Here is my claim. And by the way, this is about to get a little theoretical so if you’re hoping for empirical data, you’re in the wrong place. Check out Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson for a lesson in cherry-picking.
Gender is derived through subjectivation - a process of oppression which forms subjectivities.
Subjectivation, as conceptualized by Michel Foucault, is a complex process that involves the formation and transformation of subjectivities within society. Foucault's work challenges traditional notions of the self as a stable and coherent entity, instead emphasizing the dynamic and contingent nature of subjectivity.
At its core, subjectivation refers to how individuals come to understand themselves, their identities, and their place within society through various discourses, practices, and power relations. Foucault argues that subjectivation is not simply a matter of individuals exercising agency or being subjected to external forces, but rather a complex interplay between power and knowledge that shapes how individuals perceive themselves and others.
One key aspect, which Foucault emphasizes is the interdependence of power and knowledge in shaping subjectivities. Power operates through various discourses, institutions, and practices, while knowledge serves as a mechanism of control and regulation. Subjectivation occurs through the dissemination and internalization of these power/knowledge systems.
Subjectivation is heavily influenced by discourses—systems of language, symbols, and representations—that circulate within society. Discourses define what is considered normal, acceptable, or deviant, and individuals internalize these norms as they construct their identities.
But this has nothing to do with biological sex.
Here are the reasons why I believe that identity has nothing to do with biological sex:
Reason 1: Our Connection to Our Physical ‘Self’ is Disrupted During the Formation of Self and Other
Biological sex, or as a matter of fact, all biology or biological functioning is pretty much irrelevant to our interpersonal relations, intentions, or choices (outside of reproduction). We are animals - sure - but we are also conscious - meaning we have a consciousness - meaning we are subject to awareness of the separation of self and other. Which adds a whole new dimension of ‘fuckedupness’ to our experience and self-perception.
Just ask Jacques Lacan.
His concept of the "mirror stage" sets out to understand the development of the human psyche and the formation of the ego or "I". According to Lacan, the mirror stage occurs during a critical period of an infant's development, usually around six to eighteen months of age.
During this stage, the infant recognizes their own reflection in a mirror or another reflective surface. Lacan argues that this moment is significant because it marks the infant's first encounter with their own image as a whole, unified entity. This experience is pivotal because it contrasts with the infant's fragmented bodily experience up to that point. A disconnection to the body takes place which is replaced by the mirror image as a ‘self’ and, thereby, begins the formation of identity.
The recognition of the unified image in the mirror leads the infant to identify with this image as a coherent and whole self. This forms the basis for the development of the ego, which Lacan conceptualizes as a fictional construct that serves as a center of subjective experience and identity.
While the mirror stage initially provides the infant with a sense of unity and mastery, it also generates a sense of alienation. The infant's idealized self-image in the mirror creates a standard of perfection that they can never fully attain in reality. The more lack is experienced, the more objectification happens in relation to the self as well as the outside-world.
This is because the self is riddled with fears and uncertainties that it cannot compartmentalize until society offers a solution. This is what Lacan would call the Symbolic Order - the semiotic realm, where we learn what things mean, as well as what we are supposed to do and what not to do.
Reason 2: Biological Essentialism Is the Result of the Fear of Death
First of all, let me ask you….how much time do you spend thinking about first order physiological mechanisms like chewing, swallowing, or filtering toxins?
Other than knowing that bumping genitals makes babies and the body is in a permanent state of decay, starting at birth, our subjective experience is linked to GENDER, not SEX.
Erich Fromm taught us that the awareness of our fragmented and finite existence can generate profound feelings of dread, uncertainty, and meaninglessness, leading us to really grapple with fundamental questions about the nature of life and death. This existential angst can shape our perception of ourselves as vulnerable and transient beings in a world that feels like an image, while our consciousness feels caged inside physicalities. Existence is a painful thing.
And what do we all want when we are in pain?
A good way to ease that fear of nothingness, transience or death is to convince yourself that you are, in fact, alive. That your body is working. It functions well. It has a purpose and a clear imperative.
This makes the feeling of dysphoria related to gender, which so many people experience as part of the process of becoming and experiencing authentically, the most normal thing in the world.
But it also explains why it is something people who wish to stay in denial about their own physical impermanence are terrified of experiencing. And what helps with that?
The essentialization of biological categorization.
And, you know what’s even worse?
Capitalism knows this, and it offers us clear aesthetical hierarchies to signify the opposite of death, while even throwing in a few notions of superiority for some of us.
Reason 3: Aesthetics Learned Through Socialization Offers a Clear Path Out of Identity Dysphoria
Socialization is the point of development where your human (not male or female) desires (your unconscious which is shaped by experiences) are infiltrated and re-shaped to form the 'person' necessary to perpetuate the power dynamics that drive the system in place.
Power is something we all struggle with because we know we are not immortal and we don’t really get why we are here- which makes all of us vulnerable to the allure of easy answers.
This allure - rooted in aesthetics and disseminated via representation - is the foundation of the system (be it religion, capitalism etc.) which controls desire.
Essentially, we suffer from a confusion caused by a subversion of biology and aesthetics.
Consider this: Aesthetics is a mechanism with elicits a response to visual or other sensory input. And all sensory input is the result of a functioning physical body. Or in other words: Living. We want to be alive. And life feels physical.
It’s the same with systems. Capitalism wants to exist. But it can’t do it without us. It needs us. Our physical. Our sensory experience…to function and reproduce and thereby stabilize itself.
So when people essentialize physicalities, they are playing right into capitalism’s utilization of our bodies. And, in turn, it offers them an environment that is easy to understand, with clear rules and hierarchies that feel like ‘stable living’.
So, while our aesthetical experience is CONSTANTLY in overdrive, we know - in the back of our minds - at all times, that this might all go away in an instance.
What Can We Do About This?
Let’s summarize:
GENDER and any other result of the infiltration processes utilized by the system set up to maintain control (which is AFFECTED by AESTHETIC (not biological) categories like skin color, physical strength, size, conformity to beauty standards etc.) are the result of tens of thousands of years of fine-tuning of aesthetical manipulation tactics of the symbolic order (the system in place), set up to achieve ultimate psychological comfort which feels physical to us.
As a matter of fact, these tacitics are so fine-tuned, they have literally become invisible not only to us, but also to the desire-mechanism itself.
Just ask these two:
“Shit on your whole mortifying, imaginary, and symbolic theater!”
― Gilles Deleuze, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
Deleuze and Guattari reject the idea of fixed, stable identities in favor of a view of subjectivity as fluid, multiple, and constantly in flux. They basically promote a shift in perspective where gender is not a static category determined by biology or social norms but rather a dynamic and contingent assemblage of desires, affects, and relationships
They propose these things called "desiring machines" to describe the flows of desire that traverse bodies, social institutions, and cultural formations. They suggest that desire operates as a productive force that continually produces new possibilities and connections.
In relation to gender identity, this means that individuals are not bound by pre-existing gender norms but can actively participate in the process of "becoming" by experimenting with different modes of gender expression and identification.
They also propose the use of "deterritorialization" as a way of breaking down fixed boundaries and hierarchies. This is a rhizomatic model of thought that emphasizes non-linear, interconnected networks of meaning and experience. In the context of gender, this approach encourages a rejection of binary thinking and encourages the idea of gender performativity.
We have been taught to pathologize desire as if it comes NATURALLY to us. As if it isn’t imposed on us by our social environment, the knowledge it produces and the easy solutions it offers us to ease the anxiety of living.
What we still, to this day, learn in schools and institutions is that we just need to do a little sublimation here and a little repression there and then we will be okay.
But there is tons of research out there showing exactly how the repression of desire leads to the formation of neurotic symptoms which often end in excess and consumerism or ideological allegiance, which ultimately reinforces existing power structures.
So, you really believe that genitals matter? You really believe that the way we have sex and with whom matters?
This shit is not about bees and flowers or prostate glands and ovaries. It’s about desire. And how well we are manipulated into directing it exactly where it needs to be directed to maintain the status quo.
So…something like people choosing various identities is a good thing, in theory. As long as it is understood as a process of becoming which is directed by ones own desires.
Problem is: We don’t really know our own desires, where it came from, why it feels the way it does, nor do we know when we are groomed into believing something is an authentic desire when it’s actually fear-driven, or socially-induced.
And even worse, capitalism as an entity with its own agenda is as terrified as us to lose control of our consciousness, so it will come after you and your authenticity no matter what you do. It is always watching. Waiting for you to have a bad day and then swoop in and take over. And before you know it…you’ll find yourself convinced that you have found an identity that is really just another step on your way to more becoming. But you’re tired. You want to feel okay. So you give in…
This machine called Capitalism will do its absolute very best to commodify your identity.
So here is what Deleuze and Guattari suggest:
“To become imperceptible oneself, to have dismantled love in order to become capable of loving. To have dismantled one's self in order finally to be alone and meet the true double at the other end of the line. A clandestine passenger on a motionless voyage. To become like everybody else; but this, precisely, is a becoming only for one who knows how to be nobody, to no longer be anybody. To paint oneself gray on gray.”
― Gilles Deleuze, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
If you would like to learn more about the commodification of your desire, or some ideas to become more aware and better at knowing how to defeat this machine, check out my other articles and videos.