In the 21st century, every organization with a mission to support women has had to consider how to define “woman.” Women of the ELCA defines “woman” as inclusively as possible, seeking to include all who identify as women in our circle of support. Yet, it is worth considering, what does it mean to identify as a woman? While sometimes this feels like a new question, the question of the nature of woman (What makes a woman a woman?) has long been debated. Throughout the centuries and across the globe, many women have entered into the discussion in order to push back against a definition that a patriarchal culture has constructed.
As we conclude this series for Women’s History Month, we encourage you to read this series of blogs at the links below on how women have defined themselves and how that definition helps all of us who want to help women thrive.
by Jennifer Hockenbery
March 24, Queering It Up!
The 1969 Stonewall protests were led by Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, transgender women who, in fighting for gay rights, spoke openly about the fluidity of gender categories and the complexity of all labels involving sex, gender, and sexuality.
In 1985, biologist and philosopher Donna Haraway published The Cyborg Manifesto, which spoke about how all women constructed their bodies to fit a certain biological definition of female. Humans have always used technology to augment their bodies, and women have used technology to create their own biological reality. Some specific contemporary examples include the way many women use hair removal products, push-up bras, sexy butt and ab workouts, hair extensions, tummy-flattening underwear, and high heels to create what is considered a feminine-looking body. Also, women take artificial hormones to regulate their cycles, to help them get pregnant or remain pregnant, and to stave off changes due to menopause. In addition, many women have plastic surgery. Finally, many intersex children are “normalized” with hormone therapy and surgery.
Haraway’s point simply shows that almost everyone who identifies as a woman has used some form of technology to create her physical manifestation of being female. No one is “naturally” what women are considered to be. We all construct ourselves. Admitting this allows us to embrace ourselves as we wish to be—that includes as we hope to be constructed. We should consider why we want to construct ourselves a certain way. If you are augmenting your body with a surgery that causes you less pleasure and more pain (as many breast augmentation and butt lifts do), your reasons should be considered carefully. One ought consider what one really wants, rather than what culture dictates one to expect of one’s body. But we should also admit that using technology to construct our bodies is part of being human. It does not make us less human to wear glasses or contacts; it does not make us less of a woman to take hormone therapy or have breast implants.
In 1987, Gloria Anzaldúa published La Frontera/Borderlands, a book that speaks about the fluidity of identity for those who are Chicana, embracing Spanish, Mexican, Indigenous, and US models of identity. She also spoke of her fluid identity as a woman, as a lesbian, and as a philosopher.
In 1989, Judith Butler published Gender Trouble, a call to academic feminists to recognize that the category of woman is itself suspect. A central chapter on hermaphrodites exposed that the biological definitions of male and female constantly change throughout the ages. The way society forces people into these categories causes tragic pain to those whose bodies do not fit the categories. Butler suggests that readers think deeply about how fluid gender categories seem and why we are so resistant to acknowledging that reality.
Rivera, Johnson, Haraway, Anzaldua, and Butler contributed to the invention of Queer Feminism. When my students read these authors, they almost always decide that they also identify as queer. Some speak openly about their own intersexuality, the fact that they were born without ovaries or with a genetic type that does not match their genitalia. Others speak about competing cultural models of femininity that they face in their families. Others say that they want the freedom to express their feminine and masculine attributes.
Queer feminists acknowledge that culture has created biological sex categories and gender categories in ways that can be oppressive. However, they worry that gender eliminativism (first-wave liberal feminism) does not celebrate the unique attributes considered feminine and masculine and instead seeks to make all people the same. Queer feminists help us accept the “ult-fem” feminists as well as the gender eliminativists by saying that we each must accept who we feel we are while accepting those around us as they express their gender. Being queer is about acknowledging that we should never stuff ourselves into a box to fit a social norm that harms our flourishing.
Conclusion:
This month’s blogs have focused on four different views of what women are and four different kinds of feminism. While too often ult-fem feminists, gender eliminativists, 2nd-wave feminists, and queer activists find themselves fighting against each other, this series attempts to show what is in common and what is at stake. The foundation of feminism, a word that simply means taking a stand for the female, is the active thinking about what it means to really support women’s full flourishing. This, too, is the foundation of Womanism and Chicana feminism, which consider deeply the intersectionality of racial identity with gender identity. Getting to know more women and how they define themselves can only help us achieve this goal.
Dr. Jennifer Hockenbery is interim executive director for Women of the ELCA and editor of the Journal of Lutheran Ethics. She is the author of Thinking woman: A philosophical Approach to the Quandary of Gender.
Read: Week 1: Feeling Rad Trad?
Read: Week 2: The mind has no sex!
Read: Week 3: Decolonizing the feminized mind: A brief history of Gender Existentialism.
Photo of the mural of Marsha P. Johnson, Joseph Ratanski and Sylvia Rivera in 1973 by Gary LeGault. Used with permission. Photos of Donna Haraway. Used with permission. Photo of Gloria Anzaldúa courtesy of Sandstein. Used with permission. Photo of Judith Butler. Used with permission.