I've been thinking quite a bit about gender this semester. The first real discussion I had concerning the topic was this summer in DC. It has been simmering in the back of my mind almost this entire semester, and it has forced itself back to the front of my mind due to the discussion of feminist theory and queer theory in the Literary Criticism class.
In this class, we were shown the movie Orlando, in which the main character lives for four hundred years and changes from a male to a female halfway through. Watching this movie, I realized that I absolutely had to decide and express my feelings on the issue of gender.
To begin with, though, I need to address the issue of sex. What makes a man a man, and what makes a woman a woman? How does one make the distinction?
The usual response to this question is completely biological. What body parts does a person have? If the person in question has the specific male parts of the body, he is a male. If the person has the specific female parts of the body, she is a female. This seems like the best definition that can be offered of the sexes. It even includes genetics.
However, genetics can not provide an iron-clad definition. The sex of a child is not determined immediately upon conception. Additionally, how does one classify a hermaphrodite? They do exist, after all.
With that acknowledged, let's just continue to use the defintion of male and female that examines genetic code. It isn't perfect, but it may be the best definition we have. Genetics is also what influence levels of hormones, etc., that influence behavior.
It is from this behavior that the ideas of "gender" and "gender roles" have developed. Presumably, observation of human behavior has led to the conclusion (among some) that the female sex should embrace certain roles while the male sex should embrace others. This, supposedly, allows each sex to reach its maximum potential and, in turn, happiness.
The big problem I have, though, is determining how much of human behavior is truly natural and how much is a result of societal pressure on both sexes. Do young girls want dolls and baby-like toys because their maternal instinct is already revealing itself, or do they want them because these things are given to them almost since birth and then heavily marketed towards them? Do young boys want action figures and cars and toy guns because of their supposed aggressive nature, or is that desire the result of the assumption of society that young boys are going to want those things?
This vaguely resembles the question about the chicken and the egg. Like with that issue, I do not believe the truth belongs to either extreme. I believe that most girls do want to nurture a family, but I strongly doubt that desire manifests itself before even grade school. The media propagation of that role causes it be both accepted and expected, and it causes the supposed desire to be amplified almost to the point of ridicule. The same thing happens to boys.
Those who fit into the expected roles for men are praised by society. The heroic males in films and in real life represent what society as a whole expects men to be. He must be "masculine," which means he must be strong, muscular, brave, quick-thinking, virile, strong-willed, etc. Those who do not fit these categories traditionally fall into villainous roles.
The traditional females were treated similarly by society until recently, and it now appears almost to despise the traditional role of women. In my eyes, this attitude is as ridiculously wrong as the attitude toward men.
I had a sister. As we were growing up, I was told that I was not allowed to hit a girl. Naturally, I asked why I could not hit girls but they were allowed to hit me. The answer, of course, was because they are girls. The natural implication is that women are weaker physically than men, and, as long as one only speaks generally, this is true. When one begins to examine specifics, however, this stereotype quickly unravels. I've known quite a few females my age that were much stronger than myself. As such, I rejected the idea of not hitting a female because I rejected its reasoning. For the record, though, my personal belief of avoiding violence as much as possible kept me from hitting girls anyway.
I believe that it was this early and obvious discontinuity between what I was being told and what I was seeing that eventually led me to my current belief about gender. Specifically, I do not believe in it. I don't believe that the terms "male" and "female" have any meaning outside of the purely biological. The psychological and sociological meanings behind gender are entirely man-made.
This belief that there is no "male" or "female" in reality outside of the biological sense directly relates to my own beliefs regarding homosexual relationships. I don't see two men or two women. I see two people. In this regard, it is the same as a heterosexual relationship.
I'm not expecting many people who read this to agree with me. I am, in fact, expecting a lot of disagreement and possibly some confusion. Let me assure you, though, that this all makes perfect sense inside my head.
Posted by Randy at December 9, 2005 07:29 PM | TrackBack"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Genesis 1:27
"He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created." Genesis 5:2
"Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (D)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?"
Matthew 19:3-5
Congratulations. You can cite Bible verses.
Would you like to make an argument now?
Posted by: Randy at December 10, 2005 12:35 PM** sigh ** Randy, don't be such an intellectual jack-ass! You know that KD is a Christian, and as a Christian he believes that The Bible is the source of ultimate truth. Therefore, by quoting The Bible he provided a pretty convincing argument given his worldview. First he quotes Old Testament scripture, and then quotes Jesus quoting the same scripture in the New Testament, in order to confirm its authority. I think maybe part of the problem you two have is that KD is attempting to argue between two Christians, whereas you want to rob him of all the authority his worldview based upon. With that said I'd like to present C.S. Lewis' view on gender, which in turn is based upon the ancient mythological view of gender. This is from the book Perelandra, when the main character Ransom encounters two spiritual beings:
Both bodies were naked, and both were free from any sexual characteristics, either primary or secondary. That, one would have would have expected. But whence came this curious difference between them? He found that he could point to no single feature wherein the difference resided, yet it was impossible to ignore... At all events what Ransom saw at that moment was the real meaning of gender... Ransom has cured me of believing that this is a purely morphological phenomenon, depending on the form of the word. Still less is gender an imaginative extension of sex. Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply one of the things that have feminine gender; there are many others, and Masculine and Feminine meet us on planes of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless. Masculine is not attenuated male, nor feminine attenuated female. On the contrary, the male and female of organic creatures are rather faint and blurred reflections of masculine and feminine. Their reproductive functions, their differences in strength and size, partly exhibit, but partly also confuse and misrepresent, the real polarity.
Lewis puts into words what I have mostly suspected, but have never really been able to articulate. For a Christian, it is important to note that the gender difference is something purposefully created by God. His first commandment to man is "be fruitful and multiply." (Genesis 1:28 NAS), and in my mind this implies the traditional act of sexual reproduction. Hebrew law forbids homosexual relationships, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (Lev 18:22). Furthermore, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:16-19:29) are destroyed by God for their grave sins, one of which being homosexuality.
I believe that from a Christian stance, sex between two males is forbidden. This doesn't mean that men should not share a close relationship to each other, just that the act of sexual intercourse between them is a sin. We see between David and Jonathan such a relationship, and David was declared to be "a man after God's own heart." I see the act of sexual intercourse to represent more than just an act of pleasure; it is a uniting of the differences each gender possesses to create one complete being. The act of sexual intercourse is a symbolic act of the fulfilling relationship only a man and woman can share.
Actually, at least two of the verses he presented can hardly be said to support the point I think he was trying to make. Depending on the interpretation, in fact, I could argue they support my side. As such, I was not being an "intellectual jackass." I was pointing out that he did not actually say anything.
"Masculine is not attenuated male, nor feminine attenuated female."
If the above statement is true (and I believe it is), how can you argue that the different sexes represent a "fundamental polarity" between gender?
You say that the male and female sexes are "blurred reflections" of what I assume is the "real" male and female gender. It is this very "blurriness" which causes me to believe that gender identity is primarily a social construct.
Posted by: Randy at December 10, 2005 03:14 PMRandy, I know you. You are smarter then this. Rather then pose an argument using the same ideas the Bible portrays. I would like to cite a Bible verse. I know this may make you angry, but it is a much better argument then any man can create. God is much smarter then I.
The verses are Romans 1:18-32.
It reads: "
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitites--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather then the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retian the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what out not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteousnes decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Those verses were exactly what I wanted to say. I hope you take this as an encouragement and a correction of your ideas rather then an attack. Have an awesome day!
Posted by: Me at December 10, 2005 03:38 PMInteresting thoughts all around...
I would tend to agree with Randy that simply citing a Bible verse is bad form when discussing philosophical points such as the meaning of gender. Bible verses have their place, but so does _interpretation_.
That said, any thoughts regarding how the existance of the masculine and the feminine in languages other than English (e.g. Spanish, Latin, etc.) to describe inanimate objects serve to clarify (or muddy) things?
Perhaps we should take a less ethno-centric viewpoint on this and examine how issues of gender are handled by non-european (and by extension, non-USA) cultures?
Posted by: Gillis at December 10, 2005 09:48 PMI just kind of thought that, what with Randy identifying himself as a Christian, my citing of verses might illustrate my point using a common reference point. Codepainter articulated well what I would have said had I expounded. I cited verses only so that I could try to better avoid inflammatory words.
Posted by: Knight's Disciple at December 11, 2005 01:16 AMI wonder if you guys are really reading the verses and comments put down. If you would have read the Romans verse, you would've realized that wanting to look at other views or ideas is wrong. I assume both Mike and Randy are Christians and;therefore, should follow the Bible. Unless you would like to admit that you are dismissing the Bible as truth ( I assume you are not stupid and the answer is no), then there is no need to find "assurance" or "fun" in other ideas in such topic. I would find it best if this discussion was ended, and if one of you still thinks it would be wise to discuss such topics (if they have any doubt) and still considers the Bible truth, I suggest you take a look at verse Romans 1:22 and realize the foolishness and demise you wish to embrace.
Posted by: Me at December 11, 2005 10:28 AMThe nature vs. nurture debate has been going on for centuries (Descartes/Hobbes/Locke) and unlike the previous commenter, I don’t think that we’re all going to agree and blindly accept the Bible’s culturally biased views on sexuality.
If I am reading you correctly, you believe that God has “hard-wired” us with a gender and so “pretending” to be a female when you are male or being homosexual is a choice and ultimately a sin. Why would God have to limit Himself to encoding us with a gender? Who’s to say that God didn’t create a social structure for the development of genders that effectively mold who we are? Had we remained perfect (pre-fall-of-man), this social influence would have worked absolutely. But this was not the case, the fall happened, and resulting “corruption” ensued.
I create this argument to show that everything is not so simple and I believe we can gain from continuing this debate.
Crispy, for the record, I was discussing the difference between gender and sexuality. I was saying that we carefully examine what the concept of gender actually means (whether it be in animate or inanimate things), as this is a topic that is rarely talked about in the Bible (as opposed to sexuality, which is discussed often).
It is possible to examine all points of view on a topic in order to solidify your beliefs on said topic beyond just taking the Bible's word for it. Faith is not blind belief, it is trust in the unseen based on the claims and actions of something/someone unseen making sense when we look at the reality we know.
Posted by: Gillis at December 11, 2005 12:50 PMOkay, sweeping the reactionary fundie response into the margins for just a moment, I need clarification. I'm solidly behind you on the idea of gender as largely a social construct. I think you articulate some excellent points in that line.
Now, if I understand correctly, you are more or less reducing the essential difference between the sexes to pure biology, which makes sense. However, you immediately transition to the statement that, from the perspective that all men and women are merely people, any relationship between two people (whether heterosexual or homosexual) is fundamentally the same.
The question I have is this: When you speak of relationships, do you mean relationships of a sexual nature? If you don't, then you have a point (albeit a rather glaringly obvious one). Nonsexual relationships between men and men, women and women, and men and women, are fundamentally the same in that sense.
However, if you are speaking of a sexual relationship, I don't think what you are saying makes logical sense (morality aside). You say gender differences are biological. Sex, too, is biological. Therefore, a sexual relationship between a male and a female is fundamentally different from a sexual relationship between a male and a male or a female and a female.
So the real question is, does this difference mean that sex between males or between females is immoral?
Posted by: Blame Jared at December 11, 2005 05:03 PMi agree about the people primary, male/female secondary thing. i was edified by the verse (was it Hebrews?) Dr. Watson offered after Orlando--that God sees us all as children without gender distictions.
There's a book one of my psychology major friends read for a class that discusses a botched circumcision, where doctors decided to simply "make" a boy into a girl by raising him as a girl. The "girl" was rowdy, disinterested in dolls, always getting dirty. It's a tragic story, because the kid grew up confused and, alongside his identical twin brother, felt out of place all the time. He eventually found out, changed his name, had about a million more operations, and then married some kid and did ok.
It's an interesting illustration of how much more there is to gender than social expectations. Wish I could remember the title of it.
Annyway, have a happy new year.
Posted by: katy at December 25, 2005 07:34 PM