Gender Clarification
So, the more I replay my statement from class today in my head, the more I realize I’m an idiot. I came to the revelation today that it may be impossible to FEEL one’s own gender. Unfortunately, in reaching this conclusion during my speech, I think I portrayed it and myself incorrectly. What I meant to say is that I was thinking about how I “know” my gender is feminine, and it turns out I don’t know. I know that biologically I am a female. And I know that my preferences and actions and tendencies are consistent with what is defined by society to be traditionally feminine. But I may only act as I do because of how I feel I am expected to act. I may just be responding to my surroundings. So then I thought to myself, “well, I like boys.” But my attraction to males says nothing about my gender. Maybe my gender is masculine and my sexuality is gay. My question, therefore, is how do those who are born without a definitive sex “know” what their gender is? What are they basing their feelings on? I feel like all of these words try to categorize things that may not be categorizable. The sliding scale from our reading seems to make more sense. Anyway, I hope I didn’t come off as horrendously as I felt I did. I did not intend to be offensive at all.Â
hammad wrote:
Sociologists place great emphasis on the role of societal forces in influencing the early development of gender. For example, if a person is born female, her parents may dress her in pink and buy her dolls. I know this is stereotypical and a generalization, but I’m just reiterating what I read in soc 101 last semester. Alison, I think you bring up an interesting predicament in which an individual is not born with a definitive “sex”. My guess would be that societal and family forces influence the individual to (most of the time) develop a gender based on what is societally acceptable or falls within the norms of being either masculine or feminine or some hybrid of the two. In developing a gender, it is possible that people may be able to overlook or ignore the dilemma of their sex, and instead attribute the two distinctions as one and the same. Or, the individual may focus on projecting a specific gender to others as opposed to determining sex, which I feel is not only more biological but also less of a societal matter. Sex isn’t influenced by society. I’m not sure if what I wrote makes sense, but thats my take.
Posted 26 Sep 2007 at 4:55 pm ¶
katie wrote:
I understand what you are saying completely. We have been molded since birth to think of ourselves as being a certain gender, and to think and act in a way fitting to these norms. But can we truly be certain what gender we are? Have we merely been manipulated and brainwashed our entire lives into thinking we should act a certain way?
But, that begs the question of the tomboy. I know I was always one. Is the tomboy any less female because she may prefer to do things that are associated with the male gender? Does that make her more likely to be attracted to members of the female sex? Or is she simply a member of the female sex who has more masculine interests.
I feel that the idea of a sliding scale is the best. There is no way of saying that certain things are male, and others female. If so, would that make you a member of the male gender if you don’t get manicures, or don’t feel naturally drawn towards things considered “cute”? Are you of the female gender if you sit with your legs crossed or have an aversion to conflict and war? And what about those of us in between (as I feel certain most people are?)
It seems unnatural to create a set of ideals and values and assign them a gender, and then expect an individual to pick a complete set. I think everyone should be able to pick and choose, take some of male gender qualities and some female. Gender should be a sliding scale, and it certainly should have nothing to do with the actual sex and/or sexual orientation of the individual.
Posted 26 Sep 2007 at 9:59 pm ¶
sean wrote:
Alison, Hammad, Sam, you are all getting at interesting issues which, it seems all boil down to nature/learning: how much is learned, how much innate? I don’t have a clear answer for any of it, but my sense is that the majority of human behavior is learned, and that includes gender. It’s just that the learning is so ingrained and early that it feels completely “natural.” One thing that can’t be learned are physical reproductive roles (i.e. the actual bearing, not the raising of children). I wonder to what extent evolutionary biology structures “feelings” of maleness, or femaleness?
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 10:05 am ¶
alison wrote:
I agree that much of what about ourselves we use to label one another is actually learned. There are exceptions such as biological things like natural hair color, and in my opinion, intelligence (though others may disagree with me on that one). Is gender just a term we use in order to help group people based on those less tangible, more learned qualities? For the most part, some of us are male, and some of us a female, and differences between the sexes have led to generalizations regarding each. Is it such conventions that have acted solely to create the need for “gender”?
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 3:50 pm ¶
pink martini wrote:
I would like to point out that the characteristics and behavioral “codes†that are assumed “male†or “female†have changed significantly through the centuries. Thus, those “certain things†Katie mentions really cannot be determined. A set definition would be equal to saying that the concepts of “male†and “female†shrink and expand to include/exclude different people over time.
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 4:25 pm ¶
Max wrote:
Regrettably, I don’t know enough about neuroscience to make a substantial contribution on that front, however, I do think we should also consider the fact that, despite the fact that many/most “male” or “female” behaviors are based on societal prejudices and we tend to conform, one’s brain chemistry definitely plays in shaping behavior. Of course, one can change one’s own brain chemistry via behavior, so I suppose continuing this train of thought is opening a rather large can of worms…
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 11:51 pm ¶