Congress Paper Abstract

Gender as (native) language of self-expression and communication

Sam Dylan More 

Email: more@fhi-berlin.mpg.de

Basis of the presentation is a linguistic definition of gender-identity: This term shall be axiomatically defined as a person’s preference for a certain pattern of communication and self-expression. Language - the tool of communication - shall be defined in a broad context, including not only words but also body-language and (body)aesthetics. Starting from this point, main focus is questioning and exploring the intrinsic difficulties of establishing and maintaining a functional interaction when transgender elements are added to the gender-pattern of communication. These difficulties do not involve only active (also legal) discriminations, but especially subconscious assumptions which are taken as valid and are not questioned by the communication-partner of the transsexual. They originate in the existence of socially accepted and commonly learned communication patterns between adults for only two genders. Language-patterns which vary from those or consist of a merge of these binary communication patterns are prone to misinterpretation. They are read as blurry, as ’mixed messages’ or as the inability or the hesitance to make a clear-cut decision. Subsequently the nontransgendered communication-partner may be confused, irritated or even feel offended. In order to escape the disadvantages of this situation, society both allows and indirectly demands a physical change e.g. surgical procedures. Quite contradictory, active discrimination and a removal of several civil rights is usually additionally part of that procedure. This combination is possible as transition to a more coherent presentation is also the goal of most transsexual men and women and can be understood as tool to enable a more functional communication.

However the extent of this transition, the archived adaptation and the willingness to submit oneself to a surgical intervention varies from person to person and so does - not necessarily depending on the degree of passability - society’s acceptance. Too often stigmatization and prejudices are based singularly on the knowledge that in some time in the past a transition has occurred. As our society predominately defines gender on the basis of the genitals which were present at birth, transition is encountered with fundamental disbelief. Changing that approach could lead to more acceptance of transsexual citizens. Perceiving gender as language has its advantages in this situation and could reduce discrimination and it’s origin: the fear of non-transsexual people that the transition is a reversible, non-stable or pathological behavior which cannot be trusted on as a basis for civil communication. Society, however, has a relative uncomplicated approach to both the phenomena of ’genuine’ bilinguality or the right of citizens to their own native language. Parallels can be also drawn to the formation of dialects and the acquisition of second (foreign) languages. Perceiving gender as communication preference could therefore reduce the stigma and help towards the goal of a future understanding of transsexuality as a normal variance of human expression. Limitations of this approach, however, exist and are demonstrated on the example of the difficulties of western people exhibit when dealing with people from Asiatic cultures.

Previous abstract

Next abstract