Gender Identity
Dr. John Money, who is a professor at John Hopkins, has presented western society with a concept of gender identity, which claims that gender is malleable before the age of three or four. However, years after Money’s theory was presented, other research began to show that gender was not as malleable as one thought, and that perhaps the body does have something to do with gender. Anne Fausto-Sterling provides an argument against Money, claiming that there is no clear distinction between the body and gender, and that sex identity depends on the body, as well as one’s environment. I will present in this paper support for Anne Fausto-Sterling’s argument that gender and sex are difficult to distinguish, but will offer a new perspective in regards to her argument.
Dr. Money believes that gender is socially constructed. He believes that one’s sex, or the category of genitalia one’s body closely resembles, has nothing to do with one’s gender. In other words, Money believes that, for example, a person who has a vagina can be raised as a boy, if he or she is raised from the age of three as a boy. However, Money would prefer that one’s genitalia match his or her gender. John Colapinto, author of As Nature Made Him, quotes Money in regards to gender and sex matching: Money says, “ ‘ . . . one usually expects that the child’s psychosexual differentiation will be congruous with the sex of rearing.” (Colapinto 55) So, sex identity, for Money, is malleable before the age of four, which implies that gender is not innate.
If Money believes that gender is constructed, then he would have to believe that sexuality is constructed as well. If one believes it is possible to construct the psychology of a woman, then there is no reason to say that one could not construct the psychology of a gay male. Based on his social construction theory, Money would have to agree that a child who was raised to be gay before the age of three or four would be gay for the rest of his or her life.
Anne Fausto-Sterling presents an argument, in her essay Is Gender Essential, against Money’s theory that gender identity is entirely socially constructed. She begins her argument by stating, “The separation of sex from gender is never clean, which means that there is always messiness and difficulty around deciding what we mean by ‘gender.’” (Fausto-Sterling 53) She is saying that there seems to be some connection between a person’s physical sex, and a constructed gender, but the distinction is unclear. Fausto-Sterling says that human bodies are sexed for the purpose of human reproduction, and that one’s biological sex is of importance. However, she does not believe that one’s gender encompasses the entire life of an individual. She states, “We are born with bodies that are, in one sense of the word (i.e., a groundwork, framework, a structure on which other things are built or layered), essential. But as a biologist I don’t find this to be a very accurate account of what bodies are and how they work.” (Fausto-Sterling 55) Fausto-Sterling believes that our bodies are not fixed structures, and to place a rigid category upon a specific type of body (for example, a male body) does not make any sense. She states, “So we have to stop thinking of the body as something prior that is unchanging and that becomes the base on which some sort of cultural framework is built.” (Fausto-Sterling 56) So, Fausto-Sterling disagrees with Money when he says that gender is entirely socially constructed because the body does play a part in who a person is, as well as cultural influences, and to distinguish between the two is difficult.
I agree with Dr. Money on one point: that gender can be socially constructed; However, I do not agree that social construction is the entirety of an individual. The body is the instrument through which humans perceive the world, and it is the instrument through which humans create their identity. Each body is sexed and in some ways shapes the individual’s outlook on life. For example, a female, if she is capable of having children, must be conscious of the fact that a child could change her life. This shapes her outlook. So, sex does have some influence on our perception.
However, sex does not prescribe how an individual will act. According to Foucault’s concept of liberal power, liberal power normalizes and shapes our actions in order to maintain a web of control. I believe that gender norms are a part of this web of power. David Halperin, author of Saint Foucault, explains liberal power. He says, “Liberal power does not simply prohibit; it does not directly terrorize. It normalizes, ‘responsibilizes,’ and disciplines.” (Halperin 18) Gender norms set standards for male and female behavior. These standards are then sanctioned by mothers, fathers, teachers, the media, and almost every where in society. Having to sanction male and female behavior in order to create norms implies that males and females do not naturally fit into these categories, which suggests that gender is malleable, and constructed by society.
Ultimately I disagree with Money that gender is entirely socially constructed. Rather I believe we are each born with a particular body that provides us with a perspective on life, and that human behavior is in large part determined by gender norms. I do not condone gender norms, as they are confining, but acknowledge that they, in part, have shaped my reality, and my gender identity.
Works Cited
Halperin, David. Saint Foucault. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Colapinto, John. As Nature Made Him. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000.
Dr. Money believes that gender is socially constructed. He believes that one’s sex, or the category of genitalia one’s body closely resembles, has nothing to do with one’s gender. In other words, Money believes that, for example, a person who has a vagina can be raised as a boy, if he or she is raised from the age of three as a boy. However, Money would prefer that one’s genitalia match his or her gender. John Colapinto, author of As Nature Made Him, quotes Money in regards to gender and sex matching: Money says, “ ‘ . . . one usually expects that the child’s psychosexual differentiation will be congruous with the sex of rearing.” (Colapinto 55) So, sex identity, for Money, is malleable before the age of four, which implies that gender is not innate.
If Money believes that gender is constructed, then he would have to believe that sexuality is constructed as well. If one believes it is possible to construct the psychology of a woman, then there is no reason to say that one could not construct the psychology of a gay male. Based on his social construction theory, Money would have to agree that a child who was raised to be gay before the age of three or four would be gay for the rest of his or her life.
Anne Fausto-Sterling presents an argument, in her essay Is Gender Essential, against Money’s theory that gender identity is entirely socially constructed. She begins her argument by stating, “The separation of sex from gender is never clean, which means that there is always messiness and difficulty around deciding what we mean by ‘gender.’” (Fausto-Sterling 53) She is saying that there seems to be some connection between a person’s physical sex, and a constructed gender, but the distinction is unclear. Fausto-Sterling says that human bodies are sexed for the purpose of human reproduction, and that one’s biological sex is of importance. However, she does not believe that one’s gender encompasses the entire life of an individual. She states, “We are born with bodies that are, in one sense of the word (i.e., a groundwork, framework, a structure on which other things are built or layered), essential. But as a biologist I don’t find this to be a very accurate account of what bodies are and how they work.” (Fausto-Sterling 55) Fausto-Sterling believes that our bodies are not fixed structures, and to place a rigid category upon a specific type of body (for example, a male body) does not make any sense. She states, “So we have to stop thinking of the body as something prior that is unchanging and that becomes the base on which some sort of cultural framework is built.” (Fausto-Sterling 56) So, Fausto-Sterling disagrees with Money when he says that gender is entirely socially constructed because the body does play a part in who a person is, as well as cultural influences, and to distinguish between the two is difficult.
I agree with Dr. Money on one point: that gender can be socially constructed; However, I do not agree that social construction is the entirety of an individual. The body is the instrument through which humans perceive the world, and it is the instrument through which humans create their identity. Each body is sexed and in some ways shapes the individual’s outlook on life. For example, a female, if she is capable of having children, must be conscious of the fact that a child could change her life. This shapes her outlook. So, sex does have some influence on our perception.
However, sex does not prescribe how an individual will act. According to Foucault’s concept of liberal power, liberal power normalizes and shapes our actions in order to maintain a web of control. I believe that gender norms are a part of this web of power. David Halperin, author of Saint Foucault, explains liberal power. He says, “Liberal power does not simply prohibit; it does not directly terrorize. It normalizes, ‘responsibilizes,’ and disciplines.” (Halperin 18) Gender norms set standards for male and female behavior. These standards are then sanctioned by mothers, fathers, teachers, the media, and almost every where in society. Having to sanction male and female behavior in order to create norms implies that males and females do not naturally fit into these categories, which suggests that gender is malleable, and constructed by society.
Ultimately I disagree with Money that gender is entirely socially constructed. Rather I believe we are each born with a particular body that provides us with a perspective on life, and that human behavior is in large part determined by gender norms. I do not condone gender norms, as they are confining, but acknowledge that they, in part, have shaped my reality, and my gender identity.
Works Cited
Halperin, David. Saint Foucault. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Colapinto, John. As Nature Made Him. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000.
posted by Karen Jarboe at
11:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home