derived from the works of Judith Butler
https://1lib.us/book/2772278/3c3efa
By Patrick — (@deprivedofsubstance on TikTok)
“Gender reality is performative which means, quite simply, that it is real only to the extent that it is performed.”
-Judith Butler
What Is Gender
The word gender entails quite a large concept to grasp. With gender, we can label it as a conglomerate concept. It has subsections to it regarding gender identity, gender identification, gendered constructs, etc. In this writing, I hope to explain the working gears in motion which are held within the question, what is gender? For now, to be very very vague as I don’t care too much about making this the most groundbreaking work, that is one simply explaining an interpretation of Judith Butler’s take on gender. Back to answering the question, we can say that gender is the range of identities that serve the teleological function to grant this identity to a conscious subject. However, over time this teleological function has been warped to the point where we take identities and use them as a functional adjective. This is most commonly seen in society when talking about what is “manly” or what one should do to achieve “womanhood.” This would be applying the structured construct of gender identity (in this case man or woman) to something in a manner where it now no longer is being used to fulfill the task of enabling a conscious subject to identify themselves with it but rather now label non-conscious objects from an observational point of view rather than a first-person point of view. We also see how with a little bit of linguistic analysis we see that colloquially and even running by the dictionary, female also refers to a gender and a sex. This is because colloquially they are interchangeable. But later you will see how we don’t even necessarily need to run by the book that we have imaged in our heads. This is only some essential information that will be needed for the concepts that will be further discussed in this writing.
How does Gender identity and utilizing it for the purpose of identification work
When speaking on gender identification we must first realize how one can form identity. Identity as a concept is one we almost always imagine with an image of action or performance associated with it, that’s because identity needs a role to fill. For example, take the identity of a man. How do we say someone is a “man.” Well, there are many routes to take, some say you need certain genitalia, others say it’s a matter of how you act. Either way, the constant in both of these situations is the fact that it is performative. The ‘man’ defined by genitalia performs the action of existence with said genitalia just as the ‘man’ who acts as one well, acts as one. The point I’m trying to get at here is that gender identity is performative. One of the core aspects of gender is performativity. Here is where the question arises for Judith Butler, and I am here to answer it. The question is as follows, we know ways you can perform man, we know ways we can perform woman, but how do you perform non-binary? Well, this leads back to the construction of identity as to even imagine an identity, in this case, gender identity, requires a role to fill. It requires a role to be performed by the actor which grants them the title I will be using for the rest of this writing as the ‘performative subject’. But back to answering the question of how one performs to be identified as “non-binary” for example. Well, we ask what is it to be non-binary? Most commonly we hear that non-binary is the term granted to those who fall outside the gender binary, henceforth the term. Here is the thing, this presupposes the binary of gender is escapable. Now I’m not saying it isn’t at all, but rather I am begging a new question, what is this binary, and is it escapable? Well, what constitutes that binary is based upon what identities we hold inside it and at what point we say “this is the binary.” Most commonly we see this binary presented as the dichotomous relationship between ‘man’ and ‘woman’. Now that we have the two identities, we need to give them roles. Here is where things get a little confusing: When speaking in regards to what constitutes gender identity, ie. the performance one must commit to being identified/signified as x, we must realize there is no real rule to this. If I wanted to I can say a man is when you eat your fish fried and a woman is when you eat it raw. Just as I can say a man is when you buy beer with a truck and a woman is when you put on a pink dress and talk with a high voice. Do you see what I’m getting at? The question of if we can escape the binary that is set as the dichotomous relationship between man and woman is dependent on what roles these identities are molded to categorize. What I’m trying to say can be expounded upon using an example. If we set the characteristics of a man to be one who holds at least 10% or higher of muscle mass and to be a woman is to have anything lower than 10% muscle mass, no matter what one does, they will be either a man or woman. However, if we say that to be a man is to call yourself one and keep this same logic running to be a woman, now the binary becomes escapable. Notice here that the question never was concrete, because the question was never going to stay as “can we” or “can we not” under all circumstances. We must look further into what precedes the existence of this binary; we must look into what creates it. Now with identity, there is a split that is made when categorizing different forms of it. For this, I label these two types of identity as, ‘artificial’ identity and ‘true’ identity. True identity is one of which the performative subject chooses for themselves. For example, if one claims that they are non-binary and fit within their characteristics to form the identity of non-binary, their true identity is non-binary. In this process, they choose and place upon themself the identity to which they know themself as. This identity to which they have given themself is their true identity. As explained earlier, identity is performative. When speaking in reference to the performative subject who chooses characteristics for x identity which they feel as they fit, in reference to the performative subject this is their true identity. Something that should be mentioned here is a very important note to make with the concept of gender. The concept of gender is fluid, not concrete. The number of quantifiable gender identities there are works in reference to the demographic we are speaking in. This is why that one can construct the idea of non-binary being when you put your hand in the air as another can define it as when you have no clothes. We would say in reference to individual x non-binary is when you possess of y trait as however, in reference to individual a non-binary is when you possess of b trait. It is all once again, simply a matter of the demographic we speak in reference to. With this being said, we can bring in the concept of artificial identity. Artificial identity is the identity one is labeled with which is not their true identity. An example of one granting another this artificial identity is when we have individual x observing a performative subject. In this example, the performative subject holds that their true identity is that of ‘woman’, and they say to be a woman is to be masculine. However, the subject who observes them in this situation would not agree. They view the performative subject as a man. They define man as being masculine. In this example, from the view of the observer, the P.S. (Performative Subject) is given an identity to which never was one they held to be true for themself. Regardless of both finding a characteristic that is used to categorize the subject, the resulting identity that the observer has put upon the subject is in conflict with the P.S.’s true identity. This is one reason why if anyone ever says, “you are a man/woman/etc.!” and you do not hold this to be true, quite simply they are wrong in their attempt to place an identity upon you which they believe to be true, it was simply artificial in its nature. The graph shown below is an illustration of the process of granting artificial identity to the P.S.
Synthesization of Gender Identity through observation.
One thing to always be kept in mind when thinking of gender identity is to realize it is performative. I don’t want to repeat myself 100 times but it is crucial to remember that it is performative. Realizing it is performative brings the fact that it is in need of an observer to be brought to light. However of course as gone over, the observer simply is another conscious subject who cannot tell the mind of the performative subject. So of course this can lead to either the granting of artificial identity to the performative subject or the synthesization of identity. The synthesization of identity is when the observer observes and categorizes the performative subject with an identity that the performative subject holds to be their true identity. An example of this would be an observer observing a performative subject who says they are a woman because they have two arms and the observer concluding they are a woman because they have two arms. This would be an example of the synthesization of identity. But one may ask “what if they get the label but not the characteristics of this labeled identity, is that not synthesization?” I’m glad you asked. This wouldn’t be synthesization as if we took the same example and the performative subject who says they are a woman because they have two arms and says to be a man is to have blonde hair and not have two arms, here is where it wouldn’t be synthesization. If the observer observes the performative subject as a woman because they think a woman is having blonde hair, from the lens of the performative subject, the observer has forgotten a crucial variable which leaves the performative subject from their view in a dance of identity between man and woman. For true synthesization to occur both parties must share the same view of one subject’s identity and the characteristics that identity has. A graph explaining the process of synthesization, false synthesization, and granting of artificial identity to the performative subject.
How do we quantify gender identities?
When speaking on how we quantify gender identities we must understand how quantificative processes work underneath, get ready for the word… social constructs! I hate saying this word because those who must try and respond to any proposition of a quantified amount of gender identities that the first thing they respond with is what they have seen on TikTok which is the rebuttal of “it’s a social construct.” Little do those who regurgitate this response realize that this fact does not negate the idea that it can exist on a quantified spectrum. With this in mind we ask the question, how do we quantify things like gender identity? Well, back to the point of it being a social construct here we ask, what is society? The answer is the majority. This rule of majority runs when we speak in reference to certain groups of subjects and individuals. With quantifying gender identity, we would take the total number of subjects in an area and speak on the quantified number of genders in reference to them as a demographic. Remembering this majority rule system we look and see at what is the majority consensus on how many genders there are and then speak in reference to this demographic of how many genders there are. An example is shown below.
All subjects in the photo above have a number next to their name representing the number of genders/gender identities they believe to be. We see that 25% of the room believes in 4 genders, 25% for 8, and 50% for 12. Now, using this majority rule which is utilized to quantify these certain social constructs, the correct way to describe the number of genders within this demographic would be, “in reference to this group of 4 subjects, there are 12 genders.” Now, this doesn’t mean that everyone in the room must agree now with 12 genders since they become a part of the packed collective who do because there is something that frees them from this restraint. This thing is very simple, it’s simply how we mentioned that we speak in reference to the subjects within a demographic. Now, why is this important? Simply put, observer number one can speak in reference to themselves and say “in reference to me, there are 4 genders” or, “for me personally, there are four genders,” and they wouldn’t be wrong at all. Now let us get a more complicated scenario.
In this scenario we notice something odd, all individuals believe in a different number of genders. Observer one believes in 4, observer two 8, observer three 12, and the performative subject 16. There is a pure equilibrium in regards to separate ideas of the number of genders there are. Will this delve us into chaos and the world will now collapse since we cannot follow the majority rule anymore?
No. The solution is actually quite simple. Looking at this group we notice that since there is no majority among the subjects in the room we find a common value that they all have within each other’s concepts of quantified genders. Here we notice the highest value is 4 and all other subjects have greater than 4. This is great news as now we can make the assertion that “when speaking in reference to these four subjects, there are 4 genders.” The reason this works is because we can’t say there are 6,12, or 16 genders. This is because there is no majority rule in this case. The alternative is to find the common number they all have. Now notice this entire time I haven’t once mentioned the type of genders the subjects believe in. I have spoken strictly quantitatively, not once qualitatively in this section. This is because when speaking in reference to how we quantify gender, the type of genders each subject believes in carries no real relevance. A graph shown on the next page with an explanation puts this concept process into better view.
In this graph, we see 1 performative subject and 9 observers, a total of 10 subjects for this example. Of the 10 subjects, seven believe in 2 genders, one believes in 3, and 2 believe in 90. Now in this graphed example of gender’s concept process occurring we see almost everything I’ve talked about in this writing happening at once. We see that some subjects decide to say that certain identities such as man is when you have 2 feet and others say you are a woman when you have one. Just as others freely create identities such as gigachad and beta and set their respective characteristics for each one. We see observer 9 and the performative subject go through the process of synthesizing true identity as everyone else grants the subject some form of an artificial identity. Now of course we don’t know which one they will categorize the subject as but we can see what they will choose between and all we have to know is that none of the observers except for observer 9 are aware of the concept of gender y35 with regards to its characteristic being x35. The reason I show this graph is for the simple reason to show that when speaking as to how we quantify gender, the type of genders one imagines is irrelevant to the discussion. The only way the type of gender matters when quantifying gender is so we can differentiate x gender from y gender to figure out the total amount of genders there are in reference to a subject. Basically, it’s not what the observing subject is thinking about categorizing the subject and what they end up with, it’s how many genders do they have to flip through to categorize the observed performative subject. I will note some things that are important right here if I have not listed them earlier. One, to set characteristics for a gender to attain a true identity, one must be able to consciously perform these actions. Whether the action means breathing in a certain manner to dressing in a certain way, it must be plausible for the subject to perform. For a subject to say, “I have made a gender for every time an atom passes through me in a certain place” an issue arises. If the performative subject is not able to perform these characteristics of which are set to a certain gender identity or if the characteristics of this identity (which in this case) involuntary change and come to be in different manners independent of the performative subjects wanting, the subject cannot claim these identities to be their true identity as they can not consciously and freely place these labeled identities through themselves as the characteristics which they have bound to the identity disable them from doing this. Now when I say freely I do not mean that if a gun is held to your head and you’re tied in chains that now you cannot be these identities. When I say freely I mean in a vacuum, if you are unable to commit the characteristics which you have bound to said identity, it would be impossible for you to claim it as a true identity. Secondly, to claim that gender can be infinitely quantified would not be possible as there is a quantifiable limit to our actions (at this current time). Just as to say there is no quantifiable amount of genders or that it is unquantifiable would be to reject the concept of gender as a whole. If you can identify gender, good job, you just quantified a gender identity.
Conclusion
The purpose of this writing was to help put the concept of gender with all of its working gears and processes into perspective. From this certain arguments are then revealed. For example, when quantifying gender it is done when speaking in reference to either one, a single subject, or two, a demographic of subjects, then in reference America technically speaking there would be two genders as most recent empiricism shows that the majority of Americans believe in two genders. But once again as outlined earlier, this holds no bearing upon the individual when choosing what identity they see themself as. Another thing too is how gender can exist in multiple quantified modes at once. For example, in reference to America there are two genders, but narrowing it down when speaking in reference to a progressive city in America there could be 12 genders. It’s quite a unique concept, isn’t it? This writing didn’t cause me as much mental labor as it did physically and it simply being a minimal consumption of my free time. So I do hope you took something from this and you leave this writing with a better understanding of gender compared to you before reading this writing. With that said, thank you for your time.
Kind Regards,
Patrick (@iamthemodeofproduction on TikTok)
