Look, Gender is Not a Spectrum And It Is Fluid

I attended the EuroGames Conference: Equality and Diversity in Sports, which was held in connection with the EuroGames 2016, during the Helsinki Pride Week, 27 June — 3 July 2016. “EuroGames is the largest multi-sport event for athletes, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation in Europe,” and the Conference included discussions and presentations focusing on gender and sexual minorities’ position in amateur and youth sports. In that conference, just like in numerous articles that I come across such as this one, I heard the statement again that “gender is a spectrum.” There is even a website, genderspectrum.org, on which they speak all about the spectrum.

In a nutshell, the widespread practice at the moment is so that the two terms “sex” and “gender” are used interchangeably, and there are two opposing views on how “gender” is defined: one that defines it as the so-called binary, meaning two fixed options: male/man and female/woman, and the other one that defines it as a spectrum, a continuum from male/man to female/woman and all that comes in between. Notice also, the interchangeability (or confusion, if you like) between male and man, and female and woman.

A few years ago, saying that gender was a spectrum made sense to me, too, but not anymore. Gender is more than what spectrum can provide and explain. Plus, there is a whole host of terms currently used to explain various aspects of human beings from “gender biology” to “gender identity” to “gender expression,” etc. traversing biology to sociology back and forth that I find rather confusing. They leave the weight of knowledge and understanding to the audience, which is unnecessary and avoidable. Here is how I understand and would explain biological sex, as well as gender and the link between the two, step-by-step.

Before I get down to gender, though, I would like to distinguish between “fact” and “reality” for the purpose of clarity. Facts are events that we cannot control or re-write. As an example, I was born in Tehran, the capital city of Iran. That is a fact and nobody can re-write that fact. Not at least at the moment, it is not within the realm of possibility (who knows, perhaps in 500 or 2000 years’ time?) So is the case with my dark, curly hair, for instance. Now, when it comes to facts, I don’t find the verb “to identify” quite befitting. Going back to my example, I cannot identify with being born, say, in Helsinki. It is possible to “like or dislike” the facts, for instance, and perhaps in the case of dislike, do something about them, too.

In the human society, on the other hand, we have “our created reality.” Here, everything is down to our ways of problem-solving and ultimately, decision-making. And I hope you agree with me when I say that here, everything is rather changeable, as well as questionable. In the case of my birthplace, a quick search will reveal that Iran is rather a new name for an Empire that was called Persia for thousands of years, that modern Tehran is just a few hundred years old, and it hasn’t always been the capital of the country, whichever way you may want to call it. Those are all our conventions, our reality created with our own hands so-to-speak, and we can decide to change them any time.

Now, when it comes to human beings, their sex, their gender, their identity, the way they perceive and present themselves etc., I would like to think that “facts” belong to the realm of “biology” whereas “our created reality” is explored within the realm of “sociology.”

Within the realm of “biology,” each individual human being is predominantly born either male or female. There is, however, a minority — about 1–2% of the humans — that is born with a condition that is NOT exclusively male or female. These individuals are intersex. Male, female and any variation of intersex comprise our “biological sex.” They are a part of “facts” and cannot be re-written but can certainly be liked or disliked and modified when and if possible. All this said, we can consider biological sex on a spectrum from variations of female, to variations of intersex, to variations of male. Yes, each of those has a spectrum of its own and none of them is singular.

Let’s now step into the realm of “sociology.” The most important issue to note here is that there are two fundamental sets of traits existing in each and every human being: masculine and feminine. Generally speaking, feminine is considered the expression of love — basically, traits, behaviours, motives, etc. in connection with an individual and all else: other humans, animals, and the environment — and is associated with qualities such as empathy, cooperation, nurture, patience and perseverance, flow and creativity. Masculine, on the other hand, is considered the expression of strength — basically, traits, behaviours, motives, etc. that are all about the individual — and is associated with qualities such as confidence, reason, discipline, independence, risk-taking, direction and focus.

Varying degrees of both feminine and masculine traits exist in each of us and together, they make up each individual’s gender: the way we know and present ourselves and are perceived in the society. Gender is a social construct defined by the two components of feminine and masculine and influenced by cultural expectations.

Gender is a social construct and simply means a combination of feminine and masculine traits

Here is where things get awkward with trying to visualise gender and human beings in a social context, on a spectrum. If I have a component of feminine, as well as a component of masculine in me, how are we locating me on a spectrum showing both of these components!? It’s impossible! A spectrum is essentially a line, a one-dimensional concept, showcasing two opposite directions and singular values. If we take masculine and feminine as the two directions on one line, this pits them against one another as opposites and moreover, each point on this line, meaning each human being in this case, can assume only one value, not two. What happens to the other component!?

Feminine and masculine traits are certainly not opposite one another but rather, independent from or complementary to each other. For that reason I would visualise human gender as a two‑dimensional concept and explore it across a plane, rather than a line, as the figure below shows. Here, the two components can easily be depicted.

What’s more is that the levels of these two components of masculine and feminine are not fixed in us. They change rather frequently with time, with place, with the environment and the people around, with the occasions and events we attend, our choice of clothing, and the tasks we are doing etc. etc. I am NOT a single, fixed dot on that plane. Rather, I transition from one position to another and move around on the plane based on the extent of masculine and feminine that I feel and exhibit at each point in time. In other words, gender is NOT a constant, it’s a fluid concept.

Sadly, what we see around is a few courageous individuals coming out every once in a while, seemingly going against the norm, asserting that they are gender-fluid, whereas the truth is that there is nothing rigid about gender because there is nothing rigid about the two components of masculine and feminine in any of us. So, it’s not like some individuals feel they are gender-fluid. Gender IS fluid, and so is everyone, period!

So, how do I map the two realms of biology and sociology in connection with human beings? The figure below provides a rough sketch. No matter what is our biological sex (either male, female or any variation of intersex) and whether or not we are happy with the fact or dislike it, as human beings in the society we perceive ourselves, present ourselves and are perceived by others as individuals with varying degrees of both feminine and masculine. We are all spread all over the plane. Remember: the dots on the plane, each showing one human being, are NOT fixed in their shown positions. We are all transitioning from one state to another, and quite frequently, too.

Now, where do “man” and “woman” fit into this picture? Like gender, those are social constructs, as well, and are explored under sociology.

Here are some final remarks:

• Woman as a social construct is a combination of feminine and masculine
• Man, too, as a social construct is a combination of feminine and masculine
• Women comprise half of the population that “statistically speaking” would be likely to exhibit more feminine than masculine.
• Men comprise the other half of the population that “statistically speaking” would be likely to exhibit more masculine than feminine.

• There is a high probability that an individual woman (I would call this a “socially‑existing woman,” so that we remember woman is a social concept) has been born female, as well. But this is not always the case. There are individuals born male (or intersex), who choose to go about their social lives as women.
• There is a high probability that an individual man (I would call this a “socially‑existing man,” so that we remember man is a social concept) has been born male, as well. But this is not always the case. There are individuals born female (or intersex), who choose to go about their social lives as men.
• Following the graphs above, when we say “women,” it presents an ocean of possibilities within the (masculine, feminine) coordinates, and so is the case with “men,” and so is our overall “gender”: It’s an ocean of varying degrees of masculine and feminine and hence, fluid. There is absolutely nothing binary, like 0 and 1, when we say men and women.
• All the same arguments go for girls and boys, as well. They, too, are social constructs, only for younger age.
• At this point in history, and staying purely within the realm of biology, I don’t believe a full transition from a naturally-born male to a naturally-born female is possible at the moment (who know? Perhaps in 200 years?) What is possible, though, is to transition between the two realms of biology and sociology, from a naturally-born male to a socially-existing woman, and from a naturally-born female to a socially-existing man, for instance.
• If we take the fluidity of gender in each and every one of us, meaning transitioning from one gender state to another, which means transitioning from, say, (masculine1, feminine1) state to (masculine2, feminine2) state and so on, then by definition of trans- we are all trans-gender. It’s just that there are different levels of transitioning, and different depths to the sentiments and decisions behind those transitions for each of us. Some individuals simply change their clothes, some decide to modify aspects of their face, and some others modify aspects of their biological sex, etc.

Overall, in the realm of sociology — and in an ideal world — there is no need to call ourselves men, women, fluid, queer, non-conforming, or anything. Rather, we only need to relieve ourselves and just know that we are all humans with two fundamental modes of behaviour. Benefits reside in creating balance between the two at the collective level. On the side of biology, on the other hand, it would be beneficial, as an example, for our doctors to know whether we are female, male, or a combination, to start with, so that they can make a move toward the proper treatment we each may need.