“Post Gender” An Interesting Idea.
By Sophia Siedlberg.
U.K. Spokesperson Organisation Intersex International
March 25, 2008
A very curious work by George Dvorsky and James Hughes has been published called “Postgenderism, Beyond the Gender Binary”. The basic premise of this work differs slightly from the usual feminist discourse of “deconstructing the gender binary” by actually taking the time to discuss feminism within the context of the gender binary itself. The conclusion on that particular subject is that to some extent certain forms of feminism have been quite essentialist when it comes to “deconstructing” (Reconstructing? To suit themselves?).
Dvorsky and Hughes have taken quite a radical step in that they have presented scenarios and questions that people would in “polite society” rather avoid. And the best part of their work is, they do not use shock tactics or get into describing scenarios that are about sexual activity rather than sex dimorphism.
They cover various issues in a different way. And what is particularly interesting is the way they handle the ideas of some very binary-centric “experts” and “activists” in a manner that actually does speak more for those people they (The “Experts” and “Activists” in ISNA for example) claim to represent rather than the “experts” and “activists” themselves. An example would be the comment in the paper about Jeffrey Eugenides’ work “Middlesex” that simply describes the central character “Cal” as someone who “was raised as a female and became male” instead of proselytizing about how all people with 5 alpha reductase deficiency “should be male”. This is an important point for me reading this because I have this condition and my life bears little or no resemblance to that of Cal’s. And yet to date, everyone who is “gender political” has (upon knowing I have 5 alpha) assumed that I have the same experiences as this fictional “Cal”. Usually I find the very mention of Eugenides’ book invokes a feeling of being erased.
Not so with Dvorsky and Hughes. Well, what makes these two different? It is the things they feel able to mention, knowing that to many what they are discussing is challenging, paradoxically for gender politics as a whole. One aspect of the narrative would be the discussion about “Virtual Gender”. I have tended to avoid present day “virtual spaces” like Second Life like the plague. Mainly because of the rampant commercialism and the irritating stereotyping that occurs when people design avatars. Dvorsky and Hughes present an interesting question. Look at the avatars and see how many of them are in some way breaking with the stereotypes. You could argue that as sexual bits are also on the open market, (in Second Life) people who cannot afford genital or dimorphic enhancements would be “non stereotypical” by default. The way I have seen Second Life so far is that those who are wealthy within that space tend to use dimorphic “enhancements” as status symbols of wealth.
To some extent Hughes and Dvorsky could appear a little idealistic; I do wonder whether a postgender society would actually be able to emerge in an environment where such economic models currently exist. In a sense this would be the only criticism I would have of the paper. It is interesting to note that Second Life (Which is a product of the internet and related technologies) is reliant almost entirely on a form of internal commerce. But the problem with a virtual economy is that it does not always reflect the real world economy. And where it does, it may reflect the more negative side of the real world economy. For example in the real world economy the sex industry uses the internet to exploit real world people. The one danger in technology that allows easy real world modification is that the economic model can lead to exploitation. How many transsexual folks have to go into prostitution in order to fund surgery? It is something most people avoid discussing or some (such as Professor J Michael Bailey) use to bolster the oppressive nature of the two sex system.
The internet itself is an example, touted as a virtual democracy and seat of human knowledge, it ended up as a gigantic electronic knocking shop with aggressive advertising (Spam), peddling real world body modification with “Extend your penis” and ”Enlarge your breasts” being the most advertised commodity next to exploitative sex.
I suspect that danger needs to be understood because the opponents of a post gender society would cite these very reasons for opposing such a concept, conveniently failing to mention that their economic systems are the root cause of the problem.
In fairness to Dvorsky and Hughes, I would agree that some virtual spaces are nevertheless leading in a post gendered direction. I sense that Dvorsky and Hughes, unlike previous commentators are talking the real language of empowerment: that is making self determination the key to a post gendered society, something most previous commentators (especially feminists) have avoided because they have often sought to preserve something of the two sex system out of self interest. Dvorsky and Hughes seem to confront that in a very original way. The statement about four boys getting injured as compared to every one girl who gets injured in the school playground does tend to undermine previous feminist statements of self interest that say only girls are the victims of such injury. What Dvorsky and Hughes are describing would be what I have called “The Herod Principle” where the two sex system makes masculinity a liability. And that is a part of the two sex system itself, even under the patriarchal system- “Innocent women and children first (Guilty men drown)”- for the first time I have read something that actually confronts the self interests of those who use the two sex system to their advantage. Men and women are as bad as each other in that regard; for once it is being said openly by people other than someone like me who had not exactly fared well in a gendered society.
I think the way forward would be to try to make the economic environment more accommodating of a potential genderless society. As it stands it is economy and class that stand in the way of what would be a truly egalitarian society. I don’t have problems with the capitalist model either, we are talking a form of capitalism that is misdirected (as avatar bolt ons in Second Life illustrate). I would argue that if avatar design was made free, then that would prove Hughes and Dvorsky correct in describing how things would evolve. You would initially get hyper masculine and hyper feminine being more common, as you would find the use of technology in the real world to bolster masculine and feminine stereotypes. But as time passes things would evolve in a more post gender direction. Why? Well removing the price of avatar modification in terms of gendered characteristics in virtual spaces would automatically remove the notion of gendered self interest. I also suspect the same would happen in the real world as medical technology advances.
What makes me positive about this paper is the way such ideas are presented, “why not”? being the question. A “post gender” society is often stereotyped itself in the mainstream media, often being synonymous with images of androgynous people wearing jumpsuits and taking vitamin pills instead of meals. What Dvorsky and Huges actually present is very different. Here the emphasis is on a greater range of human expression which only threatens present day ideas of conformity, which ironically seems to be heading in the direction of a society that is as restrictive as one consisting of jumpsuits and food pills. In a sense this is where Hughes and Dvorsky present us with the current paradox. Often I read critics of a “post gender society” (As it has been presented to date) saying that it takes the mystery out of life, removes the variety of life, reduces love and sexuality to a mere commodity. But when you look at these arguments against postgenderism with a critical eye, you actually find that now society makes the individual conform to a commodity called sexual dimorphism. OK, we are talking men and women in jumpsuits popping pills instead of androgynous people, perhaps the critics of postgenderism are missing the point. The real point seems to be that a post gender society would not be anything as stifling or conformist as a gendered societies often show themselves to be. Other reactions against the idea say that postgenderism would result in chaos, the breakdown of the family, and so on, but then what are the ideals such critics of postgenderism really holding up as a virtue? Pills and jumpsuits? Stepford Wives?
I think that Dvorsky and Hughes are asking some challenging questions and presenting us all with what should be an obvious paradox. To date gendered society has often become ever more controlling and demanding of the individual, holding up impossible ideals as a measure of a person. This whole process being the very process advocates of a gendered society use as arguments against a postgendered society. Perhaps gender is obsolete; the only thing I know is that a postgendered society would not resort to mutilating children who do not fit the anatomical standards if born intersexed. And that in a postgendered society my life would be made a lot easier. I could actually aspire to something and not have to worry about the “sensitivities” of the petty minded conformists.
Additional links on postgenderism:
Sentient Developments George P. Dvorsky's Blog. Transhumanist and Buddhist perspectives on science, philosophy, ethics, and the future of intelligent life
Sentient Developments Podcasts: Click here
Overcoming Gender: Click here
Podcast on postgenderism by the authors of this white paper: Click here
More information on James Hughes: Click here
Postgenderism: Wikipedia article
Envisioning a Postgender World
Download whole essay: Click here
Read Sophia Siedlberg's review of this essay below.
Additional links on postgenderism: Click here
