Gender & Sexuality; The Danger of the Binary Approach

In today’s society, there is a huge importance placed on how we sexually identify ourselves to the world. This predominant heteronormative ideology that exists in North America and many parts of the world has an enormous effect on how we view, understand and learn about our sexualities . For the most part, sexuality is understood to be binary; people are either heterosexual (presumed) or homosexual (identified). While other labels do exists these two labels prevail and are the most widely recognized.

---

Disclaimer: this page seeks to explore some of the ways in which individuals working within the predominant heteronormative binary experience discrimination. Please visit these pages for information about non-binary groups and the ways in which they experience discrimination:

• Asexual
• Bisexual
• Genderqueer
• Queer
• Polysexual
• Pansexual
• Gray Asexuality
• Androphilia and Gynephilia

While these new labels have and are being created in an attempt to reflect different sexualities that cannot be encompassed by the heterosexual or homosexual label “it remains debatable whether they transcend the straitjacket of sexual and gender dimorphism”

Definitions

Gender

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3] People who do not identify as men or women or with masculine or feminine gender pronouns are often grouped under the umbrella terms non-binary or genderqueer. Some cultures have specific gender roles that are distinct from "man" and "woman," such as the hijras of South Asia. These are often referred to as third genders.

Sexuality

Van den Berg’s defines sexuality as: “sexuality involves the things people do, think and feel that is related to their sexual desires”
Sexuality has been traditionally understood through one of two lenses: biological essentialism or social constructionism. Whilst social constructionism identifies external forces as the determinant of an individual's sexuality, biological essentialism focus on the internal factors such as “genes, hormones and brain anatomy” ). These two approaches are in constant conflict: “social constructivist scholars have taken biological determinism to task by emphasizing that such an approach to gender and sexuality is simplistic and reductionist" .
Moreover, they have pointed out that biological determinism serves the interests of patriarchal ideologies These very different ways of understanding sexuality do however have one main commonality in that they both are currently used to enforce the dominant heterosexist way in which we currently understand sexuality .

Binary

Binary in this context refers to societies system of dividing people into one of two categories.
The predominant gender binary, in this case, is the idea that an individual fall into one of two possible genders: female or male, attributed based on the shape of the individual's genitalia .
The binary in relation to an individuals sexuality infers that an individual is either heterosexual or homosexual.

Patriarchy

Van den Berg draws on Butler and Foucault’s ideas of power and inequality stating that these cultural constructs (labels) support the inequalities that exist between men and women in the form of patriarchy.

Intersectionality

Drawing on Bell Hooks' definition, intersectionality is the idea that .....

Dangers of the Binary

Facts

We often forget that these labels/sexual identities that we assimilate to have not always existed and are not permanent. People wrongly assume that the term homosexuality has always existed, when in fact it is still a relatively new label (Iudici & Verdecchia 738). It is important to understand that the labels we take on/ are assigned are ““… not wholly owned by the person to whom it is attributed, but it resides in the normative-symbolic structure and in the rules that govern the interaction” (Iudici & Verdecchia 739).

Limitations

There seems to be a general consensus that if we hope to ever fix the limitations being set on all of our sexualities especially women and marginalized groups sexualities we must first begin by deconstructing this patriarchal heteronormative ideology. It is important to understand that there are major implications for everyone when we begin to attribute “sexuality to genetic, cultural or existential condition” (Iudici & Verdecchia, 738).
These constructs Van den Berg goes on to argue prohibit our sexual freedom in that they fail “ to give an adequate account of the ways in which we live and experience our sexualities”(Van den Berg, 386).
In order to understand these implications, we need to take a closer look at the problematic results of attributing any one of these things as a means to explain an individual sexuality. Historically it is clear why genetic and biological explanations for homosexuality are problematic. Take the example of the homosexual identity and how it was attempted to be explained through biology, this lens allowed homosexuality to be understood and interpreted by some as a disease, which attached a shameful stigma to the homosexual label (Iudici & Verdecchia 738). Although it is no longer popular belief that homosexuality is a form of sickness, this shameful stigma remains prevalent. In Iudici & Verdecchia article: "Homophobic Labeling In The Process Of Identity Construction" they examine the role the labeling process plays in homosexuals identity construction, with special attention paid to homophobia (Iudici & Verdecchia 737). It is important to understand the different way in which homophobia exists and are being discussed. Homophobia, as explained by Iudici & Verdecchia, is based on the “prejudice manifested through disgust and hostility towards gays and lesbians” (Iudici & Verdecchia 740). Iudici & Verdecchia elaborate how this homophobia can be felt by homosexuals themselves, they refer to this as “internalized homophobia”. Internalized homophobia can lead to extreme depression, substance abuse, suicide, etc. (Iudici & Verdecchia 740). Internalized homophobia can be understood as a form of self-surveillance as discussed by Foucault (Wiebe), it has a large effect on the identification process “corresponding to difficulties in terms of acceptance and self-awareness”(Iudici & Verdecchia 741). It is also very important to recognize the ways in which labeling can be useful for “activating movements, opinions, and discussions that have involved civil society, politics, institutions, and science”(Iudici & Verdecchia 738). The discourse surrounding labels seems to suggest that overall labeling does more harm to an individual's sexuality than good. The labels currently at our disposal appear to be more restrictive to an individual’s sexuality due to its ingrained sense of determinism and the fact that they have little consideration for how an individual's sexuality can change over time.

The Importance of Intersectionality

It is clear that there is a need to rethink the way in which we understand sexuality. It is being suggested that we should attempt to understand sexuality more as something fluid and changing. Youdell in her article "Sex–Gender–Sexuality: How Sex, Gender, And Sexuality Constellations Are Constituted In Secondary Schools" proposes that “sex, gender, and sexuality are constituted in constellations that open up possibilities and set limits for ‘who’ a student can be”(Youdell*, 249). In this way, she agrees with Van den Berg who suggests “that we abandon the heterosexual/homosexual divide” because they prohibit us from understanding sexuality as a “fully embodied process”(Van den Berg, 399, 385). This need for “linguistic labeling” as Iudici & Verdecchia puts it is “both a lack of consideration of possible changes inside the path and a lack of importance attributed to the active role of the individual in building his/her sexual orientation”(Iudici & Verdecchia 738-739). The general consensus seems to be that this labeling ignores the importance of the individual's experiences in its attempt to generalize and classify their unique sexuality/sexual experiences into a single label (Iudici & Verdecchia 741). It is being suggested that if instead we are able to understand that “gender and sexuality are fluid and ambiguous and because of their complexity, they cannot be reduced to single definitions”(Van den Berg, 386) we will be freed from societal constraints which will hopefully allow us then to better understand our own sexualities. The general consensus suggests that while sexuality and gender need to both be understood as fluid and ambiguous they should not be understood as one in the same. Van De Berg proposes that instead, we understand the body “as an open project”, he arrives at this idea with the help of Merleau-Ponty’s idea that “‘the world which is given in perception is the concrete, intersubjectively constituted life-world of immediate experience’ and it is through this experience that we have the idea of being’ (Merleau-Ponty 1964:xvi, 17)”(Van den Berg). Van den Berg goes on to explain that he uses “the phrase ‘the body as open project’ to mean that all human beings have the power for agency and meaning-making, and even though our choices are constrained by existential, historical, cultural and political situations, our bodies are never determined and fixed”(Van den Berg, 390). Similar ideas are being put forward by other researchers and academics, although Van den Ber has given this concept his own name. The central idea that these labels and social construct are not “given aspects of the human existence”(Van den Berg, 388) seems to be being recognized more and more. This rethinking of these labels does not just have a liberating effect on the homosexual label but for every label including the heterosexual label. It is suggested that these labels, especially the heterosexual label are being used to camouflage individuals sexual ambiguity. Furthermore, if we are able to shift our understanding of sexuality, to something that is ambiguous and individual to a person's lived experience we will, in turn, become freer (Van den Berg, 390). Van den Berg goes on to explain in his article that our current approach to understanding/defining sexuality is from a third-person ontology which is highly problematic seeing as sexuality is a uniquely lived experience and no two individuals experience it in the same way. Additionally, he suggests that if we were to take on a first-person approach to defining and understanding sexuality we would quickly lose a need for these labels altogether and instead would value our differences rather than trying to disregard and homogenize them. It is clear that gender and sexuality are undeniably influenced by socio-cultural and historical forces but it is being argued that they are equally influenced by an individual’s lived experience. It is worthwhile including Van den Berg thought that “the acknowledgment of non-normatively gendered people is crucial for our understanding of humanity as transcending the homosexual/heterosexual divide”(Van den Berg, 400).
My essay allowed me to explore the problematic nature of the homosexual and heterosexual label, which in turn allowed me to investigate the problematic nature of labeling itself. Through my investigation of this need for labeling one's sexuality, I was able to uncover the deeply rooted heteronormative patriarchal ideology that defines these labels. This heteronormative patriarchal power that in many ways controls how we understand our sexuality is highly problematic in that it is constructed in order to maintain the patriarchy and continue to suppress women. My research reinforced some of my personal thoughts on sexual identity that I’ve recently been engaging with. A strength of my articles was that they all seemed to echo each other in their belief that labeling was either harmful, restrictive or not the answer. While the articles investigated this idea in different ways they collectively created a strong sense that we need to rethink the way we understand and identify sexualities. Another strength of my articles was that several, if not all referenced Foucault and Judith Butler whose ideas are foundational to how we understand sexuality and gender. This was however also a weakness of my articles for they could have engaged more with the less dominant voices that exist in the sexual identity discourse. A weakness that I identified in all the articles but especially Van den Berg’s article was that the discussions taking place are primarily theoretical with little indication of how we should begin to deconstruct the patriarchal heteronormative ideology that is prevalent in how our society understand sexuality. It is clear that deconstruct the heteronormative view of sexuality is fundamental to creating more sexual freedom but more research needs to be done on how we can begin to actually do this. I would also like to see more research that questions how we move away from labeling of sexual identities. I would be specifically interested in the know whether the move towards an increase in labeling and over classifying would be what is needed to move away from labeling altogether.