Race, Sex and Gender: The Last Days

Biology and genetics have established quite firmly that “race” and even “sex” (the chromosomal kind, not the hanky panky kind) are artificial constructs based more on society than science. Knowing this hasn’t eliminated either concept - yet. We still talk about racists, inter-racial (or mixed) marriages, males and females. Gender duality, in the behavioral sense, is becoming recognized as a false construct, and gender identities are proliferating. Where will this lead us in the decades to come? Is there any utility in continuing these divisions?

Gender and sex have been strongly coupled for most of human history. Much of this comes from obvious reasons such as procreation and physical differences in male and female anatomy. Similarly, we’ve made the distinction of “race” primarily based on outward physical appearance. With the discoveries of modern genetics, we’ve realized that our genes don’t always correlate with how we look, and our chromosomes don’t always express themselves in male/female binaries. Life in general, and humanity in particular, is more continuous than discrete.

Our society has spent millennia sorting itself into tribes and setting up rules of conduct. This was necessary for the foundations of law and order (no special units), and we’re continuously figuring out improvements for both of those. Most people agree at this point that owning another human being is fundamentally wrong. In recent decades, many people are also coming around to the concept that it’s unfair to discriminate against a person based on outward appearance and, for some people, the person’s sexuality or gender.

This social progress has been accelerating in much the same way that Kurzweil models technological progress. Coincidence? Probably not. Much of the social change has been motivated by increases in scientific knowledge which are the bases for technological change as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if an in depth study revealed a strong causality and, therefore, correlation between the data curves.

The implication here is that as our technology begins to outpace biology, social change must also accelerate. With each passing generation, the acceptance of new mores will become faster. We are already seeing this with the internet and the rapidly shifting attitudes toward the LGBT community and toward the empowerment of women.

What, then, do we make of the increasing strength and political power of social conservatism? I’d posit that it’s a temporary oscillation, the push-pull between progress and regress that seems endemic to human history. Some people adapt quickly while others find change to be threatening. Some are forward looking: the future is bright! Others look back and see a lost golden age. In the long reach of history, though, change has always prevailed. Our knowledge base is ever expanding, and our dissemination of it as well. As humanity becomes better informed and better educated, the only way to stop progress (at least temporarily) would be to enter a modern dark age - an informational blackout.

Barring such catastrophe, I expect that social progress will continue apace. So far, change is coming in the oblique direction of biology and psychology, that is, in terms of race, sex, and gender. This doesn’t seem directly tied to the usual visions of science fiction: cyborgs, artificial intelligences, space exploration. And yet it is directly tied to the rapid increases in computing power. Without that, we wouldn’t have high speed communications, massive data storage, and social networking. It’s that trinity which is driving much of society’s transformation right now.

The web is altering the way we identify ourselves. In some ways, it has reduced our gross differences by masking physical characteristics. In other ways, it has refined our categories into ever narrower specialties. If you have an interest, however obscure, you can probably find a group for it somewhere on the internet. What relevance does our gender, sex, or race have in this digital environment? Without those broad markers (no pun intended), the standard ways of identifying and categorizing the people around us are meaningless. On the internet, you can define yourself by the parameters that you find personally important. You can escape the shackles of your DNA.

Anyone who’s played an online, multiplayer game has likely had the experience of changing sexes virtually. In many of these games, the first thing you do is generate a character, and a primary aspect of that is to choose: male or female. Plenty of real-life XY-chromosome people choose female, and vice versa. Some do it out of curiosity; some do it to stare at a figure they find attractive. In-game chat is marked only with your character name so that, too, is ambiguous. I’ve personally experienced another player not believing my stated actual gender because of my in-game behavior: “You don’t play like a girl,” a lovely backhanded compliment. From what I’ve heard, my story isn’t particularly unique. On the other side, real life men have been propositioned or cat-called (in game) when playing as females. In many ways, the virtual environment emphasizes the irrelevance of physical appearance.

The implications of the virtual world for the real world are far reaching. If any of the theories about the singularity are valid, if we end up as digital beings as much or more than we are flesh, then we will be able to mask or reshape our appearances to the point that they become irrelevant. Our identities will be based on commonalities of thought and interest,  philosophical groupings of the mind rather than the superficial traits of the body. Is this a good thing? An increasingly vocal segment of humanity is saying no. Being free of gender or sex defined roles is frightening for many people, for some of the same reasons that racial bias is so challenging to eradicate. Where is the ground to stand on? What are the rules for right behavior? Why deny our biological imperatives?

The last question is easiest to answer: we overcome our biological imperatives in many ways already for the betterment of ourselves and society. That’s primarily what childhood is all about, after all. The other two are more challenging, but still addressable. The ground we will stand on is culture, as we’re already seeing today. As for right behavior, everyone should be subject to the same standards and laws once they reach adulthood.

Even if you don’t agree with these answers, it’s undeniable that our digitized future will continue to blur the lines of gender, sex, and race. Regardless of the moral judgement about this, we will have to deal with it. Well, maybe not us, but our children possibly, and our grandchildren definitely. The day is coming when our DNA will be nothing more than an initial condition.

Gender and Transhumanism

Janet Mock recently made a few appearances on television, and the surrounding conversations got me thinking about what a truly post-human future would imply for gender identity. We already have people identifying with a gender that has nothing to do with the sexual organs they were born with. We also have the biotechnology to let people alter much of their physical appearance to be in line with their gender identities. Complicating matters even further, we have people who are gender fluid (or gender neutral) who change their identities day to day. If gender selection is a spectrum rather than binary, imagine what might happen when we can completely change or eliminate our sexual organs at will.

Ardhanarishvara: Shiva and Parvati in one form, half-man, half-woman, cast in bronze

The latest understanding and nomenclature for these topics is that your sex is determined by biological and physiological characteristics. Your gender, however, has more to do with how you behave and how you fit with the social definitions of male and female. Let’s consider this in the context of the feminist movement: what does this say about women who want the life that men have traditionally had and vice versa? Is everyone who’s fighting for equal rights in some way transgender? Or perhaps gender fluid: sometimes wanting to behave in a “feminine” fashion, and other times in a “masculine.” Are these terms even meaningful anymore?

Transhumanism is the idea that humanity in the future will be a mix of today’s basic biology with biotechnology that we can only imagine. Most people focus on Kurzweil’s idea of a technological singularity - the fusion of a human body with electronics. A less explored aspect is that of self-modification, even in the biological realm. With that ability, the sex you were born with would be as irrelevant as your assigned gender at birth today. Imagine waking up one day, as a male, and deciding that you really want to have a baby. A few days of bio-modification later, you are a female, fully capable of growing a human baby and giving birth. Alternatively, imagine that you’re tired of being sexual and turn yourself completely androgynous.

The post-human future could be a good thing in light of creating equality of the sexes. Gender conventions are a primary cause of discrimination against women today. If society can eliminate those conventions, or at least subvert them to the point of obsolescence, men and women might finally be on equal ground. If, over and above that, women could turn into men and vice versa at multiple points in their lifetime, even sexism might become an idea of the past.

Joss Whedon made the case back in November, 2013, that we ought to move past the word feminist because everyone should want equality of the sexes. His proposed alternative was to label people “genderist” if they were acting against equal rights. In light of current gender issues and a possibly genderless future, this may not be the best choice. A better course would be to neutralize our verbiage, divorcing it from sexual or gender based identity. A biased or bigoted person is just that, no matter what human attribute is the object of their hatred. Some day, even the word sexist may lose its meaning entirely...or so I can hope.

Everyone Wins

I’m aware that the purpose of many of The Atlantic’s opinion pieces are intended to provoke commentary and generate traffic. In and of itself, that’s not a bad thing. The world needs more analytical thinking, and if even a fraction of that traffic engages in some critical thought, society will benefit. I do wish, however, that they would steer the conversation in directions that are controversial in a more positive manner. This article is a case in point.

The article’s main thesis questions a basic assumption about paid leave for new Mothers versus Fathers and addresses the potential fallacy, especially in modern times, that one is more useful than the other. This seems sufficiently controversial and socially progressive by itself. Unfortunately, it stumbles by trying to make the benefits of paternity leave into a competition:

“While paid paternity leave may feel like an unexpected gift, the biggest beneficiaries aren’t men, or even babies. In the long run, the true beneficiaries of paternity leave are women, and the companies and nations that benefit when women advance.”

First of all, don’t “companies and nations” include men and children? Second, how exactly are they going to accurately measure a fuzzy word like “benefit” to the point that they can rank who receives the most? Instead of wasting time picking a fight about this, our focus should be on the fact that this policy should improve everyone’s lives in some way. Men will feel less pressure to return to the workplace, women will face less discrimination by being “baby tracked,” and even those without babies will reap the benefit of retaining a greater percentage of female talent. The policy would especially help the lower socioeconomic levels that are sometimes overlooked by feminist policy making. When both parents are working to make ends meet, giving paid paternity leave is a financial boon which defers day care costs without reducing the net household income.

The article then goes on to say this:

“paternity leave [...] is a brilliant and ambitious form of social engineering: a behavior-modification tool that has been shown to boost male participation in the household, enhance female participation in the labor force, and promote gender equity in both domains”

All of those results sound great, but quite a few men don’t need to be engineered or psyched into spending more time with their children. Many are already frustrated with their work-life balance, and their numbers are increasing. Was it really necessary to use words that, dare I say, patronises men and possibly alienates the women who are partnered with these men, never mind gay male parents who adopt. The rest of the article presents a sound, cogent, and sometimes impassioned argument in favor of paternity leave, but I nearly missed it all because I was so irritated by these two passages.

We cannot avoid biology (until someone invents a reliable artificial womb), and that means women are the baby makers and need time off work after giving birth. What we can change is the attitude that women are more naturally suited to the raising of children than men are. Women are socially conditioned to the role just as men are led away from it, but that needs to stop if we are to achieve gender equality in all spheres of life: home, career, and child care. Antagonising men by making social change into a competition isn’t going to help bring it about. Emphasizing the point that all of society, including the men, will benefit tremendously just might sway some opinions.