In this debate, there are three categories: Biological sex, Gender Expression, and Gender Identity.
To get the definitions out of the way: Biological sex is one’s reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics. Gender expression is one’s behaviour, mannerisms, and appearance that one associates with one’s gender. Gender identity is one’s personal sense of one’s own gender. These categories are said to exist across a spectrum between male and female with their corresponding traits being masculine and feminine. What is being debated is a) the naturalness of the categories 'male' and 'female', and b) how innate the traits of 'masculine' and 'feminine' are, and can they be changed over the course of a person’s life.
The social constructionist position is that 'male' and 'female' are not natural categories, nor are their corresponding gender traits innate. Their argument goes something like this:
Males and Females are commonly thought of as two discrete and mutually exclusive kinds that are constituted by immutable biological traits that are identifiable at or before birth. This is called the gender binary. These immutable traits lead one to be assigned as ‘male’ or ‘female’ at or before birth, and once assigned such a label, a series of developmental, temperamental and societal expectations are imposed upon the child and remain throughout life. This perpetuates the gender binary. There are, however, reasons to deny the gender binary and the theory of gender it is based on.
First: even though a person was assigned 'male' at birth, that person's anatomy could fall 'in between' or 'outside of' the typical male body because the underlying biological circuitry doesn't always obey the XX/XY binary – there are a host of hormonal and endocrine conditions that nudge people out of the standard gender binary box. In less overt cases, we also see more or less androgynous people who exist and exhibit a mixture of female and male physical traits: there are tall and muscular women and short and delicate men. Secondly, not only can the biological traits be atypically distributed across the biological sexes, we also know that biological traits (sex organs, secondary sex characteristics) can be removed, altered, and replaced via surgery and/or hormonal administration. Finally, stereotypically male and female behaviours, attitudes, and dispositions are not constrained to only males and females. There are men who exhibit female-typical behavioural traits and vice versa.
In conclusion, the idea that males and females are two discrete and mutually exclusive kinds that are differentiated by immutable biological traits identifiable at or before birth is false. Those traits are not immutable and can be changed, and traits typically associated with one gender can even be exhibited in the opposite gender. Given that there is no strict demarcation between ‘male’ and ‘female’ traits, most of us are hybrids on the male-female spectrum. Since the gender binary is false, the enforcement of the gender binary and its reification through biological sex is harmful and given the oppression that atypical members of their gender face, we should work to abolish the gender stereotypes so as to free up people to live and express themselves as they see fit.
Given that biological sex has been unanchored from biological determinants, it then follows that the gender roles and gender identities associated with those biological sexes are unmoored as well, to float freely in the world.
Now, it is true that science does show us that we are on something of a spectrum – biologically and psychologically. So, where does the social constructionist's position go wrong? It goes wrong because it straw-mans the mainstream position on biological sex and gender, thereby overreacting and throwing out a lot of baby with the bathwater. Additionally, it also assists in the alienation of people – especially young people – who feel as though they don’t fit in the standard categories of the gender binary.
First: sex is binary, and even though there is a strong correlation between biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression, it’s not a 1:1 correlation. There are folks with typical male/female biology, identity, and expression – the vast majority of people are – but there are others who are atypical in one or more of those categories, or even have the traits that are typical to the opposite sex.
That sex is binary is not very controversial – though there is chatter about its challenge – which is one of the reasons why social constructionists tend to steer clear from science surrounding it. Instead of dealing with the science, they’ll tend to try and complicate things by doing some ‘social science’, but they fail to reach down into the nitty-gritty of the biology. I won’t try to bore anyone but to sum it up: in our sexually reproducing species, the SRY gene is the determinant of bio-genetic sex. At that bio-genetic level, when the SRY gene is functional in the germline one is a bio-genetic male, and when it is not functional then one is a bio-genetic female. This happens in every human embryo and it is either functional or not. Given this, we do have a biologically exhaustive binary at the bio-genetic level.
This science is important since it shows how bottom-up things are, whereas the social constructionists think of things as top-down. The SRY is also important since it acts as a switch that instigates the male sex determination in human development, causing a cascade of genetic processes that are responsible for the hormonal, gonadal and genital development. These underlying processes form the groundwork for the phenotypes we observe, and are important for understanding ourselves, our behaviour, and our differences. It is important to note that though the SRY gene instigates male sex determination, there are mutations and criss-crossing of biological circuitry that occurs after the instigation. These hiccups can lead to a host of developmental disorders that social constructionist scholars love to collect and categorise in the hopes of refuting the binary, but such disorders are completely consistent with the function of the SRY gene and the binary it provides.
Since every human embryo goes through this bio-genetic sex differentiation process, and given the relative infrequency of outliers, the vast majority of people are typically male or female both biologically and psychologically.
Now, while bio-genetic sex is binary – everyone either has a functional SRY gene or not, so one is either bio-genetically male or female – the social constructionists are not focusing on that level of detail. Instead, they focus on the higher level: the messier biological circuitry that is set in motion after the SRY gene unleashes a cascade of hormones, or not. This focus is both tactical and lackadaisical. It is tactical because it allows the gender/sex critic to point to myriad mutations and disorders in sex development that apparently put people outside of the binary and thereby attempt to explode the binary. It is also lackadaisical because it fails to partake in the hard work on analyzing and familiarizing one’s self with the science, and instead allows one to engage in haphazard social science.
Instead of honestly assessing the informed mainstream view in its totality, the social constructionists are trying to exploit the fact that the science shows us that there isn’t a 1:1 correlation between biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression, and thus take that as evidence that there is no correlation at all. Once they’ve established that gender/gender identity and expression aren’t correlated with biology, or that biological sex doesn’t even exist, they then argue that it’s completely a social construct.
Since it’s a social construct, it isn’t something that happens naturally, and since it doesn’t happen naturally and yet it is something that happens to all of us whether we want it to or not, it is unjust, and since it is unjust, it must be abolished in the service of the utopia.
The issue with the social constructionists is that it is quite difficult to peel the ideology and politics away from the arguments and science. In fact, much of the science is rarely contested, and instead the social constructionists use and abuse history to build up a strawman of our society and paint it as more intolerant than it is by giving us examples of how intolerant it was without any recognition of the progress that has been made.
Now, no one is denying that there is a wide range of human experiences and behaviour but given that we’re a biologically evolved and sexually reproducing species there is a bimodal distribution of attributes and traits that are typical to males and females. These distributions make up the respective normative behaviours and characteristics seen in men and women. In the past, those who were atypical to their respective category were seen as ‘unnatural’ and were sometimes forced to conform to the norm, sometimes violently. There are still some people who think this way today, but in our liberal society, with its concepts of pluralism and family resemblance, and informed by scientific research holds that there is nothing unnatural about such atypical people. Instead, such people are seen as examples of the diversity of human beings. What the social constructionist folks are doing is attempting to redefine these atypical people as gender identities – and are exploiting the science to trick vulnerable people who feel alienated from the norm.
The social constructionist position is that 'male' and 'female' are not natural categories, nor are their corresponding gender traits innate. Their argument goes something like this:
Males and Females are commonly thought of as two discrete and mutually exclusive kinds that are constituted by immutable biological traits that are identifiable at or before birth. This is called the gender binary. These immutable traits lead one to be assigned as ‘male’ or ‘female’ at or before birth, and once assigned such a label, a series of developmental, temperamental and societal expectations are imposed upon the child and remain throughout life. This perpetuates the gender binary. There are, however, reasons to deny the gender binary and the theory of gender it is based on.
First: even though a person was assigned 'male' at birth, that person's anatomy could fall 'in between' or 'outside of' the typical male body because the underlying biological circuitry doesn't always obey the XX/XY binary – there are a host of hormonal and endocrine conditions that nudge people out of the standard gender binary box. In less overt cases, we also see more or less androgynous people who exist and exhibit a mixture of female and male physical traits: there are tall and muscular women and short and delicate men. Secondly, not only can the biological traits be atypically distributed across the biological sexes, we also know that biological traits (sex organs, secondary sex characteristics) can be removed, altered, and replaced via surgery and/or hormonal administration. Finally, stereotypically male and female behaviours, attitudes, and dispositions are not constrained to only males and females. There are men who exhibit female-typical behavioural traits and vice versa.
In conclusion, the idea that males and females are two discrete and mutually exclusive kinds that are differentiated by immutable biological traits identifiable at or before birth is false. Those traits are not immutable and can be changed, and traits typically associated with one gender can even be exhibited in the opposite gender. Given that there is no strict demarcation between ‘male’ and ‘female’ traits, most of us are hybrids on the male-female spectrum. Since the gender binary is false, the enforcement of the gender binary and its reification through biological sex is harmful and given the oppression that atypical members of their gender face, we should work to abolish the gender stereotypes so as to free up people to live and express themselves as they see fit.
Given that biological sex has been unanchored from biological determinants, it then follows that the gender roles and gender identities associated with those biological sexes are unmoored as well, to float freely in the world.
Now, it is true that science does show us that we are on something of a spectrum – biologically and psychologically. So, where does the social constructionist's position go wrong? It goes wrong because it straw-mans the mainstream position on biological sex and gender, thereby overreacting and throwing out a lot of baby with the bathwater. Additionally, it also assists in the alienation of people – especially young people – who feel as though they don’t fit in the standard categories of the gender binary.
First: sex is binary, and even though there is a strong correlation between biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression, it’s not a 1:1 correlation. There are folks with typical male/female biology, identity, and expression – the vast majority of people are – but there are others who are atypical in one or more of those categories, or even have the traits that are typical to the opposite sex.
That sex is binary is not very controversial – though there is chatter about its challenge – which is one of the reasons why social constructionists tend to steer clear from science surrounding it. Instead of dealing with the science, they’ll tend to try and complicate things by doing some ‘social science’, but they fail to reach down into the nitty-gritty of the biology. I won’t try to bore anyone but to sum it up: in our sexually reproducing species, the SRY gene is the determinant of bio-genetic sex. At that bio-genetic level, when the SRY gene is functional in the germline one is a bio-genetic male, and when it is not functional then one is a bio-genetic female. This happens in every human embryo and it is either functional or not. Given this, we do have a biologically exhaustive binary at the bio-genetic level.
This science is important since it shows how bottom-up things are, whereas the social constructionists think of things as top-down. The SRY is also important since it acts as a switch that instigates the male sex determination in human development, causing a cascade of genetic processes that are responsible for the hormonal, gonadal and genital development. These underlying processes form the groundwork for the phenotypes we observe, and are important for understanding ourselves, our behaviour, and our differences. It is important to note that though the SRY gene instigates male sex determination, there are mutations and criss-crossing of biological circuitry that occurs after the instigation. These hiccups can lead to a host of developmental disorders that social constructionist scholars love to collect and categorise in the hopes of refuting the binary, but such disorders are completely consistent with the function of the SRY gene and the binary it provides.
Since every human embryo goes through this bio-genetic sex differentiation process, and given the relative infrequency of outliers, the vast majority of people are typically male or female both biologically and psychologically.
Now, while bio-genetic sex is binary – everyone either has a functional SRY gene or not, so one is either bio-genetically male or female – the social constructionists are not focusing on that level of detail. Instead, they focus on the higher level: the messier biological circuitry that is set in motion after the SRY gene unleashes a cascade of hormones, or not. This focus is both tactical and lackadaisical. It is tactical because it allows the gender/sex critic to point to myriad mutations and disorders in sex development that apparently put people outside of the binary and thereby attempt to explode the binary. It is also lackadaisical because it fails to partake in the hard work on analyzing and familiarizing one’s self with the science, and instead allows one to engage in haphazard social science.
Instead of honestly assessing the informed mainstream view in its totality, the social constructionists are trying to exploit the fact that the science shows us that there isn’t a 1:1 correlation between biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression, and thus take that as evidence that there is no correlation at all. Once they’ve established that gender/gender identity and expression aren’t correlated with biology, or that biological sex doesn’t even exist, they then argue that it’s completely a social construct.
Since it’s a social construct, it isn’t something that happens naturally, and since it doesn’t happen naturally and yet it is something that happens to all of us whether we want it to or not, it is unjust, and since it is unjust, it must be abolished in the service of the utopia.
The issue with the social constructionists is that it is quite difficult to peel the ideology and politics away from the arguments and science. In fact, much of the science is rarely contested, and instead the social constructionists use and abuse history to build up a strawman of our society and paint it as more intolerant than it is by giving us examples of how intolerant it was without any recognition of the progress that has been made.
Now, no one is denying that there is a wide range of human experiences and behaviour but given that we’re a biologically evolved and sexually reproducing species there is a bimodal distribution of attributes and traits that are typical to males and females. These distributions make up the respective normative behaviours and characteristics seen in men and women. In the past, those who were atypical to their respective category were seen as ‘unnatural’ and were sometimes forced to conform to the norm, sometimes violently. There are still some people who think this way today, but in our liberal society, with its concepts of pluralism and family resemblance, and informed by scientific research holds that there is nothing unnatural about such atypical people. Instead, such people are seen as examples of the diversity of human beings. What the social constructionist folks are doing is attempting to redefine these atypical people as gender identities – and are exploiting the science to trick vulnerable people who feel alienated from the norm.
