Birth of Gendermentality ⚧️
Sexology, Power/Knowledge and Biopolitics
The emergence of sexology was not the birth of an innocent academic discipline but the construction of an apparatus of control. Sexology did not simply uncover previously hidden truths—it invented them. By cataloging human desire, sexology turned behaviors into diagnoses, diagnoses into identities and sexuality or gender-based identities into mechanisms of governance. Acts that once existed simply as actions or feelings were redefined as intrinsic aspects of selfhood—identities. These identities were then framed within medical and clinical contexts as diagnoses. Finally, these diagnoses became tools for regulation and control, embedding themselves into the broader apparatus of biopower.
The medical gaze, as I once explored, objectified the body. Yet with sexology, this gaze expanded into the realm of the sexuality. The transition from prohibition to subjectification—where individuals internalize norms as part of their identity—marked a profound shift.
Today, we witness the rise of the Gender Gaze. Where the medical gaze sought to control through understanding, the Gender Gaze separates sex from identity, transforming gender into a subjective truth that demands affirmation. Terms like “gender identity,” “diversity,” or “fluidity” are not merely cultural phenomena. They are part of a new regime of power.
By affirming gender identity, we participate in an apparatus that governs bodies not through prohibition, but through validation. The promise of liberation offered by gender medicine—hormones, surgeries, and pronouns—comes at a cost: the body and identity become inscribed into a biotechmedical system of regulation.
Power Is Not Always a “No”
Control is often misunderstood as a force that says “no.” In truth, the most pervasive forms of power say “yes.” By affirming gender identity, society is not liberating individuals but subjecting us to a new matrix of norms. Consider the push to destigmatize autogynephilia (AGP) and rebrand it as a sexual orientation deserving of empathy and acceptance. This is not an act of understanding; it is an act of legitimization through categorization. It’s political. Similarly, gender ideology proliferates categories—each requiring validation, recognition, and regulation. The expansion of these categories does not free individuals; it deepens their entanglement within an ever-growing apparatus of power.
Language, or rather linguistic confusion, is central to this apparatus. “Trans kids,” “assigned at birth,” “misgendering,” “gender-affirming care,” and preferred pronouns are not neutral; they are part of Big 'Sister' GenderSpeak. This is the conduct of conduct (governmentality) that shapes how we behave. This language encourages rather than prohibits. It is an affirmation regime.
Subjectification by Genderification
The surge in individuals identifying as transgender or non-binary—particularly among young women—demonstrates the success of this apparatus. Gender ideology has become a powerful mechanism of subjectification, shaping how people see themselves and their place in society. But whom does this serve? The individual, or the power/knowledge apparatus that constructs these identities? To understand the present, we must trace its genealogy. The Birth of Sexology, the rise of the Gender Gaze, and the proliferation of gender identities are not random developments. They are part of a broader system of power that governs through affirmation.
Power that says “yes” is no less controlling than power that says “no.” Perhaps it is more insidious? It invites complicity, shaping individuals into subjects who not only accept but internalize the Gender Gaze. Let us not be blind to the nature of this power/knowledge apparatus...
*written as if I was Foucault