Gender and Relationships Beyond Binary Thinking
Black or white. Right or wrong. Good or evil. Left or right. Boy or girl. Gay or straight. Monogamous or polyamorous. There is so much data for our brains to process in this strange universe that it seems that one of our coping mechanisms is to simplify reality in binaries.
Yet, what if, instead of protecting us in productive ways, such simplifications impede us from fully experiencing the rainbow of endless possibilities of our post-modern times?
My invitation today is for us to transcend, or at least suspend, binary thought tendencies for a couple of minutes, more particularly in the context of gender identity and romantic relationship types.
So, let’s start with gender. If you have been following the Waking Youth Podcast for a while, you might remember our past conversation with former lawyer and writer Yang-May Ooi. Together, we read and deconstructed Yang May's early expressions of tomboyishness, which later on contrasted with her performances of femininity throughout her college years as written in her beautiful book Bound Feet Blues: a Life Told in Shoes, where she admitted having created a more gender-conforming high-wheeled alter ego (aka Winnie) to temporarily flirt with alpha males and, more importantly, explore the boundaries of the fluidity of her being.
This time, two years later, I decided to interview my friend Esaú Gozalor with whom I have shared numberless ramblings about both gender and relationships. Two conversations in particular motivated me to invite him to the podcast. One where he shared his decision to identify as both he and they on his (or their) LinkedIn bio description. Another one where he confided to me that he had opened up his relationship. Check out the full interview below (kudos, once more, to our Music Audio Producer and Editor Carlos Sierra for the great work). What follows is the research that led to the podcast episode.
The first time I seriously contemplated the idea of gender non-binarism was throughout a Feminism Course at IE University with my esteemed professor and mentor Celia de Anca. Celia introduced the class to the work of Judith Butler in the context of the third feminist wave, Butler being one of the movement's central figures. There was something in Butler’s unconventionality that intrigued me.
In Gender Trouble, they propose we open new avenues of expression to be more inclusive of folks that neither identify as women nor men and, instead, see themselves in the shades in-between or beyond.
To legitimize the creation of more inclusive gender categories, Butler sagaciously challenges the widely adopted assumption that sex is a static condition of a body, suggesting instead that such categorization is, at least partially, socially constructed, as explained in her talk Why Bodies Matter.
“If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all.”
― Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity
What does it mean that sex is socially constructed? It means that “sex” is not a fact or “a real thing in the world”. It means that we define and create “sex” only in relation to and interaction with one another through regulatory norms and reinforcement of those norms throughout time.
For instance, even though Westerners, like me, would quickly assume that the female body parts that are universally sexualized are breasts, bums, and so on, we need not visit another planet to meet a tradition that sexualized women's small feet for an entire millennium.
If we recognize that sex is, at least partly, a social construction, then there is no reason why we should not 1) resignify both sexual and gender categories, and 2) create new categories altogether to reflect the particular experiences of diverse peoples.
“If there is something right in Beauvoir's claim that one is born, but rather becomes a woman, it follows that woman itself is a term in process, a becoming, a constructing that cannot rightfully be said to originate or to end. As an ongoing discursive practice, it is open to intervention and resignification.”
― Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity
Ok, so even if we understand that gender (and to a certain extent sex) is culturally and socially constructed, then why not simply expand (or alter) the definition of what it means to be a woman / man or feminine / masculine? It is conventionally accepted by now (I hope!) that girls can wear blue and boys pink. That men can wear make-up and that women can wear pants. Why go the extra mile and create new categories altogether?
Well, because we are failing to create categories for all kinds of folks: intersex folks, androgynous folks, people who were assigned a certain gender or sex at birth yet, at their core, do not identify with such category, in sum, people who want to evolve unjustified or reductionist default modes.
To go back to our exploration of direct experiences, for Esaú, while we should continue to stretch such definitions so that they are more inclusive of diverse gender experiences, identifying as they goes beyond wanting to "just" temporarily borrow elements or expressions typically associated to a certain gender. It's about being free to move across a spectrum or even transcend it to identify with something more essential. To quote them, ‘This is the part that we get a tiny bit into spirituality….’
Coincidently, as I devoted my free time to the contemplation of the wonderings mentioned above, I ran into a podcast episode in the Mangu Tv Podcast where host Giancarlo Canavesio sat with Jorge Ferrer, a writer, former professor at the Californian Institute of Integral Studies, and spiritual teacher. Jorge generously and brilliantly contributed to the field of relationships proposing that in the same way that the transgender movement overcame the gender binary, a “parallel step can-and should-be taken with the relational style binary.”
He coins the term novogamy to transcend the often tainted terms monogamy and polyamory. An act of anarchism to dismantle the default structure of binary romantic relationships. A word that signifies a new way to look at relationships, a more open one, where couples are free to create their own agreement according to their ever-changing needs.
Standing on the shoulders of Jorge and others who came before us, in the second part of the conversation, Esaú and I acknowledge the similarities of the desire to transcend binaries in gender, relationships, and sexuality. The glue tying all three together seems to be the motivation to commit to open communication, self-expression, freedom, and exploration.
In this line of thought, we dedicated part of our discussion to the connection between language, culture and perceived realities. Our conclusion was that humans evolved to develop language and categories to self-organize, supposedly, more efficiently. It's comforting to not have to talk through every detail of life together. Social scripts emerged to dictate what's expected of the role of woman and man, father and mother, husband and wife, and so on. Naturally, as we evolve, we want language to evolve with us. We want the freedom to create the relationship dynamic we desire and deserve. Including relationships with ourselves.
As much as I would love to now dive into the topic of romantic relationships and tell you about novogamy, the term coined by Jorge Ferrer to invite us to transcend binary thinking in relationships, I will restrain myself from doing so since….drum roll, please… Jorge will join us in a couple of episodes to share his insights on the matter!
In the meantime, I thought it would be fun to give you the opportunity to pose your questions to Jorge. So, dear friends, after all our conversations about open relationships, this is your chance to query a mature adult who has been actively dedicating part of his life to this matter. Link to send me your questions here.
If you wish to first dive deeper into Jorge’s work, I personally recommend you check out the English, more academic version of his work, Love and Freedom: Transcending Monogamy and Polyamory, or the more accessible Spanish version Novogamia: Más Allá de la Monogamia y del Poliamor with some juicy additions, including practical advice on how to overcome jealously and engage in transorgasmic sex.
And, since I'm already opening the conversation, I thought it would also be fun to scan our position regarding gender identity and relationship types. I'll share the results anonymously in future communications. Reply here now.
Finally, regarding the question that often knocks on our door once we start getting too deep into any topic: in the grand scheme of things, why should we care? Aren't discussions about gender and relationships holding us from having "real" debates about social change and regeneration?
Put shortly, how can we create a better tomorrow if we don't accept how we individually and collectively experience, express, and love ourselves today? I will keep challenging similar objections in future newsletters. For now, I leave you with the reference of Tamera, a free-love commune in Portugal committed to the exploration of the thesis proposed by one of the co-founders of the initiative, Dieter Duhm: ‘There can be no peace on Earth as long as there is war in love.’
Warmly,
Carlota
P.S. I will come back shortly with some mind-stretching queries. In the meantime, you have plenty of rabbit holes to dig into in the links included throughout this newsletter.
Nice Article Carlota