Throughout various abhorrent efforts to dehumanize any given particular group, the question of what is deemed ‘natural’ has often been present. The concept of ‘naturalness’ is made to be synonymous with ‘goodness,’ ‘correctness,’ and any term that denotes a certain level of social acceptability or praise. Yet, the definition of ‘natural’ does not indicate some infallible or permanently held state of being. Rather, it is an ever-changing term, constantly adjusting to new norms and technologies as our society changes.

In Susan Stryker’s “My Words to Victor Frankenstein,” she refers to those who have employed a false dichotomy of natural and unnatural as a weapon intended to delegitimize those who fall outside of the socially constructed concept of Eurocentric gender norms. One’s changed body is deemed to “war with nature,” and the individual is called “a self-made freak, a deformity, an insult.” While the above words are attributed to those whose own naturalness is doubted, surely so that they may deflect others’ outrage at their own state of being, the same sentiment has frequently been shared by those who do align with gender norms. Any such individual who denies the identity or capability of another is simply repeating the same sentiment in a different circumstance; one is unable or unwilling to look beyond one’s personal opinions and limited experience.

This phenomenon is likely as old as society itself, but it is particularly in the context of colonialism and Western ideals for the purpose of this discussion. It was only in the 1950s that pink began to be associated with girls and blue with boys, and all children wore dresses up until the 1940s. Women in many Western countries weren’t allowed to, or were generally discouraged from, wearing pants until the early-mid 1900s, while men wore heels and makeup for centuries up until the mid-1800s. Over and over, certain actions and ways of decorating oneself are shuffled back and forth between acceptable and ‘deviant,’ often being pushed to one side of the false dichotomy that is male and female. With each iteration, a new ‘natural’ manner of gender roles is declared, yet in pre-agricultural societies, gender was not even a determinant of one’s role.

Finally reaching the subject of inspiration for this post, one should wonder how ancient hominins felt about their children fashioning cloth and fur to cover themselves. Were the first cloth-wearing individuals cast out for daring to defy nature with their technology? Did their parents wail and scream, attack them, or otherwise condemn their children? Of course, there is little argument for comparison between speculations about prehistoric social-familial dynamics and the well-documented onslaught of hatred toward our transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming siblings. Yet, one should see the ridiculousness of the notion that hominins would react in such a way and see how absurd it is to critique and disparage those honoring their bodies through the technologies available. 

Just as we invented clothing as a solution for cold and harsh environments, we have developed methods that help people to embody their identity. Just as we cultivated corn and wheat to better abate our hunger, we have accumulated the knowledge needed to satiate the discomfort that one’s assigned sex can produce in a world embedded with gender. We wear glasses, drive cars and take buses, spend hours on our phones, undergo various life-saving surgeries, and do countless other ‘unnatural’ things. How are such things any different than dressing how one wants, even if one’s style conflicts with gender norms? How is one life-saving surgery any different than another? How is changing one’s name unnatural when the very concept of names is a social construction? Truly, we are all using and often being subjected to an increasing number of human creations that alter the completely ‘natural’ self. In our current society, even drinking a glass of water carries an aspect of unnaturalness, as purification, added minerals, and the existence of microplastics are not processes created by nature. Homo sapiens have created an artificial world in which there is no way to be completely ‘natural,’ as our bodies are inundated with synthetic concepts and materials. In the words of Susan Stryker, albeit in a different context, “You are as constructed as me; the same anarchic womb has birthed us both.”