Jack Monroe on being non-gender binary

"So, shovetheholly why should Jack's identity as non-binary be respected and be "real", but her girlfriend's identity as a woman and a lesbian not be respected or recognised as real?"

As I said on the previous page "I agree that there's something problematic in Jack's response to their partner". I would also defend the right of both of these people to express their sexuality in whatever way they chose, and it sounds to me as though this was a dealbreaker for both of them.

I would, however, personally question the identification of boobs with femininity.

Holly, I think you don't understand what either the words binary or spectrum actually mean.

Think of Jack Monroe as being like a bilingual person. They are fluent in both French and English. Sometimes Jack speaks fluently in English. Sometimes Jack speaks fluently in French. They moves fluidly from one to another and back.

They previously said they were gender fluid.

There are other people who speak a hybrid between English and French, who are other kinds of non binary, but that isn't what Jack Monroe is identifying as.

Well-said, Libraries.

I think that's one reading of Jack's article - I'm just pointing out that there is another logic that gets outside that reinforcement, via social construction and ideology.

So, shovetheholly why should Jack's identity as non-binary be respected and be "real", but her girlfriend's identity as a woman and a lesbian not be respected or recognised as real?

We really are down the rabbit-hole, here.

I don't think they do undermine them. Saying "I am not a woman " to me reinforces the idea that there is such a thing as 'a woman': the way a woman behaves, the way a woman dresses, the interests a woman has. It seems to be saying "I do not fit the societal box of woman so I'm not one".

"Still didn't answer my question, shovetheholly. Even a spectrum has points on it. If your point on the spectrum is that you are a lesbian - ie you only go out with women - why should you be asked to justify not going out with anyone who is not a woman?"

I did answer your point Annie by saying that I do not personally believe that there is such a thing as a 'woman' essentially - to me, it is a cultural construction and something that is 'performed' rather than essential. I would therefore put the 'is' in the phrase 'is a woman' in your statement into question.

I'm just trying to explain how Butlerian arguments against the gender binary work - this is a really long-established and well-worn groove in feminism . I happen to be convinced by them, but I'm not saying that means everyone has to agree with me.

almond - I don't understand your point at all?!?! Like I said, tired here. A is not B is a point-based binary (there is nothing in the middle). A to B is a spectrum. It's just my analogy to try to explain how the whole 'inessential gender' thing works - and certainly not a very good one since it's creating far more confusion than it's removing!!

Yes - that once you reveal gender to be inessential and constructed, you can no longer believe in the binary.

The A and B on the spectrum would be the A and B of the binary (cultural fictions that are nonetheless socially powerful). And by pointing to the fact that they are based on a fiction of 'naturalness', those positions in between both 'quote' or 'perform' them and simultaneously undermine them.

Gender (in the sense of masculine and feminine traits) aren't a spectrum though.

Saying A is not B doesn't mean A and B are two points at opposite ends of a spectrum.

That is like saying that because a dog is not a canoe, there is a spectrum between the two things.

Some people have lots of feminine and lots of masculine traits. Some people have very little of either. You don't lose some of one as you gain some of the other.

Jack Monroe seems to be saying they have lots of masculine and feminine expression. They have both sets of traits. That is not analogous to being grey rather than black or white. It is analogous to being a whole dog and a whole canoe, not some weird hybrid that has some parts canoe and some parts dog!

Still didn't answer my question, shovetheholly. Even a spectrum has points on it. If your point on the spectrum is that you are a lesbian - ie you only go out with women - why should you be asked to justify not going out with anyone who is not a woman?

And are you pan? And do you think anyone not pan, a bigot? Because that's the logical end point of your premise.

So your argument is that defining as non binary is a rejection of the binary model for everyone? A stepping stone to recognising a spectrum?

Because, personally, that isn't how it seems. The idea of a spectrum is an artificial construct in itself. The idea that (using your anaology) you say you are a 3 and therefore non binary reinforces the idea there is some sort of 'A1'' which is archetypal female. And what are the attributes of being an A1 exactly.

To me, it seems rather like saying that you want to live in a different room of the house when in fact the whole house needs to be pulled down.

(Basically - Judith Butler's 1990 book Gender Trouble is superb on this).

"Isn't it a bit odd to be saying "I am non binary" as if it is a departure from the average?"

Yes, everyone would be non-binary.

But no, it's not odd to point it out, because that is be to ignore ideology. The binary is a 'fiction' in the sense that it is a construction that is designed to shore up certain power relations that are quite artificial and present them as natural and inevitable and biologically-based. However, because that fiction is supported by power and believed by a great many people and used to discipline and regulate things into a binary, it has very, very real effects on everyday life.

BUT (for about the fifth time) - Jack isn't rejecting either femininity or masculinity!! They are saying they are a kind of hybrid.

I don't know how I can put this to make the point clear. (I am really tired, so this is my fault). It's like you have a binary system, which is A or B. B is defined by being not-A and A by being not-B.

Then you have a different model, that of a spectrum, which is a sliding scale from A to B. Imagine, just for the sake of simplicity, that it's divided into ten completely arbitrary points. A point roughly a third from the end of that spectrum, at imaginary number 3, isn't a rejection of A and an embracing of B. It is quite a lot of A but a little bit of B. If A is black and B is white, then point 3 is a dark grey, a mixture of both.

Now add in the idea that the binary model - A or B - is a fiction that has been created by society to wield power and that has done a lot of damage to A in particular. One of the ways it has done so is by mapping A and B to biology and thus constructing A and B as inevitable natural characteristics (essentialism). Suddenly, if you reject the binary no-one is at those extreme ends of the scale, and everyone is some kind of a 'point' because there is no such thing as 'essential A' or 'essential B'.

However, because society is very, very powerful you can't simply 'step outside' it. Firstly, it's impossible to live outside of your own context and time - how on earth could anyone do that? Secondly, because it does a lot of work for the rich and the powerful and the Bs of the world, there are all kinds of disciplinary, regulative frameworks that will stop you from trying to escape that binary.

So showing how gender is "performed", how it is a cultural and social construction and not something essential, can become an act of resistance against it.

If gender is not binary but a spectrum, isn't it the case that probably 95 % of us are non binary (ie not at a societally suggested end point ). In which case isn't it a bit odd to be saying "I am non binary" as if it is a departure from the average?

Seems a bit lose-lose for lesbians.
If they object to sleeping with male-bodied people who identify as women, they're bigots.
If they object to sleeping with female-bodied people who don't identify as women, they're bigots.
So are they meant to define their sexuality by body type or identification? Seems they must be wrong either way.

But it's absolutely not the same thing shovetheholly. Jack's desire for "top surgery" cannot be taken out of the context of feeling transgender. Even that phrase is unique to transmen. A woman who undergoes a double mastectomy and doesn't opt for reconstruction isn't also rejecting their femininity and all that goes along with it.

A spectrum still has points on it. If you are a lesbian then you go out with women. Why is it so hard to get people to believe that? Why won't lesbian sexuality every be respected without having to justify it, again and again?

shovetheholly are you pansexual, then? Do you believe everyone that isn't pan is a bigot?

But if you believe that gender is not a binary but a spectrum (and you don't have to be any kind of sexuality to believe that), then does it make that much difference? Jack doesn't identify as a woman OR a man - they are pointing to shades inbetween.

BUT if a woman has a double mastectomy because of breast cancer, and doesn't want to have reconstructive surgery for medical reasons, does that make it OK for her partner (male or female) to reject her sexually? And is there really that much of a difference between this case and that of someone who just feels more comfortable without breasts, but doesn't identify as a 'man'?

Yes. That whole conversation, if it happened as Jack describes, was not about boob size but about gender identity. If you are a lesbian you go out with women. If what you thought was your prospective life partner (they were apparently planning a wedding) is no longer a woman, then yes, that makes a difference. A woman with big boobs, small boobs, lopsided boobs, no boobs at all because masectomy is still a woman. That's different from removing your boobs because you no longer identify as female.

Annie - I don't really understand this: 'Yes, and as long as we continue to insist that if you aren't "girly" then you can't possibly be a girl, those women will continue to be punished if/when they stray an inch from this imposed norm'. Because what you are saying and what Jack is saying seem to be the same point? (Equally Freshwater - as I said earlier, Jack makes it clear that they don't think 'ballet is for girls and martial arts are for boys' but that SOCIETY creates these pressures that need to be resisted).

I agree that there's something problematic in Jack's response to their partner. BUT if a woman has a double mastectomy because of breast cancer, and doesn't want to have reconstructive surgery for medical reasons, does that make it OK for her partner (male or female) to reject her sexually? And is there really that much of a difference between this case and that of someone who just feels more comfortable without breasts, but doesn't identify as a 'man'?

For someone who wants to be non-binary and upset notions of gender, Jack really needs to have a think about why they believe muscles, polo shirts and martial arts are essentially masculine, while ballet is profoundly not. And also why someone non-binary should continue to qualify for a Woman of the Year award, while at the same time distancing themselves from their previous incarnation in which they actually earned the accolade which seems very cake-and-eating it to me. Why would their birth name be such a source of shock and horror to them, but being referred to as a woman for the purposes of reward, is not?

I agree with all of this. Leaving aside the issue of removal of breasts, an enormous amount of what Jack defines as being non-gender binary seems to amount to rejecting traditional performance of femininity.

And does why being 'non binary' seems to amount to accepting all sorts of 'male' elements whilst expressing revulsion at the 'female'. I mean, there is a massive focus on dress. Surely we should be challenging the idea that dress is an essential element of identity and reclaiming the idea that it's just, you know, clothes. Rather than saying "I want to mostly wear suits and therefore I don't fit in the box you call female". And, whilst rejecting the female (or male) pronoun, it seems perfectly acceptable to have a boy's name and not one of the few truly unisex names like Alex.

I found that very difficult too. I am straight. I fancy men. If my partner said "I no longer identify as a man. I'm going to remove my secondary sex characteristics" then that would be a big fucking deal.

And I'm straight, I get to be the societal default. To paint it as shallow and callous to struggle with that as a lesbian seems remarkably lacking in compassion or self awareness.