Abstract<\/h2>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” custom_padding=”||0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
In this paper, I discuss the myriad ways that gender roles are interrogated within The Left hand of Darkness <\/i>and \u201cWhen It Changed.\u201d I first examine gender as science<\/i> in \u00a71, outlining the ways Le Guin and Russ consider and critique essentialist perspectives holding that gender roles are \u2018natural\u2019 phenomena driven by rigid biological differences between men and women. Then, in \u00a72, I explore gender as fiction<\/i>, analyzing how each text presents gender roles as discursively constructed and malleable. In \u00a73, I explicate these observations within a hybrid conceptualization of gender as science fiction<\/i>[1]<\/sup><\/a> and argue that this suitably describes the gender portrayals Le Guin and Russ make in their texts.<\/p>\n Keywords:<\/b> Ursula K.<\/strong> Le Guin, Joanna Russ, gender, science fiction studies<\/b><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.2″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” custom_padding=”||0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Carl Malmgren (2002) identifies Ursula K. Le Guin and Joanna Russ as prominent authors in meta-science fiction since their works examine \u201cthe relation between the fictive and the real\u201d (p. 23). Le Guin\u2019s (1969\/2017) The Left Hand of Darkness<\/i> (LHD<\/i>), for example, explores how gender is expressed within an imagined androgynous society, Gethen. She articulates how LHD<\/i> can be suitably interpreted:<\/p>\n This book is not extrapolative. If you like you can read it, and a lot of other science fiction, as a thought-experiment. Let\u2019s say\u2026this or that is such and so, and see what happens\u2026. Science fiction is not predictive; it is descriptive. (p. xiv)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Read in this way, LHD<\/i> is not a premonition of how humankind might plausibly evolve, nor a prediction of future social arrangements, but an extended thought experiment into the ways gender roles might be constructed and enacted (see also Le Guin, 1989, pp. 137\u201338). Russ (2007) promotes an analogous view, remarking that \u201cscience fiction is What If<\/i> literature\u201d (p. 205). As such, her short story \u201cWhen It Changed\u201d can be approached similarly by considering how it suggests gender roles may be performed and the criteria on which they rest. In an almost Montaignian style (see Edelman, n.d., sec. 2), Le Guin and Russ \u2018test\u2019 different theories of gender in their narratives to clarify relevant features of social roles, problematize suppositions, and forge sophisticated depictions of gender that accommodate both real and fictive elements.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ header_2_font=”||||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.2″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” custom_padding=”||0px|||” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n Essentialist approaches typically take gender roles to be a consequence of inherent biological and anatomical differences between men and women (Heyman & Giles, 2006). Within this paradigm, dissimilarities in cognitive abilities and dispositions are thought to stem largely from the average neurological properties of male and female brains (Baron-Cohen, 2003; Ingalhalikar et al., 2014). The behavioral performance of gender roles can, therefore, be thought a natural extension of these psychological group differences, a position Le Guin and Russ explore through literary means.<\/p>\n Ursula K. Le Guin<\/p><\/div>In LHD<\/i>, gender roles\u2014or lack thereof\u2014are closely tied to Gethenians\u2019 hermaphroditic biological qualities. Since individuals on Gethen are neither primarily male nor female physiologically, except during a monthly \u2018kemmer\u2019 period, gender role differences fail to materialize most of the time. As Kathy Rudy (1997) summarizes, \u201cno one group of people is biologically attached to the home or to childbirth or child care\u201d (p. 34). However, shortly before kemmer begins, \u201chormonal changes are initiated by the pituitary control\u201d (Le Guin, 1969\/2017, p. 90) after which the \u201cgenitals engorge or shrink accordingly\u201d (p. 90), inspiring a concomitant psychological change: \u201cthe sexual impulse is tremendously strong in this phase, controlling the entire personality\u201d (p. 90).[2]<\/sup><\/a> Wendy Gay Pearson (2007) notes that this parallels menstruation, the hormonal fluctuations of which can elicit affective and behavioral changes (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Le Guin thereby suggests through such a portrayal that biological attributes may motivate gender role expressions.<\/p>\n Joanna Russ<\/p><\/div>Russ (1972) also considers the idea that bodily differences between men and women are a key factor underlying gender distinctions in \u201cWhen It Changed.\u201d The men who arrive on Whileaway are assessed by \u201cthe district biologist\u201d (p. 2) and Janet\u2019s initial remark on seeing them relates to their physical stature: \u201cThey are bigger than we are\u201d (p. 2). Gender-based anatomical differences are emphasized via animalistic imagery throughout the text, with men described as \u201capes with human faces\u201d (p. 2), \u201cheavy as draft horses\u201d (p. 2), \u201cmuscled like bulls\u201d (p. 6), and resembling \u201cten-foot toad[s]\u201d (p. 7). Like Le Guin, Russ alludes to the idea that neurochemical changes can evoke psychological responses, with Yuriko said to be dreaming of \u201call the wonderful guff you think up when you\u2019re turning twelve and the glands start going<\/i>\u201d (p. 1, my emphasis). However, Russ\u2019 narrative consistently falls short of outright endorsing the notion that gender roles are due to physiological differences.<\/p>\n Russ satirizes the essentialist thesis that gender roles are a \u2018natural\u2019 consequence of biology through dialogue with one of the male visitors. The man describes Whileaway\u2019s female-only society as \u201cunnatural,\u201d to which Katy ripostes, \u201chumanity is unnatural\u201d (p. 5). He responds that \u201cseals are harem animals\u2026and so are men; apes are promiscuous and so are men; doves are monogamous and so are men\u2026. Whileaway is still missing something\u201d (p. 5). This argument makes an invalid jump from \u2018is\u2019 to \u2018ought\u2019 by insinuating that since certain gender relations occur in nature, and Homo sapiens<\/i> comprises part of the natural world, humanity should emulate these patterns of interaction. Russ (1975, as cited in LeFanu, 2012) explains elsewhere that \u201cone of the best things (for me) about science fiction\u201d is being able to undercut the \u201cpoetic fancies of a weakly dimorphic species trying to imitate every other species in a vain search for what is \u2018natural\u2019\u201d (pp. 188\u201389). In the conversation described, Russ exposes the fallaciousness of the man\u2019s reasoning and in doing so undermines the general case for conforming to supposedly natural gender roles.<\/p>\n Le Guin poses a similar challenge to gender essentialism by problematizing the scientific basis on which it rests. Mona Fayad (1997) observes that through LHD<\/i>\u2019s presentation of truth as relative and Genly\u2019s narration as severely limited, \u201cLe Guin draws attention to the fallibility of the supposed neutrality of the scientific eye\u201d (p. 65). The text opens with Genly asserting \u201cthat Truth is a matter of the imagination\u201d and encouraging readers to \u201cchoose the fact you like best\u201d (Le Guin, 1969\/2017, p. 1), in stark contrast to the scientific ideal of objective, universal truth. Further, Genly\u2019s unreliable narration throughout the novel highlights the biases prevalent in scientific observation. Sarah Hrdy (2006) notes that researchers\u2019 own gender identities can distort their conclusions by focusing attention on different aspects of phenomena under scrutiny (p. 147).[3]<\/sup><\/a> Several critics argue that Genly, too, falls prey to such cognitive limitations because of his sociocultural background (Cornell, 2001; Fayad, 1997; Pennington, 2000). His male identity leads him to interpret Gethen through a gendered lens, despite the androgyny of its inhabitants:<\/p>\n Though I had been nearly two years on Winter I was still far from being able to see the people of the planet through their own eyes. I tried to, but my efforts took the form of self-consciously seeing a Gethenian first as a man, then as a woman, forcing him into those categories so irrelevant to his nature and so essential to my own. (Le Guin, 1969\/2017, pp. 11\u201312)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Taken together, Le Guin and Russ paint an ambivalent picture of gender essentialism. Both recognize that biochemical factors often contribute to behavior and, in Le Guin\u2019s case, partially explain gender role expressions such as sexual conduct. However, Russ complicates this reductive approach to gender roles by showing the fallacious is\u2013ought logic that is frequently used to connect empirical<\/i> biological facts with prescriptive<\/i> sociocultural assertions. Le Guin provides alternative critiques. She challenges the assumption of there being a single, absolute truth and illustrates through Genly how observation can be distorted by the subjectivity of the observer. In both narratives, scientific understandings alone are deemed insufficient to explain gender expressions.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ header_2_font=”||||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.2″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” custom_padding=”||0px|||” custom_css_free_form=”selector span {text-indent: 0em;}” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n How else, then, might the texts conceptualize gender roles? Rudy (1997) contends that deconstructionist approaches present an alternative framework \u201cvery similar to that of Le Guin\u2019s imagined Gethen\u201d (p. 32). Deconstructionist analyses of gender are diverse, but center around critically unpacking the sociolinguistic factors that construct and perpetuate the categories \u2018male\u2019 and \u2018female\u2019 in different contexts (Rudy, 1997). One notable effort towards this end is Judith Butler\u2019s theory of performativity. Butler (1988) contends that gender is not a static property determined by anatomical or psychological facts, but an aspect of social reality composed of repeated acts. Gender roles, she argues, are analogous to theatrical roles: they are an ongoing performance of social behaviors using costumes, gestures, postures, and so forth, all of which are monitored by an audience. Thus, she concludes that gender is \u201clike a fiction, perhaps a fantasy\u201d (Butler, 1993, p. 5). Despite Butler\u2019s theorizing having only developed in the 1980s, scholars have adopted this lens to (re)interpret Le Guin\u2019s and Russ\u2019 fiction published during the 1970s.<\/p>\n Bruce Robbins (1997) opines scholars \u201ccannot assume they are doing anything intellectually or politically significant by sole virtue of showing that something is a social construct\u201d because this merely \u201cdisplaces the \u2018reality\u2019 question from the X and onto the \u2018society\u2019 or the \u2018culture\u2019 that\u2019s supposedly doing the constructing\u201d (p. 468). Le Guin\u2019s LHD<\/i>, however, supplements Russ\u2019 performative portrayal in \u201cWhen It Changed\u201d by investigating how language<\/i> can function to discursively construct gender role performances.[4]<\/sup><\/a> Somewhat surprisingly, Le Guin achieves this through precisely those features of LHD<\/i> that critical reviews identify as most contentious: using masculine pronouns to describe Gethenians, presenting the text through Genly\u2019s androcentric narration, and depicting Estraven in apparently male roles (Annas, 1978; Attebery, 2002; LeFanu, 1988). In the remainder of this section, I argue that these features serve not only to present gender roles as socially constructed phenomena, but also to explore how<\/i> this process occurs.<\/p>\n Numerous critics observe that language is central to Le Guin\u2019s portrayal of gender roles in LHD<\/i> (LeFanu, 1988; Rabkin, 1987; Rashley, 2007). Most notably, she has Genly use male pronouns to describe the androgynous Gethenians, which Pearson (2007) suggests may contribute to \u201can apparent masculinization of her hermaphrodites\u201d (p. 186; see also Cornell, 2001; LeFanu, 2012). Genly recognizes the restrictions imposed by such terminological consistency\u2014\u201cman<\/i> I must say, having said he<\/i> and his<\/i>\u201d (Le Guin, 1969\/2017, p. 5)\u2014and finds it challenging to apply binary gendered terms to Estraven, whose performances do not clearly coincide with male or female roles: \u201cFor it was impossible to think of him as a woman, that dark, ironic, powerful presence near me in the firelit darkness, and yet whenever I thought of him as a man I felt a sense of falseness\u201d (p. 12). Fayad (1997) remarks that Genly\u2019s linguistic difficulties show how \u201cmasculinist discourse retains its \u2018blind spot\u2019 when it comes to perceiving the other\u201d (p. 72). Genly is constrained by his language and thus struggles to conceive of the androgynes as anything other than the conjunction of male and female attributes.<\/p>\n The restricting properties of language are not limited to Genly; LHD<\/i>\u2019s tripartite interpretative layers contribute to Le Guin\u2019s depiction of gender performances. Donna White (1999) notes that the novel follows an unorthodox structure, with Gethenian myths, Estraven\u2019s journal entries, and other writings imbricated with Genly\u2019s narration. Even so, Genly remains the \u201cstructuring consciousness of the book\u201d (Bickman, 1977, p. 42) as the arbiter of information and thus comprises the first layer of analysis. Le Guin herself provides a second level, and the reader\u2019s social positioning forms the outermost layer, giving three interpretative strata: Genly, Le Guin, and the reader.<\/p>\n This is particularly evident in critical responses to Le Guin\u2019s depiction of Estraven expressing supposedly male attributes. Sarah LeFanu (1988) contends that Estraven is shown \u201cin almost exclusively \u2018male\u2019 roles\u201d (p. 138) and, on these grounds, Russ (2007) claims that \u201che is<\/i> male \u2013 at least, \u2018he\u2019 is masculine in gender, if not in sex<\/i>\u201d (p. 215, emphasis in original). Such readings impose preconceived notions of gender roles onto the androgynous world of Gethen; they interpret Estraven\u2019s behavior through a binary gendered lens, just like Genly does for much of the novel.[5]<\/sup><\/a> As one of the early visitors to Winter, Ong Tot Oppong, reports of Gethenian society:<\/p>\n There is no division of humanity into strong and weak halves, protective\/protected, dominant\/submissive, owner\/chattel, active\/passive. In fact the whole tendency to dualism that pervades human thinking<\/i> may be found to be lessened, or changed, on Winter\u2026. One is respected and judged only as a human being. (Le Guin, 1969\/2017, pp. 94\u201395, my emphasis)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ header_2_font=”||||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” custom_padding=”||0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]I have argued that Russ and Le Guin consider and reject essentialist approaches to gender, and instead suggest gender roles are largely performative. In this closing section, I aim to outline two key features of the texts that blend \u2018real\u2019 scientific components with \u2018fictional\u2019 performative elements. Specifically, (1) how both authors, recognizing that the meaning of gendered terms supervenes on their usage, intentionally extrapolate the application of these words to describe gender role expressions beyond typical referential boundaries, and (2) how LHD<\/i> corroborates the notion that gender performances can be male or female to an intermediate degree of truth.<\/p>\n Russ and Le Guin endorse a Wittgensteinian approach to language. Wittgenstein (1953) argues that words develop meaning due to their usage within a speech community. In line with this, Russ (1972) describes how the term \u2018people\u2019 develops an alternate meaning after being spoken by a male visitor, since until this point it had been used differently: \u201che did not mean people, he meant men<\/i>, and he was giving the word the meaning it had not had on Whileaway for six centuries\u201d (p. 3, emphasis in original). This meaning-as-use theory of language also highlights the problem of linguistic incommensurability: without thorough knowledge of the social tapestry in which a term is used, its definition is often elusive. Le Guin (1969\/2017) shows this through Genly\u2019s struggles with \u2018shifgrethor,\u2019 which he describes as \u201cuntranslatable\u201d but notes that even \u201cif it was I would not understand it\u201d (p. 13), reminiscent of Wittgenstein\u2019s (1953) remark that \u201cif a lion could talk, we could not understand him\u201d (223e). Genly has immense difficulty talking to Estraven about gender roles, his thoughts constrained by his communicative history: \u201cI can\u2019t tell you what women are like. I never thought about it much in the abstract<\/i>\u201d (Le Guin, 1969\/2017, p. 234, my emphasis). Examining how the meaning of gendered words evolves is central to the \u2018science\u2019 part of Le Guin\u2019s and Russ\u2019 science fiction texts.<\/p>\n Extending scientific findings to fictional situations is central to science fiction as a genre (Milner, 2012; Pringle, 1985), and Russ and Le Guin achieve this by extrapolating gendered terms to cases where gender roles are performed outside standard referential limits. Russ (1972) has Janet consistently narrate the story using the pronoun \u201cshe\u201d when describing Katy\u2019s gender performance in ways that many readers are likely to associate with masculine roles: fixing cars, shooting a gun, and so on. Likewise, Le Guin (1969\/2017) uses gendered words throughout LHD<\/i> to challenge readers\u2019 understandings of what these terms can refer to. The oft-cited line, \u201cthe King was pregnant\u201d (p. 99), problematizes assumptions regarding male and female roles by combining seemingly incompatible attributes in a nonetheless coherent narrative structure. Russ\u2019 and Le Guin\u2019s texts actively shift the meaning of gendered words outwards into a more inclusive concept of gender roles through their use.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Due to these linguistic challenges, Brian Attebery (2002) suggests LHD<\/i>\u2019s portrayal of gender roles is aimed at \u201cinvestigating the paradox of gender\u201d (p. 130) but fails to articulate why<\/i> it is paradoxical. Here is one interpretation: gendered terms like \u2018female\u2019 are vague since there exist borderline cases for which it is unclear whether or not such a term applies (Daly, 2015). We can imagine a continuum of thousands of individuals ranging gradually in their femaleness such that the statement \u2018X is female\u2019 is clearly true for those on one side, clearly false for those on the other, and unclear for those in between. The minute differences between two consecutive persons seems insufficient to warrant claiming \u2018Xn<\/sub> is female\u2019 is true while \u2018Xn+1<\/sub> is female\u2019 is false. Yet, applying the plausible rationale that \u2018if Xn<\/sub> is female, so is Xn+1<\/sub>\u2019 implausibly entails that all individuals must be deemed female. Thus, gender presents a sorites paradox,[7]<\/sup><\/a> and Le Guin imagines a society populated entirely by problematic borderline cases who appear to be male\/female\/neither\/both all at once.<\/p>\n Pertinently, Le Guin (1969\/2017) shows Estraven as expressing both male and female roles to an intermediate extent. Genly recognizes early in the novel that Estraven\u2019s \u201csoft supple femininity\u201d contrasts with his \u201cdark, ironic, powerful presence,\u201d making him difficult to describe using binary gender categories (p. 12). After the pair share a tent for an extended duration, Genly grows to appreciate the complexity in Estraven\u2019s identity: \u201cfor the first time I saw him as he was\u2026. neither man nor woman, neither and both\u201d (pp. 201, 214). Estraven resists dichotomous gender categories, and the rigid true\/false logic underpinning this binary opposition, by expressing male and female attributes to a non-absolute degree. As Fayad (1997) observes, \u201cthe Gethenian exists in between<\/i>, in an arrested state of both union and separation, neither one nor the other\u201d (p. 71, emphasis in original). Le Guin challenges deterministic and often presumed \u2018scientific\u2019 notions of absolute gender membership by constructing a fictional world \u201cin which gender is not truth\u201d (Pearson, 2007, p. 196).[8]<\/sup><\/a>[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ header_2_font=”||||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” custom_padding=”||0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]LeFanu (2012) notes that science fiction offers a productive venue for \u201cpicking apart the apparently seamless narrative ideology that defines us as women and men\u201d (p. 178). Le Guin and Russ make full use of this potential by examining opposing conceptions of gender roles and their ideological bases. Both criticize essentialist theories and the scientific assumptions on which they rest, but also acknowledge that biochemical properties may be relevant to social behavior. In their place, Le Guin and Russ prefer understandings that take gender roles to be socially and discursively constructed: to a large degree, fictional. Moreover, by explicating findings from linguistics and the philosophy of language, they integrate scientific and fictional elements in their exploration of gender. By reimagining how gender roles are negotiated and performed, Le Guin and Russ simultaneously draw from, criticize, and contribute to theoretical frameworks: in true meta-science fiction style, they alter the perceived reality of gender roles through their narratives.[9]<\/sup><\/a>[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”Content Block” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_enable_image=”off” custom_margin=”0px||0px||true|false” custom_padding=”0px||0px||true|false” saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ admin_label=”Endnotes” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ header_2_font=”||||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text module_class=”noindent” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][1]<\/a> The term \u2018science fiction\u2019 eludes precise specification, though Andrew Milner\u2019s (2012) broad definition of the genre as \u201cessentially and necessarily a site of contestation\u201d (p. 40) is perhaps most apt in relation to discussions of gender.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Certain aspects of kemmer can also be pharmacologically instigated: \u201cSome Foretelling groups artificially arouse perversion in a normal person\u2014injecting female or male hormones during the days before a session\u201d (Le Guin, 1969\/2017, p. 63).<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Female zoologists, for example, have in recent decades provided fruitful insights into aspects of primate mating behavior that were ignored by Darwin and many of the male evolutionary scientists that followed (Hrdy, 2006).<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>Russ also examines the \u2018how\u2019 alongside the \u2018what,\u2019 to some extent. I discuss this further in \u00a73.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> After Genly and Estraven have attempted communicating through \u2018mindspeech\u2019\u2014which Fayad (1997) notes \u201ccannot be gendered\u201d (p. 73)\u2014and in doing so escape some of the inflexibilities associated with verbal language, Genly comes to appreciate the complexity of Estraven\u2019s non-binary gender expression:<\/p>\n \u201cAnd I saw then again, and for good, what I had always been afraid to see, and had pretended not to see in him: that he was a woman as well as a man. Any need to explain the sources of fear vanished with the fear; what I was left with was, at last, acceptance of him as he was.\u201d (Le Guin, 1969\/2017, p. 248)<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> In this sense, Russ and Le Guin go beyond what Malmgren (2002) identifies as an inherent limitation of meta-science fiction: \u201cEven as the best meta-SF plays with and interrogates reality within its pages, it admits that it cannot deliver the impossible\u2014the radical transformation of reality\u201d (p. 33). To the extent that the meaning of words is determined by how they are used throughout a natural language, Russ and Le Guin influence the referential scope of gendered English words via their use in the texts, and therefore change linguistic reality itself (albeit perhaps not \u2018radically\u2019).<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> For a less truncated explanation of how gender can be conceptualized as a sorites paradox, see Collins (2021).<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> One plausible way of interpreting Pearson\u2019s point here, I believe, is to take \u2018not truth\u2019 to mean \u2018not binary<\/i> truth.\u2019 Using fuzzy logic to express truth as an inclusive continuum ranging from complete truth to complete falsity may adequately capture Gethenians\u2019 unusual performance of gender without dispensing with objective truth altogether.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Many thanks to Daniel Bedggood for his insightful feedback on an earlier version of this paper, and to the Coreopsis<\/i> reviewers and editorial team for their invaluable assistance in preparing the article for publication.[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”Content Block” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_enable_image=”off” custom_margin=”0px||0px||true|false” custom_padding=”0px||0px||true|false” saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ admin_label=”References” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ header_2_font=”||||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text module_class=”reference” _builder_version=”4.27.2″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders<\/i> (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.<\/p>\n Annas, P. J. (1978). New worlds, new words: Androgyny in feminist science fiction. Science Fiction Studies, 5<\/i>(2), 143\u2013156. https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/4239176<\/a><\/p>\n Attebery, B. (2002). Decoding gender in science fiction<\/i>. Routledge.<\/p>\n Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Male and female brains and the truth about autism<\/i>. Basic Books.<\/p>\n Bickman, M. (1977). Le Guin\u2019s The left hand of darkness<\/i>: Form and content. Science Fiction Studies, 4<\/i>(1), 42\u201347. https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/4239066<\/a><\/p>\n Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40<\/i>(4), 519\u2013531. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/3207893<\/a><\/p>\n Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of \u201csex\u201d<\/i>. Routledge.<\/p>\n Collins, R. W. (2021). Modeling gender as a multidimensional sorites paradox. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 36<\/i>(2), 302\u2013320. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/hyp.2020.11<\/a><\/p>\n Cornell, C. (2001). The interpretative journey in Ursula K. Le Guin\u2019s The left hand of darkness<\/i>. Extrapolation, 42<\/i>(4), 317\u2013327. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3828\/extr.2001.42.4.317<\/a><\/p>\n Daly, H. L. (2015). Sex, vagueness, and the Olympics. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 30<\/i>(4), 708\u2013724. https:\/\/www.doi.org\/10.1111\/hypa.12184<\/a><\/p>\n Edelman, Christopher. (n.d.). Michel de Montaigne (1533\u20131592). In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/i>. https:\/\/iep.utm.edu\/montaign<\/a><\/p>\n Fayad, M. (1997). Aliens, androgynes, and anthropology: Le Guin\u2019s critique of representation in The left hand of darkness<\/i>. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, 30<\/i>(3), 59\u201373. http:\/\/www.jstor.com\/stable\/44029822<\/a><\/p>\n Heyman, G. D., & Giles, J. W. (2006). Gender and psychological essentialism. Enfance, 58<\/i>(3), 293\u2013310. https:\/\/www.cairn.info\/revue-enfance1-2006-3-page-293.htm#<\/a><\/p>\n Hrdy, S. B. (2006). Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In E. Sober (Ed.), Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology<\/i> (3rd ed., pp. 131\u2013159). MIT Press.<\/p>\n Ingalhalikar, M., Smith, A., Parker, D., Satterthwaite, T. D., Elliott, M. A., Ruparel, K., Hakonarson, H., Gur, R. E., Gur, R. C., & Verma, R. (2014). Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111<\/i>(2), 823\u2013828. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1073\/pnas.1316909110<\/a><\/p>\n Jameson, F. (1975). World-reduction in Le Guin: The emergence of utopian narrative. Science Fiction Studies, 2<\/i>(3), 221\u2013230. http:\/\/www.jstor.com\/stable\/4238971<\/a><\/p>\n Kara, M. (2017). Gender (re)construction and destabilization of patriarchy in Joanna Russ\u2019 The female man<\/i>. Idil: Sanat ve Dil Dergisi [Idil: Art and Language Journal], 6<\/i>(37), 2447\u20132456. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7816\/idil-06-37-04<\/a><\/p>\n Le Guin, U. K. (1989). Is gender necessary? Redux. In U. K. Le Guin & S. Wood (Eds.), The language of the night: Essays on fantasy and science fiction<\/i> (Rev. ed., pp. 135\u2013147). The Women\u2019s Press.<\/p>\n Le Guin, U. K. (2017). The left hand of darkness<\/i>. Gollancz. (Original work published 1969)<\/p>\n LeFanu, S. (1988). In the chinks of the world machine: Feminism and science fiction<\/i>. Women\u2019s Press.<\/p>\n LeFanu, S. (2012). Popular writing and feminist intervention in science fiction. In D. Longhurst (Ed.), Gender, genre and narrative pleasure<\/i> (pp. 177\u2013191). Routledge.<\/p>\n Malmgren, C. (2002). Meta-SF: The examples of Dick, Le Guin, and Russ. Extrapolation, 43<\/i>(1), 22\u201335. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3828\/extr.2002.43.1.04<\/a><\/p>\n Milner, A. (2012). Locating science fiction<\/i>. Liverpool University Press.<\/p>\n Moslehi, M., & Abbasi, P. (2016). Joanna Russ\u2019s The female man<\/i>: A Butlerian approach. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22<\/i>(1), 165\u2013177. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17576\/3L-2016-2201-13<\/a><\/p>\n Pearson, W. G. (2007). Postcolonialism\/s, gender\/s, sexuality\/ies and the legacy of The left hand of darkness<\/i>: Gwyneth Jones\u2019s Aleutians talk back. Yearbook of English Studies, 37<\/i>(2), 182\u2013196. https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/20479309<\/a><\/p>\n Pennington, J. (2000). Exorcising gender: Resisting readers in Ursula K. Le Guin\u2019s Left hand of darkness<\/i>. Extrapolation, 41<\/i>(4), 351\u2013358. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3828\/extr.2000.41.4.351<\/a><\/p>\n Pringle, D. (1985). Science fiction: The 100 best novels<\/i>. Xanadu.<\/p>\n Rabkin, E. S. (1987). Determinism, free will, and point of view in Le Guin\u2019s The left hand of darkness<\/i>. In H. Bloom (Ed.), Ursula K. Le Guin\u2019s <\/i>The left hand of darkness (pp. 75\u201390). Chelsea House Publishers.<\/p>\n Rashley, L. H. (2007). Revisioning gender: Inventing women in Ursula K. Le Guin\u2019s nonfiction. Biography, 30<\/i>(1), 22\u201347. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1353\/bio.2007.0029<\/a><\/p>\n Robbins, B. (1997). Just doing your job: Some lessons of the Sokal affair. The Yale Journal of Criticism, 10<\/i>(2), 467\u2013474. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1353\/yale.1997.0028<\/a><\/p>\n Rudy, K. (1997). Ethics, reproduction, utopia: Gender and childbearing in Woman on the edge of time<\/i> and The left hand of darkness<\/i>. NWSA Journal, 9<\/i>(1), 22\u201338. https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/4316482<\/a><\/p>\n\n
I. Gender as Science<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/societyforritualarts.com\/website_799ab241\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Ursula_Le_Guin_3551195631_cropped-252x300.jpg?resize=252%2C300&ssl=1\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/societyforritualarts.com\/website_799ab241\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Joanna_Russ_obit-208x300.jpg?resize=208%2C300&ssl=1\")
\n
II. Gender as Fiction<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/societyforritualarts.com\/website_799ab241\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/When-it-changed.jpg?resize=235%2C375&ssl=1\")
Although researchers have examined Russ\u2019 (1975) novel The Female Man<\/i> through Butlerian frameworks (e.g., Kara, 2017; Moslehi & Abbasi, 2016), \u201cWhen It Changed\u201d has largely evaded such scrutiny, despite the performative elements at play in the text. Russ (1972) characterizes Janet and Katy such that the socially constructed nature of their gender role expressions is evident. Both women are described as often behaving in traditionally masculine ways. Janet has \u201cfought three duels, all of them kills\u201d (p. 7) and consumes beer, while Katy \u201cdrives like a maniac\u201d (p. 1), can dismantle and reassemble cars, and makes love in ways that are \u201ca little peremptory\u201d (p. 7). They also demonstrate stereotypically feminine attributes, however. Janet appreciates the \u201camazing, poignant warmth of an infant\u201d (p. 6); Katy \u201cwill not handle guns\u201d (p. 1) due to her emotional reactivity and sobs \u201cas if her heart would break\u201d (p. 6) after meeting the men. By combining these disparate behaviors, Russ demonstrates the fluidity of gender roles, with their expression unrestrained to preconceived notions of \u2018male\u2019 and \u2018female.\u2019 Janet and Katy implicitly answer the question that the men \u201cnever quite dared to ask\u2026: Which of you plays the role of the man?<\/i>\u201d (p. 7, emphasis in original). The idea of a \u2018role of the man,\u2019 Russ suggests, is a social construction reified through performance but fictional at its core.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/societyforritualarts.com\/website_799ab241\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/TheLeftHandOfDarkness1stEd.jpg?resize=242%2C413&ssl=1\")
Reflecting on LHD<\/i> years after the novel\u2019s initial publication, Le Guin (1989) readily acknowledges her role in crafting the text. She first defended using male pronouns, writing that \u201c\u2018he\u2019 is the generic pronoun, damn it, in English\u201d (p. 145) but later questioned this decision: \u201cIf I had realized how the pronouns I used shaped, directed, controlled my own thinking, I might have been \u2018cleverer\u2019\u201d (p. 145). Russ (2007) criticizes Le Guin for creating \u201ca world of men\u201d (p. 215) by avoiding gender-neutral terms. Christine Cornell (2001), however, defends Le Guin\u2019s initial position and claims non-gendered pronouns \u201cwould fundamentally alter the experience of reading\u201d (p. 323). Crucially, readers engage with LHD<\/i> through the lens of pre-existing suppositions. Their image of Gethenians\u2019 gender roles and identities\u2014like Genly\u2019s and Le Guin\u2019s\u2014is produced, in part, by their sociolinguistic culture and background (Attebery, 2002; Jameson, 1975; Pearson, 2007; Pennington, 2000). Just as Genly tries to shape androgynes \u201cinto those categories so irrelevant to [their] nature and so essential to [his] own\u201d (Le Guin, 1969\/2017, p. 12), and Le Guin recognizes how terminological differences would alter the reception of LHD<\/i>, readers are typically \u201cconfronted with the same gender assumptions as Genly\u201d (White, 1999, p. 76) and therefore produce<\/i> gender while reading the text. LHD<\/i> not only describes the gender expressions of Estraven and other Gethenians as non-essentialist and flexible but provides a performative illustration of social gender role construction via intersecting layers of interpretation: Genly, Le Guin, and the reader.<\/p>\n\n
III. Gender as Science Fiction<\/h2>\n
IV. (Re)imagining Gender<\/h2>\n
Endnotes<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/societyforritualarts.com\/website_799ab241\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Author-photo-Reimagining-gender-through-Le-Guin-and-Russ-300x300.jpg?resize=300%2C300&ssl=1\")
Rory W. Collins is an Academic Study Skills Tutor at Ara Institute of Canterbury. He earned a BA, BSc, and MTchgLn from the University of Canterbury; this paper first took shape during his final year of undergraduate studies. His research interests are diverse and interdisciplinary, and he has written articles on topics ranging from the sorites paradox to pornography to psychoanalysis. He was formerly Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Australasia<\/i>. His hobbies include playing football (albeit not very well) and exploring walks around his local area in Christchurch, New Zealand, and beyond.<\/p>\n