Understanding Gender: A Cultural Lens

Writing serves as a tool for understanding, and as I reflect on our cultural landscape, I've become intrigued by the concept of gender. Having authored five posts that touch on this topic, I've come to see gender as one of the most intricate and compelling subjects we face today. This is why it merits thoughtful discussion.

However, this article isn't meant to delve into the complexities. Instead, I aim to clarify and simplify the discourse. To achieve this, I've distilled it to a fundamental question: What can we assert as objectively true about humans, and how does the idea of gender either aid or hinder our comprehension of that truth?

This is where my exploration begins.

When categorizing people as male or female, or identifying them as man, woman, boy, or girl, I can pinpoint four observable dimensions:

1. Biological sex: the reproductive classification of individuals as male or female.
2. Sexual orientation: the direction of one's attraction—whether toward the same sex, the opposite sex, both, or neither (asexual).
3. Masculinity and femininity: the physiological, psychological, and social traits typically linked to being male or female.
4. Sense of self: the degree of comfort or discomfort a person experiences regarding their biological sex and associated characteristics.

I intentionally omit the term "gender" from this list, as I seek to explore its meaning without presuming its validity. My analysis has yet to confirm that gender signifies anything objectively observable about humans beyond the parameters listed above. If gender holds any legitimacy, it must align with one or more of these dimensions or encapsulate them all.

There is only one alternative way to conceptualize gender that makes sense, which I will elaborate on shortly.

When approached from this angle, gender itself isn't inherently complex. The complexities arise from its application and interpretation.

For example, discussions surrounding the "gender pay gap" focus on the earnings disparity between male and female workers—this aligns with parameter #1.

When addressing gender expression, gender roles, or "social gender," we are firmly within the domain of parameter #3.

"Gender identity" directly relates to parameter #4.

The only notable exceptions occur when the term is used to denote someone as a man, woman, or neither, distinguishing these identities from biological sex.

As noted by genderspectrum.org:

“…while gender may begin with the assignment of our sex, it doesn’t end there. A person’s gender is the complex interrelationship between three dimensions: body, identity, and social gender…while connected, the two terms are not equivalent.”

In this context, the use of gender appears peculiar. It's not synonymous with sex, yet still represents a tangible concept. But how do we reconcile this with the four factors outlined above?

1. Clearly, individuals can be classified as male or female, but biological sex and gender should not be conflated.
2. A heterosexual or homosexual individual has a specific sexual orientation. Gender could serve as a designation here without issue, though it does not indicate whether someone is straight or gay.
3. One cannot be described as masculine or feminine; these terms function as adjectives rather than designations.
4. The most reasonable candidate for gender appears to be one's sense of self. A person identifies as a man or woman because that is their intrinsic understanding, making their sense of identity the most compelling evidence of their gender.

Before continuing, I must clarify that I am not investigating which factors might determine someone's gender. Instead, I am examining the essence of what gender is.

The conclusion I’ve reached is that, logically, gender can only be a person’s sense of their own identity. It represents the core of who they are, manifested as their gender identity.

This indicates that gender is ultimately an unobservable, unverifiable, yet distinct aspect that contributes to defining one's essence. While intertwined with the physical body and environment, it remains separate from them.

It would be disingenuous to ignore the clear parallels, and I am not the first to make this observation.

Gender appears to reinvent the concept of the soul.

The parallels intensify when observing how gender identity is treated by theorists and activists with almost religious reverence. In other contexts, questioning one’s sense of self is often acceptable (consider the case of Rachel Dolezal). Yet, when one challenges the notion of a gendered soul, accusations of sacrilege and blasphemy emerge, often cloaked in terms like "transphobia" and "bigotry."

The Soul Trap

Analyzing gender thoughtfully, it becomes evident that we are perilously close to the supernatural realm. This is because when we conceive of gender as an entity existing independently of sex, we confine ourselves to a logical dilemma.

Allow me to clarify…

If not for the fact that humans reproduce sexually, this entire discussion would be moot. There would be no male or female, man or woman, boy or girl; no such classifications as straight or gay, masculine or feminine, and consequently no notion of gender or its associated concepts. We would simply exist as humans, differing only in categories like race, body type, and age.

In essence, biological sex is the foundation and reference point for the entire discourse on gender, however we choose to define it.

So whether one is firmly rooted in the belief that God designed women for domestic roles, or one subscribes to notions such as The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct, we must acknowledge that without sex, there can be no gender. Thus, any rational understanding of gender must be anchored in biological sex in some capacity.

The only question remains: how? I can identify two logical possibilities:

1. Gender is defined by sex.
2. Gender is rooted in sex but is not defined by it.

The latter aligns with the views of gender theorists. Referring again to our quote from genderspectrum.org:

“…while gender may begin with the assignment of our sex, it doesn’t end there. A person’s gender is the complex interrelationship between three dimensions: body, identity, and social gender.”

This statement warrants further analysis. Firstly, it's noteworthy that both gender theorists and theologians depict "man" as a triadic being. The dimensions of body, identity, and social gender parallel the body, soul, and spirit within many Christian theological frameworks.

More significantly, while the claim positions gender as the “complex interrelationship” among three factors, we recognize that gender designation is quite straightforward. It is determined either by biological sex or by identity, as these two elements are the only factors in this “complex interrelationship” that decisively influence whether someone identifies as a man or woman, or neither.

It is almost self-evident that if sex and identity conflict, identity prevails for true believers in gender theory.

Herein lies the logical conundrum confronting the gender theorist:

1. Gender defined by sex compels us to classify men as adult human males and women as adult human females.
2. Gender rooted in sex but not defined by it requires us to conceptualize gender as a sex-like essence, which is most reliably determined by one's self-identity. Thus, we again confront the notion of an immaterial, unobservable essence—akin to a gendered soul.

Conclusion

At this juncture, I remain unconvinced that the contemporary use of gender constitutes a legitimate concept. It fails to articulate anything real that we do not already possess superior terminology for. Instead, the term "gender" complicates linguistic and conceptual clarity by introducing an additional term that refers to established concepts, albeit inconsistently.

As demonstrated, when gender is invoked to signify something in its own right, it does so by detaching itself from the realm of objective observation, adopting characteristics reminiscent of the supernatural.

The primary function of language is to enhance clarity and quality in communication. The goal of science is to deepen our understanding of observable phenomena. My argument is that gender, as currently conceived, serves neither purpose.

What justification remains for its continued use in scientific and mainstream socio-political discourse?

This video analyzes the "Party On Garth With Gender Bender" episode from Supernatural, exploring the implications of gender fluidity within the show's narrative.

This video examines the "Genderswap" theme among the Winchester sisters, providing insights into the portrayal of gender dynamics in Supernatural.