Sometimes, it’s tough to keep inclusivity in mind. I get that; I really do. When you’re talking about breasts, breastfeeding, bras and breast cancer, women are put front and center — and hey, wouldn’t you know it, most people with breasts are women. (At least, that’s the mentality.) Similarly, you’ll find that talking about vaginas — I’m looking at you, Vagina Monologues — and penises and other gendered body parts similarly revolves around the one gender designated to have those parts. Fair enough, right? Discussions of men vs. women, boys vs. girls, “both” sexes, and being attracted to the “opposite” sex; each of these things sound pretty much par for the course based on what our society as a whole knows and acknowledges. I usually am inclined to give folks a free pass, to hold my hands in front of me defensively and say “alright, alright, you don’t know, it’s whatever.”
Except, it isn’t something that should just be shrugged off. Not really.
I am not cisgender. I do not identify with “either” gender, as a matter of fact. There are a lot of people who identify outside of the binary, or attempt to squeeze themselves into it (and that’s okay, for the record!) but align themselves with the “opposite” of what they were designated at birth. Maybe they identify with this “opposite” gender but don’t want to be cis, or treated as cis; they just want to be acknowledged and treated like what they are. I’m talking men with vaginas, women with penises, intersex people with both, and genderqueer and agender and bigender and otherwise trans* folks with any plumbing configuration you can imagine, among other variations. Their bodies — our bodies — are never, or at least very rarely, acknowledged in discussions which do still affect them, regardless of how neatly they fit into the binary box.
I want to challenge that.
I want to see people becoming aware of their binarist language; there are more than two genders, so there is no “opposite” and there is no “both.” I want people to talk about breasts and periods while keeping in mind not everyone who has them is a woman. I want people to acknowledge that parts don’t necessarily make a person, but a person is made of parts, and sometimes we have to live with parts we don’t like. I want people not to assume that their issue, however gendered, will not resonate with someone who does not identify as that gender.
I’m not proposing that we should take “women’s” issues, like reproductive rights as an example, and suddenly veer off-course and focus on everyone but women. All I ask is that folks discussing these issues, or any gendered issue, take a second to remember the queer folks who might be seriously personally impacted by these issues and hurt by the pervasive cisnormative language which labels them, with their vagina, penis, breasts, ovaries, testes, chromosomes, or hormones, as something they are not.
See above: Nicki Minaj not tolerating your cisnormativity today.
Unruly Bodies 
I really appreciate this post! As a person who is concerned about the exclusivity of feminism, and creating more inclusive atmospheres, I have been trying to make a concentrated effort to employ less gendered speak when I’m talking about issues like shackling pregnant prisoners or reproductive justice. As a person who enjoys the privileges of being cisgender, I want to be able to create a safe space for those who are not cis.
Unfortunately, I’m also directing the Vagina Monologues this year. As an event that raises awareness and empowerment of women, I think it’s great, but it’s also heavily problematic when it comes to its vagina essentialist notions of sex and gender. I wish I could find some way to make the whole things more inclusive and less problematic, but I don’t know how, as there are a lot of legal restrictions that come with Eve Ensler’s script. This post really made me think about the Monologues, and the problems that it espouses, and I hope we can start some sort of critical dialogue on campus about the play, its problems, and possible solutions. Thank you so much for this post!
I attended the Vagina Monologues last year and thought they were great and enjoyable for a lot of reasons, but the dominating idea that vagina = woman and no vagina = not a woman was something that really bothered me while I was watching. I do understand, of course, that there’s a script that must be followed for this event and for legal reasons you probably aren’t able to tag on a monologue written by UMBC students for the sake of inclusivity. Still, I would have loved to have a monologue from the perspective of a vagina-haver who did not identify as female, or something similar.
I do like the idea of having a critical dialogue about the play, though! Perhaps an organized discussion after the event?
Either way, it’s always great to hear that folks are trying their best to be more inclusive and less binarist in their language, since word choice really does matter. 🙂