Twelve years ago I completed a Master’s degree in Computer Science. Towards the end of my academic career a new concept was taking hold in my newly chosen field. This concept was known as "Object Oriented Programming and Design." Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to study this new paradigm. My tenure at school was over, my spouse at that time had just given birth to my daughter, and it was time to get a job. I watched with trepidation over the years as, is so often the case in my profession, this new technology became the status quo.
Two years ago, I decided it was time to update my skills and learn object oriented programming. So I enrolled at a local college to take a course in Java programming. Java is a relatively new object oriented programming language and unlike it’s object oriented cousin, C++, it was designed from scratch. Consequently, it models the object oriented approach more correctly.
For those of you who are not familiar with the concept, object oriented programming attempts to define solutions to problems in terms of abstract objects, sometimes called classes. Associated with an object is information (data) and operations (methods) that can be performed on that object. The details of how that object works are hidden from the "outside world." In a sense, the object, or class, knows how to interact with "the rest of the world" and, consequently, appears intelligent.
One of several important features of object oriented programming is that a new object can be created using an existing object as a starting point. In this case we say that the new object "inherits" from the existing object. The relationship between the two objects is referred to as the "IS A" relationship.
For example, if I asked you to describe a duck, you would probably start out with something like "A duck is a bird that floats." Assuming I know what a bird is, this tells me a lot more about a duck than simply that it floats: it has hollow bones, feathers, lays eggs. Of course, a Robin is also a bird, but Robins and ducks are different in several ways: diet, natural habitat, and so on. By telling you that "a duck is a bird that…" I have, in a short sentence, conveyed a tremendous amount of information.
Now consider the "object" called "bird." There is no creature we call bird. There are robins, sparrows, finches, sea gulls and so on, but there is no instance in the real world of "bird." A bird is a somewhat abstract concept.
Sometimes (most of the time) we play fast and loose with the language. For example, we may be walking through the forest and see some movement in the branches above us. We say "Look, there’s a bird." What we really meant was "Look, there is an animal that is a bird," or, more correctly, if we know the species, "There’s a woodpecker." However, we would never say "there is a woodpecker that is a bird" because we would consider this redundant.
So there you have a short primer on Object Oriented Programming. What does this have to do with gender?
People are natural labelers. From the time our species first began to speak, we labeled everything we saw. Originally, these simple labels improved communication. As our knowledge base grew, our labels became more complex, encapsulating more and more information and meaning. At times, the very meaning of the label would change because our knowledge base had grown. No longer did "the earth" conjure images of the back of a giant turtle. It came to mean a globe travelling through the universe. Now, at times, these elaborate labels stand as a barrier to communication.
And in our media saturated, media driven culture, where the sound bite rules and sarcasm substitutes for discourse, labels are replacing information and meaning. They have become a way of communicating less. The label is the message, rather than the idea the label represents.
Returning to the object oriented model, we typically say something like "Mary is a woman who…" We would never say "Mary is woman…" We might say "I saw a woman who…" but what we mean is "I saw a person who is a woman…" There is no instance of woman in the world. Only people who are women. Like the Robin and the Sparrow, Mary extends the meaning of the word woman in ways that only Mary can, ways that are different from any other person we say "is a" woman.
Yet, when we say we saw a woman, what exactly did we see? Was the person naked, allowing us to see breasts and a vagina? Most likely not. Most likely we saw other clues that lead us to conclude that that person was a woman: perhaps it was a hair style, clothing, the presence of makeup on the face, painted finger nails, the way they walked.
We say "I saw a woman who…" because it’s easier than saying "I saw a person wearing a blue dress and black high heels, red lipstick, long brown hair and earrings who…" Yet we know that this second description could also describe a man. In this case, what we really saw was "a man who was dressed like a woman, who…"
For the most part, the characterization of the person as "a man" or "a woman" when communicating is probably irrelevant. If we said "I saw a man who was giving birth to a child…" obviously something is wrong with this picture. I could say "I saw a person giving birth…" and you would assume it was a woman. Try saying it out loud. The word person doesn’t sound right. I could say "I saw a person holding a flower…" but in order for you to form an image, you would ask if the person were a man or a woman. If I said "I saw a person wearing a white dress holding a flower…" you wouldn’t ask me if it was a man or a woman. I have described an image to you, not a person, and I have placed some kind of image in your mind now. Probably not the same image I have, which is probably not the same as what was really there when the image took form in my mind.
Confused? You should be. You can be even more confused if you start to use the words masculine and feminine. When we use these words, we characterize a person’s behavior and attributes, mostly by formulating generalizations about an abstract class ("men" or "women") and then assigning a person to one class or the other.
An important difference between taxonomy and stereotyping is that there are no exceptions in the taxonomical approach. If we say birds lay eggs, then an animal that gives birth live is not a bird. It is not said to a bird that is the exception to the rule.
It is one thing to say that a certain behavior was observed in 77 percent of all men tested. That's an empirical result. It is an all together different matter to say that a person will probably exhibit that behavior because that person is a man. It’s even more dangerous to treat that person a certain way because we believe they are likely to exhibit that behavior. It’s one thing to say that a large percentage of women do not take up auto mechanics as a hobby or profession. It’s a different matter if you go around saying women can’t fix cars, or that it’s not "lady like" for a woman to work on a car.
The difference is whether you believe, as most conservative Christians do, that gender is biologically determined, or that gender is a social and cultural construct, as most feminist believe.
We label certain behavior as being masculine or feminine. But do we label people as being masculine or feminine? How many masculine behaviors do I have to exhibit in order to be considered masculine? How many masculine behaviors do I have to exhibit to "cancel out" each feminine behavior I exhibit? When changing a flat tire is no longer labeled a "guy thing" will the women who have always changed their own tires be considered more feminine because they engage in fewer masculine behaviors?
See, it doesn't work.
Recently, I was having dinner with a crossdressing friend who was telling me about a meeting of the local Tri-Ess support group. Apparently, one of the attendees complained about a conversation taking place that revolved around hunting. The two members involved in the conversation went hunting together often (in male drag). The complaint took the form of "Why do the conversations always revert to ‘guy talk’?"
But here’s the point: one of the hunters was at the meeting with her wife, who also enjoys hunting. The catch is, this "real woman" (or "GG" or whatever other label you like) is allergic to makeup, so she never wears any. Had the conversation been about foundation or eye shadow, this "real girl" would have been left out. As it was, she was an active part of the conversation on hunting.
So what exactly is "guy talk"? Is it "guy talk" when a woman talks about a football game? I actually watched football one season because I was dating a woman who was a New York Giants fan. I’m so ashamed…
Is it girl talk when two men discuss brands of pantyhose? Or how to apply eyeliner straight? Is it feminine for two men to discuss the problems of finding a baby sitter? Is it "unmanly" for a father to leave work early because his child is being sent home from school with a fever? Or to take a day off from work to chaperone a school field trip?
It is widely believed that men and women are different. But I would suggest this: that men and women have far more in common than they have differences. We just tend to talk more about the differences. Pop culture is so much more, well, popular when it focuses on the differences between men and women. How else could two otherwise unremarkable housewives write, in the 1990s, a best-seller about the rules for finding a man. How else can we explain John Gray?
When crossdressers discuss how to "act like a woman" they express outwardly their own, individual notion of what it means to be a woman. Sometimes they attempt to create the kind of woman they would like to be with, rather than the kind of woman they would like to be.
I think it is a serious error for crossdressers to get wrapped up in what it means to be a woman, or how women should act, look, walk, talk or sit. Women can’t answer these questions for themselves, either individually or as a group. Why should crossdressers think they can do a better job? It brings to mind the story of the four blind men who each grabbed a different part of the elephant in an attempt to identify it.
We should, instead, think in terms of the kind of woman we each want to be. Is there a woman you would like to emulate? Do you have a role model? What does it mean to you, as an individual, for you to be a woman? Does it mean to be helpful and caring? Does it mean to be supportive and nurturing? Does it mean to be sexy and erotic? Would you sacrifice your pride or dignity or self-respect if you were told that that is what it means to "be a woman"? Would you become passive and defer to others because this is what is expected of women?
Although most people spend most of their lives doing it, striving to live up to other people’s expectations of us generally does not result in a framework for long-term happiness and well being. When we perceive other’s opinion of us to be low, our own self-esteem plummets, and we expend precious energy striving to win the approval of others, usually to no avail.
It would be more productive to strive towards living up to our own expectations for ourselves, to strive to be the person we want to be, rather than the person we think others want us to be.
