Hey guys sorry to post late.
I have been giving the “sex is a construction” issue some thought and I think I may have a way of investigating this proposal. As Sara pointed out in thursday's class, it’s amazing how all of the seemingly random classes we take have overlap. In my general biology class we were just going over genetics and chromosomal inheritance. We talked about what it is that makes someone a male or a female.
As we already know, physical body parts are not necessary to make someone male or female. We wouldn’t call a man who suffered from testicular cancer and had to have something removed not a “male”. Similarly we wouldn’t call a woman with a prosthesis not an actual “woman”. It seems then, when we label someone a man or a woman, we are actually referring to something in relation to DNA and chromosomes. (or as Butler proposes we are only referring to a societal construction, but let's put that aside for now). I’m sure many of you have heard the often used XX or XY chromosomes when determining sex (XX for female, XY for male). But my biology teacher brought up the fact that that may not be a necessary condition for sex either.
I’ll do my best to explain this simply. When we create cells for the purpose of passing them down via sexual reproduction, they are without a pair, carrying half the usual number of chromosomes (haploid). In other words a female will produce two eggs one X and the other X, but not XX together. In males, two sperm will be separated into one X and one Y. As my teacher says, the Y haploid determines if the egg will be male or not. In reproduction, either the X from the father will combine with the from the X mother, making a daughter or the Y from the father will combine with the X from the mother to make a son. Where this becomes interesting is before the XX turns into X and X, and before XY turns into X and Y prior to reproduction. To promote variation, the XY, in males, will swap genetic material before separation. So before a cell becomes Y on its own, it has parts of the X gene inside of it.
Typically, there is a part of the Y chromosome that does not “swap” genetic information with the X. Geneticists call that area the “sex-determining region of the Y chromosome”. I said before that the “Y” cell is what will make the fetus a male or female, but what is it exactly that makes it so? And what if that part of the Y swapped with the X and made a XX male, or if the Y lost that part and made a XY female?
Geneticists call the specific gene that causes male genitalia the SRY. And usually the SRY will not cross over into the X before being passed down. Key word: usually. About one in ever 20,000 fetuses have this “genetic mutation”. Although very rare, this will cause the person to have either XX SRY+, some “female” traits with male genitalia or XY SRY-, some “male” traits with female genitalia. This is what is known as inter-sexed.
So it seems that XX and XY chromosomes are not necessary for sex-determination either. However it is extremely rare. What do you guys think of this? Are the occasional genetic variations enough to say that sex is a construction?
I asked what other genes are not usually “swapped” from the Y chromosome. My teacher said he wasn’t sure, but things we “usually associate with male traits”.
I’d love to know what those traits are. Do you think that if we were to know exactly the traits that are usually associated with only the Y chromosome, that would be helpful?
It might help us see which traits are tied to “biological reasons” and which traits are purely a product of the environment.
A wiki article on SRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY
i don't think this genetic information really challenges butler's argument. hers is a question of language, i.e. the parsing of the different genetic materials into x and y.
ReplyDeletethese binaries here are slightly loose, but they are still binaries. that is, these genes may interact freely and 'swap,' but in the end it comes down to an embedded presupposition of sex: there are female genitalia and female traits, there are male genitalia and male traits. their intercombinations leave them semantically intact.
I didn't necessarily mean it as a challenge to Butler, but maybe a scientific approach to her work. Maybe I should have prefaced the post with something like "this might be a way in which genetics can help support Butler's (and other's) types of claims.
ReplyDeleteI think Winn put it exactly right. That being said, I understand your point Stephen. Obviously our genitals are not social constructions. We can look down and see them, we can touch them, we know they are there. "Most" of us also know that if we combine our genitals with someone elses' we can reproduce. But to look at our genitals and decide whether they are male or female is problematic. Sure, it would be easy to ignore the one in twenty-thousand genitals that is neither male nor female, but I think Butler's notion of constructed sexes isn't just about being inclusive of intersex people. I think it's also about questioning the criteria we use to sex genitalia. Our culture is fraught with ideas about what it means to be a "real woman" or a "real man" based on genitalia, but I would argue that the vast majority of humans do not fit into the bill of a "real woman" or a "real man." As we all we all know, penises, vaginas, vulvas, nipples, and breasts can vary enormously between individuals. So, if we know that there are a range of biological outcomes within a given gender, then how can we lump them all into the same category? At what point do we decide that a given set of genitals is intersex and not just part of the range of outcomes within a gender? These issues disappear when we acknowledge that sex assignments (though not physical genitals) are constructions. So, while I think the field of genetics supports Butler's claims, I think they are only part of the puzzle.
ReplyDeleteI think you post is really interesting Stephen and (especially since I'm not a very scientifically-minded person) I think it's cool to hear that there is potential scientific reasoning to enhance Butler's argument. I'll be honest, because I'm not scientifically-minded, I'm still maybe a little confused (I had to read the post through a couple times to try and understand). One thing that I wonder about is that you stated that this genetic mutation is rare (1/20,000) and I wonder how that number correlates to the number of individuals who self-identify in a means that would result from this genetic mutation. My understanding is that this mutation probably most closely relates to her commentary about transexual individuals but, as you said, it would be interesting to find other less-apparent genetic mutations that possibly correlate to gender queer individuals. Personally, I like Butler's argument about both gender and sex being socially constructed because I think it speaks to the inflexibility of both society and language. I wonder, if evidence such as this were more publicly known, if it would help society become more accepting of these terms as socially constructed and contribute to a more open-minded society.
ReplyDeleteI find this conversation very interesting, however I still think that in the end making this argument/controversy into something that is biological or naturally inherited is simplifying something that must remain complex. In the end, we all (perhaps subconsciously) make assumptions upon meeting someone or watching a stranger pass us in the hallways simply by way of the binary of gender. I think that if this scientific information were more widely known it would provide more acceptance for the "inter-sexed" members of our society, but the problem remains that we still assume that some traits are biologically assumed when it comes to the gender or combination of genders a person receives through their chromosomal information. If we link personality and identity to the body it will only complicate the idea of self into something that I personally find slightly depressing.
ReplyDeleteI think it is really interesting to continue to bring the conversation back to biology as we talk about the various positions and theories of feminism, so thank you for posting this. It is really interesting to hear about the genetics of gender/sex, or the lack thereof—as I would say I am pretty clueless on this subject. I appreciate your discussion/question with regards to how we take into account the rarity of the cases in which people are do not have such clearly defined gender traits or genitalia. With regards to Butler’s argument—and really, all of the arguments we have studied—I think that these cases, however rare, challenge us to think of the reasons beyond biology that inform gender and sex. What these cases do is confirm that there are factors beyond biology that form sex and gender. It is not enough to say that the answer is on the level the body (parts, appearance) or even on the level of the cells. However, we cannot say that the body/cells have nothing to do with it. Ultimately, I don’t think we can/ever will pinpoint gender/sex as purely biological. Still, it is important to continue to relate the theory to what we know and understand about the body, so thanks for bringing this up, Steven!
ReplyDeleteOf course we have plenty of reasons to not just look at biology as the only basis for identity. The things that Butler argues are "above" biology in many respects. But remember that biology is always the basis for all life processes. This is not say that it is the only source of knowledge in life or that even the "way we are" is proper justification for the ethical and identity related issues we are discussing. However some of you have expressed disdain for using "the body" as a source for gender identity.
ReplyDeleteFor this, I'd like to pose the questions, what is the proper place to derive identity? If, as Butler writes, something along the lines of our actions, then in what way is that significantly different from "our bodies"? We can not ever escape "our bodies". All action comes from "our bodies". Is it that certain parts of our body, namely the genitalia, should play no role in identity, and other parts of our body, maybe areas of the brain regulated to decision making, should be a source of self-knowledge? What makes those parts of the body morally significant in deriving notions of self-identity?
Also, as a note about my post in general. All that I was saying was that I find it fascinating that there is not a single trait, as far as traditional sex-identification is concerned, that is necessary for one trait. As deconstruction would say, this does a lot to break up the binary. I was not making any arguments for or against Butler, but more using her assertion that "sex is constructed" as a foundation for conclusions that I am drawing.
I see Butler as a social constructionist in the sense that an immutable biological component of gender that might exist cannot reveal itself outside the confines of our gendered language. Because of this stipulation, we cannot begin our investigation of gender based on the assumption that it is possible to find an element that will transcend the language in which it is articulated (scientific language included). However, I don't think Butler rejects the role of the body in our experience of gender. I especially don't see Butler as a social constructionist in the sense that gender is just a bunch of arbitrary words that we identify with. I think what she criticizes, at least in what we read for class, is the way language has limited and directed our thoughts on gender. Specifically, the way our system of binaries causes our exploration of gender to become reductive. I mean why do we even search for that "one" biological cause anyway? Science seems hyper obsessed with that mode of searching, and I think Butler takes aim at this mode. On page 282 of the text she writes:
ReplyDelete"The limits of the discursive analysis of gender presuppose and preempt the possibilities of imaginable and realizable gender configurations within culture. This is not to say that any and all gendered possibilities are open, but that the boundaries of analysis suggest the limits of a discursively conditioned experience."
I like this portion of Butler's analysis because it seems to open up the doors of exploration, but not by rejecting the possibility of a gender identity--even as it relates to the body. In this way, I think that the portion of the Y chromosome could certainly lend substance to Butler's contention. The information could add to our very real experience of sexuality, especially for those that deviate from what has been culturally produced as the standard. What she might reject is seeing this chromosomal discovery as further corroborating the evidence supporting the strict distinction between men and women as it relates to anatomy.
I want to address Stephen's question of what role the body plays in self-identity. It is clear from what we have read that not all feminists are in agreement on this topic. I like the idea of delving further into biology--all the way down to DNA structure--to think about this. I don't think that we can ignore the body's role in gender construction in the same way that we cannot ignore how language or social practices influence what it means to be a man or woman. We are physical bodies and, like Stephen pointed out in Butler's argument, we act from our bodies. The various combinations and alignments of our DNA is a part of what distinguishes people from each other. However, when talking about this, I think we need to be careful in assigning "female" or "male" characteristics to certain chromosomes. This is perhaps what Butler means by a constructed sex. Like Hannah mentioned, I think it is best to think about chromosomal arrangement as a type of continuum where neither female or male are explicitly defined.
ReplyDeleteThese are interesting points, but I think it would be even more interesting to take a step back and look at the classification of these genes in the first place. On the level of “sex,” we have classified XX as female and XY as male. Therefore, like many people have said, our DNA is sexed and categorized into a binary. When I take a step back and look at this classification it makes me question whether the distinction between XX and XY is even necessary or valid? Since all of our parts—male and female—are different and fall upon a spectrum of shapes and sizes this type of classification could be considered arbitrary. I am not sure science can even classify female parts and male parts as one or another because of this variety. Therefore, I agree with Hannah when she says, “I would argue that the vast majority of humans do not fit into the bill of a ‘real woman’ or a ‘real man.’” I think there is just continuous variation when it comes to sex and how do you classify that? And why do we need to?
ReplyDeleteI think its interesting and essential to bring in this biological aspect of gender because this is where all these differences have stemmed. I would argue that there are physical traits that make us male and female but its these socially constructed binaries of female and male that have caused this gender conflict. However, truly gender should be a continuum, with male and female being the very ends of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteWhat is socially constructed and problematic is this notion of being a “real man” and “real woman” (like Hannah and sara mentioned), but why aren’t we encouraged just to be a “real human”?
Society is what pressures us to fit neatly into one category or the other, and it is a primitive notion where men should be “all men” --strong, emotionless, and protect the woman while she is dainty, nurturing and passive.
Really what I believe should be encouraged is a balance of the masculine and feminine within an individual. I think in reality if we redefined the assumptions of femininity and masculinity we would find many of both traits in ourselves. Thus, striving for a unity of these (socially constructed) conflicting dualities would allow for true equality and acceptance of identity.