To Be “Real”

You Got To Be Real – Cheryl Lynn (1978)

There are few things in English I hate more than the insistence of modifying a social construct with the term “real” (e.g., “real woman” or “real man”). Every time I see this, be it with gender, sexual orientation, race, or kink, I chafe. Adding “real” to a social construct attaches a judgment and valuation to whatever concept is being modified. “Real” is used to discriminate, to devalue, and to excise someone from a group.

The Rise of “Realness” in Gender Representation

The concept of “real woman” and “real man” is growing in popularity in the media. Over the past several years news outlets have increased their use of modifier “real” in front of gender (see the Google Trends chart below). The variety of articles which use “realness” in their headlines are varied. Most include discussions of what makes a “real” man or woman (e.g., “real women have curves”).

The implication of adding “real” in front of gender (or other social construct) is that there are people who are “real” and therefore valuable and acceptable, and those who are “not real” or “fake” and do not belong nor should be valued for their contributions in that social construct.

I haven’t crunched the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that the rise of visibility of gays and lesbians and the recent rise in visibility of transgendered folks corresponds and drives the rise in the the quest to find “realness.” Non-gay people and cis-gendered folks tend to take offense at being lumped in with “queers” and “trans.” In a desire to reaffirm their own identity, they need to increase their value or decrease that of others. Adding “real” does this.

Google Trends for Terms “Real Woman” and “Real Man” – Downloaded Sept. 08, 2015,+%22real+man%22&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT%2B7&tz=Etc/GMT%2B7&content=1&cid=TIMESERIES_GRAPH_0&export=5&w=500&h=330

Take Ann Couture for example. This sanctimonious bigot got her thong in a twist over comments that she looked trans. She went on an absurdly offensive tirade about being a “real” woman. First, let me just say, Ann, trans folks don’t want your insipid, bullying, and flat-out hateful ass as part of the click. Second, by becoming so deeply offended at being compared to transwomen, you worked hard to tell the world that this groups is unacceptable and disgusting. Your tirades about this issue actually fuel the fires that lead to trans murders.

In that discussion and many others, “real women” are reduced to two things: the presence of a vagina and the presence of breasts. As a woman, I am deeply offended by that. I am, and have always been, way more than just a nice rack and a vagina. That type of reductionism should offend each and every person out there. Everyone is more than their secondary sex characteristics.

The same thing happens with the idea of “real man.” While much of the literature about gender representation focuses on women, men’s gender is under equal flux. The men’s literature that focuses on gender identity development is out there and occasionally pops up in the headlines. When I was young, there was the whole brouhaha about, “real men don’t eat quiche.” Now, real men don’t manscape, or real men hunt or real men love women.

The whole realness of gender attaches values to a narrow scope of physical attributes and behaviors. It is an attempt to reify the construct of gender. There is no recognition that gender, by and large, is performative.

Gender as a Social Construct

The idea of a social construct is that through social communication we communicate ideas about what something means. It usually involves taking something that is related to a physical characteristic and then values and ideas are attached to it. Race is largely understood in academia to be a social construct.

Some people think about race simply as the color of the skin. Take a moment and think about that more deeply. People with the same skin color but different eyes and noses may be considered different races. Over time, we have changed what signifies race groups. Skin color is obviously attached to our ideas of race, but it is much more than that. In the United States, family lineage was critical for many years. We defined people as “Black” by the “one drop of blood” rule. If a person had any member of their lineage who was Black, then they were defined as Black. Skin color did not matter.

Plessy (from Plessy v. Ferguson) was removed from the White train car because he was partially Black. Looking at his image (below) Plessy could easily pass as a White man. However, race is more than skin color and plays into the concept of “Blackness.”