Key points
Social politics and current norms maintain an overarching reach into the public voices of people.
The issue over what constitutes dominance versus submissiveness in personality and sexual behavior has been a gender-based hotbed topic.
Binary gender thinking may be a defense, but lack of categorization may lose its intent.
The human mind is complex; human beings often have contradictory thoughts and ambivalent feelings. Sometimes the inability to be specific and choose one position or point of view over another represents the truth of one’s beliefs; other times, opinions we hold are rationalizations that we call “truth” to justify biases, agendas, insecurities, and fears.
Americans, accosted by a constant barrage of contradicting political and personal agendas related to sexuality, relationships, and sexual behavior, are trying to make sense of it all. On the one hand, we have grown increasingly aware of the multitude of possibilities yet are also intimidated by the fear of revealing genuine opinions that may land us in the “politically incorrect” chair.
Social politics and current norms maintain an overarching reach into the public voices of people. Some ardent opinions regarding sexuality and gender are indeed rationalizations to quell quilt, shame, or buoy our personal or political aspirations. Remember Michigan US Senator (R) Larry Craig member of the Senate Ethics Committee opposed to LBGT rights, caught in 2007 playing sexual footsie with an undercover police officer in a bathroom stall in the Minneapolis airport? Conscious fear is the unconscious wish; extreme thinking is a defense, rationalization at best, but often a denial statement. Sometimes our binary points of view are well thought out and integrated, yet we remain afraid to vocalize them, risking ridicule or being called anti this or that, or worse.
There is no shortage of information examining sexual politics and gender-based discrimination; both women and men are outraged at real and perceived sexism. Introduce non-binary pronouns, and what may become diminished is the definition and acceptance of sexism (a binary term.)What constitutes she versus he creates, compounds, and confounds legal issues. What does this mean for cases involving sexism? Is sexism applicable only to those who identify as female and have female genitalia or male and have male genitalia? If body parts are no longer a statement about gender and gender identity is fluid and exists on a continuum, perhaps we need to reconsider all patterns of behavior that we quantify and designate gender binary based?
article continues after advertisement
Reconsideration of the Alpha in the Age of Non-Binary
The issue over what constitutes dominance versus submissiveness in personality and sexual behavior has been a gender-based hotbed topic.
A relational Alpha typically referred to men and thus implied that women were their submissive counterparts in the past. Because many women are caregivers, the view was that women were less capable of aggression and assuming power. Fortunately and fundamentally challenged was that sexist argument and replaced by incorporating women into the ranking for Alpha status.
A more current view became that the higher one’s social ranking and more powerful the individual (man or woman,) the greater the chance of being submissive in bed. One study, which involved 14,306 participants, found that power frees people from their inhibitions and increases sadomasochistic thoughts in everyone, especially regarding women being dominant and women being submissive. And, social dominance is a natural fit for some; from it comes benevolent leaders as well as narcissists.
News and social media went down a frenzy as to identifying a male and sometimes female narcissist. Gender specificity, not fluidity, supported the argument that online social and news media sold many ads due to viewership clicks.
Enter gender fluidity, and we are in compromising situations; our proverbial pants are down!
Substantial literature and research are available about whether two alphas in bed or life can make it together. So why does it matter if gender specificity is no longer relevant? Goodbye, alpha male and alpha female?
Add on to this puzzle vibrators, dildos, strap-ons, male and female parts on one person’s body while at the same time existing in a multi-cultural, ethnic, racial, and sexuality diverse America. As a result, the definition and understanding of Alpha appear amorphous to some and riddled with contradiction and confusion. For others, Alpha, just like gender identity, remains in the hands of the individual, no longer constrained by a binary gender-based construct.
article continues after advertisement
Does choosing either this or that make sense, or have we reached into an amoeba-like absurd?
What makes sense to an individual does not necessarily have to be rid of ambivalence and contradictions, but instead of hostility, dogma, or perhaps some unconscious use to justify hurtful or malevolent behavior or advance one’s agenda.
Psychoanalysis maintains that ultimately the gender of the analyst is irrelevant; patients transfer their psyche’s issues onto their analyst regardless of where they originated–mom or dad. In the end, the gender of the analyst is irrelevant. This position assumes that the analyst is neutral to gender issues or the norms assigned and can be whomever the patient needs the analyst to be. Can anyone ever be neutral? Can neutrality as a mindful concept replace non-binary as an actionable belief?
Some who have well-informed and thought-out positions can offer insight despite or because of their ability to integrate inherent contractions or ambivalences if they can stand clear of their own biases, personal or political agendas. But, unfortunately, evolved thinking and honest discourse are increasingly a rarity. If only the private voices of those not limited by myopia and are conscious of their intent could be safely publically voiced.
