Gender on a Spectrum

Language, height, non-binary

J. Y. Gao

Before I explore the inescapable topic of gender, it is imperative that certain lines of logic are firmly established. It is an irrefutable fact that by the very process of defining – that is, the allocation of parameters to an otherwise free for all whirlwind of thought – assigns the concept in which it is trying to define to an auditory signal, a visual cue – a pattern of thought. As was discussed last week, for something to exist, however abstractly or arbitrarily, is TO BE the things that it is, and TO NOT BE the things that it isn’t. To define whatever this something maybe is to, in its very definition, INCLUDE the attributes and ideas it aligns with, and EXCLUDE the things it doesn’t align with. 

This production line of thought points towards an inherent binary structure to language. To describe what is, is to imply what is not, for something to ‘be’, there must be things it can’t ‘be’. Yet it isn’t a surprise to anyone that indeed reality is far more nuanced than the binary perspective that language provides us. Language is in this way like a scientific model, the purpose of which is to re-present the world in a simplified manner so that it may be easily understood and efficiently analysed. We see a similar process behind language in a word as simple as ‘chair’. In reality, a chair can be a multitude of things; no two chairs are the same on a molecular level, chairs have vastly different designs and ornamentations, chairs may, in some cases, provide more than its conventional sedentary usage (perhaps used as a piece of art, a step to reach higher places, etc.). And yet when ‘chair’ is referred to, it is most probable that it implies the most conventional definition of ‘chair’,  certainly not the seats on the train nor the broken leather couch laying on the street corner. Even though these are, ‘technically’, chairs. It isn’t possible for ‘chair’ to actively define all of these things in an efficient communication system, or in any communication system for that matter. Therefore, the purpose of language is not to provide an accurate representation of reality, but to provide a communicable species the means to the efficient communication of abstract and concrete ideas. I hope it is clear that to define (with language) is to simplify.

Because reality is such a nuanced experience, it seems logical to recognise gender as something that is on a spectrum. And, in an attempt to simplify this spectrum of possibilities, language has, quite conveniently, attached a binary structure to the concept. At one end is femininity, the other end, masculinity. As we have established, language is to simplify – the idea of femininity is defined by a set of traits that it defines, and traits that it doesn’t define. The traits that femininity don’t identify with are the traits that masculinity identifies with, and the traits that masculinity doesn’t identify with are the traits that define femininity. That is inherent to language. But it is obvious that the experience of gender is more complicated than two binary definitions. Even the “most feminine person will demonstrate some characteristics that we associate with masculinity, and vice versa”. 

This then leads to a discussion of ‘non-binary’. To better illustrate how we might coincide the binary tendencies of language and the continuum of gender experience in reality, let us turn our attention to height. Again, language has provided us an inevitable binary pairing: ‘tall’ and ‘short’. Thus forms the two ends of the height spectrum. Normally, one would be characterised as ‘tall’ if they lie above the average height of a certain group. In other cases, an extraordinarily tall person would be characterised as ‘tall’, with little or no attention paid to the previous person ‘tall’ who might be standing next to them. Hence we have two definitions/uses of ‘tall’ that are inconsistent with each other. If we take the second case, those who are within the range of the height of an extraordinarily tall person and an extraordinarily short person would be considered neither tall nor short – non-binary. If we understood ‘tall’ to be this second case, most people would fall into this ‘non-binary’ characterisation, which seems a little redundant. Conversely, if we took the first definition of ‘tall’ – someone that is taller than the average height – as it is normally defined, the use of the word ‘tall’ seems much more relevant and useful, and does a little more than throw everyone back into a mosh-pit of ‘non-binary’ categorisation save for the few extraordinarily tall or extraordinarily short people. And I think it is clear why society has adopted the first understanding/usage of the word ‘tall’ over the second one. 

In much the same way (or perhaps in an even more logical way, as you’ll soon discover), gender is a description of the large average that one finds themselves in, rather than the extremes. And, unlike height, no one is purely masculine or purely feminine. If that’s how we understand gender – as either masculine or feminine – then we would all be non-binary. Like what we saw in the analogy with height, defining everyone as ‘non-binary’ is redundant and creates a new binary. It creates the ‘non-binary’ group and a group that is not what the non-binary group is – the cisgender group. The notion of a non-binary gender fails to capture the complexity of gender expression and, in turn, creates a new, false binary between the ‘non-binary’ and the ‘cisgender’. 

By this definition, then, it isn’t clear why gender may differ from personality. I think it is important to remember that gender is “not just a label to adopt so that you … have a unique way to describe just how large and multitudinous and interesting you are.” Once we have moved past this, we would be finally able to focus on deconstructing discrimination against women, especially the notion of the inferiority of female gender to male gender, and build a more cohesive society that allows people to feel comfortable with whatever ratio of feminine to masculine traits they have. 

“The solution is not to try to slip through the bars of the cage while leaving the rest of the cage intact, and the rest of womankind trapped within it” , says Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, political philosopher at the University of Warwick, UK. Indeed, let’s break the cage so that we might all be equally free.