In my lifetime, talk about sex has gone from taboo to culture war. In part that progression has been the result of social events and the significant evolution of cultural attitudes. Homosexuality was a criminal offence when I was in high school. So was abortion. Misogyny was so prevalent that most did not notice. Along came AIDS. In recent decades, legal and societal approaches to sexual orientation have significantly relaxed and there is some easing of rigidity about gender and gender expression.

One way or another (as it were), sex is still a contentious subject. Why? I can understand the reasons for some codes and practices for sex in the pre-industrial past. For example, procreation was a risky business, especially for women and children. But it was essential: families and dynasties depended on it. As well, prior to safe and effective contraception methods, sexual activities had greater potential consequences. It is still contentious to determine the line between consensual sex and sexual assault.

The underlying reasons for various religions’ control of sexual expression or behaviour are not discussed here. They may be of interest to the adherents of religions, but are not pertinent to these arguments.

Two key underlying moral principles emerge from the evolution of past codes and practices respecting sexual expression or behaviour.

1. No harm should be done to any participant, child, or bystander; and
2. All participants should have provided informed consent.

Given that those conditions are fully met, this exploration proposes that there is no necessity for moral or social or cultural censure of any sexual expression or practice. It should not matter who puts what where.

Gender

Facebook provides 71 gender selection options, as of this writing.  So we can take it as decided in social networks that ‘birth-assigned’ gender or biological gender appears inadequate to describe the gender determinations people make for themselves.  Who determines gender is now the key element of gender identification.  The legal consensus in Canada (there may not be a societal consensus) seems to be that individuals determine their own gender.

Thus, gender identity is subjective, determined by the individual through their own perception, assessment or judgment.  Given this subjectivity, it is reasonable to suggest that gender identification is influenced by the full panoply of factors which influence most subjective determinations: biology, of course, but also familial upbringing, personal experiences, cultural and societal influences, and religion.

An individual’s intrinsic sense of self is a fundamental human right.  There are no valid considerations which can deprive an individual of that human right.

However, an individual’s intrinsic sense of self is not carved in stone.  So it is possible that an individual’s gender identity can evolve.  Possible change or evolution of gender identity in no way challenges the validity of the original or evolved gender determination.

How a person identifies their gender does not imply how they wish to express their identification.  One might identify as one gender but choose to present as another.  That choice might be for any number of reasons, but probably most often for convenience or societal acceptance.  So long as the choice is a free choice, little harm is done.  Where full gender expression is repressed by societal or religious rules, the person’s intrinsic sense of self is invalidated, their human rights are challenged.

An individual’s right to free expression of gender identity exists within the context of a society where other individuals have rights as well.  Social or political negotiation is required where rights collide, lest the matter be left to the courts to decide.

Orientation

Most discussions of sexual orientation are limited to trinary classifications: heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.  A slightly more broad taxonomy adds asexual and pansexual.  However, more detailed considerations suggest that sexual orientations are at least as numerous as gender identities.

“Sexual orientation” should be considered a portmanteau phrase, further complicating the discussion.  The phrase includes physical sexual attraction, but also emotional attraction and romantic attraction.  It is entirely consistent (though perhaps not helpful) to observe that one type of attraction (e.g., physical) does not necessarily imply another type (e.g., emotional).

While there seems to be agreement that sexual orientation is not something an individual chooses, it is also argued that orientation is developed from a mix of biological, psychological and environmental factors.  Psychological and environmental factors change over time, so sexual orientation need not be understood as fixed over a person’s lifetime.

As with gender, sexual orientation may or may not be expressed.  If expression of orientation is repressed by external forces (laws, fatwas, etc.), this would represent a violation of human rights.  If the expression is ‘closeted’ by the individual that is their choice, although such choices may have consequences for health and well-being.

Expression

Western society is undertaking a significant cultural transition in areas once considered taboo for discussion and anathema for expression.   Only within the last few decades has there been widespread societal acceptance of gender fluidity and non-traditional orientations.  Although western society has changed many of the laws and rights surrounding gender and orientation, many laws and regulations have yet to adjust.

These new frameworks will need to integrate within existing practices and customs, so adjustment will not be easy.  We have already seen gender-related disputes and court cases over: use of washrooms, participation in sports, and gender transitions of minors.  In my view, such issues as these can be expected during the transition period.  Some of them will probably solve themselves over time, as younger people seem far more relaxed about the transition.

Despite this, navigation of interpersonal relationships may well be fraught, given the range of possibilities for gender and orientation, let alone the possibility that genders and orientations may change over time,

The principles presented at the outset of this paper – ‘no harm’ and ‘informed consent’ – are starting points for moral engagement between individuals on the spectrum of genders and orientations.  Although included under the principles, one might also add ‘transparency’ and ‘respect’.