Man vs. Nature: the Roles they play in Sex and Gender Identity

what role anatomy has in “defining” gender and/or sex. What about gender identity?
Anatomy, to humans, plays a big role in defining a gender or sex. Just like everything else considered in society. Life is about passing certain tests. You can’t pass the test of being a woman if you have a penis. Yet when gender and sex are3 concerned, it is not black and white. Everything cannot be based off of appearance. That has been apparent when women that are born sterile and men that develop breasts arouse. Does that make them less of a man? Or do the guidelines of being a man or woman change. I recall, seeing information about the “Anti-Sissy” Boy Therapy (AC360.com). A young boy was forced by his parents to undergo intense gender conformation treatment. Ultimately, the boy felt like he wasn’t who he was forced to be, and that society didn’t accept who he naturally was, so he committed suicide.
The topics of gender and sex are more than skin deep. They are hormones, chromosomes; it is a combination of factors that make up our overall existence. A good example is a very macho man who is attracted to men, and a very sissy man who is attracted to only women. The dynamics are so complex that humans have a hard time understanding it and relating to it.
From an anatomical aspect, in men, “the testes secrete androgens” and in women “ovaries secrete estrogens”. What if a man has a condition to cause him to secrete little to no androgens…Then that is going to affect how he looks and acts in the future. With the focus on disorders, whether they are physical or mental, considering sex and gender have to be up in the air.
I recall from the movie in class, a man didn’t feel like he was a man, so he had “work done” to make his outside appearance match how he saw himself. He described as a little boy wanting to wear his sister’s clothes, putting on makeup, and jewelry. One can argue that when kids are younger they are gullible to their environment. If you are always around women, you will have tendencies to do the same things women do. It ultimately becomes a fantasy because the mandates that separate men and women in society view it as taboo. The problem would be whether people can separate the reality from the fantasy. On the other hand, does that mean that he is now a “she”, or is he just “confused”, a “freak”, “transformer”, etc.
When considering what is female. If a guy likes to dress up and wear makeup, is he more female than a tom boy? Especially if a post op male and a natural born female are concerned. I feel that society, which has a lot of influence from tradition and religion, has setup guidelines that every male and female are expected to comply with. This is so that they are deemed normal citizen. We are expected to see things as black and white when they are supposed to be a multitude of colors. “Biology [Nature] likes variation, Society hates it.”

https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/content/attachment/MAN.91682.201140/Discussion/f2433fc8-b136-4c79-bf2a-490aad778450/FaustoSterling2000.pdf

1 comment:

  1. The information regarding homosexual biological research is not reliable because not all homosexuals secrete these hormones that cause them to be more feminine or masculine. The whole biological attribution of homosexuality is just a propaganda tool used by homosexuals to establish acceptance into society, not because they truly believe they are biologically gay. There is no gene that makes someone gay. Homosexuals are not born gay. It is a choice. Whether or not the amount of hormones influences their choice is irrelevant because people are naturally born straight.

    The whole "gay gene" theory is one of the biggest propaganda boons of the past decade because studies have shown that people are more willing to accept them in society if it can be attributable to genes but that gene does not exist.

    Homosexuality is defined by behaviors. So how can something described by a behavior be attributable to biology? Uhm, yeah.

    ReplyDelete