|
The Concept of Gender |
|
|
All too frequently, when discussing the concept of gender we begin with the perspective which starts with the binary view of male and female and work from there. In the end, this rarely proves fruitful for anyone as there are too many questions left unanswered by this approach. From a legitimate scientific and philosophic standpoint, should we aspire to be honest with ourselves and our inquiry, we have to first ask, "Is this the appropriate approach?" Most of us are familiar with the arguments stemming from the concept of a gender identity which stands in opposition to one's anatomical sex. As previously stated, when we start with the binary view of gender as male and female, we also assume to a certain degree, the unenlightened view that chromosomal sex (XX vs. XY), anatomical sex (penis or vagina), and gender identity (male or female) always fall neatly into a "male" and "female" categorization. It is an inconvenient reality that this is not always the case, or even a necessity of biology. (I differentiate between "physical" and "anatomical," in relation to sex, preferring the latter to describe one's visually assessable physical makeup which may or may not be consistent with other determining factors; while the former is simultaneously inclusive of any and all factors that may make up one's "sex," including factors that may contradict one another.) So back to our initial approach: what perspective is most productive for our approach to understanding sex and gender. As a scientist, and as a philosopher, I would suggest that we approach this from the ground, up, instead of the traditional "top down" approach so commonly found. Approaching the question in a "top down" manner, one is left to look at the results and attempt to divine the intent. This is akin to scientific experiments attempting to determine the cause by only observing the effect; a scientific "black box" where we are only allowed to view the result, not the input or the mechanisms used. Numerous scientists have demonstrated repeatedly, and definitively that the natural function of Nature is through diversity. Carl Jung best expressed this by stating that the "statistical mean" is simply that, and can only be arrived at through proper deviation in opposite directions. Additionally, he also stated that the "statistical mean" does not represent any particular, empirical instance. He clearly illustrated this by the example of deriving a "statistical mean" from a pair of bi-polar opposites. The "statistical mean" represents neither subject adequately, and is not beneficial to either subject at all. A "statistical mean" is nothing more than a singular representation of quantifiable data and says nothing about the subjects which comprise the sample set. First question: In the strictest sense, is Nature limited to only male and female? I'm not asking what the most frequent occurrences are, nor am I contemplating what is the most advantageous to the advancement of the species; strictly speaking: is Nature limited to only male and female? The answer to this question is an unhesitating "no." Nature provides many variations within any given species. Science has frequently documented many exceptions to the male/female-only rule. Complete/Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, Kleinfelter's Syndrome, hermaphroditism/intersexuality, genetic anomalies, gynecomastia, hypospodias, and numerous other anomalies; anomalies, it should be noted, which only address externally assessable anatomical development, and do not address the neurologic, neurophysical, psychiatric, and psychologic composition of the human brain. Kate Bornstein, in her book Gender Outlaw, discusses how she has frequently asked the question, "What constitutes being male or female?" In response to this question, she has never received a definitive answer to the question -- for every answer, there is an instance that nullifies it. In contrast to humany anatomy, the human brain cannot be easily unerstood. Most analysis into brain structure can only be accomplished post-mortem -- again, viewing the result of a scientific "black box" without being able to understand the input. Scientists regularly suggest that we likely only understand 10-20% of how the human brain actually works. Though we have recently made great strides in furthering that understanding, based upon observing the the chemical interactions of the brain, we are certainly far from understanding where we derive our sense of self, our consciousness. But this has been a problem that has long riddled philosophers, scientists, doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, theologians, and scholars and intellectuals everywhere. From where do we derive our sense of self? How do you know who you are? It is not likely that these questions will be answered anytime soon, and we do not advance the course of reaching that answer by holding on to simplistic ideas. |
|
