"Blended Gender"

In closing her analysis of the medical community and its mal-treatment of intersexed infants, Suzanne Kessler presents an alternative: “taking genitals less seriously.” Such a maneuver, she asserts, will create a world of “blended gender,” and “eventually, blended gender is no gender.” However, this solution fails to consider personal preference and self-expression in terms of gender identity; through its very endeavor to eliminate the shackles of dichotomous gender, this alternative is binding in that it forces sameness. A more effective solution would be a world wherein biological organs, sex, gender and sexuality do not have a culturally idealized relationship to one another—a world where an individual is not anatomically or socially confined to a particular station on a spectrum of social identity, but can choose a position freely. Whereas “blended gender” would constitute a position in the middle of the spectrum, making available the entire continuum free of stigma and judgment, would allow stronger individuality and trueness to oneself. In line with Kessler’s plea, genitals should be taken less seriously—not to eradicate identification, but to provide equal opportunity and presentation to all.

In redefining what it means to be sexual and what it looks like, it is clear that humans are unique. Freedom lies not in taking away choice, but in expanding. Rather than relegating the heterosexual phallus to the masculine side of the gender continuum, and the heterosexual vagina to the feminine side, individuals should choose their own placement, or comfortably move up and down as desired. There is nothing wrong with self-expression through cultural performance; there is only a problem when anatomy throws you into one of two options.