Sex, Gender, And Gender

Gender derives its formative meaning from culture and societal values, it is not a universal entity as there are various cultures, societal values, beliefs, and preferred ways of organizing collective life across the globe and even within a single culture the meaning of gender varies over time. Chapters three and four of Gendered Lives by Julia T. Wood helps to insightfully look at those views, and rhetorical movements (women and men’s movements) that have overtime influenced, defined and given various meanings to gender (masculinity and femininity).

Culture often thrives off of polar opposites—hot and cold, bitter and sweet, male and female. By setting up these opposing constructs, one can easily find a set definition for each. A hot surface could scorch someone or a cold temperature could cause them to shiver. In the same way, a bitter substance would be less enjoyable to eat than a sweet one. These terms are often defined by mentioning their antitheses. Because it’s comfortable to embrace specificity and certainty, topics such as gender and gender expression often get simplified into binary existences—however, they don’t quite operate under the same parameters. In an essay entitled “Bad Feminist”, Dr. Roxane Gay explores and warns against the dangers of binary thinking. Throughout

Gender can be defined as “sex roles” which are conditions that one considers to be for men or women. People tends to mistake it with sex or thinks that they are both the same. We discussed about the patterns of gender which how the authors of The Kaleidoscope of Gender describes it as “regularized, prepackaged ways of thinking, feeling, and acting” (Spade and Valentino,2017). It becomes an identity for us. We believe that there is and can only be two genders, being masculine for men and feminine for women. These roles has been forced onto us since birth: blue for boys, and pink for girls. You can see the roles being push onto a person throughout one’s life, but we don’t notice it since it’s “normal” to us.

Through my experiences with people of many backgrounds, as well as my education, I have learned to separate the idea of sex and gender. I still maintain certain traditional views regarding gender, however I’ve come to the realization that the social constructs of men and women are not, and should not, be as rigid. In my opinion, I have acknowledged that there are differences between ‘men’ and ‘women’, however these differences should be used to uplift one another, rather than to tear the other gender apart. For example, a family unit in which the man decides to take on the responsibilities of the

Gender has been described as masculine or feminine characteristics that encompass gender identity sex as well as social roles (Nobelius 2004). According to sexologist John Money, there is a difference between gender as a role and the biologically of differences in sex (Udry 1994). Within scholarly disciplines, cultures and contexts, gender frequently has its own mean, contextual frame of reference and the manner in which it is used to describe a variety of issues and characteristics. The sociocultural codes, conventions and the suggested and literal rules that accompany the notion of gender are vast and diverse. There has been and continues to be much scholarly debate regarding the idea of gender and how it has been viewed historically; as well as changes in the grammatical use of the

In “A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality”, Lynn Weber claims that categories such as race and gender are socially constructed. In this paper, I will defend Weber’s claim with a particular focus on gender and gender identity, with gender being defined as a state of masculinity or femininity which is either based on the sex of a person or on their personal identification (Oxford Dictionaries). I will first explore the for and against arguments to Weber’s position, then in my own response, I will argue that gender is a social construct as gendered behaviour is learned over time, and that gender is contextual in nature. Additionally, I will explore the implications of the social construction of gender in

What is gender and how is it defined? Gender and its definition have been argued over for decades, by the religious, scientific and civilian community. Everyone has created their own definition and their opinion on how to define gender. From a nonscientific perspective, gender is defined by society, which is based on anatomy and basic aesthetics.

Women of colour were the first to advance frameworks for recognizing the intersection of gender, sexuality, race, and class (11). Frankenberg and hooks share a racist discourse of hyper visibility towards African Americans; however, Frankenberg notes the invisibility towards Asian Americans and Native American minorities (12). Here, race is constructed as a biological category while whiteness embodies superiority. Hooks argues that stereotypes; however inaccurate, are one form of representation for a desired category and project a myth of sameness (341). Stereotypes perpetuate a single story thus excluding any opportunity for unique difference. Categorizations are a fantasy of whiteness that validates the dominant status quo. White supremacists demonstrate an inability to comprehend reason by projecting their inadequacies onto the Other. hooks does not claim white people are evil nor does she intend to evaluate them, rather she is acknowledging the terror she feels in response. Whites feared interracial relationships would erode the colour line and thus segregation was an effective strategy that limited people of colours opportunities to compete in the marketplace or hold political power. Lastly, both scholars criticize the educational systems lack of popular discourse towards multiculturalism in the curricula or media (15).

Throughout the second season of ABC’s American Crime, there were an extreme amount of ways in which race, sexuality, gender, and ethnicity were depicted, troubled, and interrogated. While watching the second season of American Crime in class, it almost seemed as if the entire series was made just to explore each and every component of this course, Ethnics 1010. The series successfully explored through numerous situations with all of these important components that we have discussed throughout the semester. However, there happens to be three specific components that I would like to elaborate on throughout this essay.

The body once established as “natural” and binary sex an unquestioned “fact,” is the alibi for constructions of gender and sexuality, which can purport to be the just-as-natural expressions or consequences of a more fundamental sex. It is on the foundation of the construction of this natural binary sex that the binaries of gender and heterosexuality are likewise constructed as innate. This narrative “gives a false sense of legitimacy and universality to a culturally specific and, in some cases, culturally oppressive version of gender identity” (Butler 329). Without a critique of sex as produced by discourse, Butler claims, the distinction of sex and gender used to contest the constructions of binary gender and enforced heterosexuality would be wholly ineffective.

“Sex” suggests human females and males in relation to biological features, such as chromosomes, sex organs and other physical features. “Gender”, on the other hand, vindicates women and men based on social factors, such as social role, behavior or identity. The main feminist motivation for making this distinction is to eliminate biological determinism or the view that biology is what determines what a person has to offer. Instead, citizens in country X would be judged on what they have to offer intellectually and physically.

“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

Gender socialization often begins early once parents are shown the sex of their child; from then on, baby showers are planned according to gender “appropriate” colors, which are often pink for girls and blue for boys. Even differences in how children are spoke to can be picked up easily in Western cultures. Girls are called pretty and sweet, whereas boys are handsome and strong. Ultimately, the way children learn to identify with their gender culture is in part due to not only family and friends, media, schools, and religion, but also from the toys that may inexplicitly advertise gender expectations. Gender-typed toys may be bought for children as a way for parents to encourage and reinforce gender-appropriate behaviors. However, recent debates have engulfed toy manufacturers and major retailers, which has brought about changes in toy design and marketing in an effort to make reflect more realistic and gender neutral options.

The construction of a self-identity can be a very complex process that every individual is identity is developed through the lenses of cultural influences and how it is expected to given at birth. Through this given identity we are expected to think, speak, and behave in a certain way that fits the mold of societal norms. This paper aims to explain how gender perform gender roles according these cultural values. I intend to analyze the process in which individuals learned and internalized their respective gender identities, through their cultural background. I will be conducting a set of interviews with the intention to compare my experience as a self-identified male of Mexican descent, to the experience of another male character of Japanese heritage in order to understand how we come to self-identify as masculine in diverged cultures. In this paper, I argue that the construction of gender identities is a direct consequence of societal influential factors such as family values; values that reflect the individual’s culture. This analysis will not only utilize evidence from these identity formations, but also in explaining why and how these self-identities were constructed using both theoretical sources and empirical studies as a framework.

When considering gender and sex, a layman’s idea of these terms might be very different than a sociologist’s. There is an important distinction: sex, in terms of being “male” or “female,” is purely the physical biological characteristic differences – primarily anatomical differences. (There are also rare cases of “intersexual” individuals as outlined in the Navarro article, “When Gender Isn’t a Given”.) Gender, on the other hand, is an often misconstrued concept that is commonly mistaken as synonymous with sex. A non-sociologist might surmise the following, “men act masculine and women act feminine, therefore, it must follow that gender is inherent to sex,” however, this is not necessarily the case.