"Dear Ann Landers:
My daughter attends a preschool for children between the ages of 3 and 5. One of the little boys in her class has beautiful, curly hair and wears it long. He also wears ruffled and frilly dresses and stockings with designs on them.
He plays with dolls and other "girl" toys. This is very confusing to the other children. They can't figure out whether this child is a boy or a girl. One of the other parents says it's probably easier for the boy's parents to let him wear his sister's clothes than argue with him every day.
This child's parents are very accepting of his behavior, and don't seem to think there is anything wrong with it. In my opinion, they need to have their heads examined. Ann, do you think this is OK, or will it hurt the boy in the long run? Shouldn't those parents be dressing him in gender-appropriate clothing? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this."
-- No Name, No City

"Wearing girls' clothing and playing with dolls will not make the boy gay. We now know that homosexuality is a matter of genetics. In other words, they are born that way. Most experts believe children should be permitted to have a say in what they wear. When the boy is older, he may be uncomfortable wearing "frilly" clothing and rebel. Meanwhile, MYOB."

Ann’s response to this gender-panicked parent illustrates some ugly yet interesting truths about our society. The 'liberal' argument that sexuality is genetic and thus gay people are "born that way" is often used to assure parents and educators that participating in "gender-atypical" behavior or having a queer role model will not "make" them gay, i.e. hurt them. We are also told to mind our own business, which is better than trying to control others, but misses the point entirely of trying to understand and learn from those around us. My advice would have been to read Kate Bornstein’s "My Gender Workbook" and then have a conversation with the confused children about gender roles. This is why I am not a popular advice columnist like Ann Landers.

A few of the people I spoke with said that this was the way they would try to deal with this sort of situation if their child was in a class with Aurora.

A 44-year-old father said,"If i were the parent of another child in the class it would have been an ideal time to talk a little about gender-- geared to a 6 year old of course-- it would have been a teachable moment - to discuss differences and what being a boy and girl mean."

This same man had a fascinating take on why there is such resistance to gender outlaws:

"Gender and sexuality are confused (in my opinion) and people are very afraid of sex and sexuality. Therefore, transgressions of gender roles are seen as a threat to one's own understanding of sexuality. This of course is not necessarily true, but it is perceived as true. It is unfortunate that gender and sexuality are confused in this way because there are masculine and feminine traits that offer so much to being fully human that we preclude ourselves from enjoying because of this "sexuality" connection. As parents of both boys and girls, i can say categorically there are inborn differences between the genders -- but as a male i can also reflect on the influences that suggested "maleness" was such and such a thing and "femaleness" was such and such a thing. From mass culture to the subtleties of how my parents treated me differently than my sisters. To some extent, i also believe that gender identification is also a social constraint designed to promote class difference as well as gender difference. Another more insidious and sociological purpose for gender tagging by a culture i think is to promote a subservient class. Thus the roots of some of the gender insistence by a culture is also classist and egalitarian as well. (but don't underestimate the power of fear of sexuality either!)"

This observation certainly holds true in the above advice column, and in many of the reactions from parents, government officials, and the general public to the Aurora case. Yet there is so much confusion and contention about what these words even mean- gender, sex, sexuality- that it is hard to have any sort of meaningful conversation about feelings and ideas concerning these concepts.

As a point of reference (though certainly not of authority), Webster’s defines Sex as "1. individual nature as determined by the reproductive system. 2. either of two divisions of a species as so determined. 3. activities, thoughts, etc. as influenced by the reproductive system." and gender as "classification into masculine, feminine, and neuter." In my abridged version, they did not have room for a definition of sexuality, or even a mention of it as a word.

In my survey questions, I did not have multiple-choice answers, which resulted in an incredible amount of variation as to how people self-defined and what their ideas were on sex and gender in general. Gender identification was not limited to man or woman, but elicited such varied answers as "boy," "daddy," "used to be butch, now more into being femme," "slightly genderfucking dyke," "masculine," "feminine," "transsexual," "girl," "tranny fag," "male, but certainly not masculine," "bi-gendered," and "myself," among others. Some sex and gender identifications took an entire paragraph to write out, which shows the inadequacy of only having two one-word options. I do not have room for all the definitions i received, but here are just a few which show that even with a relatively small sample, we very quickly get beyond the dictionary:

"Sex = Male/Female. Gender = Man/Woman."

"Sex is my genotypic makeup, if I had a Y chromosome, my sex would be male. I consider gender as the socio-cultural expression of my "maleness" or "femaleness"."

"There is definitely a sense of being male, and it is different from the sense of being female. Although I've never experienced it myself, I can see where an unusual psychology might put a "sense of being female" into a physically male person. I guess I think of the two terms interchangeably, although in the case I just described I suppose I would say that the person is of the male sex, with a female gender. But I think that's all semantics."

"...to me, sex CONNOTES biology whereas GENDER connotes identification..."

"sex means a person's physical or biological classification, but it is not an either/or situation--people can have both male and female parts of the body, especially if they are taking hormones and/or are in the process of transferring from male to female or vice-versa. gender is even more fluid than sex--there are not just two genders, i like to think of gender as a sliding scale. i don't think anybody is purely 'female' or purely 'male' (same with sexual orientation--nobody is all straight or all gay)"

"sex is biological and gender is a social construction which attempts to legitimize the patriarchal system."

"Well, "sex" means intercourse (male-female) to me; "gender" brings in the usual assumptions about male and female."

"Dude, this is a tough one. Kate Bornstein says sex is what's between your legs and gender is what's between your ears, but I think that's shorthand for a much more complex experience. I hate the "sex/gender" classification questions on forms. They are insulting and too limited, and show the stupidity and ignorance of the questioner, especially when you can only hit "M' or "F". I know and love so many people who aren't M or F."

"The terms "sex" and "gender" are rather unrelated in my mind. "Sex" refers to the act, as I see it, and alludes to the person with whom one engages in such an act. "Gender," on the other hand, refers to the internal perception of oneself along the broad spectrum of gender identities, from extremely masculine to extremely feminine. I believe that "gender" can and does change during the course of a person’s life."

This last comment came from a female to male (FTM) transsexual, who responded to my question about sexual orientation in this way:
"I am currently struggling with that issue, actually. I am more attracted to women, but I don’t know if that means I am a heterosexual man or a homosexual transman. That is a tough question to answer."

Indeed it is, and this seems to be an issue with the Aurora case as well, even though, at six, she is most likely not thinking about sex. It does not seem to matter, as much of the public is focused on the effect of a 'boy' claiming to be a girl on her future sexuality. As the Ann Landers column shows, there is a direct connection in the collective consciousness between gender-atypical behavior and queer sexuality. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) backs this up in no uncertain terms:
"Gender-atypical behaviors and a pervasive dissatisfaction with one's gender are not only indications of GID, but forerunners for the development of homosexuality and bisexuality." (www.narth.com) Indeed, homosexuality is itself 'gender-atypical,' so the general idea that all male transvestites are gay and all butch women are dykes is somewhat understandable, if untrue.

Aurora’s case, though, goes beyond stories of little kids who dress or play in gender-atypical ways, but still identify as the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. She has insisted, from the age of two, that she is a girl, not just a boy who likes to wear dresses and play with dolls, even renaming herself after the princess in Sleeping Beauty.

This causes problems of epic proportions for those who depend on clear-cut categories. If Aurora continues to identify as a girl into womanhood and then adopts the typical female role of sleeping with men, is she gay or straight? What if she has sex-reassignment surgery? Or female hormones, but no surgery? What if she adopts the gender role typical for a man, but gender-atypical for a woman of sleeping with other women? Is she a lesbian? A straight man? What if she’s bisexual? What if she only has relationships with other transgendered people?

For many people in this culture, anything Aurora does will label her as only one thing: a freak. No label will stick firmly to her in terms of gender and sexuality, which, as I am learning, is very dangerous to the integrity of our current power system, and thus very frightening.

Even some of those in the 'bad' or 'deviant' categories (according to the larger society) put transgressing sex and gender low on their moral scale. The "look in your pants" comment came from a lesbian. Though there are many who might say to her, "what do you mean, you’re attracted to other women? Women are attracted to men. Don’t you know what gender you are? Look in your pants!" she obviously does not consider her dismissal of the transgender community as a comment on anything having to do with herself; she does not see the gender-transgressive nature of her own sexuality. She sees herself as normal and acceptable, but someone like Aurora as having a disorder- a condition which is abnormal, and confusing for the child and the rest of society. A view which is supported by our respected scientific institutions.

Aurora, along with many other children and adults, has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (GID), a 'mental illness' recognized by the American Psychological Association, which in today’s world is often considered an unquestionable authority. In discussing both the disorder and the institution, several of my respondents vented their dissatisfaction with the system:

"I have heard of GID a lot. I think it's bullshit. It's the attempt to medicalize an ideological concept. like stuart hall says, religion used to be the seal of truth and now it is science. it's just like ethnography, when people try to concretize racist ideas in science. it's fucked up."

This statement comes from a 22-year-old who, when asked specifically about the case in question, had this to say, which was echoed in some form by a great number of those I surveyed:

"I think aurora should be allowed to do whatever she wants. if she feels like a girl than she is. I think it's the parents obligation to let the child explore their gender identification in a safe and supportive environment, it sounds like the lipscombs where doing that. The state has no right to take the child away, this is pretty unbelievable actually. if aurora was 14 or 15 it would be the same deal. she can do what she wants and it's her family’s responsibility to let her explore her identity and the world around her in a safe and supportive environment. I wish more families were as supportive."

Yet others were more critical of the situation, voicing their disbelief that the choice to be a girl could have been Aurora’s. Most of these people had more liberal views on gender and sexuality than the mainstream, but her young age seems to be a sticking point. A few of them said that it could be a phase, or simple confusion. It seemed like some of them simply didn’t register the information that she is six years old and has been adamantly insisting that she is a girl for four years now, since the age of two.
"when a child is young 1 or 2 they don't necessarily act male or female. it is society that defines us so clearly. i find it hard to believe that the child was "identifying as a girl" what exactly did she do? i don't know. i think that letting your child be who they are is one thing, but having a boy go into a girls bathroom and things like that are not acceptable... free gender expression is one thing but believing you are someone you are not is not especially as a child. how much more confused can we make our children?"

This was from a 22-year-old bisexual woman, who allowed that she doesn’t "know enough about this whole situation," but she "certainly (has) an open mind."

A 25-year-old respondent commented that the argument that the child or hir classmates will be 'confused' is ultimately an excuse used by those who are afraid to question their own binary notions of sex and gender: "confusing for them, or confusing for the rest of the world?"

This critique from an 18-year-old shows more doubt as to the story’s validity:
"how can a biologically male child identify as female at age 2? can't be of course. the parents must have decided to raise their child as a female (if i'm reading this right.) i feel this is wrong. children should, of course be raised according to their biological gender until the child is old enough and mature enough to determine their own role."

Her use of the phrase "of course" seems to indicate a certainty in the "natural" link between sex and gender, further exemplified by the phrase "biological gender," which illustrates the way that sex and gender are so often used interchangeably, and each sex is assumed to match a particular gender, starting with the moment the doctor lifts up the newborn, glances at hir crotch and says and says "it’s a boy!" instead of "it’s a male!" or, even more unheard-of, "it’s a baby!"

Still others were more cautious about GID, given that it can help some people, but that assistance comes at a price:

"I'm torn. On the one hand, my friends who are MTF and FTM who have OTHER mental illnesses think that the idea of GID as a stigma is our society's fucked up thinking about mental illness. On the other hand, I don't see it as a DISorder. But then, i don't have it." said one 28-year-old woman who is involved in the transgender community.

An 18-year-old FTM transsexual had this to say about it: "My feelings about gender-identity disorder are mixed, because they are founded in the dichotomy of gender, but in the same breath, GID allows those of us that identify outside of the norm to take action."

What needs to be looked at is what "taking action" means for those who are diagnosed with GID. Many transgendered people truly do not feel comfortable in the sex (and, by default, the "biological gender") that they were assigned at birth, and wish to physically transition into the "other" sex through some combination of hormone therapy and sex-reassignment surgery.

By law, someone must be diagnosed with GID before going through with sex-change hormones and surgery. For adults, a GID diagnosis makes their gender-dysphoric feelings scientifically legitimate, and their desired treatment (physically transitioning from male to female or female to male) a possibility.

Given this, one might think that the recommended way to bring "order" to the psyche of a GID child would be to make sure ze was happy and able to express hir gender at home and in school without harassment or abuse. Yet for children diagnosed with this disorder, the treatment is not to make them the most comfortable in their chosen gender, but to attempt behavior modification which will force them back into their assigned sex and gender.

According to Aurora’s lawyer, the Lipscombs were cooperating with the psychologists who diagnosed Aurora until they suggested that she enter a residential treatment center where they would use behavior modification to encourage her to conform to male norms and be more like a "little boy."

The Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GPAC) has been vocal in its support for the parents’ unusual yet more liberal and open-minded ideas about how Aurora’s GID should be "treated." GPAC has been working since 1998 with a broad coalition of national gay and feminist groups to reform GID so it cannot be used to "treat" infants and children.
"No child should ever be taken from her parents and forced to conform to narrow, out-dated gender stereotypes." Said GPAC's Executive Director Riki Wilchins, American Psychiatric Association President Dr. Alan Tasman and the G/L/B Subcommittee of the APA have been totally inert on reforming GID as a mental illness. It's past time gender was removed as a basis for psychiatric and state mistreatment and terrorizing of little children like Aurora." (www.gpac.org)

Organizations such as GPAC are in a difficult position, because of the treatment double-standard between adults and children who are diagnosed with GID. Transgender advocates must help those adults who depend on a GID diagnosis to facilitate a physical gender transition, and at the same time speak out against it as a weapon of the APA used to make children conform to their ideas of what sex and gender should mean. Also, GID has never been regarded as an ideal solution to transgendered people’s problems. Most in the community take it with grudging acceptance as a necessary means to a desired end- while they wish it was not regarded as a disorder, they realize that it’s all they can expect from such a conservative, binary-based society, and it is better than nothing.

As one person put it, "The fact that the American Psychological Association acknowledges GID as a disorder is a step in the right direction. Twenty years ago they would have just stuck the kid in a looney bin and made her cut her hair short and wear pants. Now, though, we have to look forward to the next step, which is proving to society that GID is not a disorder, but another natural state that is just as good, if not better, than the other genders we accept."

There is, however, much opposition to this movement, especially from groups such as the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) who believe that gender dysphoria must be corrected" because it goes against a biological imperative, and because it is directly linked to queer sexuality, which is not genetic but learned in society and influenced by the family. Such associations have a great financial stake in supporting compulsory heterosexuality, since their clientele consists of gays and lesbians who want to "change" or "convert" to heterosexuality. In order for heterosexuality to exist, or indeed homosexuality, there need to be two, and only two sexes. In order for homophobia to exist, there needs to be a stigma attached to gender-transgressive behavior. In order for NARTH to exist as a profitable association for its member psychologists, there needs to be a large homophobic population.

On their WebPage, they have an article titled, "Childhood Gender-Identity Disorder Diagnosis Under Attack." In it, they quote Kenneth Zucker, Ph.D., who is Director of the Child and Adolescent Gender-Identity Clinic at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, and author of the 1995 book, Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents.

Dr. Zucker is a prominent defender of childhood treatment for GID. He says his priority is "helping these kids be happily male or female," by which he means getting them to identify with their assigned, not chosen, sex. To the delight of NARTH associates, "he also acknowledges that the treatment process does, in some cases, apparently avert homosexual development."

There is much I do not know about the Aurora Lipscomb case, as a judge put a gag rule on both the parents and lawyers. There seem to be many factors particular to this situation which might cloud the issue, but the point which seems clear is that this country is very uncomfortable with gender transgressions of any sort, and when it happens in children, the response is to try to "fix" it by making them conform to normative sex/gender roles and expectations, rather than allow them to act as they feel comfortable. Further down in the NARTH article, we find this incredulous passage:

"Treatment of childhood GID is under attack by some gay and feminist advocacy groups, which are pushing to have the diagnostic category deleted. These critics claim that efforts to change gender behavior represent nothing more than homophobia in the parents--that is, bias against homosexuality as evidenced by an attempt to prevent its development in their child. These critics say it is not the child that should change, but society--which should affirm a wide range of cross-gender behaviors as well as homosexuality and lesbianism--so then there will be no need for a parent to seek treatment for his child." (www.narth.com/docs/childhood.html)

It is sad that this idea of societal change toward more acceptance of gender-transgressive behavior and queer sexuality rather than individual change toward conformity should be so widely rejected and scoffed at, but the powers that be have too much at stake- financial, patriarchal, and structural- to let the dualistic mentality so essential to their authority be questioned.

There are definitely points of hope though, such as this story from a 14-year-old ninth grader who had a transgendered classmate:

"he was, anatomically, a she, but identified and acted as a male. i respected his feelings and needs, and continued to call him a he, and to refer to him as a he. other students had problems with him, though, when they went on a sleepaway class trip, the issue of changing in front of him was a problem with some of the boys, but after it was worked out, they began to see how he truly felt about himself... i don’t think that anyone should have to change their lifestyle because it causes problems for other people. to force someone to live their life in a way that they don't want to does not fix a problem, it makes it worse. the other students should have times when they can be taught and counseled to learn how to understand other people, and how to accept that some people are different from them."

Ponderings such as this from a very intelligent 23-year-old man also give me hope:

"I think kids should feel free (and even be encouraged) to explore their gender and their sexuality all they like. Now, since I think gender is primarily an illusion, I'd just as soon it didn't exist at all. But insofar that sexuality is *not* an illusion but a deep and intimate reflection of ourselves and how we express our love and desire toward others, I really think it's meaningless to say one is "heterosexual" or "homosexual" unless one has the choice to explore both options and discover what these things really mean. Similarly, I think it's fine if people decide that they identify strongly as "masculine" or "feminine," but I don't think that such a personal choice should be predetermined merely because of the presence or absence of testicles or ovaries, any more than these things should tell us whom we want to hold and kiss...
"I believe, rightly or wrongly, that all of us deep inside are bisexual and ungendered. And the fact that we can't really live that way in society, at least as it currently exists, results in a lot of sadness and a lot of fear, which manifests itself in a lot of different ways that people never even realize goes back to that original dissociation of our sex. I think that the anger and fear that people show toward gender-transgression is similar to these cognates in homophobia: they form a way for people to deny and repudiate deep feelings of longing and betrayal they feel against themselves. I think perhaps we are all in a sort of unrequited love affair with ourselves, except that we don't know it; and perhaps all the things we do and the people we seek in love and sex are our ways of trying to heal this tragic rift in ourselves... There is this quote by Rainer Maria Rilke (my hero!), which I find so utterly beautiful and poignant and which speaks directly to this issue: ‘Perhaps the sexes are more related than we think, and the great renewal of the world will perhaps consist in this, that man and maid, freed of all false feelings and reluctances, will seek each other not as opposites, but as brother and sister, as neighbors, and will come together *as human beings*, in order simply, seriously and patiently to bear in common the difficult sex that has been laid upon them.’"

There are of course many closed-minded and conservative people in the world who believe that questioning your assigned sex is truly a disorder, and that gender is biologically determined. They will teach their children to denounce those who do not fit into normative sex and gender roles. Yet people like the ones I have quoted above will also have children, and teach them to question anatomy and authority, and to be open to all the varied definitions of sex, gender, and sexuality, no matter how strange or impossible they might sound.

If there were enough of us, this would slowly chip away at the very base of the patriarchal power structure, causing the de-pathologizing of GID, the de-stigmatization of gender- and sex-transgressive behavior, and the tumbling of walls which keep the various binaries of sex, gender, sexuality, race, class, and ability as opposites, disallowing the continuums, deep pools, and groups of individuals which truly make up the human family. Children such as Aurora would be able to dress and act the way they see fit without fear of ostracism, and parents like the Lipscombs would be encouraged and applauded for their decision to allow their child to go with her instincts, not declared 'unfit.' Without clear-cut binaries and high walls, we would actually have to look at each other. Our eyes would be filled with wonder.

(c) Arjuna Greist 2000