Oh, the human mind.
How it loves simplicity. It loves to think in terms of black and white, even when life only speaks in shades of grey. Take gender, for instance. We are taught from our early years that one is either a boy or a girl and that assignment is determined at birth. Once the assignment is made (and it’s apparently backed up by simple biology) each gender has its specified role to play. And then that’s it.
Or is it?
The science
When we start to unpack these simplistic assumptions about gender, things get a little more complicated. And I’m not just pushing progressive/woke ‘ideology’ here, either. Evidence of gender variance beyond the binary goes back centuries. Many indigenous cultures made space for a third gender—I’m looking at you, hijra of India. Some cultures even claimed up to eight different genders. Throughout history, society has accommodated people do not fit into one of two opposing boxes set at birth. What’s more, biology supports this variance.
Sex chromosomes turn out to be far more complex than XX or XY. In fact, around ten different sex chromosome variations exist. They range in type from XXY to XO to various examples of genetic mosaicism. There are even conditions like Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), where an individual can be born female-bodied, albeit probably infertile, and still possess an XY karyotype. So yes, women-born-women can still have XY chromosomes. That is possible in human existence. Illuminating, isn’t it?
So that brings me to the point. There is so much fuss today about the gender binary being the ‘default,’ even with clear evidence that humans have existed outside this system throughout history. I think the current social discourse has forgotten one thing:
Gender, like race, is all made up.
Sorry to burst everyone’s bubble. The binary is not basic science or God’s plan. It is a gross oversimplification of complex human beings. And it’s been a useful tool to control people. Let’s get into it.
The history
The strict gender binary we all assume to be standard is a white, European colonial import. It is literally an invention of Western civilization. As European explorers colonized other parts of the world, they imported Western values shaped by Christianity. Deeply embedded within Christian philosophy is the idea that women are to obey their husbands and thus, be subordinate to men. Each gender had their prescribed roles to perform: men as providers, leaders, and heads of households; women as mothers, caretakers, and wives. This patriarchal system of Christian male domination was rigid and immutable because one’s gender dictated how much power each person had access to. It was also a convenient system to impose. It offered a clear and simple hierarchy, one that contained a built-in rewards system. The more people conformed to the system (and their specific gender roles), the more society rewarded them. This meant that a man got consistently more praise for being dominant or hyper-masculine and a woman got more social approval if she was pretty, feminine and submissive.
Race
The intersection of race with gender further stratified Western social systems. European colonizers framed brown and indigenous populations as heathen or uncivilized due to their cultural differences. They further contended that because European features were ‘more sexually dimorphic’ (that white men and women looked more distinct from each other than other races), that this was proof of higher evolutionary status. Both of these arguments—deeply rooted in white, patriarchal supremacy—were used to classify indigenous peoples as inferior and thus to justify controlling them. It also pushed native, non-Christian people down lower on the social hierarchy. Non-European men and women ranked beneath white women in status and any access to privilege in this system was contingent on conformity. Indigenous women, for example, were shamed for their nakedness, labeled as lascivious or over-sexed, and forced to cover their bare breasts. They were also pressured into subordination to men so they could be considered ‘civilized’ like European women, even though some of their tribes had previously been matrilineal in structure.
LGBT status
It’s no surprise that this system also marginalized queer people. Again, the rewards system in place prioritized the white, Christian heterosexual family unit. This was by direct design. Both politicians and religious leaders alike need a steady supply of one particular thing: followers. Queer couples do not have children or families to the same degree that heteronormative couples do. Therefore, they hold less value in Western, patriarchal culture. So by endorsing the mother/father/child unit, those in power ensured that the current system continued. They also propagated the continued marginalization of queer, trans, and gender-nonconforming identities within it.
This marginalization gained momentum after 1946, the year that the word ‘'homosexual’ first appeared in the Bible. That’s right. ‘Homosexual’ did not appear in any Bible until 1946 and according to the explosive documentary 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, it was actually a mistake. 1946 follows a research team as they review notes from the 1946 translation committee in the archives at Yale University. As the documentary unfolds, the teams pinpoints two Greek words that the translation committee interpreted as ‘homosexual:’ malakos, which means ‘soft’ and arsenakoitai, which actually derives from a list of economic, not sexual morality, sins. When flags were raised about the accuracy of this translation, the translation committee in question agreed that that were wrong and that this misinterpretation could be used as a holy weapon. Unfortunately, by that time the new translation had gone to press.
While the word ‘homosexual’ originally only showed up in one bible verse (1 Corinthians 1:9), The Living Bible took it another step further. This more simplified, less academic version of the bible put the word ‘homosexual’ in six or seven verses (known as the Clobber Passages). This particular bible was widely disseminated by preachers like Billy Graham and used to condemn LBGT identities. Thus, the Christian anti-gay movement was born, eventually peaking during the AIDS crisis of the 1980’s. This movement has had a resurgence in recent times, further attempting to oppress the LGBT community in favor of the current patriarchal system. The point here is that religion has readily been weaponized in service to white heteronormative dominance. The net result is that queer and trans individuals have been pushed to the bottom of the social hierarchy discussed earlier.
To learn more about 1946, I invite you to watch my interview with the director, Rocky Roggio, for the podcast Conscious Quest, available on YouTube or Apple Podcasts.
Conclusion
Power structures exist in the world and probably always will. Humans are hierarchical by nature. It is, however, all a choice. The gender binary feels like the natural default because that is what we are led to believe. In reality, it has been heavily policed by centuries of imperialism and the backing of Abrahamic religions. And as we can see from history and biology, it is not the complete picture.
I believe that a strict gender binary oppresses everyone to some degree. Many people refuse to see this and several others will tolerate their oppression—mostly because conforming enough will lead to some degree of relative acceptability within the system. Most people are not disenfranchised enough to push back. They should, though. I would argue that even rich, white men at the top are oppressed in this system. And here is where I’m about to spill a little tea:
It is well-known within the trans community that a certain segment of rich, powerful (and famous) men love trans women. They desire us but will only seek us out in private or behind closed doors. They will never publicly admit to their trans attraction, because to do so they would lose social standing. The rewards system of the patriarchy would penalize them for dating women at the bottom of the hierarchy. Therefore, they are closeted by the very system they uphold. As a result, some learn to hate themselves for loving women portrayed as inferior by society at large. They then direct their internalized self-hatred into violence at the object they desire: trans women. It is no accident that (especially black) trans women have one of the highest homicide rates of any other group. Most of their attackers are men who are close to them. This partially explains the cycle of violence directed at the trans community: it is a function of the very society that both loves us and hates us.
Trans people are the ones punished for disrupting a system that oppresses all of us.
Looking ahead
Whew! That was a lot. Thanks to all of you who stayed with me. In the coming weeks, I plan to pick up where I left off today, by exploring the deep reasons for the transgender backlash.
But first! I want to extend a huge thanks to all of you. It means so much that all of you read and support Beyond the Veil. I especially want to give a shout out to Kevin F, J Lo and Kelli M for becoming my newest paid subscribers. I’m also sending out a huge thanks to Amanda D for being my first Founding Member. Thanks, birthday girl!
Feel free to like, comment, share and subscribe as you are willing. If you are feeling especially generous, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription. Your support means so much and it helps me keep writing. Peace and love to all!!