My point is that gender is NOT just a social construct as you seem to be suggesting. The traditional gender roles of men and women in the West - that is, to work/provide for the family vs. tend to hearth and home, respectively - are deeply rooted in our physiological differences. When it comes down to it, men are simply going to be better at any physical work (hunting, etc.), while women are more suited toward lighter duty (taking care of kids, etc.). There are certainly many ways in which a culture can influence gender roles, but that fact does not make gender an entirely social construct. Culture is simply a thin veneer over the cold hard facts of biology and the evolutionary advantages that come along with the complimentary strengths of the genders. As Fielder & King (2004) put it, "[...] biology cannot fail to contribute its heritage, subtle or frank, to the form of society and culture." On another note, I think it's a shame that the literature on this topic is riddled with a plethora of social science nonsense (read: gender studies drivel) when evolutionary biology explains it all with scientifically proven facts.
Person 2, I: But, by definition, gender is a social construct.
In biosocial terms, gender is not the same as sex. Gender refers to the psychological, social, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being female or male. Gender is defined by one's gender identity and learned gender role. Sex, on the other hand, refers in this context to the biological aspects of being either female or male. — Wienclaw, Ruth A. 2015
As seen with cultures like the Bugis, there exists non-binary gender categories that are not quite extant in the Western cultures. Biology simply deals with sex; gender is an aspect related to biosocial science or anthropology.
1: I refer you back to my comment. The concept of gender does not exist in a vacuum separate from biology (and sex). It is not entirely a social construct. To make my point even clearer, and quoting you (quoting someone else) "...Gender, in biosocial terms, refers to the psychological, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being sexually male or female..." Those "psychological, cultural, and behavioral characteristics" will always be affected to some extent by the innate hard-wired differences between the sexes, which I have detailed above.
2: Yes, indeed, and I know that; that does not refute gender being a social construct, however. As noted within the Bugis culture, four of the gender categories are relevant to those that are biologically male or female. If a male prefers to be associated with what females tend to do, then they are often categorized as being female in regards to gender and its gender role. There is less of an emphasis on one's biological sex and more so on the gender role. What is it that one's biological sex should do in a culture is determined by its superstructural notions of notions and the ilk. This is how gender and gender roles become subjective, varying in cultures.
1: Actually, it categorically does refute the idea that gender is a social construct. Like I said, gender does not exist in a vacuum. I'll say it again; gender is a concept that has been and continues to be subject to the biological differences between men and women.
It's nice that the Burgis people decided to include transsexual as a gender. But even in Burgis culture, those who identify as a gender that is not consistent with their biological sex are are considered exactly that; someone who is one sex, but identifies as a gender that is typically associated with the other sex. They are not considered to actually be that gender. For example, a male who identifies with the female role is called Calabai, or a 'false woman.' They may adopt the trappings of a woman, but they are still not considered women.
The weird exception to this - the fifth gender - that you have brought up is essentially a transcendent gender created for hermaphrodites.
So, as you can see, the Burgis concept of gender is strongly influenced by biological sex. Even in the case of this extreme outlier, the concept of gender is subject to biology.
2: Like I said, gender does not exist in a vacuum.
And I'm not saying it does.
I'll say it again; gender is a concept that has been and continues to be subject to the biological differences between men and women.
You are referring to sex which is biogenetically determined and is the cause of the differentiation between the sexes. Gender, as defined previously, relates to the superstructural notions of what it is to be biologically male or female and the roles that a sex may partake in. Does the female take care of the home, able to work certain jobs, and the ilk. One's culture determines what the sexes are able to due without formal or informal sanction. In short, biology deals with sex; culture deals with what the sexes may do in a society.
It's nice that the Burgis people decided to include transsexual as a gender.
They don't really. One of the five categorizations of gender includes the Bissu which is one that is born hermaphroditic. One can not voluntarily be one of them. "Transgender", as in, say, masculine female, is a distinction made within their culture, however, as they are referred to as calalai. Biologically female, but takes the role of the male, culturally. They are able to be blacksmiths, to smoke, and so on which is not permitted for those in the feminine female category of gender and are able to walk out at night without a male companion—something Muslim societies tend not to allow.
They are not considered to actually be that gender.
But they are.
They may adopt the trappings of a woman, but they are still not considered women.
Aye, indeed, they are not considered biologically female.
So, as you can see, the Burgis concept of gender is strongly influenced by biological sex. Even in the case of this extreme outlier, the concept of gender is subject to biology.
I have yet to say it is to the contrary. We do, however, seem to hold a different definition of gender and sex, however. My main argument is that gender is cultural and sex is biological simply due to definition.
Again, according to Wienclaw, _in biosocial terms, gender is not the same as sex. Gender refers to the psychological, social, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being female or male. Gender is defined by one's gender identity and learned gender role. Sex, on the other hand, refers in this context to the biological aspects of being either female or male._
More by Wienclaw—forgive the copy and paste:
It is relatively easy to see that biology has an impact on gender and the subsequent actions and behaviors that are thought to be more relevant to either females or males. For example, no matter how much a man might want to experience giving birth, the simple fact is that he cannot, except as an observer. From this fact it is easy (if not necessarily logical) to assume that biology is destiny and, therefore, women and men have certain unalterable roles in society—for example, that women are the keepers of home and hearth because of their reproductive role, while men are the protectors and providers because of their relatively greater size and strength. However, before concluding that biology is destiny in terms of gender roles, it is important to understand that not only do gender roles differ from culture to culture, they also change over time within the same culture. Early 20th-century American culture emphasized that a woman's role was in the home. As a result, many women did not have high school educations and never held jobs; instead, they quite happily raised families and supported their husbands by keeping their households running smoothly. Nearly a century later, this gender role is no longer the norm (or at least not the only acceptable norm) and sounds quite constricting to our more educated, career-oriented 21st-century ears. If biology were the sole determinant of gender roles, such changes would not be possible.
As observed among people of varying cultures, biology solely does not determine the role of an individual, especially when anomalies of those that are much more inclined to be associated and perceived as the other sex or gender role.
Within Somoa, there exists something similar to that of the two-spirited people of the various Native American tribes in North America, the fa'afafine. These fa'afafine are males that are sexually attracted to males. By the West, they may be classified as androphillic males. The term fa'afafine can be translated literally as "in the manner of a woman." (Vasey). The fa'afafine seem to essentially be females in the body of males as they portray feminine appearances, mannerisms, and behaviors. Again, from the perspective of the West, these males can be seen as effeminate males or transgendered. To describe them as transsexual would be erroneous because these fa'afafine do not experience any dysphoria towards their male genitals—some of which state that they do not want to have female genitals (Vasey). Furthermore, it would again be erroneous to perceive these fa'afafine as being homosexual or gay as they do not identify as males or want to be masculine in appearance.
1: You're talking in circles. If the concept of gender is informed by biological sex, and thus the innate differences between males vs. females, then it is not just a social construct.
You are referring to sex which is biogenetically determined and is the cause of the differentiation between the sexes.
No, I'm not. Even in the Burgis culture, where a man can do women's work if he wishes, he is still not considered to be a woman. The fact that he is not actually considered to be a woman means that his ‘gender’ is still determined by his sex. The social concept of these transsexual genders in Burgis culture (the so called 'false woman' and 'false man') is rooted in biological sex - e.g., a biological male cannot be the 'false man' gender no matter how much he wants to be.
They don't really. One of the five categorizations of gender includes the Bissu which is one that is born hermaphroditic.
You write this like I didn't mention it in my previous comment. I did. A hermaphrodite is in a biologically grey area. Therefore, their cultural identity will be in a grey area. This fifth gender is an expression of that concept. And it is still rooted in biological sex, since hermaphrodites are both male and female. See my previous paragraph for the rest of your remarks here.
I have yet to say it is to the contrary. We do, however, seem to hold a different definition of gender and sex, however.
Holding to the definition of gender given in your previous comment, you have yet to bring up any examples that suggest a person in any culture can have a gender that is not informed by their biological sex. No, not even the Samoa and North American examples fit the bill.
Gender is not a nebulous concept that people of any culture have made up out of thin air. It is also not, as I have shown, arbitrarily assignable based entirely on an individual’s desire to be a gender that is not typically associated with their biological sex.
And since I know you're going to try to say it again, no, a transsexual in the Burgis culture is not considered to be the same 'gender' as their women or men. That is why they have two additional 'genders' for transsexuals.
2: You're talking in circles. If the concept of gender is informed by biological sex, and thus the innate differences between males vs. females, then it is not just a social construct.
Gender is not totally informed by biological sex though. Yes, there are innate differences but those differences do not prevent, say, a male being, say, basket-weaving, which is generally a feminine gender role in some cultures. A male may not give birth but this does not prevent a male from taking care of the young. Whether or not the male is to do such things is determined by culture.
No, I'm not. Even in the Burgis culture, where a man can do women's work if he wishes, he is still not considered to be a woman.
But they are. They are not considered biologically woman, no, they are considered and treated as a woman though.
Example:
As noted by Inside Indonesia, Rani is anatomically female but is a calalai, married to a female, smokes cigarettes, works along with men as a blacksmith, and walks alone at night—things that are not to be done by feminine females (Graham, 2011). Again, though Rani is very much like a male, she does not wish to alter her—or his—sex and is thusly not transsexual but, rather, transgender from the Western perspective.
The social concept of these transsexual genders in Burgis culture (the so called 'false woman' and 'false man') is rooted in biological sex - e.g., a biological male cannot be the 'false man' gender no matter how much he wants to.
There is not really a transsexual concept in this culture. I haven't come across an example of someone changing sex in the culture. There isn't quite an example of transgendering as gender roles and categories are firmly embedded in the culture. A male may be feminine and self-identify as a female and will be identified as such. The act of transgendering is only quite distinguishable in a culture like that of the West wherein two genders are the norm. If a male acts much like a female and self-identifies as one, then that male is considered transgendered as there there is not a prominent category or title for these transgendered males unlike in the Bugis culture.
So, to correct,
a biological male cannot be the 'false man' gender no matter how much he wants to
A biological male cannot be biologically female, no matter how much he wants to. He can, however, be feminine or female in a psycho-sociocultural context and partake in the feminine gender role (e.g., weaving, caring for the young, etc.).
Again, sex is biological; gender is cultural.
Gender roles are separate patterns of personality traits, mannerisms, interests, attitudes, and behaviors that are regarded as either "male" or "female" by one's culture (Wienclaw 2015). One who partakes in a gender role is of that gender, in a sense, and not of that sex, lest one be transsexual, perhaps.
Holding to the definition of gender given in your previous comment, you have yet to bring up any examples that suggest a person in any culture can have a gender that is not informed by their biological sex. No, not even the Samoa and North American examples fit the bill.
There is no need for such an example. One's biogenetics influences one's cultural identity. As noted through observation, males can be born much more feminine than some females. This is a result of one's (bio-)genetics. The false women in the Bugis tend to look or act feminine, naturally. So, as a culture, they decided to have categories for those that act and look like the other sex.
Example from Wienclaw's paper:
There has been ongoing debate for years regarding whether gender roles are a biological imperative or the result of socialization. As the example of the Tchambuli gender roles demonstrates, it is difficult if not impossible to argue that gender roles are completely biologically determined. However, this is not to say that there is not a biological component in their acquisition. Research suggests, for example, that the exposure of female fetuses to androgens (male hormones) during the second trimester results in individuals more likely to break out of traditional female gender stereotypes (Udry, 2000). Mitchell, Baker, and Jacklin (1989) performed a twin study with pre-adolescents and adolescents to attempt to determine the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors in the development of femininity and masculinity in children. The sample included both monozygotic pairs of twins (identical twins with the same genetic background) and dizygotic pairs of twins (fraternal twins with similar genetic backgrounds). Data on femininity and masculinity were collected by asking subjects to respond to two standardized instruments of personality and self-perception. The analysis of the data suggested that both heredity and environment are important in the development of gender identity. Genetics was found to play a significant role in the acquisition of gender identity, accounting for 20 to 48 percent of the observed variation, and so was environmental influences, which accounted for the remaining 52 to 80 percent of the variation.
So, yes, biogenetics do influence one's gender and gender role in society. In biosocial terms, gender is not the same as sex. Gender refers to the psychological, social, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being female or male. Gender is defined by one's gender identity and learned gender role. By definition, gender is cultural and sex is biological. Biology influences but does not determine one's gender role. If biology were the sole determinant of gender roles, then gender roles would never have changed throughout history and culture but this is not so and changes would not be possible if it were so.
Gender is not a nebulous concept that people of any culture have made up out of thin air. It is also not, as I have shown, arbitrarily assignable based entirely on an individual’s desire to be a gender that is not typically associated with their biological sex.
It somewhat is. Like time, itself, it is not self-evident and a concept created to create some semblance of understanding or order. Sex is self-evident and often, with ease, observable. Genitalia and physical characteristics aside, sex is less self-evident and gender is a concept used to describe or identify an individual. The concept of gender emphasizes mannerisms and psychology, both rooted in biology, yes.
Another example,
In 21st-century United States culture, gender roles continue to be in a state of flux to some extent, although traditional gender roles still apply in many quarters. For example, boys are often encouraged to become strong, fast, aggressive, dominant, and achieving, while traditional roles for girls are to be sensitive, intuitive, passive, emotional, and interested in the things of home and family. However, these gender roles are culturally bound. For example, in the Tchambuli culture of New Guinea, gender roles for women include doing the fishing and manufacturing as well as controlling the power and economic life of the community. Tchambuli women also take the lead in initiating sexual relations. Tchambuli men, on the other hand, are dependent, flirtatious, and concerned with their appearance, often adorning themselves with flowers and jewelry. In the Tchambuli culture, men's interests revolve around such activities as art, games, and theatrics (Coon, 2001). If gender roles were completely biologically determined, the wide disparity between American and Tchambuli gender roles would not be possible. Therefore, it must be assumed that culture and socialization also play a part in gender role acquisition (Wienclaw 2015).
Oddly, to note, biology and anthropology are my areas of study in university. Anthropology is the result of biology; anthropology would not be possible without a biological basis. Biology deals less with "concepts" and more with facts while anthropology does, usually, the opposite. Chromosomal theory of inheritance is, well, fact. What individuals do in a society varies among cultures. Concepts like democracy are abstract and not exactly naturally occurring without agents like the Homo sapien. This is similar to that of the concept of gender. Gender roles are held by cultures and they determine what those roles are and whether or not to acknowledge a concept of gender that is not binary like it is in the West. Gender and its concept is never the same among various peoples and cultures while sex is.
And since I know you're going to try to say it again, no, a transsexual in the Burgis culture is not considered to be the same 'gender' as their women or men. That is why they have two additional 'genders' for transsexuals.
I don't even know if transsexuals exist in that culture, to be honest.
Or,
Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics, whilegender refers to behaviors, roles, expectations, and activities in society.Sex refers to male or female, while gender refers to masculine or feminine. The differences in the sexes do not vary throughout the world, but differences in gender do.
— http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php
Nick, after reading this exchange states: I think there was a lot of time lost by getting hung up on whether or not the fact that the genders have mean differences in some psychological and behavioral variables disproves the idea that gender is a social construct. Tabini was wrong -- in fact, the very existence of these mean differences is how we know gender is socially constructed.
The idea is this: we assign certain expectations and profiles to certain sexes based solely on their sexual identity. This is their gender profile. We automatically assume a woman is incapable of dealing with the rigorous training necessary to become a football player because biologically, females on average have about 20% less muscle mass than males. This is a biological difference. But not every single female is going to have 20% less muscle mass than any given male. There are many females who are stronger than many males. Thus the expectation that the woman is weaker than the man is breached. The female's gender profile -- being weaker -- was socially constructed based on a biological difference.
Here, we can see that the most potent example of gender construction is when such expectations are violated. We will call a woman "manly" if she is tall, muscular, and even hairy, because we expect that women -- based in part on their biology -- are going to be shorter, less muscular, and have less hair or are even completely clean shaven from the face down. That's because we associate those traits with being a man. So her gender assignment slowly shifts away from being a woman the more times she violates what it "means" to be a woman. It's hard to deny this phenomenon, and I think you would've had an easier time had you gone this route.[Addendums will probably be added]
No comments:
Post a Comment