In a recent interview with Jameela Jamil as part of her Instagram ‘I Weigh’ series, Sam Smith spoke about how he struggled with his gender identity from a young age and has increasingly identified with the labels genderqueer and non-binary, the latter being the term he explicitly used to define himself. A few other celebrities – namely Miley Cyrus and Ezra Miller – have come out as genderqueer and non-binary recently, and such stories always stimulate discussions about gender, often banal but still necessary to have. I thought I’d share some of my thoughts about this topic.
To begin with, I felt incredibly liberated by the interview. I identified with a lot of what Sam was saying: feeling somehow ‘behind’ and isolated within the gay community, of feeling confused from a young age for not fitting in with ‘the boys’ but never being one of ‘the girls’. I was shocked but impressed upon hearing that prior to becoming famous he for a period of time stopped wearing men’s clothing, and his discussions of the intersections between gender identity and fame were insightful. It’s also just great to see someone within the public eye admitting to being confused about body image and gender identity. As someone who has been very confused about gender it’s validating to see these discussions being had in a respectful space.
Now, a few issues I had with what Sam had to say. I thought some of his language was… problematic. He states that he has previously considered having a ‘sex change’, and I find this language a bit outdated, implying that transitioning is the result of having one operation rather than being a process that involves so much more than merely surgery (not to suggest that Sam means this with what he says, but I think that such terminology connotes this old-fashioned approach to the transgender experience). I think he could benefit from saying something like, ‘I debated whether I might want to transition…’ as this is, I think, a better way to discuss gender identity.
Similarly, he also claims that he at times ‘thinks like a woman’, which begs the question: what exactly does it mean to think like a woman? It seems to confirm the binary that he later goes on to deconstruct through coming out as non-binary, seems to presuppose the pseudoscientific notion that men and women think in fundamentally different ways which I am reluctant to accept. Again, I think this is a linguistic nuance and does not necessarily mean that Sam believes in what his language implies. It also probably comes from the fact that he came out in an interview rather than in a thought-out statement, and sometimes language can be awkward when spoken compared to when planned and written. I would like to quiz Sam on what he means by ‘thinking like a woman’, and hopefully dispel the gender essentialism such a claim suggests. But I also think this is a result of his confusion, his lack of exposure to the trans community. It can take a bit of adjustment to become accustomed to how gender ought to be spoken about because much of the language used in mainstream society to describe gender comes from a time before it was understood as it is now. I don’t think Sam should be punished for not being an expert on gender; I think it’s incredibly brave for someone subject to so much scrutiny to speak up on an issue which is so contentious. It’s perhaps enough to say, ‘x is a bit problematic for this reason, so maybe use y instead’. Anything more overtly critical might discourage conversation, which I don’t think benefits anyone. No one should be afraid to speak, but at the same time no one should be unwilling to learn when they misspeak.
Now, onto some of the criticisms that Sam has faced following his coming out. I’ve seen claims that coming out as non-binary enforces the gender binary it seeks to transcend; since gender is so fluid nowadays, to place a third category between binary oppositions makes the oppositions more legitimate, seems to confirm that they are essential categories (as is non-binary) rather than social constructions.
I think this criticism has some credibility. Rather than deconstructing the binary, creating a non-binary identity could arguably introduce a third term, and so does not move beyond it but merely reconfigures it to a system of 3 rather than 2. As such it doesn’t really signify much of a movement beyond traditional notions of gender; sexism could still exist, and it still posits a stable gender marker and so is subject to the same scrutiny as ‘man’ and ‘woman’. In an ideological framework, I think this is true. There is no such thing as gender, I believe, beyond things which signify it. In an ideal world there would be no gender, it would be recognised as an ideological fallacy and so coming out as non-binary seems counterintuitive under such a model of gender. Under this view, though, coming out as anything should be criticised; being trans confirms the gender binary, being gay supposes that there are such things as genders to which one may be attracted. I think to only direct this criticism towards those who come out as non-binary would not really be fair.
Furthermore, while it is generally accepted that gender is a social construct, that does not mean it is insignificant. Ideologically, yes, gender has no inherent meaning, but in the world as we understand and live in it there are coherent understandings of gender, there are such things as men and women and such categories have material consequences. Under this criticism, anyone who identifies as a man or as a woman should be criticised, which would be the majority of the population. To claim that non-binary identities enforce a binary which does not exist overlooks the fact that in society the binary does exist, and however problematic this might be we cannot overlook the conditions of the societies we live in. To claim a non-binary identity is to say that in society there are such things as men and women, and living in that society I do not identify with either of those labels. To deny non-binary as a legitimate identity would leave only two options, man and woman; once more we return to the binary. And coming out is a powerful thing; the identity is created in the act of coming out. If no one came out as non-binary, even if such identities existed, then there would only be the identities of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ visible and accessible. I find it incredibly powerful to come out as non-binary, because it is always done in the context of a society in which the gender binary is oppressively in operation. I think it deserves applause, not immediate criticism.
Another criticism I heard was that Sam was coming out as a publicity stunt. This is viable; gender is a hot topic at the minute, and is bound to catch a few headlines. I don’t think there’s much to say about this, other than that I don’t personally believe Sam has much to gain in coming out as non-binary. He is pretty much at the top of his game. I know this is not the best way to judge, but I thought he came across as incredibly real and honest in his interview, and so I would like to think that he’s not taking the piss. To say that he is appropriating an identity for the sake of publicity excludes him from the community, forces him into an identity he claims not to identify with, which seems anathema to what the queer community is all about. I think all we can really do is accept people’s proclamations about their own identity, and hope that no one would take advantage of this for personal gain. Maybe this is naive, but otherwise we end up policing identities and who has the right to be in the community, which is a worse evil, in my opinion.
I think there are more things to be discussed, but I’m starting to ramble now, I sense, so I’m going to leave it there.
WRB
W. R. Bywater 