Gender & Sex- Text based

In November 2020, musician Harry Styles made history by being the first male-identifying person appearing solo on the cover of Vogue. His fashion choice of wearing a full-length gown for the featured photo, however, sparked great controversy. Many people showed support for his attempt to defy gender norms through his fashion. However, many also criticized it. The criticism ranged from questioning the ‘appropriateness’ of it, calling it “a bit weird,” to more homophobic sentiments, some even declaring it “an outright attack” on masculinity and social norms (Heyward & Ries, 2020). Certainly, this was not the first time Styles started a debate about normative gender expression through his sense of fashion. Such debates are always surrounding one’s sex, gender, and sexual orientation, especially when one departs from gender and/or social norms. This raises an important question: what are our current understandings of the concepts of sex and gender, as well as their interwovenness within oneself and one’s interaction with society?

Before explaining sex and gender, we must address both the sex binary and the gender binary and our understandings of each one. Sex and gender are often thought of as categorical differences, e.g., male versus female. This particular binary epistemology goes back to the ancient Greeks and can be best illustrated by this quote by Aristotle: “as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind. Where there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals [...] the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master.”

Aristotle laid out the dichotomy of these categorical differences: male versus female, superior versus inferior, ruler versus subject, soul versus body, man versus animal, master versus slave.

These binaries hold two limiting categories that are viewed as direct opposites: exclusive and defining the other’s characteristics. This framework ignores the fluidity of identity, especially within changing contexts. It is also hierarchical in nature, as Aristotle put in terms of “inferior versus superior,” “subject versus ruler,” and “slaves versus master.” Based on the male versus female logic, we can extend that to men versus women, masculinity versus femininity, etc. These concepts are directly oppositional, exclusive, and hierarchical. This binary system is how we, as a society, still organize our epistemological perspectives of sex, gender, gender expression, masculinity, and femininity today.

These binary understandings of sex and gender are also based on essentialism. Essentialism is defined as “the idea that women and men have inherently different characteristics, preferences, and behaviors” (Leavy & Harris, 2019, p. 45). Typically, we often determine sex and gender based on genitalia and other sexual organs. The assumption is individuals with a penis, among other anatomical structures of the traditional notion of the male reproductive system, identify as men and are expected to present masculinely. This same assumption can be applied to individuals with ovaries and female reproductive systems; they identify as women and are expected to present femininely. Sex and gender, however, are much more complicated than our binary understanding. Firstly, this structure does not account for individuals whose reproductive system falls outside the male-female binary. Intersex people, for example, have “physical primary and secondary sex characteristics [that] do not fit the stereotypical and traditional definition of being all-male or all-female” (Choudhuri & Curley, 2020, p. 7). Because they might have identifiable characteristics that do not fit in the binary understanding of sex, many have to

go through unnecessary and irreversible medical processes at a young age without consent. The essentialist argument often uses biological difference as the main distinction to justify the sex binary. However, even on a biological basis, according to Fausto-Sterling (2019), “Whether biologists and medical experts have focused on sex-determining molecules, chromosome, hormones, or internal or external genitalia, it has not been possible to agree upon a categorical definition” (p. 530). The essentialist binary structure does not encompass all types of bodies and sexual characteristics. Secondly, it also excludes those that may identify differently from their sex-assigned-at-birth. The assumption often made is one would identify the same way as their sexual characteristics and traits. This assumption erases the existence of trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, gender-variant, or agender individuals. As David Valentine (2002) said, the concept of transgender indicates gender is a social construct and the binary system of sex/gender “is not a natural fact” (p. 223) because gender, like sex and gender expression, are ever-evolving and ever-changing and would not exist in the absence of human societies. One’s gender identity is fluid and does not always align with their sexual traits. Because of the exclusiveness of the binary system, this also assumes trans individuals must hate their current (prior transition) genitals and bodies; however, this does not always reflect reality (Fausto-Sterling, 2019).

Because of said reasons, we can see the essentialist binary structure is not accurately reflected in the complexity of both sex and gender.

Are sex and gender interchangeable concepts as we commonly think? This misconception stems from the aforementioned essentialist binary approach, i.e., sex and gender are solely based on sexual characteristics. There are many different models explaining the differences between sex and gender. The ​Gender Unicorn ​model by Trans Student Education Resources (TSER), for example, is often used in educational settings to illustrate the fluidity of gender and sexuality and

display these concepts as spectrums instead of oppositional categorical differences. This model separates five different aspects of one’s gender and sexual identity: gender identity, gender expression, sex assigned at birth, physical attraction, and emotional attraction. The icon is used for sex is the picture of a DNA sequence, implying sex is inherently a biological process.

Gender, on the other hand, is expressed through thoughts (gender identity), the heart for feelings (physical and emotional attraction), and color of the subject (gender expression). This implies gender is a social construction and expressed differently from one person to another. To researchers, sex refers to the complex biological characteristics comprised of "chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia” (Money, Hampson, Hampson, 1955). Meanwhile, gender refers to the individual’s psychological characteristics, expressions, behaviors, and identity development (Money, Ehrhardt, 1972) as well as the social construction and power which are linked to said identity (Unger, 1979). Both of these concepts are essential to our understanding of oneself and others.

Valentine (2002) explores how our essentialist binary views of sex/gender as well as the misconception of fungibility between those concepts contribute to other misconceptions, such as the conflation of trans identity and sexual orientation (i.e. gay identity). Sexual orientation refers to the complex construct that comprises “sexual attractions, fantasies, desires, and behaviors” (Savin-Williams, 2011, p. 671). Money (1988) describes sexual orientation as “[depicting] the idealized lover and the idealized program of sexuoerotic activity with that lover as projected in imagery and ideation, or actually engaged in with that lover” (p. 127). This describes how one’s sexual, emotional, romantic attraction orient. Sexual orientation, although intersect with gender and sex, is not the same concept. The distinction is often explained as sexual orientation is ‘who you want to go to bed ​with​’, but gender identity is ‘who you want to go to bed ​as.​ ’ This

conflation stems from our essentialist binary, which centers heteronormative orientation. When a man is attracted to another man, he must want to be a woman, and vice versa. Also, if someone identifies as a woman and presents as one, then she must be attracted to men. By differentiating the idea of sexual orientation from gender, we can better illustrate the complexity of our identity as sexual and gendered beings.

Another way sex and gender are conflated is through gender expression. As we interact with other individuals, we often make assumptions about one’s gender not based on their genitals, but on the expression of their identity through clothes, hair, mannerisms, etc. We have been socialized in our respective cultures of how a man or a woman should behave, based on the essentialist view that men and women are inherently different. This is best illustrated through the adult gaze on children. For instance, before a child is born, we already predetermine their identity, expression, and even their hobbies based on their sexual reproductive organs. In the Western context, we assume boys will like blue and trucks and girls will like pink and Barbie dolls. We do this as soon as we are told what the fetus’ sexual organ is, at which point we assign gendered assumptions and expectations to their bodies. As Fausto-Sterling (2019) discussed: “At birth the only obvious indication of possible future gender/sex that stems directly from the infant are the external genitalia. Beyond that, parents attach signifiers, such as hair ribbons, pink or blue clothing, or sports-themed onesies to indicate gender/sex to all concerned” (p. 539). Not only do we assign meaning, society also genders their body and socializes them in a gendered way. When people go against the expected gender expression (just as Harry Styles does in a full-length gown), it disrupts the exclusive oppositional binary understandings of gender and sex, and creates cognitive dissonance for those who internalize the epistemic logics of gender, sex, and gender expression as binaries.

Society’s outdated ideology of gender essentialism assumes a rigid binary opposition between cis male and cis female and does not account for the many and varied genders that fall in the interstitial space, i.e., the in-between space. Thus, sex and gender are different, but it is not as clear cut as sex is biological and gender are socially constructed. As examples shown above, both sex and gender are socially constructed, as they change meanings in various context. As Halperin (2014) states: “[According] to Rubin, human societies begin with sexed bodies and produce gender. According to Butler, human societies begin with gender and impose it on human bodies as sex” (p. 452). We have discussed how sex influences one’s identity through the socialization of gender norms from the fetus-stage to adulthood. Indeed, these cultural processes can affect our biological processes. Fausto-Sterling (2019) discusses the embodiment of these gender norms. One example of this is when women sit cross-legged while wearing pants. The norm is, even when they wear pants, women still sits crossed legs because the norms of women being modest create an “unconcious, automatic aspect of many women’s neuromuscular system” (p. 533). Through the process of socialization, gender becomes embodied and shapes how our body functions. Although the distinction of sex and gender must be made, we also need to acknowledge their interwoven relationship and how they continuously inform each other to highlight the multifarity of gender and sex.