Gender-equitist; a personal definition
My definition of being gender-equitist is an active commitment to fairness of treatment to individuals and groups regardless of their gender, according to their respective needs. This may include equal treatment or treatment that is different, but which is considered equivalent in terms of rights, benefits, obligations and opportunities (thus the use of the term ‘equity’ as opposed to ‘equality’ here is important:
“Equity and equality are two strategies we can use in an effort to produce fairness. Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is treating everyone the same. Equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help”
Thus, if gender equality is an ultimate aim, offering equity is the tool towards achieving such an aim (Coltrane, 1997; Stryker, 2018), and thus acknowledging that inequality abounds between and within all gender and presentations in different arenas, different cultures and different times (Rapoport, Bailyn, Fletcher, & Pruitt, 2002), hence the use of the catch-all term of ‘gender’.
Many theories around gender exist that in their simplest form are based on a dichotomous principle of woman and man, each of which cannot exist without the other to enforce what they are and they are not (H. Davies & O'Callaghan, 2016; Richards & Barker, 2013; Roughgarden, 2013). Examples include tropes of women being emotional while men are rational, men being aggressive and a perpetrator of abuse, but not a victim, while women are victims of abuse/violence and not a perpetrator (Braidotti, 2011; Adrienne Harris, 2009; Richards & Barker, 2013). Thus, male and female are categories that seem to be formed out of their opposition, thus forming power dynamics that are often antagonistic yet often compatible. Gender-equity goes beyond man and woman, gay or straight, respecting individual freedom while acknowledging power, societal and other imbalances. In addition, the one-dimensional continuum of gender with male on one end and female on the other, with trans and other genders sandwiched between such extremities (Corey, 2013; Robinson & Hockey, 2011; Seidman, 2010; Taylor, Hines, & Casey, 2011)seems a rather linear and reductive presentation of a complex phenomenon. The same limitation exists with popular theories of sexuality, with exclusively gay at one end of the continuum and exclusively heterosexual on the other, with other sexualities (apart from asexuality which defies such wisdom(Paget, 2016)) within these boundaries(Richards & Barker, 2013; Roughgarden, 2013).
My view of being human in terms of sexuality and gender is grounded in a more organic, less structured, less linear approach that defies reduction into a simple, replicable, reductionist diagram based on linear poles of existence or scientific principles.
Of course, to sit calmly and ethically in such a position entails, for me, an explicit acknowledgement that power imbalances exist in the world that have been used and continue to be used to oppress people because of their embodiedness in a form that has characteristics that can be used to oppress or privilege. Numerous theories of gender exist (Barker, 2015; Burck & Speed, 1995; Adrienne Harris, 2009; Kimmel, 2008; Kunkel & Nielsen, 1998; Roughgarden, 2013), with movements and ideologies that often overlap and often oppose, including first-wave feminism (Banks, 1986), cultural feminism (Mackay, 2015), radical feminism(Anita Harris, 2008), masculism (Defassa, 2009), queer theory (Yep, Lovaas, & Elia, 2003), intersectionality (Taylor et al., 2011), and trans theory (Barrett, 2007), amongst others. Political, social, theological, economic and biological influences also shape gender and sexuality theory. Being a gender-equitist is part of this complex myriad of diversity.