My wife recently finished her course of study at a seminary, and gender & sexuality issues were among the topics studied (it's a liberal seminary).

One concept that I was not able to get my head around was the concept of Gender as a Construct and the false binary of Gender. After reading "Luna" by Julie Anne Peters, I think I'm beginning to understand.

Prior to reading "Luna," I had pretty much thought of gender binaries to be somewhat real, as it usually takes both a spermatazoan and an ovum to create an offspring. I had come to the conclusion that there were 2 definitions of gender: biological and identity. My wife insists that gender pertains only to identity and that the biological aspect is referred to as sex.

Does this seem reasonable? That gender is indeed a construct? I don't recall choosing to be an androgyne; it just happened. How could I contruct it if I had no choice in the matter?

Thoughts?

While I think there is some measure of social construct to it, I think gender identity is very much biological in origin. Which is not to say binary.

Gender is most assuredly a spectrum, ranging from strongly male to strongly female, but with a whole range of identities inbetween, androgyne being somewhere around the region of the middle-ish. likewise, biological sex is a spectrum rather than binary, with intersexed people, people with klinefelters or AIS or any of a dozen other stuff filling out the middle of that spectrum.

And when where you fall on the gender spectrum isn't on the same side of the middle as where you fall on the bio-sex spectrum, well, you end up with GID to a lesser or greater extent.

My take on it, anyway.

Thanks, lady amarant. This whole concept is something I'll be pondering endlessly, it seems.

Quote from: lady amarant on March 04, 2008, 03:38:45 PM
While I think there is some measure of social construct to it, I think gender identity is very much biological in origin. Which is not to say binary.

I cannot agree more.
The more I read the, more I am convinced we see gender in a very different manner than others.

The stereotypes are a social construct.
If it were a social construct I do not think we would be here, I think androgynes disprove that theory.

I stand by the theory of hormonal changes in the womb.

I guess this comes down to the age old "Nature vs Nurture" puzzle.

Is there nature aspects that make me technically male? *checks pants* yep. Is there nature aspects that make me somewhat female? Maybe, I seem to have hormonal mood swings that would typically be called PMS. Past that it would require some serious doctor and lab work to tell if I have any more female in me. Of course we can't say if my mom had strange hormonal shifts when I was in the womb.

Was there a nurture aspect? Oh heck yeah. My sister teaching me how to braid hair. My mother explaining all sorts of stuff about makeup. My mother taught me all of the things that a good proper girl should know. Also my dad taught me how to fix cars and all of the things that a good proper boy should know.

I think there is the biological element, and there is the psychological element. Personally I tend to say "biologically male" (or "technically male") and "psychologically both". I tend to think of gender as being what we identify as, and sex being what we are technically. So I think that someone (like me) could be gender neutral (or more accurately, gender both), but my sex is male (mostly).

Although, generally if someone asks me about sex my response is "Yes please." and if someone asks about my gender I'll say "Sure."

I suspect that the gender vs sex conflict lies with the sloppy use of language.

While there are differences in the definition if you get technical about it, in general usage, they are often used the same way.

Think of those survey forms that ask you to specify your gender/sex.

Personally I consider sex to be the biological component and gender to be the social/psych component, both of which are part of you.

Gender would be more of a construct than sex because you start life as a blank tablet, socially and mentally, and your personality is built up through interaction with people and yourself.

Sex is hardwired biologically, though things like diet, hormone treatment and surgery can change things.

(Of course I may be using the wrong definitions.  But that is the way I look at things when I think about it.)

Quote from: Rowan_Danielle on March 05, 2008, 03:14:13 AM
Gender would be more of a construct than sex because you start life as a blank tablet, socially and mentally, and your personality is built up through interaction with people and yourself.

We don't start out with a blank slate though. Gender is seated in physical structures within the brain, just as sex is seated in physical structures within the body. And because those two components differentiate at different times during foetal development, the chance for a disconnect between the two slips in.

Then again, language use is inherently 'sloppy': ultimately, there simply is no one authority that could decide on the exact meaning of the terms we use. What I mean with gender is not exactly what you mean with the same word, which again is not exactly what you'd see in the Oxford English Dictionary, and so on. One of the interesting things about language is that despite this lack of formal definition it still is useful for communication, and there's a large amount of research literature in several fields on just how it all works.

The way I see it the problem isn't just in the distinction (or lack thereof) between sex and gender. The real problem is that while there are real differences in anatomy, behaviour and social roles, the way we distill those differences into concepts is a generalisation of what's going on in the real world. Yes, we need to generalise and simplify things, but that also means that the whole truth is always more complex than our verbal description of it. Our use of languages forces us to see things in an either-or fashion.

(Sorry, this is getting a bit too abstract even for my tastes.  )

Anyway, the bottom line is that male and female are words. Ultimately, they are idealised combinations of sex/gender traits, with an artificially sharp border around the prototypical male or female. Just exactly what that prototype looks like is ever so slightly different with each of us, and similarly the exact shape of that border is different. Most of the people I'd call male are people you'd consider male as well, but there are individuals whose sex or gender falls so close to the borders that it's difficult to decide, even if we know exactly the relevant anatomical and behavioral details.

Okay, that's answer number one. Answer number two is that gender -- that is, the social and behavioral part -- is to a large extent based on various properties that are tied to the physical body (including the neurological aspects of the brain). In other words, it is not entirely a social construct. On the other hand, there's also a very large amount of gender expectations that really have nothing to do with the physical sex but are instead something the society has developed at some point over the past couple thousand years. So, yes, it's a social construct, but still one grounded in physical sex.

  Nfr

I think that androgynes are born rather than decided, but nurture can ensure an androgyne can grow up feeling totally male or female, although probable a slight shadow of a male or female, never a completely whole one. I think it takes an unusual upbringing or a tragedy or something to bring the androgyne into realisation of their androgyny - so to recognise and embrace that is a choice, but to be it isn't...In my head anyway.

Quote from: Pica Pica on March 05, 2008, 05:56:34 AM
I think that androgynes are born rather than decided, but nurture can ensure an androgyne can grow up feeling totally male or female, although probable a slight shadow of a male or female, never a completely whole one. I think it takes an unusual upbringing or a tragedy or something to bring the androgyne into realisation of their androgyny - so to recognise and embrace that is a choice, but to be it isn't...In my head anyway.

I don't follow you. If it takes an unusual upbringing or tragedy to bring an androgynee into realization of their androgyny - doesn't that imply that it is the 'unusual upbringing or tragedy' itself that makes one feel androgynee? By your logic, one's feelings of androgyny are prompted by outside forces.

There are many examples similar to your train of thought here:

The young female victim of sexual abuse whose rejection of womanhood is prompted by her abuse.

The young man who after suffering the loss of a loved one doesn't know himself anymore.


People are not themselves after major tragedies like these. I know. I've recently lost several family members. I was not myself and still am not. Even my voice underwent a change. It's not a stretch to say that one may question their very identity in times like these. I didn't, but that kind of trauma could drive one to do so.

I just don't get how this fits in with your theory. The sides don't match up.

The way I understood Pica's view is something like this:

|---male---|       |--female--|
         |-androgyne-|

The 'genders' overlap, and usually it's possible for an androgyne to feel comfortable in either the male or the female end of the range. Sometimes this isn't possible, and e will end up in the middle (or the 'wrong' end).

Actually, I'm more inclined to view it like this:

|-----male-----|
       |-androgyne-|
             |----female----|

That is, even the male and female ranges overlap. However, it's very much a social thing, and in some societies the two are kept strictly separate. In such a case an androgyne will have to choose, and possibly also come to the realisation that eir natural range doesn't extend far enough to be acceptable. Similarly, a transsexual in such an environment is likely to end up with a more severe dysphoria than e would otherwise.

  Nfr

I see what you're saying S, but I don't get Pica's 'traumatic childhood or tragedy' as being the catalyst thing.

While some androgynees may not feel as out of place as transsexuals (I say 'some' because I understand that some androgynees do feel as intense dysphoria as do transsexuals), if it takes a tragedy or some such to recognize one's androgyny - that screams PTSS rather than gender issues.

Quote from: Rowan_Danielle on March 05, 2008, 03:14:13 AM
Sex is hardwired biologically, though things like diet, hormone treatment and surgery can change things.

I once saw a fascinating episode of Scientific American Frontiers about neurology and the physiology of the human brain. The basic gist was that every aspect of the human psyche is due to the way the brain grows and develops. Basically, the psychological is the same as the physical.

However, just because something is "hard-wired" into the brain doesn't mean it can't be changed. These changes can come through physical trauma to the brain, drugs (perscription, OTC, and illegal), and behavior modification.

So if I understood what the neurologists were saying, both sex & gender are indeed physical aspects of biology. But, gender would be more malleable than sex. Sex has to do with genitals and gender has to do with the brain.


Posted on: March 05, 2008, 09:42:27 AM

---

Quote from: Pica Pica on March 05, 2008, 05:56:34 AM
I think that androgynes are born rather than decided, but nurture can ensure an androgyne can grow up feeling totally male or female, although probable a slight shadow of a male or female, never a completely whole one. I think it takes an unusual upbringing or a tragedy or something to bring the androgyne into realisation of their androgyny - so to recognise and embrace that is a choice, but to be it isn't...In my head anyway.

I'd have to say I was born androgynous, and I realized this fairly young, but I didn't have the words for it. I was probably between 5 and 7 years old and remember thinking, Oh, well, I was born a boy and not a girl so I have to be a boy.

I was definitely raised to be male, a straight male to be precise. So, there was not any nurturing of my androgyny except on my own, in secret.

There were not any tragedies in my life that I can remember that might have led to or influenced my sexuality and/or gender identity.

But, that's just me.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on March 05, 2008, 10:12:08 AM

Quote from: Rowan_Danielle on March 05, 2008, 03:14:13 AM
Sex is hardwired biologically, though things like diet, hormone treatment and surgery can change things.

I once saw a fascinating episode of Scientific American Frontiers about neurology and the physiology of the human brain. The basic gist was that every aspect of the human psyche is due to the way the brain grows and develops. Basically, the psychological is the same as the physical.

However, just because something is "hard-wired" into the brain doesn't mean it can't be changed. These changes can come through physical trauma to the brain, drugs (perscription, OTC, and illegal), and behavior modification.

So if I understood what the neurologists were saying, both sex & gender are indeed physical aspects of biology. But, gender would be more malleable than sex. Sex has to do with genitals and gender has to do with the brain.

Gender - malleable? I don't think so. Yes, there are those confused about their gender, but one is born to a gender. Sex organs can be altered in this day and age. Gender cannot. Confusion about one's gender does not equal malleability.

Nero said,

Quote
Gender - malleable? I don't think so. Yes, there are those confused about their gender, but one is born to a gender. Sex organs can be altered in this day and age. Gender cannot. Confusion about one's gender does not equal malleability.

Yet, what I've found would suggest the opposite.

Trauma to the brain and/or behavior modification can alter the brain, causing fundamental changes in a person's psyche. So, in theory, if I my brain were to suffer trauma in the just the right/wrong place, my sense of gender could indeed change.

But, I'm not a neurologist so I acknowledge that I could be way off base.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on March 05, 2008, 10:53:36 AM
Nero said,

Quote
Gender - malleable? I don't think so. Yes, there are those confused about their gender, but one is born to a gender. Sex organs can be altered in this day and age. Gender cannot. Confusion about one's gender does not equal malleability.

Yet, what I've found would suggest the opposite.

Trauma to the brain and/or behavior modification can alter the brain, causing fundamental changes in a person's psyche. So, in theory, if I my brain were to suffer trauma in the just the right/wrong place, my sense of gender could indeed change.

But, I'm not a neurologist so I acknowledge that I could be way off base.

I'm no neurologist either, so I suppose anything is possible. But Pica's theory that a person is born androgynee but only acknowledges such through trauma makes little sense to me.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on March 05, 2008, 10:53:36 AM
Nero said,
Trauma to the brain and/or behavior modification can alter the brain, causing fundamental changes in a person's psyche. So, in theory, if I my brain were to suffer trauma in the just the right/wrong place, my sense of gender could indeed change.

True - there was a story I read a few years ago about a man who suffered brain-damage, and when he finally recovered, he became a violent pedophile. ( which I just can't seem to track down ...  )

But think about it - That man who was involved in the accident essentially died right there and was replaced by somebody else. If our 'selves' are a construct of our genetics and brain structure along with the experiences and memories we carry, then altering those elements essentiall kills us. Our bodies and brains might survive, but it's not the same person. That new person might retain some of our memories, but it's a new person. So to carry the argument to its logical conclusion, if somebody altered me in that way to 'correct' my gender, they would be killing 'me' in essence.

And does it follow that, if we correct that, we get to correct political stances (also very possibly biological in origin - http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206504196 ) or stamp out this trait or that?

I think the line between psychology and neurobiology is at best, flimsy, and that the nature vs. nurture argument is equally spurious. Yeah, our gender is established at around 12 weeks after conception, but then during the first two years of life, our brains alter SO much structurally and chemically that we might as well be changing species. Which is all the more reason why society needs to realise that what a person is or chooses to be has NOTHING to do with them, as long as that person does no harm to others. If I choose to 'correct' my gender, fine, respect that. Equally if I decide to kill myself, or alter my brain to become more confident or alter my physical body to match my brain instead, respect those too. 'Cause ultimately it has nothing to do with anybody but me.

I don't doubt that if you stimulate the brain a certain way you could change almost anything about a persons behavior. They have done some amazing things with rats and insects (including making them think they are the wrong gender). The brain is truly an amazing thing.

We don't yet have the ability to do so at this time to humans yet but if we could would you want to be "cured"? I would feel like something from my past was missing. I am starting to value my unique perspective even if it can be confusing.

Quote from: sd on March 05, 2008, 12:20:19 PM
I don't doubt that if you stimulate the brain a certain way you could change almost anything about a persons behavior. They have done some amazing things with rats and insects (including making them think they are the wrong gender). The brain is truly an amazing thing.

We don't yet have the ability to do so at this time to humans yet but if we could would you want to be "cured"? I would feel like something from my past was missing. I am starting to value my unique perspective even if it can be confusing.

Personally, I have no desire to be cured. If you asked me that question 25-30 years ago, I might have given you a different answer.

The gender/sexuality classes that my wife took and told me about seemed to suggest that it is a fact that sex is biological and gender is constructed. However, I might have misunderstood her.

I don't feel like I've constructed my gender identity. But, the comments regarding language are quite interesting. We needs words to describe concepts. So, maybe identity is constructed due to the words we use?

My thoughts are that when your wife was talking about gender she was talking about social role and expression, or behaviour. I believe these things are for the most part constructs (though I suspect there is at least some component that is biological predisposition).

As for gender 'identity' I believe this is very much a biological thing - essentially brain sex. So you can have a sex as in your biological body sex and you have a brain sex and they are not always the same thing such as in the case of the transgendered.

My take on Pica picas comments is that I think it is possible for us to not know and accept our own internal identity and this manifests itself as gender confusion. Unless you are aware of the possibility of there being something other than male or female it is not exactly easy to spontaneously realise you are not male or female in terms of gender identity. I assumed I was male for a long time and what I was feeling was the same as what all males felt. I guess it took a 'gender crisis' to realise otherwise.