Categorizing Gender or Sex: Beyond the Binary Chapters 1-4
In biology, we learn that males are born with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Similarly, we are taught that females are born with two X chromosomes. In fact, from the very beginning of our science courses in middle or high school, we are taught the following: Chromosomes determine a person's or animal's sex. XY means male and XX means female. What are we supposed to think then, when a person identifies themselves differently than their chromosomes? Does science teach us that an individual born as a male can only identify himself as male, and vice-versa for a female? I challenge us to think about that question and to open our minds to new ideas that we have not been taught in our biology classes.
In her book, Beyond the Binary, Shannon Dea discusses the idea of a person's gender. To begin, she raises the question, "What specific features entitle an individual to membership in a particular category?" (4). Her question can definitely be applied to many different circumstances and situations, but to me and for the purposes of her book, I applied that question to the idea of a person's gender. I began to ask myself, "What really makes a person male or female? What does it really mean to be masculine or feminine?" I believe that as progressive as we like to believe that our society is, we are all still faced with these questions. In addition, we are also faced with the question of what to consider a person if their sex may be different chromosomally than their morphological or even preferred gender. Thus, in order to answer these questions, I believe that we first have to work to expand our minds and the minds of those in our community.
We have to individually accept the idea that while each being is born with certain chromosomes, those chromosomes should not define that individual. We can use Dea's example of Caster Semenya, "a top South African runner who... has XY sex chromosomes but female morphology because her tissues are not responsive to androgens" (7), to demonstrate that not every person will fit our traditional ideas of sex and gender. There are a variety of different sex sub-categories that many people fit into, and so my belief is that the best way to categorize a person is by directly asking them what they would prefer. Each person will have their own individual and unique preferences and, in fact, some people will choose not to enter any sex sub-category at all. This is because "no one is only a woman, or only Black, or only gay. We belong to many groups" (17). I truly believe that personal decision is the main arbiter in cases where chromosomes and morphology differ from one another. And if we choose to accept people and their personal preferences as to their gender, then I believe that our community will be able to take one step closer to being truly progressive.
Hi Natalie!
ReplyDeleteI really love what you have written here. I see a main takeaway from this is that as a whole, we all need to continue to educate ourselves and keep our minds open. It can be difficult at times, as the society we grew up in has forced certain ideas down our throats. But it is our job to learn and try to get away from some of the toxic things we learned.
I agree that without a doubt you should never just assume a person's gender and should always ask for their preferred pronouns. I also appreciate how you say that though learning about chromosomes and which genders they apply to, that we need to open our minds to other ideas outside of biology. I do find it funny though, that typically the people who refuse to acknowledge people who either transition genders or find they they do not fit in one or any gender, always bring up science. They discuss how science is science and a person cannot change their gender, that what we are born as is what we need to be. Yet a good chunk of those same people refuse to believe the science surrounding climate change. I'm getting off topic but that's something that just irks me.
Anyways, I think you have written a great blog here. I agree with a lot of what you said. I too hope that our society continues to progress and allow people to express themselves in whatever way makes them happy and comfortable!!
Hi Natalie!
DeleteI really liked the questions that you brought up in your blog post. I think that those are the questions that we should be asking ourselves to enrich our knowledge in sex and gender. I agree with your general message that this is all a learning process and to that answer these questions we have to open our minds to new possibilities. I also think it's important for us to challenge the status quo because not every person will fit the traditional ideas of sex and gender. I liked how you said that "...the best way to categorize a person is by directly asking them what they would prefer". I have thought about this before and came to that conclusion, but sometimes I wonder if the person on the receiving end of the question will be offended that I had to ask, or relieved that I asked before misgendering. Let me know that you think!:)
Hi Natalie,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like your response to the question of whether someone like Caster Semenya should be categorized as male or female is that we should ask Semenya that that whatever Semenya says will be the answer to the question of whether Semenya is male or female. Am I representing your view accurately?
If so, I have a few questions. It sounds like you think that we should not distinguish between someone's professed gender identity and that person's biological sex. If Semenya identifies as a woman then we ought to categorized her as female. In other words, it sounds like on your view, biologists cannot have an answer to the question "What is the sex of this human?" in advance of asking about that human's gender identity, or on the basis of physical features like chromosomes, hormones, and morphology alone.
In her book, Dea retains a distinction between gender identity and biological sex. Why do you think that she does that? Are there any good reasons for retaining such a distinction (e.g. from the perspective of medical doctors? Researchers in animal biology?)
Also, a small point about language: note the difference between "novel" and "book". See e.g. https://www.bl.uk/restoration-18th-century-literature/articles/the-rise-of-the-novel
A novel is a particular genre of writing and Dea's textbook isn't an instance of it :)