Introduction
What is gender, a rather grand question to be sure but not one that should be shied away from. If one is to study or simply read issues of gender, the first question is usually to ask what the term means. More often than not this question is addressed within the first few paragraphs by the author, perhaps with a few lines denoting the origins of the term with a discussion about the sex and gender distinction. As the term gender becomes more and more established within sociology, less time is spent analysing or asking what gender is, and more time is spent applying the term. This is not a critique, after all what use is there in having a conceptualised term that is not used. What is of interest to me, and was the catalyst to my research question if whether the sociological conceptualisation of gender, matches the way gender is understood by the everyday social actor. Before answering this research context, it must first be placed within it's literary context. So like many previous authors this discussion will also start sex and gender distinction.
Introduction to sex
The first term that will be defined is that of 'Sex'. There is one reason for it being the primary term in the discussion, that being simply that sex as term compared to gender has existed for a longer period of time, both in sociological and non-sociological discourses. One could offer a second reason that sex is arguably still the more explicit and narrow of the two terms, however as this discussion will show depending on how one views the term gender that particular argument may or may not be true.
Sex as sexual intercouse
As Oakley (1985) explains “sex has two meanings: it refers to the differences between individuals that make them male and female, and also to a type of behavior- the 'mating' behavior that begins sexual reproduction”. In other words, one of the meanings revolves around the issue of sex as sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse then is still described as “the penetration of the vagina by the penis” (Allen 2002, pg 812). It seems rather absurd and archaic considering the multitude of sexualities and therefore sexual practices that exist, to have a definition that denotes sexual intercourse as only between male and female. This meaning of sex, at first appears quite distinct from the other meaning about difference, or the idea of sex categories. What is interesting is that the more one probes either of the definitions the closer and more intertwined they become. The “type of mating behavior” that Oakley discusses is arguably the idea of sexual intercourse, but this is made in connection to reproduction, and both sexual intercourse and reproduction are commented on with reference to only two sex categories male and female.
Sex as categories decided by reproductive role
According to the Collins Dictionary sex is “the sum of characteristics that distinguish organisms on the basis of there reproductive function; either of two categories, male or female, into which organisms are placed on this basis.” (McLeod, 1990 pg 917). The two key components of this definition as I see them are, firstly the link of sex to reproductive functions, and secondly the inclusion again of just two sex categories that of male or female. This source could easily be critiqued due to its relative old age, however in the decade or so that has passed since its publication the definition has developed or evolved very little. The Penguin English Dictionary dated from 2002 defines sex in largely the same way as “either of two categories, male or female into which organisms are divided on the basis of their reproductive role, notably the type of gamete produced; the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics that are involved in reproduction and that distinguish males from females.” (Allen, 2002 pg 812). A further definition provided by the online Concise Oxford English Dictionary is once again very similar, defining sex as “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions” (2006).
If one leaves out the idea of sex as sexual intercourse as already discussed, then it is clear already that the term sex may be better referred to, as a category. An individual can be one of two sex categories, either male or female. The influence of this particular idea can be seen in areas ranging from the legal registration of an infant at birth, down to simple forms that an person will fill out over the course of their life. Such forms always asks for the recipient to tick one box. Male or female. Never both, and never a third option.
Of huge significance is the use of reproduction, or reproductive roles, as a main deciding factor into which of the two sex categories and individual is be placed. Reproduction is defined as “the sexual or asexual processes by which plants and animals give rise to offspring” (Allen, 2002 pg 751). If one reads the definitions of the sex categories, then male becomes an adjective “denoting the sex that fertilizes or inseminated the female to produce offspring” (Allen 2002), and female becomes an adjective “relating to or denoting the sex that bears offspring or produces eggs” (Allen 2002). In light of these definitions it would not be unreasonable to ask whether this means that an individual must “give rise to offspring” in order to be placed within a sex category? Or should those who do not be considered unsexed? And how is it, in light of such a definition, that an infant can be assigned a sex at birth? Moreover with the advances in new reproductive technologies, it is not just theoretically but practically possible for an individual to never have any physical sexual contact with someone of a different sex category and still produce a child, surely then there should be an established Asexual sex category. However when one considers that sexual intercourse is still assumed the prerequisite for reproduction, perhaps then the sex categories are based more on the role an individual takes in sexual intercourse with the assumption made that this could lead to reproduction.
Sex then is either a term that refers to sexual intercourse. Or sex is a form of categorisation, with individuals being placed into one of two categories, male or female. What is interesting is that both these ways of viewing the term sex are connected to issues surrounding reproduction. Being male or female is about reproductive role, but reproduction links to sexual intercourse, which is also defined in terms of male and female, and so on and so forth. What it is impossible to escape is the fact that, at least in the literature, there are only two distinct sex categories. Male and female.
Sex as bodily difference
If the defining characteristic of an individuals sex category is the reproductive role the individual plays, and reproduction is strongly linked to sexual intercourse, then the bodily features needed for reproduction, namely the sex organs, must be an important part of this sex difference. One could argue that the sex organs, for the male a penis and for the female a vagina, are the defining characteristics in early sexing. To return to an earlier question how is it possible to place a infant in a sex category? This is usually based on what sexual organ are visible. At such an early stage it is not possible to tell whether the infant will develop into an adult capable of producing offspring, but the assumption is made that this is likely.
Janet Bing and Victoria Bergvall (1996 pg7) highlight the fact that the “idea that female and male bodies are fundamentally different is relatively new. Historically, women's sexual organs were believed to be the same as, but less developed than those of men”. It is unlikely that most people would agree with this idea in the post-enlightenment scientific era that Western society currently resides. However clearly at one time this was the 'scientific' view, why then the change? It could be argued that there has been no change, after all research has shown that all embryos start as female and become male, or as Oakley (1985) writes “up to about seven weeks of prenatal life the appearance of the external genitalia is identical in both sexes”. If one studies the diagrams Oakley refers to, it is clear that both the male and female sex organs develop from the same initial components. In adult life the male sex organs contain female sex organ remnants, and vice versa. Why is now the case that male and female bodies are seen as so different? Bing and Bervall quoting Nicholson (1994:87) explain that “the single-sex hypothesis (the idea that the sex categories had no biological difference) became a potential threat of their (the church's) authority” (words in brackets added). Furthermore it was feared that, “if women were the same, they might ask for the same privileges enjoyed by men”. Therefore there was a shift to “the two-sex view of the body, differences rather than similarities became emphasized, organs such as the vagina were given names of their own” . This idea of body as difference then is one defined by the medical profession. The same is also true of sex and the reproductive roles, it is in the discourses of science and medicine that such terms are defined. I have included this discussion here, as the idea that sex difference is based on bodily difference is so influential in society.
Sex as socially constructed
The aim of the prior paragraphs has been to provide a definition of 'sex'. This has proved difficult as the most agreed upon definition is the idea of sex being “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions” (OED 2006). As has been noted this definition is not objective in and of itself. The definition relies on ideas of reproduction, which in turn raises issues of sexual intercourse, as well as a whole subsection about bodily difference. With reference to this last idea of sex as bodily difference, it is clear to see that sex as a term and form of categorisation is one that is in essence socially constructed. Writers such as Butler (1990, 1993), Epstein (1990), Bem (1993) and Nicholson (1994) are all in relation to this idea. Bing and Bergvall (1996) write that “like gender, sex is socially constructed and better described as a continuum rather than a dichotomy”. However one only needs to look at scientific text books, or media portrayal of anyone that doesn't neatly fit this male-female dichotomy, to agree with Bing and Bergvall's point that generally the idea of sex as socially constructed “is usually greeted with disbelief or skepticism”.
What is sex?
So far these definitions of sex have come from outside sociology, still highly credible but never-the-less outside of the sociological discourse. Looking then at Gordon Marshall's Dictionary of Sociology it is interesting to find that sex is in no way so easily defined, if indeed what has proceeded has been an 'easy' definition. Despite having definitions of sex discrimination, sex-ratio, sex roles, sex typed, sexism and finally the sexual division of labour, sex as a term in its own right is never actually defined. Rather Marshall's analysis focuses on the “sociological studies of sex”' (Marshall 1998, pg 595 -596). Even within this definition or explanation, it is sexuality, not sex which is mentioned. Marshall's definition although forty lines long never once mentions, either male or female.
Finally then what is sex? The definitions that currently exist are no doubt lacking in necessary complexity, and are frustratingly cyclical for anyone hoping to unravel them or find any objective usage of the term. Sex is either about the act of sexual intercourse, or sex is a form of categorisation. The next section concerns the meaning of the term gender and what will become apparent is that despite sociology as a discipline being aware of the defiances of the term sex, continue to use the term even in relation to gender in largely the same way as those outside the discipline. One could argue that within sociology the issues and debates surrounding the sex categories, have become amalgamated with the debates of gender. To put it another way, perhaps sex has become gender.
Introduction to gender
As commented previously the term gender is a younger term compared to sex. Despite this realtive infancy the term gender has been adopted widely both within and outside sociology as a more contemporary term. Although often being the favored term above sex and being consistently used since the 1970's, gender is still highly difficult to discuss as it like sex has multiple meanings. Gender can either been viewed as a term to go beyond and explore the problems that exist with the term sex, most notably the problems created by neatly separating the human species into two distinctly different groups. Gender can also be seen as almost separate from this issue, and to do more broadly with the exploitation and general inferior position of Women when compared to the position of Men.
Gender as more than sex
The first way of looking at gender, the idea that it goes beyond the boundaries that the sex categories create, is most famously put forward by Ann Oakley. She was one of the first sociologists to attempt to distinguish gender from biological sex. Jackson and Scott (2003 pg 9) explain that Oakley actually borrowed the term gender from the earlier work of US psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Robert Stoller. Stoller found the distinction between biological sex and what he called 'gender' useful when working with patients “whose biological sex was ambiguous or whose sense of themselves conflicted with their assigned sex.” (Jackson and Scott 2003, pg 9). This is a clear case of gender being used to combat the problems created by the narrow sex categories. Oakley defines sex in much the same way as previously discussed as “a word that refers to the biological differences between male and female: the visible genitalia, the related difference in procreative function” (1985, pg16). She is clear to point out that sex is a “biological term” (1985, pg 158). Gender then, is described as “a matter of culture: it refers to the social classification into 'masculine' and 'feminine'” (Oakley 1985, pg 16). She goes on to say that gender is a “term at has psychological and cultural rather than biological connotations” and furthermore that “gender is the amount of masculinity or femininity found in a person”. (1985, pg 159). It is clear that the term sex existed before the term gender. It is interesting then that despite apparently knowing that the term sex is inherently problematic, both Stoller and Oakley treat it as the primary term. In both cases the term gender is used as way to further explore the differences and also the problems created with the term sex. Gender is not replacing sex.
Talking about the distinction between sex and gender, Oakley says “common sense suggests that they are merely two ways of looking at the same division and that someone who belongs to, say, the female sex will automatically belong to the corresponding (feminine) gender. In reality this is not so.” (1985, pg185). The term sex has a symbiotic relationship to the sex categories of male and female. Gender follows this path having it's symbiosis to the gender categories of masculine and feminine. Oakley makes this same point by saying that “if the proper terms for sex are 'male' and 'female', the corresponding terms for gender are 'masculine' and 'feminine'” (1985, pg159). Crucial to this discussion she goes onto say that these latter terms, those corresponding to gender, “may be quite independent of (biological) sex” (1985, pg 159), suggesting that the gender categories can be quite separate from the sex categories, although perhaps based on them.
The sex categories as previously discussed have stringent criteria that an individual must meet in order to be considered either male or female, however cross cultural studies suggest that the gender categories are much more variable. This hypothesis, that gender varies across cultures, is one supported by some highly credible sociological and anthropological studies. One such study, which is repeatedly discussed in surrounding literature, was carried out by Oakley (1985). Her research into the Alrose society studied women who had what would be considered, at least in a Western Society, to have masculine traits with the men of this society taking on traits of a more feminine nature (Haralombos and Holborn 1995, pg 589). This is clear case of the sex categories and the gender categories not having to match. Oakley's book 'Sex, Gender and Soceity' is littered with examples of cultures where the features of a particular gender category are completely different from those frequently portrayed in an industrialised Western culture. The point should be made that the features connected to a particular gender category do not only differ across cultures, but also within one culture over a period of time. One need only look back at British media representations of either gender category to clearly see that the representations have changed with the passing of time. Oakley provides a concise summary and conclusion based on such cross-cultural studies by saying that “it is true that every society uses biological sex as a criterion for the ascription of gender but, beyond that starting point, no two cultures wold agree completely on what distinguishes one gender from the other” (1985, pg 158).
Sex has the categories of male and female and gender has the categories of masculine and feminine. The sex categories can be seen as a purely biological difference, and it seems that the gender categories account for all other difference that is not biological in origin. In this instance, gender can be seen as a term and set of categories that go beyond the boundaries of sex. Although as the above quote of Oakley's suggest the two terms are heavily reliant on each other. Oakley is by no means the only sociologist to use gender as a way of going beyond the boundaries created by the term sex, however her definition is the genesis for much of the literature the followed her. The distinction between sex and gender on which she wrote, was and is so influential that it appears almost word for word in Marshall's (1998) sociological dictionary, and appears in some form or another in much of the later literature about gender.
Gender not as difference, but unequal difference
The preceding definition of gender saw it broadly as a widening of sex, encompassing differences that the term and categories of sex cannot. However this is only one of the meanings of the term gender and what is more it would be a clear misreading of Oakley's work to say she only looked at this aspect of gender. She goes on to talk about the way society works, the way it exploits based on this gender division. This idea is not 'gender as difference', but rather 'Gender as unequal difference'.
The second way of using the term Gender is derived from the 1960/70's era of political feminism. Here the issue was not so much the best way to explain or describe difference between men and women, but simply to highlight this very difference. The now highly established critique was the idea that sociology was done by men, about men, and for men. Put another way “for the most part sociologists studied the world of men as if men constituted the whole of society.” Furthermore this “not only rendered women invisible, but also concealed the gendered characteristics of men's social locations, activities and identities.” (Jackson and Scott 2002, pg1). Much campaigning, debate and literature surrounds the issue seeking the inclusion of women in studies or moreover seeking to highlight the sexist nature of society itself. The term patriarchy although originally used by Weber came into its own around this time, as a term that highlighted the inferior status of women in a male dominated society. Within this context 'gender' became Gender, a term tied up with and synonymous with power. Gender became much more than just an extension of the term sex. Taking the idea of “gendered charcteristics”, within the first meaning of gender the issue would be that to which gender category an activity or identity type would belong to. With the new meaning of Gender the issue is about why certain activities belong to particular gender categories, whom does it benefit to classify one activity as masculine and not feminine and how does the 'gendering' of certain activities or characteristics affect peoples position in society.
Jackson and Scott (2002, pg 1) explain Gender in the following quote “Gender as we define it denotes hierarchical division between women and men embedded in both social institutions and social practice. Gender is thus a social structural phenomenon but is also produced, negotiated and sustained at the level of everyday interaction.” (Jackson and Scott 2002, pg 1). This is the second way of using Gender and is essentially about “hierarchical divisions between women and men” . Arguably in this instance gender categories are used as a tool to make such “hierarchical divisions” seem more acceptable, and deflect the reality that such divisions are based solely on sex categories. Many sociologists have written about this meaning of Gender, Jackson and Scott have been used here simply as they provided the most clear definition of this way of thinking about gender. The idea of Gender as a division or simply Gender as synonymous with power is a theme that underpins a lot of feminist writing, with the majority of current feminist literature and certainly the literature that receives the most media attention is based specifically on this view of gender. This view of Gender, as noted previously, highlights the way in which both the existing sex categories and gender categories can be used as a means to divide power often in an unfair and unequal way. This view of gender although not the focus of this study needed to be addressed as it has been such an influential area, not just within feminist sociology, but sociology more broadly and contemporary social discussion to be even broader still.
Sex, gender and Gender as Models
It should by now be clear that sex is the most established term, having existed for the longer period of time and that gender was created as a more encompassing term. In essence both sex and gender are about difference, and are terms aimed to catalog difference. Unlike the term sex which has remained largely the same, gender as a term has evolved. On the one hand there is gender as a form of categorisation, gender as more than sex. On the other hand there is Gender which sees such categorisation as tool of power and the establishment of division and inequality. Again if gender is about difference, then Gender is about unequal difference and why such difference exists. If thought of as models, then Sex would be model 1, gender would be model 2 and Gender would be model 3.
Think of the common following example. A female worker attends an interview for a promotion in her place of employment, a fellow male worker goes for the same promotion interview. The male worker is offered the promotion and the female worker is not. Some may argue that the female candidate was not offered the promotion purely due to the fact that she is a female, this is a Sex category (Model 1). However this would only partly be true, in this scenario it is likely that the employer made a decision about who to offer the promotion to, based on personal beliefs or societal stereotypes about traits associated with each sex category. For example the idea that the female worker may in the future have children and so need maternity leave or perhaps that she would be less assertive than her male co-worker. These are stereotypes and components associated, at least in Britain, of the gender categories of masculine and feminine (Model 2). Finally the decision of the employer not to give the promotion to the female candidate based on either the sex category she belongs to or due to traits thought to be associated with that sex category, is sexual discrimination. And sexual discrimination is nothing if not a hierarchical division of power (Model 3).
BIBLOGRAPHY
Allen, R. (ed) 2002 The Penguin English Dictionary, London: PENGUIN BOOKS
Bergval, V,L., Bing,J,M., Freed, A,F. (eds) 1996 Rethinking Language And Gender Research: Theory and Practice, New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited
Delphy, C. 1993 Women's Studies International Forum 16 (1) pages 1-9 ...IN Jackson, S., Scott,S. (eds) 2002 Gender A Sociological Reader, London: Routledge
Haralambos, M., Holborn, M. 1995 Sociology: Themes and Perspectives forth edition, London: Collins Education
Jackson, S., Scott,S. (eds) 2002 Gender A Sociological Reader, London: Routledge
Marshall, G. 1998 Oxford Dictionary of Sociology,Oxford: Oxford University Press
McLeod, W. (ed) 1987 The Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus,: COLLINS
Oakley, A. 1985 Sex, Gender & Society, England: Gower Publishing Company Limited
What is gender, a rather grand question to be sure but not one that should be shied away from. If one is to study or simply read issues of gender, the first question is usually to ask what the term means. More often than not this question is addressed within the first few paragraphs by the author, perhaps with a few lines denoting the origins of the term with a discussion about the sex and gender distinction. As the term gender becomes more and more established within sociology, less time is spent analysing or asking what gender is, and more time is spent applying the term. This is not a critique, after all what use is there in having a conceptualised term that is not used. What is of interest to me, and was the catalyst to my research question if whether the sociological conceptualisation of gender, matches the way gender is understood by the everyday social actor. Before answering this research context, it must first be placed within it's literary context. So like many previous authors this discussion will also start sex and gender distinction.
Introduction to sex
The first term that will be defined is that of 'Sex'. There is one reason for it being the primary term in the discussion, that being simply that sex as term compared to gender has existed for a longer period of time, both in sociological and non-sociological discourses. One could offer a second reason that sex is arguably still the more explicit and narrow of the two terms, however as this discussion will show depending on how one views the term gender that particular argument may or may not be true.
Sex as sexual intercouse
As Oakley (1985) explains “sex has two meanings: it refers to the differences between individuals that make them male and female, and also to a type of behavior- the 'mating' behavior that begins sexual reproduction”. In other words, one of the meanings revolves around the issue of sex as sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse then is still described as “the penetration of the vagina by the penis” (Allen 2002, pg 812). It seems rather absurd and archaic considering the multitude of sexualities and therefore sexual practices that exist, to have a definition that denotes sexual intercourse as only between male and female. This meaning of sex, at first appears quite distinct from the other meaning about difference, or the idea of sex categories. What is interesting is that the more one probes either of the definitions the closer and more intertwined they become. The “type of mating behavior” that Oakley discusses is arguably the idea of sexual intercourse, but this is made in connection to reproduction, and both sexual intercourse and reproduction are commented on with reference to only two sex categories male and female.
Sex as categories decided by reproductive role
According to the Collins Dictionary sex is “the sum of characteristics that distinguish organisms on the basis of there reproductive function; either of two categories, male or female, into which organisms are placed on this basis.” (McLeod, 1990 pg 917). The two key components of this definition as I see them are, firstly the link of sex to reproductive functions, and secondly the inclusion again of just two sex categories that of male or female. This source could easily be critiqued due to its relative old age, however in the decade or so that has passed since its publication the definition has developed or evolved very little. The Penguin English Dictionary dated from 2002 defines sex in largely the same way as “either of two categories, male or female into which organisms are divided on the basis of their reproductive role, notably the type of gamete produced; the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics that are involved in reproduction and that distinguish males from females.” (Allen, 2002 pg 812). A further definition provided by the online Concise Oxford English Dictionary is once again very similar, defining sex as “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions” (2006).
If one leaves out the idea of sex as sexual intercourse as already discussed, then it is clear already that the term sex may be better referred to, as a category. An individual can be one of two sex categories, either male or female. The influence of this particular idea can be seen in areas ranging from the legal registration of an infant at birth, down to simple forms that an person will fill out over the course of their life. Such forms always asks for the recipient to tick one box. Male or female. Never both, and never a third option.
Of huge significance is the use of reproduction, or reproductive roles, as a main deciding factor into which of the two sex categories and individual is be placed. Reproduction is defined as “the sexual or asexual processes by which plants and animals give rise to offspring” (Allen, 2002 pg 751). If one reads the definitions of the sex categories, then male becomes an adjective “denoting the sex that fertilizes or inseminated the female to produce offspring” (Allen 2002), and female becomes an adjective “relating to or denoting the sex that bears offspring or produces eggs” (Allen 2002). In light of these definitions it would not be unreasonable to ask whether this means that an individual must “give rise to offspring” in order to be placed within a sex category? Or should those who do not be considered unsexed? And how is it, in light of such a definition, that an infant can be assigned a sex at birth? Moreover with the advances in new reproductive technologies, it is not just theoretically but practically possible for an individual to never have any physical sexual contact with someone of a different sex category and still produce a child, surely then there should be an established Asexual sex category. However when one considers that sexual intercourse is still assumed the prerequisite for reproduction, perhaps then the sex categories are based more on the role an individual takes in sexual intercourse with the assumption made that this could lead to reproduction.
Sex then is either a term that refers to sexual intercourse. Or sex is a form of categorisation, with individuals being placed into one of two categories, male or female. What is interesting is that both these ways of viewing the term sex are connected to issues surrounding reproduction. Being male or female is about reproductive role, but reproduction links to sexual intercourse, which is also defined in terms of male and female, and so on and so forth. What it is impossible to escape is the fact that, at least in the literature, there are only two distinct sex categories. Male and female.
Sex as bodily difference
If the defining characteristic of an individuals sex category is the reproductive role the individual plays, and reproduction is strongly linked to sexual intercourse, then the bodily features needed for reproduction, namely the sex organs, must be an important part of this sex difference. One could argue that the sex organs, for the male a penis and for the female a vagina, are the defining characteristics in early sexing. To return to an earlier question how is it possible to place a infant in a sex category? This is usually based on what sexual organ are visible. At such an early stage it is not possible to tell whether the infant will develop into an adult capable of producing offspring, but the assumption is made that this is likely.
Janet Bing and Victoria Bergvall (1996 pg7) highlight the fact that the “idea that female and male bodies are fundamentally different is relatively new. Historically, women's sexual organs were believed to be the same as, but less developed than those of men”. It is unlikely that most people would agree with this idea in the post-enlightenment scientific era that Western society currently resides. However clearly at one time this was the 'scientific' view, why then the change? It could be argued that there has been no change, after all research has shown that all embryos start as female and become male, or as Oakley (1985) writes “up to about seven weeks of prenatal life the appearance of the external genitalia is identical in both sexes”. If one studies the diagrams Oakley refers to, it is clear that both the male and female sex organs develop from the same initial components. In adult life the male sex organs contain female sex organ remnants, and vice versa. Why is now the case that male and female bodies are seen as so different? Bing and Bervall quoting Nicholson (1994:87) explain that “the single-sex hypothesis (the idea that the sex categories had no biological difference) became a potential threat of their (the church's) authority” (words in brackets added). Furthermore it was feared that, “if women were the same, they might ask for the same privileges enjoyed by men”. Therefore there was a shift to “the two-sex view of the body, differences rather than similarities became emphasized, organs such as the vagina were given names of their own” . This idea of body as difference then is one defined by the medical profession. The same is also true of sex and the reproductive roles, it is in the discourses of science and medicine that such terms are defined. I have included this discussion here, as the idea that sex difference is based on bodily difference is so influential in society.
Sex as socially constructed
The aim of the prior paragraphs has been to provide a definition of 'sex'. This has proved difficult as the most agreed upon definition is the idea of sex being “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions” (OED 2006). As has been noted this definition is not objective in and of itself. The definition relies on ideas of reproduction, which in turn raises issues of sexual intercourse, as well as a whole subsection about bodily difference. With reference to this last idea of sex as bodily difference, it is clear to see that sex as a term and form of categorisation is one that is in essence socially constructed. Writers such as Butler (1990, 1993), Epstein (1990), Bem (1993) and Nicholson (1994) are all in relation to this idea. Bing and Bergvall (1996) write that “like gender, sex is socially constructed and better described as a continuum rather than a dichotomy”. However one only needs to look at scientific text books, or media portrayal of anyone that doesn't neatly fit this male-female dichotomy, to agree with Bing and Bergvall's point that generally the idea of sex as socially constructed “is usually greeted with disbelief or skepticism”.
What is sex?
So far these definitions of sex have come from outside sociology, still highly credible but never-the-less outside of the sociological discourse. Looking then at Gordon Marshall's Dictionary of Sociology it is interesting to find that sex is in no way so easily defined, if indeed what has proceeded has been an 'easy' definition. Despite having definitions of sex discrimination, sex-ratio, sex roles, sex typed, sexism and finally the sexual division of labour, sex as a term in its own right is never actually defined. Rather Marshall's analysis focuses on the “sociological studies of sex”' (Marshall 1998, pg 595 -596). Even within this definition or explanation, it is sexuality, not sex which is mentioned. Marshall's definition although forty lines long never once mentions, either male or female.
Finally then what is sex? The definitions that currently exist are no doubt lacking in necessary complexity, and are frustratingly cyclical for anyone hoping to unravel them or find any objective usage of the term. Sex is either about the act of sexual intercourse, or sex is a form of categorisation. The next section concerns the meaning of the term gender and what will become apparent is that despite sociology as a discipline being aware of the defiances of the term sex, continue to use the term even in relation to gender in largely the same way as those outside the discipline. One could argue that within sociology the issues and debates surrounding the sex categories, have become amalgamated with the debates of gender. To put it another way, perhaps sex has become gender.
Introduction to gender
As commented previously the term gender is a younger term compared to sex. Despite this realtive infancy the term gender has been adopted widely both within and outside sociology as a more contemporary term. Although often being the favored term above sex and being consistently used since the 1970's, gender is still highly difficult to discuss as it like sex has multiple meanings. Gender can either been viewed as a term to go beyond and explore the problems that exist with the term sex, most notably the problems created by neatly separating the human species into two distinctly different groups. Gender can also be seen as almost separate from this issue, and to do more broadly with the exploitation and general inferior position of Women when compared to the position of Men.
Gender as more than sex
The first way of looking at gender, the idea that it goes beyond the boundaries that the sex categories create, is most famously put forward by Ann Oakley. She was one of the first sociologists to attempt to distinguish gender from biological sex. Jackson and Scott (2003 pg 9) explain that Oakley actually borrowed the term gender from the earlier work of US psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Robert Stoller. Stoller found the distinction between biological sex and what he called 'gender' useful when working with patients “whose biological sex was ambiguous or whose sense of themselves conflicted with their assigned sex.” (Jackson and Scott 2003, pg 9). This is a clear case of gender being used to combat the problems created by the narrow sex categories. Oakley defines sex in much the same way as previously discussed as “a word that refers to the biological differences between male and female: the visible genitalia, the related difference in procreative function” (1985, pg16). She is clear to point out that sex is a “biological term” (1985, pg 158). Gender then, is described as “a matter of culture: it refers to the social classification into 'masculine' and 'feminine'” (Oakley 1985, pg 16). She goes on to say that gender is a “term at has psychological and cultural rather than biological connotations” and furthermore that “gender is the amount of masculinity or femininity found in a person”. (1985, pg 159). It is clear that the term sex existed before the term gender. It is interesting then that despite apparently knowing that the term sex is inherently problematic, both Stoller and Oakley treat it as the primary term. In both cases the term gender is used as way to further explore the differences and also the problems created with the term sex. Gender is not replacing sex.
Talking about the distinction between sex and gender, Oakley says “common sense suggests that they are merely two ways of looking at the same division and that someone who belongs to, say, the female sex will automatically belong to the corresponding (feminine) gender. In reality this is not so.” (1985, pg185). The term sex has a symbiotic relationship to the sex categories of male and female. Gender follows this path having it's symbiosis to the gender categories of masculine and feminine. Oakley makes this same point by saying that “if the proper terms for sex are 'male' and 'female', the corresponding terms for gender are 'masculine' and 'feminine'” (1985, pg159). Crucial to this discussion she goes onto say that these latter terms, those corresponding to gender, “may be quite independent of (biological) sex” (1985, pg 159), suggesting that the gender categories can be quite separate from the sex categories, although perhaps based on them.
The sex categories as previously discussed have stringent criteria that an individual must meet in order to be considered either male or female, however cross cultural studies suggest that the gender categories are much more variable. This hypothesis, that gender varies across cultures, is one supported by some highly credible sociological and anthropological studies. One such study, which is repeatedly discussed in surrounding literature, was carried out by Oakley (1985). Her research into the Alrose society studied women who had what would be considered, at least in a Western Society, to have masculine traits with the men of this society taking on traits of a more feminine nature (Haralombos and Holborn 1995, pg 589). This is clear case of the sex categories and the gender categories not having to match. Oakley's book 'Sex, Gender and Soceity' is littered with examples of cultures where the features of a particular gender category are completely different from those frequently portrayed in an industrialised Western culture. The point should be made that the features connected to a particular gender category do not only differ across cultures, but also within one culture over a period of time. One need only look back at British media representations of either gender category to clearly see that the representations have changed with the passing of time. Oakley provides a concise summary and conclusion based on such cross-cultural studies by saying that “it is true that every society uses biological sex as a criterion for the ascription of gender but, beyond that starting point, no two cultures wold agree completely on what distinguishes one gender from the other” (1985, pg 158).
Sex has the categories of male and female and gender has the categories of masculine and feminine. The sex categories can be seen as a purely biological difference, and it seems that the gender categories account for all other difference that is not biological in origin. In this instance, gender can be seen as a term and set of categories that go beyond the boundaries of sex. Although as the above quote of Oakley's suggest the two terms are heavily reliant on each other. Oakley is by no means the only sociologist to use gender as a way of going beyond the boundaries created by the term sex, however her definition is the genesis for much of the literature the followed her. The distinction between sex and gender on which she wrote, was and is so influential that it appears almost word for word in Marshall's (1998) sociological dictionary, and appears in some form or another in much of the later literature about gender.
Gender not as difference, but unequal difference
The preceding definition of gender saw it broadly as a widening of sex, encompassing differences that the term and categories of sex cannot. However this is only one of the meanings of the term gender and what is more it would be a clear misreading of Oakley's work to say she only looked at this aspect of gender. She goes on to talk about the way society works, the way it exploits based on this gender division. This idea is not 'gender as difference', but rather 'Gender as unequal difference'.
The second way of using the term Gender is derived from the 1960/70's era of political feminism. Here the issue was not so much the best way to explain or describe difference between men and women, but simply to highlight this very difference. The now highly established critique was the idea that sociology was done by men, about men, and for men. Put another way “for the most part sociologists studied the world of men as if men constituted the whole of society.” Furthermore this “not only rendered women invisible, but also concealed the gendered characteristics of men's social locations, activities and identities.” (Jackson and Scott 2002, pg1). Much campaigning, debate and literature surrounds the issue seeking the inclusion of women in studies or moreover seeking to highlight the sexist nature of society itself. The term patriarchy although originally used by Weber came into its own around this time, as a term that highlighted the inferior status of women in a male dominated society. Within this context 'gender' became Gender, a term tied up with and synonymous with power. Gender became much more than just an extension of the term sex. Taking the idea of “gendered charcteristics”, within the first meaning of gender the issue would be that to which gender category an activity or identity type would belong to. With the new meaning of Gender the issue is about why certain activities belong to particular gender categories, whom does it benefit to classify one activity as masculine and not feminine and how does the 'gendering' of certain activities or characteristics affect peoples position in society.
Jackson and Scott (2002, pg 1) explain Gender in the following quote “Gender as we define it denotes hierarchical division between women and men embedded in both social institutions and social practice. Gender is thus a social structural phenomenon but is also produced, negotiated and sustained at the level of everyday interaction.” (Jackson and Scott 2002, pg 1). This is the second way of using Gender and is essentially about “hierarchical divisions between women and men” . Arguably in this instance gender categories are used as a tool to make such “hierarchical divisions” seem more acceptable, and deflect the reality that such divisions are based solely on sex categories. Many sociologists have written about this meaning of Gender, Jackson and Scott have been used here simply as they provided the most clear definition of this way of thinking about gender. The idea of Gender as a division or simply Gender as synonymous with power is a theme that underpins a lot of feminist writing, with the majority of current feminist literature and certainly the literature that receives the most media attention is based specifically on this view of gender. This view of Gender, as noted previously, highlights the way in which both the existing sex categories and gender categories can be used as a means to divide power often in an unfair and unequal way. This view of gender although not the focus of this study needed to be addressed as it has been such an influential area, not just within feminist sociology, but sociology more broadly and contemporary social discussion to be even broader still.
Sex, gender and Gender as Models
It should by now be clear that sex is the most established term, having existed for the longer period of time and that gender was created as a more encompassing term. In essence both sex and gender are about difference, and are terms aimed to catalog difference. Unlike the term sex which has remained largely the same, gender as a term has evolved. On the one hand there is gender as a form of categorisation, gender as more than sex. On the other hand there is Gender which sees such categorisation as tool of power and the establishment of division and inequality. Again if gender is about difference, then Gender is about unequal difference and why such difference exists. If thought of as models, then Sex would be model 1, gender would be model 2 and Gender would be model 3.
Think of the common following example. A female worker attends an interview for a promotion in her place of employment, a fellow male worker goes for the same promotion interview. The male worker is offered the promotion and the female worker is not. Some may argue that the female candidate was not offered the promotion purely due to the fact that she is a female, this is a Sex category (Model 1). However this would only partly be true, in this scenario it is likely that the employer made a decision about who to offer the promotion to, based on personal beliefs or societal stereotypes about traits associated with each sex category. For example the idea that the female worker may in the future have children and so need maternity leave or perhaps that she would be less assertive than her male co-worker. These are stereotypes and components associated, at least in Britain, of the gender categories of masculine and feminine (Model 2). Finally the decision of the employer not to give the promotion to the female candidate based on either the sex category she belongs to or due to traits thought to be associated with that sex category, is sexual discrimination. And sexual discrimination is nothing if not a hierarchical division of power (Model 3).
BIBLOGRAPHY
Allen, R. (ed) 2002 The Penguin English Dictionary, London: PENGUIN BOOKS
Bergval, V,L., Bing,J,M., Freed, A,F. (eds) 1996 Rethinking Language And Gender Research: Theory and Practice, New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited
Delphy, C. 1993 Women's Studies International Forum 16 (1) pages 1-9 ...IN Jackson, S., Scott,S. (eds) 2002 Gender A Sociological Reader, London: Routledge
Haralambos, M., Holborn, M. 1995 Sociology: Themes and Perspectives forth edition, London: Collins Education
Jackson, S., Scott,S. (eds) 2002 Gender A Sociological Reader, London: Routledge
Marshall, G. 1998 Oxford Dictionary of Sociology,Oxford: Oxford University Press
McLeod, W. (ed) 1987 The Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus,: COLLINS
Oakley, A. 1985 Sex, Gender & Society, England: Gower Publishing Company Limited