The Social Constructions of Gender
By Kayla Bilderback
The Five Sexes, Revisited
By: Anne Fausto-Sterling
One of the reasons I wanted to start with this reading was that I am interested in the intersection of sociology and biology and the topic of intersex is a great example of where they intercept. Within our society, there is a gender binary that still exists and anything outside of the binary is considered ‘strange’ or ‘abnormal.’ We are socialized from birth, from the color we are swaddled into the toys we grow up playing with and the clothes we are dressed in. If someone doesn’t fit within those constraints then they are ‘othered.’
What I find fascinating is this binary does not hold true for the majority of the animal kingdom. There are numerous examples of organisms that do not fit into the category of either male or female. I’ve personally researched the topic and just how complicated sex and gender are.
Here are just a few examples of some interesting organisms:
Flatworms (Platyhelminthes)
Flatworms are known for being almost entirely hermaphroditic, meaning they have either complete or partial reproductive organs and produce both male and female gametes. There are several theories as to why they might have evolved this way and it might have been to both males and females living so closely together. There is a species of flatworm where the female lives semi-permanently inside the male and receives resources from him. But it could be due to hermaphroditism being beneficial. Depending on the allocation of resources the flatworms might favor one sex over the other to maximize fitness.
Fun fact: There is a species of flatworm that is hermaphroditic and participates in a strange mating behavior called penis fencing, which you can watch here.
Bluehead wrasse (Thalassoma bifasciatum)
It is thought that at least 2% of all fish species are hermaphroditic. One of which is the Blue-headed wrasse. There are different types of hermaphroditism which might include producing both male and female gametes or having a single sex and the ability to physically change it. The bluehead wrasse exhibits something called protogyny which is the ability to change from female to male. In a school of these fish there will usually be a large number of females following one male. If something happens to the male, one of the larger females will start to change into a male.
Animal vs. Human
You might be thinking, how do flatworm and fish have anything to do with humans or this article? Yes, there are large portions of invertebrates that exhibit hermaphroditism, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t also exist in vertebrates. The animal kingdom has so much diversity when it comes to sex determinism. In some non-mammalian vertebrates, sex is often determined by temperature. Who is to say that it might not still exist in our DNA for mammals but on a smaller scale.
Sex and gender is much more complicated because it goes beyond our physical body. If you are interested, here is a paper talking about intersex and the 3G system (genetics, gonads, and genitals) in humans. It covers the complexity of how our genes, physical body, and brain interact and the inconsistencies that may arise. In humans, it’s rare to be considered a true hermaphrodite and people are moving away from using this term as it has a long history of stigmatization and is misleading. Intersex is better because it encompasses the larger range of sexual variation and is much more common than people realize. I think that expanding our knowledge of gender to 5 sexes would be more inclusive but still doesn’t capture the wide array of differences.
I think turning our attention to the larger systematic problem that is talked about towards the end of the paper is arguably more important. We need to turn away from a system that classifies people based on their genitalia. If we were a species that was truly reliant on sex, we probably wouldn’t wear clothes because we wouldn’t need to hide our genitalia. This is not the case. We are more complicated and complex in how we express ourselves and what is important to our wellbeing and not just the continuation of our species.
The Egg and The Sperm
By: Emily Martin
I really enjoyed this piece. It was about gender stereotypes being placed onto non-gendered objects such as the reproductive systems, the egg and sperm, and the process of conception. It touched on the language we use and how this language perpetuates cultural gender stereotypes. When we talk about sperm, in a traditional sense, we talk about how fast and strong they are and when they get to the egg they ‘win.’ The language with eggs is much more passive as if it is just waiting for the sperm to get there so it can start doing something, much like the language that is used when talking about women. The stereotype for women is that they are passive and need a man to get anything done when in reality all of these stereotypes are just flat out wrong. New research is finding that sperm are relatively weak cells and the egg is much more active in controlling the process of fertilization.
This article surprised me because I am a biology major who is interested in reproductive health and women and gender studies, I never thought about the language being used talking about the different systems or cells. I think reading through the paper highlighted just how socialized we are to gender. The specific language you use has such an impact on people and reflects the culture and society we live in.
We had a brief discussion about sex education experiences in our women and gender studies class and this paper goes along beautifully. In my own experience, starting in 4th or 5th grade, the boys and girls would be separated to have the puberty talk. The girls would talk about menstruation and how their body would change, boys also talked about how their body would change and a lot about their penis and masturbation. There was this language about puberty for the girls that it is not going to be fun and menstruation and PMS sucks and we are just going to have to deal with it for the rest of our lives. Looking back I think one of the most frustrating memories I have from a health/wellness class was in middle school. We had to label the male and female reproductive systems but spent the entire time talking about the male reproductive system and going over it extensively (even though arguably there is less to it…) while the female system was only briefly covered because we ran out of time. It felt like the teachers didn’t think it was that important, except to know that it creates babies. There was mention of masturbation and pleasure for men, but not for women. The language used around sensations and feeling in women’s bodies were often very negative. It focused on the pain of live birth and menstruation, rather than the potential for intense pleasure because of the complex the neruro-network found in the female reproductive system.
I think the most surprising thing for me is that even though I’ve taken numerous and extensive courses on reproductive and sexual health, I learned so much from this article that it’s almost frustrating. I knew that sperm didn’t penetrate the egg and it wasn’t the first sperm that fertilized the egg but it was a combination of enzymes breaking down the first layer of the egg and whichever sperm made it though. I knew sperm weren’t that sturdy but the fact that I had no idea about how weak they are and how much work the egg does to capture the sperm is absurd to me.
I think I am disappointed in our education system. I have gotten to this point in my life and am just learning this information. I can understand why we use the language we do. It makes the complicated process simplified and understandable to those who might not care or understand it. But that shouldn’t mean it is completely wrong. The article opened my eyes to how we talk about things within biology and how as a future biologist I should be mindful of the language I am using so that it doesn’t continue to perpetuate gender stereotypes and a patriarchal society.
In the social implications: thinking beyond section of the article, the author talks about the image of the egg being aggressive and spider-like. I quite like that description, I know it comes off as aggressive but I think it’s kind of badass. I know it might make me sound like a bad feminist who doesn’t promote an equal society but I’m just saying, it would be kinda cool to be a female spider who eats the male if he doesn’t satisfy her… that being said, the image of the egg and language used about it does need to be changed to accurately show the active role that it plays. Women’s bodies shouldn’t be subjected to passive language and stereotypes.
Check out this cool article about how the egg might play an even larger role in specifically choosing sperm!
