I've been thinking a lot about balance and identity lately. Specifically, on what it means to be authentic to oneself. Are we the person we internally feel like or are we better defined as the person others see us as? And who gets to help define us? God? Church? Family? Friends? Society as a whole? Each of these factors influence our identity to some degree. Are these influences better rejected, or do we become a better truer person by allowing others to help define us and our place in society?
These are some of the questions that have been bouncing around in my mind lately. Now, I certainly don't claim to have any answers. But I thought a conversation might help me sort through some of the thoughts I have, and maybe help me find an answer or two.
Personally, I feel like authenticity is found in some combination of personal feelings and the feelings of others. I saw a great comment on a New York Times article recently. The comment made the claim that authenticity should "include social awareness, sensitivity to the feelings of others, and solid boundaries between what one chooses to keep private and what one makes public." Obviously what those boundaries and social awareness look like will vary greatly from person to person, but it provides a view of authenticity that includes both personal identity and societal influence. It is this very balance that I am trying to find in my life.
In my mind I see four areas that help define my identity. I am defined by my own personal sense of identity. I am defined by my relationship with Amy, specifically in being the person she sees and defines me as. I am defined by my relationship with God and the Church. Finally, I am defined by society as a whole (with priority placed upon how my relationships with my family and close friends define me). Each of these external relationships defines me just as much as I am able to define myself.
What I find so frustrating is trying to bring these definitions of who I am into balance. Can I be authentic to my internal identity while not destroying those parts of me defined by my very important external relationships? My identity and place in the Church is very important to me, my identity as a husband defines who I am, and the relationships I've had my entire life have shaped the person I am today. I don't know if I would really continue to be me, if I fundamentally changed these relationships. All of these relationships are very much defined by a male identity. How do I balance these definitions of who I am with an internal idea of myself that cringes at every male reference?
An example of this struggle to find balance can be found in the question of names. Names are really powerful symbols. Parents give children names hoping that their children will live up to an ancestral namesake or an expectation the name represents. After that moment a name rapidly becomes a symbol of who that individual is and that name carries all the hopes and dreams for that child. Names represent us and represent what roles we are expected to play in society. Names rapidly come to define who we are to those around us. Names have deep power and eternal significance.
Lately several different people have asked me about preferred names and pronouns. With gender dysphoria male roles, symbols, and expectations cause some degree of pain. The name Kyle feels like a weight I constantly carry around with me, because that name is attached to so many gendered roles and expectations. The pronoun 'he' sounds jarring when used to refer to me. But I'm defined by more than just an internal sense of identity, Amy, Church, and society as a whole have a part in defining who I am as well.
Would abandoning the name Kyle be an abandonment of my male roles, and a part of my identity? I had one friend tell me that if I ever asked to be called be a feminine name, as many trans people in my situation do, he would lose a great deal of respect for me, because he would see that action as an abandonment of my duties. In his mind I would be walking away from being a husband and a priesthood holder. In some ways I agree that changing my name would be a fundamental shift of my identity. I certainly don't want others to view me differently because they believe I've abandoned commitments I made, particularly the commitment of being a husband to Amy.
At church I am Brother Merkley. Is that painful? Yes. But, once again I made a covenant to be a priesthood holder. Brother Merkley represents those promises, and an identity as a male in the Church. This identity is very difficult. But if I am to live up to the promises I've made to a Church I fundamentally believe in, all I can do for now is to live up to those promises as best I can and await further revelation.
At school I'm Mr. Merkley. Mr. Merkley represents safety, financial security, and social conformity. Sure, once again it hurts to go by a male title but the confrontation, confusion, and harassment that would occur should I try to change that name wouldn't ever be worth it. I despise conflict and don't want to cause any drama. Honestly, just being open about this issue on the internet caused more than enough trauma and anxiety for me this year at school.
So while Kylie may represent my internal identity better, Kyle represents my role as husband and the fact that I was born in a male body with many male experiences, Brother Merkley represents the fact that I have made covenants with God, including holding the priesthood, that are male experiences, and Mr. Merkley represents my desire to avoid conflict and socially conform. Each name is a symbol that represents a part of who I am. Perhaps a single name is not enough to fully represent me, I am all those names and more. Somewhere buried in all those symbols is me.
How do I balance all these different parts that define who I am? Which parts of my identity ought to be most important? Is it even possible to find real balance, or am I trying to make everyone happy and leaving no one satisfied? I don't know, but I will continue my search for answers.
Sincerely,
me
