My Views on Gender (in brief): An Open Letter to the Exclusionists

(It should be kept in mind that some of the ideas put forth in this article are very rudimentary and not yet fully developed. The author recognizes this, and understands that the philosophy put forward here is far from all encompassing, and is actively working to expand upon and improve it).

Many times I have spoken about the need to, in a sense, take back language - that is, take words and twist their meanings to suit our needs, shape and pull them to mean new things, and even change their meanings entirely, all for the purpose of subverting and challenging the idea that identities are static and determined. The exclusionists, of course, do not like this idea very much. The most common response made by them is that “words have meaning.” This argument is used by them in many cases, but it is most commonly used when discussing the topic of they/them and he/him lesbians. So, let us address this issue first (though the fact that it is considered to be an issue is mind boggling).

Why do the exclusionists reject the idea of they/them and he/him lesbians? Well, they make the following claims; 1) that in order to be a lesbian, one must be a woman, and 2) that gender is determined by pronouns, or, alternatively, that pronouns indicate gender. 

Before we go any further, it must be stated that in many cases pronouns do determine gender - if someone goes by she/her pronouns, they are very likely a woman. However, it must be noted that this is not always the case. For example, if someone is trans, but has not yet told anyone, they will likely go by the pronouns they were assigned at birth. This does not change the fact that their gender does not correspond to these pronouns. Another example of pronouns not corresponding to gender is lesbians (women who are attracted to other women) going by pronouns other than she/her. This is valid precisely because pronouns only indicate gender. They are a sign that can be used to communicate to others that they are a certain gender, without the person having to say so directly.

For many people, having their pronouns aligned with their gender can be comforting, and this is of course perfectly ok. However, not everyone needs their pronouns to align with their gender. Why they don’t is irrelevant and a matter of personal feeling. They may wish to take up a certain set of pronouns because they align with their secondary sex characteristics, or they may simply prefer to present that way. As was said, the reasons are largely irrelevant.

To this, the exclusionists may reply that though they can do such a thing, it is still bad, because it does more harm than good by obfuscating the meaning of terms, which leads to general confusion, to which I reply with a single quote from Nietzsche; “what is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is increasing, that resistance has been overcome.” (Antichrist, 4). Or, to put it more simply, language exists to serve its users. If it serves an individual to refer to themselves in such and such a way, whether it does so by making them more comfortable and affirming their identity, or increasing their confidence or in any other way, then it does good.

We of course agree with the exclusionists that in order to be a lesbian one must be a woman; what we disagree on is what it means to be a woman. So, what does it mean to be a woman? Well, if we are to figure what it means to be a woman, we must also figure out what it means to be a man, nonbinary, a xenogender, etc. But in order to figure out that, we must first briefly address the question; what is gender?

Gender has two parts; its inner nature, the part that exists within the individual, and is determined solely by how the individual feels, and the representation of gender, that which exists on the outside, which we call femininity and masculinity. These two identifiers exist solely for the purpose of distinguishing oneself from others. You yourself do not utilize your masculinity and femininity (for both exist in all people); it is utilized by others. Thus it could be said that it has only an exchange value. “For the owner, his commodity possesses no direct use value. It has use value for others; but for himself its only direct use value is as a bearer of exchange value…” Not only that, but people do not place themselves in relation with others directly, but rather, they relate to each other as possessors of femininity and masculinity; “here the persons exist for one another merely as representatives and hence owners, of commodities.” (Marx, Capital Volume 1, 178-179).

However, unlike with Marx’s owners of commodities, the possessors of femininity and masculinity do not lose their qualities when they exchange them; they are not consumed in the sense that they are used up; rather, they act as sign values that are exchanged, and which can be exchanged an indefinite amount of times. They do not necessarily indicate the nature of what lies within the individual; they merely exist as a convenience, a distinguishing trait. And, as anyone would assume, pronouns fall into this category, for their purpose is one of differentiation. Thus, it follows that it makes perfect sense for a lesbian to use pronouns other than she/her, for pronouns are not always indicative of gender, and merely serve as a method of differentiating oneself from others. As such, these traits belong to the individual; the individual does not belong to them. It is a toolset that they can utilize for their own ends.

What, then, is the inner nature of gender? This is a question that is far more difficult. It can be posited that gender, alone and untampered with by the forces of social conditioning, is nameless and cannot be differentiated from the individual as they are. However, because the individual is never truly alone, and is always reliant on others and molded by them, he is never not subject to outside influence. Thus, as they learn to identify and name their thoughts and desires, they begin to formulate their gender, create a personal regiment that includes what is seen as a positive influence to the mind, and excludes what isn’t. Despite the regimenting that comes with social development, gender remains semi autonomous and, if need be, endlessly moldable. This, we believe, is how gender is supposed to be. It is not supposed to be some principle by which all things that exist within you must follow. It is not supposed to be toxic. It becomes these things when the environment that the individual inhabits is so hostile and harsh, that in order to survive, it must become that way. And it is this environment, which is produced by all sorts of things, from class society to familial hierarchy and gender oppression - that we communists wish to rid the world of.`For when gender takes such a form, when it begins to inhibit expression rather than aid expression, when it begins to limit rather than widen, that is when gender, as an identifier and as a function, becomes a force that alienates and obfuscates identity. And because the internal structure of gender always has within it this capability, because it can turn on the individual at any moment, is precisely why we wish to see it done away with.

But the question of what we want is not of much importance here. What is important is the question of what the exclusionists want. They claim to fight for queer liberation, yet they constantly reinforce the institutions that oppress us. They claim to support nonbinary people, while also reinforcing gender dualism. So tell us, exclusionists; what are your true goals?