Gender has to be a purely social construct because it’s a performative display of our biological sex. The personal concept of your gender is constructed out of the social interactions you have, this is the basis of social constructivism. Do not socialise a baby, in any meaningful way and they will not develop a gender identity… they also won’t develop language or fine motor skills and die (but that’s by the by). Gender expression is a social construct — without other people it is meaningless.
On the cash front. Consider it like this… if you lost all your cash, your perception of yourself would only change in relation to other people. That is the socially construct that is money. You would become ‘poor’ — but that is dependent on having a frame of reference. If everyone lost all their money, your perception of yourself wouldn’t change. If everyone was given a million pounds, your perception of yourself wouldn’t change. The numbers are meaningless, it only makes sense in relation to other people. Gender works in much the same way, without reference to society and without others to construct it gender is abstract and meaningless.
The example of your girlfriend is a good example. If your girlfriend woke up and decided she had to become a man, she would change sex. It is the changing of sex that makes your relationship null and void, not the changing of gender. If your girlfriend woke up and said she wanted to dress and behave like a man — but that she wasn’t going to change her breasts or her genitals. Would you still find her attractive?
Would a heterosexual Regency gentleman transported from the 1750s find the current gender expression of women (wearing trousers and occupying a relatively equal space in society) to be problematic. Sure. Would this impact on his sexual preference? Maybe… it would be a culture shock. He may be happier in cultures with more traditional gender expressions (like Japan). Would it impact on his sexual orientation. No. He’d still be attracted to biological females.
Sexual orientation is a four way binary choice. All, same, different or none. I will add the book you recommended to the long list of books I should read (it keeps growing). The genetic aspect is one that I need to read more about, but hand on heart — if my current girlfriend announced that she’d grown up as a boy and then reassigned herself through surgery — I wouldn’t care, it’s not a deal breaker. I’m attracted to her now. Perhaps that makes me a little genetically bisexual. Perhaps I’m not as vagina focussed as you are — either of those things can be true.
If you are capable of sustaining a relationship with anyone regardless of their genitalia then you’re bisexual. If you continue to remain in a sexual relationship with someone you no longer find attractive that’s your choice. That doesn’t change your sexual orientation. If you’re gay and you’re married and have kids, you aren’t straight by default. If you’re straight and you choose to stay with someone who transitions into becoming a male — then you’re either going against your sexual orientation (which is more than possible but psychologically unhealthy) or you were bisexual the whole time.
And yes… Like you I have no problem with people who want to identify outside of the gender norms. I’m a libertarian. I struggle a little bit on whether it’s ultimately psychologically damaging for individuals to try and force a society to be inclusive around something like gender expression (given that I think it’s a moveable feast). A permissive society without any boundaries is like a permissive parent with a toddler that can do what they like and say what they like. Some things that feel like they’re good things to do, ultimately aren’t.
And yes. I’m prepared to argue that ALL people are indifferent to someone’s gender expression. But only on a macro level. Gender expression changes through time and people’s sexual preference changes to meet it. I’m aware that Ru Paul is a drag programme — but it illustrates my point. I am sexually attracted to female presenting behaviours (read feminine) and female (read vagina and breasts). There is a performative aspect to gender — one illustrated very well by this programme.
What constitutes ‘feminine’ can and will change over time — that is gender. My grandchildren may still be attracted to females (vagina and breasts) but they will be attracted to a different set of social constructs created by their own psychological experiences in childhood and through their own sexual experience growing up. I suspect gender by then will have stopped the calamitous peacocking behaviour inherent in rampant individualism. I think it will have settled down into something more neutral and passive. The gender of tomorrow is not the gender of today and trans people will take their place in the development of what that gender expression will become.
This is a complicated issue and has been interesting to discuss. One more thing on the pile of stuff we disagree on but enjoy debating. I don’t have a book to give you, but I would recommend reading Piaget as a starting point for social constructivism — and hitting up West and Zimmerman on your way through.
