Tag Archives: Dave King

A Proposed Classification System for Sexual Variation

The proposed classification scheme below is based upon the assumption that there are at least four variable dimensions to human sexuality that can and do vary independently of one another.

           Beginning with the first dimension, bodily sex in its physical expression is a biological phenomenon. When considering bodily sex there are at least three considerations. The first consideration is the external morphology that determines what physical characteristics associated with sex are evident. This in most cases will be clearly male or female but will in a small minority of instances be ambiguous as in cases of partial androgen insensitivity syndrome. The second consideration is internal morphology that determines the physiological characteristics associated with sex and that will determine functionality. For example, one can have the external characteristics of the female morphology but lack the internal morphology necessary for reproduction as in cases of complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (see “Speculation on Transgender Conditions“. The third consideration is the sexing of the nervous system, especially brain structures, or neurological sex. Evidence for neurological sex is not conclusive but a considerable amount of evidence suggests that the nervous system is shaped by the degree of hormone exposure and the timing of that exposure See Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences by David C. Geary). In some cases, the hormonal exposure may directly influence the development of various brain structures or in other cases the hormonal exposure may have an indirect effect by activating or deactivating genes related to sexing of the nervous system. Gene effects controlled by triggers such as hormones have only recently begun to receive attention in the new field of epigenetics.

The second dimension, sexual identity, is the subjective sense of one’s sex. The proposal in this classification system is that sexual identity is dependent upon the neurological aspect of physical sex making it too, at root, a biological phenomenon. Sexual identity is usually male or female and is generally congruent with external morphology but can vary. At the extreme there can be a complete disconnect between one’s sense of sexual identity and both external and internal morphology. This is most likely a product of a sexual identity that is the complete inverse of bodily sex. In other instances, the sexual identity can be ambiguous. Ambiguity in most cases is represented by a mixed sexual identity which often presents as a primary and secondary identity rather than a seamless integration.

The third dimension, sexual orientation, is the focus of one’s sexual interest. The proposal implicit in the classification system offered below is that sexual orientation, like sexual identity, is dependent upon the neurological aspect of bodily sex making it too, at root, a biological phenomenon. However, sexual identity and sexual orientation can and do vary independently such that sexual identity does not necessarily indicate anything about sexual orientation. Generally, sexual orientation will be reflected by orientation to external stimuli associated with bodily sex. However, it is conceivable that sexual orientation could be influenced by “personality” characteristics associated with sexual identity. Commonly, sexual orientation will have a single focus but it is not limited to a single focus.

The final dimension is gender identity. Gender is usually either masculine or feminine and its content is socio-cultural in nature. Gender identity is congruent with one’s configuration on the other three biological dimensions. Gender identity, however, is biological only in the sense that it is motivated by the biological dimensions described above, especially sexual identity, but is otherwise socio-cultural (for a possible exception see Beauty Culture). By way of analogy think of hunger. Hunger is a biologically based sense of a bodily status. Hunger motivates you to seek ways of satisfying that bodily status. How the status is satisfied is almost entirely socio-culturally determined. What one eats, when one eats, where one eats, how one eats to satisfy a sense of hunger is largely socio-culturally determined while, at root, having a biological source or motivation. One’s biologically based sense of sexuality, which includes bodily sex, sexual identity and sexual orientation, motivates one to find avenues of expression for that biologically based sense of self. How gender identity is expressed, however, is largely determined by socio-cultural learning.

Probably in the vast majority of cases there is sufficient congruence between the independent variation of the four dimensions to call the outcome “normal” or typical. Even in a typical outcome, there is some range of variation but the range of variation is within limits considered “normal.” There are clearly many instances where there is a lack of congruence between the independent variation of the four dimensions that results in outcomes that are not considered “normal” or typical. The term normal herein is being used in a statistical sense, not in a evaluative sense. Anything that occurs is a natural outcome and should not be evaluated negatively simply because it is outside the boundaries of what is considered a typical outcome.

Of the four dimensions, gender identity is the most complex because of the many potential permutations contributed by the other three dimensions. The four subcategories used for transgender in the gender classification are adapted from The Transgender Phenomenon by Richard Ekins and Dave King. Because gender is socio-cultural, learned and subject to many social contingencies governing its expression, individuals with atypical gender identities are more susceptible to suppression of their motivation to acquire and express their gender identity or identities. Suppression of the social expression of a biologically based sense of self can contribute to the development of various psychological problems such as depression and in extreme cases can lead to suicide.

The classification system that follows is color coded, The coding of each dimension can be sequenced with the other dimensions in a chain while retaining the distinction between dimensions through a distinctive color. By way of analogy, one might think of a human sexuality code like a gene sequence. The chain of codes is analogous to a genotype consisting of four unique genes that describe different phenotypical outcomes. Two examples of dimensional codes are given at the end of each coded dimension and an example of a four dimension coded sequence with a verbal description is provided at the end.

I.              Bodily Sex

               A.             Male (congruent morphology, physiology and

                                neurological sex)

              B.              Female (congruent morphology, physiology and

                                neurological sex)

              C.              Cross-sexed

               1.              External characteristics

               a.              Male external characteristics

               b.              Female external characteristics

               c.              Ambiguous external characteristics

               2.              Internal physiology

               a.              Male internal characteristics

               b.              Female internal characteristics

               c.              Ambiguous internal characteristics

               3.            Neurological sexual explication

               a.              Male neurological sexual characteristics

               b.              Female neurological sexual characteristics

               c.              Ambiguous neurological sexual characteristics

For example: IA or IC1c2a3b describe two different possible configurations

II.              Sexual Identity (subjective sense of sexual self)

              A.              Male (congruent with sex)

              B.              Female (congruent with sex)

              C.              Cross-sexed (full congruence absent)

               1.              Male primary and female secondary

               2.              Female primary and male secondary

               3.              Male/Female balance

 For example: IIB or IIC2 describe two different possible configurations

III.              Sexual Orientation

              A.              Male

              B.              Female

              C.              Male primary and female secondary

              D.              Female primary and male secondary

              E.              Cross-sexed

               a.              Ambiguous external characteristics

               b.              Sexual identity

               c.               Gender identity

 For example: IIIA or IIIC describe two different possible configurations

IV.              Gender Identity

              A.              Masculine

               1.              Hyper-masculine

               2.              Assertive masculine

               3.              Typical masculine

               4.              Subdued masculine

               5.              Hypo-masculine

              B.              Feminine

               1.              Hyper-feminine

               2.              Assertive feminine

               3.              Typical feminine

               4.              Subdued feminine

               5.              Hypo-feminine

              C.              Transgender

               1.              Oscillating (IVA1-5 alternating with IVB1-5 where one is the primary and the other is the secondary gender identity.  A true balance would probably be classified as IVC3)

               a.              Imaginal

               b.              Practicing (subsumes imaginal)

               2.              Migrating (transitioning from (a) to (b) or (b) to (a) below)

               a.              IVA1-5

               1.              Role

               2.              Body (subsumes role)

               b.              IVB1-5

               1.              Role

               2.              Body (subsumes role)

               3.              Transcending (blending IVA and IVB)

               4.              Negating (neutralizing IVA and IVB)

 For example: IVA3 or IVC2

Thus a complete classification of an individual might be: IC1a2a3c IIC1 IIID IVC1

The above classification code describes and individual who is cross-sexed with external male characteristics, male internal physiology and mixed development of sexual identity. This individual has a mixed sexual identity in which the male identity is primary and the female identity is secondary. The individual’s sexual orientation is mixed with orientation to females being primary and to males being secondary. This individual’s gender identity is transgender of the oscillating type in which there is an alternation between a masculine identity and a feminine identity. The secondary sex orientation toward males is most evident during oscillation from the male primary to the female secondary gender identity, which in turn is controlled by the male primary and female secondary mixed sexual identity.




Sex, Gender and Language

          One of my personal peeves is the regular substitution of the word “Gender” for “Sex” on forms and in conversation. While the choice “Sex: Male or Female” when strictly referring to biological or external morphological characteristics is not always accurate, the choice “Gender: Male or Female,”  in my opinion, marginalizes, if not pathologizes everyone outside the normative range (statistically speaking). Below I will outline the understanding of these terms that leads me to see absurdity in the way that they are frequently used.

To keep this post relatively simple, I ask that you read an earlier post that while not exhaustive elaborates in some detail various terms that will be used below, especially as it pertains to bodily sex and gender identity. The discussion below leaves out the confounds of internal morphology, which includes internal sex organs, and genetic sex or what pair of chromosomes one carries in one’s cells. These two confounds are most clearly illustrated in cases of CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome). In this condition, an individual would be classified as female by the external morphological criterion above. This individual would most likely self-identify as female and would be almost universally seen by others as female. However, this individual will not have internal female organs and will have an XY genotype. A third confound is the growing evidence for the possibility of “sexed” brain functions, which can occur independently of the sexing of external morphology during gestation. This sexing of the brain is probably responsible for one’s subjective “sense” of sex or sexual identity. The sexing of the brain may also be related to sexual orientation independently of one’s bodily sex and sexual identity. Given the imposed limitation, there are three discernible possibilities: male, female and intersex.

Gender is a more complex term and has far more social, cultural and behavioral components to it than apparent bodily sex. Gender identity probably has an underlying biological component affecting one’s sense of sexuality. Gender is often used as if it had a one-to-one correspondence with apparent bodily sex, which is clearly not the case. The most common gender terms are masculine and feminine but these are not all-or-nothing categories and include a spectrum of possibilities.

While sex can be treated as categorical without grossly distorting reality, especially if three categories are used, gender is clearly dimensional. Gender can significantly vary along a somewhat normal (or bell shaped) distribution curve describing a dimension. Clearly, there are numerous potential positions all along this continuum that aren’t being given labels. If conventional classification of someone by gender is the goal one might do better to use a numeric scale where 1 is hyper masculine, 4 is neutral and 7 is hyper feminine.

There is one further complication to gender that must be introduced to make this discussion somewhat complete. The concept of transgender is important to this discussion as well. Presentation of transgenderism can be either overt, covert or both and along both behavioral (doing) and cognitive dimensions (imagining). Overt behavioral presentations can be either public or private. Some variations of transgenderism would not be observable and would only be known through self-identification.

The use of sex and gender as interchangeable terms implies that reality conforms to the following structure:

1.                  Sex:                 Male &                    Female &

2.          Gender:                 Masculine             Feminine

A more accurate, if incomplete, structure would include three categories for sex and three anchor positions on a dimension for transgender. For each combination of sex with gender, the latter will have multiple possible permutations. Please refer to the post linked in the beginning for some of the possible permutations.

What is being illustrated by the above discussion is that sex and gender and especially gender identity is a complex topic and one that is grossly over simplified in the ordinary use of language. Add to this an individual’s sense of sexuality and sexual orientation and the complexity grows exponentially.

 In ordinary verbal or written reference to people by sex, I would favor using labels that conform to how they identify and present. Asking about bodily sex might be relevant under limited circumstances, e.g., for medical purposes. I would be opposed to asking about gender because the meaning of the term is far too complex to be easily queried and would seldom be relevant for most public purposes, including conversational use of the term. I would definitely favor disassociating the terms male and female from the concept of gender because it confuses two different concepts: bodily sex (biological) and gender identity (socio-cultural).

The equating of gender with sex in common language usage is in fact an example of how the modal majority “democratically” attempts to define a public, social reality and marginalize and at worst imply pathology in anyone not fitting the majority stereotype. As Milton Diamond founder of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society has said, “Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it.” Language is the primary tool for creating socio-cultural reality and how it is used has important implications that should not be taken lightly.