Do You Believe that Our Sex and Gender Rules are Social Constructions - Term Paper Example

Do you believe that our sex and gender rules are social constructions? Why or why not? Have your opinions changed (with age, education, etc Introduction Human perception of the world has been changing for hundreds of centuries. Many ancient tribes believed that the Earth had a flat shape, while soon it has become clear that it was not. Even though, the example of the flat Earth might seem to be trivial, it perfectly illustrates human ability to explain something of what they see and interpret it as universal truth until the science has not interfered. The same relates to the human perception of sex and gender rules. Lorber (1992, 569) explains that the differences of male’s and female’s bodies are “completely transformed by social practices to fit into the salient categories of a society.” While Lorber (1992) fully recognizes the differences that exist between the male and female bodies, however, he believes that these differences do not play a significant social role until it becomes socially acceptable practices and social facts. The aim of this research is to investigate and explain whether sex and gender rules are the social constructions. Changing perception of sex and gender Before the eighteen century, scientists and western philosophy propagandized a belief that there was only one sex, the male sex. Woman’s genitalia was perceived as the inverse of men’s external genitalia (Lorber 1992). Later, it has become obvious that women and men have two different sexes and there could be no objections. The two distinguishable genders of male and female are widely acceptable in the modern societies (Lorber 1992). Classification of a “man” or a “woman”, “male and “female” are the only acceptable gender classifications defined in our modern life (Lorber 1992). In addition to gender classification, males and females can be categorized based on their sexual preferences, differentiating people between heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, in 1990’s there was publicly raised an issue of the three additional intersexes, including hermaphrodites, male pseudohermaphrodites, and female pseudohermaphrodites, which also should have been defined as separate sexes (Fausto-Sterling 1993). Hermaphrodite, who had biological capability to have sex with both genders, was given as a great example of the social rejection because it challenged traditional beliefs rooted in the society. In this way, Fausto-Sterling (1993) has raised an issue of intersexuality, and its discriminative treatment in the society. The author explained the development of social perception of the intersex body, stating that physicians were capable to control the very sex of human body due to research advancements in various spheres: biochemistry, endocrinology, embryology, psychology and surgery (Fausto-Sterling 1993). The gender of newborn had to be identified based on the genitalia, and in cases of “ambiguous” genitalia, babies had to undergo reparative surgery, whereas the clinical staff assigned a corresponding gender to a child (Carrera, DePalma & Lameiras 2012; Fausto-Sterling 2000). After the gender was surgically assigned to the baby, it was socially reinforced through various identifications such as clothing, bringing up process, etc. The cases of surgical procedures on reparation children’s genitalia, defined by clinicians as Disorders of Sexual Development perfectly illustrate how people are trying to “adapt biological diversity to socially constructed sex-gender binary” (Carrera, DePalma & Lameiras 2012, 998). Carrera, DePalma & Lameiras (2012) added that intersex individuals also illustrated the fact that even medical science was socially constructed in relation to those whose physical sex exceeded the binary sex identities. At the time Fausto-Sterling’s article was published in 1993, author believed that the modern society failed to admit the other sexes, except the males and females, and therefore, there was a problem of social recognition of other sexes. According to Fausto-Sterling (1993, 4), there was “a cultural need to maintain clear distinctions between the sexes.” People were not ready to perceive intersexual as an equal sex in the society. Despite the society’s conservatism, there was still a category of “trans” who were unambiguously male or female, but who were not socially recognized as people belonging to the separate sex-gender category (Carrera, DePalma & Lameiras 2012). Thus, historically, the term “trans” was referred to the individuals who failed to conform to gender that was assigned to them after birth (Carrera, DePalma & Lameiras 2012). Fausto-Sterling (1993) set many questions related to sex identification and division, the answers to which could not be easily found in the modern society. However, seven years later Fausto-Sterling has published another article named “The five sexes, revisited”, where she explained that the things have changed significantly, and that “intersexuals are materializing before our very eyes” (2000, 19). The author stated that modern society has changed its perception of the five sexes, gender ambiguity and sex assignment issues. Moreover, the practice of assigning gender based on the surgical outcomes (for children with ambiguity genitals) also became questionable and doubtful in results of activity of intersex, transsexual, and transgender groups aimed at promotion of cultural recognition and civil rights of sex minorities (Westbrook & Schilt, 2013). Nowadays, variation in genders is a more acceptable issue in society and has increased interest in the medical community. Comparing the two articles written by Fausto-Sterling in 7-years interval it is possible to see that during a quite small period of time human perception of intersexuals as full-fledged unit of society has increased significantly. Whether the other three sexes will be soon recognized fully by the society or not, providing those individuals with absolutely equal conditions and treatment, is not known. The only thing that is definitely clear is that scientific research and time do change social perception of the human body. The things perceived a century ago as nonsense, nowadays are viewed as absolutely common and understandable. It is easy to recall how social perceptions of female’s role in the society have changed since the World War II. While before the war, women had less (or no) authority and their rights for work and lifestyle were limited due to social, cultural and religious constraints, nowadays, women have equal rights with the man. Even though modern society fails to recognize fully the existing biological diversity through the placement in sex-segregated facilities (such as bathrooms, etc), the identity documents (birth certificates, passports, driver’s licenses, etc), marriage and related issues of inheritance, immigration, child custody, and health benefits, the shift towards increased social recognition of intersex has been notable during the last decades. due to the activity of various LGBT organizations and communities (Carrera, DePalma & Lameiras 2012). The shift towards changing sex and gender rules could be reinforced with the introduction of a trans curriculum in schools as it was suggested in the recent issue of a Teachers College Record publication (Carrera, DePalma & Lameiras 2012). Mass media and medical communities also have began to raise more questions regarding the gender issues and therefore, to push through to the masses, new understanding of gender and sex. In the publication of Gender Trouble one of the feminists has described the social construction of both gender and sex itself (Carrera, DePalma & Lameiras 2012). The author has raised a question of the “naturalness” of so widely accepted sexual binary and undermined thus the logic of sex differentiation due to variety of cultural interpretations. Due to these and all other efforts undertaken towards modification of gender system it is possible to state that sex and gender rules are the social constructions which change quite quickly. In addition to the above said, it is important to add that the sex/gender system has shifted away from changing from pure anatomical determinants (Westbrook and Schilt 2013). Gender classification of the transgender people depends on the type of interactions occurring in the social space (Westbrook and Schilt 2013). Westbrook and Schilt (2013) define trans-people as social actors who can have “social gender”, “sexual gender”, “sports gender” and other gender-segregates space gender (Lorber, 1993). Thus, an intersexual individual can have social gender of a man, and simultaneously have sports gender of women. This example is a good illustration of variance of gender identification across the social spaces, which once again confirms that sex/gender system is the social construction where liberal ideas of self-determination are replacing conservatism of binary gender classification system (Westbrook & Schilt, 2013). Conclusion Social constructions of sex and gender have been changing throughout the history. While the idea of binary differentiation between sexes based on the anatomy of genitals is still perceived as the “natural” and “right”, it is possible to see that significant progress has occurred during the last two decades. This observation is well illustrated by the changing approach of medical communities whereas genitals ambiguity and sex reassignment do not solely depend on the clinicians’ decision. With scientific research and technology development people tend to change their opinions towards certain issues. The things that were perceived as nonsense few years or decades ago nowadays are perceived as absolutely normal things. Liberalization of views and effect of media has resulted in a shift of sex/gender attitudes. There are no doubts, that gender and sex binary system will also revolutionize with time, thus encompassing new social constructions. References: Carrera, M., DePalma, R., & Lameiras, M. (2012). Sex/gender identity: Moving beyond fixed and ‘natural’categories. Sexualities, 15(8), 995--1016. Fausto-Sterling, A, (1993). "The five sexes: why male and female are not enough". The Sciences 33. 2: 20+. Academic OneFile. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). The five sexes, revisited. The Sciences, 40(4), pp.18-23. Lorber, J. (1993). Believing is seeing: Biology as ideology. Gender \& Society, 7(4), 568-581. Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2013). Doing Gender, Determining Gender Transgender People, Gender Panics, and the Maintenance of the Sex/Gender/Sexuality System. Gender \& Society, Read More