The debates surrounding sex-gender distinction can be drawn into the annals of not just feminist history, but also to the efforts made by humans to identify themselves in their natural surroundings. Carol Gilligan had once admitted the question of whether gender differences are biologically determined or socially constructed, to be ‘deeply disturbing' ; and quite rightly so since the debate involves the deconstruction and reconstruction of perspectives and understandings which took centuries to build and constituted the core of the rulebook that governs the social machinery and how we conduct ourselves with in that machinery.
Prior to moving into the crux of debate, it is imperative to get the context right. Since the early stages of evolution of human knowledge on anatomy, we have been presented with a series of binary distinctions; from two types of gametes – sperm and egg cells and two types of sex hormones – androgen and oestrogen in vertebrates and two types of ecdysteroids in insects, to two types of sex- male and female, the dichotomy had been clearly enforced so far. Until a series of political and scientific upheavals forced us to introspect.
The popularisation of sex-gender distinction can be credited to the second wave of feminism, which saw the radical feminists adopting the distinction as their war cry against patriarchy . Parallel to this, it has also been a point of contention amongst psychologists and sociologists. While biological sex was defined in terms of human reproductive system and secondary sexual characters which clearly demarcated into male and female, psychologists like Robert Stoller (1968) began to employ the term 'gender' to account for transsexuals who despite falling into male-female dichotomy anatomically, felt trapped in the wrong bodies. They employed the term 'sex' to connote their biological orientation as male or female , while 'gender' was employed to describe their masculinity or femininity.
For the feminists, the sex-gender distinction served (and continues to serve) a holy purpose- it became their key in employing nature vs nurture debate to their advantage and ultimately breaking out of the cage of biological determinism. Biological determinism had been the excuse used to oppress women since the establishment of patriarchal society. To put simply, biological determinism argued that since nature has designed the female body for procreation and nurturing, they are naturally inferior to men and the nurture during their lifetime can make no difference in their natural tendencies. A manifestation of this shall be the statement by Aristotle in his much celebrated work, 'Politics'- “The male, unless constituted in some respect contrary to nature, is by nature more expert at leading than the female, and the elder and complete than the younger and incomplete." Another typical example of this is the work of Patrick Geddes and John Arthur Thompson, who in 1889, argued that the metabolic state of a person defines his/her physical, psychological and emotional state of being –“Women supposedly conserve energy (being ‘anabolic’) and this makes them passive, conservative, sluggish, stable and uninterested in politics. Men expend their surplus energy (being ‘katabolic’) and this makes them eager, energetic, passionate, variable and, thereby, interested in political and social matters.” These theories were used to justify the exclusion of women from social and political life, which paved way for their structural oppression. Feminists waged their battle against biological determinism by applying sex-gender distinction.
A major contribution to this was made by Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex (1949), when she pointed out that masculinity and femininity are products of nurture by stating 'one is not born, but rather becomes a woman.’ She goes on to say that ‘every female human being is not necessarily a woman; to be so considered she must share in that mysterious and threatened reality known as femininity.’ This femininity, for Kate Millet, has essentially cultural rather than biological bases, making gender a 'sum total of the parents', the peers', and the culture's notions of what is appropriate to each gender by way of temperament, character, interests, status, worth, gesture, and expression' (Millet,1971). The role of parenting in formulation of gender was highlighted by Nancy Chudrow who argued that since women are the primary care takers of children, they unconsciously mould children to develop ego boundaries according to social convention, training them to conform to perceived ideals of masculinity and femininity.
The distinction was made clear by Candace West and Don Zimmerman in their article 'Doing Gender' (1987), where sex is defined as the socially agreed upon specifications that establish one as male or female based on an individual's genitalia, or their chromosomal typing before birth. Gender, on the other hand, ‘is the performance of attitudes and actions that are considered socially acceptable for one's sex category' and by using the terminology 'doing gender', they refer to how individuals are expected to uphold their gender identity and gender roles conforming to their assigned sex, through their actions and behaviour.
A different take on this was explained by Catherine MacKinnon where she argued that, aided by prevalent sexual narrative like pornography which is designed to cater male imagination, the ‘social meaning of sex (gender) is created by sexual objectification of women whereby women are viewed and treated as objects for satisfying men's desires' , making masculinity as sexual dominance and femininity as sexual submissiveness, thus genders are “created through the eroticization of dominance and submission” which further transcended to oppression of women in other spheres of personal and political life. (MacKinnon,1989)
 |
| Source-Unsplash By-Maria Oswalt |
Another important perspective to sex-gender distinction was made by Judith Butler through her notions on gender performativity. She argued that gender reflects the power structure of society and is instituted through a 'stylized repetition of habitual acts' by conducting themselves in alignment with the expectations of their gender, from the clothes they wear to how they behave.(Butler,1999) This makes gender not what someone is, but what someone does, thus conceding enough space for personal freedom to choose between masculinity and femininity without being bounded by male-female distinction.
The sex-gender distinction has not been free from criticisms despite the ideals it strive for. Many argued that while attacking the dualism imposed through gender conformity, there has been an essentialization of the distinctions between mind/body, culture/nature and reason/ emotion and by arguing women as capable of adopting androgynous values, there is a devaluation of the values associated with women. The distinction is also criticised for ignoring the multiple identities within each distinction, defined by class, race, ethnicity, nationality etc. Further, sex isn’t as binary as it is stated to be, as proved by the existence of DSDs (Disorders of Sex Development) and intersex people. While the activism supporting the cause of LGBTQ+ has led to awareness and a degree of acceptance surrounding the wide spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identities, intersex people are yet to be welcomed into medical and political terminology.
To conclude, it can be stated that while the journey so far had been fruitful, much more needs to be done to challenge the centuries old system of labelling and making people live by the rules associated with it, and this shall serve in not only emancipating women, but in the emancipation of every individual who is struggling to retain their unique individuality in this rigid world seeking 'normalization' by quashing differences and clubbing them into superficial closets of constrains. In simpler terms, don’t let stereotypes and expectations be the criteria in deciding a person's sex or gender. If you need to know who a person is, all you got to do is ask them. And in this case, it is what they say it is.
References:
1. The Feminist Philosophers Blog
2. Queertheory.com
3. Plumwood, Val, ‘Do We Need a Sex Gender Distinction’, 1989
4. Constructing Gender and Sexuality
WRITTEN BY MANJIMA
Comments
Post a Comment