What Is the Difference between Sex and Gender - Essay Example

Sociology THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEX AND GENDER INTRODUCTION: The terms sex and gender have come to be used as synonyms in the Social Sciences literature, causing misrepresentation of the actual meaning of the terms (Gentile, 1993). The terms have different meanings. Sex: to refer to the biological function, and to the physically distinguishing features between men and women. Gender: to refer to traits or conditions that are causally linked with maleness or femaleness, but are culturally based, as opposed to biologically based. This paper proposes to review the difference between sex and gender, and identify the distinctions made between the two terms. DISCUSSION: Gender was first employed to emphasize the social and relational nature of differences between women and men in contrast to biological differences between the sexes. Sex was “nature” and gender was “nurture”. In the language of Sociology, gender roles replaced sex roles, as gender represented more accurately than sex the social construction of identities and roles dividing societies into women and men. Sex and gender were interdependent, but clearly distinguished. Gender was social, thus variable and subject to change, while sex represented the essential and unchanging physical differences in human reproduction. An implicit causal link existed between sex and gender (Acker, 1992; Wilson, 1989). Feminist sociologists (e.g. Rossi, 1984) who took a biosocial view of gender, saw gender behaviour at least in part, as physiologically determined. They posited a clear distinction and a causal link between sex and gender. However, Acker (1992) states that variations in actions and feelings among both men and women, as well as similarities between women and men seemed too great, to permit the tracing of behaviour to biological differences. On the other hand, according to Butler (2005: 48), “because gender is fundamentally a way in which we make sense of ourselves as embodied creatures, no investigation of gender can allow itself to be carried too far off from the body. Gender reminds us that our bodies are not merely tools that we use to various ends. Our bodies are ourselves; their gender has a meaning and a value that is not merely instrumental”. Gender: In current usage gender is theorized as a basic principle of social structure and cultural interpretation (Scott, 1986; Acker, 1988). According to Unger (1979), gender refers to the traits and behaviors considered characteristic of and appropriate to members of each sexual category. These may be physiological, biosocial or environmental. In explaining gender as a constitutive element of social relationships, Scott (1986) emphasizes that “gender operates in multiple fields, including culturally available symbols that evoke multiple representations ; normative concepts that set forth interpretations of the meanings of symbols; social institutions and organisations; and subjective identity” (1067-68). Harding (1986) states that the fact that there are class, race and cultural differences between women and men is not a reason to find gender difference either theoretically unimportant or politically irrelevant. In virtually every culture, gender difference is a pivotal way in which humans identify themselves as persons, organize social relations, and symbolize natural, meaningful and social events and purposes. The defense of gender as an analytic category advanced by Scott and Harding, suggests that the concerns of gender sceptics can be incorporated into a sophisticated conception of gender. Though gender is accepted as a socially created concept that attributes different social roles and identities to men and women, Connell (1987) states that gender differences are rarely neutral, and form a significant part of social stratification. Men’s roles are more highly valued and rewarded than women’s roles, leading to men and women assuming unequal positions in terms of power, position and wealth. In spite of the advances that women have made in countries around the world, gender differences continue to serve as the basis for social inequalities. Sex: Psychologists have tended to use the term sex interchangeably as both an independent and a dependent variable, states Unger (1979). As the former, it is implied that sex is built into the organism by chromosomes, genes, hormones and brain size. As the latter, it is assumed that sex is derived, except for physical structure, from the individual’s postnatal experiences as prescribed by the sociocultural matrix. Where sex is considered as a mainly biological variable, psychological differences between males and females are considered to be the result of sex; and when it is understood as a mostly social phenomenon, the sex of males and females is considered as a result of their different experience. The different physical characteristics such as hormonal production, external genitalia, ovaries and sperm define the binary categories male and female, and serve as signs that persons belong to one or the other. West and Zimmerman (1987) point out that in everyday life, the assignment to a category is usually made on the presumption of biological difference based on observable dress and behaviour. Complementary Roles and Division of Labour: When aspects of human biology are held to be responsible for the innate differences between men and women, and these differences are claimed to be seen in some form across all cultures, it is implied that natural factors are responsible for the inequalities between genders which characterize most societies. Some researchers draw attention to the fact that, for example, in almost all cultures it was the norm that men rather than women take part in hunting and warfare. They consider this as an indication that men possess biologically based tendencies towards aggression that women lack. However, critics point out that theories of “natural difference” are often grounded in data on animal behaviour rather than in anthropological or historical evidence about human behaviour, which reveal variation over time and place. Moreover, because a trait is more or less universal, it does not follow that it is biological in origin; there may be cultural factors of a general kind that produce such characteristics. For instance, in a majority of cultures, women spend a significant part of their lives caring for children, and could not take part in hunting or war (Giddens, 2006). Complementary roles based on sex was the norm among men and women which has been followed by gender division of labour in advanced industrialized societies. Economically, it is based on a system of reciprocal exchange, and rituals reflect the behaviours which are culturally defined as appropriate to women and men (Miller, 1993). Connell (1987) observes that theories which see individuals complying with some kind of innate predisposition, neglect the vital role of social interaction in shaping human behaviour. The Distinction Between Sex and Gender There is reason to maintain a distinction between the terms “sex” and “gender” when discussing findings from social psychology. According to influential researchers in the area (Eagly,1995; Konrad et al, 2000), sex refers to the binary categories “male” and “female”, and gender to the attributes associated with the two sexes, that is, “masculine” and “feminine” features rather than “male” and “female”. This usage enables us to reasonably clearly distinguish between sex differences, that is differences in the categories male and female, and gender roles and gender stereotypes, i.e. characteristics associated with one or the other category (Archer and Lloyd, 2002). According to Giddens (2006), the nature of maleness and femaleness is not associated with the sex of the physical body that an individual is born with. In studying the origins of the differences between men and women, an important distinction between sex and gender is required to be made. In general, sociologists use the term sex to refer to the anatomical and physiological differences that define male and female bodies. Gender, by contrast concerns the psychological, social, and cultural differences between males and females. Gender is linked to socially constructed notions of masculinity and femininity; it is not necessarily a direct product of an individual’s biological sex. For example, some people believe that they have been born into the wrong bodies, and seek to “put things right” by switching genders part-way through life, or following the lifestyles or dress of the other sex. The distinction between sex and gender is a fundamental one, since many differences between males and females is not biological in origin. Contrasting approaches have been taken to explain the formation of gender identities and the social roles based on those identities. Social influences may also play a prominent part in impacting gender differences. The question of sex and gender has been regarded from contrasting positions by sociological interpretations of gender differences. There are arguments for a biological basis to the behavioural differences between men and women. Socialization also plays a central role in the learning of gender roles. Some scholars believe that there is no biological basis for both gender and sex, and both are enatirely socially constructed (Giddens, 2006). Gender is a basis for defining the different contributions that men and women make to culture and collective life by dint of who they are as men and women. Wilson (1989: 2) states that “it is gender that absorbs sex rather than the reverse, because gender is the basis for the only sensible allocation of functions through a culture, rather than simply in its work and labour system. Who people are is much more than what roles have been assigned to them as physiological entities”. The Difference Between Feminist “Sexual Difference Theory” and “Gender Theory”: Foster (1999) states that the feminist “sexual difference theory” has an epistomological approach and a creative process which seeks to develop an alternative form of female subjectivity which is constructed by asserting sexual difference as a positive force. Feminist “gender theory” on the other hand, is explained as a role, as a social category, as a social practice, as performance, as social structure, and sometimes a combination of these. Feminist scholars posit that gender theory allows a wider range of empirical questions to be asked, that are more readily of use for political action than does a sexual difference paradigm. The Importance of Gender Socialization: For understanding the origins of gender differences, another basis is that of gender socialization, which is the learning of gender roles with the help of social agencies such as the family and the media. Such an approach makes a distinction between biological sex and social gender: an infant is born with the first and develops the second. Through contact with various agencies of socialization, both primary and secondary, children gradually internalize the social norms and expectations which are seen to correspond with their sex. Gender differences are not biologically determined, they are culturally produced, states Giddens (2006). According to this view, gender inequalities result because men and women are socialized into different roles. The functionalist approach favours theories of gender socialization, because boys and girls are seen as learning “sex” roles and the male and female identities which accompany them. They are guided in this process by positive and negative sanctions, which are socially applied forces which reward or restrain behaviour. The positive and negative reinforcements aid boys and girls in learning and conforming to expected sex roles. For deviant behaviour, inadequate or irregular socialization is considered as the reason. According to this functionalist view, socializing agencies contribute to the maintenance of social order by overseeing the smooth gender socialization of new generations, states Giddens (2006) Connell (1987) argues that gender socialization is not an inherently smooth process. Different agencies such as the family, school and peer groups may be at odds with one another. Moreover, socialization theories ignore the ability of individuals to reject or modify the social expectations surrounding sex roles. It is important to remember that human beings are not passive objects or unquestioning recipients of gender “programming”. People are active agents who create and modify roles for themselves. Only to some degree are gender identities a result of social influences, as observed from many studies. In media portrayal through children’s books, television programmes and films, male characters are more in number, they are also shown as playing more active, adventurous roles; while females are portrayed as passive, expectant and domestically oriented (Davies, 1991). Lorber (1994) supports this view, and adds that culture and media products marketed to young audiences embody traditional attitudes towards gender and towards the sorts of aims and ambitions girls and boys are expected to have. The Social Construction of Gender and Sex: Increasingly, socialization and gender role theories have been criticized by a growing number of sociologists. They do not agree that sex is biologically determined, and gender is culturally learned; they argue that both sex and gender should be viewed as socially constructed products. Not only is gender a purely social creation that lacks a fixed “essence”, but the human body itself is subject to social forces that shape and alter it in various ways. Meanings can be given to the human body which challenge what is thought of as “natural”: individuals can choose to construct and reconstruct their bodies, ranging from exercise and dieting to plastic surgery and sex-change operations (Giddens, 2006). Connell (1987) agrees that it is now possible to talk of a “world gender order”, and globalization provides the context in which we must now think about the lives of men and the construction and enactment of gender roles in the future. Foster (1999) reiterates that a dominant strand of feminist thinking emphasizes the similarities between men and women, rather than their differences, as part of a campaign for widening women’s educational and occupational opportunities. Archer and Lloyd (2002) add that we should be emphasizing our common humanity rather than seeking to find differences between men and women. CONCLUSION: This paper has highlighted the difference between the concepts of sex and gender, and has identified the various criteria on which the distinctions are based. The role of gender socialization and biological sex categorization as the main determinants of disparity between the two concepts, have been reviewed. The social construction of gender and sex are seen to impact the differences between the two concepts. In advanced industrialized societies, neither gender nor sexual differences play a part in performing skill-based work. A trend of decreasing dissimilarity among the two genders is seen as a precursor for greater similarities in the two gender identities in the future. This study of the differences between gender and sex and how the distinctions are made, is vital in understanding the lived experience of individuals and the manifestation of their sex and gender identity. REFERENCES Acker, J. (1992). “Gendered Institutions: From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions”. Contemporary Sociology, 1992. Acker, J. (1988). “Class, Gender and the Relations of Distribution”. Signs, 13: 473-497. Archer, J & Lloyd, B. (2002). Sex and Gender. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Butler, Sara. (2005). “Sex or Gender?” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, 154, June-July, 2005. Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Davies, B. (1991). Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales, Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Foster, J. (1999). “An Invitation to Dialogue: Clarifying the Position of Feminist Gender Theory In Relation to Sexual Difference Theory”. Gender and Society, 1999: 431-456. Gentile, D.A. (1993). “Just What are Sex and Gender Anyway? A Call for a New Terminological Standard”. Psychological Science, 4(2): 120-122. Giddens, A. (2006). Sociology. United Kingdom: Polity Press. Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. New York: Cornell University Press. Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press. Miller, B.D. (1993). Sex and Gender Hierarchies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, J. (1986). “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis”. American Historical Review: 1053-1075. Unger, R.K. (1979). “Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender”. American Psychologist, 34(11): 1085-1094. West, C & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). “Doing Gender”. Gender and Society, 1: 125-151. Wilson, H.T. (1989). Sex and Gender: Making Cultural Sense of Civilization. Netherlands: Brill Publications. Read More