Gender: Difference between revisions

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" likewise seem 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.  Similarly, the euphemism ''feminine hygiene products'' is often used to refer to menstrual hygiene products, relating clearly to the female sex.

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, on 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.

“...  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.

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?) However, 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.

''Main article: [[Gender identity]]''

Theories around this notion are often associated with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory queer theory] which in turn is based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism post-structuralist philosophy].  Writings based on these ideologies tend to be rather difficult to understand (sometimes arguably in an attempt of the authors to sound more sophisticated than they are), and often have no completely clear conclusions.  This might be why even among transgender activists, there seems to be no consensus on some questions one might think are of central importance, such as: is gender identity inborn and immutable, or is it a personal choice?  If it's immutable, why do some people change their minds several times, and how can it be tested for objectively?  If there are any objective measures of gender identity, what are they, if not an identification with sexist stereotypes of femininity or masculinity?  For instance, is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria gender dysphoria] a necessary condition for being considered "truly" transgender?  If it's rather based on purely subjective notions, how can it have an effect on objective, material systems of oppression that affect people starting from birth?  If deciding that one has a "female gender identity" means that one has really always been a girl/woman, does that mean one never benefitted from male privilege, even after living 40+ years as a man?  If a "female gender identity" already makes a person female, does that mean bodily changes are truly unnecessary?  Does this mean that a tall, broad-shouldered person with a full beard, a deep voice, coarse body hair, and intact male genitals can nevertheless be considered a female person?  Does this person then have a right to access female-only facilities and services without restriction?

|title=FeministWiki - Gender

|description=Meanings of gender, the social construct of gender, and gender as a tool of sex-based oppression

|twitter:card=summary

|twitter:image:src=https://feministwiki.org/w/resources/assets/wiki.png

|google-site-verification=RZf8hzu0sR32H9OsEXa3-aN3LzE4T2nLPg1s9SrJgJI