Gender: Social Construct or Biological Fact?

MOVING THROUGH CONFLICT
TO BUILD A HUMANE SOCIETY

In this article, we discuss the meaning of the word gender and how it has evolved over time to become both a helpful and divisive term. We appeal to each camp in this three-way war and offer suggestions to chart a way towards proactive conversations and humane solutions.

“A broken bone can heal, but the wound a word opens can fester forever” (Jessamyn West).

“Good words are worth much, and cost little” (George Herbert).

Battlelines Drawn

Fiery debates are all the rage at the moment, but that’s probably true of debates since the dawn of time—when the first humans argued over the merits of fire. That said, there is plenty of inflamed rage currently around the issue of gender and all its implications.

What’s at stake? The big picture is equality of rights for all. A more humane society. A worthy picture. A noble dream. Yet, if we continue raging, important issues are at risk of going up in smoke.

So, here’s how the fracas unfolds:

Camp B proclaims with gospel-certainty: “Gender is a social construct. It’s so obvious.” Dumbfounded at the statement, Camp A retorts with equal conviction, “Gender is biological. It’s a fact!”

Incensed at the claim, Camp B states their point in ever louder and bolder tones. Enraged, Camp A refuses to budge and returns fire with amplified gusto. Escalation.

A conversation can go no further if one camp is fundamentally right and the other camp fundamentally wrong, since the latter must be dumb and not worth listening to. All that’s left to do in such cases is burn the other down … and add fuel to the ever-polarising nature of modern society.

It’s an understatement to say that the two camps are talking at cross-purposes, but the irony is that, in most cases, both camps are right.

How can that be?

In such cases, both camps are defining gender differently. In a nutshell, Camp A is using ‘gender’ as a synonym for ‘biological sex’ while Camp B is not.

The Origin & Evolution of Words

Since the late fourteenth century, the word ‘sex’¹ referred to the state of being either male or female, a distinction that science has proved goes beyond genitalia … to genital ducts, gametes, gonads, and genes, the latter which is stored in 23 pairs of chromosomes—including the most fundamental distinction of all: XX and XY chromosomes.

By (as early as!) the fifteenth century, the word ‘gender’, technically meaning “kind, type or sort”², became a synonym for ‘sex’ as it avoided the connotation of copulation. Said bluntly, ‘gender’ meant “sex and I don’t mean intercourse”.

From the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, advocates of women’s rights started using the word ‘gender’ to refer to the social distinctions between male and female, specifically the distinctions based on social expectation or construction³. This usage has become mainstream today.

Notes & References

1 The term ‘sex’ comes from Old French sexe or Latin sexus, referring to the state of being either male or female.

² The term ‘gender’, meaning “kind, type, sort”, was originally a term to distinguish between biological sexes. It comes from the Latin genus, which refers to birth, and from which we get, via French, genre. It is related to the Greek Root gen- (to produce) appearing in gene and genesis. Initially, it was a sophisticated synonym for biological sex.

While the word ‘gender’ was used as a synonym for ‘sex’ since the fifteenth century, the usage was primarily regarded as colloquial or humorous. It only entered academia in the twentieth century and according to Google N-Gram, its usage exploded from around 1960.

³ The term ‘gender’ as distinct from ‘biological sex’ was used academically as early as 1945 in the American Journal of Psychology (Vol. 5, p. 228):

“In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.”

Initially, the feminist movement didn’t adopt the term consistently but by the early 1970s, the term was a centrepiece in feminist arguments.

Consistently Inconsistent?

Camp B is defining ‘gender’ by this more modern usage while Camp A is referring to the original meaning of the word.

Yet the conversation is tainted by other factors, too.

In non-human animal research, ‘gender’ continues to be commonly used to refer to the biological sex of an animal.
In academia, the two words are still used synonymously, but ‘gender’ is seemingly preferred for three reasons: “desires to signal sympathy with feminist goals, to use a more academic term, or to avoid the connotation of copulation.”⁴
In legal cases around the issue of alleged discrimination, the word ‘sex’ is usually preferred as it clearly makes biology the determining factor. In contrast, ‘gender’ can refer to socially constructed norms that are more open to interpretation and dispute.⁵

In other words, experts studying the animal kingdom use the terms synonymously and academics do so too but to a lesser degree. It remains a convenient synonym for biological sex and it’s used as such in everyday language more frequently than people realise. However, when our legal system finds it necessary to differentiate between the words, it shows we’re talking about an important distinction.

Bottom line? The word ‘gender’ means something different to different people (and indeed, in different contexts), and it’s easy to talk past each other until the definition mismatch is clarified.

Notes & References

⁴ Haig, David (2004). The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001 (PDF). Archives of Sexual Behavior. 33 (2): pp. 87–96.

⁵ Render, Meredith (2006). Misogyny, Androgyny, and Sexual Harassment: Sex Discrimination in a Gender-Deconstructed World. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender. Vol. 29(1) (Winter): pp. 99–150.

Can We Agree?

Based on popular usage, we can generally say that ‘sex’ refers to the biological differences between male and female while ‘gender’ refers to the social distinctions between male and female.

The World Health Organization makes this exact contrast:

“…‘sex’ refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women…”

“…‘gender’ refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.”⁶

Although a little pedantic, the phrases ‘biological sex’ and ‘gender expectations’ might be helpful in clarifying matters in conversation.

Notes & References

Enter Camp C!

Can we agree? Not yet.

Just when we thought progress was in the making, things heat up a little. As it turns out, there aren’t two camps involved … but a third.

Seemingly so recent that some of our dictionaries can’t keep up, a third Camp uses the term ‘gender’ in yet another way.

To Camp C, ‘gender’ refers to one’s personal sense of identity. Interestingly, this idea also had its academic roots in the 1950s, but it has only entered mainstream conversation in the last two decades⁷.

Camp C’s variation of the term is critical to understand if we hope to engage in a meaningful three-way conversation. Contrasting it with the first two variations is one way to grasp it.

While Camp A treats ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ as synonyms, Camp B separates the terms to ensure we understand the shaping influence of both biology and society upon an individual. For Camp B, ‘gender’ means a social construct imposed on people because of their biological sex. It’s essentially used to convey a negative idea.

However, Camp C now uses it positively to refer to their self-affirmed choice of identity, which is linked innately to the coding of one’s brain—we’re back to biology! Camp B’s ‘gender’ has nothing to do with biology, but Camp C’s certainly does (even though there is a strong agenda within a section of Camp C that attempt to deny biology altogether).

Is there any wonder we’re talking past each other!

Initially, many felt that feminists stole the word ‘gender’ in the 1970s. Now, many feminists feel robbed of the word, too.

Notes & References

⁷ The term ‘gender’ was first used to refer to identity in literature concerning what was then called ‘hermaphrodites’—what we refer to, more appropriately today, as ‘intersex’. The two most common proponents of using ‘gender’ in relation to identity are Robert Stoller, who was associated with the Gender Identity Clinic of UCLA in the 1950s, and John Money, the founder of the Gender Identity Clinic at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

It should be noted that both Stoller and Money held to the binary division of the sexes: male and female. The concept of alternative categories, including non-binary (queergender) and genderfluid, seems to be a modern import into the gender identity conversation, possibly through the influence of queer theory which emerged in the early 1990s.

As an aside and for sake of completeness, John Money’s reputation was severely damaged due to the John/Joan case and his views on paedophilia. Still, his work at Johns Hopkins Hospital has contributed to the conversation notably.

Holding Things Lightly

In light of all this, it’s tempting to make an argument for abandoning the word altogether. At the very least, not holding onto it so tightly would be helpful.

As pedantic as it may be, using qualifying terms, like the following, might also prove valuable:

Biological sex, referring specifically to sexes, male and female.
Gender expectations, which alludes to gender conditioning and a culture’s perception of masculinity and femininity.
Gender identity, which includes discussions around gender orientation and gender expression.

And thus, we can perhaps say:

Biological sex is not a social construction.
Gender expectations are a social construction.
Gender identity is not a social construction but is, in fact, a subset of biological sex.

Seeking a Way Forward

To recap, all three camps make sense within their own conversational circles but in coming together, they talk at cross-purposes. Until we venture outside our own social echo chamber and recognise the varied ways people use the term ‘gender’, a constructive, collective conversation is impossible.

Camp A would do well to accept the use of the modern variations since words evolve over time. Always have, always will. There’s simply no point in denying the academic efforts made by so many over the past 50-70 years, especially when our legal system finds it prudent to do so. Camp A might find value in suggesting a new, better term for “sex and I don’t mean intercourse” or simply use the phrase ‘biological sex’ or the word ‘sexes’ instead to make sure they’re understood.

Camp B would do well to acknowledge that they use ‘gender’ in a more modern way and clarify that they’re not denying biological sex. Using creative ways to emphasise the negative aspects of social conditioning would certainly be helpful. They might also appreciate Camp C’s need for a term on which to stand, as indeed they once did. In other words, like Camp A, they may need to hold the term more loosely.

Camp C would do well to appreciate the efforts of Camp B and respect the biological distinction of male and female to which most human beings identify—even as they seek reciprocity of respect in return and the freedom to identify beyond the binary framework.

Armed with painful lessons of the past, both Camp A and Camp B should seek to be supportive of and compassionate to Camp C, even though, admittedly, the discussions required are not without their challenges.

Above all, let’s keep the prize in mind: equality of rights for all. Female. Male. And those outside the binary dimorphism. Yes, a more humane society is the goal. For this noble vision, a reasonable, rational conversation is paramount.

Now, of course, anyone who has witnessed or participated in a debate around sex and gender will know that all that’s been said to this point gives all three camps a huge slice of the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, there are extremists in each camp that seem bent on keeping the discourse irrational and incendiary.

For this reason, let’s consider a plea to each camp.

A Plea to Each Camp

Of course, there are extremists in Camp A who deny any hint of gender construction. There are extremists in Camp B who deny the differences between women and men. And there are extremists in Camp C who are bent on denying biological sex itself. These extreme types only serve to inflame the matter.

It behoves the level-headed, reasonable people in Camp A, B and C to engage in the discussion in a respectful and constructive manner from the basis of understanding the various definitions. The goal? To foster understanding and compassion, and to seek answers and solutions for the prize of a more humane society. Doing so will also flush out the extremists and their agendas, exposing their self-centred and nefarious purposes.

An Appeal to Camp A

If you identify with Camp A, you may well be reacting to Camp B and C extreme types. You may feel the need to defend the validity of biological sex and the differences between male and female against those who seem anxious to tear both apart.

You may even fear that ideologically driven Camp B and C extremists are set on whole-scale social engineering. And you may feel compelled to protect the good and wholesome facets of our society, those things we have inherited from our forebears that make this generation the most prosperous in human history. You may also feel the need to advocate for free speech in a world that has taken political correctness to excessive levels.

Continue reading...
Feelings of fear are understandable and a desire to preserve and protect that which is good and wholesome in our society is certainly valid.

However, you must also be honest with yourself. Fear can cloud your judgement and close your ears to the value that others bring to the conversation. And in the name of preserving rights and traditions (or values), people have done very stupid things.

You see, if our position is one of reaction against [something], we cannot contribute to a healthy solution. We must adopt the position of responding to the problems of our day. In this case, the problem is broadly speaking, societal inequality and caring for all minorities. Responding to this problem in the hope of finding humane solutions requires listening to the collective counsel of all, as we keep the big picture in mind: a more humane future.

To do this, we would do well to take a moment to consider the extremists in our own camp.

Camp A Extremist Views

The most notorious Camp A extremists deny all social inequality and injustice from their privileged place in the system. They are wilfully ignorant and unrepentantly prejudiced. They block their ears to those who feel marginalised and oppressed because they have a vested interest in the systemic status quo, whatever that might be. They paint all of Camp B and C as the enemy in broad condemning strokes and often decry the end of civilisation. They are in every way like the despicable new social engineers they fear. How? While they may not deliberately attempt to socially engineer a new generation, they knowingly uphold the systematic injustices of our current society shaped as it was by the social engineers (or social conditioners) of the past.

Less notorious Camp A extremists may not be wilful in their ignorance and prejudice, but they remain blind to their personal bias. Driven by fear or control, they refuse to accept that ignorance or prejudice lie at the root. In the name of protecting society’s wholesome traditions, they cannot see when they are, in fact, only defending a privileged position—one often inherited from a past act of discrimination or injustice that keeps others from a more humane present.

So, what precisely is Camp A’s ideological agenda?

Fear and control. The fear of change and the fear of losing control results in a hankering for the good old days—oblivious to the fact that the good old days were terrible days for the vast majority of humanity.

What can you do?

You can and should appeal to Camp A extremists but be careful, you may be tarnished with the same brush that they use to smear all their foes. Perhaps the only way forward, after making your appeal, is to distance yourself from their position and engage with the many seeking solutions for a more humane future.

Is our current society free of injustice and inequality? We may have made progress, but it remains fraught with injustice. And to the degree that it is, to this degree there are those who are valid victims of it (even if it is true that ‘victim culture’ itself is contrary to a healthy society).

So, assuming you distance yourself from these Camp A extremists, the answer is to lay aside reactionary impulses, to respond with kindness, and to listen to what the other side has to say. Only then can we find solutions together.

What Can You Do?
1. In a commitment to listen to the other sides of this discussion, read the appeal to the other camps in an attempt to understand what frustrates them.
2. Then move on to the Thoughts & Practises: Seeking Humane Solutions section that concludes this article.
3. Finally, if you’re a man, think about your daughter. If you don’t have a daughter, put yourself in the shoes of a close friend who does. Does your daughter, or your friend’s daughter, have every opportunity to succeed in a fair and equitable society and to reasonably expect to be treated based solely on her competence?

An Appeal to Camp B

If you identify with Camp B, you may well be reacting to systemic inequality and societal injustice, specifically that which keeps women from enjoying the same rights and opportunities that men enjoy. The ignorance of those who defend the status quo irritates you and you get mad when they wilfully deny any hint of bias or inequality. You may also feel compelled to fight for those oppressed and see yourself as an advocate on their behalf.

Continue reading...
Ire and indignation are understandable and there few more noble motives than advocating for the oppressed.

However, you must also be honest with yourself. Ire and indignation can cloud your judgement and block your ears to the value that others bring to the discussion. And in the name of justice, people have done very stupid things.

You see, if our position is one of reaction against [something], we cannot contribute to a healthy solution. We must take the position of responding to the problems of our day. In this case, the problem is broadly speaking, societal inequality and caring for all minorities. Responding to this problem in the hope of finding humane solutions requires listening to the collective counsel of all, as we keep the big picture in mind: a more humane future.

To do this, we would do well to take a moment to consider the extremists in our own camp.

Camp B Extremist Views

The most notorious Camp B extremists seek a world in which every male-child must suffer perpetually for centuries of chauvinism. Blinded by retribution, they use the present moral high ground to demand instant payback. For them, tearing apart even the good in society is acceptable collateral damage. Social engineering is justified to not only rectify the past but to shape their preferred future—a matriarchal hierarchy to which they feel entitled.

Less notorious Camp B extremists may not be vindictive and vengeful, but they remain blind to their personal bias. Driven by resentment, they cannot see that they have the opportunity to affect the most positive and lasting change in our world today. Yes, those enjoying the present moral high ground are the ones most able to guide the current raging conflict into a more reasonable constructive conversation. Yes, Camp B has a singular opportunity to lead both Camp A and C into a more humane future—but they’ll only continue to enjoy the present moral high ground if they use it wisely. Abuse of this advantage changes the landscape quickly as swings in oppressor-oppressed positions occur when least expected.

So, what precisely is Camp B’s ideological agenda?

Anger and retribution. Incensed by societal inequality results in a failure to discern that the tide has turned in their favour and a shortsightedness to wisely use that favour to forge a more humane future for all—rather than just revelling in a victory party.

What can you do?

You can and should appeal to Camp B extremists but be careful, you may be easily misunderstood. Logic and goodwill don’t necessarily appeal to those bent on burning the world down. Perhaps the only way forward, after making your appeal, is to distance yourself from their position and engage with the many seeking solutions for a more humane future.

What Can You Do?
1. In a commitment to listen to the other sides of this discussion, read the appeal to the other camps in an attempt to understand what frustrates them.
2. Then move on to the Thoughts & Practises: Seeking Humane Solutions section that concludes this article.
3. Finally, if you’re a woman, think about your son. If you don’t have a son, put yourself in the shoes of a close friend who does. As we champion women’s rights, how do we do so in a way that your son, or your friend’s son, joins our humane quest without shouldering a crippling sense of false guilt?

An Appeal to Camp C

If you identify with Camp C, you may well be reacting to systemic prejudice and societal ignorance, specifically that which makes it extremely hard for those suffering through gender dysphoria to process their personal struggle in safe and humanising ways. The widespread ignorance of those who remain blind to this struggle and the lack of respect and support available to those suffering makes you both frustrated and angry.

You may also feel overwhelmed by compassion for those experiencing gender dysphoria and adopt the stance as an advocator on their behalf. Or you may well be battling dysphoria yourself and be in valid need of acceptance and understanding.

Continue reading...
Frustration and anger are understandable and there few more noble motives than compassion for those in need and those marginalised.

However, you must also be honest with yourself. Frustration and anger can cloud your judgement and block your ears to the value that others bring to the discussion. And in the name of compassion (and desperation), people have done very stupid things.

You see, if our position is one of reaction against [something], we cannot contribute to a healthy solution. We must take the position of responding to the problems of our day. In this case, the problem is broadly speaking, societal inequality and caring for all minorities. Responding to this problem in the hope of finding humane solutions requires listening to the collective counsel of all, as we keep the big picture in mind: a more humane future.

To do this, we would do well to take a moment to consider the extremists in our own camp.

Camp C Extremist Views

The most notorious Camp C extremists seek to profit off a suffering minority by exploiting the new, lucrative lifestyle and medical market created by the prevailing trend they’ve helped to foster. Yes, this new ‘gender identity’ market is worth millions of dollars already. Blinded by greed, they ride the moral high ground largely earned by Camp B to push their new doctrine on sexuality. Armed further by a political correctness that’s gone mad, they seem bent on an experimental social engineering that flies in the face of biological science—an experiment that is certain to have dire consequences for many of those presently suffering from dysphoria. Yes, the very people that these Camp C extremists claim to advocate for are the ones most likely to be exploited. That’s right, the victims of this ideology are children and minors. And rich individuals, organisations and pharmaceutical companies are those profiting most.

Less notorious Camp C extremists are not be profiting from this new market, but they remain blind to the political agendas driving this ideology. Driven by a sense of indignation for those marginalised, they cannot see that this new doctrine on sexuality is not only a biological contradiction, but it seeks to swing a sledgehammer at a scientific framework to which the vast majority of the human race identify. This is not only reverse prejudice but incredibly shortsighted—the quickest way to lose any favourable high ground is to abuse it.

So, what precisely is Camp C’s ideological agenda?

Power and control. In the name of compassion for those suffering with dysphoria, Camp C extremists are capitalising on this blossoming market and exploiting this moment for political gain to win the culture war and achieve nothing less than social engineering.

What can you do?

You can and should appeal to Camp C extremists but be beware, you may quickly become a target, too. Questions and appeals are easily interpreted as discriminatory or even hate speech. Perhaps the only way forward, after making your appeal, is to distance yourself from their position and engage with the many seeking solutions for a more humane future.

What Can You Do?
1. In a commitment to listen to the other sides of this discussion, read the appeal to the other camps in an attempt to understand what frustrates them.
2. Then move on to the Thoughts & Practises: Seeking Humane Solutions section that concludes this article.
3. Finally, if you’re advocating for those suffering through gender dysphoria, remember that amping up the spotlight on their struggle isn’t helpful or healthy. These precious minors and children need acceptance, understanding and a listening ear—not activists using their plight as a soapbox for propaganda.

Thoughts & Practises: Seeking Humane Solutions

Below you’ll find a number of helpful thoughts for navigating through the war-torn landscape of countless heated debates and innumerable inflamed arguments.

It is by no means an exhaustive list and you’ll find some points more relevant to you than others. In fact, some of the points are specifically applicable to each of the three Camps. As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t fit, at least you might better understand the path others tread.

Each practice is preceded by a humane action, as a better future is only possible in the context of humane attitudes and commonsense solutions. Then click on the Explanation tab for more information.

Practise patience:

Action

Action
Explanation

Use empathetic listening to understand all sides of the discussion.

Listen, truly listen. Yes, this has been said a few times already, but it can’t be said enough.

One of Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is “seek first to understand, then to be understood”. Said another way, listen to hear before trying to be heard. It is the first step towards promoting a healthy discussion and finding humane solutions.

One method of seeking to understand another’s point of view is to visually place yourself in their position. This requires actively imagining yourself living their life, walking through their challenges and facing their struggles—armed only with their resources and constrained by their limitations. Don’t rush the experience. Imagine, feel, think.

A second method involves your approach to statistics. When you read a statistic, especially one that defines a minority group, personalise the stat. If you learn that 3% of people have green ears, to use a silly example, don’t write it off as an inconsequentially tiny fraction of the human race. Rather, imagine one of your loved ones is included in that number. Then consider what your loved one might endure as a person with green ears and ask yourself: What does a humane response entail to help him or her? What would I hope from others in support of him or her?

Practise clarity:

Action

Action
Explanation

Define how you use the word gender at any given time.

In everyday use, people tend to use gender as a synonym for biological sex more often than they realise, as it remains a useful term for this purpose. However, in discussions around human rights, it’s important to think about how we use the term and to clarify our intent regularly.

The practise can get tiresome, but it is worth it. Alternatively, using other synonymous terms such as the following may be helpful…

Biological sex = sexes
Gender conditioning = gender expectations = masculinity and femininity
Gender identity = gender orientation = gender expression

Practise reflection:

Action

Action
Explanation

Fully appreciate the resentment created by a societal construct that has favoured men for 5,000 years.

The term patriarchy is used to describe a societal system wherein men hold primary positions of power and therefore predominate in roles of moral authority, social privilege, political and corporate leadership, and in the control of property. The concept was developed by advocates for women’s rights in order to explain male dominance as a social construct as opposed to a biological phenomenon.

The phrase does not sit well with others who feel that it’s an oversimplification of the matter and a careless epithet that tends to lay the blame solely on men.

However, understanding patriarchy’s origin might help to better appreciate the validity of the term, and remove the finger-pointing sometimes implied.

Historically, it seems that around 3100 BC, technological progress in domestication and agriculture changed what had been a largely egalitarian relationship between men and women into one that favoured natural strength. Man’s physical strength meant they were most equipped to assume roles associated with leadership. Women, being more concerned with the raising of young, would in turn prefer men who could control more resources to support her and her offspring. Thus, a functional hierarchy emerged in response to need, and it appears that men’s natural physical strength and women’s reasonable child-rearing concerns combined to sustain it. In other words, in times past, men and women together formed a tacit agreement that served their needs at the time.

It goes without saying that physical strength is no longer a factor determining our survival or progress today. However, the reason a patriarchy continues to exist when it should no longer be necessary, is because this once functional hierarchy was corrupted. How?

To make sense of (and justify) this new societal shift in which men were dominant and women were subordinate, sociological constructions such as societal roles and expectations were formed by society’s philosophers and power brokers—influential men who had the most to gain and to lose. Passed down from one generation to the next, these constructions became entrenched societal norms. As such, they are deeply resistant to change unless we confront them with wisdom and resolve.

Pointing the finger achieves little but when people deny the societal dysfunction and the ongoing systemic inequalities, it’s understandably hard not to become frustrated.

As men, we need to take the time to fully appreciate how much society has favoured us and acknowledge the concept of patriarchy. This isn’t about assuming blame.

And it’s not about false guilt. Both are self-defeating and unhelpful.

This is about taking responsibility.

But it’s also important to take such responsibility with humility and wisdom. Bravado and bluster are not the way forward.

This is not about donning our armour and saving the maiden in distress. That mare has already bolted. We’re at least 150 years too late.

The maiden has smashed her own shackles and slain the dragon herself.

All we can do is apologise for sleeping on our post, acknowledge her courage and going forward, champion equality of opportunity for women in society. And wherever we have influence.

For more information (and a wealth of references) on the concept of patriarchy, see Human Hierarchy & Human Rights.

Practise impartiality:

Action

Action
Explanation

Understand how masculinity and femininity exist on a range along both the male spectrum and female spectrum.

Masculinity and femininity are very much part of gender constructionism. Femininity is behaviour that society considers typically womanly or girlish, and masculinity is behaviour that society deems typically manly or boyish. This is a widely accepted truism. For instance, in their article, What Do We Mean by ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender’?, the World Health Organization defines ‘male’ and ‘female’ as biological sex categories, and ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ as gender categories.

As an example, society might view assertiveness as masculine and gentleness as feminine, and then ascribe different expectations accordingly. Of course, some men are more gentle and some women are more assertive. Plus, a host of other factors complicate the matter such as physical size, mannerisms, personality temperaments, and the like—and it varies from culture to culture, too. Take for example, a small-built man. He might be more bookish and introverted by nature, and therefore appear more feminine than the stereotypical, rugged, manly football player.

The fact is, while some men are highly masculine, or manly, and some are more feminine, most are on a range between those two poles. The same is true for women: some women are highly feminine, or girly, some are more masculine, but most are on a range between those two extremes. Thus, masculinity and femininity, as gender not biological categories, occur as a range on both the male spectrum and the female spectrum. We could view it as follows…

Femininity Masculinity on the Female Spectrum, A Better Future Now

Femininity Masculinity on the Male Spectrum, A Better Future Now

Sadly, those who are closer to the extremes, specifically those on the ‘wrong end’ of their respective spectrum—the masculine woman or the feminine man—are often subject to ridicule and ostracism.

Understanding that masculinity and femininity are gender constructs and viewing them as ranges on both the spectrum of men and women helps us practice impartiality and acceptance. The feminine male is no less male than the manly man and the masculine women is no less female than the girly woman.

This is a good example of how gender as a social construct can assist us in accepting others free of our socialised biases.

Practise judiciousness:

Action

Action
Explanation

Avoid scratching out the differences between women and men.

While masculinity and femininity are social constructs (or gender categories) and exist as a range on each spectrum of male and female, many are attempting to scratch out the fundamental biological differences between male and female. Who and why?

Firstly, some are perhaps getting their words and definitions muddled, confusing the concept of gender categories of masculinity and femininity with the biological distinction between male and female. In other words, they’ve failed to understand the diagrams above (in Practice impartiality.)

Here’s an example. In an otherwise valid and heart-tugging article, Human Rights Watch horribly confuses the masculine-feminine range on each spectrum of male and female (a gender construct) with biological sex in this hopelessly uninformed (or irresponsible) statement:

“Biology classes often oversimplify a fundamental reality. We are taught that sex is dimorphic: simply male or female. But sex, in reality, is a spectrum—with the majority of humans appearing to exist at one end or the other.”

What they’re effectively doing might be viewed as follows…

Scratching out the Differences Between Female and Male

Secondly, there are darker elements of society engaged in what amounts to no less than radical social engineering. In Who are the Rich, White Men Institutionalizing Transgender Ideology?, Jennifer Bilek asks and answers the question, “Is this really a civil rights issue for a tiny part of the population with body dysphoria, or is there a bigger agenda with moneyed interests that we are not seeing?”

Firstly, it’s important to state that men and woman have far more in common than we don’t. Books like Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus badly exaggerated our differences and serve only to reinforce gender stereotypes. That said, equal doesn’t mean same. Our differences complement and complete each other and should be cherished and celebrated. After all, if we’re both the same—one of us isn’t necessary.

So, what are the differences (other than genitalia and reproductive equipment)?

The differences between women and men are evident in physiology, including genetics and in differences in the brain, in medicine (some diseases occur only in people of one sex) and in psychology. Take genetics for example. In a well-cited study entitled, The Landscape of Sex-differential Transcriptome and its Consequent Selection in Human Adults, researchers from the Weizmann Institute’s Molecular Genetics Department “identified 1,559 sex-specific and moderately sex-specific genes” from just 53 tissues that are similar to females and males. That’s an enormous number of differences at a gene level alone.

These differences translate organically into society. Interestingly, the biggest behavioural difference between men and women lie in our interests: women are generally more interested in people while men are generally more interested in things.

In Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests, Rong Su and James Rounds state, “Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests.” Again, these differences outwork naturally into society. For one, this has a telling influence on what vocations, careers and jobs men and women are likely to pursue.

You may also find the Psychology Today article, entitled The Truth About Sex Differences helpful. Vanessa Van Edwards’ article entitled, 6 Fascinating Gender Differences Between Men and Women in the Workplace is an interesting read on how some of these differences play out in the workplace.

Yes, social constructs exist and result in unhealthy stereotyping and unacceptable prejudice. However, it never did serve to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Our differences enrich our society. If one believes in the divine and that human beings are made in the image of the creator, then there’s something of both sexes, living and working together in harmony, that collectively reflects and represents the divine nature. We might go so far as to say that we cannot be fully human or humane without men and women being fully male and female respectively.

Smudging these differences not only flies in the face of biological science and the psychological literature, it’s tantamount to dangling a foot over the slippery slope of social engineering. Why?

To deliberately ignore the overwhelming scientific research and impose a fabricated ideology on the biological dimorphism upon which 98% of the human race operate, is not just moronic and arrogant, but tyrannical (see the basis for this statistic in Practice courage below). Furthermore, we have no idea of the personal and societal consequences of such a proposed experiment.

In the hard sciences, biological sex is a non-issue. It’s only in the social sciences and humanities that biological sex has come under severe scrutiny. Why? An ideological agenda. Only ideology of an almost religious fervour can blind one to fact and commonsense.

Yes, some are genuinely doing so in the name of misguided compassion. So driven to avoid discriminating against the transgender/intersex community, they’re willing to attack the dimorphic (and biological) framework to which the vast majority of human beings identify. Their compassion may be commendable, but their actions defy biological fact and amount to reverse prejudice.

Still others, the darker elements, are driven by economic gain and political power in the raging culture war. On the one hand, there’s huge money in this new lucrative medical and lifestyle market, and on the other hand, political activists peddle their doctrine in an attempt to win the culture war—on the backs of those genuinely suffering through dysphoria (mainly children and minors).

Whether the political activists are conscious of the ‘big business’ interests or not, they drive this politicised ideological agenda via blogs, YouTube, social media, merchandise, protests and even ‘educational resources’. Yes, educational resources such as the Genderbread Person, the Gender Unicorn and the Gender Elephant are all clearly aimed at primary school aged children. While created by different sources, they are evolving along the same lines. See Calvin Freiburger’s article Transgender Activists: ‘Gender Unicorn’ is passé; time for the ‘Gender Elephant’ for an excellent critique on how these resources have evolved to reflect the unfolding ideology.

For one, they use the politicised phrase “sex assigned at birth” to replace the concept of biological sex, attempting to redefine biological sex itself into a social construct—something negative, something to deconstruct.

In contrast, according to the American College of Pediatricians, “The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Sex chromosome pairs XY and XX are genetic determinants of sex, male and female, respectively. They are not genetic markers of a disordered body or birth defect. Human sexuality is binary by design with the purpose being the reproduction of our species. This principle is self-evident. Barring one of the rare disorders of sex development (DSD), no infant is ‘assigned’ a sex or a gender at birth.”

The answer is to support those suffering through dysphoria but not take a sledgehammer to the biological reality of male and female. Yes, it requires an open mind but not to the point our brains fall out.

Practise courage:

Action

Action
Explanation

Champion the needs of minorities with compassion and wisdom.

Pearl Buck, best known for her novel, The Good Earth (winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 1932), wrote: “the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.”

A humane society cares for and supports its minorities with compassion and wisdom. Both are important. Without compassion, we’re something less than humane—cold and calculating. Without wisdom, we’re also left with something less than humane—stupid and easily manipulated.

For example, if a white supremacist men’s group claims they’re being marginalised and emasculated, we ought to show compassion. It’s not hard to identify with those feelings. But—wisdom will dictate that we also call out their prejudiced attitudes and actions that beget the antipathy they experience in mainstream society.

When it comes to the transgender and intersex community, again, it’s not hard to at least appreciate the sense of alienation and marginalisation experienced—even if it is presumptuous to say one understands the suffering without experiencing it. And to be very clear, their struggle is an altogether different situation to a white supremacy group. (One is based on an inherent personal identity struggle; the other is founded on a racist choice of worldview. So why mention both in the same breath? To represent the wide range of diverse minority groups that test our society’s capacity to balance compassion and wisdom.)

However, let’s first try to understand the intersex/transgender context as best as possible.

What is Intersex?

According to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Intersex people are born with physical or biological sex characteristics (such as sexual anatomy, reproductive organs, hormonal patterns and/or chromosomal patterns) that do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies. For some intersex people these traits are apparent at birth, while for others they emerge later in life, often at puberty”.

[For a breakdown in the four categories of intersex, see here.]

How many people are born intersex?

In How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Synthesis, Melanie Blackless et al. surveyed the intersex research between 1955 and 2000 and suggest that those showing some form of intersex characteristics may be as high as 2%. The amount of people actually requiring any sort of ‘corrective’ genital surgery was 0.1 to 0.2%.

Dr. Leonard Sax, in his 2002 paper, pointed out that the cases included by Melanie Blackless et al. were far too broad—incorporating “conditions which most clinicians do not recognise as intersex”. Based on the research, he suggested that “the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%”—nowhere near the 2% claimed.

Intersex Human Rights Australia debate the subject and explain their reasons in an open and comprehensive manner. They conclude, “we recommend an upper bound figure of 1.7%, despite its flaws.”

Working on that number, roughly 1.7% of the human population may be born intersex. That’s one in 59 people. Given that there are approximately 7.7 billion people on planet earth, that equates to around 130,900,000 people born intersex around the globe.

In other words, while it’s a tiny percentage of the whole, it equates to a lot of real people who face a real predicament in falling outside of the biological dimorphism.

The questions to keep in mind are:

How would I support a loved one born intersex?
How would I want others to treat them?
Thus, what should my response be to all people born intersex?

Why worry about numbers?

Good question. The numbers aren’t the most important thing; what’s most important are the people behind the numbers. That said, the numbers are important because informed research is critical in any attempts to help people.

How does transgender relate to intersex?

The leading proponents of the intersex studies since the 1950s were Robert Stoller, who was associated with the Gender Identity Clinic of UCLA, and John Money, the founder of the Gender Identity Clinic at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Among others, they introduced the concept of ‘gender identity’; that is, one’s inner sense of herself or himself as female or male.

This language gives people experiencing acute distress about their biological sex (called dysphoria), a way to process how they’re feeling. Rather than subjecting themselves to intrusive medical exams to determine or confirm what they feel innately, phrases like ‘gender identity’ help dysphoria sufferers begin to find peace concerning their personal sense of identity.

The overwhelming majority of dysphoria sufferers are people who identify with a biological sex that’s opposite to their birth sex. For instance, biological females feel more comfortable in themselves as males, and vice versa. Hence, transgender refers to the transition from one biological sex to another.

In short, intersex and transgender are not the same.

Intersex is a rare exception to the biological sexes of male and female. Critically, intersex is not a contradiction to biological dimorphism; rather, it’s the proverbial exception that proves the rule.
Transgender people have a gender identity that does not correspond with their birth sex. Technically, trans means “across from” or “on the other side of”. The opposite of ‘transgender’ is ‘cisgender’, people who have a gender identity that corresponds with their birth sex (where cis, a Latin-derived prefix, means “on the side of”).

(See What does non-binary mean? below for more on binary and non-binary classifications.)

How many people suffer from dysphoria?

Dysphoria is acute distress experienced over one’s biological sex.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association, up to 0.003% of females and up to 0.014% of males are diagnosed with dysphoria. That’s 3 in 1,000 females and 14 in 1,000 males.

While dysphoria is typically experienced by transgender people, in Gender Dysphoria Associated with Disorders of Sex Development, a 2012 clinical review paper, Paulo Sampaio Furtado, et al. found that between 8.5% and 20% of people with intersex variations also experience gender dysphoria.

Without support, dysphoria can put vulnerable people at chronic risk. According to a study by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and The Williams Institute, transgender people are 41% more likely to attempt suicide compared to the national average of 4.6%.

With support, those suffering through dysphoria can be helped to navigate through the turbulence they experience. There is hope. According to the American College of Pediatricians, 80 percent to 95 percent of gender-dysphoric youth resolve their distress, emerging psychologically intact, after passing through puberty.

Unfortunately, there is a growing push to make hormone treatment and surgery readily available to those suffering from dysphoria. According to the American College of Pediatricians, cross-sex hormones pose multiple health risks, including harm to bone development and brain development, and can cause sterility. Given 80-95% of children experiencing gender dysphoria will accept their biological sex by late adolescence, the America College of Pediatricians claims that the hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria “effectively amounts to mass experimentation on, and sterilization of, youth who are cognitively incapable of providing informed consent. There is a serious ethical problem with allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young to give valid consent themselves; adolescents cannot understand the magnitude of such decisions.”

Yet despite such warnings, the Australian Safe Schools “All of Us” resource, which is aimed at Year 7 and 8s (i.e. 13 and 14 year-olds) is an example of a growing trend to normalise surgical transitioning. The fourth video in the material focuses on 17-year-old Nevo’s experiences. Nevo wants corrective surgery from female to male, expressing his frustration: “If I had any other medical condition, people wouldn’t say wait to get treatment, let’s just wait and see how bad it gets. They’d be like, ‘All right. Let’s rush to the hospital and let’s get you the surgeries that you need.’ And that’s what I need right now.”

The implication of this emotive appeal? An irreversible, life-changing procedure … on demand.

What does non-binary mean?

The binary distinction of the sexes refers to male and female. This is a biological fact to which 98.3% of the human race identify. Technically, non-binary then refers to the 1.7% born with bodies that don’t fit the typical definitions of male or female. In short, those born intersex.

However, while the leading proponents of the intersex research (Robert Stoller and John Money) held to the binary division of the sexes, the concept of alternative categories, including non-binary (queergender) and genderfluid, seems to be a modern import into the gender identity conversation, possibly through the influence of queer theory which emerged in the early 1990s.

There are now a growing number of terms involved and not everybody agrees on all the definitions. Non-binary, for instance, includes those having no gender (nongendered, genderless, genderfree, agender, etc.), those having two or more genders (bigender, trigender, pangender, etc.), those moving or fluctuating between genders (genderfluid) and those being other-gendered or third gender.

While there is a strong argument to make that some of the terms are being overstretched for inclusion purposes, it’s important to acknowledge that this terminology gives people suffering dysphoria a way of processing it. A way to try make sense of it.

How do we show compassion and wisdom?

That’s the big question. Moved by compassion, finding ways to support dysphoria sufferers is the moral obligation of a humane society that’s, to quote Pearl Buck again, judged on how it “cares for its helpless members”.

Guided by wisdom (and commonsense), our compassion will find ways that support dysphoria sufferers while also helping them integrate into a society that accepts them with open arms.

However, taking a sledgehammer to the biological dimorphism to which 98.3% of human beings relate only creates conflict and doesn’t help dysphoria sufferers. In fact, it raises suspicions about the motives of those pushing this sexual doctrine in the name of advocating for the transgender and intersex community—a shadow that often sadly falls over the community itself.

Wisdom begins by being consistent and applying commonsense.

For example, most humans are born with ten fingers and ten toes. We don’t deny this biological reality because there are some born with eleven fingers or nine toes, for instance. We certainly don’t then postulate a range in the number of fingers and toes human beings are born with and claim we all fall somewhere on the spectrum. That’s both silly and unhelpful.

Activists tend to reject the concept of biological sex essentially on the grounds that it alienates or marginalises people. Does the fact that humans are biologically binocular alienate or marginalise human beings born with cyclopia, the birth defect that produces one eye? There’s no question that such a person would need extensive care and support, but to lay siege to the biological framework of two eyes wouldn’t be a smart or sane course of action.

There’s no wisdom in supporting one group by assaulting another group. Wisdom supports one group while fostering compassion and understanding in other groups. Wisdom honours the hard sciences while appealing for humane attitudes and the application of compassionate action. Because wisdom always rings with commonsense, it draws people into the conversation, finding contact and engagement points from which humane solutions arise.

This article and the related fictitious conversation between Taylor & Jamie entitled Gender: Biology, Society or Identity? are attempts to appeal for reasonable, commonsense-backed discussions that offer a way forward.

Practise humility:

Action

Action
Explanation

Don’t trap yourself inside an echo chamber.

We are all guilty of it. We only listen to those who agree with us and thus, unknowingly construct a chamber in which we only hear echoes of what we want to hear.

This serves to confirm and validate what we already know and we become further convinced of the veracity of what we know.

Each echo in the chamber deepens our self-knowing and strengthens our self-confidence. In short, we’re self-indoctrinating and we become entrenched in our chosen position. And here’s the danger—our very identity becomes fused with our position.

The echo chamber predisposes us against hearing another point of view—worse, seemingly contradictory viewpoints are interpreted as hostile and adversarial; yes, a grave threat to our identity. Alarm bells ring and self-preservation kicks into overdrive.

Not only do we slam the hatch closed to further thinking, we become trapped in our own self-inflicted narrow-mindedness. Yes, a very real kind of self-delusion.

To even consider thinking differently feels like treason against our group and worse, a betrayal of our own convictions and sense of self.

The only antidote to such self-capture is humility: an openness to continue learning, a willingness to self-reflect and a courage to confront pride and prejudice in our own hearts.

This does not mean personal convictions are wrong, not at all. Without personal convictions, we have no moral grounding and no character or resolve; we have nothing to say or contribute. However, humility allows us to hold things lightly. Not tightly, because our identity isn’t defined by our position on a matter; it’s defined by our humanity and our willingness to learn and grow and become. And not loosely either, because we’re responsible people who take ownership for our thoughts and behaviour, and their consequences.

The humble person can even learn from an enemy—remaining secure and open to discern the ring of truth in an opponent’s words, rejoicing in truth that unites us all.

Yes, we are all guilty of constructing echo chambers in which we trap ourselves but we are all capable of opening the hatch to freedom through the path of humility.

That said, there is a new type of battening down the hatches becoming increasingly prevalent today. It goes something like this:

“Only if you have walked a mile in my shoes, can you relate to my situation. In fact, only if you’ve walked a mile in my shoes, can you say anything worthy of listening to. Actually, you have nothing of value to offer me unless you’ve walked a mile in my shoes. No, it’s worse than that. If you try to say anything to me at all, you’re obviously trying to force your will on me.”

In essence, the echo chamber is sealed shut based on the premise that only those with a shared life experience have anything worthy of offering.

Consider the growing misuse of many new phrases ending in ‘splaining’—mansplaining, cissplaining, whitesplaining, and so on. These valid words are helpful in explaining how one person can talk down to another, dismissing how they feel about something pertinent to them … or worse, implying how they ought to feel about it. For example, whitesplaining occurs when a white person suggests to a black person how they should feel or respond to racism. It’s patronising, condescending, dehumanising and plainly arrogant.

However, when these phrases are used as a shield to blanket silence any and all advice from sources outside our echo chamber, we’re settling for a very small and narrow world.

The reality is that no one shares advice completely free of personal bias, and it does take considerable maturity to get close to something approximating objectivity when offering counsel. This is a self-evident truth—with even a small dose of self-awareness, we all know how subjective we are.

Thus, each of us is capable of detecting the ring of both truth and bias in the advice we’re given. With even a small measure of humility, we can listen with an open mind, discern fact from fiction, and then eat the chicken of life while spitting out the bones. If a person is acting condescendingly, that’s on them, not us.

It is only the fool who decides beforehand that no one outside their echo chamber can teach them anything. This person is doomed to draw from a tiny pool of human knowledge. And sadly, they discount themselves from enriching others from the wisdom that they have learnt.

Found an Error?

This article was written in 2020. Although I try to keep it updated, if you find outdated information or broken links (sources often update or remove their content), please let me know and I’ll get onto it pronto.

Contact Me

Looking for more on this topic?

Click the button below to view similar content nested in a conversation between two fictional siblings discussing what gender means in an article entitled, “Gender: Biology, Society or Identity?”

Gender: Social Construct or Biological Fact?

MOVING THROUGH CONFLICTTO BUILD A HUMANE SOCIETY

Battlelines Drawn

The Origin & Evolution of Words

Consistently Inconsistent?

Can We Agree?

Enter Camp C!

Holding Things Lightly

Seeking a Way Forward

A Plea to Each Camp

An Appeal to Camp A

An Appeal to Camp B

An Appeal to Camp C

Thoughts & Practises: Seeking Humane Solutions

Practise patience:

Practise clarity:

Practise reflection:

Practise impartiality:

Practise judiciousness:

Practise courage:

Practise humility:

Found an Error?

Looking for more on this topic?

Enjoy & Share

MOVING THROUGH CONFLICT
TO BUILD A HUMANE SOCIETY