“Born-This-Way” No Gendered Self: A Critique of Gender Essentialism through Laplanche’s Psychoanalysis

“The time has come to abandon our slogans and think on our own” - Jean Laplanche

In this paper, I challenge the prevailing assumptions about gender and sexual identity within queer theory, especially critiquing the essentialist belief that we are "born this way." I argue that this narrative not only oversimplifies the complexities of gender and sexuality but also limits our understanding of queer identity. Rather than revisiting and rening its foundational theories, queer theory too often falls into the trap of searching for origins, asking what causes sexual and gender queerness, particularly beyond the binary. In doing so, queer theory risks reinforcing the very structures it seeks to dismantle by emphasizing biological determinism or an immutable "truth" behind queer identities. 

This "born this way" rhetoric, while seemingly empowering, serves as a protective tool—one that queer activists use to deect arguments that queer identities are merely choices. However, this approach unintentionally narrows the scope of queer experience by oversimplifying its origins. 

I will also explore the historical construction of the gender-sex distinction and how this binary framework was created, institutionalized, and weaponized against non-normative identities. Gender and sexuality, as I will argue, are not inherent or xed, but are constructed, uid, and often contradictory. 

Ultimately, my argument is that we must extend the dignity of complexity and nuance to queer people in ways that have not been fully explored, largely out of fear that such discussions might be weaponized by anti-queer rhetorics. My argument is an extenstion of the basic gender social construction argument - all gender is shaped by trauma; all gender holds the potential for pleasure and joy; and all gender is a technological and articial construct, shaped by social inuence, and yet it remains a deeply personal experience. 

1.1 Sexualities and Gender as Unconscious Self-Theorization 

In Gender Without Identity, psychoanalysts Avgi Saketopoulou and Ann Pellegrini present the thesis that gender identity and sexuality are not innate or pre-determined characteristics of the individual, but are instead shaped through unconscious processes influenced by psychic trauma- a theory that

queerness is unconsciously self-theorized. It positions trauma not as a direct cause of just queerness but as a shaping force in the psychic development of all gender and sexual identities. 

Saketopoulou and Pellegrinii’s framework resists both conservative victim-blaming narratives, which view queerness as a product of "broken" experiences, and liberal essentialist arguments that portray queerness as an innate, immutable trait. They argue that gender and sexuality emerge not as simple expressions of a "true" self but as part of an ongoing, unconscious process of self-theorization. This process is shaped by multiple influences: cultural, linguistic, familial, and, importantly, traumatic experiences. Gender, therefore, is not something one is simply “born with,” nor is it a static expression of an essential self. It is instead a creative act, a self-translation—an attempt by the psyche to make sense of the psychic and cultural materials it receives. 

Gender and Sexuality as Autopoetic Process 

Central to Saketopoulou and Pellegrinii’s argument is their view of gender as an autopoetic process. Drawing from systems theory, the idea of autopoiesis describes a self-creating system—something that continuously produces and maintains itself from within. Gender, in their view, is not a xed trait but an ongoing, evolving process. It is not simply discovered or assumed but is actively constructed by the psyche in relation to the trauma, desires, and contradictions that dene the individual’s experience. This process is not fully conscious or controllable; rather, gender emerges as the psyche attempts to navigate and make sense of the contradictions inherent in its social and familial surroundings. 

Gender identity, then, is not reducible to any essential biological or psychological core. It is an ongoing negotiation between the subject’s unconscious experiences, their familial history, and the larger social and cultural forces at play. The act of self-theorization is not merely an intellectual or conscious process, but a psychic one that occurs within the unconscious, translating trauma and cultural inheritance into gendered and sexual identities.

The Role of Trauma in Gender and Sexual Identity Formation 

Saketopoulou and Pellegrinii argue that trauma plays a signicant role in shaping gender and sexual identities, but not in the deterministic sense often associated with pathological models. Trauma does not directly cause queerness or transness, but it inects the process by which gender and sexuality are constructed. Trauma introduces complications, contradictions, and ambiguities into the psyche’s self-theorization of gender. The trauma can be direct—experienced personally—or indirect, transmitted through familial and societal structures. 

However, trauma does not necessarily distort or damage gender identity. Rather, it is part of the complex interplay of forces that shape gender. Trauma might complicate the psychic negotiation of gender, but it does not fundamentally alter the possibility of forming a coherent, viable gender identity. Trauma, like other cultural and psychic inputs, is a force that shapes the way the psyche translates its experiences into a gendered self. This process is not deterministic but involves a degree of agency and creative interpretation. 

It is critical to understand that Saketopoulou and Pellegrinii are not claiming that trauma causes queer identities or gender non-conformity. Rather, trauma shapes the process of gender formation. Queerness, in this view, is not an aberration or a deviation from a norm, but one possible outcome of this process. It is a result of the way in which the psyche integrates, translates, and makes sense of psychic injuries, desires, and contradictions. 

Intergenerational Transmission of Trauma and Gender Formation 

One of the key concepts in Saketopoulou and Pellegrinii’s work is the idea of intergenerational trauma. They draw on psychoanalytic theories that argue that psychic injuries are often passed down from one generation to the next, creating patterns of conict, repression, and unresolved ambivalence. These inherited conicts and psychic wounds profoundly inuence the child’s process of gender formation. However, they do not determine it in a xed way.

The child’s gender identity is shaped by how they creatively interpret and integrate the intergenerational transmission of trauma. This process is not passive or merely mimetic; the child does not simply inherit the parent’s trauma. Rather, the child’s gender identity emerges through a complex interaction between the child’s own psyche and the psychic residues of the parent’s unresolved conicts. For instance, maternal anxiety or paternal expectations may shape the child’s experience of gender, but how these inuences are internalized and incorporated into the child’s gendered self is unique to each individual. This relational process of psychic negotiation enables a degree of agency in the creation of gender identity. 

Moreover, Saketopoulou and Pellegrinii emphasize that this process is not necessarily pathological. It is not the case that a gender identity shaped by intergenerational trauma is necessarily distorted or dysfunctional. Instead, the ability to creatively reinterpret and integrate these inuences is what allows for the emergence of a gender identity that feels viable and coherent. Gender, in this sense, is not something one simply “receives” from the environment or family but is actively constructed by the subject, who navigates the complexities of trauma and relational inuences. 

Rejecting "Born This Way" Narratives 

The “born-this-way” narrative assumes that queerness and transness are innate traits—immutable, essential characteristics of the individual. Such essentialist views are both reductive and misleading. 

In rejecting the “Born This Way” narrative, we free queer identities from the constraints of essentialism, oering a more dynamic view of gender that allows for uidity, change, and transformation. Queerness is not deviations from a natural, biological order, but are instead creative acts of self-theorization that reects the complexity of human experience. 

Gender, Trauma, and the Psychoanalytic Tradition 

Psychoanalytic gures such as Winnicott and Klein have long explored how psychic injuries, particularly those involving family dynamics, inuence the formation of identity. However,

Saketopoulou and Pellegrinii’s work diverges from earlier psychoanalytic traditions that sought to “correct” gender non-conformity by focusing on trauma’s potential to shape identity in a more uid, creative way. 

Rather than pathologizing non-normative gender or sexual identities, they suggest that trauma can be an inuential force that shapes the complex process through which gender and sexuality emerge. This theoretical shift opens up new possibilities for how we understand queer and trans identities—not as failures of development or distortions of a "true" self, but as viable, creative responses to the trauma and contradictions of human experience. 

1.2 Construction of the Gender-Sex Binary 

At the heart of the 20th-century construction of sex and gender binaries lies a response to the increasing recognition of sexual and gender diversity, particularly in the wake of medical and scientic discoveries regarding biological sex. During the mid-1900s, the medical establishment became increasingly aware that the biological underpinnings of sex were far more complex than previously understood. Prior to these developments, sex was largely thought of as a straightforward matter of chromosomes—XX for females, XY for males. This model held sway well into the 20th century, until researchers began encountering cases of individuals whose chromosomal makeup, physical characteristics, or reproductive organs did not conform neatly to these binary categories. 

The rise of intersex individuals—those whose physical characteristics do not t the typical denitions of male or female—forced the scientic community to confront a dissonance between binary notions of sex and the complexities of biological reality. Intersex conditions, along with variations in hormone levels, chromosomal dierences, and physical presentation, made it increasingly dicult for scientists to claim that sex was simply binary in nature. However, rather than revising or abandoning the binary framework altogether, the medical and psychological elds created a new category to salvage the concept of binary sex: gender.

The term “gender” as it is understood today was popularized in the mid-20th century by sexologist John Money, who coined the term “gender identity” in 1964. Money's work was pivotal in the formulation of the distinction between “biological sex” and “gender,” with sex regarded as a biological reality and gender as a cultural and psychological construct. This distinction allowed the scientic and medical communities to maintain the validity of the sex binary while also accounting for the variability and complexity of human sexual and gendered experiences. 

John Money and the Gender-Sex Binary 

While John Money is often associated with progressive attitudes toward gender and sexuality, his role in the construction of the gender-sex binary is more complex and troubling. Money’s work on gender identity emerged in the context of his clinical work with intersex individuals and children with ambiguous genitalia. He believed that gender identity—an individual’s sense of being male or female—was not xed at birth but could be shaped through early socialization and medical intervention. Money famously advocated for the idea that children’s gender identities could be “molded” through early medical and psychological interventions, especially in cases where children were born with ambiguous genitalia or other non-normative features. 

However, Money’s vision of gender as a uid and malleable concept was far from a radical departure from rigid binary conceptions of sex. In fact, his work maintained and reinforced the very binaries it was purportedly attempting to address. Money’s model of gender was not one of radical uidity or innite variation. Rather, it posited a binary understanding of gender roles as natural and desirable, with the goal of ensuring that individuals conformed to one of two categories: male or female. Gender identity, in Money’s formulation, was not something to be freely chosen or self-determined, but something that could be coerced and shaped through medical intervention. 

This rigid, binary understanding of gender identity stood in stark contrast to the increasing recognition in the wider society of the possibility of diverse gender expressions. In Money’s model, deviations from the male-female binary were seen as pathological and in need of correction. Gender, in

his framework, was less about personal identity and more about conforming to societal expectations of masculinity and femininity. This pathologization of gender nonconformity, particularly in children, led to highly controversial and unethical medical practices, including surgeries and hormone treatments designed to force individuals into one of two prescribed gender roles. 

The Medicalization of Gender and the Gender Binary 

The institutionalization of the gender-sex binary was not limited to the work of John Money. Throughout the mid-20th century, the medical and psychological professions constructed a framework that pathologized gender nonconformity and promoted the binary model of sex and gender as the “normal” and “healthy” state. This framework provided the foundation for a wide array of medical practices aimed at “correcting” gender nonconformity, including conversion therapy, sex reassignment surgeries, and hormone replacement therapies. These interventions were justied by the belief that a person’s gender identity could be altered or corrected through medical or psychological treatment, and that any deviation from the binary model of male and female was a disorder to be xed. 

The concept of gender as something that could be molded or reshaped through medical intervention was grounded in a broader cultural anxiety about the stability of sex and gender categories. In a society where gender roles were becoming increasingly entrenched, any deviation from the male-female binary was perceived as a threat to the social order. Medical institutions responded by constructing ideologies and technologies that sought to erase these deviations and return individuals to a binary framework of gender expression. 

This medicalization of gender was particularly evident in the treatment of intersex children, who were often subjected to invasive surgeries and hormone treatments in an eort to t their bodies into one of the two prescribed categories of male or female. These practices were justied by the belief that intersex bodies were inherently problematic and needed to be “corrected” in order to conform to the binary norms of sex and gender. The idea of a “correct” gender, and the medical technologies designed to

achieve this, were not only rooted in a binary understanding of sex but also in a deep-seated belief in the naturalness of these categories. 

Gender and Its Role in Reinforcing the Sex Binary 

The popularization of gender as distinct from sex has led to signicant shifts in the way we understand identity, but it has also been instrumental in reinforcing the very binary distinctions it was intended to challenge. Gender identity—coined as a way of distinguishing psychological and cultural experiences of masculinity and femininity from biological sex—has been used to support a binary system in which individuals are expected to align themselves with either male or female identities. While this distinction has allowed for more nuanced understandings of gender identity, it has not eliminated the underlying binary framework that structures most contemporary societies. 

Rather than challenging the binary categories of male and female, the concept of gender identity has been used to reinforce them by emphasizing the need for individuals to choose a gender identity that aligns with their biological sex. This process, which began with John Money and his followers, has led to the consolidation of gender as an essential and immutable aspect of identity, despite the complex ways in which gender is socially constructed and experienced. Today, gender identity is understood as a ed attribute that individuals must navigate, often with signicant pressure to conform to traditional gender roles and expectations. 

In the face of increasing recognition of gender diversity, the idea of binary gender categories persists, often in opposition to the notion of a more uid or open-ended approach to gender. The concept of gender identity, far from dismantling the sex-gender binary, has largely functioned to fortify it, making it increasingly dicult to imagine a world in which gender is no longer understood as a rigid and unchanging binary.

1.3 Jean Laplanche: The Intersection of Gender, Sex, and Sexuality 

In examining the intersection of gender, sex, and sexuality, Jean Laplanche addresses the importance of gender as a conceptual tool in psychoanalytic and cultural discourse. Laplanche begins by asking a fundamental question: Why introduce gender? This question leads him to explore the early historical development of the triad of gender, sex, and sexuality, emphasizing their complex and interwoven roles in shaping human identity. In this exploration, Laplanche draws upon the works of thinkers like Robert Stoller. While Stoller’s work provides valuable insights, Laplanche’s central argument focuses on the binary nature of gender as it has evolved, particularly in the Anglophone world, where the terms "sex" and "gender" are often placed in opposition. 

For Laplanche, the introduction of gender as a distinct category is not merely an academic or theoretical move. Rather, it reects a set of social convictions about belonging to one of two categories: masculine or feminine. Gender, as Laplanche outlines, becomes associated with the belief in the correctness of these social assignments. This notion of "assignment" is key to understanding the operation of gender in contemporary discourse. The binary between sex and gender, as Laplanche argues, functions as a tool—essentially a weapon—deployed in ongoing societal battles: gender versus sex, and gender and sex together against the sexual. 

Laplanche highlights the historical context in which feminist movements, both dierentialist and non-dierentialist, engage with the sex/gender binary. While the feminist movement as a whole does not wholly reject the binary, they are concerned with subverting and critiquing it. Simone de Beauvoir, for example, did not explicitly pose the distinction between sex and gender, though the conceptual dierence was implicit in her work. Beauvoir argued that biological sex must be understood as a foundation, even if it is to be radically subverted in the cultural and social construction of gender roles. 

Judith Butler, in her inuential works Gender Trouble (1990) and Bodies That Matter (1993), revisits and revises this distinction. Butler argues that gender is performative, a concept borrowed from philosopher J.L. Austin’s theory of performative utterance. Austin’s idea suggests that language is not

just a tool for description but has the power to enact reality. For example, when a person says, “I do” during a wedding ceremony, they are not merely stating a fact, but performing an act that enacts the reality of marriage. Butler extends this notion to gender, proposing that gender itself is a performative act—a process of enacting and re-enacting gender roles through language, behavior, and bodily expression. Butler’s work challenges the idea that gender arises from an innate, biological essence. Instead, gender is constructed through repeated performances, both individually and collectivel 

In this context, Laplanche’s examination of the relationship between sex, gender, and sexuality becomes critical. While Laplanche acknowledges that some feminist theorists, such as Nicole-Claude Matthieu, continue to rely on the category of biological sex to explain gendered phenomena, he also critiques this reliance. Matthieu’s position—where gender can “translate,” “symbolize,” or even “construct” sex—ultimately restores a biological denition of sex. For Laplanche, these approaches maintain a hierarchical order in which biological sex remains a precondition for gender, suggesting that the sex/gender binary persists even within more radical critiques. 

Laplanche also points to the inherent contradictions within feminist thought and psychoanalytic discourse regarding the role of sex and gender. While feminist theorists, including some of the more radical voices, challenge the naturalization of sex and gender, they often still rely on a conceptual framework in which sex precedes gender. This notion of a pre-existing biological foundation, even when "denatured" or subverted in gender theory, reinforces the dichotomy that Laplanche seeks to critique. The question then becomes whether it is necessary to preserve the old framework of sex before gender, or whether a more radical conceptualization of gender, independent of biological determinism, can be developed. 

Judith Butler’s intervention in the discussion of sex and gender is particularly signicant because it directly opposes the conservative understanding of gender as an innate, unchanging aspect of human identity. Butler rejects the binary division of sex and gender, proposing instead that gender is something we do, rather than something we are. Gender, according to Butler, is not a static category but a dynamic process shaped by repeated actions, performances, and social expectations. This

performativity challenges the naturalization of gender roles, allowing for a more uid and complex understanding of gender identity. 

Butler’s concept of performativity is important because it shifts the focus from an essentialist view of gender, based on biology, to an understanding of gender as an ongoing, performative process. In this view, gender is not a xed or intrinsic attribute, but rather an act of repetition that constructs and reinforces the social realities we inhabit. This view aligns with Laplanche’s broader critique of the sex/gender binary and his argument that the conceptual tools used to analyze gender—whether they come from psychoanalysis, feminist theory, or medical discourse—must be interrogated in terms of their historical and ideological foundations. 

The question of why people have gender identities—why they form attachments to categories like "masculine" or "feminine"—is central to Laplanche’s inquiry. As he notes, gender identity is not something freely chosen, nor is it arbitrary. It is deeply rooted in the ways individuals engage with and interpret their social world. However, these identities are also shaped by the societal structures and historical forces that govern gender relations. Gender, in this sense, is always both personal and collective, individual and cultural. 

For transgender individuals, the question of gender identity becomes especially complex. While mainstream discourses often frame trans identities in terms of a biological mismatch—suggesting that trans people’s gender identity is a direct result of their biological sex—this view overlooks the complexity of gender experience. Transgender individuals often experience their gender identity as a deep and inherent part of who they are, despite the fact that gender itself is not biologically determined. The argument Laplanche and Butler present, however, is that gender identities—whether cisgender or transgender—are ultimately the result of social, psychological, and cultural forces, even if these forces are experienced in deeply personal ways. 

In psychoanalytic discourse, gender nonconformity has often been pathologized. Transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals are frequently seen as deviating from a natural or normative gender

structure, with their identities framed as symptoms of psychological distress. Laplanche, however, critiques this view, arguing that it is not the nonconformity itself that should be seen as pathological, but rather the societal systems that enforce rigid gender norms. These norms, according to Laplanche, need to be questioned in order to open space for more nuanced and inclusive understandings of gender and sexuality. 

Ultimately, Laplanche calls for a shift in the way gender and sexuality are analyzed. Instead of perpetuating the binary and biologically deterministic frameworks that have long dominated psychoanalysis and cultural theory, Laplanche advocates for a more exible, complex approach—one that recognizes the social construction of gender without resorting to essentialism. This approach challenges the naturalization of gender norms and opens the door for a more inclusive, non-pathologizing understanding of gender diversity. Through this lens, gender is not something that must be "xed" or normalized, but a rich, complex, and evolving set of practices that shape our identities and experiences in unique and meaningful ways.

References 

Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford University Press. 

Di Gironimo, S. (2024). Gender Without Identity: By Avgi Saketopoulou & Ann Pellegrini. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 93(2), 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332828.2024.2346465 

Edelman, L. (2004). No future: Queer theory and the death drive. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822385981 

Llaveria Caselles, E. (2021). Epistemic injustice in brain studies of (trans)gender identity. Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 608328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.608328 

Nado, J. (2014). Why intuition? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89 (1), 15–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24672978