenon, and if addressed as such, it poses no threat to the larger society, the law, rights, or anything else. Finn is aware that these phrases are reliant on context and are the result of recognition within a particular group.

Having a different manner of addressing friends, lovers, family, or even just strangers in the appropriate setting is completely acceptable and something to be welcomed. The sort of playful and subversive use of names, pronouns, roles, and expressions has always been a feature of subcultures. Nevertheless, just because someone you've known and loved for years refers to you as "he" rather than "her" because they know and love you, doesn't mean that random barista who disagrees with them dislikes you, or a coworker who won't use their pronouns in their email signature is a bigot. Finn appears to realize that there is a difference between the two, which is a welcome change from some who insist on being addressed as "she" or "they" at all times.

But, the bigger issue currently is the forcible imposition of universal adherence to such terms, coupled with state recognition and protection that they represent an ultimate truth about the individual, the rejection of which becomes an act of hate. Political parties and their supporters from all political stripes have been seduced by the idea that opposing viewpoints are intolerable and should be silenced in order to stop others from hearing them and becoming convinced that they are equally intolerable. It is a form of dictatorship from the ivory tower that is for your own good.

Although Finn appears to be open to the idea that there are a variety of valid progressive viewpoints on this issue, he still holds the opinion that they are wrong. The necessity to convince the misinformed, afraid, or just misguided to get off "the right's" ship and onto the "real" ship of progress. Instead of allowing them to be demonized in ever-more hysterical terms, I wish there was a deeper commitment to upholding those voices that are attempting to discuss in good faith.

As Finn puts out, male sexual violence is the true foe that all women should stand united against. However, unless you can clearly identify it, I don't see how you can fight against it.

Final Countdown: The Future of Gender Equality

This book draws heavily from prior works of literature and cites them frequently in a confusing manner. A genealogy of an idea might be presented, outlining several conflicting ideas that evolved over time. While this is intriguing, it also made me feel like I should have read 50 other books before diving into this one.

I did not feel intellectually pleased by the book, but rather that any opinion I may have expressed had likely already been covered in great depth by someone else.

This is in some ways a good thing because isn't the definition of masculine ego to enter into well-trodden territory with less knowledge and claim to have the solution.

Nonetheless, after finishing this book and giving it some thought, I keep coming back to the idea that a large portion of our current conflict is linguistic. That the phrase "transwomen are women" was coined in a particular way, which is why it survives today. The labels "masculine" and "feminine" are constructed with value judgments and sex stereotypes in mind, and as a result, we keep slipping into the same traps of reinforcing what we are attempting to destroy.

Essentially, I don't believe there will be progress made until we create a term for "female masculinity" that is both positive and unrelated to the male sex.