It doesn’t surprise me that my first “real” post is actually a rant. This is about something close to me, close to all of us- language. Words are never “only” words; they are hugely important in expressing what we believe.
I’ll be sitting in class, in the lounge, or listening to conversation, when I hear something that makes me uncomfortable that I’ve visibly cringed upon the words being spoken. “Females” do this, or are that. And my personal favourite, “The female brain....” This may not seem like a huge deal, but if we look into it, if we consider this term as it is being said, we may realize how much power one word can have. I’m going to use the example “female” to illustrate the point I promise eventually will make. (I feel like this argument works with any other identity, but part of this rant came out of me when “female” was suggested as a noun during a conversation.) By saying “female” not only does it assume that female-ness somehow creates a homogenous group of people, it makes “female” a noun. (Females as a homogenous group is a whole other rant entirely- one that I probably will take up later on in this blog.)
A noun is a person, place or thing, as I assume you know. So, “females”... they certainly aren’t places or things... this leaves person. Females are obviously people. But when someone says “females” with no other terms, it seems like they’re saying that their sex is their entire identity. This is never true! Not remotely. These terms should be used as an adjective- describing something about a person. Sex, race, sexuality or any other identity can never be a full description of a person. If I tell you I’m female or white or 21, that gives you almost nothing to go on.
Sex as a noun allows for no other identity- it doesn’t consider the intersecting identities that come with our lives and experiences. As an adjective it lets us see that any one identity doesn’t define who we are, but that in most cases it merely describes a small part of our identity. In front of the “female”, other identities, roles and actions belong. I am never “only a female”, but I am white, fat, 21, secular, feminist, social constructionist, often confused and much more. All these words describe me, not define. I am all these things, all at once; my adjectives intersect, interact and bleed together every day. “Female” as a noun says a gender qualifies as a definition for a person. My sex barely begins to describe who, what, I am.
What does this have to do with “kids and sex”? From the moment a child is born, or often before, (thanks, technology), we assign an infant (or foetuses) with a sex, based on a set of genitals and reproductive organs. (Children who don’t fit the mold of male or female are surgically altered from their natural body to conform to society’s norm of a sexual dichotomy.) And instead of understanding these organs as biological, somewhere along the line, someone decided that sex determines a child’s gender; that their genitals are some kind of predictor of what they will be like socially.
So when we see a baby being brought into the world and exclaim, “It’s a boy!”, what we really mean is “it has a penis and testes!”. By labelling a person with a gender based on genitals, we are limiting their identity. The presence of a penis, or a vagina, or intersexual organs does not determine one’s personality or identities. Babies, like adults, are more than “female”, “male” or “intersex”. These words are merely adjectives for all people. I wish we’d stop limiting their identities by immediately thrusting children into dichotomous categories. I say dichotomous as intersex children are forced into one sex camp or the other, reinforcing the opinion that sex is somehow determine our fate, and is such a black and white noun. If we used male and female to describe children, rather than categorize and limit them, their lives as adults might not be sexually segregated. They would realize that their genitals, while maybe serving a purpose, are not the full extent of their identity. Classifying sex as an adjective and not noun would allow them to claim and identify with multiple and intersecting roles more easily.
That was my rant. I hope it was more coherent on paper (well, computer screen) than it seemed in my head at some points. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some boundaries to kick through.
