What Is Gender?

I'm going to try this again.

There are several ways of viewing gender. The one I use internally, and the one I prefer to use when discussing gender, is a strictly biological functional approach:

• Female in the human organism is the physical ability to conceive, gestate, and bear children.
• Male is the ability to induce conception.
• No other function is gender function.  That is to say, all other biological functions are at least somewhat independent of gender, and all cultural and social functions should be viewed as completely independent of gender.

[JMR202002241231:]

I should note that I consider sexuality to be different from gender.

[JMR202002241231.]

In this point of view, all cultural baggage can be discarded, from Machiavelli and Freud and before, all the way to the present.

Real men can like to wear pink (I like pink.) and lace (Not my favorite, but, for others, why not?), etc. if they want. They can even use makeup, if they want.  Real women can like to wear hiking boots and prefer power tools over cooking accessories for birthday presents, if they are so inclined.
But not just attributes and traits. Talents.

Maybe women in general don't take to engineering professions as naturally as men in general. But in this minimal functional view the general nature of statistical women does not rule any individual, woman or man.

Maybe men in general don't take to caregiving professions as naturally as women in general. But in this minimal functional view the general nature of statistical men does not rule any individual, man or woman.

There are many who do not look like any particular idealization of the male and female stereotypes that our cultural heritage has burdened us with. In fact, for any particular choice of stereotypic ideals (of which there well more than two for any particular culture), finding an individual who actually matches the stereotype is really difficult.
There are also varying degrees of male and female fertility and/or fecundity.

Unfortunately, most societies, most subcultures within societies, have a habit of putting people on ranking ladders according to how their appearance meets ideals. A minimal functional view removes any basis of reason to such ranking systems. (This is true of non-gender attributes, as well, of course.) It seems ridiculous when considered with any sobriety, but the vulgar undercurrents of pretty much every society contain elements of pride and shaming based on the external expressions of gender. (Mine's bigger than yours!)

Differences in gender expression are like all differences -- they are an essential part of our existence. Commonalities enable us to communicate. Differences give us value to each other. Using those differences to devalue someone is just an exercise in being perverse. When an individual is devalued, the society around that individual loses value.

At this point, we need to ask if the binary partition of male/female is a strict partition. Are there individuals among the human race who are both?

Empirically, no, with some explanations.

Are there cases where an individual is neither?

Empirically, yes, with some explanations.

We have many cases where neither gender seems to be expressed well. Among those cases are cases in which neither function is present. It is an unfortunate fact that our traditional records of gender are binary, and fail to account for these cases. On the other hand, considering the stigmas that have been traditionally attached, it is also fortunate.

We also have many cases where both genders seem to be expressed well. But our science does not know of any reported cases among humans, in which an individual is self-fertile. According to our current understanding of the biological issues, it should be possible for an individual to be dual-functional, but no known cases exist at this time.

There are also not a few individuals whose functional gender inverts from the apparent expression at onset of puberty. (Note that the functional gender does not itself invert, rather, the apparent expression was in opposition to the actual functional gender. No, you could not tell by seeing.)

This last case has especially been hidden in the past, and we need to quit hiding from it. People are important even if they don't fit neatly into the boxes we want to put them in.

In all cases, "many" generally means more than one percent of a particular population.

In some populations, the occurrence of ambiguous expression of gender is close to a third of the population, but such populations are rare. According to my understanding, the rates of gender ambiguity tend to vary between two and ten percent. (Note that these numbers vary not just in actual count, but in how ambiguous an individual must be to be counted as ambiguous.)

One percent is enough to merit recognition, anyway.

Now we need to ask another question:

When does society need to know a person's gender?

Marriage is generally considered a contract of making a family, and, for the foreseeable future, making families requires gender function. Marriage partners should have some basis for expecting good faith representation of gender from each other. Therefore, it appears that the authority which records a marriage should be able to ensure that the partners to a marriage report to each other their best understanding of their own functional gender.

Others? Not so much. It is not clear how much need to know there is, but it is clear that too many institutions that don't need to know make it a required part of their records.

For example, ISP providers and websites really don't need to know -- except, I guess, for dating sites.

Taxing agencies? What the unholy do they need to know about gender? Taxing agencies have their fingers into far too much anyway.

Why do we need to untangle all of this? Why isn't what has always been done good enough?

One reason is that untangling gender allows us to re-examine what we mean when we use the word love. Why? Referring to the note about marriage partners, above, most cultures define marriage as the arch-type or epitome of love. Thus, examining gender allows us to examine our expectations about love.

Consider gender when you consider the following questions:

Is love hate?

Is love a passion?

Is love a strong desire?

Is love a recognition of some sympathetic or compatible resonance?

Is love merely constructive?

Or is love the desire for someone else's happiness?

If love is the desire for someone else's happiness, can it be fulfilled if one's own role in that person's happiness is less than central?

I assert that it can.

Love, therefore, is allowed to transcend sexual relationship.

Love can include things like working together to build a bridge or a school, cooperating in operating a nursery for children or plants, giving material assistance or emotional/social support to someone's project, etc.

Using a somewhat vulgar expression, a proper understanding of gender teaches you that you don't have to have sex with everyone/everything you love.

Speaking more politely, if we can untangle the gender issues, perhaps we can recognize that society should not consider marriage to be the epitome of a love relationship, only the arch-type.

What is the difference?

If marriage is the epitome of love, if marriage is love personified, denying marriage to someone based on gender is cruel.

But if marriage is simply the arch-type, the principle example of how love can lead people to cooperate, there are many ways in which people can find loving relationships that are not marriage, that have nothing to do with gender function.

More importantly, making babies and raising children becomes, not the highest expression of some esoteric ideal love, but an activity that should only be pursued within a loving relationship -- protected by a loving relationship because, without babies and children, neither society nor culture have much meaning.

And, when we quit worshiping the romantic ideal of marriage, maybe we can leave well enough alone when two people whose gender we no longer care about decide to try to start a family based on mutual agreement between themselves.

[JMR202002240632 Conclusion:]

At any rate, I should clarify my conclusion.

As I see it, there are five theoretically possible physical human genders of record (having to use unusual contortions of neither/nor grammar, bear with me):

• Female (includes the function of conceiving children, may include the function of gestating and bearing children)
• Male (includes the function of inducing conception)
• Indeterminate/intersex (includes neither the function of conceiving nor the function of inducing conception, but includes the function of gestating and bearing children)
• Indeterminate/intersex (includes neither the function of conceiving nor the function of inducing conception, nor yet the function of gestating and bearing children)
• Indeterminate/intersex (includes both the function of conceiving and the function of inducing conception)

Among humans, the last gender is not known to exist, but if we have to record gender, we have to accept that it might exist.

At present, our societies have been so perverted in our languages as to be unable to properly deal grammatically and semantically with the latter three cases. But, really, I'm not sure we have needed to.

In the past, governments have mostly refrained from being so arrogant as to insist on knowing a person's gender, and society has been forgiving enough to let people of the case we now call intersex figure out how they want to associate themselves among males or females, and that was good enough for most people to live and let live.

There have been times of persecution, but that is always true on pretty much any subject. Some people insist on persecuting others, even if they have to make up a reason to do so.

But, in the recent past, we have at least one government that has become arrogant enough to attempt to force all people into the first two categories.

As long as that government insists on that attitude (which, frankly, began when they decided they had authority against their own Constitution to administer family welfare at the national level) --

As long as that government insists on forcing people into gender categories, it must recognize four:

1. Female, 
2. Male,
3. Intersex,
4. Keep your nose out of what ain't your business

Or, in other words, male, female, intersex, and undeclared, but leave it up to the individual to declare which they are, and to alter their declaration as they choose, because the case of intersex is never clear-cut, which means that male and female aren't really clear-cut, either.

[JMR202002240632 Conclusion.]

No, this is still not going to communicate the concept to those who need it the most. But maybe it will be useful to some who read it, so I'll post it anyway.

[JMR202002231222 First version plus some additions:]

I'm going to try this again.

There are several ways of viewing gender. The one I use internally, and the one I prefer to use when discussing gender, is a strictly biological functional approach:

• Female in the human organism is the physical ability to conceive, gestate, and bear children.
• Male is the ability to induce conception.
• No other function is gender function.  That is to say, all other biological functions are at least somewhat independent of gender, and all cultural and social functions should be viewed as completely independent of gender.

In this point of view, all cultural baggage can be discarded, from Machiavelli and Freud and before, all the way to the present.

Most importantly, making babies and raising children becomes, not the highest expression of some esoteric ideal love, but an activity that should only be pursued within a loving relationship -- protected by a loving relationship because, without babies and children, neither society nor culture have any meaning.

Real men can like to wear pink (I like pink.) and lace (Not my favorite.), etc. if they want. They can even use makeup, if they want.  Real women can like to wear hiking boots and prefer power tools over cooking accessories for birthday presents, if they are so inclined.

But not just attributes and traits. Talents.

Maybe women in general don't take to engineering professions as naturally as men in general. But the general nature of statistical women no longer needs to rule any individual, woman or man.

Maybe men in general don't take to caregiving professions as naturally as women in general. But the general nature of statistical men no longer needs to rule any individual, man or woman.

This allows us to re-examine what we mean when we use the word love.

Is love hate?

Is love a passion?

Is love a strong desire?

Is love a recognition of some sympathetic or compatible resonance?

Is love merely constructive?

Or is love the desire for someone else's happiness?

If love is the desire for someone else's happiness, can it be fulfilled if one's own role in that person's happiness is less than central?

Love, therefore, is allowed to transcend sexual relationship.

Love can include things like working together to build a bridge or a school, cooperating in operating a nursery for children or plants, giving material assistance or emotional/social support to someone's project, etc.

Using a somewhat vulgar expression, a proper understanding of gender teaches you that you don't have to have sex with everyone/everything you love.

No, this is still not going to communicate the concept to those who need it the most. But maybe it will be useful to some who read it, so I'll post it anyway.

[JMR202002231222 First version.]

[JMR202002231407 Discarded ranting -- too much argumentation:]

So, although one can speak of a binary definition of gender, speaking from the point of records, we actually need more than binary in most cases where the information is needed at all.

Here is an important point of consideration: In most cases, records do not need to record what a person's gender is, and should not. (That is a rant for another day, I guess.) There is no need for your ISP provider to know, for instance.

In cases where it is necessary, what are we to do about the ambiguous cases?

My opinion is that birth records should report the opinion of the doctor examining the baby -- as an opinion. The gender reported should be male, female, or ambiguous The parents, or the hon'nin' (the individual him/herself) should have means to record a change in evaluation, or in expression, as necessary. Each report should be recorded as an annotation, and the issued copy of birth record should only report the current record.

Until a society can handle knowing that an individual child is gender ambiguous, without it becoming cause of teasing at school, etc.,  the parents should decide what the publicly reported gender is, which would be a separate record from the actual reported gender.

This is not an ideal solution, but something like this will be needed as society in general learns to deal constructively with gender.

Public restrooms? Maybe the solution in schools is to provide more restrooms and more privacy within each restroom, and take the gender signs completely off. But, considering how restrooms can be abused, that solution has some serious drawbacks. Providing three: male, female, and either, might be another solution, but that also will invite abuses. Maybe the best approach is to relax laws against using the wrong one, and strengthen the laws punishing assault which occurs while someone is trying to answer those call of nature which restrooms are provided for.

Do schools really need to know a student's gender? One case is the locker room, which entails similar problems to restrooms. It might be necessary to provide locker room guards, but, even there, there will be abuses.

Anyway, traffic officers do not need to know gender. 

[JMR202002231407 Discarded ranting.]