Although until recently, humans and especially men were the only manifestation of gender. But today, gender has infiltrated every aspect of human life. The efforts made to eliminate sexual discrimination, although to a large extent successful and in some cases even reversed the discriminatory system, have mostly been aimed at becoming an equal manifestation, for speaking about gender. This has sent all social aspects of human life to the realm of gender symbols. Today, the impact of gender can be seen in all human-made systems. But first and foremost, we must carefully define the concept of gender, which is the focus of this text. In this text, we consider gender in a broader sense than the biological realm and therefore gender here is more closely related to the concept of “gender” rather than “sexuality”. But where is the difference between sexuality and gender? Gender refers to a specific state or condition and also to an identity. While sexuality refers to a set of sexual desires, actions, and signs that are limited to anatomy

According to common definitions in dictionaries, gender is defined as follows:

1 – A: A category in which the grammatical classification and differentiation between nouns, verbs, pronouns, etc. is based on gender distinctions.

B: One of the categories in this classification.

Separating the shape or shapes in use.

2 – Part A: Sexual identity, especially in relation to society and culture.

B: Being a woman or a man.

A: Women and men as a group.

In reality, “gender” expands the concept of sex from a physical attribute or sign to a social, psychological, and therefore political state, and seeks it in the symbolic order and complex range of culture. In other words, “gender” refers to the issue of position that is dependent on interaction with the outside world, while “sexuality” is based on a number of assumptions (especially psychoanalytic assumptions) that derive their credibility from a biological distinction and try to present the issue of gender and its consequences as an unchangeable destiny. It is obvious that in order to break free from the false dichotomy of gender as women/men and to approach the issue of sexual identity, gender must be examined as a state and not as a judgment or a static and unchangeable sign.

Whenever we talk about gender, we inevitably deal with an organism. An organism that has the ability to reproduce and establish social connections. Therefore, when searching for the gender of a literary work, our approach will consider the literary work as an organic entity in a living and active society, and will seek to discover its individual characteristics and behavioral traits. When we say “behavioral traits,” we mean exactly the manner or conduct of action, and this means that we have imagined the literary text as a self-acting and unique agent. This behavior is not only a behavior within the framework of interactions between the text and the reader, but also includes social behavior in the sense of the combination of texts for the birth of future texts. Naturally, this approach is in contrast to all mechanical methods of literary research that seek to discover the “laws” within the work and reduce the text to a separate system. The difference between the mechanical and organic approach to literary texts lies precisely here, that one considers the text as

On the other hand, there is a more superficial level of analysis in literary works, which seeks to discover or deny femininity or masculinity through the content and message of the work. Placing deniers and affirmers of femininity in the same category is due to the reliance on either the direct message of the literary work, the author’s claim, the gender of the author, or a handful of folktales and colloquial proverbs that say, “Women are like this and men are like that.” For example, a note by Hiva Masih was published in the supplement of Etemad newspaper on September 21, 2009, entitled “Femininity in Men’s Poetry, Critics’ Invention.” It is a confusing and convoluted piece that only adds to the confusion. This piece quotes a statement from Forough Farrokhzad that says, “…what is being discussed is that a person should nurture their positive aspects in a way that they reach

Aside from the fact that the issue of gender is often neglected and superficially addressed from such a perspective, it seems that the general perception (including the perception of Jesus Christ) of femininity is gentle, soft-spoken, and perhaps a bit coquettish and affected. Since this type of view towards a subject like poetry and gender is at the peak of absurdity and ignorance, and is of the nature of popular and populist talk, let us pass over it only as an example, to shed light on the extreme absurdity of the common discussions in this area.

In literature, just like in the realm of politics and social relationships, there is a collection of qualities and characteristics that can be described as a single gender, historically dominant in contrast to the other gender. It is obvious that this gender has also been the foundation of literature. To the point where some even saw women picking up a pen as a compensation for lacking a penis. Sozan Gobār, in a brilliant piece of writing, metaphorically called upon women to write with their own blood and their own zeal, in opposition to men who read the pen as the creator’s penis. But we still emphasize that what shapes the dominant masculine characteristics in the history of literature can be examined outside the framework of the author themselves.

Concentration, unity, historical time, coherence, expression, centrality of speech, subjectivism, utopianism, and in short, the unity of the subject in language; these characteristics, which exist in a wide range of world literature, cultivate a systematic and harmonious global world, where a dominant gender is present. This literature is itself male in gender. Are the authors of this literature necessarily men? Never. To truly understand this dominant gender, we must refer to the moment of its emergence. This moment is best described in Kristeva’s definition of the Oedipal complex: “The Oedipal complex is an imaginary construction of a fundamental act that shapes the symbolic realm and all beings inscribed in it. This act brings forth signs and the structure of language, as a separation from the natural state, from the pleasure mixed with nature, in order to establish a visible network of differences, which from now on are applied to objects and thus separate them from the subject,

The most important task of symbolic territory is separation. It is only through this separation that we are able to understand and control things. And it is this separation that ultimately divides everything into two categories, up and down, throughout its process. It is clear that this separation is not just for the creation of an illusion called knowledge. Just as a child separates from its mother by discovering its own image, humans also succeed in separating themselves from their mother-nature through language. They now speak, and therefore give names to everything, in order to separate it from other things and from everything else. This is where the root of the emergence of a dominant gender or sexuality in a language lies, through separation, categorization, and arbitrary valuation of “sign and syntax,” and as a result, everything we know today, that we can express in language, has been created. The most important thing that this language does is to enable humans to say, “I am.”

The history of the establishment of the phallus (male reproductive organ) as the first element with a meaningful establishment date is also the first story.

Language, by separating humans from their maternal origins or the Platonic cave, places itself between humans as the subject (referring) and the entire existence as the object (referred). Such a language, in its essence, summarizes the world in a dualistic order and by attributing one pole and descending the other, creates meaning (as a unique judgment) as a truth.

Literature that strives to go beyond the rules and assumptions of language; literature that moves from the linear realm of syntax and meaning (subject + object + verb) towards the realm of periodic rhythms and meters; literature that does not present what it knows or what it believes, but rather what it says.

“It sees”, but as what it “touches” or what it “remembers” or what it “carries within itself”; literature that constantly challenges the “I” with endless implications until nothing remains but an empty shell; literature that rebels against common categorizations in language; literature that challenges sentences and paragraphs in literature; literature that creates combinations beyond the accepted combinations of a language; literature that finds pleasure in a fluid, decentralized, and destructive process; literature that sees the formation of meaning as a coincidental matter; literature that experiences the creation of literary works, or the expulsion of something from within the writer, not only with pleasure and pride, but also with pain, restlessness, and deep bleeding; it can be considered as a “cowardly” literature in its essence and organization. Such literature has been historically suppressed. Literature that has no meaning. Just like it has no penis. Perhaps that’s why some groups mockingly call it “meaningless” literature. Another example of Iranian

This text is an example of all the frustration and anger that is always seen in the behavior of defenders of official recognition and authority towards literature of a different genre or literature lacking a sexual element. This behavior is a natural subject that sees itself as incapable. Literature that has no strategy to show. Literature that has no meaning to present. Literature that has no way to “dominate”. Literature that has no “thing” to show. Like a body without a penis, it is a testament to the subject’s inability to give itself authenticity. Such a body terrifies the penis worshippers. And because it is a mirror in which they find their own death (masculinity) present and possible, anger is the most natural reaction of the subject towards the idea of their own death.

This is how literature is formalized between emptiness, whose only goal is to discover strategy (gender determination) and destroy (bury alive) a text without strategy/penis or hysterical worship of a text with strategy/penis. The interesting thing is that the same texts that have taken hold of themselves like a treasure in the arms of their humble admirers, in their most shining moments move towards violating their hypothetical strategy. A human without a penis is not a human. A person who is not white is not a person. Literature that does not produce meaning is not literature. A text that does not offer its own strategy is not a text. A world without a center is not a world. A work without a result is not a work. In places where genealogy, discrimination, suppression, fascism, and racism are rampant, this kind of thinking can be traced. Literature without a penis is not just feminine literature. Rather, it is literature beyond the realm of gender. Because gender