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

Popular posts from this blog

Ethical Suffrage: Canadian Offenders and the Right to Vote

The Exploitation of the #BossBabe: Multi-level Marketing Schemes and Gender Roles

A Bad Joke: Credibility and the Flat Earth Society