Alicia Gilbert Defeating Bigenderism Summary

In Miqqi Alicia Gilbert’s paper Defeating Bigenderism: Changing Gender Assumption in the Twenty-First Century, Gilbert discusses the problems gender causes—referring to the two gender system currently in place as bigenderism—and offers a radical solution to sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, and transphobia; she recommends completely eradicating gender all together. This solution tends to go too far when another, less extreme option would work quite well.

Gilbert’s definition of bigenderism, simply put, is a system of belief that wholeheartedly embraces the “Rules of Gender” (Gilbert 95). In other words, bigenderism holds that there are two and only two fixed genders assigned at birth and those genders cannot be changed, with no exception.

As part of bigenderism, gender is determined by the genitals one is born with, making the male/female duality a natural one. Since the dichotomy between man and woman is “natural,” any desire or attempt to change from one gender to another cannot and will not be taken seriously. This system might be believed to streamline interactions between people because identifying one’s gender allows others to immediately understand how to relate to that person. For example, by visually identifying someone as a woman, based on bigenderism, one can reasonably assume that makeup, shopping, and eligible celebrity bachelors are suitable topics of conversation. Bigenderism also allows one to assume that cars, sports, and Call of Duty are safe topics of conversations with people we identify as men. In reality, we know that these assumptions are not always true, but they are stereotypes perpetuated by bigenderism. The conclusions we draw based on bigenderism mean that we often reverse the process, so that instead of assuming that a person is a woman and so they wear dresses, we will see a person in a dress and immediately assume they are a woman.
This reversed process is known as gender presentation as genital representation. Essentially, it means that we draw conclusions about a person’s sex and, therefore, genital status based on the gender they present. This is an interesting practice because in reality we do not often inspect the genitals of every person we meet. We assume the person in the dress is a woman, but if they have male genitalia, we may be none the wiser. Yet the mere fact that we do not know for certain a person’s genital status upon an initial encounter means, in a society based in bigenderism, “we make assumptions and draw conclusions about sex based on gender display,” to determine who we may or may not have a sexual encounter with as well as who may or may not be competition for a potential mate (Gilbert 96). While this may be convenient for some—whether male or female—because it facilitates sexual encounters, this assumption can be immensely dangerous for those that do not fit into the male/female binary.
Bigenderism creates a coercive environment because it dictates that the male/female pair is the “natural one” and, accordingly, any deviation from this standard is abnormal and should be punished. The punishment can range from anywhere from mockery to physical acts of violence. The simple threat of negative repercussions means that people are much more likely to conform and a fair few step outside of the proscribed norm. The few that do, such as members of the LGBT+ community, face an uphill battle for recognition and respect. In fact, the LGBT+ community is immensely susceptible to societal marginalization because, as Gilbert puts it, “[b]igenderism . . . is also a cornerstone of heteronormativity, insofar as it carries with it the implication that the two genders are intended to partner heterosexually” (97). In other words, bigenderism feeds into heteronormativity because it embraces the belief that heterosexuality is natural and normal which in turn fuels bigenderism by requiring gender presentation as genital representation in order to facilitate heterosexual partnerships. Both bigenderism and heteronormativity then empower sexism by ensuring that there is only one or the other allowing sexism to place the male above the female. These three issues collude to make the world a difficult and dangerous place for people that do not fit neatly into either category.
Since failure to conform to the gender assigned to one at birth marks them as anomalous, those within the system strive to correct and castigate those that, either by choice or by nature, do not fit in. It does this subtly by praising those that personify the requirements of bigenderism well by placing them on pedestals and granting them privileges, such as allowing the head cheerleader to skip class or passing the failing captain of the football team, for example, while disciplining other students. “The rigidity of the categories and the standards within them mean that it is extremely difficult for anyone who is not hyper-feminine or hyper-masculine to receive a high rating” (Gilbert 99). Yet, both masculinity and femininity are both incredibly fragile.
Those that receive such high praise for optimum conformity must then continue to strive to maintain their position, lest they too be marginalized like others that fail which places an undue burden on people, regardless of age, race, or socioeconomic background. In addition to the struggle to assimilate, these practices create a self-fulfilling prophesy. “Doing gender reinforces the process and gives it its ‘natural’ veneer, that is, the constant repetition of activities in a gendered way makes them seem as if that is the only real way to do it” (100). Strictly speaking, going along with the sexist, heteronormative, transphobic, homophobic practices reinforces bigenderism which perpetuates the aforementioned behaviors. As mentioned before, the castigation of those that fail to abide by bigenderism face violent chastisement as well.
In a society rife with the message of bigenderism, those that cast off the requirements it metes out risk physical coercion by way of violence.

Men and women are “correctively” raped, assaulted, or killed for presenting as the “wrong” gender. “[T]he Rules of Gender dictate that there are two and only two genders, and presenting in a given gender means that you have the corresponding sex” (101). Taking that a step further, the corresponding sex means that one shares the heterosexual desires associated with that sex. These assumptions are the reasoning behind the violence that plagues women, minorities, and the LGBT+ community. By presenting oneself as a gender other than that which corresponds to their sex—whether through clothing or mere behaviors—they are in essence misrepresenting themselves and attempting to confuse the people they interact with. According to Gilbert, “the physical mannerisms frequently presented by a sissy, that is, an effeminate male, must . . . elicit some sexual response programmed by the bigender rules” (101). This hypothesis is, by itself, problematic. It is based on the idea that we are socialized to associate certain mannerisms and body language to the opposite sex, so much so that we experience a Pavlovian response to them, regardless of who performs them. However, not all men are attracted to all women who flip their hair over their shoulder when they speak; not all women find all men who sit with their legs spread as wide as possible, or

“manspreading” as it is known colloquially, attractive. Ergo, it stands to reason that the responses do not always trigger a sexual response in an assailant who was then angered to such an extent, after learning that the object of their Pavlovian lust was another man, that they lashed out violently at the source. While bigenderism does assign certain behaviors to certain genders, Gilbert’s hypothesis that, “[a] man who moves his hips in a feminine way or whose eyes behave in a feminine manner is sending sexual signals—intentional or not” as what drives at violence against men in any way seen as effeminate is fishy (101-102). It doesn’t address the men that never attack feminine men. However, her argument over the fear of their masculinity being threatened does better explain the violence.
If the concept of either gender is, at its core, fragile, then it stands to reason that to be discovered as not manly or womanly enough could itself trigger physical reprimand.

According to bigenderism there is an unspoken standard of both femininity and masculinity that both men and women are expected to achieve. Anyone who is not seen to, at the very least, attempt to meet the standard is categorized as “other” and is treated as such. To defend, show sympathy towards, or in anyway not treat the “abnormal” person as an “other” aligns that person with them and thereby risks their own loss of status and marginalization. If, “[h]omophobia is the fear that other men will unmask us, emasculate us, and reveal to us and the world that we do not measure up, that we are not real men,” then the threat of social death is, in and of itself, enough to make people act out in any way that will maintain their status as hyper-male/hyper-female, up to and including physical assault and murder; much in the same way that the realization of one’s own “otherness”, regardless of whether or not it has been pointed out by other people, has been enough to drive some to self-harm and suicide (qtd in Gilbert 102). The need for unconscious “subliminal arousal” is unnecessary to explain brute force (102). If bigenderism is at the root of all of these problems, then it is bigenderism that must be addressed to end

them.
Gilbert posits that by placing one gender over another, it creates an environment where the fight over who is masculine or feminine enough can occur. “Bigenderism, by codifying the distinction between male and female, man and woman, masculine and feminine, creates a virulent, sexist, heterosexist, and transphobic culture just because of the valuation of the sexes” (103). Namely, by creating a strict dichotomy of gender and favoring one over the other, it creates a culture where it is acceptable to denigrate the less favored gender. This behavior, in turn, encourages the culture, in one way or another, to correct each other’s lack of femininity or masculinity. It is here that Gilbert suggests three separate models of genderism.