[Sociology Essay] Gender: The Overwhelming, Nonexistent Curse Inflicted by and Upon Society (Made 2022 Spring Semester)

 

Gender: The Overwhelming, Nonexistent Curse Inflicted by and Upon Society

Elliot Maxwell Sibert-Sweeney

Ball State University

ENG 104: Composing Research

Cameron Carter

February 27, 2022

Gender is nonexistent. This is fact. It has been proven several times by several people through several means. Yet people will still argue that somehow it isn’t, that somehow gender exists and isn’t made by socialization in an infinite and horrific loop that humanity is stuck in and may never escape. Within the book Composing Gender by Rachael Groner and John F. O’Hara are a number of essays. Two of these essays will be discussed in this paper: one by Judith Lorber of gender being socially constructed and the other by Sandra Bem which effectively explains the interesting way that Judith Butler twists conservative arguments to turn them into arguments against themselves. Both of these essays help to establish the claim that gender doesn’t exist, never has, never will, and is in fact just a cruel societal expectation forced subconsciously and consciously upon unknowing pawns in a game of abuse, oppression, and ignorance.

According to Judith Lorber (2014), “... everyone ‘does gender’ without thinking about it,” (p. 19) it is a part of the human condition, and on this I concur. Further they state that “Transvestites and trannssexuals carefully construct their gender status by dressing, speaking, walking, gesturing…” how they believe men and women do or should, “... and so does any “normal person” (Lorber, 2014, p. 20). But that doesn’t explain how gender is socially constructed. The social construction of gender begins at the assignment of sex at birth; this then turns into gender through careful dress, naming, and a plethora of other “gender markers.” I disagree with Lorber on this point, as I believe that gender begins it’s creation before even the point of conception, however I shall expand upon this in a later paragraph. After their explanation of how they see gender beginning, Lorber expands upon how gender continues to be constructed throughout adolescence, briefly touching upon the differing expectations towards boys and girls, puberty, and society’s need of a “predictable division of labor” (Lorber, 2014,  p. 21). From that point, the true sickness of gender and how society forces it upon the youth begins to be explained but Lorber quickly moves away from that concept and towards explaining how the argument by society that gender is real and based upon physiology and logic is flawed, explaining how some societies have more than two genders, and how transvestism and transsexuality clash with the idea of biological gender.

Next Lorber explains that society wants gender to be simple. It wants all members of a gender to be bound by similarity, explaining some of the many ways cultures force conformity upon certain genders through rituals, such as the removal of the clitorous (Lorber, 2014, p. 24). This is followed by a thought experiment on how to raise a gender-free child and how, even in spite of one’s best efforts, gender will always find a way to seep into children and how society forces the structure of gender subtly and maliciously upon its subjects. This is quite well summed up by Lorber in the statement, “... once gender is ascribed, the social order constructs and holds individuals to strongly gendered norms and expectations” (Lorber, 2014, p. 25). But Lorber explains that gender isn’t just about similarities; as we all know, it is also about differences. Lorber explains that even when men and women do the same things they are segregated, that women Marines will always be women Marines, not Marines, and that this occurs as a necessary process to keep the structure of gender afloat (Lorber, 2014, p. 30). After this, Lorber spends multiple pages explaining the horrific way in which gender causes and reinforces itself, how men are ranked higher in society than women, how gender roles roughly work, and how gender relates to sex and sexuality before finally coming around to the conclusion: “There is no core or bedrock human nature below these endlessly looping processes of the social production of sex and gender, self and other identitiy and psyche…” (Lorber, 2014, p. 30). Thankfully that essay matters much less to me than the second I will be covering.

In her essay, Sandra Bem (2014) sets out, and succeeds, to explain three of Judith Butler’s “... nifty little reversals…” (p. 204). These are when Butler takes a conservative argument and twists it following its own logic to turn it into an argument against itself. First up is Butler’s twist on the idea that the two binary sexes are naturally different and attracted to each other and that this is, “... the cause of exclusive and compulsory heterosexuality,” arguing instead that these two distinct sexes being different and attracted to each other is, “... the effect of exclusive and compulsory heterosexuality” (Bem, 2014, pp. 204-205). This in effect means that heterosexuality needed two distinct sexes, and so two distinct sexes came into being, as opposed to the opposite, more common belief. 

The second reversal sees Butler twist the idea of homosexuality being, “... a pathetic imitation of heterosexuality, which is itself the natural or original form of sexuality,” and the application of this same idea to, “... both drag and butch/femme roles…” (Bem, 2014, p. 205) also being imitations. Butler twists this idea by saying, simply, that all gender is drag. Bem (2014) explains that by this Butler means, “... all gender is an imitation of some phantasmagorical vision of what a man or a woman is supposed to be like. Hence there is nothing more natural, original, or unconstructed about a female dressing up like a woman than a male dressing up like a woman,” (p. 205) an idea that is not just a fun twist of an all too common and infuriating argument, but actually a really nice piece of philosophy. After all, we all know what men and women are meant to look like, don’t we? But then again… what is this based off of exactly? Where did this come from? 

Now comes the third reversal, in which Butler argues that heteronormativity requires there to be a large other whom the heterosexual populous may label as deviant and perverse before using these labels to encourage heteronormativity, making “... the demonized… as necessary to the system… as the privileged” (Bem, 2014, p. 206). Now, with all of these arguments made, one might ponder how it is exactly that any counterpoints can even be countenanced, let alone legitimately believed, so allow me to play the devil’s advocate, and give you some insight into the other side of this debate.

People who believe that gender is actually real relate it strongly, if not entirely, to biological sex, saying that because there are two sexes there are two genders, and often completely ignoring the existence of intersex people. Further, they tend to point to religion and it’s treatment of gender as a binary, and it’s often clear patriarchal message, as even more evidence, despite religion often being directly contradictory to fact in many other circumstances. These people also tend to say that boys playing with boys’ toys and girls playing with girls’ toys is itself evidence to the contrary of gender being fake, also deeming hormones an important factor that leads to this, ignoring all other possibilities, for example, hormones making children more susceptible to certain sociological influences; but that is purely conjecture. The thing that all of these arguments have in common is their lack of actual evidence and logic, even when it may, at surface level, seem to ring true. But people like myself prove these arguments wrong: I was raised by two mothers and I grew up loving tractors and dinosaurs as much as I loved my American Girl Doll and fluorescent pink wig, something directly contradictory to the idea of toys being specific to genders without any major social influence being involved. Still, one can see where these people are coming from, however illogical their arguments are once one actually begins to use their critical thinking skills. But with that out of the way, I think that it’s time to bring all of this together and talk about what all this means and how it may be possible to fix this nightmarish reality of ours.

A research synthesis article written by UNICEF’s Nikola Balvin, What is gender socialization and why does it matter?, explains in simple terms the ideas presented in a discussion paper called Gender Socialization during Adolescence in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. One of these ideas is that “... the dynamic process of gender socialization… (has) ... many factors that shape it at different levels of influence: structural, social-interactional and individual levels” (Balvin, 2017, para. 9), an idea that fits with the ideas presented by Judith Lorber and the reversals of Judith Butler as explained by Sandra Bem. But what really makes this article and the paper it is exploring stand out, is how they present suggestions for improving society and turning the tables of socialization, hoping that when, “developing policies and programmes aimed at increasing gender equality, decision-makers can use (their) framework to position their efforts, understand the key areas and actors they may be able to influence and the outcomes to which they can contribute, and construct a more comprehensive Theory of Change” (Balvin, 2017, para. 10). The article states, perhaps most importantly, that the paper recommends taking advantage of “... openings at the structural level…” and the development of “… programmes and policies that complement these shifts…” so as to “... achieve greater gender equity” (Balvin, 2017, para. 12). Balvin (2017) further explains that “Looking for these openings to influence gender socialization during adolescence is particularly important as today’s adolescents are pivotal to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and their gender attitudes and outcomes will influence future generations” (para. 12).

Gender isn’t real. But the effects it has are. People are abused, raped, and killed because of their gender. They kill themselves because of their gender. They are kept from achieving their goals and being their best selves because of their gender. These are the real effects of a nonexistent idea that refuses to die, always asserting and reasserting itself, always present, inescapable. But things are changing, the tides are turning, and one day, maybe, this cruel cycle of gender will finally be abolished, these horrors will end, and the world will be one step closer to greatness. Maybe, just maybe. But for now, gender continues, unreal, unstoppable, and uncontrollable.

Citations

Balvin, N. (2017, August 18). What is gender socialization and why does it matter? Evidence for Action. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://blogs.unicef.org/evidence-for-action/what-is-gender-socialization-and-why-does-it-matter/

Groner, R., O'Hara, J. F., & Lorber, J. (2014). "Night to His Day": The Social Construction of Gender. In Composing gender: A bedford spotlight reader (pp. 19–33). essay, Bedford/St. Martin's.

Groner, R., O'Hara, J. F., & Bem, S. (2014). On Judith Butler. In Composing gender: A Bedford spotlight reader (pp. 204–207). essay, Bedford/St. Martin's.