The “there is no” of this Lacanian formula introduces an irreducible void. With all of the same, Lacan resumes in a statement a long way in his teaching.
Lacan showed through his diverse readings of Freud, that between the jouissacce of the one and the jouissance of the other, no matter the sex nor the gender, it is impossible to establish a mathematic formula that constitutes a proportional rapport between the added value of enjoyment that has been awarded to each sexed existence.
Each of us must deal with our own jouissance, with the “added value of jouissance” that each of us has come within their existence, as Jorge Alemán mentions.
We have access to the body of the other, and we can have the jouissance of it, just that that jouissance is only oneself, it cannot be shared.
In the same way, we cannot share our bodies, I have the jouissance of mine, even if it is “using yours” somehow, but only of mine in mine, it is in my body where I experiment jouissance, that’s why we say “jouissance is one”
In the same way, the There is no sexual rapport is not a binary formula, it is not about women or men, it is about a void that in a structural way goes with any gender election.
Fags, lesbians, trans, androgynous, transvestites, etc. are inhabited and traversed by the void of “There is no”.
This void is constitutive of the speaking, sexed, and mortal human being.
Around this void is that we constitute ourselves as “speaking beings”.
There is something, in the entrance to the language, particular and contingent to each of us, that is lost forever. Is that sensation, to name it somehow, that goes with us all along with our lives, that something is missing, something that is not there at all, that will never be, and that it cannot be filled by any means.
It is around this void that each of us manages to be, more or less, human.
That is why nobody conquers a full identity that closes and shuts down to itself. Defending LGTBI + identities as emancipatory does not ever imply canceling that void.
Among other things, because heteropatriarchy was only a hegemonic treatment that tried to suppress that void and therefore does not constitute an absolute power.
Neither the so-called inclusive language with its torsion of the language can get read of the void supplement, that void always present in the paths of our desire.
Effectively, that void is always there. That is why we are not total, nor absolute, neither we ever achieve any perfect nor round identity.
There is a fault-missing in each of us that does not permit us to close that gap, open, first wound perhaps. As if it were a bite that tore a piece from us forever.
Yet, that one is the one that allows us to be desiring beings. Since it is the desire the one that could make (never completely!) something with that hole through which it always resurfaces and sprouts, like water from a spring, another and another desire.
Thanks all, precisely, to the fault that constitutes us.
Be then the desire which illuminates your path!
Jorge Alemán. Psychoanalyst and writer. Mila R. Haynes. Psychoanalyst and artist.