The hierarchies that exist in our culture are sometimes
obvious, sometimes less so. Sometimes
they are downright pernicious, creeping their way into our minds and practices
when we least expect them. Sometimes
this happens in ways that are difficult to control, and it is these ways
that I wish to emphasize today. In
particular, I want to discuss how the very structure of parts of the English linguistic
lexicon embodies certain aspects of heteronormative patriarchy. I am going to use two examples of this, but I
in no way mean to imply that these are the only two. I would love for anyone who has other
examples of how this works to post those in the comments below!
 |
| From The Washington Post |
Example 1: For the year of 2015, The American Dialect Society voted “the singular they” as their word of the year. Why was this necessary? Well, because gender isn’t a fucking binary,
yet our language lacks the grammatically accurate word to describe a singular-other
without referencing their gender. Think
about it… we have “He/She” to reference singular others. We have “We/Us” to reference a non-gendered inclusive identity. However, we have no word with which to describe some singular-other without referencing their gender. Therefore, if we wish to degender language
and if we wish to respect the gender identities of those we are talking to,
then our options are limited. We are
left with the possibilities of inventing new words (which some people have done, and which I respect wholeheartedly) or we can reimagine the meaning of existing
words. The latter is more common, and
has resulted in “the singular they.” This pronoun allows us to speak about some other person without referencing their gender. Because not everyone identifies with a "he/she" binary, this is especially important for making all humans feel welcome in our conversations.
 |
| The word "Pegging" describes a woman using a strap-on to fuck a man, yet we lack the language to describe a man putting a ciscock in a woman |
Example 2: Sex.
Fucking. Boning. “Doing it.”
Blow job. Head. Hand job.
Fisting. Fingering. Anal.
Butt sex. Butt fucking. BDSM.
Power exchange. Fooling
around. Play. Playing.
Group sex. Oral sex. Fetishes. Pegging. The list of words that reference physical intimacy is rather
lengthy. But there is one thing for
which we lack a specific word. This
is sex that involves a cisman putting his penis into a ciswoman’s vagina. Sometimes this is referred to as PIV (“Penis
In Vagina”) sex, but this is not only exceptionally clinical and not very sexy, in my opinion, but it’s not commonly used; it’s more of a slang in certain communities (some of which I am fortunate enough to be a part of). This is one of the most perniciously heteronormative
aspects of the English language and promotes a very oppressive, transphobic,
and homophobic idea of sex. It is not at all uncommon to hear someone
(especially a man) say, “Well, we didn’t have sex.” What does someone normally mean when they (in the singular, notice) say
this? That there was not a penis in a
vagina. They might have had all
different kinds of sex, they might have had sex for hours, they might have been
having sex with the same person for a long portion of a relationship, but if a
penis has not entered a vagina then they believe that “sex” did not
happen. Those who make this claim should
rightly be called out. However, the
problem is that we really do not have a word to describe this act that some
heterosexual couples do place a great deal of significance on. Our language forces us into a
heteronormative, transphobic space focused on potentially-reproductive forms of
intimacy. And this has real repercussions, as teens too often think that anal and oral don't "really count" and thus may find themselves struggling to have adequate conversations about sex and sexuality.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not some anarcho-primitivist to be
likened to John Zerzan, who opposes language as such (and, ironically, writes a
great deal about his opposition to language).
I am not saying to stop using language!
Instead, I am saying that the oppressions and hierarchies and exclusions
of the dominant culture get coded into our interactions in ways that are difficult
to overcome and that are often so subtle that we do not notice them at
first. Language is in constant flux
though, as the “singular they” indicates, and we should embrace this. “They” can be used as a singular word to degender language. I don’t yet know of a
better word for PIV sex, though I very much want to hear one. If you know of one, please let me know! Until then, I’ll still feel kind of uncomfortable with all my options. I mean, who wants
to say, “Oh my god, please PIV me!” or “We were PIVing for hours last
night!” It just... doesn’t work for me,
but I don’t know what is better. The fact is, I'm stuck in this language that came before me, and I don't know what to do with it. But I'm open to suggestions...
No comments:
Post a Comment