Final Post: essay on the construction of sex

Deconstructing the essentialism of the sexed body:
an examination of sex determination through gendering language

Biologically, the sexed body is a continuation of the socially constructed gender binary. The sex of a person is defined as their biological maleness and femaleness, with subcategories such as, genetic sex (referring to chromosomal composition) and anatomical sex (physical attributes defined as female or male, examples being the vulva or penis). The gender of a person is described as the psychological and socio-cultural characteristics associated with the sex (Crooks, 2008, 46). The sex of person becomes a fixed, naturalized characteristic, while gender is created by social normative patterns that form a person’s identity. However, theorist Judith Butler (2006) argues that our understanding of the sexed body has been conceptualized and confined by our language, placing the body into a rigid gender binary. Language is a tool used by people to express their understanding of the world by articulating their repetitive actions and thoughts, thus, creating a script that determines what is socially acceptable. Therefore, what we assume to be essential is not free from the construction of language. This constructed understanding of reality has placed the essentialized sexed body within a constrictive gender binary and it becomes harder to deconstruct because of the naturalized quality people have placed on the study of Biology. To examine the sexed body as a social phenomenon, we must first need to accept that everything we hold to be concrete has been confined by our language and a need to create categories to organize our world; consequently, the sexed body is no more a ‘reality’ than our ‘gendered body’.

Biology has always been regarded as ‘more real’ than the phenomena explained by the Social sciences. Thus, the biological-sexed body is assumed to be fixed and void of social influence. However, the scientific language used to describe what is assumed to be innate in the sexes is influenced by how we conceive gender roles. Because of this conception of ‘reality’, characteristics associated with the sexes, such as the “mothering instinct” or the “aggressive male” is falsely naturalized through Biology. Butler (2006) upsets our understanding of Biology by claiming that the discipline is a human construction that does not transcend our genderized language. In fact, many biologists recognize the fluidity of sex and gender patterns within the animal population.

Mans Andersson (2006) wrote an article discussing the diversity of sex in a variety of animal species. There were examples provided of inner-sexed species (an animal that procreates with itself), anatomical sex determination by environmental factors (such as temperature in determining the sex of some amphibians), and characteristics that have been defined as essentially male qualities practiced or predominantly found in female species. These phenomena were witnessed by Charles Darwin and integrated into his understanding of evolution and the adaptability of species in changing environments. Thus, it is curious that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been used to suggest a false reality that males and females are inherently different and with those differences, essentialist claims are made about sexed behaviors. Common sexed behaviors associated with males are aggression, dominance, and frequent mating with multiple females in order to ensure the transmission of their genes to the next generation. Andersson uses examples of several bird species in which these assumed male traits are found in the females, such as patterns of aggression and sex selection. There are also examples of the female bird moving from the passive mating role to the aggressive mating role, in that she seeks out several mates and chooses what sperm will fertilize her eggs (2006, 14). There are several species that have transcended the sex binary humans have created, so why do we not hear about these animals?

Andersson (2006) indicates that species observed to have this gender-role reversal are understudied and usually not given much attention in mainstream science. Humans study the animal kingdom through the sex binary we have established for understanding our lives. Thus, we try to fit animals within this framework of understanding, and when they do not fit, we either ignore them or try to bend the reality of the species behavior to fit within the sex-specific behaviors established in the sex binary. The most telling example of this is when Andersson refers to John Marzuluff and Russ Baldo’s study of dominance hierarchies within the bird species called Pineon Jay. They claimed that the female’s aggression was connected to hormonal fluctuation, similar to women experiencing pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS). Later, this conclusion was dismissed, as scientists observed that female Pineon Jays choose their mates and aggression is displayed in ensuring the best mate selection (2006, 15). It is evident that gender normative stereotypes are indirectly applied in studying other animals and interfere with how species are actually living.

Animal Planet is a television station devoted solely to exploring the natural world and educating people about a vast array of species and environments. However, when I thought about most of the shows I have watched, I discovered that many of the animals discussed fit our definitions of sex. Heteronormative language is used to describe mating practices. The male is usually the pursuer and the female flees from the males, until she is too weak to fend off the strongest male’s advances and ultimately ‘succumbs to his will’. But why don’t we hear about the birds that store up several males sperm, and pick the best batch to fertilize their eggs, and are even in control of the sex of their offspring? It is because these animals ‘trouble’ our definition of male and female roles and what we believe to be essentially ‘female’ and ‘male behaviors.

As stated previously, the study of Biology is assumed to be closer to ‘reality’ than cultural constructions but it is not free from the language that has indoctrinated the heteronormative sex binary. As a science student, I have learned about many plants and animal species that deviate from the assumed sex binary, but this information does not infuse into the greater society. People want to hear about animals they can relate to and animals that upset our understanding of sex and gender-roles become hard to comprehend and are placed in the category of deviants. In reality the ‘deviants category’ is rather large, a population that diversifies and complexifies our understanding of sex. We must begin to think of ways to normalize people that deviate from the language used to describe the sexed body. A way to begin breaking-down this constrictive language is to educate the general public about the sex diversity of animals and plants. Perhaps this would begin to validate the experiences of people that do not fit within the sex binary. For what is more natural than nature?

Before we can deconstruct the language that influences and legitimizes a binary approach to the sexed body, we need to understand how this language was created and if it can be subverted. Butler (2006) analyzes the Body Politics Theory of Julia Kristeva. Kristeva emphasizes two important aspects of genderized language, the Symbolic and the semiotic. The Symbolic is defined as “the paternal law that structures all language signification” (2006, 107), the idea that our language inherently is confined by language that is phalliocentric. The second term is semiotic, which is generally defined as the construction of reality through symbolic meaning. Kristeva uses Lactanian’s narrative, which assumes that cultural meaning, “requires the repression of the primary relationship to the maternal body” (2006,108). Poetic language is defined as an attempt to reclaim the maternal body within the framework of language. It is a linguistic device that fractures and multiplies meaning. Kristeva complexifies the Lacatian idea of the suppression of the maternal body by claiming this phenomena transcends cultural construction. She claims that the maternal body is “bearing a set of meanings that is prior to culture itself” (2006, 109). Kristeva looks for ways to transcend the Symbolic through alternative forms of language, the poetic is a way in which the Symbolic can be broken down.

Butler (2006) is most critical of Kristeva’s attention to subversion of the maternal body and questions her argument of removing the maternal body from the construction of society. Can we truly transcend this linguistic framework, or must we be aware of its oppressive qualities and disrupt or trouble the gender binary created by language? Butler suggests that deconstructing the construction of the maternal body’s dependency on heterogeneity discourse is more important than transcending the structure. She uses Kristeva’s work to illuminate new claims that Kristeva overlooks, such as the mandate of maternity “as a compulsory defense against libidinal chaos” (2006, 117). She discusses this aspect through a discussion of homosexuality and how it deviates from the maternal symbol in lesbianism. A lesbian must go through a series of displacements in order to avoid the maternal drives. An internalized ‘heteronormalcy’ is constructed through biological justification and the lesbian woman is the divergent, termed to be the “psychotic”.
The ultimate error of Kristeva’s theory according to Butler (2006) is subversion of the connection between culture and this maternal being. She states:
The law that is said to repress the semeiotic may well be the governing principle of the semiotic itself, with the result that what passes as “maternal instinct” may well be a culturally constructed desire which is interpreted through naturalistic vocabulary. And if that desire is constructed according to a law of kinship which requires the heterosexual production and reproduction of desire, then the vocabulary of naturalistic affect effectively render that “paternal law” invisible. (2006, 123)
The problem lies in normative, naturalized language being used to essentialize socially constructed realities of the sexed body. Butler discusses the importance of deconstructing and troubling the foundations of this language.

Butler (2006) also examines Michel Foucault’s genealogical critique of the gender binary that fails to support the divergence from rigid sex categories. According to Butler, Foucault argues that there is no inherent “sex” and a failure to recognize the sex binary reinforces the subjugation of all people. He believes it is necessary to deconstruct the ‘sexed body’ and understand the power dynamics of the binary. Foucault uses the case study of Herculine, a hermaphrodite (inner-sexed person) that was biologically said to be a girl but had secondary male sex characteristics and physical features, and ultimately choose a male identity later in life. Foucault focuses on the period of his/her life in which s/he had not yet become classified as a male by law. He claims this part of Herculine’s life to be “non-gendered”, meaning s/he is not forced to comply with normative male or female conventions, and thus, experiences happiness in this gender confusion. However, Butler refutes this point claiming that Herculine struggled a lot during his/her period of being non-gendered because s/he did not fit into a distinct category of the gender binary (2006, 128). Herculine’s case becomes an ultimate example of gender trouble because s/he upsets the gender/sex binary, and challenges the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

A discussion of the construction of sexed biological language is seen through Dr. David Page’s research where the lab tried to discover the biological factor that differentiated the sexes (Butler, 2006,145). The way in which the Y chromosome was discussed perpetuates the male dominant heterosexual discourse, in that the Y chromosome is inherently responsible of maleness and the absence of this, is femaleness. The language used in this study went as far as to reinforce the genderized roles of the active and passive in describing the chromosomal make-up of men and women, associating the Y chromosome as the active determinant of sex and the X chromosome as the passive or default determinant of sex (2006, 146). Again, cases of inner-sexed people trouble the language used in this research because their chromosomes do not always correspond to the physical characteristics we associate with being male or female. Butler continuously expresses concern with the gender binary that is informed by language construction because inner-sexed people and others that upset the biological-sex binary are seen as divergent and lacking of the proper characteristics assumed to be either inherently male or female features. In this respect, sex is not gender neutral or exclusive, as we are taught to believe. Butler claims that troubling the assumptions of nature are imperative in deconstructing the oppressive factors of the gender binary with the hope that all living beings that deviate from the sex binary will no longer be categorized as abnormal or deviant.

How can we begin to blur the lines that separate the sexes into two distinct categories? One way, is to emphasize the similarities anatomically and genetically between the sexed bodies. Our Sexuality (2008) is a wonderful tool to educate people in the process of sex determination. It is not until 6 weeks after conception that the anatomic structure of the fetus is differentiated through differing levels of hormone production, which are usually determined by the chromosomal DNA, of a XX chromosomes (containing information for female sex characteristics to develop) or the XY chromosomes (containing information for male sex characteristics to develop). However, there are varying levels of hormones and combinations of chromosomes that can cause the formation of ‘ambiguous’ anatomical features (Crooks, 2008, 49). While the book displays how similar the fetuses of both sexes are, some language used to differentiate between the sexes is still constrictive. For instance, the term ambiguous genitalia, is used when describing people with “atypical prenatal sex differentiation characteristics” (2008, 54).

The fact that people who possess atypical sex characteristics are termed ‘ambiguous’ or ‘abnormal’ because we cannot place them neatly in a male or female sex category is a harsh reality in our society. Why must people be forced within the constraints of the existing gender binary? I learned in my Human Sexuality class that about four percent of births in the United States last year were classified as possessing ‘ambiguous genitalia’. That is a high statistic, which I believe should become a validated understanding of sex and classified as a natural variation of sex. Unfortunately, most families immediately assign their child with ‘ambiguous genitalia’ to a sex at birth and this can lead to devastating consequences in the child’s future if they can not connect their gender identity with their chosen sex. Many parents of inner-sexed children fear that their child will not fit into a society that has organized the separation of the sexes, through public bathrooms, changing rooms, children’s’ activities, and the list continues. An individual struggles when they do not conform to societal institutions, such as gender. In theory it is much easier to say that the individual should transcend the sex binary by not conforming to gender normative patterns, however, in praxis this becomes very difficult because we do not have an extra-discursive language to discuss this action. We do not have a way to comprehend the subversion of an individual from the designated sex categories, and thus, the individual will suffer massive repercussions for not conforming to the gender identity of one sex.

It is challenging for me to trouble the assumed connection between innateness and the sexed body. A part of me yearns to essentialize my sex; there is something truly innate about me being a woman, something that is not informed by societal constructive language. Perhaps it becomes constructed once I try to verbalize the feeling of innateness because I must use a language of symbols that perpetuate the sex binary. But the way in which my body has been hardwired has to be free from gender assumptions. However, I do realize that the way in which we understand this process of hardwiring is explained through a constrictive language. I also realize that sex and gender are inextricably linked, and the reality of how we understand sex is through the process of sexing the body. Instead of being born with a sex, we have been assigned a sex. Sex dichotomist categories have designed to organize ‘like people’, and assign certain gender-roles to each specific category. Thus, the problem seems to stem from our obsession with categorizing the world we live in. But could we understand anything without some element of categorical organization?

Naturally, we process information by dividing like concepts and ideas into categories. We have to find a place for everything, so we can place our own experiences within in an understandable framework. The problem with this process is not that they exist but that these categories are too rigid. If some concept does not fit within a set of respective categories society has created to understand a specific issue, we classify it as deviant, abnormal, or atypical. It does not belong in our frame of reference and this reality has devastating consequences for individuals who do not fit within any category.
Society has been constructed to de-legitimize the experience of many people by creating only two distinct categories to understand the differences between the sexes. The expansion of these two categories is necessary in creating a more fluid and realistic understanding of the sexed body. I think it would be difficult to remove the action of sexing the body because we need to have a framework of understanding and organization. However, these categories need to be more flexible and inclusive, no one should be excluded from a legitimate category.

My purpose has been to demonstrate that everything we hold to be concrete has been confined by our language and we need to create an extra-discursive discourse to create more categories and less rigid existing categories that organize our understanding of the sexed body. However, it is important to remember that we cannot change the construction of our language over night, nor can we transcend the language. The first step is understanding that the issue is present and that we need to think of better ways to legitimize the sexed experiences of all people. In terms of the Third Wave movement, there are other realms of change that can happen more immediately. It is always quicker to change things within an existing system, rather than changing the system itself. I think one of the most beneficial things people can draw from this topic is awareness that everything we understand to be ‘reality’ in our society has been influenced and expressed through language, and this language has many elements of oppression and dichotomist categories. Again, it is easy to formulate and express theories about language constriction but there is a disconnect between theory and praxis. It is easier to work within the realm of understanding, and it is easy to essentialize the gender norms that have been so entrenched in our conceptualization of the world. It is my hope that people can become aware of their sexed body and that they can begin to trouble the binary expectations of what it means to be male or female. This is not an easy step and it does not irradiate the foundation of language; but it does challenge people to question this foundation and realize it does not have to define who we are as people.


References

Andersson, M. (2006). Gendering animals: representation, identification and the demise of simplicity. NIKK magasin: New Perceptions of Gender and Reproduction. 3, 12-15.

Baur, K., Crooks, R. (2008). Our Sexuality. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc.

Butler, J. (2006). Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.