The Inarticulate Gender: Daoist Philosophy of Language and the Non-Binary Gender

By Olivia Huff

The language surrounding gender has become a source of controversy in the last year, as pressure to destigamtize and normalize “they/them” pronouns has brought on an expanding societal consciousness to the existence of genders outside the gender binary of male and female. As Western culture struggles to reevaluate and redefine their traditional views of gender, I think it would help to bring Eastern philosophy into the conversation to help place the role of language into a context that aligns with the need for giving labels and identities to people living outside the gender binary. Laozi is the name of the Chinese contemporary rhetor from 500 B.C.E. who founded the school of thought known as Daoism (School 226). His philosophy of language and perception of speech will be a helpful perspective when considering non-binary identities as his philosophies promote noncontention, spontaneity, creativity, and an acknowledgement of the depth of human existence. In particular, his ideas capture the “less-is-more” philosophical outlook on life. Daosim is not concerned with using the art of rhetoric to teach others as typically seen in other forms of rhetoric, instead, Laozi encourages one to focus within on personal truth and knowing for unity with the Dao. Laozi defines the Dao as a metaphysical and ontological concept for exploring the intricate relationship between the abstract and concrete. It is between the speakable and the unspeakable. Seeking to grasp a concept such as the Dao has led me to see parallels in life where this balancing act is more tangible to me, instead of cosmically broad, or so innate it’s molecular and invisible to the eye. I see the connection between the Dao and gender non-conformity as non-binary identities seek a way to transcend the dichotomy of gender in the same way the Dao transcends the dichotomy of something and nothing: being and nonbeing. Daoism’s rhetorical perspectives focus on less talk, namelessness, and a skepticism of language which is beautifully applicable in this conversation of inadequate language and the complex experience of living in a frustrating world that only understands concrete gender when gender is, in fact, the abstract and metaphysical embodiment of the experience of the Dao.

The word ming in Chinese means name. In Daoism, Laozi acknowledges how with naming things, we have the ability to obscure and distort reality. Do our definitions capture the true nature of things? These limitations of speech can mislead human action. Though naming and classifying things helps us function in the world, it can never fully embrace or represent the real nature of the thing, “Language as a means of expression conceals as much as it reveals” (School 234). The problem with restrictive gender definitions is that we, as a society, have created acceptable and unacceptable roles and relationships for these perceived genders. Problems can be internal such as the individual struggling with gender identity when it seems they don’t fit in either category and there is no other option available, losing sense of the world and their place in it. We create arbitrary rules for gender such as which colors, clothing items, sports, school subjects or professions a gender is allowed to enjoy. There is an expectation for a person to perform as their perceived gender which limits the world and its accessibility to people. Gender’s overlap with sexuality has created one of the largest problems in society which is the refusal to accept the LGBTQ+ community due to the belief that gender dictates who you are allowed to love. These problems rooted in gender have names: we know them as experiences of sexism, misogyny, gender dysphoria, gender roles and gender stereotypes. Western society needs to release its gripped obsession on the fixedness of male and female labels in order to focus on the feminine and masculine energies of yin and yang that exists within us all. The terms female and male are too logical and taken too literally. They lead to uncomfortable misconceptions. Through noncontention, Daoism encourages us not to participate in judgement, argument, or the condemnation of others. It is not our job to teach others or worry about that which is out of our control. We can only be responsible for ourselves and can find answers by looking within. The divine feminine and masculine are oppositional to our concept of male and female. It is a spiritual and intuitive understanding of gender, beyond words and indefinable.

Much of our experience of the world escapes words to express which is perhaps where our uncomfortability with “inaccurate” language comes from. I understand why the initial reaction to change for many is resistance; especially when we want to change language, and therefore, change our previous conceptions of “how the world works”. What the word “non-binary” literally “asks” people to do is reconceptualize their understanding of gender and “how gender works”. If we deconstruct the word non-binary, we understand it to mean “not binary” which is neither male or female. Why does this word and its definition make people uncomfortable? Is it the open, limitless possibility of interpretation? A neither-here-nor-there: a non-gender. Non-binary represents a refusal to be confined by language and the restricting world view of gender politics. It is more understanding of nature and captures the “go with the flow” attitude that Daoist rhetoric teaches. For example, the word non-binary connects to Daoist principles of wu ming and xuan tong. Wu ming is the namelessness that Laozi “related to his understanding of the Dao. As the Dao was inclusive, mysterious, and ever changing, it followed that non names or symbols could sufficiently describe it” (School 234). By accepting non-binary into our vocabulary, we are embracing xuan tong, which is the mysterious comprehension of the Dao. It is a freedom from the captivation of words (School 236). To identify as non-binary is to reject the language that has been unable to imagine a world outside its own dictionarym. Creating new language is within our power and shows the adaptability and expansion of worlds that more people can share and live in together. In fact, there is a term for this practice in Daosim as well. Wu wei is nonaction or spontaneity. This is the way the Dao manifests itself in and we can approach unity with the Dao by practicing this notion as well. Laozi believed that interfering with the natural order of things, or not allowing this spontaneity of the universe to occur, would only bring the opposite effect one desires (School 231). In essence, the interference with natural social patterns, which could come from someone acting under the effects an an artificial restraint in this situation, will create a rigid patterns of response that sacrifices the spontaneity of the individual. Ultimately, Laozi aims to reduce the negative impact of language on human behavior.

Gwan Shr Yin, The Bodhisattva Who Listens to the Sounds of All the World

To further contextualize the non-binary though the philosophy of language, I would like to bring into conversation the texts “Translation” and “Trans-Poetics” synthesized by authors A. Finn Enke and Rebekah Edwards. “Translation” focuses on language not just as a way of transferring information, but as a form of knowledge production. This quote from “Translation” captures the frustration of trying to function outside of the heteronormativity of the English language: “‘I’ still cannot speak ‘apart from the grammar that establishes my availability to you’” and helps to articulate the non-binary struggle of inarticulate existence (A. Finn). Assigned Gender at Birth has resulted in grown individuals with conflicting identities as they struggle to place their individual experiences with gender and fluidity inside a box designed from the impersonal, logical, and highly literal field of medicine. By that I mean, we have taken the biological definitions for sex, male and female, and created completely arbitrary cultural and social constructs around the experience of owning female or male genitalia. This is why attempts to classify humans with gender or sexuality labels meet so many problems. We know that experiences with gender and sexuality fall onto a spectrum and with so many “in-betweens”, trying to categorize the complex experience of having minds and bodies is never as simple as the very simplifying words we generally use to describe these aspects of life. In “Trans-Poetics”, Edwards would add that “the multiplicities possible in language are in order to narrate and subvert cultural and critical attempts to fix gender and sexual boundaries” (Edwards). What feels comfortable about non-binary labels is the way it functions as no label at all. It is a refusal to participate in the heteronormative dictionarym for gender and sexuality. An innate knowing that life is far more complicated than language can comprehend or allow for, so it rejects it all.

The definitions for male and female fail to capture the complexity of the human experience and we are left filling in the blanks. We are now seeing how forcing the binary experience as the only experience has fractured the identity of individuals who experience a world outside of the box language is contained in. We need transgender and non-binary labels. We need the option to operate outside the binary which has only even been the root of violence and dysphoria for many. As we experience in Daoism, words often fit imperfectly. Instead, stay open to the limitless, constantly changing possibilities of interpretation.

#essay #religion #philosophy #gender #lgbtq

---

Bibliography

A. Finn Enke; Translation. TSQ 1 May 2014; 1 (1-2): 241–244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2400163

Edwards, Rebekah; Trans-Poetics. TSQ 1 May 2014; 1 (1-2): 252–253. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2400109

“The School of Daoism,” pp. 225-238, from Rhetoric in Ancient China, Fifth to Third Century B.C.E.: A Comparison with Classical Greek Rhetoric, by Xing Lu