The differences between sex, gender identity, and gender expression - and how RuPaul's Drag Race fits in

Sex, gender identity, and gender expression all sound like they describe the same general idea (especially if you're an unenlightened heterocisnormative individual). I think this problem arises because these labels are not mutually exclusive and generally refer to relational traits.

When I talk about 'sex' - I mean your 'assigned at birth' or 'biological/natal' sex. Typically you are assigned "male" or "female" based on external genitalia, but individuals can also be intersex (and that can manifest itself in very different ways).

Gender identity is similar in that people generally either identify with a "masculine" or "feminine" gender identity. However, many non-binary individuals reject this framework/concept altogether, genderqueers often identify as neither, and bi-genders identify as both. Sometimes people call this your "brain sex."

Transgender typically refers to the relationship between the sex you were assigned at birth and your gender identity. You are "cisgender" if your sex matches your brain sex, and "transgender" if they don't. Transsexualism generally refers to people who take medical steps to align the two, whereas transgenderism has typically been used as an umbrella term for gender non-conformity. As a point of clarity, I will use "trans" to refer to 'transgender' rather than 'transsexual' since I want to be inclusive of pre-transition individuals who identify but may not have started HRT yet, etc.

If we wanted to represent the relationship visually, using gender identity as the Y-axis and assigned sex as the X-axis, it would look like this:

As you can see from the above, regardless of how you were born (and how you identify sexually) - if you identify as a woman, you are a woman. Same goes for men. That should be obvious and a given, but a lot of transphobic individuals refuse to accept that the words "men" and "women" really refer to gender identity (rather than sex).

As a result, most cisnormative people assume that your gender expression (and/or gender identity) is representative of your birth sex. We call this 'gender conformity.' For the sake of consistency, I'll represent this visually with gender identity as the Y-axis again, but replace birth sex with gender expression on the X-axis to get this:

Because birth sex alignment is now an assumption, intersex and trans status disappear from our chart (because they could apply to any of the four quadrants, as could sexuality).

Instead we now have "gender conforming" and "gender non-conforming" - both of which are scalar values (a matter of degree). For example, Bill Gates doesn't strike most people as being as masculine as Arnold Schwarzenegger. Similarly, Liz Lemon is seen nowhere near as feminine anyone from Sex and the City. But regardless of how far they go, if they follow gender norms, they're considered gender conforming.

Similarly, you can be a tomboy with a pixie cut, a butch lesbian, or a drag king - but you're still a woman. You could also be an effeminate straight man, a 'flaming' gay man, or a drag queen - and still be a man. 

This appears to be why some (like Zinnia Jones) argue that drag queens don't belong under the trans umbrella. The argument is that even though drag queens clearly break gender norms, since they [usually] identify as men, they don't count as trans because they're not really representing their gender (even though they are sometimes trans, such as Carmen Carrera). It is important to note that many trans people will NOT identify as transgender from the outset.

People may start exploring their gender identity and expression simultaneously via drag or cross dressing before they come to understand/accept/act upon their trans status. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that 56% of crossdressers express a desire to transition eventually (but they self-identified as crossdressers and not as transgender).

Does that make them "not trans" and/or cis? Of course not, that's just a function of the trans journey/experience being a linear "coming of age" type narrative (you have to realize you're trans before you can transition). So what about transgender individuals who never express themselves as their true gender (or never do so in public)? We would NEVER police their identities, right? WRONG!

The trans community is doing exactly that with this whole "shemale/tranny/RuPaul/drag/LGB/T" umbrella argument. The argument has long been that the "T" doesn't belong with the LGB because sexual orientation is independent of gender identity. Now the argument is that gender non-conformity doesn't necessarily imply trans status, so we should make sure to make a distinction there as well (and with that comes the "right" to use/reclaim words like "tranny" and "shemale" - but let's not go there).

Parker Molloy argued that the "man in a dress" trope will be perpetuated by this perceived ambiguity. After all, the cisheteronormative mainstream audience is too dumb to understand the distinction, right? To those obtuse cishets, gender non-conformity, transsexuality, and even homosexuality all go together into one big queer bucket (and if that bucket is then filled with water so that we all drown, all the better in their minds).

As a result, we better make sure that we are crystal clear about our identities lest we get confused with gender non-conforming cross dressing perverted cis men (or something like that). Because even if we ignore the oppression olympics argument (that trans women have it worse than gender non-conforming men, regardless of their sexuality) - no one is going to let us use the right bathroom if they all think we're just creepy men trying to get a peak at the womenz in there, right? These "men in dresses" are holding us back, so we need to separate from them, right?!?

I disagree.

Arguing about what label(s) apply to which person(s) in what context(s) seems like a very difficult conversation to have (think John Kerry policy wonk type talks). No one can do it in less than 140 characters, let alone in 1,000 word essays. There's no easy way to talk about all of this intersectionality. 

It seems much easier to say gender expression should be respected regardless of how it is done by whom. That's not "assimilation" - that's reframing the discussion with palatable/understandable terminology. That's also the legal position the EEOC and some federal courts have taken by applying the 14th amendment's equal protection clause (protection against sex discrimination) in trans-specific court cases (as well as a case of a cis woman not "appearing feminine enough").

And all of that ignores the blatant hypocrisy of this whole conversation when considering the context of the HBS/"true transsexual" gatekeeping era and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. It's also the same "think about what will happen if we allow this" slippery slope argument cis bigots use when lobbying against pro-trans legislation. It's the conversation opponents want us to have, because as Franklin pointed out centuries ago: united we stand, divided we fall.