Primer: Part Mezzanine

This is a continuation of Primer: Transgenderism and Its Legal Implications in Malaysia and is not quite Part 2. Yet.

PART MEZZANINE: MORE SEX BITS

Connecting The Dots/Blocks

I lost my plot somewhere towards the end of Part One.

I’ve said that it’s important that we define the nature of relationships. Isn't this obviously counter to the argument that problems arise precisely when we insist on definitions?

I’ll clarify.

Labelling is important. Fundamental to our very nature as rational beings is the need to investigate and make sense of our world. Where we see dots, we need to draw lines through to connect them. Definitions are the product of that process.

Where we go horribly wrong is our insistence that every describable object/phenomenon must fit into the limited moulds that exist within our comprehension, instead of considering additional moulds.

Most of us are familiar with this particular toy from babyhood – a plastic hollow ball into which blocks of different shapes and sizes are inserted, via correspondingly sized/shaped holes. That’s our very first lesson in pigeonholing. How many children have been gently but firmly reprimanded for not putting the correct blocks into the corresponding holes?

What the child is probably thinking is -

“This yellow”

“Yellow go in ball with other yellow”

What adults ingrain into the child is this -

“This is a square yellow block”

“A square yellow block can join other yellow blocks ONLY IF it goes in via the square hole”

Then there are those astute children who, deciding that they can’t fit the square block into the round hole, just pry open the ball and dump the block in. There is hope yet.

Just because a block can’t fit into the pre-set holes doesn’t mean that it doesn’t belong with the other blocks in the ball. We have to understand that the qualities that make the block irregular do not - MUST NOT - detract from the fact that the yellow block is nevertheless a yellow block. In order to understand, we must confront the nature of those qualities, instead of discarding the block solely on the basis of its being irregular.

Sexual Identity In Three Easy Steps

To recap, I think that there are three major components to a person’s sexual identity. There may be more, but that will require further thought and research. For the moment -

Sexual Identity is a combination of biological sex and sexuality.

Biological Sex being the first component, Sexuality provides the other two; 2) Gender Expression (your expressed acceptance of your mind and body as a whole) and 3) Genital Preference (what kind of genitals attract you sexually).

Your birth certificate records your Biological Sex at the time of birth based on the little bits down there. For most people, this very first label in a lifetime’s worth of pigeonholing will not be a big deal. One is either “male” or “female”. Fixed at birth.

What does one do with an intersex baby? Parents and doctors choose which sex THEY think is best for the baby. Either male or female. No lain-lain business here.

Society then takes over and determines your place on the playground of life. The type and colour of the clothes you wear, the toys you get, the way you play, the kids you play with. Your socialisation depends on whether or not you’re a little boy or a little girl. Enter the second component - Gender Expression.

Masculinity and femininity are expressions of gender expression. Socially, we’ve come to base gender on biological sex to the point that both concepts have become interchangeable. Sex = Gender = Male. Gender expression for equation must therefore be Masculine.

The limitations inherent in the dichotomy of biological sex becomes apparent when gender expressions are inconsistent with the Sex = Gender pairing.

Sex = Male. Gender also assumed = Male.
But he’s a sissy! --> Gender expression = Feminine

Sex = Female. Gender also assumed = Female.
But she’s such a tomboy! --> Gender expression = Masculine

Obviously, masculinity and femininity are expressions of a variable scale. The more the slider shifts towards the opposite gender expression from one’s biological sex, the more likely to be called effeminate or butch. Gender expression is therefore fluid.

(Off-tangent – notice how “Mummy’s Boy” is often given a negative connotation whereas “Daddy’s Girl” has an almost indulgent affection to it? Coincides with how male-ness is prized over female-ness).

Baby's all grown up. Ready for sex. And here's where the third component of sexual identity comes in - Genital Preference.

Take this scenario. You walk into a room. A couple are having sex. Oh, looky, there’s a penis. And over there - no penis. Aha! Hetero! Must be a man and a woman under those sheets.

Discretely you exit the room. Later, the door opens and out come XY, in a fabulous dress, and her equally stunningly be-dressed wife.

Oik? Mak datuk, lesbians pulak!?

Buhbuhbut… I saw…???

Penis + Vagina = Heterosexual. Same-Bits + Same-Bits = Homosexual. Right?

XY is a biological man. By living and dressing as a woman and choosing to be referred to as she, her, Ms, XY expresses one aspect of her gender as feminine. In choosing not to deny her maleness by declining to amputate her penis or to reconstruct her chest and to take female hormones, XY expresses her gender and sexuality as also masculine.

XY transcends both genders, denying their dichotomy whilst embracing them both.

Assuming that XY isn’t sexually attracted to men, is she heterosexual, since she has a penis and likes to have a vagina on receiving end? But she presents herself and lives as a woman. Is her wife therefore homosexual?

Clearly, XY challenges society’s practice of classifying homo/hetero sexuality as a personal characteristic. My submission is that this classification is flawed.

I believe that society in general has lost the plot by associating genitals with sexuality, to the exclusion of gender expression.

1) Sex = Genitals = Gender

2) Sexuality = Gender = Sex = Genitals


As I pointed out at the beginning, my formula differs as follows-

1) Sex = Anatomy

2) Gender = Gender Expression = expressed behaviour as personality emerges and consolidates

3) Sexual Identity = Sex + Sexuality

where

Sexuality = Genital Preference + Gender Expression

Therefore:-

Gender Expression = Sexuality (in terms of your acceptance of your mind’s and body’s sex) MINUS Genital Preference.

Whether you see yourself as male or female, or both, or a little bit here, a little bit there and a little bit country, the fact is - your gender expression does not dictate what kind of sex you like. Just because the two do happily coincide most of the time doesn't necessarily mean that they can't as easily not.

The terms homosexual and heterosexual is therefore only useful as a description of your Genital Preference as a reflection of ONE aspect of your sexual identity.

Phew. I hope that's clarification. I’ll amend Part One of this primer as necessary in view of the above, later.

Part Two, the law bits, will again have to wait because the muse in my brain got my mental knickers in twists during the coffee break.