Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Script · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Script** on Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:11 am

So I was talking in chat about this earlier, after someone reminded me of it -- I do Film Studies for A-level, and one of the films we've been studying is called Performance (1970, Cammell and Roeg). In the film, a load of different representations of gender are presented, and over the course of its plot the boundaries between them are blurred so much that in several scenes you are deliberately led astray as to which character is which. But I'm not here to talk about the film, but rather a person who we did a brief overview on in the run up to the film.

Judith Butler is her name, and she's a professor of comparative literature and rhetoric at the university of California. She's well known as a a theorist of power, gender, sexuality and identity, and from what I've read about her she has some pretty revolutionary ideas about them.

In her most influential book, 'Gender Trouble', she argued that feminism as an ideal had made a mistake by trying to assert that 'women' were a group who all had common characteristics and interests. She said that this approach was 'an unwitting regulation and reification of gender relations', backing up the generally assumed binary view of gender in which human beings are divided into two clear-cut groups, women and men, instead of opening up the possibility for a person to form and choose their own individual identity. In doing that, feminism actually closed the options down, despite in a way, being necessary to 'level the playing field' somewhat. Feminists rejected 'biology as destiny', but then created an account of patriarchal culture in which masculinity and femininity would always inevitably be associated with male and female bodies, making that very same destiny inescapable, even if in a different way. She says that a view like that allows no room for choice, or difference.

Butler says that she prefers 'those historical and anthropological positions that understand gender as a relation among socially constituted subjects in specifiable contexts' - i.e., rather than being a fixed attribute in a person, gender should be seen as a fluid variable which shifts and changes in different contexts and at different times. She argues that sex (male, female) is seen to cause gender (masculine, feminine) which is seen to cause desire (towards the other gender). Butler's approach is essentially to wipe out the supposed links between these, so that gender and desire are flexible, free-floating and not 'caused' by other stable factors, like your sex.

A quote from Gender Trouble: 'There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; ... identity is performatively constituted by the very "expressions" that are said to be its results.'

- In other words, Butler is saying that gender is a performance; it's what you do at particular times, rather than a universal who you are.

Some cultural configurations of gender have come to see entirely natural in our current culture, and so obviously, Butler doesn't propose a utopian view in which everything is equal and everyone can be who they want to be - a view that we would have no idea how to get to. She instead calls for individuals to take subversive action in the present; the mobilization, subversive confusion, and proliferation of genders -- and therefore identity.

Butler says that everyone puts on a gender performance - traditional or not - and so it isn't a question of if you're going to perform, but what that performance is going to be. By choosing to be different, unique and true to ourselves, we can work to change gender norms, and push back the binary understanding of masculinity and femininity.

So what do you guys think about this? Do you agree with Butler, or do you think she's just talking idealistic nonsense? Do you even think that this would be ideal, or should men and women stick to their rigidly defined gender roles based on their physicality?

Personally, I'm fascinated by this theory, and I'm a big supporter of it - hence my posting it! But I'm really interested to hear what everyone else has to say, too!

Source: http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-butl.htm

Scythe Massakür · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Scythe Massakür** on Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:29 am

Ooh, this is interesting. Particularly to me, as I have a younger sister who behaves...well, non-traditionally, you could say. I, however, do not take things at face value. I need more than just speculation before I put stock in her words.

Zephyr · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Zephyr** on Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:57 pm

I agree with Butler one-hundred percent. To squander what one would like to express would be oppressing their personality. People, if they so feel the need to, should be fighting against the binding of gender definition and the likes. Labels don't define and expand, they constrain and restrict, and if one does not feel they fit in with the grouping of that label, they should not be forced to abide by its code.

Cloasse · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Cloasse** on Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:10 pm

Well, I personally don't care how people behave. A specific gender doesn't make a whit of difference to me -- all I care about is how they act as a whole person. If a man acts in a way traditionally seen as 'feminine' (perhaps like Eric and his love for shopping and PDAs), I figure that that's just how he is, and vice versa.

To me, gender is linked to your personality. Whether you're a man or a woman shouldn't make a difference to whether or not you behave in a feminine or masculine way. If the words weren't linked to male and female, I bet that no one would care, but because the feeling that women should be feminine and men should be masculine has been born and raised in society, it's seen as very important for these ideals to be achieved. Fifty years ago, I bet that a lot more men were 'masculine' just because they were forced to be in that era, and the same for women and the idea that all women should be traditionally 'feminine'. Nowadays, society is a lot more accepting, although not completely.

In the end, I think that everyone should be left to how they are -- not to who they think they should be based on society's expectations, but how they were born and how their mind has grown in its environment. Unfortunately for some, the idea that they should conform to their sex has been ingrained from a young age, so I don't know if that means they don't know who they are as a person or what, because everyone is influenced by those they grow up with whether they like it or not; that's how the human mind develops. I suppose that, as long as you're happy, it shouldn't make any difference to anyone how you behave or see yourself.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:43 pm

I agree with her 100%. Too bad a lot of people don't.

Darrelkun · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Darrelkun** on Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:20 am

I agree with her to some degree.

Gender is more of a continuing spectrum, like a rainbow, rather than a blue and pink binary code. Some men are more feminine, some women are more masculine, and then we cannot forget those who are transgendered.

Even in the transgendered umbrella there are people who lean all sorts of ways! Some people feel they have no gender, some feel they are both genders at once, and then there are those who feel their gender do not match their physical body. Some will only some of the time dress as the other gender, some will full time dress as the other gender, and some will have their physical bodies changed to match who they are on the inside.

In the end it shouldn't matter what a person does or how they express themselves. Whatever they wish to be called is what we should refer them as.

As for, "everyone puts on a gender performance - traditional or not - and so it isn't a question of if you're going to perform, but what that performance is going to be," gender performance is what identity is all about. For humans who feel they are men, they will generally (but not always and not everyone) feel more comfortable with masculine roles while those who feel they are women will generally feel more comfortable with feminine roles.

Jag · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Jag** on Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:40 pm

Traditional gender roles are eccentuated in certain professions and fields of work. In my own (law), there are some things that have to be daily overcome. Frankly, being a lawyer has traditionally been a male position. The attitude of female attorneys is a defensive one because, even through they receive preferential treatment regarding scholarships and admission to law schools and some professional organizations, they feel they are on the defense because they are women and don't receive the respect they deserve from their male colleagues. To quote a female attorney with whom I've worked extensively:

"I know I can be a bitch. Frankly, if you're going to be a woman and survive as an attorney, you pretty much have to be."

Sanquin · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Sanquin** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:21 pm

I know several transsexuals, one or two a-sexuals, lesbians, gays...no transvestites though. But I can say with honesty that transsexuals are proof on their own that identity isn't nearly as simple as 'male' and 'female'.

ChaoticMarin · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ChaoticMarin** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm

Parabola wrote:Butler says that she prefers 'those historical and anthropological positions that understand gender as a relation among socially constituted subjects in specifiable contexts' - i.e., rather than being a fixed attribute in a person, gender should be seen as a fluid variable which shifts and changes in different contexts and at different times. She argues that sex (male, female) is seen to cause gender (masculine, feminine) which is seen to cause desire (towards the other gender). Butler's approach is essentially to wipe out the supposed links between these, so that gender and desire are flexible, free-floating and not 'caused' by other stable factors, like your sex.

A quote from Gender Trouble: 'There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; ... identity is performatively constituted by the very "expressions" that are said to be its results.'

- In other words, Butler is saying that gender is a performance; it's what you do at particular times, rather than a universal who you are.

Well... let's hear what I think. Huh. Well, I pretty much see her trying to destroy the concept of gender by fusing it with the concept of masculinity and femininity. I don't get how that's necessary or going to better our society. What you do can either be a degree of masculine or feminine. Your gender is based on the overall way you tend to lean. I don't think gender has been two bit since the "tomboy" became infamous. ...and causing desire? Did she just reference sexual orientation? Can't agree there. There seems to be a link between one's sex and their orientation. There would also seem to be evidence supporting this. Correct with evidence me if I'm wrong, but In nature, there is no significant evidence suggesting that homosexuality is remotely common. Note that in order for an animal to be homosexual, it has to actively refuse heterosexual relations. I'm well ware bisexuality is far from rare. Yet... all of what I just said seems to suggest to me that on some level there is a natural leaning towards the opposite gender. Blasphemy? Eh. It shouldn't come as any surprise that we and most species are wired for reproduction. I personally believe that, based on the reasoning that if we were wired specifically to be straight homosexuality would probably not be as common as it is, we're probably born bisexual, where things like culture and experiences change our perception.

Parabola wrote:Some cultural configurations of gender have come to see entirely natural in our current culture, and so obviously, Butler doesn't propose a utopian view in which everything is equal and everyone can be who they want to be - a view that we would have no idea how to get to. She instead calls for individuals to take subversive action in the present; the mobilization, subversive confusion, and proliferation of genders -- and therefore identity.

Eh... I now see ... this just confuses me. She says she doesn't propose a Utopian (...Why does my spellcheck want me to capitalize that? o.O) view in which everything is equal. Yet, then calls for us to go ahead and give culture a good ol' roughhousing by...doing...what? Is she calling for us to expand the gender spectrum to include a wider variety of options? Wasn't that the purpose of having a spectrum to begin with? I'm honestly not completely sure what she's proposing here.

In conclusion I don't think I agree with some of her ideas, while others just leave me neutral or ... in one case confused. I think perhaps too much value is placed on one's gender in regards to someone's identity. Isn't there a lot more to identity than that? I would think so. But anyway... I've never been a fan of rough housing culture over small things. It tends to change over time on it's own, and trying to push it faster than it's willing to go tends to offend or upset people, which tends to not make the situation better. Upset people are not cooperative people, usually anyway.

She might be onto something though. If I could only understand where she was going with this proliferation business.

Script · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Script** on Fri May 27, 2011 1:35 pm

Late reply, but I think most've the reason you're confused is that I've just not conveyed it very well :P

I plan on reading her books one day, if you're interested enough you should consider it.

I think that what you're getting wrong is in thinking that she's trying to push gender roles back the other way -- she's not making them more important, but rather saying that the whole idea of gender is unnecessary. That personal identity and expression shouldn't be limited by labels like that. If you're female, you're brought up believing that women act in a certain way and that this is good, and anything else is 'odd', and the same for men. Whereas, she thinks that people shouldn't perpetuate that -- that they should teach personal identity and expression rather than letting gender define anything beyond the basics.

As far as the question of 'inbuilt' sexual preferences, I would agree that nature probably wires us to prefer the opposite sex - but with sentience, that changes dramatically. In a number of surveys of different countries, they've found upwards of 20% of people who've 'experienced attraction to the same sex'. However, the number of people who actually identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual tends to be closer to around 4%. However, in some cities percentages can be as high as 15% -- which seems to me to suggest that depending on the attitude of the area you live in, your openness to feelings towards others of the same sex are drastically different. I by no means think that people should start going around suggesting that scientifically homosexuality is as likely as heterosexuality, but the attitudes of society strongly influence those who consider that an option even briefly. If there was less stigma around societal opinions that men and women couple, and was more around 'compatible identities' (which sounds very hippyish, but you get the idea) then I think that people would be more likely to express themselves.

As for the 'utopian society' part at the end, I think the main point there is that starting off by saying "Everyone should be equal, everything different about genders should be gone" seems an impossible goal. Instead, proposing to people that they themselves make the decision in their own lives to take this 'ideal' into consideration makes it a far more reasonable possibility.

And as for your saying that culture 'tends to change over time on it's own', I would strongly disagree. Attitudes like this self-perpetuate, and without revolution they will not simply go away. Try telling that to the people of the 60s, where in a single decade in Britain abortion was legalised, the contraceptive pill was introduced to give women sexual freedom without fear of pregnancy, homosexuality was decriminalised, women's rights took a rapid step in the right direction and social reform was the order of every day. Without the feminist movement, there was no way that society would have just decided to give women more rights -- because society was controlled by men. Those ideas self-perpetuated, and people accepted them mindlessly until a strong movement rose that thrust an alternative in their face, at which point they realised that they could have better.

Culture is a huge loafish walrus that lies about in the sun, occasionally rolling over to become more comfortable. Radical social change is only brought about when someone prods it with the stick of revolution, to get it to move its fat ass.

Kai · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Kai** on Fri May 27, 2011 8:42 pm

I believe that gender has absolutely nothing to do with your identity. We live in the physical world but who we truly are, at the core, has nothing to do with this world. When you live in a house or an apartment, it is your place of dwelling. It is not you. Same with your body and everything else that we experience in our everyday life. We live in it but it is not us.

To take this even further...

People have come to associate a lot with themselves. Every time they say "My", "Mine", "Ours", ect, they are affirming something to their identity. Cars, money, friends, husbands, wives, sisters, heartbreaks of the past, resentment, fear, guilt, looks, and many more. These things we have but they are not us. If we lose any of these things we feel sad or hurt or angry. Why? Because we think that we just lost a part of ourselves. But did we really? If one is really attached to that lost object, they would argue that yes, they did. If they, however, take a step back and stop believing that the object was a part of them to start off with - which it really wasn't - they haven't lost themselves. They just lost something that happened to be in or near their possession.

Same can be said for opinions. People will defend their opinions with arguments, criticisms, wars, and hatered. It is their opinion and therefore feels like it is a part of their core identity. If it is proven wrong, it dies and they die. They are are defending their own - or rather their ego's - life and boy do they defend it until the very end. Others, however, are more open minded. They have their opinions but they are not associated with them and therefore are willing to listen to others. It is not a life and death battle for them so they don't feel the need to defend and fight.

What this all boils down to is that nothing in the external world is a part of our identity. The identity is only internal.

Opossum · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Opossum** on Mon May 30, 2011 5:17 am

Nothing in the external world is part of our identity? That seems like a shallow statement. The identity is NOT only interal.

That rests on the entire idea that only nature is a provider in inspiration for who we are. And cuts out nurture. We have attributes about our physical body that allow use to observe and assest our surroundings. Much like the absorption of water for a sponge or use of a pan to sift gold from a river, we take in information in different formats. But regardless, we are externally influenced in more ways than one.

And one of those ways, one of the most exploited and demanded to react of us in a developed society, is the identity of the self. It is constantly bombarded. We are given the physical, biological structure of ourselves, and each one is unique, yes. But that is not where the details stop. It continues forward from the binding of our DNA, to eccentricities of assumptions, interests, what we choose to symbolize ourselves with, how much influence is put on us from external measurements. It's the nurturing part of our state of being that you're neglecting to take into account.

I do not have a heavy amount of detailed knowledge of sex, gender, and identity, but I do know that nature and nurture are a keystone to livelihood for any species.

I think it is a possible theory that the entire reason we change and adapt to our surroundings has an idea as to what we keep learning from being nurturing. And if that stimulus is profound enough, it can be internalized... THAT is an abstract idea though.

My personal experience? I don't feel like a woman when I have a period, I can't understand it in pregnancy because I've never been pregnant. I have bits for tits and little ass from soccer years. I feel like a woman when someone says I can't be equal to a man. Definitely when I have sex. In the presence of my husband. I think he grounds me in feeling okay with myself, as a woman and in being much much more. But I know I like men. I don't have a sexual attraction to women. I feel more security in my female friends.

Script · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Script** on Mon May 30, 2011 7:27 am

I think you're totally misunderstanding the point there. What Butler's saying isn't that your identity is something pre-formed that's 'given' to you, and is internal, but that it's something that you yourself develop as you're exposed to the world. What she's saying specifically is that society shouldn't be forcing you to accept these pre-defined ideas about sex and gender, but rather allowing you to decide for yourself. Of course the way you're brought up and the people you interact with are going to change what you decide, how you feel, etcetera, but they shouldn't be imposing their own views and identities on yours without giving you the freedom to develop in whatever way comes naturally to you.

Kai · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Kai** on Mon May 30, 2011 11:18 am

Opossum, I think the reason why it seems like a “shallow” statement to you is because you are coming at the subject from a completely different direction. Psychology teaches theories of nature vs. nurture. In respect, everything you wrote is completely correct. Nature and nurture make up our thoughts, how we feel about things, our memories, our fears, our beliefs, ect.

Now, try to look at it from a bit of a different level. Psychology also teaches us about the ego – or as some have come to understand it your “false self” which I think is a bit different than what you will find in a regular text book. This “ego” is what absorbs what goes on around you. It feels regret, anger, sadness, heartbreak of the past. It feels fear of the future. It feels greed and attachment to just about anything it comes in contact with that it likes (hence us believing that our bodies, houses, money, ect, are a part of us somehow). It also feels the elation and accomplishment of whatever you managed to do in life. It affirms these feelings and beliefs to you, making them a part of your identity and then it pretends that that is your identity.

On the other end we have your mind. Your thoughts that are processed through the experiences that you go through. You use these thoughts to solve problems, make your decisions, and have conversations with others. But is it you? Or is it simply a tool – a great one at that – that is at your disposal? There are people who have trouble shutting down their thoughts. Their mind is always racing because they lost control of it. The ego is running that show.

But here's the rub. When we die, do we take our house and money and body with us? No. They remain a part of the physical world and therefore cannot possibly be a true part of us. It is right before death when people come to terms that their physical possessions, including their own body, have no meaning. Now, the subject of what happens after death is, of course, highly debatable so I won't even get into that. I just know that it was when I began observing my own anger, fear, and critical mind that I realized that it was not me. The true identity lies behind the ego, it is the observer and the presence.

Sorry, Script, this is a bit off topic at this point so I'll just leave it at that :)

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Mon May 30, 2011 11:37 am

Kai wrote:Now, try to look at it from a bit of a different level. Psychology also teaches us about the ego – or as some have come to understand it your “false self” which I think is a bit different than what you will find in a regular text book. This “ego” is what absorbs what goes on around you. It feels regret, anger, sadness, heartbreak of the past. It feels fear of the future. It feels greed and attachment to just about anything it comes in contact with that it likes (hence us believing that our bodies, houses, money, ect, are a part of us somehow). It also feels the elation and accomplishment of whatever you managed to do in life. It affirms these feelings and beliefs to you, making them a part of your identity and then it pretends that that is your identity.

On the other end we have your mind. Your thoughts that are processed through the experiences that you go through. You use these thoughts to solve problems, make your decisions, and have conversations with others. But is it you? Or is it simply a tool – a great one at that – that is at your disposal? There are people who have trouble shutting down their thoughts. Their mind is always racing because they lost control of it. The ego is running that show.

I don't really buy that. It seems like a load of malarkey to me.

But here's the rub. When we die, do we take our house and money and body with us? No. They remain a part of the physical world and therefore cannot possibly be a true part of us.

Everything remains part of the physical world (A.K.A. reality) when we die, so I don't understand your point.

It is right before death when people come to terms that their physical possessions, including their own body, have no meaning. Now, the subject of what happens after death is, of course, highly debatable so I won't even get into that. I just know that it was when I began observing my own anger, fear, and critical mind that I realized that it was not me. The true identity lies behind the ego, it is the observer and the presence.

Sorry, Script, this is a bit off topic at this point so I'll just leave it at that :)

Nope, still not buying it.

Kai · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Kai** on Mon May 30, 2011 12:09 pm

It's fine if you don't understand or "buy" it, Fallacy. I'm not trying to convince anyone. Simply offering a different point of view.

So what is yours?

Vain · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Vain** on Mon May 30, 2011 3:27 pm

Ah, I believe this is another area where our development is hindered by the perpetual and limiting need to label things. Honestly I believe we are who we are and we shouldn't be held down by the views of others. As the saying goes, those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. I agree that we should open our minds to a wider view of gender and sexuality and I believe that as the years go by we are opening up to the idea more. Obviously we are more accepting of homosexuality and transgender people than we were say fifty years ago. Heck, some places in the world are almost completely accepting of them. Look at Japan and visual kei. True that its kind of just a style of expression and the people that do visual kei aren't necessarily transgender or homosexual, but you know what I mean. People are more accepting of them dressing as the opposite gender. So in the end I say be who you are and here's to those who wish us well and all the rest can go to hell. lol

Sciamancer · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Sciamancer** on Mon May 30, 2011 5:04 pm

Gender is just a group of memes. They probably evolved because they worked for ancient societies.

Man is big and manly. Naturally bigger and stronger. Protect women and children. Kill bear. Eat pig. Evolutionarily built to do so. Grrrr.
Woman is to be protected, because she bears next generation. She takes care of child because she has the breasts to feed it. Gather berries and knit new loincloth in spare time.

Now, it isn't so much. There is no "everyone must kill bear or gather berries" anymore, at least not in 1st World Countries. Thus, gender roles become less important; the differences between the sexes no longer make as much a difference to survival strategy. People are still raised to be a certain way because of the old meme and our culture, though. That part isn't necessarily bad, as people's behavior is always going to be primarily influenced by society.

The issue is when the meme's survival instinct kicks in and says "Hey! Those people aren't conforming to me! They're contributing to my death! Quick, make the people that do contain me, the meme, attack them to help my survival!" That's the bad thing.

...yeah, I just over-personified an abstract idea.

By choosing to be different, unique and true to ourselves, we can work to change gender norms, and push back the binary understanding of masculinity and femininity.

Due to the whole "the way we are is greatly influenced by nurture" thing, most people naturally fit into their sex's gender, albeit maybe not perfectly. It's not as if that's bad. Being "unique" or "different" by itself is neither good nor bad. It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, unless something specific about being or not being different is in and of itself bad.

Script · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Script** on Mon May 30, 2011 7:53 pm

I think that emphasis is on the idea that people should be 'true to themselves'. I agree that being different (while true for everyone in their own way, even if subtle) is neither good or bad in itself, but being the person you want to be is definitely a good thing. At least, for you -- there are some lines (such as casually killing people, to take an extreme line) that aren't quite so good for everyone else, and are the sort of thing you might not ought to be expressing.

But I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Society definitely always has an influence on people, and like you say, it's when that influence suppresses personal development rather than encourages it that it becomes a problem.

little luna · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **little luna** on Tue May 31, 2011 11:17 pm

I've had readings from Butler before, and I think a lot of what she says is true. Sex, gender, and orientation only have something to do with each other because we assign them that way. A girl by sex can associate as a boy by gender, and be attracted to either.
I knew a transgender girl at school. She was a boy by sex, but a girl in gender, and was attracted to boys. So, she's a heterosexual woman. Biology doesn't always pave the way; sometimes it throws a curve ball.

Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Re: Gender, Sex and Identity - linked, or not?

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online