Dichotomous Understandings of Gender and Sexuality.
Historically
speaking, concepts of gender, sex, and sexuality have been interrelated and
defined in strictly binary terms. One would be characterized as either male or
female, as strictly defined by one’s reproductive organs. The male or female
individual would be sexually interested in either the opposite or same gender
and would thus be afforded a label of heterosexual or homosexual. They would be
expected to conform to social concepts of “masculinity,” “femininity,”
“straightness,” or “queerness.” While cultural variations exist in how these
concepts are defined, it remains that they are generally rigidly upheld as
dichotomous and opposite in Western Eurocentric societies.
The
rigidity of such gender role concepts was explored in class through the
discussion of gendered toys and tacit implication that one’s enjoyment of a toy
is inherently connected to one’s gender. While boys are expected to enjoy toys
that reflect traditionally masculine concepts of toughness, stoicism, and
courage; girls are expected to enjoy toys that reflect traditionally feminine
concepts of nurturance, passivity, empathy, and modesty. Bonus points if the
toys are colour-coded into pink or blue.
Interestingly,
should a child deviate from their traditional gender-assigned toy category of
choice, reactions are sure to vary: A small girl playing with trucks and
superheroes might be praised as feisty or strong, while a small boy playing
with dolls is more likely to be dissuaded from such interests. This is an
example of hegemonic masculinity and serves to justify the dominance of the emphasized
masculine performing male population over women, girls, and non-traditionally masculine
performing boys and men.
These
rigid binary considerations of gender are deeply problematic for the vast
numbers of human beings who do not necessarily conform to expectations. As
Susanne Luhmann explains, “Girls and boys and women and men who don’t fit the
stereotypes associated with their gender face near daily homophobic name
calling…and all too often, physical violence, not only from their peers but
also, too frequently, from their own families.” (Luhmann, 2017, p. 125)
As
we are coming to understand, gender and sexuality are social constructs that
exist on a spectrum. Gender exists independently of sexual organs and is
performed according to social cues that have been codified to broadcast
masculinity or femininity. With gender established as a social construct, it
follows that sexuality is far more complex than “gay” or “straight.” Spectrums
of gender and sexuality, further complicated by the consideration of intersex
bodies, are robustly explored in Queer theory. Queer theorists “[recognize] the
separation of biological sex from gender and from sexuality. This has allowed
feminists to contemplate multiple and complex identities.” (Bromley, 2012, p.
99).
In
establishing that the traditional dichotomous understanding of gender, sex, and
sexuality is misconceived, it becomes prudent to adjust to “move beyond,” as
Siltanen & Doucet suggest. Beyond simply being erroneous, upholding these misconceptions
can result in measurable psychological and physical harm to individuals who
deviate from the norm, as Luhmann noted. From a strictly academic perspective,
they do not reflect an accurate or practical view of the intricacies of human
society, and as such are neither productive nor appropriate.
Comments
Post a Comment