Last month, the period product company, Always™, released a new line of pads. Each individual pad had the female sign and the phrases “Bold Like A Girl,” “Strong Like A Girl,” and “Brilliant Like A Girl” plastered all over its packaging. When the mother of a trans boy went to Twitter to publically call out the company and express her profound disappointment in their trans/non-binary/queer-exclusionary design, she was met with praise and support as well as criticism. There were transgender and transsexual folk who explained that upon opening the product, they had severe dysphoric episodes. Some cis-gender people supported the brand and thought it was ridiculous for someone to get offended at the “girls get periods” rhetoric. There were also feminists, people who advocate for women’s rights based on the equality of the sexes, that thought this mother was trying to oppress women by invalidating the difficulties that women experience their whole lives when it comes to their periods. A growing number of people joined the conversation to the point where her post ignited a large-scale Twitter storm.

This seems like a small, trivial event surrounding issues of gender and sex that can be easily looked over under the pretense of twitter actively bring out the worst, most hateful side of people. However, if further examined, one can see how extensive and complicated the issue truly is. After centuries of oppression, transsexuality, a phenomenon that has existed for thousands of years, has finally come into the limelight. In this era, one of burning bras and pride parades, the presence of transgender individuals and transgender issues in the cultural and political sphere has increased. This move has forced those who have never given a passing thought about what their gender means to them, accepted the role that their genitalia tells them to play. Naturally, many of these people are resistant to this change and the evolving ideas behind gender theory. Thus, groups such as TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) and transphobes have grown alongside the trans community. This move has forced them to think about a universal, an age-old question: What does it mean to be a gender? Moreover, who gets to define that? Throughout the twitter storm, trans, cis and feminists alike, in their general anger and confusion, tried to answer these questions. These answers, these definitions of gender that each group was imposing upon the other, broke down into four, semi-distinct categories. The first definition, presented mostly by cis-gendered non-feminists, was that one’s sex, i.e., penis and vagina, and one’s sex chromosomes, i.e., XXand XY chromosomes, are what defines gender, male and female. The second definition, presented by feminists was that what determines gender, are secondary sexual characteristics such as periods and reproduction. The third definition presented by the trans community in response to both previous definitions was that one’s identity, one’s feelings (for example, being more masculine vs. being more feminine) are what determines gender. The fourth and final definition, brought forth by a small group of feminists, was that what determines gender are sex-specific experiences that women and men go through. This essay will systematically break down each definition and explain why none of them are valid, in an effort to present its own, universal interpretation of gender — the definition to end all other definitions.

Many non-feminist and cisgender persons hold the view that what defines gender are one’s sexual organs, penis and vagina, and one’s chromosomes, XX, and XY. Within this definition, however, are a few missing pieces. About 4% of the world population is intersex: people who have a mixture of both genitals, internally or externally. There are one hundred twenty-eight million ten thousand intersex people in the world. There are many variants upon the definition of intersex, some grow up with a vagina, and their clitoris grows into a phallus once they hit puberty. Others always have the external appearance of a woman but have testicles within them, next to their uteruses. Besides, on a completely different plane to the intersex community, there are people with penises and vaginas who have chromosomal disorders. Society cannot easily separate all people into having XX or XY chromosomes as there are multiple variations upon sex chromosomes such as XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XYY (Jacob’s syndrome), X (Turner syndrome), and XXX (trisomy X) which affect hundreds of thousands of people every year.

In the future, will each variation of intersex and each variation of sex chromosomes be established as a ‘new gender’ similar to the categories of ‘man’ and woman,’ each one with their own personality traits and/or particular pronoun depending on the specific circumstances of the intersex person and person with a chromosomal disorder? No, surprisingly enough, both the trans and feminist community actively challenge the notion that one’s sexual organs and sex chromosomes define gender.

Most out transgender peoples wish to be validated, however under the ‘a person’s genitalia determines their gender’ definition of gender, a transgender person who has not yet transitioned would not be considered valid, their genitalia reminiscent of the opposite sex. Extreme feminists agree that the definition of gender should not be limited to one’s genitalia, because they find it incredibly sexist and demeaning to reduce women and womanhood to their collective breasts and vaginas. However, that is where their common ground ends.

Many feminists claim that it’s not just a woman’s genitalia that defines her gender identity, but the experiences unique to her genitalia (in comparison to men): secondary sexual characteristics such as giving birth and menstruation.

This definition is not only frivolous, but extremely hypocritical. Are cisgender women who decide not to gestate children genderless then? Are infertile cisgender women not considered women? Isn’t this the same box, the same stereotype that feminists spent decades breaking down: that the role of a woman is to bear children? Now the same feminists who, years ago, threw down the mantle of housekeeping and raised their fists in the name of the working woman, are imposing that same standard, that same role upon transgender women: that a woman is meant to bear children.

If having a period is what defines womanhood, is a person with a vagina not a girl until they get their periods? Many women nowadays choose to place a hormonal IUD, the Mirena to be specific, within their uterus. This IUD, used by 12% of women in the US, over the course of a year manipulates a woman’s menstrual cycle so that her bleeding grows lighter from period to period until that woman completely stops menstruating, the body believing she is pregnant. If a woman decides to wear that IUD up until she reaches menopause- when all women naturally stop having periods- is she too, genderless, by this feminist definition? And what about women with one X chromosome, (mentioned above) who have vaginas and uteruses, but never develop secondary sex characteristics like breasts, pubic hair, or, menstruation. Should they have their own pronoun and associated gender as well? There needs to be a distinction between sex and gender, but what exactly is that distinction?

The trans community believes that gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female or something else; gender expression refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice or body characteristics. In Bruce’s, now Caitlyn Jenner’s interview with Diane Sawyer and post-interview photoshoot, she explained how she knew she was transgender. She had a “girls brain” which caused her to be more in touch with her emotions, made her exited to wear cleavage-boosting corsets, thick mascara and enjoy the prospect of regular “girls nights” where she and her girlfriends would gossip about men and banter about hair and makeup. Caitlyn was lionized for her bravery, her progressivism. ESPN announced it would give Ms. Jenner an award for courage. President Obama also praised her.

Meanwhile, feminists around the world, scandalized by her shallow view of women, winced and shook their heads. Sheila Jeffreys, a former professor of political science at the University of Melbourne now a lesbian feminist scholar argues that “the vast majority of transsexuals still subscribe to the traditional stereotype of women” and that by transitioning medically and socially, trans women are “constructing a conservative fantasy of what women should be. They are inventing an essence of womanhood, which is deeply insulting and restrictive.”

This makes sense, just because a person is confident, assertive, enjoys power-lifting, driving trucks and American football doesn’t mean they are a male. If anything, for that person to now claim to be the opposite gender is extremely backwards, because not only are they further imprisoning themselves into this arbitrary label that is used to restrict people into societal roles based off of their genitalia, they are also strengthening those stereotypes for society at large and defining what it means to be a man for all men. Why can’t men wear dresses? Why can’t men cry? Feminists present a different definition: gender identity isn’t a collection of stereotypes and made-up roles you believe you mostly fit into, but the concrete, sex-specific experiences each individual goes through.

In the eyes of feminists, being a woman is the collect accruement of certain experiences, induration of certain indignities and the relishing of certain courtesies within that woman’s individual culture that is unique to the female experience. To quote Elionor Burkett, an influential feminist, on her New York Times op-ed: “Their [trans women] female identities are not my female identity. They haven’t traveled through the world as women and been shaped by all that this entails. They haven’t suffered through business meetings with men talking to their breasts [...] the humiliation of discovering that their male work partners’ checks were far larger than theirs, or the fear of being too weak to ward off rapists.” In her mind, what makes a woman is the prejudice she has faced, the experiences she has had throughout her life that a privileged man could never truly understand.

The argument that a trans woman could never be a woman because she hasn’t suffered at the hands of male privilege throughout her life is also extremely hypocritical and frankly, silly. Ms. Burkett says in the same article “People who haven’t lived their whole lives as women [...] shouldn’t get to define us. That’s something men have been doing for much too long.” So men shouldn’t get to define women but what defines a woman is the suffering that she has endured at the hands of the man? Feminists who fight to make women something more than social subordinates are now actively defining being a woman as being a victim at the hands of men. How can women ever be equal to men if to be a woman means to be unequal (a social subordinate) to men?

In addition, not every woman goes through the same experiences, especially at the hands of men. Yes, Elionor is afraid of walking alone at night, yes, she is affected by the wage gap, and yes she has been objectified, but is that what really makes her a woman? Take the story of Fatou Bah, a Gambian woman whose grandparents forced her to undergo type 3 FGM (female genital mutilation), infibulation at the age of 10. Infibulation consists of removing the clitoris and narrowing the vaginal orifice.  This is achieved by cutting and appositioning- stitching or holding the cut areas together for a certain period of time (for example, girls’ legs are bound together) to create the covering seal- the labia minora and labia majora. Then, at age 12, she was married off to an 80-year-old man who beat her to the brink of death on their wedding night. She had to be rushed to the local village healer because she was bleeding so heavily. Is Mrs. Bah more womanly than Ms. Burkett? Can Elionor even call herself a woman in light of the suffering and torture that Fatou has faced because of her sex?

On the other side of the spectrum, are women who have never suffered at the hands of men. There are 6 examples of matriarchies still thriving to this day. Living near the border of Tibet, in the Yunnan and Sichuan provinces, the Mosuo live with extended family in large households; at the head of each, a matriarch. Lineage is traced through the female side of the family, and all property is passed down along the same matriline. Mosuo women typically handle business decisions while men handle household politics. Are these women not women in the eyes of feminists? Have they not suffered enough at the hands of more powerful men? Or is the only legitimate society that gets to define womanhood and manhood Western society? Many feminists, who fight for women to be equal to men, would praise the women living in these matriarchies and use them as evidence to show that women can indeed lead, that they are powerful and competent. However, there is a glaring contradiction in this praise, since, under the feminist definition of womanhood, the people ruling these matriarchies aren’t women.

So if gender isn’t defined by genitalia, chromosomes, by stereotypes or by suffering, then what is it and how can that question be answered? That question can’t be answered because gender isn’t real. “You can’t pick up a brain and say “that’s a girl’s brain’ or ‘that’s a boy’s brain,’” said Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist at Britain’s Aston University. The differences between male and female brains are caused by the “drip, drip, drip” of the gendered environment, she said. It may be true that since what shapes human brains are the experiences of each individual, likely having shared most of the same fears, restrictions, and prejudices, women have a higher degree of probability of possessing similar brains to other women than with men. But that slight potential difference in brains is rendered insignificant given the extent of the female and male experience on Earth. It cannot be said, for certain, that all 3.7 billion women and 3.7 billion men have experienced enough of the same things to all have similar brains.

As time has passed, and gender questioning has become more mainstream, some people within the LGBTQIA+ community, feeling restricted by the already so limited and meaningless binary (femininity vs. masculinity), have begun creating new pronouns called noun-self pronouns which signify what they feel most closely to. Examples are faer/faers/faerself, void/voids/voidself, and plant/plants/plantself. This branch of the LGBT tree feel like they aren’t particularly sensitive, they don’t like wearing dresses, aren’t particularly emotional, don’t like short hair, sports and are not particularly assertive. So instead of identifying with the streotype of a man or a woman, as cis and trans people do, they find some other thing whose stereotype they fit nicely into, like a fairy, a void, or a plant. Is that where we are heading towards as a society, a world in which each person has their own gender and specific pronoun that describes every aspect of their identity? Where, for example, if a person takes up cross stitching or some other activity as a hobby, that’ll be added to their gender and pronoun name? Instead of further narrowing our boxes to the point where a person identifies as a void, society needs to stop having conceptions of gender.

Instead of gendered pronouns that allude to some aspect of a person's identity, people should adopt a universal singular pronoun such as ze, zhem, zheirs which would allow people to explore all parts of their identities, free from stereotypes, prejudice and also free of a label. Society should actually go one step further and eradicate terms like men and women. People would just be people, and each person would have a certain sex (i.e, female, male, intersex) which they could change if they chose to do so. If a person felt the need to change or remove part of their genitals, they could do so with no judgment, however, this change would not necessarily place any sort of label or stereotype upon them. In the ideal world, there is no definition of gender, because there is no such thing.