Sex & Gender Part I - Culture v. Biology

Many days instead of dissertation writing, I mull over various thoughts I have regarding "liberal" issues like racism, gender socialization, gay rights, attitudes towards evolution, and the like. I always think about how I should write down some of these thoughts (and therefore parlay them into something academically useful instead of just an interesting distraction). Therefore, today I'm going to start a multiple-post arc on issues of culture & biology in sex and gender.

One big question I've struggled with for years is: How much are gender differences biologically versus culturally determined? By gender I mean the traits, characteristics, behaviors, etc. associated with being masculine and feminine. The standard line is that sex is biological (women have boobs, men have gonads) but gender is socially constructed. The controversial question issue is how much is gender connected to sex? How much of femininity is biologically ingrained in women and how much do genes tell men to be masculine? (Interesting aside - Judith Butler argues both sex and gender are socially constructed.)

I've always leaned on the far side of the socialization scale. Girls like frilly dresses, the color pink, playing with dolls, and acting demurely because they are raised that way. And even when parents explicitly try bring their daughter up differently, influences like television, music, toys, movies, friends, family members, school, and practically everything else in our culture teaches them to adhere to a certain gender role. In this way gender is like a role we perform, where our gender identities are constantly reconstructed and reinforced through the repetition of everyday gendered acts, behaviors, words, etc. (See more about the performative theory of gender here.) Certainly things have changed a lot in contemporary U.S. culture over the past few decades, but it's still quite shockingly prevalent. (Think of gender stereotypes constantly used by the media, especially during Hillary Clinton's recent presidential campaign.)

Of course, many would point out (including my mother) that I am completely ignoring the large stack of research that demonstrates biological differences between the sexes. I'm not denying it completely. However, I would make three points. First, sex and gender are different concepts. Just because there are biological differences does not mean that they automatically lead to a behavioral gender attribute. So if the area of the brain that controls language tends to be larger in women, does this automatically mean women are inherently gossipy (as the gender stereotype says they are)? Absolutely not. I concept like "gossip" is a cultural construct. Maybe biology would say women tend to be better at remember the large amounts of information and social relationships that are part of "gossip" but the tendency for women to engage in this very specific kind of language activity (and the negative social connotations associated with gossip) are socialized IMHO.

Second, we can probably never truly test nature v. nurture arguments such as these. Short of finding a bunch of kids raised by wolves, there is no way to remove individuals completely from culture (and then we'd just be seeing the effects of socialization into wolf culture). In scientific experimental terms, we can never successfully apply the "treatment" of biology alone/no culture. Confounding cultural variables will always get in the way.

Third, biology and gender research can lead us down a dangerous ethical path. Here is one of my biggest pet peeves in the whole biology v. cultures debates. Why does a biological basis for any human behavior, attribute, belief, etc. differences make it somehow more justified? Why is “because it’s natural” a good justification for ethics and ideas about how society should be constructed?

For example, take the supposition that XYY men biologically tend to be more violent. (While the most recent research demonstrates XYY men are not more aggressive, just assume it for the sake of this point.) Can you imagine a judge who gave an XYY male a lighter sentence on an assult or rape charge because "he's biologically predisposed" to be more violent and therefore his behavior was "natural"? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. As a society we have an ethical standard against violence in most cases (with certain exceptions, of course), and we purport to apply this equally to all individuals, regardless of the amount of testosterone in the bodies.

Along those same lines, why should we tolerate arguments about women's role in the military, political leadership positions, math and science abilities, etc. that rely on supposedly biological differences between men and women. Just because it’s natural and there’s a biological explanation doesn’t mean it’s ethically correct. We construct our own ethical view of how the world should be independent of biology and use culture to shape biological, not vice versa. So, therefore, the biology v. culture in gender and sex differences debate should not be as meaningful as many think it is.

Part II and III to come later. I'm sure you can't wait!