This post is a response to thatspiritualguide’s recent article, “Does the Bulge Make the Man?” I wholeheartedly agree with him that one does not need a penis to be a man – just witness the vast number of people with vaginas who identify as men and who are accepted as such among their friends, family, peers and coworkers. Furthermore, I also agree with him about the uselessness of ‘penis size’ as a barometer for one’s masculinity, as an indicator of how much of a man one is. This obsession with dick size is a purely arbitrary method of reducing people’s self-esteem. Indeed, in Ancient Greece, it was considered comical and embarrassing to have a large penis, while small penises were glorified in sculptures as the pinnacle of masculine beauty. Obsessions with penis size are time-bound, culturally-specific creations that, in reality, have none of the ‘absolute’, gender-defining characteristics that many men attribute to them.

But if penis size is no barometer of manliness, and if, in fact, one does not even need a penis to be a man, how do we define ‘men’? What are they, if not creatures with a penis? Thatspiritualguide suggests a definition that has potentially dangerous consequences. He claims that a man should be defined primarily by his ‘strength’: ‘Men, whatever body parts they have, possess a core of strength. They operate from strength. This is what allows them to tough it out, to be strong, to man-up.’ Thankfully, he avoids stereotypes of traditional masculinity, by pointing out that manly strength is not about driving fast cars, climbing the ladder of economic power, emasculating other men and bedding as many women as possible. Instead, thatspiritualguide suggests that a man’s strength should be measured by his sensitivity and generosity: ‘he cares for others. He is not afraid to cry at sad movies. While some of these characteristics may sound femmy at first, let me assure that any man who is secure in his maleness can and does do these things. And it makes him all the manlier because he can do them.’ Essentially, he suggests that strong men have the courage to be gender-flexible, to appropriate so-called feminine emotions and behaviors.

While thatspiritualguide’s refined manliness may seem reassuringly progressive at first (especially when compared to the violence and misogyny that permeates ‘traditional’ masculinity), it could have very negative consequences. As I outlined in my previous post, one of the principal demands of the hegemonic discourse on gender is that there must always be a difference between men and women. Often, this difference is defined as oppositeness. Hence, in the worse case scenario, defining men as ‘strong’ will lead, almost inevitably, to the notion that women are, in some way, weak. In the best-case scenario, it will lead to the idea that women have a different kind of strength, that they cannot be strong in the way that men are strong. Hence, we have images of ‘women’s strength’ that involve things like enduring severe multi-tasking (a job, taking care of children, housework), or staying in a marriage, despite a husband’s philandering behavior. Men and women are discursively defined as different (often diametrically opposed) creatures, and defining one gender in a particular way often leads to an inability to define the other gender in that way as well. Hence, the notion of strong men easily leads to the idea of ‘not-strong’ women…

So if any attempt to define men could have negative implications for women – and vice versa – how do we define our two genders? What ‘are’ men and what ‘are’ women? An interesting option is presented in Tom Boellstorff’s article, “Playing Back the Nation”. Through an analysis of a particular transgender population in Indonesia, Boellstorff suggests that it is possible to open up the category ‘man’ to such an extent that it almost becomes meaningless and can incorporate an exceptionally broad range of behaviors and identities. He documents how the waria (a trans population in Indonesia who dress like women and take on ‘feminine’ roles in society) are still considered as ‘men’ in society and mostly identify as ‘men’ themselves. Thus, the article opens up the possibility that we may define ‘men’ in such a broad way, that the very term becomes almost utterly meaningless.

Who are men? They are strong, they are weak, they are smart, they are thick… some wear lipstick, other’s don’t, some are pricks, some are nice, some have dicks, others don’t… Men are a chaotic mess, akin to a Jackson Pollock piece – full of contrasts, contradictions and similarities. Any definition of what it means to be a man will never suffice.

***For More Information***
Definitely have a look at thatspiritualguide’s post, as well as the Boellstorff article. Otherwise, all I can do is recommend the usual: Judith Butler, Riki Wilchins, and Michel Foucault. Also, for more on penis size, have a look at the following Wikipedia article: www.wikipedia.org/Penis_size
(...to the full post)

I've had this discussion before. Sometimes more than once with the same buddy. Am I really a man if I'm not packing down there? Do I stuff my shorts to pass more easily? When is it safe to use the Guy's John?

Penises are a hot issue with all guys. Though most bio guys won't admit it, we too worry about how much of Johnson we have, how it looks and will a prospective love/trick pass us by if it's not impressive enough.

I want to state for the record that I do not believe that you need a penis to be a man. I have one, it's part of the original equipment I was born with. It's not ginormous, no one has yet gasped, pulling his wrists to his chest and begged me to put that monster away. No one. Not even one guy has pretended for the sake of my ego. But I'm not bitter.

About a decade and a half ago the first of my transbuddies, (named Jay) informed me "You don't have to have a penis to be a man." At the time, I'll admit here that I wasn't born enlightened about trans issues, I had to really think about it. Because to me, that's what made you a guy, right? I mean… it's a penis. It's your best friend, you take him everywhere. Jay, though, was patient and only punched me in the arm about six times until I agreed with him. Loudly.

But I soon saw the truth in his statement, and it was a big shift in understanding gender for me. Jay, wherever you are today, I want to thank you publicly for wisdom.

Each of my buddies who's worked to claim his true gender talks to me about his cock. This is also how I learned about the engorged clit. For those of you who don't know, when a guy starts T(esterone) often the Clit gets bigger.

For the record let me just say after having seen the Vagina Monologues, I was really jealous not to have one of those. They sound fabulously sensitive.

Lesson learned from another buddy, don't skip those T shots, because your newly enbiggened thing down there may lose a little mass, and it won't regain it. So keep those shots regular dudes.

What makes a man is his spirit.

A man is gentle and generous. He cares for others. He is not afraid to cry at sad movies. While some of these characteristics may sound femmy at first, let me assure that any man who is secure in his maleness can and does do these things. And it makes him all the manlier because he can do them. They are signs on strength, my friends.

Men, whatever body parts they have, possess a core of strength. They operate from that strength. This strength is what allows them to tough it out, to be strong, to "man-up." But it also allows him to nurture, to teach and to be vulnerable in love.

Strength makes a man.

Not just, or perhaps even, what his bicep can lift. Not a love of cars and football.

Strength.

When a man is strong in his humble belief in himself, every person he encounters is strengthened and comforted by his presence.

This gentle strength is what every man should strive for. Think how much safer our world would be if all men, even those who didn't have to work to become men, practiced a gentle strength, a sharing strength, a nurturing masculinity.

The bulge, or lack of bulge, is the least of what makes a man.

His heart is what makes a man. His Spirit.

Keep these always in your mind: Strength, Spirit, Heart. Use these ideals to guide your actions, reactions and interactions with others, and you will always be a man honored by others.

Salaam, Shalom, en fe la paz, and Amen.
(...to the full post)

A way belated (but much celebrated) welcome to gendergypsy, and big cheers for new writers thatspiritualguide and ambisextrous!

Sincerely,
ts


(...to the full post)

According to the ספר תורה, the Jewish Holy Book Torah (or teachings), in the Beginning God created basically everything. In seven days. Clearly, the beginning is both a time for bold vision and to get to work. I think I’ll do the same:

This is the beginning of a regular column that concerns spirituality and gender. So, in honor of doing things big in the beginning, I’m going to tackle what I think of as a great biggie – the creation of Adam and Eve. It’s a story about gender, it’s a story about religion. Seems like a good place to start.

To quote from the King James translation (1611) of the Torah text, Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” This is the text most of us are most familiar with. In Martin Luther’s translation, which is legendary for the research Luther did in the language of the German people, “man” is not the “man” we’re used to seeing, it’s “men” as in “humankind” (1522). The reason I’m interested in this particular text? Gender.

King James the 1st of England and 6th of Scotland was successor and cousin to Elizabeth I, daughter of King Henry VII. James’s mother was Mary, Queen of Scotts, who Elizabeth had killed by mistake (ooops, sorry!). Elizabeth’s own birth required the creation of a whole new branch of Christianity! (And you thought you had drama in your family.) James was also a raving, infamous homosexual. True he produced an heir to the throne, but he also made his male lover 1st Duke of Buckingham, creating a duchy for him, and elevating him in the Court. The Duke, George Villiers, was known even to wear the King’s Royal Seal around his waistline on a chain, dangling it very near his own genitals. This King is the same man for whom the clerics of the time dedicated the King James Bible.

There are a few books written about the translation of the King James Bible, the most fun to read is Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart D. Ehrman. It’s a fun, politically framed look at the men who guided and executed the translating.

What does all of this have to do with gender? Well, the King James translation sets us directly into a model of bifurcation regarding gender. God created man, and then woman. There is one, or there is the other. In Luther’s translation, it can be argued, that God created people. No defined dualism, but perhaps a continuum.

Do I think that the dualistic view of man and woman in the King James Bible is a reaction, and admonishment of a ruler given to flouting gender? Yes.

Since this Bible is most widely read book in English over the last almost 400 years now, it has put us in a mind about the dualistic nature of gender. Man and Woman. Just two choices. But we students of gender know that just two choices is insufficient – there is really a continuum.

As a religious person, it saddens me, and well frankly angers me, that some people have used this Book to beat others literally and figuratively. It is not the book of my religion, but it is still the one that most of the American culture thinks of when they think of religion. There are many other cultures around the world that have a less stringent idea of what gender expression in. As a people who are searching their souls about gender, many know more about it than I do. In future columns I hope to explore these other realities.

People who have worked hard enough on themselves to question their perceived gender know more than a little about soul searching. You don’t endure wearing a lot of pink when all you really want is a Tonka truck, as a kid without having to think about a lot of things to survive.

If there is a God, what does S/He want? Ultimately I believe that God wants you (and me) to enjoy our bodies and our whole selves. God gains nothing when you’re unhappy and unsettled. Your body may not be the one you’d choose from a catalog, but really, whose is?

As this column progresses I hope that together we can find ways to celebrate our bodies. Whether you were born with the parts you wanted or not, you are a whole and complete being. We need to find a way to have joy in that. We need to find a way to hands down, really get into digging ourselves as we are, and as we plan to (or not) change them surgically.

May whatever you consider Holy, companion with you on your journey. May you gather the strength to accept the Love that the Universe is offering you.

Salaam, Shalom, en fe la paz, and Amen.
(...to the full post)