OVERTHINKING THINGS THEATER PRESENTS: EXPRESSION

     With Caitlyn Jenner (she/her) in the entertainment news yesterday, I've once again been thinking about the often maddening encounters with people talking about gender, etc. online. It seems we, as a society, are now at that point where we need to come to a consensus on how to use English's various binaries because if the internet (stereotyped through Tumblr) shows anything, it's that there exists a significant group of people pontificating on these very things but either using the terminology inconsistently, unscientifically, or even illogically.
      The basis for these thoughts lies in biology, specifically with how life is classified into various kingdoms, phyla, families, orders, and so forth. I would not expect the following proposed usages to take over common everyday speech, but instead to act as a technical reference.
      The way I see it, there are certain fixed things about us and certain constructed things about us with former being biological in nature and the latter being largely made up by society over the course of history.

      My aim, in this decidedly unscientific presentation, is to attempt to bring some order to the mess that's been created through millennia of assumptions.

      From my various readings online which come primarily from comments sections, comedy articles, social issues sites, linguistic pieces, and from the occasional actually scientific piece I would gather that there are four broad categories to human expression: sex, gender, orientation, and identity.
      Allow me to explain how I've come to perceive the difference between all four.

SEX:

     Of all the categories, sex is the most scientific (in that it can be objectively determined) and it is fixed (i.e. it cannot be changed). Its basis is your genes, something we presently have no way of altering wholesale after birth. Your sex is your XY or XX designation. Biologically, this is male and female respectively. So to refer to oneself as male or female is to refer to one's genetic definition only regardless of any subsequent categories.

      In life, the XX and XY combinations are the ideal and are also by far the most frequently occurring. However, there are rare births featuring XXY and XXX combinations for instance. Additionally there are rare births for those born with both types of genitals (though I'm not aware if only one, both, or neither are functional) and those biological males (XY) with androgen insensitivity syndrome who develop like women but have no ovaries or uterus. For those rare births, the term intersex might be most appropriate. Whether to use the terms intermale or interfemale, however, I do not know. That would require more discussion.

      Finally, there are those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery. While this does not change their genetic sex, for the sake of compassion, I think we can allow the prefix trans- to be appended to either male or female to describe such a change with trans-, in this case, to carry the meaning "made into". Thus a transmale would be a genetic female who underwent that surgery.

GENDER:

      Gender, of all the categories, is the most socially constructed one. It's probably also the most confusing one to read about online as it will be used interchangeably to refer to sex, gender, and identity (as I will be using those terms in this essay). Because I've studied Linguistics, I would suggest taking a page from that discipline and use the terms "masculine" and "feminine" to label the respective poles of the spectrum.

      It is here that I will mention that gender is not a binary, but a spectrum. For a psychological analogy, I refer to introversion and extraversion. When you learn about the Myers-Briggs types, you learn that people are predominantly either introverted or extraverted, but they are not only one or the other. Also, when one is stressed, they will tend to behave in the opposite manner (that is, a introvert under stress will exhibit extraverted tendencies). Overall, gender is a lot more like a probability.
      For instance, my test results put me at 85% introverted thus making it very safe to assume that in any given situation, my behavior will exhibit introversion. Extraversion is possible, but unlikely. I imagine I would behave rather extravertedly if I were to find myself in an involved conversation about Babylon 5, for instance :-)

      I've come to see gender the same way. There are typically masculine things/ideas/activities and there are typically feminine things/ideas/activities (as well as a whole suite of neutral things/ideas/activities I'm sure). If one were to make a list of those things and have a person check off what they like and don't like, you would surely find "manly men" selecting typically feminine things and "girly girls" selecting typically masculine things. These things/ideas/activities have nothing to do with one's sex, orientation, nor do they have anything to do with one's identity but as with introversion and extraversion, one will find that their preferences are predominantly one or the other and that gender expression is ultimately a bit fluid as one encounters new things/ideas/activities and as culture redefines those things/ideas/activities over time (pink used to be a masculine color for instance).
      I don't believe the fluidity of one's gender is very great but I do believe the line that defines our masculinity and femininity is ultimately fuzzy the more you try to focus in on it. From a distance the line will look sharp, but as you draw closer to it, the fuzziness of its true nature will show. Philosophically this also means I don't believe anyone could be perfectly balanced between the two genders because it would be, by nature, unstable. Though I suppose if the fuzziness of one's gender line were close enough to the masculine/feminine dividing line, the linguistically consistent "neuter" or "neutral" would be appropriate, or perhaps the more common term "androgynous". Again, a matter for debate.

      It is, though, because of this belief that I find the terms "bigender" and "genderfluid" to be as ridiculous as the term "ambivert" (to describe someone who feels both introverted and extraverted). Genderfluid is redundant because the very nature of gender is that it is fluid, though unlikely by more than a small amount over any given time. Bigender, like ambivert, reveals a misunderstanding of the spectral nature of the term. We're all "bigendered" as we are all "ambiverted".

      Gender, like light, is a spectrum with its poles labeled. On one side there is violet (masculine) and on the other, red (feminine) with a whole rainbow in between.

ORIENTATION:

      Like sex, this is a fixed quality but unlike sex, I don't think there's any way to objectively test for it that I'm aware of so one must accept the interpretation given by the person experiencing it. Orientation describes one's sexual attraction only and for the sake of clarity, sexual is referring to sex in the biological sense.
      Orientation from what I can tell is a pair of binaries, the largest of which is heterosexual (attracted to the opposite of one's biological sex) and homosexual (attracted to the same as one's biological sex). The less common two would be bisexual (attracted to both sexes, though not necessarily equally) and asexual (attracted to neither sex).

      Anecdotally, it seems when one is heterosexual or homosexual, they are very strongly that orientation, like practically 100% so. The question for me is, how much overlap in terms of sex and intimacy would be permitted before one is considered bisexual by the population at large?
      I remember reading in the New York Times about a man who was bisexual but who admitted his attraction to women was much more fully formed making male intimacy difficult. But I also wonder if, for the sake of example, a man told a woman he had sex with 100 people, 5 of whom were men, would he be bisexual? What if it were 2? Or 10? It seems to me, whatever the number, it must be low because the idea (speaking for myself only) of having sex with a man is a never-go and being sexually intimate with a man is incredibly uncomfortable to even think about. From watching porn, the closest thing to male intimacy I could imagine being even remotely acceptable to me would be participating in a train (2 men, 1 woman) and the most gay heat-of-the-moment type thing that wouldn't necessarily freak me out would be if the woman in that scenario sucked on both our dicks at the same time for a moment. But anything lingering would skeeve me out quickly. Double penetration (one dick in the vagina, the other in the asshole, a.k.a. DP) also feels very gay to me. Not sure if even the heat of the moment could overcome that (the difference being the former was not my choice/out of my control and the latter would most certainly be). But even holding a man, stuff like that...no, I'm very very heterosexual. I'm diverting quite a bit, but I'm hoping you see what I mean.

       I don't know what the incidence of asexuality is in humans nor do I know what the psychological threshold for such a label would be. I'm looking at it from a heterosexual (i.e. a clearly defined orientation) viewpoint when I say even if I weren't attracted to any females (or males for the sake of completeness), that if asked, I would still say I'd rather be with a woman than with a man thus making me heterosexual even if I have no plans on doing anything about it. In other words, I'm treating the idea of asexuality like celibacy. But I'm going to assume unless medical evidence is presented to the contrary, that like transgender, asexuality is a thing even though my mind can't grasp it.

      One final note. I've also read the term "pansexual" used online. I don't know precisely what the current users of that term are getting at, but I think the term could be co-opted here. As I stated before, I'm heterosexual thus meaning I want to have sex with women. However this does not include women resulting from genital reconstructive surgery. I want to have sex only with women whose parts were factory installed. Therefore, I would take the term pansexual to mean someone who would have sex with those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery (transsexuals). The prefix pan-, though, would probably have to be appended to hetero- and homo-.
      So, for me, if I would have sex with a transsexual, it would make me panheterosexual. A panhomosexual would be the "sex with same" counterpart and a pansexual would be a bisexual person who would have sex with transsexuals. I think that makes sense.

      Additionally, undergoing genital reconstructive surgery would necessarily change your orientation. A female heterosexual after surgery would be a transmale homosexual. I think that follows logically.

IDENTITY:

      Identity would be how you present yourself regardless of the previous referents. The simple binary in common speech would be you're either a man or a woman. For labeling purposes you'd either be cis- or trans-. If you are cis-, your identity conforms to your sex and if you are trans-, your identity does not.
      Oversimplifying, a cisman is a male (by sex) who feels male, thus identifying with his biological sex and a transwoman is a male (by sex) who feels female, thus not identifying with his biological sex. This, until recently, has been considered a mental disorder but medical consensus has come to realize that trans- is merely a variant, albeit an uncommon one, and thus should not be treated as though insane.

      For proper labeling, one should always use either the prefix cis- or trans- (cisman, ciswoman, transman, transwoman). Man and woman without any label would be common speech and an assumption borne by the speaker based upon his or her analysis of your social presentation. In other words, "how you look" to the speaker. I guess one might think of the difference as how words like "chemical" have both proper and common uses. Using man and woman without prefixes would be the rough equivalent of using chemical to refer to man-made compounds and with the prefix would be like using chemical to refer to substances which cannot be physically separated into components.

      I suppose, like for orientation, if a person undergoes genital reconstructive surgery, then their trans- identity would necessarily shift to a cis- one. It feels internally consistent even though I'm unsure if it's "correct" or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      I think this covers all the major bases. The results are a mouthful but I'm not looking to replace common speech. No, my goal is to create a consensus-driven consistent technical description for proper classification of basic human expression. It is by no means complete, but I am hoping, rather, is for it to be a start from which debate may flow and help bring about codification.
     As for which pronoun group to use, in regular conversation I would suggest that if you don't know, that you politely ask which pronouns the person you're addressing would prefer.
     In writing, keep pronouns internally consistent and use basic compositional techniques like an initial parenthetical for clarity.
     For example, in writing, when one first uses a common organization name, it is first spelled out and then followed by how it is more commonly known or will be subsequently referred to as in parentheses. "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for collecting income taxes". So, when writing, when the subject is introduced, it may be followed immediately in parentheses with the person's preferred pronouns. "Mary Smith (she/her) likes to play basketball." or "Jake Jones (she/her) tells us that her favorite band is Green Day."

SUMMARY:

Sex = male/female, optional inter- (for atypical sexes) and trans- (for those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery)
Gender = masculine/feminine, optional neutral or androgynous (for those whose gender is very close to the masculine/feminine divide)
Orientation = hetero-/homo-/bi-/a- (appended to -sexual), optional panhetero-/panhomo-/pan- (for those whose attraction includes transsexuals)
Identity = cis-/trans- (appended to either -man or -woman)

Examples:
--- A masculine male heterosexual cisman would be the prototypical "man" in common speech. He is male by sex (that is, XY), masculine by gender (shows greater propensity for liking things/ideas/activities typically associated with men), heterosexual by orientation (sexually attracted to his opposite, i.e. females), and identifies with his sex (i.e. male).
--- A feminine female heterosexual ciswoman would be the prototypical "woman" in common speech.
--- A feminine male heterosexual cisman is the same as the first example except that his gender shows a propensity for things/ideas/activities typically considered feminine by society.
--- A masculine female heterosexual transman would be a genetic female who identifies as male, is sexually attracted to males, and shows a propensity for things/ideas/activites typically considered masculine by society.
--- A masculine transmale homosexual cisman would be the same as above except the person would have undergone genital reconstructive surgery.

NIGHT WILL FALL...

     Every time I watch a documentary about the Holocaust, I learn something new. It's just that big of a story. Night Will Fall was no exception. As I watched it, I found myself wondering what happened to the survivors afterward and this was briefly touched upon. It turns out that once fed and properly hydrated, once those basic needs had been met, they would slowly return to a more human state, even bickering over fashions, after a period as short as 2-3 weeks (and I'm sure you've seen pictures of the harshly starved prisoners from death camps at the time of their liberation).

     I also learned that while American and British authorities were happy to use the atrocities of the Holocaust in order blame the defeated Germans, that neither government felt any obligation to care for the Holocaust's victims, especially the Jewish ones, either be granting them a place to live in their respective countries or to allow them to form a nation of their own. It didn't matter that what was done was a crime against humanity, they were still Jews...
     And while the latter ultimately happened in 1948 with the creation of Israel, those people first heading there found themselves deported back to a Europe that did not want them or even held in new internment camps so shortly after having left their prior hells.

     There are many unpleasant things one learns throughout history, both about the world and about one's own home. I am amazed at how easy it apparently was for the Final Solution apparatus to be set up and how readily it was carried out; at how easily a people could be swayed to collaborate and effect an end to a perceived scapegoat; at how easily those living near such death mills were able to blithely ignore the goings-on of the genocidal machinery within.

     But then I am also amazed at how easily to this day people will call out for genocidal actions against the "other". And don't get me wrong. As a radical free speech supporter, I will not stand in the way of people wishing to voice such opinions. As a human being, I would be obligated to oppose the carrying out of such desires, but I will never oppose simply talking about it or wishing it upon.

     I don't care if you ultimately still hate Jews, Muslims, gays, blacks, Latinos, communists, etc. but just remember when you casually call out blood, indiscriminate retributive bombing campaigns, or even openly wish for genocide that, to carry it out, this is what is required of you and those whom you commit to such tasks. This is what you must turn your eyes upon and see. This is what must be done. This is what must be lived with afterward.

     That is what you need to remember...

STARTED WITH THE INTENT OF BEING AN ASSHOLE...ENDED UP CONTEMPLATIVE

     I've got myself reading comments on a post related to autism. I tell you, if you've ever needed help understanding what denial is and/or looked like, read a forum for parents of children with autism.

     Right away you're assaulted with corruptions of the English language: "My son is not autistic, he HAS autism..." said one mother who clearly doesn't understand that many nouns have adjectival forms and that the -ic suffix does in fact mean "having, showing, or affected by" among its several related definitions.
      Another mother put it this way, "I think a better way to say this is that you have autism. If you say you are autistic that means thats is [sic] all you are" - I find posts like this somewhat ironic as it seems parents with autistic kids make sure you know this fact, even if you didn't ask. It's like the old joke about "How can you tell if someone is a vegetarian? Don't worry, they'll tell you." And God forbid you're not 100% completely on their side of thinking. Oh, the hell that will rain down upon you. They're perfect little angels who, unlike typical children, need excessively costly care and limitless attention from one-on-one aides devoted to their "special needs", another term that bugs the shit out of me for being too vague and ultimately dishonest. These parents go way the fuck out of their way to delude themselves into thinking these kids can be just like typical kids; that all we need to do is understand they're just different. Different being a hell of a loaded word. Yes, autistics come with a range of misbehaviors. My Best Friend worked with them so I've got the stories ranging from ones who are otherwise alright except in certain circumstances - meaning they're fairly trainable - to ones which are so lost that they can't even speak at eight years old, still wear diapers, and have no clue whatsoever just how strong they are.

      As far as I can tell, there's no cure for autism and the cure, if one can be found, will likely be like those for cancer, a range of remedies. Or no cure will be found because a prenatal test will finally be developed to detect the gene or genes responsible for autism and their prevalence in the population, like that of Down Syndrome, will drop precipitously. I'm suspecting the latter will be what ultimately happens.
      More denial here: "I also agree with others who've pointed out that this is not an autistic child, but a child with autism. This is an important distinction in advocacy efforts to educate the public and educators that our children are not broken, not defective and not defined by their diagnosis." --- If they are not broken, defective, or otherwise defined by their diagnosis, then why all the advocacy? I feel like they want it both ways. They're not defective, but they need special-this and special-that. They're not defined by their diagnosis until the school refuses to treat them any different than a typical student in which case these children have special needs which must be addressed by the school system. Huh? That's like saying a blind person isn't defined by their diagnosis. Yeah, they pretty much are and compared to sighted people, their eyes/optic nerves are quite defective indeed, even broken. Yet analogizing this woman's sentences, she would likely claim that a person who's blind is no different from you and me but he needs special books printed in braille and seeing-eye dogs when out in public, but no different. Nope, not at all.

      They of course despise the adjective normal and will be quick to scold you for using the term because they feel this stigmatizes their autistic children as abnormal. They'll use the word "typical" or "regular" (and yes, the words will often appear enclosed within begrudging quotation marks) instead for describing children exhibiting expected behaviors not that I understand how the logical following that your autistic child is "atypical" or "irregular" is any less stigmatizing but whatever. "Some children's needs can't be met in a 'typical' classroom. That is why we have special education classes and teachers."

      Another common thread I take from these discussions are that these kids with autism are "not my (the parents') problem: they're your problem and you have to pay for it!" I find frequent appeals to government laws like IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and threats to sue in open court. Never mind that I have no idea where this money is supposed to come should the parents win their cases no matter how meritorious the filing.
      I also see many references to all children having a right to an education. Again, it's not my problem, it's yours. Yes, but what rarely goes addressed is what to do if they are uneducatable? One commenter wrote the following:

What's the answer? I love how people bitch about education, but there are no solutions offered. Serious questions: 1) Is it fair to put special needs kids in a school with other kids? 2) Is it right for a teacher to spend 90% of their time on 10% of the kids? 3) Would there be objection to segmenting schools to where kids were sent to teachers who are equipped to teach different levels of learning? 4) Autism comes in many forms. If a child is non-verbal, yet superior at electronic learning, and another autistic child lashes out (Aspergers), would you put them in the same class due to Autism?

He followed up in response to another commenter who said that we (teachers) have to try to reach them all...

I agree that you try to reach them all, but at what point do you realize you can't? Being a little selfish here, but why should my child be told to read the book while you spend your time with the children who need the special attention? If it truly is an equal education, why is it that kids who take time from the rest of the class consistently [are] not removed and better place in classes with teachers who are better equipped to teach special needs children? If it is the social aspect that we are trying to give these kids, isn't that what recess, lunch, electives are for?

     He was treated well though such comments can often lead to flame wars.

      I know there are no simple solutions to this problem that's not a problem until you decide it's not a problem because then it most assuredly is. Personally, I'm an advocate for euthanasia for anyone who cannot be made to independently and lawfully participate in society. It seems the only humane thing to do. Yeah, I know it's not their fault they turned out this way. I also really don't believe George wanted to kill Lenny. From a resources point of view, it seems so entirely wasteful. All this investment with zero potential for positive overall returns. For every successfully trained autistic who makes the covers of magazines and gets interviewed on television for the public to praise, how many spend their lives in institutions in abysmal conditions just because we can't bring ourselves to give them an injection of euthasol (assuming it works the same on humans)? What is the success rate of education and training of individuals with autism? Does it even approach that of high school graduation rates or are they marvels of wasteful inefficiency? What is the cost/benefit analysis? I know from a parental point of view, their child is of course perfectly precious but what do the numbers say? I suppose for my own curiosity's sake, what is the cost/benefit analysis of the average human? I might be unpleasantly surprised to know the results.

      I hate these entries because they never go anywhere...

I HAVE A LINE

      I don't know what I really am politically. Am I conservative or liberal? Sites tend to peg me as centrist which would seem to fit information I've been learning about my personality type in that I prefer harmonizing with people over exerting my will. So I guess if conservative is red, and liberal, blue; that would make me purple. I would have to say I'm a bluish-purple. How blue? I don't know, but I do know when the waters get too blue, I'm out. Same for the red, though I wonder if I have a greater tolerance for the red waters than the blue.