imagemap, 16k

Explorations into Self-Discovery Through Mythology, History and Science

(Winter, 1997)
The androgyne is stalking through the land. Men feel its shadow... cease to cling to their harsh, cramped male roles and persuasions.... Women it awakens to neat, icily defined new spaces, to precisely coordinated planes, into which they start calmly picking their way... (Zolla, 1981, p. 5)

In ancient times, those who fell outside traditional gender norms were frequently revered and respected, being given a special place in society. Many goddesses, such as Isis, Hera, Hekate, Demeter, Sabazius, Ma Enyo (also known as Bellona in Roman times), Ishtar and Aphrodite had male-born priestesses (Zola, 1981; Lansberry, J.).

Today, of course, things are a bit different. Not only are many transgendered individuals often treated with disdain and dislike because of their cross-sexed status, but in some cases we are treated as somehow less-than-human, something to be feared and maligned. Take, for example, the case of Tyra Hunter, a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual. Hunter was a passenger in a car which was hit by another vehicle. When emergency personnel arrived, they first tried to rescue Hunter, but when discovering non-female aspects of her anatomy, one rescuer stated "this ain't no bitch," and another said "look, it's got a cock and balls." As the firefighters stood around joking about Hunter's anatomy, they temporarily discontinued treatment, and she died while in their alleged care. (Hampton, 1995).

Wilber (1995) discusses integration and differentiation in human consciousness over time, speaking to the notion that at first science and spirituality were intertwined. For example, it was assumed, he notes, that the number of planetary bodies should somehow correspond to the number of human bodily orifices. But they became disconnected and differentiated. While Wilber speaks in his examples specifically to science and spirituality as opposed to gender and gender roles, but it is easy to apply the principles to gender. In ancient times, according to legend earliest forms of humanity were, in fact, androgynous, failing to differentiate between male and female. The earliest form of Judiac God, for example, was three-fold in its nature: the Father, the Mother and the Androgyne (son-daughter). The original Adam was presented as a creature neither male nor female, until God chose to split hir into male and female separate selves. Thus differentiation of gender occurred millennia ago (Zola, 1981).

However, with differentiation also came a denial of history and a refusal to accept the common ground from which the sexes derive. Polarization occurred, and we were brought into the notion that male and female are somehow opposite ends of the same pole. We've developed notions of gender which suggest that certain traits are somehow aligned with "maleness," (such as aggression, strength, domination, logic and precision) and "femaleness" (such as nurturing, submissiveness, and emotionalism). Even the studies which suggest that brain structures evolve differently between boys and girls do nothing to suggest that these differences are specifically hard-wired or genetic as opposed to environmental. (Reissl, A.L, Abrams, M.T., Singer, H.S., Ross, J.L & Dencklal, MB, 1996; Zhou, J., Hofman, M., Gooren, J.G. & Swab. D., 1995).

Yet we persist with the assumptions that there are things which are somehow inherently "male" and "female," to the point at which we're even willing to put a girl in a mental institution because she's not interested in wearing dresses or other supposedly "feminine" behaviors (Gideonse, 1997). The notions of sex-based behaviors and characteristics often ignore or run roughshod over the fact that environment can play a significant part in shaping our neurological development (Fausto-Sterling, 1985).

Part of these assumptions may, in fact, still be based on mythology and history. Corballis (1980) notes that a great many of our beliefs about how the hemispheres of the brain work tie in with Taoist beliefs about left- and right- sidedness. Yin, for example, is assumed to be related to passivity and "femininity" whereas Yang is related to activity and "masculinity," thus lending credence to a split-brain theory. Yet it's also clear that there is no significant difference between the brain hemispheres of those who tend to based their lives on what is assumed to be "right-brain" activity (such as sculptors) and "left-brain" activity (lawyers and mathematicians), though we still insist on drawing specific boundaries between one brain and another, relying on split-brain theories to explain a much more complicated system.

And, in fact, it's these systems which are at issue here. What we know about split-brain theory is that it relies on the notion that one part of the brain is centered around specific types of tasks (language, syntax and mathematics) and the other around very different tasks (spatiality, holism and intuition). It's interesting to note that we also tend to associate "femaleness" with right-brain activities (such as "women's intuition") and "maleness" with left-brain functions, such as linear-processing (Lott, 1994).

However, the split brains are not separate organisms. They do not have a natural boundary between them. They, instead, have constant and continual lines of communication. They are an integrated and interwoven system.



In a bipolar society it's easier to get along if we accept the definitions offered. We may even be denied hormones and surgery if we don't keep the water muddy. So, since the option of (O)ther isn't open to us, we declare as female. We change our sex on our drivers license, on our birth certificate, and on other important documents. If we don't, the world as we know it will come to end. (Lansberry, What Are We?)
When I first acknowledged my own transsexualism, I went through a period of feeling as though I needed to be as "feminine" as I possibly could. I wore lipstick, did my nails, wore skirts and dresses, etc. I tried to speak in a very soft and lilting voice and I tried to be demure.

This did not last very long. After a few weeks of this, I realized that while such behavior was likely to make me be more perceived as a woman to some, it was not an accurate measure or description as to who I was. I had become more of a parody of femininity than anything that was actually reflective of me. I was adapting to what I saw were social expectations of myself and my identity. Instead I started pulling back into more androgynous modes, but for years after that I was still convinced that the only "right" way to be transsexual was to be constantly reinforcing my womanhood, asserting my identity as a woman, and making it clear to everybody who and what I am.

This, however, didn't work particularly well either. I found myself intentionally discarding traits which I associated with "masculinity" (such as logic and precision). For awhile, this may have been useful, because it taught me to look more towards my emotional and artistic aspects. However, it also taught me for awhile to reject and ignore valuable skills.

It took me a few years to learn that these skills were important to me, and that when people accused me of being "too masculine" for being being able to defend myself well in an argument, that this wasn't a reflection of whether or not I was really a woman. I further began to realize, without understanding what it was at the time, that the shadow selves I had were much too important to disregard or ignore because of social expectations of gender and gender-based behavior.

Those expectations, however, have not always been a universal aspect of all societies. What's more, even in societies with very strictly defined terms as to what is appropriate gender-or sex-based behavior, a great deal of variation can take place outside of those expected norms. Foucault (1978), for example, notes that even during a very repressive period sexually (the Victorian era) a great deal of growth occurred which later made possible the development of new and more radical ideas about sexuality.

Contemporarily, this makes sense. Using Laszlo's paradigms, we have periods of stagnation (and possibly even oppressiveness) in which gender rigidity and adherence are part of the social fabric (such as the 1950's and the Reagan era), followed by periods in which there is rapid and chaotic change (such as the sexual revolution in the late 1960's and early '70's).

This fluctuation seems to be happening again-- after years of repression and rampant conservativism in the White House, we suddenly find ourselves in a situation in which the President of the United States is appearing at a Gay and Lesbian dinner, in which drag queens such as Ru Paul actually have their own talk show on VH1, and in which the "coming out" episode of Ellen, a nationally broadcast situation comedy, took the highest ratings of any show in the country.

In previous years, television shows that did display any aspects of cross-gender activity (such as "Barney Miller," "Soap" or "Night Court") did so mostly in a context which conflated homosexuality with transsexualism or transvestism. Movies which featured cross-sexed characters (such as "Dressed to Kill" and "Psycho") almost always portrayed them as villains and equated the trans-gender aspect of their personality with some sort of mental illness or derangement. Today we have a wide range of films and television shows (such as movies "The Crying Game" and "Priscilla: Queen of the Desert" and the television shows "Ally McBeal," "Chicago Hope" and "Picket Fences") which feature those who fall outside the mainstream of gender roles and/or identities in a more sympathetic and realistic light. This seems to be happening because after years of negative and unrealistic portrayals of transvestites and transsexuals by phobic movies and sensationalistic talk shows, suddenly a certain level of consciousness has developed. People are beginning to understand and respect alternate gender roles, and pop culture icons are finding it less and less problematic to display what were traditionally unacceptable variations of gender roles in the not-too-distant past.



The myth of Eros and Psyche... is one of... the divine principle of universal attraction... and the universal psyche... their blending is preceded by the torments of fermentation... (Zola, 1981, p. 45)
Where we are going from here is a very complicated question, and one that is not easily answerable. However, we have examples in history of powerful rulers who exhibited cross-gendered behavior, and seemed to have great success at it. King Ashurbanipal, for example, wore women's clothing much of the time and imitated "female" gestures and mannerisms. (Lansberry, L.) Hercules, a mythic character representative of extreme masculinity and power, while in the servitude of Queen Omphale, wore women's clothes and served as her consort during the night and found himself completely balanced at the end of the servitude (Zola, 1981).

In my own belief, it is not just balance which we are approaching, but a time of constant and creative flux, one in which the balance is not about maintaining a perfect constant mix of gender attributes, but one in which we pick and choose constantly from the various attributes which we need at a given time, regardless of the gender to which we've arbitrarily assigned them. For myself, this means not worrying about external expectations of gender, and disregarding those social norms which tell me that if I'm "serious" about being transsexual, I should wear lipstick, or get my ears pierced, or get my vocal cords surgically shortened to adopt a higher pitched voice. It means taking on roles which may sometimes be rigid and sometimes flexible, but primarily those roles which suit the situation best. It means not placing myself in the middle of specific spectra, but instead allowing myself to jump back and forth, to and fro, as the need suits me, across various traits and activities, calling my love and rage and hope and fear to whatever task I have before me.

In other words, it's not about gender. It's not about sex. It's not about being strong or weak. It's not about being rational or emotional. It's about that uniqueness of character, that complex intertwining of characteristics which can seem like complete opposites, but are really all just part of their own little system, interacting and bouncing off one another in synergistic glory, forming for myself that entire whole which is simply me.



References