Who is Gender Non-Conforming
It's a boy! MATTHEW was born into this world as we all were: emerging from the mystery of the dark into the light of life. No matter if we screamed, cried, or experienced overwhelming pain, we were identified and assigned specific gender roles based on our genitals before we even had a name. Penis Mind, a term coined by Alan Downs, Ph.D. in The Velvet Rage (and explained in Sensuality), is of course thrilled with this discovery; if the entirety of my being is based around my genitals, then it should certainly make life simpler. I can fulfill my role as a penis...I mean, a man, by allowing Penis Mind and CHICO to conspire and thread their own web to catch all the "masculine, dominant, discreet" guys MATTHEW could ever want. Oh wait...that's doesn't align with the expectations for a boy, though. I get snagged on the same problem if I take the lead in my search for love, compassion, and hope. What about my relationship with my parents?! Gulp...Freud!!! Hell, it's complicated to maintain any relationship when my life is based around my genitals! It seemed so simple at birth, but the attributes attached to my sex are at odds with my animal nature as well as my authenticity, vulnerability, balance, and selflessness, so who/what does that make me in relation to what I'm looking for? Let me offer up a brilliant quote from Robert Jensen, in Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity, before we get tangled anymore in this web:
I believe that love (based on a commitment to equality articulated in our core philosophies and theologies), compassion (based on our common humanity), and solidarity (based on our need to survive together) can anchor our lives at every level, from the intimate to the global. I believe those things in part because of my necessary faith in 'the better angels of our nature,' as Abraham Lincoln put it, but also because of my experience. In my life, weighted down as it is sometimes in struggle and failure, I have experienced that intimacy. Once experienced, it's difficult to return to the illusory. (179)
Thanks for the reminder, Jensen; I need to focus on love, compassion, and solidarity/hope since that is what I'm truly looking for, so what is holding up progress toward completing the web? Penis Mind rips off his mask to reveal an even bigger monster standing in his place: masculinity. Oh the humanity! This is quite possibly CHICO's most demanding project as it has distracted me from upholding my personal values in hopes of perfecting the ideal masculine image. Jensen shares that "we live our lives in this system and it deforms men, narrowing our emotional range and depth and limiting our capacity to experience rich connections with others---not just women and children, but with other men. Such connections require vulnerability but make life meaningful" (28). If CHICO and Penis Mind (a.k.a. masculinity) were able to have their way, MATTHEW would solely focus on putting his genitals to use, yet my inconsistencies with fitting the mold of "manhood" sexually and emotionally would continue crippling me with shame. As we discovered in Sensuality, this leads to an unfulfilling life comprised of using, being used, abusing, and being abused. Since I don't intend to return to the painful illusory, I'll take a step back and analyze the epic battle between nature versus nurture. I think we're going to need a bigger blog...
Nature
I begin the thread with a naturally somber offering from Ernest Becker in The Denial of Death: "Man's body is a problem to him that has to be explained...Man's very insides---his self---are foreign to him. He doesn't know who he is, why he was born, what he is doing on the planet, what he is supposed to do, what he can expect. His own existence is incomprehensible to him, a miracle just like the rest of creation, closer to him, right near his pounding heart, but for that reason all the more strange" (51). Here we go...was I born gay? It's such a loaded question as I consider the denial, shame, rage, fear, acceptance, and joy weaved into the "Nature" side of my web. If it was determined the same, simple way my entire identity was formed when I was born---by my genitals---then yes..."it's a gay!" It's much more complicated than that, though. If I was born "gay," that would suggest God made me gay, which would be rigorously argued by religious fundamentalists. If I'm born without a penis but with the same "nature," then I'm not identified as gay, right? Or how about this one: if I'm born with a penis and can build a strong emotional bond with a woman, yet I am not sexually bonded to her, does that make me "gay"? That defining moment at birth (or for many parents, 16-20 weeks after conception) certainly plays a crucial part in determining so much about who we become, but what is my true nature when it's separated from these confusing labels into which I've been unsolicitedly subscribed?
I'll start in the place my nature began...my penis---hey, Mom! :) And, quite frankly, there is a natural way to understand what it's thinking...Now, I don't mean to be vulgar or crude, so I will refer to it as my Spidey Sense (trademark pending). Growing up, MATTHEW's Spidey Sense seemed to have a mind of its own. This was different from Penis Mind because it wasn't about getting anyone in bed; instead, my Spidey Sense was tied to my five senses and the joy that tingled through me as I explored the world. What was this connected to, though, if it wasn't sex? From what I've learned about joy---the "orgasm of the soul" (Downs 157)---it would seem my Spidey Sense was an expression of love in recognition of something within and beyond me. Growing up in the Lutheran faith, my understanding of this power was the Christian God: masculine, dominant, and discreet. Really...no pics?! I'm not saying that the Christian God is the reason for my attraction to men, but it certainly is a place to lay some adhesive thread in hopes of a catch, especially as I consider how it was reinforced through the norms of masculinity, but I'll touch on that more later (no pun intended).
Already, the web is taking shape between my Spidey Sense, my experience with joy/love, and my connection to the higher power, so back to the original Jensen quote, what did Abraham Lincoln mean by the "better angels of our nature"? For context, here is a portion of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address: "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." Racial politics and ethnocentrism aside, I strongly agree with what this proclamation offers: we must find it within ourselves---our nature---to accept others despite our collective differences. We all live here beyond the existence of our genitals, right? Becker's assessment of our natural dilemma is a tough reality to face, but it helped me understand that MATTHEW's true nature is love, compassion, and hope, and I'm united with all creation because we share these values at a fundamental level. At the same time, the unique way in which I sense and express these values is natural to me, and it is my privilege/opportunity to share myself with the world and accept the forms of love, compassion, and hope expressed by others.
Everything always seems so simple in the dark, but when MATTHEW enters into the light, there is a discrepancy. As Jensen puts it, "Men are assumed to be naturally competitive and aggressive, and being a 'real man' is therefore marked by the struggle for control, conquest, and domination. A man looks at the world, sees what he wants, and takes it" (26). Though the "Nature" side of the web is looking good, it's clear we need to crawl over to the other side...
Nurture
I'll begin this thread with another unsettling Becker quote: "the situation of the child was an impossible one and that he had to fashion his own defenses against the world, had to find a way of surviving it...[Otto] Rank understood that in the face of the overwhelmingness of the world the child could not out of himself muster the stamina and authority necessary to live in full expansiveness with limitless horizons of perception and experience" (61; 62). The plot thickens...do I choose to be gay? Even with the "Nature" side of the web pretty much complete, it is still difficult to navigate this question. If I admit that I tried "praying the gay away," or hoped that some miracle drug would make me straight, is my (Proud) Gay Male status revoked? Is there something I'm lacking as a gay male that is prohibiting me from reaching my full expansiveness? If I can be gay and still reach limitless horizons of perception and experience, why have my experiences felt so redundant and painful? Before I start retracting previous journals, I think it's necessary to examine my motivation for wanting to live inauthentically as straight: I wanted to live a real, normal life. You can see the paradox immediately; how could my dreams for authenticity be accomplished inauthentically? I realized my anchor threads were faulty, but I was stuck in the dark with my eyes closed; now, with some light, I can finally unspin...
I'm sorry to do this again, Mom, but this one also needs to begin with the perceived basis of my choice: my penis. As mentioned in Sensuality, homosexuality is often reduced to this simple organ, or joining it with others, along with the "unclean" thoughts associated with such actions. By standards of masculinity, there was a mismatch between MATTHEW's genitals and the outward expression of his senses and joy. This had it's price, as Jensen so accurately portrays: "The worst insult one man can hurl at another----whether among boys on the playground or corporate executives in the boardroom---is the accusation that a man is like a woman (or is gay, which is assumed to be too much like a woman)" (26). Oh yes, the hurling certainly occurred from the playground to the boardroom...but Jensen speaks from a heterosexual male's perspective in his description, a position based in privilege. What is the impact when the boy is actually gay, and the words being hurled at him actually reflect his perceived nature?
Let's spin back to one particular instance in 7th grade. I was on a different bus after-school since I had a Pre-Confirmation class that day and was hitching a ride with an older kid who also attended my church. The dynamics on the bus were much different from what I was used to. I connected with a few casual friends, though, and before long we were cheerfully enjoying the ride, laughing out loud. This caught the attention of older boys sitting behind us (probably 4-5 8th graders), who proceeded to call me gay, faggot, and sissy, amongst other things. I can't remember if I cried. It's clear I emotionally detached that day, and I submitted to CHICO's pressure of living inauthentically in hopes of being treated as "one of the guys." While internalizing my pain, I also felt a hatred for those casual friends who said nothing, those guys who wouldn't stop harassing me, the older kid who looked away...perhaps it went as far as my parents for bringing me into a world where I was negatively labeled for my nature before I even used my penis to prove it. I wouldn't say I chose being gay so much as being gay chose me. Perhaps in this moment it was clear I was "gay" because I chose not to stand up for myself or fight back; instead, I decided to submit. Jensen describes what this looks like in relation to the kids game King of the Hill: "In this conception of masculinity, men are in constant struggle with each other for dominance. Every other man must in some way be subordinated to the king, but even the king can't feel too comfortable---he has to be nervous about who is coming up that hill to get him" (27). CHICO became the dominant voice in MATTHEW's head that day, and it signified the beginning of my masculinity project. My drive to become a member of this powerful elite was coupled with my sexualization of this seeming ideal.
Rather than nurture my authenticity, CHICO seized the opportunity to manipulate, control, and dominate by conforming to the stereotypes of masculinity. In effect, MATTHEW was a drag king performing on stage while CHICO enjoyed its ruthless reign in the spotlight; on the inside, I was too paralyzed with fear to lift the masculinity veil and become vulnerable to friends and family. This resulted in a game of secrets and lies, so my interactions often felt superficial and fake, and CHICO retaliated by playing even more twisted games in its struggle for dominance. It destroyed a lot of my relationships, causing me and those involved a lot of pain, confusion, and rage. To better anchor this side of the web, it's crucial to focus on weaving anchor threads of authenticity, vulnerability, balance, and selflessness as it is the way I intend to live in my search for meaning and fulfillment; however, I can't complete this side of the web alone. Jensen reminds me that "We live in a culture in which the sex-domination nexus is so tight that victim and victimizer alike often do not recognize the violence in acts that the society has deemed violent enough to be illegal. That's rape culture...We live in a world that hates women and children" (49). That almost sounds as nihilistic as Becker...
Web Unspun (?)
Is the debate over? Can we all go home now? Ugh...no. Masculinity is still wreaking havoc in the communal web (it's a thing!), tangling things up even if I've started unspinning it from my web. Well, let's consider what contributed to my understanding of the masculine ideal, then. Many of the inspirations, such as my father, friends, bosses, extended family members, and lovers, upheld the same characteristics---masculine, dominant, discreet---at varying levels but does this mean MATTHEW's finger is pointed at those I'm meant to complete the web with? No. That would be counterproductive because I believe they are silently battling to sustain the facade of masculinity since that's how we are conditioned. I don't necessarily think everyone is struggling the same way I did; however, the vast majority of us share the same masculine archetypes and are guarded against attacks on our masculinity constantly, as Jensen suggests. If we all share a nature of love, compassion, and hope, then what archetypes are we aligning ourselves with that don't exemplify these values? Well...I've already mentioned one...the God image through a religious lens---the powerful, omniscient, masculine presence that dictates our being and existence. This archetype leaves little room for acceptance of nature and much to be desired by way of nurturing difference. The media serves as reinforcement through stories of "real men" and images (in all states of dress and undress) of the ideal masculine man. These archetypes taunt us through Show/Tell, inviting the comparison that these "real men" can achieve the physical and emotional standards of masculinity, why can't you? The money and time I spent trying to appease this ideal would surprise even me if I was able to calculate it accurately, but we've already touched on that...These archetypes may uphold a rape culture, but we once again need to weave back to the root of the problem...the penis---I swear this is the last time, Mom!
If it can determine who we are and who we are meant to be, in addition to endowing dominance and control, the penis might have more power than God itself. What are boys supposed to do with such a tool within their reach? I think many ask questions and seek out answers in a variety of forms. Where do most guys search for answers about sex, though? Pornography...I'm certainly not immune: CHICO got hooked as the men in porn encapsulated everything that MATTHEW wasn't---masculine, dominant, and discreet (particularly in heterosexual productions). They demonstrated an ability to emotionally detach from their partners, which perfectly reflected the ideals of masculinity and gay culture. Moreover, they were powerful, animalistic sex "gods" who always got their partner to submit to their every wish and desire, always by way of a penis. If it's not already clear, Jensen brings to the surface how CHICO's definition of masculinity based on pornography is miscalculated and severely dangerous: "Sex in pornography is defined by the rise and fall of a man's penis, and during sex his desires always determine the direction of the activity. Men have agency and act; women are acted upon...She is nothing more than her sexual organ, an object; he remains a subject, one who uses his sexual organ...Men typically consume pornography specifically to avoid love and affection" (65; 76). Pornography, Jensen argues (and I agree), contributes significantly to the loss of our humanity. We detach from our nature (love, compassion, and hope) and nurture cruelty, revenge, and shame. This builds a world that hates women and children. This invites us to accept our rape culture as the idealized "norm."
Like I said, unspinning and rethreading this web wasn't going to be easy, but it's necessary if this is what we've collectively weaved together. When I consider where it all began---the basest level of identity at birth---could I imagine my life without a penis? Jensen provides some interesting insight, saying that "Masculinity---any notion of masculinity---provides men with a way to be assured that they are not, and never will be, a woman. Masculinity guarantees a man that no matter what happens to him in the world, he is not-woman...That guarantee is also bound to keep us from fully confronting that woman-hating and experiencing our full humanity. So I cannot escape a simple conclusion: If men are going to be full human beings, we first have to stop being men" (143). What would I be giving up if I stopped being a "man"? Control, power, dominance...these were illusory anyways, so it's no real loss. What would I gain? Well, if the web is any indication: I would confidently accept all aspects of my nature (love, compassion, hope, joy, Spidey Sense), and nurture the natural differences of all creation and beyond through expressions of authenticity, vulnerability, balance, and selflessness. The options obviously weigh in favor of the latter, but what does this sacrifice mean?
For MATTHEW, I'm reclaiming the "better angels of my nature"---an existence focused beyond my penis--- and identifying as Gender Non-Conforming (they/them) as I focus on living outside the boundaries of toxic masculinity and hierarchical gender norms; in other words, I'm unsubscribing from my "It's a boy" label previously adopted at birth. Masculinity was a privilege forced onto me, separating me from my true nature and creating a power-hungry, controlling man out of MATTHEW. By accepting my gender non-conformity (finally), I can practice more authenticity, vulnerability, balance, and selflessness without answering to the demands of masculinity. Jensen shares, though, "It's not enough for us to change our personal behavior. That's a bare minimum. Such change must be followed by participation in movements to change the unjust structures and the underlying ideology that supports them" (182). I dedicate myself toward exploring these structures and ideologies as I continue on my journey; however, it's time for some questions:
What do you consider your true nature? How does it compare/contrast with the choices you make in forming your identity? How do you handle discrepancies?
How was your cultural identity formed? What examples did you utilize to understand the real you?
Now can we go home? :)
*Rips masc mask off to reveal...
Who (?)
PS: I really hope you'll subscribe yourself for emails! I'm still getting it set up (a.k.a., don't expect anything for a couple weeks or so), but I have some exciting plans for the (monthly? bi-monthly?) outreach and would love your feedback as I start it out. And a big thanks to those of you who already subscribed! :)