Several issues come to my mind when you mention gender as related to the Craft. The first is the argument about gender polarity, that is the concept that you should build rituals around the sexual tension between male and female humans. Most people agree that this is one good way to raise energy. The argument comes up when people say that gender polarity is the best or only way to raise energy, and that gay or transgendered people cannot or should not be formally recognized in the Craft or create ritual.
This argument arises in some of the conservative British traditions of Wicca (Gardnerian, Alexandrian and so on), which as other expressions of gender polarity employ the circle standard of girl-boy-girl-boy placement, the heterosexual energy balance of God and Goddess energy and the conservative Craft tradition of only initiating witches of opposite gender than the initiator. (Keep in mind that I have not seen my Alexandrian Book of Shadows since 1979 or so and I am constructing some of this from memory.)
These days, though a few conservative British traditionalists still hold with barring homosexual energy in ritual, many have embraced it. I remember when I first came into the community many years ago. To my horror and secret delight, one of the most well-known Brit Trad-background high priestesses had an openly gay male high priest! The Brit Trad has come a long way.
In my own workings, during the last 16 years, I have had a heterosexual high priest who was my platonic working partner and not my lover, a mainly het high priest who was my lover and partner for six years and now an openly gay high priest who (obviously) is not my lover, but a very good friend! I think that of all my priests he is the best. Our coven is a large, successful and very diverse group that has had almost every shade of sexuality represented in it at one time or another, and I am very proud of that fact.
But before we trash gender polarity as a source of energy, let's look at it a moment.
The idea that we need two energies to create, as we do for humans to create life, is not new. We all know that, at least up until recently, it has taken both male and female energy to create a human life. One egg, one sperm, so the story goes. This very simple equation is what the whole of the gender issue is based on: the energy of creation, when male energy and female are brought together. Having a gender balance can be useful, and for some types of ritual it may be necessary. Just try creating a human life without it... and then tell me how magickal and powerful it is!
Why? Because it is an effective way of creating magickal energy, because sexual energy is some of the most powerful that we have access to, because the energy of the earth and sun and moon and stars and elements and God and Goddess and man and woman and up and down and hot and cold and grounded and cosmic energies all come together in that perfectly planned and executed moment in time -- to create that thing on which we have focused our wills, our heart's desires made manifest in an instant of biochemical reaction and physical response.
But if we think of those male and female energies as part of the whole that we all embody, then why could we not do magick that is as effective, all alone? Or with a partner of the same sex?
One answer is that gender-polarity energy raising works. I personally think that sex is a great motivation (at least it is for me!), and I think that this motivation was factored into the equation. Getting people to do something is not always easy, and in my opinion there's not much that motivates most of us more than an opportunity to get together with the opposite sex! I think this is one main reason why the gender-polarity rule came to be, because it was easier to get people to do something if you promised they might have new sex partners.
British traditional Wicca inherits the gender-polarity rule, along with a lot else, from Gerald Gardner. Known as the grandfather of modern Wicca, Gardner was -- in the vernacular of his day -- a man's man, and he was a product of his times, 1884-1964. The writings of Margaret Murray, Dion Fortune, Charles Leland, Robert Graves and others contributed much to Gardner's way of thinking, which boiled down to form the broth for the soup that is today's Wicca.
Gardner's Wicca holds that one of the main points of the Wiccan religion is to enact the "hieros gamos" or divine marriage (male-female sex), whose energy is then used in the execution of other magickal workings. But in my opinion, the early British traditionalists had the gender energy balance, division of duties structure and sexuality issues all mixed up together.
However, though Gardner may have been conservative by our modern-day standards, it seems to me that he thought far ahead of most men at the time. Some of his ideas on religion, both original or cobbled from other sources, were truly radical in the early 1900s. Taking this into consideration, if the liturgy that he authored sounds somewhat heterosexist, what do you expect from a man who turned 21 in 1905?
The world was a much different place then, echoing a darker history's necessity for the survival of the species. Men had their places as the protectors, the guardians, the providers for the "helpless" women and children, which is in the light of today sometimes laughable.
Truth be told, the women of a hundred or more years ago were pretty hardy gals, or they didn't survive for long. They worked as hard or harder than the men. Keeping a household and raising a herd of children was more than a full-time job sans the modern conveniences of electricity, running water and centralized heat and refrigeration. Some people see this provider/homemaker role as a bad thing today. I see it as a conventional drive that is partly cultural, partly hard-wired. The species is going to continue reproducing if our genetics have their say! (I can't tell you how many times my mother asked me if I was ever going to have another child!)
But we know that we can rise above our cultural and our genetic programming if we want to transcend those roles. We don't have to expect people to follow these role models, today, in the 21st century.
We can go too far, though. We sometimes get side-tracked by a guilty sense of political correctness and discount anything that smacks of traditional roles, even when that very political correctness takes away half of our choices. A decision ceases to be a choice when it is the only option. It takes wisdom, guts, strength and compassion to do the culturally assigned "woman's job" of homemaking, and what makes a "man's job" any more worthwhile and valuable than that? Both roles have value. Sure, we don't want to be pushed into roles against our wills, but just because we have been boxed into gender-specific behaviors for many years, does that make them inherently less desirable? It's okay to be a feminine woman, and it's okay to be a masculine man, whatever those roles mean to you. I personally find the so-called "sensitive New-Age guys" to be pale, diluted versions of what I want a man to be! I want a man to embody the God! I want him to be a lusty, strong provider and protector, as well as a compassionate and nurturing partner.
On the other side, I personally have found plenty of homosexist discrimination from the politically correct pagan crowd who think I am a "straight girl." Even though I might look like it, I am actually not straight at all, but a lesbian-identified, bisexual, polyamorous woman in a primary relationship with a man. I look like a het girl because I have long blonde hair, a big bust, wear makeup and have long scarlet nails -- but it seems more popular right now, at least in our area of the world, to be bisexual or even gay. A raised eyebrow of disapproval of my seemingly heterosexual relationship is fairly common.
In the Craft, and particularly in the context of public ritual, I find that the politically correct "please everyone no matter the cost" dogma is alive and well. In recent years, I have found the people organizing and creating events have been increasingly criticized by the attendant public for not offering enough options in ritual. In some cases, enough criticisms have been made to make organizers stop producing events. The event producers do their best, attempt to make everyone happy and create a "something for everyone" ritual environment, then they lose their focus. My experience has shown me that you usually cannot make everyone happy, and that you waste your time catering to specific factions. To create the rituals that you want to make happen, rites that you are excited about and events that you are qualified to put forth, you must limit what you are willing to do. For example, I can never present an all-male ritual experience -- I am a woman! No matter what I do, I cannot be a man! I have never had the experience of growing up male; the expectations and cultural pressures are different for men than they are for women. It doesn't make me bad or incompetent, just not male! The same is also true about men in all-women rituals.
This leads me to the issue of circling with people who began life as the opposite gender and have changed or are in the process of changing that. I have had the distinct displeasure of having to delineate a definition of male and female for the sake of ritual safe space. It was a thankless job and one of the reasons that you don't see me organizing too many public rites these days. It was an all-women ritual, and my rule was a simple one. The ritual included nudity and touch, so we resorted to the old Powersurge "dick in the drawer" rule: If you cannot take your dick off, put it in the drawer and walk away, you're not a woman.
I realize that it's not quite as simple as this. A lot of the people that attended those lesbian SM conventions are now men! Or at least male-identified transgendered persons. Our language is arguably thin when it comes to describing these matters. Everyone has the right to do what they will regarding changing their gender. But, as others considering this issue also wonder, how far should we go in response to be inclusive in our wording, acts and ritual construction? Do you as a ritual presenter maintain a standard that dictates how people are to be addressed as far as gender? Do you accept their presentation, even for same-sex-only rites? What about cross-dressed people? What about openly gay men and women in Beltaine or Dionysian rites, or Goddess- or God-only focused rituals? What about Great Rites? Do you as priest or priestess allow or encourage the sacred marriage or Great Rite to occur in ritual between two females or males as well as het partners?
I think that all of this bears discussion, and in the Seattle pagan communities, the subject has been a hot one for many years. When you're doing private ritual, you get to choose and make the rules. You get to have whoever you like or not, as a private circle is by definition not open to the public. But if you are hosting public or semi-public ritual, you may have to decide what happens if a man dressedin women's clothes wants to be recognized as a woman and attend a women-only ritual.
I believe that it is the duty of every person to define their boundaries for themselves. If you belong to a niche group that is not being served by public ritual, create some! I further think that as a ritual producer, you have the right to exclude anyone, for any reason. It is your job to protect the attendees and to manage the energy. It helps if your ritual is clearly labeled with rules and expectations right from the start. If you attend a clearly marked Gardnerian ritual, you should expect to follow the rules and customs of the tradition unless told otherwise by the event or ritual staff. It is rude, in my opinion, to ask for special considerations such as relating to your same-sex partner within a specific-format energy working that requires opposite-sex energy to create results.
I think that any sincere seeker of the Goddess will find her, whether you are straight, gay, celibate or not sure. If you are truly on your path, you will certainly arrive! It does not pay however, to attempt to try to please everyone all at once.