Gender Trouble: Response

Butler’s argument that both gender and sex are culturally constructed as well as performative reminds me of our discussion of Sedgwick from last week.  In order to have one concept, it must be mirrored against another; much as heterosexuality is not possible without homosexuality, maleness is not possible without femaleness (sex), and masculinity is not possible without femininity (gender).  I am frustrated, as is Butler, with the idea that there is a male/masculine “default” setting when discussing “human” issues.  This is further compounded when bringing race into question; white is the “default” setting of queer studies, which is disappointing.  The idea that was brought up in class last week, that some consider “Queer Studies,” with a capital “Q” and “S” to signify some kind of absolute truth, is additionally stifling because, to me (based on the conversations we’ve had in class and elsewhere), queer studies is more about challenging existing power structures than assessing sexuality and gender presentation, especially because the structures being challenged are those constructed within dominant white Euro-American experiences.  These conversations are, of course, integral to queer studies discourse, but they are only one piece of the puzzle, and need to be viewed as such.  Gender should be considered as a spectrum rather than a binary, and subaltern understandings of gender, sexuality, and expression should be incorporated more often into queer studies curricula (which is one of many, many reasons I feel fortunate and grateful to be in this particular program).  

One of the things that I very much appreciated about Butler’s work is the notion that gender, as performative, is fluid and ever-changing.  This reminds me of our discussions (based on Foucault’s work) about how power is also changing, and has led me to consider the ways that an ever-changing power structure combined with an ever-evolving gender spectrum can coexist in a way that is conducive to positive social change.  That is wordy, but I mean to say that if power is always moving and changing hands, then there should be a way for subversive gender expression to wrangle that power and make positive changes.  I think that on an individual level we can, as Butler suggests, challenge gender through performance (p. xxxi).  This is something I try to do often, and is especially gratifying when I am with my partner.  On my own, I have a degree of heterosexual privilege based on my appearance (see my earlier post on bio-power), but when I go out with my fiancée our combined gender presentations paired with our evident sexual “deviance” creates an interesting array of responses.  My partner is the more “masculine” and I the more “feminine,” but our experiences challenge the roles most people associate with these identities.  Neither of us identify as lesbians, but based on appearance, my partner is assumed to be ”more queer” than I, which is in fact not the case.  If we were to place ourselves on the omnipresent Kinsey scale, I would be a 5 (primarily homosexual) and my partner a 3 (closer to heterosexual, or evenly bisexual).  

This is an important distinction from gender presentation and performance, which is equally exciting for me.  My favorite story to tell is from when we first moved into our house; I was wearing a miniskirt and using power tools to put together a table on the kitchen floor while my partner, dressed in cargo shorts and a T-shirt was trimming curtains to hang in the hallway closet.  At the time we laughed to each other, but it has become a lasting anecdote of the ways that we challenge preconceived notions of both gender and sexuality as a couple and as individuals.  

As we have discussed before, specifically with respect to Sedgwick, Butler’s work may seem slightly outdated but is also incredibly important.  We cannot forget that without their work we would most likely not be having these conversations, but we must also remember that theirs are steps in our journey of social justice.  We can acknowledge their importance, but also step back and consider their work within larger systems of oppression such as race, ability, language, age, and several of the other ”isms” that we continue to discuss.