Gender: Difference between revisions

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.

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.

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?