Jump to content

Gender: Difference between revisions

Gender (view source)

Revision as of 07:20, 27 March 2020

91 bytes removed ,  27 March 2020
m
Use interwiki links for Wikipedia, fix a typo.
m (Add link to page in Portuguese)
m (Use interwiki links for Wikipedia, fix a typo.)
 
Line 21: Line 21:
=== Recent changes ===
=== Recent changes ===


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 [[Wikipedia: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, 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.
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.
Line 45: Line 45:
</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"''.  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.
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 [[Wikipedia: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 55: Line 55:
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.


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?
Theories around this notion are often associated with [[Wikipedia:Queer theory|queer theory]] which in turn is based on [[Wikipedia: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 [[Wikipedia: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 benefited 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?


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.
Retrieved from "https://feministwiki.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/875"