iragray: Hey, folks, this is going to be a long...

Hey, folks, this is going to be a long post, so please bear with me.

This is a prime example as to how cissexism is not so much a feeling as it is an institution. This diagram means well yet actually upholds cissexism in various ways. I do not ask that you 100% agree with me on everything I think or say here, but I do ask that you join me in questioning paradigms. Let’s deconstruct this based on the aforementioned subcategories:

Gender Identity

Men and women are not opposite genders. To say men and women are is to fuel two patterns of oppressive thought: sexism and cissexism. Placing these two genders on opposing sides is to put them at odds with one another, as if they ought to be at war with one another as opposed to exist next or with each other. Secondly, it reinforces the gender binary by saying here’s one gender at one end, another gender at the other end, and this third gender in the middle which is like a combo gender. The gender binary as a construction actually works to keep trans* people down, binary trans* people included, by supporting the normative transgender narrative which dictates who is and who is not transgender enough. This pressures trans* people to subscribe to hypermasculinity or hyperfemininity when they may not necessarily want to in order to fit an ideal, to gain support from binarist transgender folks, or to otherwise gain access to resources they may want or need. Lastly, genderqueer as an identity does not mean in between man and woman. It may mean that for some folks who identify as such, but the general definition is that genderqueer means not identifying as a man or a woman. This could mean above, beyond, below, next to, etc, while not being in between.

This diagram does not account for the fluidity of gender identity by presenting it as a line. I recognize that there are arrows that go in each direction, but I’m personally reading that as akin to “I’m not cissexist/binarist, but…” except in the form of a cute picture. At least make it a wavy line or something. It doesn’t account for the ability to identify as multiple genders and creates potential confusion and conflation between the identity of a bigender person who identifies as a man and a woman and a genderqueer person who identifies as neither of these.

Gender Expression

Gender expression is also a form of self identification in that the perception is based on normative standards of gender performance but what we personally call the performance is up to us. By reclaiming the ability to dictate what our expressions are, we also claim the ability to question normative standards of masculinity and femininity. In this sense, masculine expression could be defined as how men perform gender and femininity described as how women perform gender, regardless of what said gender expression actually looks like. To be clear, I’m not advocating for a new set of normative standards but rather for the acknowledgement of the ability to question and challenge the status quo. How others perceive our expressions certainly changes how we are treated in many ways, but it does not suddenly redefine us.

Biological Sex

Lots of folks have very differing views on the concept of biological sex, but if you were to ask me, I’d say that sex, much like gender, is a social construction and a form of self identification (are you noticing a pattern yet?). I’ve written and spoken about my views on sex here before explaining why I consider it a social construction.

That being said, the diagram seeks to be educational while simultaneously contradicting itself. It tells us in the tiny text on the right that biological sex is determined by a variety of stipulations while only presenting a single condition on the left by pointing at the genderbread person’s crotch and labeling it “Sex.”

If we have agency to define our names, genders, pronouns, etc., why do we not also have the agency to define our bodies? Our bodies, and the genitals that may or may not be attached to them (yes, some folks don’t have genitals at all), exist objectively but the ways in which our cultures define them are anything but objective. Given that cissexism operates in many ways on the absolute conflation of sex and gender (which are not always separated per se but are two different things generally), terms like male and female are then inherently gendered. Therefore, to call trans men female or trans women male is to misgender them unless they say otherwise.

We all have preferred terms in references to our bodies whether or not we are trans*. Some cis women prefer the word breasts over tits or vice versa (or the many other options). Some cis men prefer penis over cock and so on. Many cis women prefer vagina over pussy or prefer vulva over both. Again, our bodies exist objectively; the language we attach to them does not.

Sexual Orientation

Sexual orientation is not to whom you are romantically attracted. It is to whom you are sexually attracted. Sometimes these are one in the same. Sometimes they’re not. This is especially true for folks, who are apparently not worthy of mention, who are aromantic and/or are asexual, meaning they do not generally experience romantic and/or sexual attraction.

Secondly, if there are an infinite number of genders and sexes, then there are also probably an infinite number of orientations depending on exactly how picky people can be (slight sarcasm here).

Here comes the unpopular opinion, but stick with me for a moment. I don’t expect to convince anyone of anything, but you’ve read this far already right? When I see someone for the first time I think is cute (in person), odds are I have no idea what their genitals are. So, this diagram visually defines sex as our genitals and then partially defines sexual orientation as being attracted to someone’s sex. Therefore, according to this self-contradictory logic as it also gives another definition for sex, sexual orientation is the attraction we may or may not experience to someone else’s genitals? This is cissexism. Here’s how: we are making the assumption that a certain set of physical traits that someone has when we see them is indicative of having a certain generalized genital set. That’s classic cissexism. It’s practically cissexism 101. Furthermore, we’re reducing the worth of individuals down to singular body part and is that not how this kind of all begins in the first place? We’re born. A doctor looks at our genitals. Then, we’re expected to be coerced into one side of a binary gender role. In that same sense, we assume the genitals of someone, based on gender performance, and then dictate how we will treat them from there on out while claiming to oppose cissexism.

Furthermore, the “I like penis/vagina only” statement is only a testament to a lack of willingness to practice/learn good consent. It assumes your partner’s desire to share access to their genitals with you, and it assumes that you have no agency to set up a boundary between you and your partner sexually.