Beyond the Smokescreen: A More Nuanced Perspective on the Gender Debate

The Nature of Gender: Between Fluidity and Rigidity

The truth of what is being communicated regarding gender and language is, in many respects, different from the particular "culture war" debates that dominate the public square. It is a "common sense" viewpoint that you just are what you are, and people should not be punished for that traditional perspective. Yet, it isn’t "woke" to observe that gender is floating—it isn't simply reducible to anatomy or a single aesthetic characteristic.

Gender exists as a contested interplay:

• The Problem of Subjectivity: If gender is completely subjective, it loses all meaning. There must be some fixedness.
• The Problem of Fixedness: "Fixedness" often lays bare its own arbitrariness.
• The Linguistic Reality: Since gender cannot be systematized into a strict taxonomy, we are dealing with philosophical problems within language itself.

Beyond the Culture War Smokescreen

When discussing "what is gender?", the conversation often immediately pivots to restrooms, children, or women’s sports. While connected, these are often treated as an "ulterior motive" to avoid the social reality of the topic.

It is possible to recognize aspects of gender fluidity and the acceptance of people who don't fit the mold without requiring rigid acceptance of prefigured stances on complex issues. One can acknowledge the fluid nature of gender—which is visible in less extreme examples than the trans category alone—while maintaining:

• Skepticism of Medicalization: One can be skeptical of the "medical regime" around treatment for trans-identifying youth and recognize the need for caution regarding those with a shaky or confused self-identity.
• Resistance to Extremes: One shouldn't feel pressured to have an extreme stance. Viewing gender as "simply sex" appears as common sense but becomes an extreme stance under examination. Conversely, enforcing specific labels (like "Ze/Zer") often takes the form of a natural pathology.

The Practical Question: Sports and Restrooms

When it comes to culture war issues, the question should be: "How does this work in practice?" Simple dismissal of these concerns does not go over well, but we must introduce doubt into the "neat and tidy" answers offered by both sides.

On Women's Sports

Unless there is a direct safety issue requiring government regulation, sports institutions should work out women’s sports, not government mandates. A decision at the Olympic level is not going to foreclose the rights of nonbinary or trans people to operate in society. This acknowledges that even with a desire for inclusivity, there will always be boundaries, rules, and the potential for bias or mistakes in decision-making.

On Restrooms and Policing

The "bathroom issue" revolves around the ability to operate as gender-nonconforming in public. Policing bathroom usage has proven to be a bigger problem for both gender-conforming and nonconforming people than the alternative. While there are complexities in spaces like locker rooms—where not everyone is a "mature, discrete adult"—the goal should be a practical stance that recognizes the limits of any one position.

Psychic Defenses: Language and the "Excess" of Gender

I have been influenced by structuralist thought regarding language—specifically the idea that there is an "excess" that escapes signification. This is at the heart of why gender provokes such strong reactions. Because people use gender as part of their "meaning-making" apparatus, they feel a psychic need to grab hold of, categorize, and smooth over its inherent ambiguities.

The left and the right have developed competing psychic defenses against the destabilizing recognition that gender is neither wholly natural nor entirely constructed:

• The Right’s Strategy: This side often denies any fluidity as an existential threat to social order. By insisting gender is "simply sex," they attempt to eliminate the "excess" that escapes their categories and maintain a sense of fixedness.
• The Left’s Strategy: While the left critiques traditional norms, it often reinforces new ones through identity politics. In this case, gender ideas take the form of a "natural pathology"—where labels like "birthing people" or "Ze/Zer" are enforced to create a new, yet equally rigid, taxonomy.

Ultimately, both strategies reflect a desire to make gender "neat and tidy" while ignoring what doesn't fit their perspective. The intense emotion of the culture war is often the result of people trying to resolve a linguistic and social instability that language itself cannot fully capture. As I’ve noted, "fixedness" always lays bare its own arbitrariness, and these defenses are a way to avoid that realization.

The Integrated Perspective

The goal is to acknowledge the multifaceted nature of this issue without feeling the pressure to conform to an extreme stance. Whether it is sports, restrooms, or pronouns, one should be able to recognize gender fluidity and acceptance of those who don't fit the mold without requiring a rigid repetition of prefigured language.

The perspective that feels like "common sense" to me is a mixture of progressive and conservative coded answers, depending on the topic at hand. It is a recognition that when it comes to sex and gender, you are not going to please everyone; the complexity is worked out over time through practical application and the acknowledgment of human limits.

Conclusion: Gender as a Feature of Language

To understand absurdity as a feature of gender, as it is of language, and not as a bug, consider how we use words like "America" or "Punk." People say, "Yes, I know what that means," but when you get down to it, they are a bunch of associations.

"America" is associated with the U.S. and "freedom," but how many of those associations must be present for it to be "America"? Or "Punk"—is it a musical genre, a DIY politics, or an aesthetic? People will say someone's not a "real punk," but how many associations can be removed for it to still be punk?

Gender operates with a similar relationship with "excess." It is "absurd" because it involves a bundle of masculine or feminine norms, yet being a man or a woman cannot be pinned down to any one of these norms in particular. Much easier to point to sex and call it a day, but that's not how the social field or language work at all. This complexity is worked out over time; there are going to be ups and downs in practice, but we must acknowledge the multifaceted nature of how we signify in a language system that can never fully capture.

Article contains AI generated content. All articles undergo thorough personal curation and review*
Like others with this disclaimer, the article was put together from my own less structured notes (in some cases rough drafts).

In this particular case part of my prompt instructions were: "using as much of my own language as possible and without constructing new arguments, to organize my writings into a new structured piece."

I am careful to not generate and share content outside of the scope of my prior communicative intent. The disclaimer is included when a significant portion is produced with AI, for the sake of transparency and not taking undue credit above my role in production.