GENDER TROUBLE
- Details
- Category: SEX&GENDER
- Published on Thursday, 26 January 2012 11:32
- Written by Jane HAILE
- Hits: 139

Feminists and gender experts usually argue for the absolute ‘plasticity’ of gender; that is to say that all gender behaviour is socially and culturally imposed, and can therefore be changed. One of the strongest advocates of this has been Judith Butler the title of whose most famous book we borrow for this section.
However others would disagree saying that there are preferences and proclivities hard-wired into the male and female brains which have a massive effect on that individual’s behaviour i.e. arguing that some “gender” characteristics are innate and not culturally determined. A couple of years ago the President of Harvard University, Larry Summers had to resign his post after he suggested that women might not be intellectually equipped to become top scientists and mathematicians.
Professor Summers gave the following reasons for the paucity of women scientists and mathematicians: women might not be as interested as men in making the sacrifices required by highly paid jobs men may have more “intrinsic aptitude” for high level science and last and least, that women might be victims of old- fashioned discrimination Summers might have added that in most societies in the world women still bear the most of the family responsibilities, even when they also work full-time. One might in fact say, relative to his first ‘reason’, that women already make the sacrifices so that their men can have the highly paid jobs?
President Summers seemed to discount the fact that if men dominate the top jobs in this field they are almost certainly dominating recruitment panels. Are men looking for a better gender balance by actively searching for top female scientists to join their ranks? I don’t think so. Harvard itself seems to have a poor record on that score.
To be fair to Professor Summers some of the women present during this debate seemed almost to vindicate his views. Nancy Hopkins, Professor of Biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was so disgusted that she felt compelled to leave the room in a hurry. ‘I felt I was going to be sick’ she explained.’ My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow……I would have either blacked out or thrown up’. This cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as a constructive response to the debate.
It is now well- recognized that the architecture of male and female brains is different. There is also evidence that they mature at different rates which supports the arguments for single-sex schooling. Boys normally do better at maths and girls at languages. Boys are more likely to be hyperactive, dyslexic and autistic.
Research shows also that the sensory perceptions of males and females differ, in that women can see colours and textures which men cannot see. Similarly women are thought to have more acute sense of hearing and smell. As the senses are the gateways or the portals to the brain it seems likely that different sensory aptitudes would affect brain development.
This having been said there are more areas of similarity and overlap between women and men than there are differences…. most people fall in the mid-range of aptitudes in maths and languages for example rather than excelling at one or the other; and probably also most of us occupy a middle sensory range, though most women feel that men have a higher tolerance of noise and bad smells than they do themselves!
There may be innate differences between male and female bodies and brains but from birth those differences interact with complex forces of socialization. What we don’t yet understand is how important or otherwise those innate differences are and how to make sure that Nurture does not impose limitations rather than opening up potentials. It is clear from many studies that girls are often streamed out of scientific and technical areas including IT at an early age on the grounds of its not being an area of their competence. Similarly boys are not encouraged into activities which might develop their nurturing and caring skills.
What does seem clear is that we are all the result of a complex interplay between genetic inheritance and social context. It is not Nature OR Nurture but Nature AND Nurture or as one eminent (male) scientist (Matt Ridley) has said Nature via Nurture.
A question which does not appear to have occurred to Larry Summer’s seminar at Harvard was the following. Why are activities traditionally dominated by men accorded the highest values….financial and other? Why is it more important to be a top scientist than a brilliant primary school teacher? If the value of brilliant primary school teacher was recognized would men be falling over themselves to get those jobs?
Further Reading Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap By Susan Pinkner, Atlantic Books, 2008
MORE THAN TWO TO TANGO
- Details
- Category: SEX&GENDER
- Published on Thursday, 26 January 2012 11:15
- Written by Jane HAILE
- Hits: 128

Until very recently it was quite acceptable (even in “gender circles”) to equate the difference between sex and gender, to that between nature and nurture, or nature and culture.
Biological inheritance, gender, and of course, sexual preference were deemed to be linked together in a nice neat chain. One would be born, obviously a male or obviously a female; be socialized to behave in a masculine or feminine way; and prefer having sex (primarily for reproductive purposes rather than recreation, of course) with the “opposite sex”….the other one of the only two available.
This ‘Noah’s Ark’ model is upheld by most of the world’s major religions though they may disagree on other issues. This model emphasizes the sanctity of the family and places priority on its continuity. There is usually assumed to be a context where this model is perfectly functional. It is considered, for example, that the social structure existing in biblical times presented the perfect conditions for this model to flourish.
Where the family is the basic economic unit; the economy is based on farming and herding; there is no particular population pressure on land; then more family members means a larger and more successful economic unit. In these circumstances it is easy to understand the importance given to woman’s reproductive role. In such a system reproductive activities tend to be not only highly valued but also highly regulated. And non-reproductive sex….. such as sex for recreational purposes & same-sex sex…. is seen as deviant and blasphemous.
The ongoing debate about homosexuality in the Anglican church demonstrates that this is till very much a live issue. So do we have only two of each: masculine males and feminine females, with everything different being deviant? Contemporary Western cultures are very comfortable in reducing complex reality to complementary opposing pairs…..good cop/bad cop, black/white, democrat/ republican, right/left, blue collar/white collar, upstairs/ downstairs, male/female. But this categorization into two sexes: two genders appears to be relatively recent even in Western society.
Whereas it seems self-evident to us that gender is a key principle of social organization most historians think that the two gender model appeared in its full blown form only during the Renaissance.
And other societies (traditional Omani, Native North American, Thai, and some Indian groups are normally cited) have always acknowledged that it might take more than ‘two to tango’, recognizing as a legitimate category rather than as deviant from the norm, hermaphrodites, transvestites, transgender or transsexuals or even simply people who actually choose to remain celibate. Interestingly enough Asexuality seems to be gaining ground as a preferred life-style in some Western sub- cultures.
In societies where the Two Sex/Two Gender model dominates, being ‘different’ also means being ‘unequal’. Gender is one of the key organizing principles like class, wealth, age, ethnicity, and religion. In most societies there is still a very real struggle to ensure that individuals at the female/feminine end of the spectrum should have the same voice, rights, & responsibilities as male members of that society. This applies to the most basic rights to education or health care, as well as the often more visible rights to political office, and other key decision-making positions in the public and private sector. In many societies women still have fewer rights than a man in terms of inheritance, access to justice, custody of children in case of divorce, rights to confer their nationality on spouse or children, or freedom of movement.
The last two decades have also witnessed the growing visibility of constituencies who do not sit comfortably at one of the polar positions. The acronym GLBT - Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender - neatly sums up the major alternatives to the two traditional options of male and female.
The practical implications of the emergence of the category or categories GLBT are still hotly debated in the societies where this has happened. Can same-sex couples marry, adopt children, and have access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for themselves or a surrogate? How easy is it for a transgender person to have his/her legal records and documents adjusted to the new reality? What prejudices and disadvantages do they face in terms of other civil and political economic and social rights? These are just a few of the emerging issues.
We live in a world where technological advance has reduced the importance of absolute physical strength for most tasks; where contraception has changed the meaning of sexual activity ; where most of life’s tasks except conceiving and giving birth are in principle gender neutral, and yet we still see that new activities and skills….such as IT…. quickly become “engendered”.
But information emerging from numerous disciplines biology, genetics, medicine, sociology, anthropology, requires us to challenge the cherished belief that it only takes ‘two to tango’.
LET’S TALK ABOUT SEX
- Details
- Category: SEX&GENDER
- Published on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 18:03
- Written by Jane HAILE
- Hits: 174

The old definition of sex as biologically determined, innate and unchanging (as compared with gender which is allegedly learned and subject to variation between cultures) has taken a battering recently from many sources.
The first question is, how are we to we define and distinguish between individuals of the “opposite” sex. By their internal reproductive organs, their external reproductive organs, their chromosomes, their ability to reproduce, their sexual preference, their adoption of “correct” gender behaviour? What if these different markers are not all giving the same message? (In this respect the recent case in the United States concerning a woman who ‘became a man’ but kept her/his reproductive organs and recently gave birth to a child is a real category-breaker and will no doubt continue to be so. There can be few cases in the world where a child’s mother is also its father).
Most people are surprised to learn that each year a large numbers of babies are born with indeterminate or ambiguous external and internal sexual organs, and are therefore medically assigned to one sex or the other. For this substantial number of individuals their sex is in a very real sense “socially defined” at a very early stage in their lives, with varying degrees of success.
Others may choose at a later stage of their lives to “change sex” being convinced that they have been born in the wrong body in this case aligning their physical form with their gender ‘identity’. People who face this situation contribute to the growing numbers of health tourists to countries which specialize in this procedure.
The belief in the biologically determined two- sex/two gender model logically involves an assumption about the ‘unnaturalness’ of homosexuality; and that it is learned behaviour that can be unlearned. For many people convinced of the rightness and sufficiency of what one might call the Noah’s Ark configuration, homosexuality is a sin against nature. Increasingly however scientists are throwing doubt that nature exists in such a state of polar innocence citing that homosexuality exists amongst monkeys and other species less closely related to us and cannot therefore be considered ‘unnatural’ and may also be biologically determined from the outset rather than learned.
CHROMOSOMES: THE Y's and WHEREFORES
- Details
- Category: SEX&GENDER
- Written by Jane HAILE
- Hits: 124

Until very recently it was quite acceptable (even in “gender circles”) to equate the difference between sex and gender, to that between nature and nurture, or nature and culture.
Humans have 46 chromosomes of which 44 are composed of almost identical pairs. The other 2 are the sex chromosomes…..the X and the Y. Women have a pair of X chromosomes whilst men have an X and a Y. The Y chromosome is small and contains one small gene that acts as a master switch turning on the whole range of other genes that eventually give rise to a male body.
Every human being contains essentially all the genes needed to build a body of either sex. Women also have the potential to grow a penis, a beard, to develop a deeper voice. We all have the basic genetic material to become either men or women so it is not surprising that some ‘blip’ in the gene on the Y chromosome can lead to some unexpected results. .The gender gene is important as it decides which other genes get turned off or on.
In many societies with a preference for sons men often blame their wives for the succession of daughters, and probably keep changing wives in order to get a son. In fact the sex of their children is determined by the transmission or otherwise of the Y chromosome.
The Y chromosome is often linked with criminality, and aggressivity in men, and defects in the Y chromosome are held responsible for various forms of male infertility. Sex testing of successful women athletes has often revealed the presence of the Y chromosome despite their having the external sexual characteristics of women.
Recently there has been a spate of books on the future of the Y chromosome and some scientists believe that in the next 5 – 10 million years it might disappear. (No pressure then on any readers of this page.) Apparently this has already happened in some rodent species where another chromosome has taken over the function.


