Continuing the previous Post, controversies regarding gender are, in short, divided into three main topics:1) What does Gender stand for, which implies a second question: is gender intrinsically associated with sex? 2) Gender-(meant) as roles and behaviors expectations; 3) Feminine and Masculine- psychological complementary elements (feminine and masculine drives). In its second meaning, gender viewed as a social construction is mainly based on the idea that it is a product of naturalized expectations that are cultural. It means they are socially imposed in an invisible manner (broadly speaking, Foucault[1] and Butler’s[2] line of argument). Its third sense, however, is hardly ever used in today’s debates on the cultural nature of Gender. The assumption of feminine and masculine as drives/energies is implied in many theories concerned with the boundaries between genetic and social construction and will be of paramount importance for our reflections on the theme. Scientific and popular mindsets are still binary. Even among people who consider themselves as non binaries and that most of the time see gender as a social constructions, the way of fitting somewhere in the spectrum is by perceiving themselves as “Femme Leaning” or “Male Leaning”. The assumption that some characteristics might be closer to male or female ways of being could make the natural association (causal link) between genetic codes and behaviors plausible. Therefore, the following statement would confirm this thesis: “(…) The gender coding in the brain is bipolar. In gender identity disorder there is a discordance between the natal sex of one’s external genitalia and the brain coding of one’s gender as masculine or feminine[3]”. The biological connection, in this case, would be a hormonal one. Statistics would have proved that regardless of the hormones’ level in the body, those females would be more attracted to activities “traditionally more associated to males than females[4]”. These characteristics are, in general, associated with vigorous, aggressive and impulsive behaviors. For authors like Foucault- social science one- the “strategy of power” would lie in turning the link between the ontological element (sex) and moral virtues into a natural (genetic) one. As a result, what would define a female being is weakness, irrationality, being unable to take actions commonly attributed to males or to male beings. We will not get into details that exceed our knowledge and the purpose of this essay. We assume that genetic behaviors presuppose genes that must be developed in an environment, most of the time, in a community. All in all, must the two fields be excluding?
To be continued in the next Post
[1] For Foucault, broadly speaking, turn the association between behaviors and roles expectations and biological sex into a natural one works, insidiously, as a way of power, once they were at the root (bottom) of deepest convictions about “human nature”. Foucault, M. History of sexuality. [2] Butler , J. radicalizes this vision stating that the very definition of Gender as a cultural interpretation would be redundant (wouldn’t make sense) since, sex is it own, would already be a cultural constructed category. Butler, J(1990).p 10.In: wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender [3] ^ Money, J (1994). "The concept of gender identity disorder in childhood and adolescence after 39 years". Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 20 (3): 163. In: wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender. [4] Berenbaum, S. Psychology professor and CAH researcher. In:Beattie-Moss, Melissa (8 June 2005). "Are gender differences predetermined?". Penn State University. Archived from the original on 13 January 2006. Retrieved 30 August 2010. Ibid
Comentaris