The concept of gender fluidity is as obvious as the sun is warm. Even without factoring in transgender, nonbinary, Two-Spirit, and other more contemporary gender-diverse identities and expressions, the fluid and malleable nature of human individuality has been observed and recorded in stone, on papyrus, in art, books, film, and memory throughout history.
When we use the word “tomboy” to describe a girl or young woman who doesn’t conform to feminine behavioral norms, we authenticate the existence of gender fluidity. In attributing the insult “sissy” to a boy who doesn’t conform to stereotypes of masculinity, we acknowledge and authenticate gender fluidity, while simultaneously trying to shame the ‘transgressor’ into more comformative behavior.
In the socially affirming (and archaic) use of the term “metrosexual,” we created space for male-identified, supposedly heterosexual men who were more fastidious about their appearance than was expected under the “real men don’t care how they look” archetype.
It seems to me that the problem patriarchy dominated societies have with gender fluidity (aka gender diversity) isn’t so much one of rejecting the abundant evidence of fluid expression within cultures shackled by constructed gender stereotypes. The objection is, instead, that these natural and increasingly visible transgressions of religious extremist misogyny interrupt and threaten the present and future maintenance of the patriarchy, which is entirely dependent on restrictive binary definitions of “who and what is a man?” and “who and what is a woman?”.
Embracing the reality of natural gender fluidity renders both of those questions irrelevant in the extreme, and by extension deconstructs the gender binary once and for all.
– Jenn Burleton
by Dr. Karuna Kapil
Over time, the system says:
They are not “men who are not men” or “women in disguise.”