Sexing Sex: Four Definitive Debates Raging on the Issue
of Sex and Gender
Let’s have an argument. No, not a Monty Python argument,
a real one. In fact, let’s have four arguments. In order to sum up the issues
and concerns regarding gender, one thing is certain, it isn’t a black and white
issue. In fact, it isn’t even a male and female issue. It must be debated
in a way that acknowledges all the major aspects of the subject, all the
complexities and subtleties. To isolate four debates or threads to this
tapestry may be enough to simplify the subject, but not so simple as an either
or argument, and therefore is a good way to properly honor the importance
of the issue. By answering the questions that arise within these debates and
synthesizing the conclusion we may build a more complex picture of the nature
and nurture of gender.
Among the things to be considered in this discussion are: What do
we mean when we say gender or sex? Are they the same thing? Do we mean who has
a penis and who a vagina? Are there other considerations? Has there ever been a
case where a woman has a penis and a man a vagina? Have there been cases where
the best medical experts can’t tell if someone has a penis or vagina? What
chemicals and hormones are at play and how important are they in determining
the sex of a person? What about a person’s behavior? Does that make one a man
or woman, or less of a man or less of a woman?
Defining Gender and Sex
In her article “The Nature and Nurture of Gender,” Martha
Kirkpatrick (2003) hones in on the differences between the word gender
and the word sex by citing the work of two previous researchers on the subject,
Stoller and Money. She says:
Stoller observed that
gender was comprised of several experiential domains: Gender identity (the
conviction of belonging to a particular sexual category female, male, or
ambiguous), gender role (a complex mix of interests, attitudes and behaviors
assumed and promoted by one’s parents, and society as feminine or masculine),
and sexual orientation(another of Money’s terms to replace the implication of
willfulness in the term object choice.) Stoller confirmed Money’s discovery
that in an individual the three aspects of gender were not necessarily
concordant with sex or with each other ( p. 560).
For the purpose of this
essay we are going to use the above paragraph as the definition of gender, thus
differentiating gender from sex. This also highlights the first debate:
definitions. This particular definition serves a healthy debate better than a
black and white definition. A black and white definition would neuter (pun
intended) an extended debate because it would be choosing a particular field of
research (biological probably) and assuming that it need not go any
further-case closed. But Kirkpatrick’s definition opens the door for ongoing
conversation and is therefore better suited in a scholarly debate. Also, it
frees up discussion about sex, since now the terms are not inseparably linked.
Now we need to define sex. Kirkpatrick again provides a definition
that we will use, this time not for its complexity but for its simplicity. She
infers the definition by saying, “Genital anatomy (ie. one’s sex) is not
sufficient to confirm gender identity” (2003, p.561). In other words, sex
refers to the state or condition of genital organs-their physical structure.
Gender on the other hand has more to do with sexual identity of the whole
person. A penis or vagina does not identify the sexuality of a person, it just
identifies, usually, the sex of a person. One would think that this is a hard
science, this identifying the sex of a person’s genitals. It is not. In fact
there are cases where genitalia is ambiguous. What to do then? It is at this
point, thanks to our considerate definition of gender, that gender in its
complexity can help us answer this question. Then the three main features of
one’s gender can help us in time identify the gender of the person even if
their genitalia remains puzzling.
Another way to define sex is the following, by Dr. Neil
K. Kaneshiro (2013), writing for Medline Plus:
The
genetic sex of a child is determined at conception. The mother's egg cell
(ovum) contains an Xchromosome,
while the father's sperm cell contains either an X or a Y chromosome. These X
and Y chromosomes determine the child's genetic sex (2013, p. 1)
So,
in addition to genital identification, which as we shall see is not a hard
science, there exists a concept of genetic sex, having the XX or XY
chromoasone. In this article we will call this genetic sex. Now, one
might think that genetic sex is the real sex of the organism.
Unfortunately, the genetic sex may not match the genitalia or the gender of the
person as it develops in life. So, ultimately it doesn’t necessarily help clear
up the waters of the debate-it just adds another complex dynamic to the overall
picture.
Processes Involved
The second debate is: What makes a man a man and a woman a woman?
What processes or forces are involved in sexing what started out as just a one
celled organism. When does the sexing take place? Can it be changed? Is there a
degree of error in the biological sexing of a person? Can nature get it wrong
such that science needs to step in and change the sex of a person, or alter
them physically so that there is biological and social agreement about one’s
sex and gender within their body system? Is gender a social construct that
weighs in after an organism has received sexual organs? If there is a conflict
between what has developed genetically and physically, and a person’s
inclinations toward social gender, which is more important?
Unfortunately, genetic sex does not ensure clear distinctions
between sexes or genders. Take for instance this quote from Kaneshiro (2013):
If
the process that causes this fetal tissue to become "male" or
"female" is disrupted, ambiguous genitalia can develop. The genitalia
makes it difficult to easily identify the infant as male or female. The extent
of the ambiguity varies. In very rare instances, the physical appearance may be
fully developed as the opposite of the genetic sex. For example, a genetic male
may have developed the appearance of a normal female (2013, p. 1).
So the answer to all the
yes or no questions listed above in this section is yes. Yes, the sex can
change from the genetic sex, to the genitalia sex, to the gender. Yes, this
process is imperfect and variable. Yes, there is conflict between all these
states, and they are all subject to change over a lifetime, or from the time of
conception to birth. And in terms of what kind of variations one sees in the shape,
size, nature and substance of genetalia, regardless of the genetic sex, there
is not room in this paper to even begin to describe all these variations. Let’s
just say that if you can imagine it, it exists. Penises that look like vaginas,
penises that also have vaginas, vaginas that have penises and everything in
between or outside the box. Literally speaking, there is no telling.
The processes involved in the development from genes to
genetalia are physical, biological of course, lending themselves to be
explained best by evolutionary psychology. But some of the problem of confusion
may lie in the fact that genetalia from both sexes is made of the same tissue
(Kaneshiro, 2013, p. 1). So if there are disturbances or fluctuating
circumstances environmentally while genitals are forming there may be variance
in the shape and nature of the genitals. There also may be genetic reasons why
the genitals develop the way they do (Kaneshiro, 2013, p.1 ) It could
even be argued that evolution is purposely generating these variations for
moderation and stabilization of gender based dichotomies which are
problematic in society. But, once a child is born, and they enter the
environment of the world, gender begins to manifest itself in different ways
that may disagree with the genes and genitalia.
Social forces enter the picture as processes involved as well.
According to Peterson and Hyde (2010):
Both cognitive social
learning theory and social structural theory propose that these differences
[between the sexes] may be moderated by additional variables such as secular
trends (as indexed by year of publication), cultural attitudes toward gender
empowerment, and ethnocultural differences in sex roles (p. 24).
The timing of these
gender stereotyped behaviors is important to note, as it does not seem to be
instant upon birth, but long enough after birth to provide plausibility that
the behavior is learned socially. As Goldberg, Kashy and Smith (2012) show, “As
prior research has established, children construct understandings of gender as
early as 18 months” (p. 514). This establishes that environment is shaping
gender identity. Who are the influences that affect this process? Goldberg,
Kashy and Smht (2012) answer this question as well. “According to social
learning theory, parents participate in children’s gender socialization by
differentially reinforcing the behavior of boys and girls (e.g., rewarding
gender stereotyped behavior and punishing gender atypical behavior”(p. 505).
Thus it is well established from multiple disciplines that environment has a
great impact on shaping the gender of a child.
The Syncretization of Multiple Disciplines
The third debate is: What does the research show on the
first two issues? This must also be a subject for debate because results of
tests and research are interpretive. There must be a major survey taken of all
we know about the subject so far. All studies need to be brought together and
examined in an atmosphere of fierce scientific scrutiny with bias laid aside as
much as humanly possible. Thankfully, we have such research, created by
Peterson and Hyde. What was their conclusion after raking through thousands of
studies on the subject? As to be expected, they did not discount any of the
major theories out there (evolutionary psychology, cognitive social learning
theory and social structural theory). In fact they even coined their own
hypothesis, “The Gender Similarities Hypothesis.” Their comment on the causal
element that these major theories put forth is, “In general the theories
presented here are not mutually exclusive. Evolutionary Psychology, Cognitive
Social Learning Theory, social structural theory and even the gender
similarities hypothesis all agree that gender differences are evident for some
measures of sexuality” (Peterson & Hyde, 2010, p. 24). It would seem then
that these different theories have different ways of explaining and different
stories about how gender is developed, but they all agree that there are gender
differences. It would be up to the individual to decide how important these
differences are, or like Peterson and hyde themselves, take the perspective
that we are more the same than different.
Does it Matter?
The last topic for debate is: Does it matter how and why
we got where we are as gendered and sexed beings? All the disciplines have
their stories, and they have different methods scientifically of arriving at
their data. If the data is helpful to us as humans in opening discourse,
understanding and compassion, then we need not quibble over definitions. It
seems that for every article written supporting a certain view or theory, there
is an article criticizing it from a different camp or theory. Sometimes a
theory needs to be critiqued because it is wrong. But other times it seems that
scientists get caught up in useless details that miss the big picture. As an
example, take this quote:
The methodology of
many of the studies included in the reviewed meta-analyses may have attenuated
the display of evolved gender differences, for participants were removed from
contexts in which the display of evolved gender differences is likely to be
greatest.
Wow! Hyde and Peterson
may have attenuated the display of evolved gender differences! And this
provoked the writing and publishing of a whole separate article just on this
point. It comes off almost as a toddler stamping his feet and throwing a temper
tantrum. How dare they minimize our theory! How dare they attenuate differences
that we say should be there but the data shows are not there! What did they
want Hyde and Peterson to do? Make up data that they didn’t find just so this
guy’s emotionally attached theory, religiously adhered to it seems, is more
supported? This just underscores a waste of time in some of these scholarly
articles. The Hyde study was extremely helpful and it was honestly conducted,
with an obvious slant towards wanting to fulfill a prediction that we are more
alike sexually than different, but I forgive them that bias since I agree that
it is a helpful and healthy way to look at gender.
Conclusion
The debate about gender isn’t much of a debate. I think
we have arrived at a concensus, or as close to one as can be expected, among
scholars and scientists. We have evolved, gender and sex has evolved and gender
and sex continue to be shaped after the affect of genes by society. A genetic
force is not more important than a social one. And physical maleness or
femaleness is not in the end necessarily male or female. We live in a spectrum
between absolute male and absolute female. People are along every point on the
spectrum and there is no border between male and female, it all just merges
together. No one is totally male and no one is totally female. One would be a
psychopath if that were true. I believe that social and nurturing forces, in
the end need to be given a greater importance since they provide evidence that
we can observe. Evolution takes place over so much time that we cannot witness
it, and only a very few people on the planet truly understand genetics that its
findings lack explanatory power. I can observe my mother buying me trucks and
swords and my father modeling what it means to be a man. I cannot even have a conversation
about evolution past a very entry level point because I am not sufficiently
educated in the subject yet. And this is true of most people. We live in a
social world that common people can understand. Family dynamics, play in the
school yard. And most people are satisfied by the explanation that we learn our
behavior from other people. Evolution is an interesting story, but not a better
one than the ones provided by social observation.
References
Kirkpatrick, M. (2003).
The nature and nurture of gender. Psychoanalytic Inquiry. Los
d98a776f6892%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=110
Kaneshiro,
N. (2013). Zieve, D., Black, B., Slon, S., & Wang, N. (Eds.). Ambiguous
genitalia.
Medline Plus. Retreived from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003269.htm
