The concept of a gender binary, the notion that you are either man or woman, has been thrown into public discourse enough times that it is now considered to be debunked in many respected academic circles. Many parts of society have already started moving past the notion of fixed roles and expectations based on your sex at birth, which is supposedly determined by your chromosome combination. This is seen in the slow acceptance of the existence of transgender people, with life and identity-affirming accommodations becoming more commonplace. These include the gradual embracement of concepts such as someone choosing to undergo hormone replacement therapy, bottom and top surgeries, and asking for preferred name and pronouns, regardless of how it may appear in identification documents. However, what is far less discussed is the falsity of the sex binary, the idea that you are either a biological male or female. Even within trans circles, there exists the misconception that your biological sex not only exists, but it cannot be changed. It is said that XX chromosomes mean you are female, and XY mean you are male. This concept is not as rooted in biology as some people may think it is. The very existence of intersex people debunk this construct; their very existence showing how sex is far too nuanced to be arbitrarily grouped into just two categories.

Intersexuality, as defined by the Intersex Society of North America, “is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male” (https://isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex/ CITATION NEEDED). It is estimated that “approximately 1 or 2 percent of children are born with mixed or ambiguous sex characteristics” (GENDER AND GENITALS CITATION NEEDED). This means that anywhere between 79 to 158 million people on this planet do not squeeze into this archaic binary that we know as sex. The notion of the sex binary implies that you are either biologically male or female. If you are male, you must have XY chromosomes, a penis, testicles, and an Adam’s apple. If female, you must have XX chromosomes, a vagina, a set of breasts, and ovaries. Intersex people may have some combination of the above-mentioned traits, or just entirely different traits altogether. One such example of this is the existence of people with XXY chromosomes, known as Klinefelter Syndrome (CITATION NEEDED https://isna.org/faq/conditions/klinefelter/). The fact that people can have a different combination of chromosomes than that which the gender binary mandates the arbitrary grouping of is enough in of itself to debunk this myth altogether. Additionally, it is important to note that referring to people with XXY chromosomes as a syndrome is stigmatizing and it is only seen as such in the context of a gender binary, being perceived as a sort of sickness, rather than a valid form of identity.

People whose biological makeup does not conform to the sex binary continue to be mutilated as newborns without the ability to consent. Hubbard writes, “In the last few decades, in conformity with the binary paradigm, medical interventions have been developed to try to
‘correct’ the genitals of infants who manifest any form of sex ambiguity” (GENDER AND GENITALS CITATION NEEDED). These operations are, admittedly, sometimes necessary for health reasons, such as to surgically create a urethral opening, as some intersex newborns are not capable of passing waste on their own. Despite often having a physical makeup that poses no immediate risk to the infant in question, their genitals are operated on in order to conform to the sex binary, meaning that they will be shaped into either a penis or vagina. Such operations are done without the consent of the patient, as newborns cannot consent. These procedures are more for the sake of appeasing the society around the patient than it is for the patient’s own wellbeing. The notion of a sex binary justifies the mutilation of vulnerable people, leaving them with more questions than answers as they grow up.

Society needs to undergo massive changes so that this notion of a harmful sex binary is abolished. It is not rooted in biology, as the very existence of intersex people disproves that. It is used as justification in order to violate the bodies of newborns. Schools should teach about sex as a spectrum rather than the black-and-white dichotomy of male and female. On the medical level, an intersex newborn should be operated on as minimally as possible, with procedures being decided upon as medically necessary.

The perpetual war of being a woman.

            Man, vs woman, white woman vs black woman, rich vs poor, fat vs skinny, modest vs revealing.

All these words highlight the internal battle on what it means to be a woman. More importantly, they emphasize the idea of intersectionality and double standards within femininity.

The fight for equality for women is no longer a sole battle of simply being a woman. Society has constructed an internal war within womanhood on what it means to be equal. Women are no longer simultaneously fighting for equality with men but now against each other. The two-course readings “Excerpt from Feminine Mystique” and “Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination,” shed light on the inconsistency within femininity and what it means be both powerful and powerless at the same time as a woman. Understanding the effects of intersectionality in feminism is imperative to recognize the overlapping discrimination and oppression that occurs with being a woman of color, which Patricia Collins reveals in her article. She focuses on the notion of knowledge and the connection to power by emphasizing that race, class, and gender are interlocking systems of oppression. Society continues to construct this idea of equality by creating a new level of inequality, which is amplified in analyzing intersectionality and double standards within feminism. The fight for equality is not limited to just man vs woman, it is also woman vs woman. We turn women against each other through the ideas that are upheld from double standards and forget about those that face overlapping oppression from not only existing as a woman but also for their race. My goal is to show that women continuously live in a spiral of oppression through a closed funnel of inequality. In comparing the “Excerpt from Feminine Mystique” which was written 15 years ago to our society today, the similarity is that no matter what a woman chooses to do they will face oppression. Understanding intersectionality and double standards exist for women emphasize the idea that the fight for equality for women can be compared to trying to get through a door that will never open.

The “Excerpt from Feminine Mystique,” shows how women during the time after WWII were nothing but a cherished housewife. It highlights that their sole purpose was to be “perfect wives and mothers,” whose dreams were left to question “Is this all?” This glorified occupation of being a housewife and a stay-at-home mom is now a prime example of the internal battle women face from double standards. The book “Mommy Wars: Stay at Home and Career Moms face on their choices, their lives, their families,” shows the effects of double standards on women. The continued shame now raises the question of women’s choices: to work or be a stay-at-home mom. The novel presents the two sides of the endless war for women. The internal battle of women against women is shown through the shaming of one another. However, Leslie Steiner explains that “There is no good reason for working moms to treat stay-at-home moms like dirt” (Steiner). The oppression of women prevails through the control of individuals who are not women, which is exemplified in the “ongoing debate in the U.S about the benefits of working versus stay-at-home motherhood by experts, that are not women and aren’t even parents”(Steiner). The once glorified occupation of a housewife is now being shamed, yet working mothers are also being questioned. The fight for equality for women can be compared to trying to get through a door that will never open.

The two pieces of literature reveal that no matter what a woman chooses to do she will be shamed yet glorified, questioned but supported, and ultimately powerful and powerless at the same time. However, this is when an intersectional framework is needed to point out the effects of not only being a woman but a woman of color, who will end up facing double oppression. As Kimberly Crenshaw states “We’ve got to be open to looking at all of the ways our systems reproduce these inequalities, and that includes the privileges as well as the harms” (Crenshaw).

Intersectionality in feminism is understanding that a woman of color is experiencing overlapping oppression, which Patricia Collins shows in her article “Black feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination.” Her focus on the knowledge being a vital factor for social change underscores my argument of the importance of intersectionality. Intersectionality within feminism is best explained as “Viewing the world through a both/and conceptual lens of the simultaneity of race, class, and gender oppression and of the need for a humanist vision of community creates new possibilities for an empowering Afrocentric feminist knowledge” (Collins). Understanding the interlocking systems of oppression proves once again the fight for equality for women can be compared to trying to get through a door that will never open. 

Man, vs Man/ Woman vs Woman 

 Women vs Society

Be a lady they said.

Works Cited

Be a Lady They Said – Girls. Girls. Girls. Magazine – Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8ZSDS7zVdU.

“Excerpt from ‘The Feminine Mystique’.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Feb. 2006, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/us/excerpt-from-the-feminine-mystique.html.

“Intersectional Feminism: What It Means and Why It Matters Right Now.” UN Women, https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/6/explainer-intersectional-feminism-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters.

Steiner, Leslie Morgan. Mommy Wars: Stay-at-Home and Career Moms Face Off on Their Choices, Their Lives, Their Families. Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2007.

Blog Post 1 Dana Balakirova

In Judith Butler’s essay “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory,” the author explains that despite the way gender has historically been linked with one’s birth sex, it has never been a steady identity in and of itself. Instead, gender and the cultural norms surrounding it are perpetuated and evolve through social agents. Butler names a number of these social agents as being language, gesture, and symbolic social signs (Butler, Judith., 519). Gender is not set in stone, but rather is a spectrum. Recently, I have been going through and watching the late Patrick Swayze’s filmography. I believe he was a good example of what Butler was talking about. As a horse rancher and chain-smoking stoic, he fit all of the stereotypical trademarks of manliness. However, he was also a classically trained dancer. During interviews, especially during the press run of the film Dirty Dancing, often talked about how people back home often didn’t understand how a man like him could be into ballet. Funnily enough, they accepted it because he was from such a tough family, and himself, from a very young age, showed a lot of grit and determination. Artists have always been generally progressive on subjects such as gender identity. To make art means breaking down one’s world and critically analyzing the norms in it. Throughout the years, there have been many artists who have exemplified Butler’s feminist theory.

Gender identity is kept rigid in our society because allowing full expression of one’s gender identity means breaking down the norms that govern our entire reality. Butler writes, “One may want to claim, but oh, this is really a girl or a woman, or this is really a boy or a man, and further that the appearance contradicts the reality of gender” (Butler, Judith.,527). The musician Arca, who makes an experimental noise-pop and has collaborated with major figures in the music industry such as Kanye West and Lady Gaga, often portrays herself as a non-binary machine in her music videos. Arca said she identifies as a trans woman, going by she/her pronouns, yet in the music, she embraces technology as a metaphor for being off the binary of not only gender but the limits of what can be considered pop music. She plays with images of computers and wires, using them as cultural symbols for both the new age, yet also a sort of soullessness. However, she embraces that lack of emotion not as a hindrance, but rather as a way to transcend one’s humanity, including negative emotions, such as bigotry or self-hatred. Arca does not see herself as succumbing to technology, but rather as an organism adapting around it. This relates to the aforementioned section of Butler’s paper, where she mentions cultural symbols and how they can be picked up by individuals and internalized as part of their identities. Although Butler is specifically referencing gender expression specifically in her writing, I believe her theory could be easily re-contextualized to fit many aspects of one’s personality. The media we consume and our aesthetic interests often define us to one extent or another. For an artist as forward-thinking as Arca, for example, her futurist beliefs are directly intertwined with her gender identity. While for a man such as Patrick Swayze, dancing was his way of balancing out the rigid and traditionally macho lifestyle, as well as a way to connect to his mother; yet most people are still struck by how easily he was able to channel “feminine” energy during his romantic films, which is what made him such a star in Hollywood. This shows how gender expression, in addition to social variables such as language and symbols, can also be adopted simply through one’s relationship with technology, family, or any number of outside influences.

Butler concludes that deviations from the performance of gender often lead to ridicule. She compares gender to a theatrical stage here by mentioning how theatrical performances can be met with censorship, bad criticism, or even violence (Butler, Judith., 527). This definitely parallels the experience that many trans people have when coming out. Although the concept of being trans has been normalized a bit since it first hit the public discussion, there are still many places in the United States and abroad where stepping out in one’s desired gender expression can mean retaliation. This risk doubles for marginalized communities. Unlike artists like Arca, who have the privilege of wealth, people in a poor socioeconomic position are incredibly at severe risk of being victimized. Nevertheless, seeing gender as a performance and making that the norm would give a lot of people a lot of emotional freedom since it would allow them to try things they had always wanted to do, yet we’re afraid of being ridiculed over.

WORK CITED: Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.