The Language of Gender Expression
Gender identity is unique to the individual, and can only be defined by the person to which it belongs. A person’s gender and orientation belongs to them, and not the other way around. While greater society may attempt to categorize a person based on how they are perceived by the observer, this does not dictate the identity of the individual. From the moment an individual develops the self-awareness to outwardly express their inner thoughts and emotions, they are in control of how they identify themselves to others. Basic humanism would allow an individual the right to decide in what terms they are defined, and how they are related to in the context of society.
While the observer may decide for themselves whether this person possesses positive, negative, or benign character traits, how they define and identify themselves to (and are identified by) others is to be respected above whatever is first perceived. A common social problem is the idea that an observer’s judgement and opinion holds precedence over the rights of the observed individual. In mainstream society, in order to be perceived as a specified gender and orientation, one is expected to adhere to certain conventions and rules, which places the need for easy categorization above the rights of individual identity, effectively dehumanizing them.
Human identity does not exist in a vacuum. We define ourselves in relation to one another and the outer stimuli that is presented to us by our environment and the society we live within. Societal norms vary with culture and location, and within the culture you find yourself born into or raised within, a gender is often imprinted upon different qualities. Be it the color of a garment, or a tone of voice, qualities are often described using the gendered terms of the binary system of feminine and masculine, which are often and mistakenly viewed as two ends on a spectrum.
A common error in thought is to assign negative associations with this spectrum where it does not and should not exist, and imprinting mutual exclusivity to these qualities. Due to this out-modded and poisonous idea, there exists a constituency of people who would elect to nullify the idea of gender and gendered language in order to create equality between the sexes and variant genders; however, this would create a void in the terms with which we can define ourselves and the world around us. It is true that some things are unnecessarily gendered, and inanimate objects and concepts vary in how they are gendered by culture. Gendered words are curried by the person as to not offend in a cultural sense, but the issue here lies more in how gendered words and ideas are perceived in the context of our society, rather than what qualities they describe.
To use an example, one might perceive that a male-identifying individual with delicate and softer features is ‘beautiful.’ However, you might say to them that they are ‘handsome’ instead even though the way you defined this word in the context is different than the actual meaning, so as to not offend the ‘masculinity’ of this person. On the other side of this, a female-identifying individual may have broad and bold features that are pleasant and well-structured, so you might describe them as a “handsome woman.” While this is a well intended compliment, the way the word ‘handsome’ may be perceived in a masculine context could possibly offend the ‘femininity’ of this person.
To be perceived as possessing characteristics of the gender opposed to the gender you identify as is thought to be a negative, and it is this idea that creates tension and disharmony. A common and ignorant phrase is “clothes make the man.” Superficial presentation does not necessarily decide the contents of a person’s character and internal identity. A woman wearing jeans and a t-shirt is no less a woman than when she is wearing a gown, just as a man wearing stockings is no less a man than someone dressed in a three-piece suit. An androgyne or non-binary individual presently dressed in a typically masculine or feminine outfit does not automatically slide to one side of the “spectrum” or another, and their possessing certain qualities of one gender or another does not defer them to that gender by default.
Gendered words exist as ways to describe a characteristic quality. While it may seem like an easy solution to abolish the idea of gender in language, it would leave individuals without the words to describe the traits that they embrace within themselves and the world around them which they identify with. It implies that individuals who perceive differences from one another cannot have a standard of equality to uphold between them. The true complication is not the existence of gendered language, but the misuse of it and it’s misperception as holding negative connotations.
The first problem to be addressed in society is intentional misgendering of individuals in the binary/hetereonormative sense, which is abusive misuse of language against the rights of the individual identity. The attitudes of sexists and transmisogynists have spoiled gendered words through the weaponization of language. In this sense, language is used to enforce the value of the observer’s opinion over the right’s of the individual’s selfhood. This verbalized form of violence dehumanizes the individual, and should not be given the respect to define these words through irresponsibility. Those who would use language to devalue individuality are the enemies of progress and equality.
As a global society, we must curb our superficial presumptions of one another’s identities. Assumptions based on shallow observation are used to categorize and separate individuals . Difference should no longer be inferred as separate from the whole. It is when we separate one another by our differences that we create racism, sexism, transphobia, and other ugly terms. Humanity as a whole is a collection of individuals, and all individuals are different from one another. Our superficial traits cannot be used to categorize one another by ‘worth’ if we are to create true equality. By the same token, we must maintain our rights to individual identity if we are to preserve our humanity. A balance must be found where self-distinction is given proper respect and not trivialized by the need for easy categorization.
After this, the issue is the negative connotations attached to genders, such as the idea that femininity is associated with “weakness” or “submissiveness,” or that masculinity is perceived as “brutishness” or “truculence.” To describe a work of art that has delicate touches and a soft palette as feminine would simply describe its qualities in an easily understood sense. Where a pine tree may be seen as a masculine representation while a willow tree may be used as a feminine one, this language of symbols has existed as long as humans have had the capacity for abstract thought (and it should be noted that both of these symbols can be used to represent strength and resilience). Gender is entrenched in the symbolism of our species, and its rightful place in language is for the appreciation and celebration of their distinctions.