We're All A Little Queer

The term ‘genderqueer’ gives an identity to those who don’t fit in the boundaries of our societal binaries of male/female and subsequent masculinity/femininity.  Most of us are familiar with the gender hierarchy as males having more power than females – they and any others outside of the dichotomy are marginalized in many aspects of life. Genderqueer as a concept is intended to knock this vertical hierarchy of ‘male-female-other’ down to a horizontal playing field so that oppressed people may become equal in power and politics.

            Riki Wilchins would agree that dismantling the language we use that perpetuates binary powers is key for genderqueer individuals. In her chapter Queerer Bodies – Two’s a Crowd, Wilchins describes that within the male/female binary women are always genderqueer. She believes that each binary is truly about the one ‘thing’ that carries more weight or power in society (male/masculinity/heterosexuality), and the other term consists of the absence of good traits or the absorption of bad traits. So the others who don’t fit in the binary itself are even more marginalized than the second term of the binary (duh!), transphobic legislature in the US being a good example of that.

            Promoting genderqueer as an identity is problematic – the idea is to move away from gender labels, but understanding the concept gets us one step closer to becoming a more inclusive, non-dichotic society regarding gender and bodies. The query here is how can we get the word out without reincarnating another categorized system of gender with more names and more labels and a more complex hierarchy of power? We can’t just not talk about it, right? Wilchins clearly suggests a change in the system is necessary, but doesn’t propose any route by which we might get there.

            ‘Genderqueer’ poses a unique paradox that makes this question difficult to answer, but taking a closer look at our bodies may give us insight as to how binaries affect our thinking. For example, why would curvy women in our society see their bodies as undesirable? I would argue that the current feminine ideals for women are being thin and dainty, and therefore, discourse is created with females whose body types do not come close to the ideal. Many women thus feel marginalized by their shape and push back, defying social norms. We can see in the media now that many women express their gender by accentuating their curvature – Kim K’s plump booty is iconic with the press, and plus-sized models are becoming more and more common in industry. Body ideals can be seen as relative from this perspective and continuously changing, but the gender attached to the ideals remains as the consistent base off of which these molds are made.

            The construct of gender provides the foundation for us to create body ideals for each sex. From these ideals comes discourse when the body does not fit the mold, and individuals are forced to conform or push back, attempting to defy and ultimately change the ideal to another form that creates discourse or anxieties for others. The foundation isn’t questioned in most cases. But, if we use the example of body shape ideals to show the flawed foundation of gender, that might get us somewhere! Questioning ‘real’ genders, male and female, is far too broad for the majority of people in our society to comprehend – imagine trying to explain genderqueer to that old, confederate uncle we all wish we had.

            Of course, body image is mostly related to women within our society, but I believe it has the potential to change discussion for genderqueer individuals as well. There’s an official Body Image Movement that embraces all body types and physical diversity (woman-focused). I would consider this a step in the right direction, with the deficit of promoting one gender over the others.

            The idea is to start somewhere widely relatable but not too abstract and expose the erroneous system that is the cause for so many types of discourse present in our society. We must begin to see that our oppressions are universal and we all face some form of conflicting beliefs or behaviors, whether it be the color of your skin, the gender you want to sleep with, or the way you do your hair. Relational thinking allows us to link these experiences in order to understand how others think and feel.

            The differences among humans are vast and unpredictable. Unfortunately, this causes anxieties among people who are taught to believe in one Truth – their own. Realistically, there are many truths that vary from person to person, and these truths should not be thought to be wrong or one better than the other. We each have our own unique qualities, beliefs, genders, and bodies that stand as truths internally, so doesn’t that mean we’re all queer, in a way?