Continuing the debate on the nature of Gender, at first sight the dispute seems to be between two theoretical perspectives: one that assumes that the sex assigned at birth is associated with gender (natural sciences) and that one that claims that it is culturally acquired or socially constructed (a cultural perspective). The discussion, however, doesn’t end there. The line of thinking that considers Language (the study of Symbols/Culture) and the boundaries between normality and psychopathology as a source of personal narrative was a revolutionary one, because it showed that at the root of psychopathological categories lies an ethical dilemma. For instance, the assumption that homosexual orientation as a deficit was, without a doubt, one of the most important symbolic “de-constructions” associated with this line of thinking. However, this doesn’t mean that attributing innate qualities to gender and sex is a naive theoretical perspective. On the contrary, from a clinical point of view, one can attest that conflicts related to gender are far more complex and cannot be reduced to this simplistic quarrel[1]. Actually, so far it seems that the dispute has no winner. For example, for the WHO (World Health Organization) sex and gender can be defined as “(…) what can’t change (biological features) and what might change according to social structure[2]”, respectively. Gender Identity, in turn, is considered a social identity category. It is worth noting that the distinction is borrowed from the sexologist Money, J., who was the first author to use the term gender role (Roles associated to sex) in 1950. Based on the Gender role concept, Gender Identity “(…) was first used to announce the new clinical treatment in November 1966. From that time on, this concept has become popular for distinguishing between sex (what defines someone in biological terms) and gender (what someone socially becomes), gender identity (self-perception as male or a female) and gender role (roles and behavioral expectations associated with sex assigned at birth[3]).” One of the most controversial topics arises from the assumption that genders that “don’t correspond to sex assigned at birth”, are cases of emotional disorder. The Social sciences have argued that cultural products, including people’s behavior and desires, shouldn’t be treated as natural or inborn traits. Unfortunately, so far the dispute seems to have no winner, since the authors that dedicate themselves to gender and sex studies have been taking it for granted some excluding assumptions. If, on the one hand, it isn’t obvious that masculine or feminine “ways of being” are intrinsically linked to sex assigned at birth, on the other, assuming that the multitude of conflicts related to Identity (including existential ones) are social constructions doesn’t seem to be enough[4]”
To be continued in the next Post.
[1] This topic will be developed in the following Posts. [2] The World Health Organization states, "'[s]ex' refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women," and "'gender' refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women."[75] Thus, sex is regarded as a category studied in biology (natural sciences), while gender is studied in humanities and social sciences”. In:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social science [3] Ibid. [4]This perspective is based on my reflections on the theme and, hence, attest my clinical perception of the phenomenon.
[1] Esse ponto será desenvolvido nos próximos Posts. [2] De acordo com a OMS “(...) gênero e o resultado expectativas sociais sobre comportamentos, ações e papeis que sexos específicos deveriam empenhar” (tradução livre) [3] Ibid [4] Essa perceptiva é baseada nas minhas reflexões clínicas e, portanto, atestam a minha visão sobre o assunto.
Comments