Reference no: EM133376260

Case Study: Judith Butler (1990), philosopher and gender theorist, argues that while biological processes exist and can affect differences in hormones or anatomy, bodies do not exist outside of cultural interpretation and that this interpretation results in over-simplified, binary views of sex. Gender is not an essential, biologically determined quality or an inherent identity, but is repeatedly 'performed', based on, and reinforced by, societal norms. This repeated 'performance of gender' creates the idea of gender itself, as well as the illusion of two natural, essential sexes. In other words, it is not just gender that is culturally constructed but that this also applies to sex as a binary category. The two sexes only appear natural, obvious, and important to us because of the gendered world in which we live. This gendered world supports a patriarchal system of compulsory heterosexuality which is trying to reproduce and sustain itself through prohibitive power structures (i.e., repressing any deviations from gender expectations/behaviours) and generative power structures (i.e., creating/reinforcing binary, heteronormative expectations/behaviours). Butler argues that the distinction between sex and gender is meaningless, noting that "perhaps this construct called 'sex' is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all."

However, Julia Serano (2007), molecular biophysicist and trans activist, argues that the 'performance of gender' theory is an oversimplification that is as inaccurate as saying "all gender is genitals, all gender is chromosomes, or all gender is socialization." She believes gender is all of these things and more; and that the brain is hardwired to have a sense of one's own sex, which does not necessarily always match up to one's physical (biological) sex. In her 'intrinsic inclinations model of gender' she proposes that subconscious sex (an unconscious and inexplicable self-understanding regarding what sex one belongs to or should be), sexual orientation, and gender expression are all separate inclinations that work independently of one another, and that the nature of these inclinations is that they are at least on some level internal and innate and remain largely the same throughout most of our lives; they exist at least on some deeper psychological level. These inclinations are influenced by a multitude of factors-genetic, hormonal, neurological, the result of observational learning, socialization, etc.-that result in a broad range of possible outcomes. These inclinations are not biological, but they are loosely associated with biological sex and are intrinsic in that they are seeded deep in our subconscious. According to Serano, these inclinations are so strong they may persist through social pressures placed on an individual by society.

Question: Which of the two approaches to gender do you think/believe provides the more accurate/realistic explanation? Why?