1,084
edits
Gender: Difference between revisions
→Gender as a tool of oppression
Technician (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Technician (talk | contribs) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{PageSeo | description = Feminists see gender as a socially constructed system used to oppress women. }} | |||
The word ''gender'', originating from the Latin ''genus'' (sort, kind) has gained several meanings over the centuries and especially during the past decades. Significant debate exists between ideological groups that wish to highlight the importance of one particular definition of the word. | The word ''gender'', originating from the Latin ''genus'' (sort, kind) has gained several meanings over the centuries and especially during the past decades. Significant debate exists between ideological groups that wish to highlight the importance of one particular definition of the word. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
=== Synonym to sex === | === Synonym to sex === | ||
Another old and mostly non-political definition of gender is as a synonym to [[sex]], i.e. the categorization of an organism with respect to its role in binary reproduction. This use of the word is popular presumably because of the vulgar connotations the word "sex" might be perceived to have. The use of "gender" as a synonym for "sex" | Another old and mostly non-political definition of gender is as a synonym to [[sex]], i.e. the categorization of an organism with respect to its role in binary reproduction. This use of the word is popular presumably because of the vulgar connotations the word "sex" might be perceived to have. The use of "gender" as a synonym for "sex" seems to date back all the way to the 15th century, and can be found even in academic texts which clearly deal with a strictly biology-based reproductive categorization of organisms. | ||
Similar to the use of gender to mean sex, the words "feminine" and "masculine" are also sometimes used as close approximations of "female" and "male". In biology, it is not uncommon to hear terms such as "feminization" or "masculinization" when referring to anatomic developments associated with the female and male sexes. | Similar to the use of gender to mean sex, the words "feminine" and "masculine" are also sometimes used as close approximations of "female" and "male". In biology, it is not uncommon to hear terms such as "feminization" or "masculinization" when referring to anatomic developments associated with the female and male sexes. As another example, the euphemism ''feminine hygiene products'' is often used to refer to menstrual hygiene products, even though they clearly relate to the female sex. | ||
=== Recent changes === | === Recent changes === | ||
| Line 21: | Line 23: | ||
In the 1950s, psychologist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money John Money] began introducing alternative definitions of ''gender'' in his texts, in particular terms such as ''gender role'' and ''gender identity''. This might be the origin of the understanding of ''gender as a social construct'', although Money's theories are not necessarily compatible with contemporary interpretations of this concept. | In the 1950s, psychologist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money John Money] began introducing alternative definitions of ''gender'' in his texts, in particular terms such as ''gender role'' and ''gender identity''. This might be the origin of the understanding of ''gender as a social construct'', although Money's theories are not necessarily compatible with contemporary interpretations of this concept. | ||
What is meant with ''gender as a social construct'' is the realization that words such as "woman" and "man" (also "girl" and "boy") do not merely induce thoughts of just any human that happens to be anatomically female or male. Rather, | What is meant with ''gender as a social construct'' is the realization that words such as "woman" and "man" (also "girl" and "boy") do not merely induce thoughts of just any human that happens to be anatomically female or male. Rather, upon hearing these words (or their translation to one's native language), one is likely to imagine a person who not only belongs to a certain anatomic sex category, but also fulfills certain expectations with regard to clothing, speech, behavior, and so on. For instance, upon hearing "woman", one is more likely to think of a person with long hair and perhaps a dress, even though both of these "gender markers" have no relation to female anatomy. (Male humans can also grow long hair, and wear dresses.) These gender markers/expectations differ from culture to culture and across history, and include many aspects with no relation to sexual anatomy. As such, they are understood to constitute a ''social construct'' of gender, that is separate from the anatomical facts of being female or male. | ||
Onwards from the point of recognizing gender as a social construct, at least two competing theories regarding the deeper nature of gender have evolved: gender as a tool of sex-based oppression, and gender as an innate identity. | Onwards from the point of recognizing gender as a social construct, at least two competing theories regarding the deeper nature of gender have evolved: gender as a tool of sex-based oppression, and gender as an innate identity. | ||
| Line 38: | Line 40: | ||
<blockquote><em> | <blockquote><em> | ||
“... I have made this distinction between truth and reality in order to enable me to say something very simple: ''that while the system of gender polarity is real, it is not true.'' It is not true that there are two sexes which are discrete and opposite, which are polar, which unite naturally and self-evidently into a harmonious whole. It is not true that the male embodies both positive and neutral human qualities and potentialities in contrast to the female who is female, according to Aristotle and all of male culture, “by virtue of a certain ''lack'' of qualities.” And once we do not accept the notion that men are positive and women are negative, we are essentially rejecting the notion that there are men and women at all. In other words, the system based on this polar model of existence is absolutely real; but the model itself is not true. We are living imprisoned inside a pernicious delusion, a delusion on which all reality as we know it is predicated. | “... I have made this distinction between truth and reality in order to enable me to say something very simple: '''that while the system of gender polarity is real, it is not true.''' It is not true that there are two sexes which are discrete and opposite, which are polar, which unite naturally and self-evidently into a harmonious whole. It is not true that the male embodies both positive and neutral human qualities and potentialities in contrast to the female who is female, according to Aristotle and all of male culture, “by virtue of a certain '''lack''' of qualities.” And once we do not accept the notion that men are positive and women are negative, we are essentially rejecting the notion that there are men and women at all. In other words, the system based on this polar model of existence is absolutely real; but the model itself is not true. We are living imprisoned inside a pernicious delusion, a delusion on which all reality as we know it is predicated. | ||
In my view, those of us who are women inside this system of reality will never be free until the delusion of sexual polarity is destroyed and until the system of reality based on it is eradicated entirely from human society and from human memory. This is the notion of cultural transformation at the heart of feminism. This is the revolutionary possibility inherent in the feminist struggle. ...” | In my view, those of us who are women inside this system of reality will never be free until the delusion of sexual polarity is destroyed and until the system of reality based on it is eradicated entirely from human society and from human memory. This is the notion of cultural transformation at the heart of feminism. This is the revolutionary possibility inherent in the feminist struggle. ...” | ||
</em></blockquote> | </em></blockquote> | ||
A naive reading of both de Beauvoir and Dworkin can lead to a confusion where one is led to believe that their writings are in line with contemporary "gender identity" theory. Dworkin for instance writes that ''"it is not true that there are two sexes which are discrete and opposite"''. | A naive reading of both de Beauvoir and Dworkin can lead to a confusion where one is led to believe that their writings are in line with contemporary "gender identity" theory. Dworkin for instance writes that ''"it is not true that there are two sexes which are discrete and opposite"''. It's possible to give multiple interpretations to the clause "... which are discrete and opposite." Was she denying binary reproductive sex? Or was she merely countering the notion women and men are completely different, discrete, opposite creatures, way beyond their reproductive features? Both authors make extensive mention of female anatomy in relation to experiences of female oppression. For instance, in the very same chapter from which the aforementioned quote is taken, Dworkin speaks of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_device IUDs] for female birth control, and of the clitoris as the source of female sexual pleasure. As such, the compatibility of her theory with contemporary gender identity theory is rather questionable. In none of Dworkin's or de Beauvoir's works is there a mention of a male-born person being or becoming a woman. | ||
{{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| Line 49: | Line 51: | ||
== Gender as innate identity == | == Gender as innate identity == | ||
'' | ''(This section needs elaboration.)'' | ||
Most transgender activists use ''gender'' to refer to a supposedly essential, inherent identity of human beings, which determines whether they are a "woman" or a "man" (or something else) without any relation to their reproductive capabilities. | Most transgender activists use ''gender'' to refer to a supposedly essential, inherent identity of human beings, which determines whether they are a "woman" or a "man" (or something else) without any relation to their reproductive capabilities. | ||
| Line 57: | Line 59: | ||
The unwillingness or inability of transgender activists to answer such questions (or alternatively, the absurd answers they provide in attempts to be consistent with their own core ideology) has led many feminists to feel disillusioned with the transgender movement and begin to see it as being incompatible with feminism. The observation that women who begin to raise critical voices are often met with overt hostility and shunning has further worsened the situation. By now, many feminist groups and organizations have begun to see "gender identity" as a misogynist belief system, which should be openly challenged. | The unwillingness or inability of transgender activists to answer such questions (or alternatively, the absurd answers they provide in attempts to be consistent with their own core ideology) has led many feminists to feel disillusioned with the transgender movement and begin to see it as being incompatible with feminism. The observation that women who begin to raise critical voices are often met with overt hostility and shunning has further worsened the situation. By now, many feminist groups and organizations have begun to see "gender identity" as a misogynist belief system, which should be openly challenged. | ||
== Recommended reading == | |||
* [https://sexandgenderintro.com/ Sex and Gender - A Beginner's Guide] by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper | |||
* [https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/05/11/bill-c-16-misunderstands-gender-harms-women-patriarchy/ Bill C-16 misunderstands what gender is and how it harms women under patriarchy] by Meghan Murphy | |||
* [https://www.feministcurrent.com/2014/07/16/defending-the-terf-gender-as-political/ Defending the ‘TERF’: Gender as political] by C. K. Egbert | |||