‘Doing Gender’ and the Construction of the Gender Binary Through Language

Author: Nayantara Balagopal Chandrasekhar︱Editor: Vicky Strong

In Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990), she argues that gender identity is not an inevitable truth, but rather a repetition of actions to which we socially assign notions of masculinity or femininity.^[1] It then follows that none of these actions are inherently masculine or feminine, but rather, have been deemed so because of their association with certain roles in the socially constructed male/female gender binary within which people and their choices are confined. The existence of this gender binary subsequently limits the expression and existence of people as they are encouraged to fit into one of two categories.

Lucal (1999) goes so far as to say that this gender binary has constructed a society that has “no social place for a person who is neither woman nor man,” which brings us to question what a “social place” is defined as.^[2] If, for instance, a “social place” is in mere day-to-day interactions, it is arguable that because the English second-person pronoun is ungendered (‘you’), and there are methods within discourse to refer to an interlocutor without using a gendered term. However, singular third-person pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘she’) are generally gendered, although the singular ‘they’ and neopronouns like ‘ze/zir’ have become more common. Similarly, in some cultures, referring to a person as ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am,’ indicates politeness. Thus there are few linguistic spaces within the English language that do not require a speaker to gender their audience.

If a “social space” were to be defined as a physical space, here, too, it is often difficult to find a space that is designed for a person who is “neither woman nor man.” For instance, in spaces that are considered ‘private,’ such as toilets or airport security, people are forced to categorise themselves into either male or female in order to use certain facilities. Cultural gender roles also often define domestic spaces as feminine, and public spaces as masculine. When these confinements are breached, they are often met with prejudice and disapproval. A woman in a corporate role may be forced to take on typically ‘masculine’ linguistic characteristics such as a lower voice and a more assertive tone, and be perceived as ‘bossy’. The gendering of these social spaces and the tension that comes with their destruction by cisgender people alone then begs the question of how people who identify outside that gender binary may interact with the same spaces: usually, they are assigned a gender based on their environment. For example, if shopping for infant’s clothing, they will be gendered as ‘ma’am’ with she/her pronouns, but if solo travelling, they will be gendered as ‘sir’ with he/him pronouns, falling in line with the association of motherhood with womanhood and public spaces with masculinity.^[2] Therefore social spaces, both linguistically/verbally and physically are designed only to hold space for people that identify within a gender binary.

Lucal further claims that “we cannot escape doing…one of two genders.” I would agree with her argument, but further it by saying this is true only as long as we have rigid notions of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity.’ Attempts to ‘escape’ gender, perhaps by engaging in an activity that is not typical of their perceived gender or by using alternative (not he/she) pronouns, still end up reinforcing existing gender norms unintentionally. A man dressing in a skirt or wearing makeup arguably does not redefine ‘masculinity’ to include these activities, but rather allows him to be perceived as a man who is ‘doing’ femininity. Similarly, women who are stoic and assertive — typically male characteristics — are arguably still ultimately perceived as women embodying masculine traits. Even if individuals ‘do’ gender by embodying traits of the gender that is not assigned to them, they are still constantly embodying gendered traits. Therefore any attempt to defy gender is still met with gender being assigned to the doer, and therefore it is arguably impossible to escape ‘doing’ gender.

These notions of masculinity and femininity, as well as the social spaces within which they interact, are also undeniably tied to the culture of the people embodying these identities. In Outside the XY, Abena Opam says, “I could not be both Ghanian and gay…so I decided I had to choose. I chose gay,” while Bani Amor discusses how colonialism forced them to assimilate into a rigid gender binary.^[3] It’s questionable the extent to which the gender binary can coexist with non-western cultures and languages. As a person of colour from South India, all vocabulary I use to define my queer identity comes from western cultures. Words like lesbian, bisexual, or transgender lack direct Tamil or Hindi translations, so even for family who are first-language English speakers, it is difficult to explain queerness without seeming like I am succumbing to a neocolonial, western-washing of identity. Ironically the vocabulary for queer people in Indian languages existed before the British Raj erased it: सहेलि [səhɛli] in Hindi often meant lesbian, but was semantically bleached into meaning ‘female friend’. But the imposition of imperial morality guidelines has influenced Indian culture and language to practically erase indigenous queerness, making it now perceived as a western evil rather than a universal identity.

The gender binary is constructed through socialisation, but this seeps into everyday language, documentation, and physical space. Even if gender is something that is consciously ‘done,’ as Butler argues, is it difficult to escape this ‘doing’ because of how masculinity and femininity are so tightly intertwined with everyday actions, roles, and language, and every attempt to defy gender may subconsciously reinforce it. Terminology around the defiance of gender and heteronormativity are also often very English-centric, and therefore perceived as western constructs by non-western communities, which can make it difficult for people of colour to navigate the intersection between ethnic identity and queer identity. If Lucal is correct, perhaps in a postpatriarchal world our rigid ideas of what gender is and should be will become more fluid and less energy will be put into defining gender than into exploring it.

References

[1] Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.

[2] Lucal, B. (1999). What It Means to Be Gendered Me: Life on the Boundaries of a Dichotomous Gender System. Gender & Society, 13(6), 781–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124399013006006

[3] Morgan Mann Willis. (2016). Outside the XY. Riverdale Avenue Books LLC.