Anne Fausto-Sterling Research Paper

1. The nurture/nature argument of Dr. John Money is that while genes are important, as for gender is concern: a baby is consider neutral for the first two years of life During these two years, a child’s upbringing (their nurture) will determine if it feels masculine or feminine. In other words, it is possible to raise a boy as a girl, and that nurture is more important than nature. 2. The conclusion of the documentary in terms of this case study and the nature/nurture controversy, Dr. Money’s theory does not seem to hold true for most children.

The nurture argument can explain why some people adopt the gender role not expected of their sex. In theory, a feminine boy would have had a set of experiences which have led him to acquire a different gender role from most boys. If gender roles are nurtured, it also explains why an individual’s gender may change over time as anything that is learnt can be unlearnt and replaced by a new set of behaviours.

In the reading by Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet “Learning to be Gendered” it states “Women are not born, they are made. The same is true of men”. Everybody has their own gender, it’s either a male or female. We think that we were born this way, but in reality we are forced to become something we are not. We are the way we are because of society its self. It affects our daily lives to a point where people have lost the will of choosing who they are or what they want. In some parts around the world it is forbidden to date or marry the same sex. Now days everything is branded for either a male, female, or both.

From the moment a child is born, the society in which they are born into begins to teach the child what is normal, and what is not. If the aforementioned child has a vagina, they will be labeled a girl and assumed to be heterosexual, and the same principle applies if the child has a penis. Yet the human world is not as simple as this established gender binary. For example, there are people who identify with a gender other than the sex assigned at birth.1 There are also people who are not sexually attracted strictly to the opposite gender, or at all. Such diversions from societal normality are more often than not greeted with opposition, as what is considered normal is also deemed right. The LGBT community has had to deal with fierce societal

Some believe parents need to be more accepting of what gender their child chooses to be. In Linda DiProperzio’s article, she quoted an associate professor of Women 's Studies at the University of California named Jane Ward, who stated, “Raising a child under these strict gender guidelines is denying them an entire world of colors--they become tracked into the characteristics of their biological sex.” (Par. 7) Moreover, it is stated that limiting the views of a child can, and will, drastically change them and their future self. Not allowing children to be creative in what they choose limits their mindset. It is even worse that these narrow-minded ideas are thought up and enforced by the

This is quite an interesting article to someone like me who considered herself to be a lesbian woman and who has had several encounters with these “straight” women. The author’s main point in this article is the vast continuum in which women’s sexuality resides, but also the ways in which these women define what classifies one someone who is homosexual. Most conformed to binary categories heterosexual-homosexual, while one refused to conform to one or the other while also being uncomfortable with the bisexual label. A majority of these women also placed an emphasis on the physical act of sex with another woman to be the definitive action that would classify them as a lesbian. Since none of them had “gone all the way,” then two of the three women stated that they considered themselves heterosexual while the one, as mentioned above, refused to conform to a label.

Traditionally speaking, most people view sex and gender as interchangeable, synonymous, and biological. As more studies and research are done, more professionals are realizing the vital difference between the two terms. Sex, according to sociologist Doctor Zuleyka Zevallos, is the “biological traits that societies use to assign people into the category of either male or female, whether it be through a focus on chromosomes, genitalia, or some other physical ascription”. She goes on to say that the definition of gender is “the cultural meanings attached to men and women’s roles; and how individuals understand their identities including, but not limited to, being a man, woman, transgender, intersex, gender queer, and other gender identities” (Zeyallos, 2014). We see sex as something we are assigned at birth due to the body parts we are born with, and we see gender as the way one identifies with their assigned sex. In the majority of cases, assigned sex and gender identity line up, but less often it does not. In these cases, we see individuals who are transgender, gender queer, gender fluid, and more. More people are coming forward about these different ways they are experiencing gender, so many people assume these ways of experiencing gender are new.

Through examining the ways intersex individuals are treated in a medical setting, one can see how science only allows binary bodies to be created. Crawley et al. (2007) discusses intersex individuals and the standard treatment of intersex children, being to alter their ‘abnormal’ genitalia to resemble one of the two genders. This has become the normal treatment as if this is necessary, but the only threat the child is in danger of is not fitting perfectly into the heteronormative standard of correct genitalia. Because surgical intervention proves we alter and change one’s sex, it becomes difficult to claim that sex and gender are solely biological, when clearly one’s gender and sex becomes largely altered the moment they are born into society. Anne Fausto Sterling, outlines her concept of the five sexes, explaining that intersex is a term used to describe any individual that doesn’t fit into the narrow categories of male and female. She explains that the same process that was in play in the Middle Ages is

In her essay titled “Compulsive Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” Adrienne Rich claims that any alternative to heterosexual outcome is discouraged by society. The essay claims that Western tradition has used the heterosexual family model as the basic social

Gender is an individual’s cognitive reference to themselves as male or female, whereas sex is their sexual anatomy, made up from their genes (Anderson, 2015). Children develop gender schemas through observations of others, looking at different characteristics and roles each gender takes on, while also learning through their own culture (Rathus, 2006). Bem did not believe in clear gender roles, she stated that, “an individual could display characteristics of both males and females, making them androgynous” (Anderson, 2015). Within her theory, individuals can be gender schematic or gender aschematic. Gender schematic individuals see the world through a lens that is strictly black and white. They have a set view on how a males and females should act and they do not deviate from their perceptions, instead they align with their “categorized schemas” (Anderson, 2015). If an individual is classified as being gender aschematic, then an environment is not strictly defining roles or characteristics of males and females, then children will have a broader schema because they are not being influenced to develop ideas of which traits belong to which gender (Rathus,

There are several sources that tell a person how to be a man or woman. Science tells us by recognizing the X or Y chromosomes. The media shows us through the physically ideal celebrities that grace the covers of magazines and flaunt their bodies in commercials. Sports, wrestling, cars, and blue for the boys. Dresses, make-up, painted nails, and pink for the girls. All of these sources, as well as others, have evolved into an expectation that has become institutionalized within society. This expectation, is placement and belonging into the binary system of person: the man or the woman. In Anne Fausot-Sterling's acrticles “The Five Sexes” and the “The Five Sexes, Revisited”, the

Since the beginning of time, gender has always been divided into two categories, either male or female, with few instances that have stepped in between. As civilization has evolved, it has began to learn that this division is a lie, and that it is disgusting, disgraceful, hurtful and untrue at its rotten core. This is because this “division” has never counted for anything but a label and a set of roles as a stereotype, which was unjustly assigned at birth in a societal attempt to conform each and every unique soul into a shape that they cannot fully fit. There should not exist such standards and expectations that do not account for anything besides what one's body has to say, without asking the mind of the thoughtless vessel known as the body.

“The social construction of gender comes out of the general school of thought entitled social constructionism. Social constructionism proposes that everything people "know" or see as "reality" is partially, if not entirely, socially situated. To say that something is socially constructed does not mitigate the power of the concept. These basic theories of social constructionism can be applied to any issue of study pertaining to human life, including gender. This is

In this essay I discuss that "doing gender means creating differences between girls and boys and women and men...." (West & Zimmerman 2002:13) I am concentrating on the female perspective, how societyputs forth expectations of what is 'natural' or biological even though, in some cases, it can be quite demeaning and degrading. I am using some examples from the local media and also a few childhoodexperiences that have helped me to now strongly suspect that the quote from Simone Beauvoir (1972) "One is not born a woman, but rather becomes one" most likely has quite a bit of truth to it.

The world has come very far with all the dramatic changes we have faced over the years. Wouldn’t you agree? As much change as the world has been through there are still numerous social problems that still exist in society today. Amongst those numerous social problems, sexual orientation and inequality stand out to me. Research from biology, psychology, and sociology is where our understanding of sexual orientation comes from. There are two hypothetical theories researchers have discovered examining the biological basis toward sexual orientation. One concept is the neurohormonal theory, biologist contend that homosexuality is caused by abnormal sex hormone levels in utero. The alternative theory is based on behavioral genetics, determining the source and magnitude of genetic impact on sexual orientation. This theory suggested the concept that gay men were genetically female. Later this theory was proven to be false. Homosexuality was considered as a pathology or mental illness. Not every psychologists agreed with that perspective. A researcher by the name of Havelock Ellis stated that homosexuality was congenital and for that reason it could not be considered as a disease. Sigmund Freud another theorist had the concept that everyone is born bisexual and that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is developed through social and personal experience. Ellis and Freud both concurred that homosexuality was not a mental illness. Despite these researchers’ opinions in 1973,