Sociology 415: Feminist Theory

{{Infobox_New_Course

|title=The Social Construction of Gender

|course number= SOCI 415

|instructor=Patricia Tomic

The Social Construction of Gender

Introduction/Background

Gender is a social construct that is based upon the intersection between social interactions, performance, and interpretations of biological factors (Haslanger, 2006). This social construction is a topic of interest within feminist theory that is widespread and has been talked about by many scholars such as Judith Butler, Alex Faktor, and Lori Chambers. The main focus of this theory is to confront how society shapes gender based on a person’s biological body. This theory also focuses on how western society uses the binary concept of male and female to reinforce gender as a biological concept in society. In western society gender is socially constructed to be only male or female. In contradiction to this belief, there have been studies done that show a spectrum of different biological bodies and in places such as Thailand there is a third gender that is recognized legally (Van Esterick, 2000). A major goal of feminist theory in dealing with gender as a social construction is to move away from the western binary system and to see that the concept of gender is made up by what surrounds us in society. Judith Butler talks about gender as a performance which plays back to this theory of gender as a social construction and that there really is no true gender. Societal norms and ideals influence how we construct ourselves and how we perform our gender (Butler, 419). Social constructionism is the idea that people assume that some things are reality when in actuality they are socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Another main point of the theory of gender as a social construction is that a person should be allowed to identify with whatever gender they feel comfortable with. The feminist concepts aim to move away from the social construction of biology as gender and move more towards focusing on how society imposes a frame on gender identity.

Not A Binary Concept

Since the beginning of second wave feminism, liberal feminists have strived to make gender a core concept in feminist analysis. Prior to this, first wave feminists simply acknowledged that the concepts of masculine and feminine were socially learned, and skirted the issues surrounding gender by using terms such as “sex roles” instead. In fact, the concept of gender remained largely unexplored and the term “gender” itself was rarely used in theory until after the first wave had ended (Mann, 2012). However, through the efforts of such influential feminists as Joan Acker and Barbara Marshall, more contemporary feminists are beginning to highlight the importance of gender in feminist theory. They focus on exposing gender as a performative act that has been socially constructed. Gender analysis has now shifted “from a focus on social roles…to a social structural phenomenon that affects all areas of social life” (Mann, p. 70).

We live in a society that structures a binary gender concept. That is, sex and gender are classified into two distinct, opposite and disconnected categories of male and female. Western society is deeply committed to this notion that there are only two sexes. Legally, every adult is either a man or a woman; in language only the two gendered terms “he” and “she” exist; public washrooms are labelled either “male” or “female”. This construct comes along with a set of strict social boundaries that discourage individuals from breaking out of these categories. People who identify with mixed gender roles, for example intersexed or transgender individuals, are prejudiced and stigmatized in today’s society. In fact, any individual who does not fit neatly into one of these binary categories will most likely experience some degree of internal conflict due to this construct. Some might try to justify the binary system by arguing that it brings order to society. On the contrary, this system may bring extreme disorder and confusion to the many individuals who experience a disconnect between their personal identity and their prescribed gender roles. Contemporary feminists are increasingly finding fault with the socially constructed binary gender system. Many argue instead that this dichotomous construct needs to be broken down to allow for new, more inclusive forms of gender representation (Anzaldua, 1987).

Judith Butler, who is a theorist at the forefront of queer theory, provides some optimism for the possibility of deconstructing binary gender roles. She explains that gender is a socially constructed performativity (2004). Thus, in order to be maintained, these gender categories require repeated performance, and because of this they “[run] the risk of being deinstituted at every interval” (Butler, 342). Following suit from Butler, many contemporary theorists attempt to contest binary gender categories and redirect feminist thought towards accepting the malleability of gender identity. Anne Fausto-Sterling in “Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality” goes so far as to criticizes the binary system as being defiant of nature itself. Biologically, she has identified a spectrum running from male to female that identifies at least 5 sexes at a minimum (2000). Moreover, there are numerous other feminists who speak of gender as a multidimensional aspect of identity that falls along a spectrum, rather than fitting within a binary construct. It is becoming increasingly evident that a binary classification of gender is problematic and these categories need to be deconstructed to make way for a more inclusive representation of gender.

Gender Choice as a Human Right

With gender being a social construct that relies on performance and society’s interpretation of biological factors, the issue of choosing one’s gender arises. Society has an obsession with reading and interpreting others’ bodies “correctly” (Chambers, 2007, p. 313) and people can become very uncomfortable when they are unable to do so. The focus on the physical being and the biological makeup of a person ignores the psycho-social aspects of identity as well as the beliefs and experiences of an individual (Chambers, 2007). The concept of “woman” is, according to third-wave feminists and queer theorists, an artificial category (Chambers, 2007, p. 310). Society seems to become hung up on these categories and force people into them, often based on biological reasoning.

It should be a human right to identify one’s gender based on an intrinsic sense of self as opposed to one’s biological makeup. We should not engage in “policing” or “exclusion” as this can be detrimental to the future of human rights (Chambers, 2007, p. 333). There are a number of negative stereotypes that exist within our society surrounding the LGBTQ community. Acceptance and inclusion of members of this community needs to be stressed throughout society and especially to youth, whose sexualities are often left invalidated by the current education system (MacDonald, 2006).

The Public Washroom Issue

One area in society where we are often forced to adhere to the strict binary construction of gender is in the area of public washrooms. The attitudes and divisions around sanitation issues have been a long-standing representation of social inequality, with historical race and class divisions and more modern gender divisions (Faktor, 2011). Public washrooms in western society typically support the notions that there are no more than two genders, that everyone falls into one of these gender categories, and that these two genders need to be separated (Faktor, 2011). This need for gender separation is typically based on the idea that women are dirty and inferior, or on the idea that women are delicate and in need of protection (Faktor, 2011). The thought that women are delicate and in need of protection, combined with the idea that men are predatory seems insulting not only to women, but to men as well. It seems to downplay and justify the act of rape as an instinct that is natural for men to act upon and to blanket men under the stereotype of violent and uncontrollable when it comes to sexual urges. To make the claim that segregated public washrooms are required for safety ignores the fact that most public washrooms are not monitored and someone with ill intent could easily enter the bathroom (Faktor, 2011).

Public washrooms are clearly gendered spaces within society and rely on physical distinctions to determine who should use which washroom (Faktor, 2011). They segregate gender based on the two binary concepts and present problems and anxiety for intersex and transgendered individuals who are already vulnerable to gender discrimination (Faktor, 2011). Not only is gender segregated, but also gender roles are often enforced, with diaper changing tables located in women’s bathrooms as opposed to men’s, defining women and not men as primary caregivers (Faktor, 2011). Public spaces should support political views that we wish to advance, such as inclusion and acceptance, and should not be defined or separated based on biological makeup or genitalia (Chambers, 2007).

Public bathrooms do not only need to be reshaped to be more inclusive from a gender perspective, but also need to take into consideration others that differ from the norm. Public bathrooms can pose difficulties and discomfort for people with disabilities, people with opposite gendered caregivers, and parents with children that are too young to enter alone but too old to be socially accepted within opposite gendered bathrooms (Faktor, 2011). We feel that public bathrooms are not typically areas that are regarded as problems as long as one fits within the heteronormative stereotype but that upon closer inspection, they are an issue that need to be addressed. They serve to reinforce social control over the binary gender system through the use of overlapping power matrices in a style similar to concepts raised by Foucault (Faktor, 2011) and these matrices need to be deconstructed.

A Current Example

Recently, James Spencer, a 16-year-old transgendered male in Ontario has come face-to-face with the strict binary system of gender in western society. Upon arriving at his new school and identifying himself as a transgendered male, he has been banned from using the men’s washroom and instead has been granted access to the women’s washroom as well as a private washroom that requires a key; however, neither of these is what he wants (Almanciak & Green, 2012). Spencer is seeking to be allowed to use the washroom that corresponds to the gender that he identifies as, a request that seems simple enough and in our opinion, perfectly reasonable. In his fight to do this, Spencer has essentially “come out” to his whole school and has gotten more than half of the student body to sign a petition in support of him using the male washrooms (Almanciak & Green, 2012). The fact that the youth of Spencer’s school have been so willing to accept him and have showed their support through the signing of his petition gives us hope for a future where individuals are free to identify themselves without the assistance of biology.

A List of Heterosexual Privileges

I am able to have my own children with my partner
I am able to go to work without worrying about losing my job based on my sexuality
No one ever asks me questions about how I have sexual intercourse
I do not live in fear of how other people will perceive me once they know that I am heterosexual
My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my sexual orientation
I am not defined by my sexual orientation
I am not asked why I am straight
I am never asked to speak on behalf of all heterosexual people
The media caters to my sexual orientation so I never have to feel excluded from the media
My sexual orientation is never a taboo conversation topic in social situations as well as in school systems.
When I was growing up sexual education taught me about myself and my sexual orientation
I am able to participate in any religion I choose to
I am able to marry the person that I love anywhere in the world
I know that I will not be judged in the court of law based on my sexual orientation
I never have to worry that what I wear will reflect on my sexual orientation
I am always able to find a neighborhood where people are accepting of my heterosexuality
I am able to be affectionate to my partner in public without being harassed
I am able to legally live with my partner

This list of heterosexual privileges is composed of points from the following two websites as well as our own thoughts.

http://queersunited.blogspot.ca/2008/10/heterosexual-privilege-checklist.html

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/

References

Alamenciak, T., & Green, J. (2012, Nov 14). Transgender student barred from washroom. Toronto Star, Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search. proquest.com/docview/1151765417?accountid=14656

Anzaldua, G. (1987). La conciencia de la Mestiza: Towards a new consciousness. In G. Anzaldua (ed), Making Faces, Making Soul. Haciendo Caras. Creative and Critical Perspectives by Women of Colour. San Fransisco: An Aunt Lute Foundation Book. (pp. 333-389).

Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin.

Butler, J. (2004). Imitation and gender insubordination. In S. Seidman & J.C. Alexander The New Social Theory Reader. New York: Routledge. (pp. 333-346).

Butler, J. (2001). Imitation and gender insubordination. Feminist Theory: a Reader, 419-430. Print.

Chambers, L. (2007). Unprincipled exclusions: Feminist theory, transgender jurisprudence, and Kimberly Nixon. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 19(2), 305-334. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/journals/canadian_ journal_of_women_and_the_law/

Faktor, A. (2011). Access and exclusion. Journal of Human Security, 7(3), 10-22. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com /docview/921622013?accountid=14656

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Haslanger, B.S. (2006). Gender and social construction: Who? What? When? Where? How? Theorizing Feminisms, 16-23. Print

Killermann, S. 30+ Examples of Heterosexual Privilege in the US [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/

Kiume, S. (2007, August 17). Loneliness isn’t good [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/08/17/loneliness-isnt-good/

MacDonald, S. (2006). Acknowledging the rainbow: The need for the legitimization of l esbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in Canadian schools. Education Law Journal, 16(2), 183-218. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/212964568?accountid=14656

Mann, S. A. (2012). Doing feminist theory: From modernity to postmodernity. Oxford ; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Queers United. (12 October 2008). The Heterosexual Privilege Checklist [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://queersunited.blogspot.ca/2008/10/heterosexual-privilege-checklist.html

Van Esterick, P. (2000). Materializing Thailand. Oxford and New York: Berg