To Have and Have Not: Penises, Faces, and Other Bodily Bits

 Is the phallus still the single, most stable, identifiable gender definer: by its presence, or by its absence? In this world view (which I have seen personally expressed in many ways online - here's a screenshot of one single forum thread on the art and community website DeviantArt, posted in May 2022), wherein presence of a penis = male. Absence = female. The end.

Even taking into account the feasibility of mere trolling in the above (note the deliberate nazi references in the OP), the point is inescapable that these views are pervasive, and cross multiple territories (a number of DA forum regulars are not Anglo-American and do not have English as a first language). An advocate who believes that transwomen with penises can be classified as women is unlikely to argue the opposite "for lolz". We are returned to the nasty old-fashioned Freudian binary: that those who have, have the privilege of masculinity and maleness (whether they want it or not), and those who don't, don't. Again, the end. Only full GRS can remove this stigma, assuming it also comes with full legal and social acceptance of the newly-assigned gender.

One text (thanks to Dr. Angela Jones for recommending it) which has become fundamental to my background reading is 'Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach' by Kessler & McKenna. Thus:

            "Penises and vaginas are the criteria by which gender is assigned at birth. Penis means ‘‘male” and labia and vagina means “ female,” and that, except in the most ambiguous cases, is all that is necessary to determine the neonate’s gender. There is some question as to whether the formula is really labia and vagina = fem ale, or whether it is instead no penis = female, since at birth there is no search (i.e., internal examination) for a vagina or clitoris." - Kessler & McKenna, p. 58.

The privileging of the masculine by patriarchal surgical, medical and surrounding discourse (which is also discussed at length by Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling ('Sexing the Body', passim)) - is again iterated:

            "[...] in a case where a mother amputated the penis of her 15-month-old son, the medical team made the decision to keep him “ male,” despite the fact that he no longer had a penis (Westman and Zarwell, 1975). The medical basis of this decision seems to have been that reassigning him as female, and perform ing the necessary surgery, would have necessitated castration and thus rendered this individual sterile. A fertile male without a penis was seen as preferable to a sterile female with a vagina." (ibid.)

In which case, we are reminded of the sociological purpose of women as 'child bearers', and the recent Irish political designation of spinsters as "redundant women".

But this blog deals with more than genitalia, and Kessler and McKenna note the external details which are used, at first glance, to gender individuals: 

            "Our purpose in soliciting reasons was not to catalog them, detailing stages in cognitive development. Ample evidence has already been collected (e.g., Kohlberg, 1966; Katcher, 1955; Thompson and Bentler, 1971) which shows that young children cite hair length and clothing as gender cues and that adults use biological signs. The reasons that the youngest children gave suggest that they have not yet learned that any reason is not enough; it must be a “ good reason.” That is, it must be placed within a gender “ appropriate” context. For example, both preschool and adult participants frequently gave body parts as reasons. While pre-schoolers, for the most part, merely named the body part (“ Why is this a picture of a boy?” "His hands” or “ His face” ), the adults characterized the features in a particular way ("Because of the aggressive expression on his face ” or “Because his arms are in an athletic pose” )." - P.105

This feeds handily into recent research I've been doing on the physiognomy of gender, about which I've so far been unable to find many general studies. There are, however, a couple of interesting papers on the relations between gender, social power and dominance. 

            "Traits associated with physical maturity and strength may have acquired a signaling function for dominance among humans as they have, in an analogous fashion, among other species. For example, individuals with prominent, square jaws may appear "dominant" because jaw growth indicates maturing dentition and fully developed teeth are used for intimidation among many primates (Guthrie, 1970). " (Caroline F. Keating, Social Psychology Quarterly 985, Vol. 48, NO. 1, 61-70, Gender and the Physiognomy of Dominance and Attractiveness, p. 62.)

Given the historical place of women in traditionally submissive or non-dominant roles, this has some bearing on the modern stereotype of lesbians as commonly having 'butch' or 'masculine' facial attributes. Whether the mere possession of such attributes contributes to making one eventually become gay (due to repeated rejection by stereotypically-minded members of the opposing sex) is another matter, and one that's well beyond my scope of research.

Keating goes on:

            "Morphological cues of nondominance [...] have received more attention than those of dominance, perhaps because of the Lorenzian notion of the "cute response" (see Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1975:400). Lorenz (1943) postulated that certain infantile features evolved their appealing nature because they operated as cues for caretaking responses. Consistent with Lorenz's notion, several investigators found that the babyishness of cephalic shape determined perceived cuteness for schematic drawings (Alley, 1981; Brooks and Haebberg, 1960; Hildebrandt and Fitzged, 1979). Preferences for photographs of infant rather than adult faces of both human and non-human species were reported for post-pubescent human males and females (Fullard and Re-, 1976). Sternglanz et al. (1977) collected "attractiveness" ratings from college students who viewed schematized baby faces with systematically varied features (e.g., chin size, eye shape, iris size, etc.). Feature variations which produced the highest attractiveness ratings were consistent with Lorenz's proposals (Sternglanz et al., 1977). " (p.62)

            "From a sociobiological perspective, likely dominance cues are traits associated with physiognomic characteristics, such as jaw prominence, that promote successful intraspecific competition. Identi-Kit faces with prominent, square jaws were therefore hypothesized to appear more dominant than those with more rounded ones. Dominance cues are also likely to involve traits that accompany status differentiators such as age. The amount of facial hair increases following puberty (especially in males), and so faces with bushy or thick eyebrows were expected to appear dominant relative to those with thin eyebrows (Guthrie, 1970). Large eyes, another juvenile trait, were predicted to look nondominant relative to small eyes (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1975: Guthrie, 1790; Lorenz, 1943: Sternglanz et a]., 1977). Thick or pudgy lips are also characteristic of babies and were expected to diminish dominance ratings for adult faces (Keating et a]., 1981 b). Dominance cues were expected to be associated with attractiveness for male faces but not for females. Nondominance cues were predicted to correspond with perceived attractiveness for female faces and make male faces less attractive. 

            "For both male and female faces, the combination of brows, eyes, lips and jaw designed to look adultlike rather than childlike boosted dominance ratings, as predicted. Furthermore, variations in eye size or lip thickness alone were reliable dominance cues. These findings are consistent with the sociobiological arguments guiding the selection of trait manipulations. Dominance was conveyed by the relatively small eyes and thin lips associated with adult development. Nondominance was signalled by the large eyes and thick lips associated with the prepubescent young of our species. 

            "In general, traits that served as dominance cues for male faces made female faces look less attractive and male faces look more attractive. Female faces were perceived as attractive when displaying traits that made male faces appear submissive (a "Tootsie Effect") and unattractive (Keating, forthcoming). Perhaps the neotenous traits displayed by females of nonhuman species are analogous to the human situation. The notion that perceptions of dominance and attractiveness are differently related for males and females implies that the basis of attraction may rest. in part, on perceptions of dominance. When a woman looks too "masculine" or a man too "feminine" perhaps what is violated is not only a gender distinction but a dominance or status distinction as well. "Feminine" or nondominant characteristics may make males look weak but make females look appealing." (p. 69)

Keating sums up the pervasiveness of all of this in our culture:

            "These arguments are supported by common observations of feminine beauty techniques. The typical prescription for "beauty" in Western culture includes making eyes look larger and brows thinner and arched. These techniques could be viewed as a sort of culturally prescribed neoteny (Guthrie. 1970). The present study suggests that such interpersonal perceptions are not arbitrary, cultural inventions but are patterned by primate evolution." (ibid.)

We can see, then, that industries such as the beauty and glamour worlds, and popular media such as men's magazines, comics, video games, etc., all strictly adhere to, rather than deviate from, these repetitive social/evolutionary cues in which strong, aggressive and dominant men, and non-aggressive, non-dominant women, are the norm (even in media in which women are portrayed as "tough" or aggressive, they also must typically still be rendered "sexy" - a tough female character who is also aggressive and rendered physically unattractive (by the conventional means described above) will very likely be a lesbian, trans*, a villain, or some combination thereof. The action/aggression aspects of characters such as Lara Croft, then, are in no way incompatible with the physical representation of the character for the target demographic: eye candy for the male gamer, while they carry on with the traditional male, aggressive, dominant behaviour of fighting/exploring/winning/kicking ass in general. The character does not, physically (oversized tits, hourglass physique) or physiognomically (big eyes and lips, small chin), present herself as inherently aggressive or dominant. That feature is only accessible via the actual gameplay, which, of course, the male gamer has full control of (more of this kind of discussion in my previous blog post, here).

Of similar interest is another paper authored by Eva G. Krumhuber, Xijing Wang and Ana Guinote, 'The powerful self: How social power and gender infuence face perception' (Current Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02798. Accepted: 26 January 2022):

            "Of particular importance is facial dominance, associated with characteristics such as a prominent jawline, pronounced eyebrows, and thin lips (Van-Vugt & Grabo, 2015). Those who look strong and dominant are favored as leaders and attain higher ranks in organizational settings. For example, people with dominant facial features are more likely to reach higher military rankings, achieve business success, and receive more votes in political campaigns (e.g., Alrajih & Ward, 2014; Little et al., 2007; Mueller & Mazur, 1996)." (p.2)

            "Whilst social power is something desirable for men, it may create a backlash against women who risk negative social reactions (Eagly & Karau, 2002). In line with this argument, female power holders are often described as ‘iron maiden’ and ‘ice-queens’ (Heilman et al., 2004), with the effect that they are judged as more hostile (e.g., devious, bitter; Heilman et al., 1995). They experience criticism and penalization from both men and women (Rudman, 1998), and are viewed as less socially skilled and feminine than their male counterparts (Rudman & Glick, 1999; Wang et al., 2018). Also, dominant behavior and appearance fail to increase the perceived attractiveness of women, whereas they do so in men (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Sadalla et al., 1987). In fact, female faces are rated as attractive the more submissive/immature features they contain such as a round face, large eyes, and a small chin (Keating, 1985). (p. 3)

            "Traits that serve as dominance cues for men (i.e., masculine facial features) may therefore not be appealing to women (Sutherland et al., 2015) because they violate conventions of appropriate female behavior (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Instead, socially shared expectations that link women with submissiveness may constitute the preferred point of view (Bailey & Kelly, 2015). This could lead to the visual representation of own faces in which the self is predominantly aligned with perceptions of low power/dominance. As women come to internalize gender-stereotypic roles, submissive traits and appearances related to the self may appear more typical and desirable. As such, women’s submissive self-face schemas as shown in this research could have a self-perpetuating function that may prevent them from taking on power-related roles*. In contrast, dominant self-face schemas held by men may be automatically activated when opportunities arise to acquire or maintain power (Wellington et al., 2003). These self-selection processes then complement environmental pressures and social discrimination (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000)." (p. 11)

*My italics. A relevant point in relation to the perpetuation of male-to-female trans* stereotypes and the need for, f'rexample, facial feminization surgery and such.

Of interest within this paper is the use of computer-generated facial images, tending along a spectrum of most dominant -> most submissive (for male and female - although, only Caucasian - subjects), which is similar in line to the proposed work I'm undertaking (via the https://metahuman.unrealengine.com/ digital face generator) for preparing a spectrum of gendered physiognomies, in an attempt to locate the point - for a general consensus of viewers - at which clear and explicit gender breaks down, and ambiguity is introduced:

The character is based on 'Frankie', the non-binary lead and narrator of my graphic novel series 'Sinister Rouge' (2019-20), and its development in this virtual environment has direct links to my own personal aesthetics of physiognomy, as well as the feedback I have received over the years in that regard. As it stands, the project is to define a female character that is universally declared to "look female", and then tweak her features increasingly until questions, confusion and - ultimately - accusations of "maleness" or "trans-ness" creep into the responses. How I will enable this research to be conducted is for further down the line however, and something that will need to be discussed at length.

Moving back to the issues of 'reading' a person's characteristics from their facial structure (shades of the phrenology pseudo-science, and the recent Stanford University 'gay face' study), I wonder if the perceived femininity (and, ultimately, the attractiveness thereof) of a face is determined by that face's apparent submissiveness. If big eyes on a girl or woman are deemed attractive - because big eyes look innocent, childlike, and (relatively) non-aggressive, non-threatening - then clearly, in opposition, narrow eyes on a woman ought to indicate the reverse? Japanese culture, via manga and anime, explicitly refers to these tropes (the characteristic large, often very detailed, eyes of anime characters are derived from 1960s Disney creatures) with 'boy eyes' and 'girl eyes'. 

Power and dominance over an individual seems to be a driving force behind what is perceived as attractiveness. Narrow eyes and a stern chin will make some viewers uncomfortable if they are juxtaposed with a stereotypically 'sexy' physiology (a major part of my own drawing practice) and therefore the normative/cis-het dominant male viewer would reject such a representation. This, I suspect, is part of the driving force behind a lot of male-to-female transphobia - that the attractive, submissive elements of traditional womanhood are offset by too manly a facial structure (in some cases) which then perturbs, disrupts, the initial lust response once a closer, second look has been taken, and the viewer wonders if the person they liked the look of at first sight, may turn out to be just as dominant or aggressive as they themselves? A case of hitting too close to home, perhaps?

Of Ducks and Differences: Ambiguity and Resemblance

 Ambiguity has been a recurring keyword for me throughout this research so far, and when viewed in practical terms - how far can we go before it is assumed a truth of either x or not x in a form or persona? Before a form stops being ambiguous and can be accepted for what it purports to be, at least on the surface?

For the sake of neutrality and to avoid getting mired in gender identity matters, I'll frame this discussion in terms of the old saying regarding that which looks like, and walks like, a duck. The duck metaphor or stand-in reduces things to a less ambiguous level and helps us to see at which level taxonomies and definitions apply, or cease to apply, and why this may be.

Logically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks, why should we not allow it to be described as a duck? Must we insist upon analyzing it inside-out with regard to its 'apparent' versus its 'actual'/underlying duckness (or lack thereof - usually defined in taxonomical terms of reduction, or its consistent similarity to other entities which have all been previously rubber-stamped with a 'genuine duck' seal of approval, by the hand of someone who is not a duck themselves, but who defines for others whether or not they may be allowed to be perceived as ducks - as opposed to swans, emus, or archaeopteryxes?).

In reality, we accept the following image as being splendidly representative of duckhood:

We also, from a very young age (that is, pre-adult judgement) have no problem whatsoever with identifying the following as a duck, either:

Or even the following - a thing made by hand, with only superficial resemblances to duckhood (can't walk or fly, lay eggs, quack, etc.), yet which is convincing enough to attract real members of that same species:

To then waddle on from the duck metaphor, why can we universally assume that the following image represents an entity we unthinkingly define as "she":

and, paradoxically, also this:

yet are unwilling or unable to do so with regard to this:

It follows, therefore, that a few hundred thousand tonnes of metal or wood is perceived by many as more inherently female than a living, breathing person (who may or may not have the exact same outward biology as an assigned-at-birth female). The connection (or disconnection) is, I perceive, more than semantic or visual - it operates on a gut, instinctive, and emotional level, wherein emotional attachment is more easily transferred to an object/piece of machinery under one's control than a human being capable of the same emotional responses and sensations as the one who does the naming. Perhaps that is the keyword in all this: control, and the implied power/jurisdiction which is invested in the (usually male) owner or commander of a vessel over that technological/mechanical interface, but which is denied in the case of an actual person which is too *similar* to the protagonist, too much like himself, too incapable of yielding to commands on account of shared biology (in the sense, of course, that what is popularly described as "feminine" tends to be identified also, variously, as "soft", "yielding", "submissive", etc. - as witness the recurring tropes of hyper-femininity inherent in the "forced feminization/sissy" area of pornography and role-playing - something for which I have no stomach, and am aware of only for its intersection with the trans* spectrum on the level of cross-dressing and female embodiment fantasy theory. (NB: Despite its appearances, I view this more as a subset of extreme masochism rather than any clear or defined actual gender identification, as it is predicated on the idea of "feminization" representing submission, passivity, and at the extreme end, sexual and other forms of abuse. Thus the debates of how far down the spectrum we may go before we start accommodating fetishism as a form of gender diversity at such public events as Manchester Sparkle - which is a discussion for another post perhaps, but one I have seen argued repeatedly in the past.)

What I'm evidently pushing towards with all of this (but still circumnavigating somewhat) is a code of semiotics and signifiers: whether of the "C'est ne pas un pipe" art-historical variety, or the visualization of Sign-Signifier-Signified - something along these lines, as I see it:

The argument is far more complex than simply that of a person exhibiting the outward signs (costume, behaviours, overall appearance) of an other, but in how far - intrinsically - that exhibition can be said to make them analogous, or identical, to that other - a situation dependent upon not just the quality of the performance, but also how well that performance constructs the essence of of the other in the minds of observers. Putting on a police officer's uniform doesn't make anybody a police officer, even if they have knowledge of laws and have sworn (personally) to uphold them, and spend their time going around protecting the innocent. What constitutes a genuine police officer in a society is a far more complex set of relationships, histories, connections and requirements, of course. But in the minds of many citizens, the would-be officer could be just as much - if not more so - a police officer as the 'real thing', especially if they had only positive, personal experiences from an encounter with such a person, who could even come across as friendlier, more approachable and more helpful than some genuine representatives of law enforcement. In such a case, the impersonator may be said to be modelling the 'ideal' of a police officer, presenting the positive side and downplaying the negative associations which have become increasingly public in recent years - in which case, and if everybody involved benefits from the encounter or the experience, where's the harm? (Leaving aside, of course, the realities of accountability, legal obligations, public trust, etc.). 

Let's leave the ducks in the pond and cut to the gender case now.

“Men, contrary to the fantasy of the transsexual, can never, even with surgical intervention, feel or experience what it is like to be, to live, as women. At best the transsexual can live out his fantasy of femininity—a fantasy that in itself is usually disappointed with the rather crude transformations effected by surgical and chemical intervention. The transsexual may look like a woman but can never feel like or be a woman. The one sex, whether male or female or some other term, can only experience, live, according to (and hopefully in excess of) the cultural significations of the sexually specific body… This gulf, this irremediable distance, is what remains intolerable to masculinist regimes bent on the disavowal of difference."

    (Elizabeth Grosz, 'Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. (1994). p207-208, quoted in Cix Shrimpton, 'The pornographic ontology of the shemale: Transwoman as radical feminism’s metaphysical victim'. )

Herein we hit the dilemma that may be the crux of all this research: how much of identity - and gender - is merely appearance, whether biological (natural or otherwise), facial, sartorial, etc.? I appreciate completely the often-used argument against the transwoman-as-woman, that one who has not been born a woman, experienced the growing up stages of puberty, menstruation, social and cultural and conditioning etc. throughout their entire life on a daily basis that define one's place as a woman in the world, cannot be said to be truly - in any rounded, socio-cultural way - a woman as one who has (and one of the reasons why I spend most of my time discussing in-betweenness, non-binary being, and third-gender, rather than pushing the transwoman-as-woman line which, to me, can have potential problems with relation to furthering the strict gender binary, and allowing the continued encoding of persons as either/or). That does not mean such a person has no claim to womanhood whatsoever, for upon gender reassignment, it is expected that they will then experience the responses and interactions common to one of that gender and in that position, with all the positive (and negative) attributes that such status brings.

A lot of this seems to echo Jean-Paul Sartre's ideas of essence, true nature (and its construction in the minds of others), and the very famous example of the waiter who, in trying too hard to project publicly his waiterly credentials, is seen to be merely 'playing' at being a waiter, rather than working hard on the true fundamentals of waiting on tables. Yet can we say that Sartre's waiter is less of a waiter, than Daffy is a duck? After all, the waiter is employed in that role, receives a wage suitable to that position, and will be referred to as a waiter by his employer, colleagues and the public. Daffy is not an egg-laying creation of nature, but a series of squiggles and dots on acetate sheets drawn by talented cartoonists. And while he may talk like a duck, he doesn't really walk like one - his legs aren't short enough.

That's all for now, as I think I need to push my nose back into semiotic theory again and figure out where I take it from here. The question there, however, remains: Structuralist, or Post-Structuralist? I've spent time in both camps in the past, but now it might be time to choose a side.