Distinguishing Sex and Gender

R. McDermott

Distinguishing Sex and Gender

PS: Political Science & Politics, 2011

Distinguishing Sex and Gender Rose McDermott, Brown University Peter K. Hatemi, United States Studies Center, University of Sydney ABSTRACT We argue for the importance of adequately distinguishing between the concepts of sex, gender, and sexual orientation. We review the literature across disciplines to sug- gest ways that political scientists might beneﬁt by taking into account important biologi- cal distinctions in addition to cultural factors regarding sex, gender, and sexuality in their research. We clarify the distinction between these concepts in an eﬀort to help reduce discrimination and defuse misconceptions, stereotypes, and imposed social roles.We believe that it would be fruitful for us as a discipline to better communicate this research to the wider public in the hope that public opinion and elite discourse will shift in a more tolerant and positive direction as a result. Editor’s note: This article is part of a series of short pieces orga- nized by the Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession (CSWP) on topics relevant for gender and politics. We note that this topic may be viewed as controversial, with some strongly reject- ing the notion that all these gender issues are not socialized or that the authors are trying to be essentialist in ways that do not respect individuality. However, the authors’ attempt to examine dif- ferences empirically, rather than assuming concordance, pro- vides analytic traction for future investigations of sex and gender. The CSWP encourages this kind of article, which boldly addresses these important and contentious issues with integrity and serious scholarship. — Kristen Monroe for the CSWP D espite its importance for many public policy choices, the majority of scholarship in political sci- ence does not adequately distinguish, either theo- retically or methodologically, between the concepts of sex, gender, and sexual orientation. We begin by noting that this topic is emotionally tinged and fraught with the kinds of diﬃculties that accompany any attempt to apply cat- egories to identity. While recognizing that one’s identity is highly individual and personal and that individuals should always have the full range of freedom to choose their multitudinous identities, it can nonetheless prove useful to analytically distinguish between a few categories—such as sex and gender—to allow more precise scholarship and further public discussion in hopes of producing more humane public policies. In this article, we review the literature across disciplines to suggest ways that political scientists might beneﬁt by taking account of important biological distinctions in addition to cultural factors regarding sex, gender, and sexuality in their research. This article seeks to clarify these concepts and the sources of individ- ual diﬀerence across these domains in an eﬀort to help reduce discrimination and defuse misconceptions, stereotypes, and imposed social roles. The assumption underlying our review is that the more that science learns about sex, how it overlaps but diﬀers from gender, and the ways in which sexuality emanates in large part from innate sources, the more likely it is that public opinion and elite discourse will shift in a more tolerant and pos- itive direction. We believe that it would be fruitful for us as a discipline to better communicate this research to the wider pub- lic. We recognize that many biologically based phenomena remain socially stigmatized, and, thus, showing that, for example, sexual orientation may involve some interaction between biological dis- position and social development may not prove suﬃcient to sway those already invested in entrenched biases that privilege one developmental pathway over another. However, historically, edu- cating leaders and the public on these matters has proven extremely beneﬁcial. While action is never immediate, change can occur over relatively short time frames. The concept of gender, particularly as a demographic con- struct, actually embodies three separate but overlapping, corre- lated, and distinct components. In other words, when political scientists refer to “gender” in a survey, they are referring to and conﬂating several overlapping and meaningfully distinct under- lying constructs. These elements remain linked, but they diﬀer in critical ways. The ﬁrst component encompasses biological sex, which, short of surgical and hormonal intervention, remains con- stant for most individuals across their life span. While there are some individuals who undergo sex changes and a not-trivial num- ber who are born intersex, most people possess biological organs of reproduction that distinguish them as male or female. 1 Rose McDermott is a professor of political science at Brown University. A 2008–09 Fel- low at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford Univer- sity, McDermott has also taught at Cornell and UCSB and held fellowships at Harvard’s Olin Institute for Strategic Studies and Harvard’s Women and Public Policy Program. She will be a fellow at the Radcliﬀe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University dur- ing academic year 2010–11. She can be reached at rose_mcdermott@brown.edu. Peter K. Hatemi is a Fellow at the United States Studies Center, Australia. He received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Nebraska and completed a postdoc- toral fellowship in human genetics and psychiatry at the Virginia Institute for Psychiat- ric and Behavioral Genetics. He works primarily on the study of neurobiological foundations of social and political behaviors. He can be reached at phatemi@gmail.com. The Profession ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. doi:10.1017/S1049096510001939 PS • January 2011 89

The second aspect of categorization incorporates the notion of gender and relates to traits of masculinity or femininity, includ- ing such characteristics as sex-typed interests and occupations, appearance, mannerisms, and nonverbal behavior (Lippa 2005). The concept of gender is assumed to correlate with various role deﬁnitions, personality traits, and components of identity. These constructions become infused with cultural values that diﬀer across time and place and were historically assumed to result from pro- cesses of socialization. However, modern examinations provide much stronger support for biological foundations of gender (Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab 2010). These constructs can inﬂu- ence a wide variety of behaviors that aﬀect societal notions of relationships, work, and parenting, among other factors. Various ways of measuring gender exist. One of the best known, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem 1981), allows individuals to assess their masculinity and femininity along distinct continu- ums. No a priori assumption regarding the relationship between an individual’s gender construction and biological sex exists in this theoretical model. Each factor can vary independently, such that individuals can be deﬁned as masculine females or feminine males; alternatively, one may be both highly masculine and fem- inine or neither. This approach to classiﬁcation means that indi- viduals can have gender identity preferences that diverge from the biological category into which they were born. A third aspect of categorization regards sexual preference. Scholars typically do not link this aspect of identity to sex and gender, but in reality, these notions are often conﬂated in the public discourse, whether intentionally or not. In addition, notions of gender nonconformity and homosexuality are often linked in societal assumptions and political punditry, but they are not at all the same. For those who doubt this tendency, consider the recent discussion in Congress over the allowance of gays in the military, in which concepts of sex, gender, and sexual preference were often conﬂated. Masculine straight men represent the epitome of value in this community, despite the fact that over 10% of the armed forces are women. Just like sex and gender, sexual orientation remains a distinct analytic category; individual men and women can be attracted to either men or women. Masculine women can be straight, just as masculine men can be gay. As with the notion of gender itself, which is often used to refer to both sex and gender, the concept of sexual preference also incor- porates several distinct elements. The physical acts that consti- tute a given individual’s sexual preference can be separated from the nature of the individuals with whom they choose to engage in such practices. For analytic purposes alone, each of these identi- ties needs to be kept theoretically distinct. In addition, this dis- tinction is important to achieve a fuller understanding of the true ways in which sex, gender, and sexual preference may be related, and how each may independently and in combination aﬀect polit- ical outcomes of import. We note here that some may argue that scholarship cannot be progressive and essentialist at the same time (Butler 1990). We disagree. The measurement of an identity category on a survey represents an essentialist move; however, the use of survey work to advance understanding in a progressive way can avoid some of the pitfalls of essentialism. 2 Opinions regarding gay marriage prove instructive in this regard, since attitudes have relaxed as more information regard- ing some of the innate sources of sexuality has passed into the public discourse. In 1993, Science published a highly inﬂuential, though still debated, study on the innate nature of homosexuality (Hamer et al. 1993), in which a team of geneticists from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) identiﬁed a gene related to male homosexuality on the X chromosome. The same year, the debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage re-emerged in the courts. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. A little over a decade later, in 2004, Massachusetts became the sixth place in the world to legalize gay marriage. The trend toward greater tolerance became national, and today, although a slight majority of Amer- icans still oppose gay marriage, the majority of the population now approves of civil unions between homosexuals. This number represents a remarkable change in attitudes over the course of 20 years. Furthermore, a great deal of this change coincides with shifts in elite discourse. Indeed, in a recent panel survey of Iowans, Red- lawsk and Tolbert (2010) noted a signiﬁcant shift in pro–gay mar- riage attitudes and a concomitant decline in anti–gay marriage attitudes after the state Supreme Court had ruled on the consti- tutionality of the matter. Thus, in that case at least, as elites and science moved, so too did public opinion. Yet, a perspective that highlights the distinction between sex and gender sharply contrasts with a great deal of extant scholar- ship that treats these concepts synonymously (Urdy 2000). We encourage a separation of the notion of sex from the concept of gender and, even further, from deﬁnitions of sexual orientation. To remove the moral judgments imposed by some individuals on others, it becomes critical to separate notions of choice from those of natural disposition; just as people do not choose the color of their eyes or hair, individuals do not simply choose their natural gender or sexual orientation, although people have often chosen to not act on their inherent preferences as a result of the cultural As with the notion of gender itself, which is often used to refer to both sex and gender, the concept of sexual preference also incorporates several distinct elements. The physical acts that constitute a given individual’s sexual preference can be separated from the nature of the individuals with whom they choose to engage in such practices. For analytic purposes alone, each of these identities needs to be kept theoretically distinct. In addition, this distinction is important to achieve a fuller understanding of the true ways in which sex, gender, and sexual preference may be related, and how each may independently and in combination aﬀect political outcomes of import. The Profession: Distinguishing Sex and Gender ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 90 PS • January 2011

The Profession ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Distinguishing Sex and Gender Rose McDermott, Brown University Peter K. Hatemi, United States Studies Center, University of Sydney We argue for the importance of adequately distinguishing between the concepts of sex, gender, and sexual orientation. We review the literature across disciplines to suggest ways that political scientists might beneﬁt by taking into account important biological distinctions in addition to cultural factors regarding sex, gender, and sexuality in their research. We clarify the distinction between these concepts in an eﬀort to help reduce discrimination and defuse misconceptions, stereotypes, and imposed social roles.We believe that it would be fruitful for us as a discipline to better communicate this research to the wider public in the hope that public opinion and elite discourse will shift in a more tolerant and positive direction as a result. ABSTRACT Editor’s note: This article is part of a series of short pieces organized by the Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession (CSWP) on topics relevant for gender and politics. We note that this topic may be viewed as controversial, with some strongly rejecting the notion that all these gender issues are not socialized or that the authors are trying to be essentialist in ways that do not respect individuality. However, the authors’ attempt to examine differences empirically, rather than assuming concordance, provides analytic traction for future investigations of sex and gender. The CSWP encourages this kind of article, which boldly addresses these important and contentious issues with integrity and serious scholarship. —Kristen Monroe for the CSWP D espite its importance for many public policy choices, the majority of scholarship in political science does not adequately distinguish, either theoretically or methodologically, between the concepts of sex, gender, and sexual orientation. We begin by noting that this topic is emotionally tinged and fraught with the kinds of diﬃculties that accompany any attempt to apply categories to identity. While recognizing that one’s identity is highly individual and personal and that individuals should always have the full range of freedom to choose their multitudinous identities, it can nonetheless prove useful to analytically distinguish between a few categories—such as sex and gender—to allow more precise Rose McDermott is a professor of political science at Brown University. A 2008–09 Fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, McDermott has also taught at Cornell and UCSB and held fellowships at Harvard’s Olin Institute for Strategic Studies and Harvard’s Women and Public Policy Program. She will be a fellow at the Radcliﬀe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University during academic year 2010–11. She can be reached at rose_mcdermott@brown.edu. Peter K. Hatemi is a Fellow at the United States Studies Center, Australia. He received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Nebraska and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in human genetics and psychiatry at the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics. He works primarily on the study of neurobiological foundations of social and political behaviors. He can be reached at phatemi@gmail.com. doi:10.1017/S1049096510001939 scholarship and further public discussion in hopes of producing more humane public policies. In this article, we review the literature across disciplines to suggest ways that political scientists might beneﬁt by taking account of important biological distinctions in addition to cultural factors regarding sex, gender, and sexuality in their research. This article seeks to clarify these concepts and the sources of individual diﬀerence across these domains in an eﬀort to help reduce discrimination and defuse misconceptions, stereotypes, and imposed social roles. The assumption underlying our review is that the more that science learns about sex, how it overlaps but diﬀers from gender, and the ways in which sexuality emanates in large part from innate sources, the more likely it is that public opinion and elite discourse will shift in a more tolerant and positive direction. We believe that it would be fruitful for us as a discipline to better communicate this research to the wider public. We recognize that many biologically based phenomena remain socially stigmatized, and, thus, showing that, for example, sexual orientation may involve some interaction between biological disposition and social development may not prove suﬃcient to sway those already invested in entrenched biases that privilege one developmental pathway over another. However, historically, educating leaders and the public on these matters has proven extremely beneﬁcial. While action is never immediate, change can occur over relatively short time frames. The concept of gender, particularly as a demographic construct, actually embodies three separate but overlapping, correlated, and distinct components. In other words, when political scientists refer to “gender” in a survey, they are referring to and conﬂating several overlapping and meaningfully distinct underlying constructs. These elements remain linked, but they diﬀer in critical ways. The ﬁrst component encompasses biological sex, which, short of surgical and hormonal intervention, remains constant for most individuals across their life span. While there are some individuals who undergo sex changes and a not-trivial number who are born intersex, most people possess biological organs of reproduction that distinguish them as male or female.1 PS • January 2011 89 The Profession: Distinguishing Sex and Gender ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. The second aspect of categorization incorporates the notion of gender and relates to traits of masculinity or femininity, including such characteristics as sex-typed interests and occupations, appearance, mannerisms, and nonverbal behavior (Lippa 2005). The concept of gender is assumed to correlate with various role deﬁnitions, personality traits, and components of identity. These constructions become infused with cultural values that diﬀer across time and place and were historically assumed to result from processes of socialization. However, modern examinations provide much stronger support for biological foundations of gender (Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab 2010). These constructs can inﬂuence a wide variety of behaviors that aﬀect societal notions of relationships, work, and parenting, among other factors. Various ways of measuring gender exist. One of the best known, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem 1981), allows individuals to assess their masculinity and femininity along distinct continuums. No a priori assumption regarding the relationship between an individual’s gender construction and biological sex exists in this theoretical model. Each factor can vary independently, such that individuals can be deﬁned as masculine females or feminine ties needs to be kept theoretically distinct. In addition, this distinction is important to achieve a fuller understanding of the true ways in which sex, gender, and sexual preference may be related, and how each may independently and in combination aﬀect political outcomes of import. We note here that some may argue that scholarship cannot be progressive and essentialist at the same time (Butler 1990). We disagree. The measurement of an identity category on a survey represents an essentialist move; however, the use of survey work to advance understanding in a progressive way can avoid some of the pitfalls of essentialism.2 Opinions regarding gay marriage prove instructive in this regard, since attitudes have relaxed as more information regarding some of the innate sources of sexuality has passed into the public discourse. In 1993, Science published a highly inﬂuential, though still debated, study on the innate nature of homosexuality (Hamer et al. 1993), in which a team of geneticists from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) identiﬁed a gene related to male homosexuality on the X chromosome. The same year, the debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage re-emerged in the courts. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the law banning As with the notion of gender itself, which is often used to refer to both sex and gender, the concept of sexual preference also incorporates several distinct elements. The physical acts that constitute a given individual’s sexual preference can be separated from the nature of the individuals with whom they choose to engage in such practices. For analytic purposes alone, each of these identities needs to be kept theoretically distinct. In addition, this distinction is important to achieve a fuller understanding of the true ways in which sex, gender, and sexual preference may be related, and how each may independently and in combination aﬀect political outcomes of import. males; alternatively, one may be both highly masculine and feminine or neither. This approach to classiﬁcation means that individuals can have gender identity preferences that diverge from the biological category into which they were born. A third aspect of categorization regards sexual preference. Scholars typically do not link this aspect of identity to sex and gender, but in reality, these notions are often conﬂated in the public discourse, whether intentionally or not. In addition, notions of gender nonconformity and homosexuality are often linked in societal assumptions and political punditry, but they are not at all the same. For those who doubt this tendency, consider the recent discussion in Congress over the allowance of gays in the military, in which concepts of sex, gender, and sexual preference were often conﬂated. Masculine straight men represent the epitome of value in this community, despite the fact that over 10% of the armed forces are women. Just like sex and gender, sexual orientation remains a distinct analytic category; individual men and women can be attracted to either men or women. Masculine women can be straight, just as masculine men can be gay. As with the notion of gender itself, which is often used to refer to both sex and gender, the concept of sexual preference also incorporates several distinct elements. The physical acts that constitute a given individual’s sexual preference can be separated from the nature of the individuals with whom they choose to engage in such practices. For analytic purposes alone, each of these identi90 PS • January 2011 same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. A little over a decade later, in 2004, Massachusetts became the sixth place in the world to legalize gay marriage. The trend toward greater tolerance became national, and today, although a slight majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, the majority of the population now approves of civil unions between homosexuals. This number represents a remarkable change in attitudes over the course of 20 years. Furthermore, a great deal of this change coincides with shifts in elite discourse. Indeed, in a recent panel survey of Iowans, Redlawsk and Tolbert (2010) noted a signiﬁcant shift in pro–gay marriage attitudes and a concomitant decline in anti–gay marriage attitudes after the state Supreme Court had ruled on the constitutionality of the matter. Thus, in that case at least, as elites and science moved, so too did public opinion. Yet, a perspective that highlights the distinction between sex and gender sharply contrasts with a great deal of extant scholarship that treats these concepts synonymously (Urdy 2000). We encourage a separation of the notion of sex from the concept of gender and, even further, from deﬁnitions of sexual orientation. To remove the moral judgments imposed by some individuals on others, it becomes critical to separate notions of choice from those of natural disposition; just as people do not choose the color of their eyes or hair, individuals do not simply choose their natural gender or sexual orientation, although people have often chosen to not act on their inherent preferences as a result of the cultural ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. and policy punishments associated with deviating from heteronormativity. Conﬂating these realities only serves to elide and hide potentially important theoretical and empirical distinctions. In addition, such truncation makes notions of deviance from some particular societal norm salient to many individuals in ways that cause inordinate and unnecessary discomfort. These concepts obviously remain quite complex in their manifestation, but treating sex and gender as though they represent identical phenomena provides a limited understanding of the myriad ways in which any kind of identity informs behavior. By breaking the construction of sex into its component parts, we can begin to question and clarify the assumptions that presume the uniformity of sex, gender, and sexual identity preference. This strategy allows for greater empirical and theoretical traction. For example, although a great deal of work has explored the biological basis of sexuality, the distinction between biological sex and gender in terms of existential perceptions of masculinity and femininity has often been overlooked. However, gender identity can develop independently of sex, and it can exert diﬀerent inﬂuences on political outcomes of interest. A recent paper by Hatemi et al. (forthcoming) found that gender, deﬁned in terms of femininity-masculinity, results largely from genetic and unique environmental inﬂuences, including individual in-utero eﬀects, but socialization makes no signiﬁcant contribution to the development of this identity. In addition, both childhood gender conformity as well as adult gender identity (masculinity and femininity) can be distinguished from sex, and such gender measures are signiﬁcantly related to support for political parties. Gender conformity exists across a modestly wide spectrum, not unlike political ideology. A critically important note to the ﬁndings reported in this study is that gays and lesbians were removed from the sample to show that gender varied, sex or sexuality withstanding. The ﬁndings suggest that forcing everyone into a male or female category needlessly restricts the wide variety of human experience and expression, the diversity of which can serve many functions. Indeed, the importance of specifying conceptual distinctions lies precisely in our ability to locate more clearly the causal mechanisms of interest between our social and political variables of interest. If the concept of gender actually contains several diﬀerent, albeit overlapping, elements, greater clarity can help reﬁne causal models. This process can work in a manner similar to the way that epidemiology allow observers to relate medical and social variables. To properly diagnose the relationship between genetic predisposition and environmental exposure, epidemiologists must ﬁrst carefully specify the appropriate categories of vulnerability and risk. In a similar fashion, scholars have reﬁned the category of race to include a wider variety of categories, subcategories, and possibilities for self-identiﬁcation in various surveys to examine the diﬀerent ways that perceptions inﬂuence political outcomes of interest. We suggest that undertaking a concomitant deconstruction of the notions of sex and gender would allow for greater precision in modeling outcomes and could prove similarly productive and useful in deﬁning and predicting political attitudes and behaviors. If this utility in predicting diﬀerent political outcomes of interest is demonstrated, such that sex predicts some variables better while gender predicts others more eﬀectively, then the utility of the variable is only heightened through greater accuracy in description. Clearly, such speciﬁcation cannot solve every problem that might arise in seeking to explain or predict the inﬂu- ence of sex, gender, or preference on political outcomes, but greater clarity in variable speciﬁcation can lead to greater precision in modeling and prediction. More important, such categorization can help illuminate the diversity of sexual and gender experience and expression, and allow many individuals to feel less isolated, thus encouraging the emergence of social groups that can agitate for the proper allocations of rights due all individuals, regardless of their sex, gender, orientation, creed, age, race, or ethnicity. Increasing recognition of some of the biological bases of gender identity and sexual orientation can hopefully enhance tolerance and encourage and strengthen democratic diversity, inclusion, participation, and freedom of expression. Disseminating such information can create more widespread public acknowledgement and acceptance of diﬀerent identities and potentially help reduce discrimination and improve public policy. Questions regarding sex, gender, and sexual orientation, and the political provocations and pitfalls that surround them, invoke quintessential issues of identity, equality, and human rights. In public debates surrounding these topics, including those involving reproduction and homosexuality, decision-makers and other elites often ﬁnd it politically proﬁtable to engage in debates that center around arguments about the ostensible immutability or choice involved in these phenomena. For example, many rightleaning politicians suggest that being gay represents a conscious choice to engage in “deviant” behavior, while many left-leaning politicians consider sexuality to be a manifestation of freedom and self-expression. These and similar positions often unconsciously or strategically conﬂate notions of sex, gender, and sexual orientation in ways that only serve to divide and confuse, rather than enlighten and comfort. But if we care about human rights, decency, and the value of individual identity and freedom, we should strive to replace manipulative rhetoric with respectful and responsible intellectual discourse. Political scientists can strive to properly inform leaders and the public about the science underpinning these notions, as well as work to diminish public rhetoric that often appears designed to inﬂame the public to achieve personal political gain. Some will refuse to believe or accept scientiﬁc ﬁndings or will experience diﬃculty overcoming their preconceived beliefs. Nonetheless, we believe that one of the critical functions of scholarship is its ability to make important information available to the public, including elites, in hopes of alleviating suﬀering where possible. One way that this aim can be accomplished is by highlighting and celebrating the individual diﬀerences that bring such richness and texture to our humanity and by disseminating information about the multiple biological and social pathways that develop and deﬁne gender and sexual orientation in ways distinct from biological sex. Biology and environment do not represent entirely separate pathways, and behavior does not emerge solely from personal, volitional choice. Individuals do not choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their sex at birth (although parents may seek to choose the sex of their children, with untold damage, precisely because of some of the social prejudices and biases we seek to ameliorate with the arguments presented here). To be clear, we note that sexuality is an extremely complex process that encompasses a wide variety of social and biological processes and practices; genes or hormones alone never determine a given outcome. Rather, a combination of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental processes aﬀect the likelihood of a person PS • January 2011 91 The Profession: Distinguishing Sex and Gender ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. developing a homosexual or heterosexual identity. The complexity of this development, which clearly exists along a continuum, suggests why some individuals may ﬁnd their sexuality to be more malleable than others. A more widespread recognition of the vast variety of possible identities should serve to strengthen the body politic. The foundation of the democratic experiment rests on the idea that individuals can respect each other’s diﬀerences and engage in a give and take of mutual compromise to achieve the best outcome possible for the greatest majority of individuals. Oftentimes, in reality, this dream dies hard, as those who recognize diﬀerence seek to kill its manifestation and expression rather than ﬁnd ways to understand, tolerate, and beneﬁt from such difference. Diversity can produce strength (Page 2007), but only when all types are allowed a place at the democratic table of discourse and made to feel welcome, valued, and acknowledged for the unique beneﬁts they bring to a collective society. Conveying this message properly can help reduce the stigma that often accompanies diﬀering gender roles as the public begins to conceptualize gender, like sexuality, as resting on a biological foundation independent of personal choice. Political scientists should report and communicate the literature surrounding the diﬀerences between sex, gender, and sexual orientation to produce a more positive outcome for a diverse public operating within a democratic context. 䡲 1. Current estimates suggest that about 1 in 100 individuals possess chromosomes consistent with both sexes (Blackless et al. 2000). 2. We thank Aaron Belkin for very helpful feedback and discussion on this and other points in this article; all mistakes or misrepresentations remain our own. REFERENCES Bem, Sandra. 1981. Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Professional Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Blackless, Melanie, Anthony Charuvastra, Amanda Derryck, Anne FaustoSterling, Karl Lauzanne, and Ellen Lee. 2000. “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Synthesis.” American Journal of Human Biology 12: 151–66. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Garcia-Falgueras, Alicia, and Dick F. Swaab. 2010. “Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation.” In Pediatric Neuroendocrinology, ed. S. Loche, M. Cappa, L. Ghizzoni, M. Maghnie, and M. O. Savage, 22–35. Basel: Karger. Hamer, D., S. Hu, V. L. Magnuson, N. Hu, and A. M. Pattatucci. 1993. “A Linkage between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation.” Science 261 (5119): 321–27. Hatemi, Peter K., R. McDermott, J. M. Bailey, and Nicholas Martin. Forthcoming. “The Diﬀerent Eﬀects of Gender and Sex on Vote Choice.” Political Research Quarterly. Lippa, Richard. 2005. Gender, Nature, and Nurture, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Page, Scott. 2007. The Diﬀerence: How Diversity Helps Create Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies. Princeton, NH: Princeton University Press. NOTES Redlawsk, D., and Caroline Tolbert. 2010. “Attitude Shift in the Gay Marriage Debate.” Working paper, University of Iowa. We would like to thank Kristen Monroe and Aaron Belkin for their helpful feedback on this article. Urdy, J. Richard. 2000. “Biological Limits of Gender Construction.” American Sociological Review 65: 443–57. 92 PS • January 2011 View publication stats

This is an interesting cultural moment in which to critically examine heterosexuality. Picture two different scenes that one might encounter in a given day in contemporary western societies. The first scene is set in a university classroom, where one mixed race student who uses they/them pronouns is talking about what it means to identify as pansexual and refers to their current partner as their "girlfriend." In the same small-group discussion is another white student who uses she/her pronouns, identifies as transgender, enacts a rather masculine self-presentation and talks about her "boyfriend" and what they will do this weekend. A few hours later in a hotel bar, a second scene unfolds between three straight, white, middle-class men in their early 30s who are catching up over drinks. Two of them are single, while the third talks about how his love life has changed since his girlfriend became his wife, and the couple now has two small children. He wistfully recalls the days when his partnership was filled with more sexual desire, which has diminished since the birth of their children. His tone has the air of inevitability about the trajectory his life has taken, from the fun sexy times with his girlfriend to the adult responsibility of married couplehood with two children. Conventional heterosexual nuclear families comprising two married biological parents and their children-like that of the wistful father in the bar-are not the statistical family norm in America, even if they are still the culturally sanctioned ideal family (Essig 2019; Stacey 2012). Nostalgic images of conventional nuclear heterosexual families have been increasingly challenged by today's shifting gender and techno-social dynamics. We are witnessing changing norms in heterosexual arrangements like online dating and hooking up (Kalish and Kimmel 2011; Wade 2018), the increase in single-person households (Klinenberg 2014), and the decoupling of gender identity from sexual identity. Straightness and its identity forms are bending into new arrangements, identity conceptions, and more flexible social statuses that build upon, morph, and attempt to supplant older, traditional patriarchal gender-normative arrangements. In return, those who hold traditional patriarchal beliefs about gender and heterosexuality continue to try to use their positions of political and institutional power to make heterosexuality "compulsory" and try to erase and/or demean new gender and sexual identities and relationships. At this cultural moment of both progressive change and reactionary politics, heterosexual identities, practices, and institutions are ripe for social analyses, theoretical explanations, and historical contextualization.

Pregnancy is considered a feminine experience in mainstream Canadian culture. Babies identified as female at birth are expected to grow up to become feminine heterosexual mothers. This research considers the desires, choices, and experiences of individuals who were identified as female at birth, but who do not identify as feminine heterosexual women; this dissertation focuses on the reproductive desires, choices, and experiences of butch lesbians, transmen, and genderqueer individuals in British Columbia. Three methods and two distinct populations formed this research. Participant observation was conducted in 21 cities across southern BC. Questionnaires were completed by 28 health care professionals (HCPs), and by 46 butch lesbian, transmen, and genderqueer (BTQ) individuals. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 10 HCPs, 8 BTQ individuals who had experienced at least one successful pregnancy, and 4 BTQ individuals who had either experienced or been diagnosed with a condition linked to infertility. What I found, is that for many BTQ individuals, reproduction associated with the female body (ie: pregnancy and breastfeeding) is not exclusively considered a feminine desire or experience. In fact, what I discovered is that BTQ individuals who experience pregnancy and breastfeeding explicitly challenge the cultural fetish associating femininity with reproduction (including pregnancy, breastfeeding, mothering, and fertility). Thus, I highlight not only the typically ignored desire and achievement of pregnancy of BTQ individuals, but also how BTQ individuals have experienced breastfeeding, how some BTQ parents raise queerlings, and how some BTQ individuals have negotiated diagnoses and experiences of infertility. Overall, I highlight the unique and various expectations and experiences that butch lesbians, transmen, and genderqueer individuals have regarding their ‘female’ (and potential) biological reproduction. In the end, I hope that by presenting the diverse reproductive experiences, desires, and choices of BTQ individuals, that I can foster more of an understanding of these experiences, desires, choices, and individuals, and thus challenge the cultural fetish that links femininity with ‘female’-associated reproduction. Moreover, I offer recommendations for health care professionals in an effort to foster more understanding in BTQ health care, as well as help to facilitate more queer competent health care professionals.

The Pentecostal theological notion of being “born again” stems from the mainstream Evangelical doctrines of “sin,” “salvation” and “baptism in the Holy Spirit” that are inextricably interwoven into the fabric of the Pentecostal church in general. Most theological discourses in Pentecostalism are founded upon these notions. Sexual morality is expected to be grounded on the principle that “marriage is an institution created by God in which one man and one woman enters into an exclusive relationship for life, and that is the only form of partnership approved by God for sexual relations.” This study uses the Grace Bible Church (GBC) in Soweto, a dominantly “black” township west of Johannesburg South Africa, as its case study since the church declared in its Statement of Faith (SoF) that it will only allow persons to become members in the church if they adhere to these heterosexual, monogamous, heteronormative principles. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer (LGBTIQ) lifestyles are in most general cases pathologized as being a transgression, spiritual deviance among the conservative and fundamentalist Bible-literalist churches, particularly the Pentecostal-Charismatic churches. They are regarded as sinful “unnatural” acts that may result in divine judgement whilst other go as far as asserting that same-sex sexual activities are demonic and “Un-African”. This is mainly because of the widely accepted binarism views and assertions that according to the Bible God created humans as either male or female. This binary view of gender has been largely upheld within the South African religious community while gender diversity has been ignored. People born intersex have been forced to live according to this gender binary. The gender bipartite also problematizes people that are transgender and excludes people that are gender diverse. Gender identity is widely accepted as a person’s private sense of being male, female, both or of the other gender. This may or may not match the biological sex assigned to them at birth. Due to the gender binary that promotes heterosexist theological positions, sermons are preached from the most conservative Christian pulpits with the intention that non-heterosexual members will repent, be ‘delivered’, and transformed by the power of God. Such sermons are viewed by some as being derogatory and discriminatory against members who are of LGBTIQ sexuality. Their argument is based on the premise that these churches do not consider queer members’ lived experiences, but instead insist on a literalist hermeneutical approach on the Bible exegesis and the traditional heteropatriarchal views ascribed to the Biblical worldview. Moreover, such views hold that human sexuality promotes only the heterosexual perspective as a religious and societal norm. Queer persons experience a negative impact from stigmatization and victimization due to patriarchal, heteronormative and cisnormative societies, that is even argued to be dominated by the hegemonic masculine mindset. This study shows that international and South African research has found significant negative effects are caused by exclusion and other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation and queer gender identity. Sexual orientation-based discrimination presents the same risks of psychological and other harm as discrimination based on race, religion or gender. Notably, among youth who already identify as, or think they may be homosexual or bisexual, research has found that family rejection and exclusion, as well as bullying by peers, correlates highly with a range of high-risk behaviors and outcomes ranging from truancy to substance abuse to attempts at suicide. Much of the evidence shows that this stigmatization leads to deep-seated and widespread prejudice, discrimination and violence in Africa toward those who are not heterosexual. Furthermore, many gay and lesbian people suffer from stress due to ill treatment by a homophobic society, especially when confronted with religious condemnation. Public religious speeches can lead to not only grave psychological, but also social consequences, as such speeches may contain a strong element of humiliation and degradation that may promote corrective rape, bullying and belittlement. Religious homophobic speeches may cause a polarization of society as people unconsciously absorb the hidden agenda that is intended to show that people who do not conform to the heterosexual norm are inferior and should be shunned. Research and observation have found that gay and lesbian people are referred to as “detestable” or “unnatural”, which could constitute religious hate speech. Due to what is believed to be a religiously infused homophobia, the LGBTIQ church members and activists have started protesting their churches. While some leave churches, others choose to remain “in the closet” and celibate so that they may be accepted by the Christian community and participate in church activities. In other instances, some closeted LGBTIQ members in Pentecostal-Charismatic churches are experiencing heightened homonegativity when anti-gay sentiments are uttered. It is therefore, the purpose of this study to investigate issues related to gender, law and theological discourses within the context of a selected Christian denomination –the Grace Bible Church in Johannesburg South Africa. This study is interdisciplinary, since it is positioned within the fields of Christian theology, the sociological concept of human sexuality with a specific interdisciplinary dimension on the intersection between gender, law and religion. The interconnectedness of the notions on gender, law and religion is the foundational basis of this study. This is pertinent since, historically, law and theology have been accepted as the fundamental grounds of the universal notion of the recognition of the inherent dignity of persons, and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Such laws form the foundations on liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness of all members of human family in the world. These laws are also contained in the liberal Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996. The South African Constitution, recognizes and protects, in Chapter 2 Section 9 of its Bill of Rights, the human rights of LGBTIQ persons to not be discriminated against on the ground of their sexual orientation or gender identity. While there appears to be some tension with regard to understanding the Constitution’s definition of religious freedom, churches seem to be generally free to formulate the conditions of their faith and church membership and free from state intrusion and doctrinal entanglement in such matters as relating to faith dictates. Hence this study considers these issues, focusing on human sexuality, theological and legal notions of human dignity, human flourishing, and human rights jurisprudence.

Across ages and cultures, music has been associated with sexual allure, gender inversion and suspect sexuality. Music has been theorised as both a putative agent of moral corruption and an expressive mechanism of gender and sexual signification, capable of arousing and channelling sexual urges and desires. This research examines musically facilitated expressions of queerness and queer identity, asking how and why music is used by queer musicians and musical performers to express non-normative gender and sexual identities. A queer theoretical approach to gender and sexuality, coupled with interdisciplinary theories concerning music as an identificatory practice, provides the theoretical landscape for this study. An investigation into queer musical episodes such as this necessitates an exploration of the broader cultural milieu in which queer musical work occurs. It also raises questions surrounding the corpus of queer musical practice—that is, do these practices constitute the creation of a new musical genre or a collection of genres that can be understood as queer music? The preceding questions inform an account of the histories, styles, sensibilities, and gender and sexual politics of camp, drag and genderfuck, queer punk and queercore, as well as queer feminist cultures, positioning these within musical praxis. Queer theory, music and identity theories as well as contemporary discussions relating to queer cultural histories are then applied to case studies of queer-identified music performers from Brisbane, Australia. A grounded theoretical analysis of the data gathered in these case studies provides the necessary material to argue that musical performance provides a creative context for the expression of queer identities and the empowerment of queer agency, as well as oppositional responses to and criticism of heterosexual hegemony, and the homogenisation and assimilation of mainstream gay culture. Resulting from this exploration of queer musical cultures, localised data gathering and analysis, this research also supposes a set of ideologies and sensibilities that can be considered indicative and potentially determinant of queer musical practice generally. Recognising that queer theory offers a useful theoretical discourse for understanding the complexities and flexibility of gender and sexual identities—particularly those that resist the binary logics of heteronormativity—this project foregrounds a question that is relatively unanswered in musicological work. It asks: how can musicology make use of queer theory in order to produce queer readings and new, anti-oppressive knowledge regarding musical performance, composition and participation? To answer this, it investigates the history of resistance towards embodied studies of music; the disjuncture between competing discourses of traditional and ‘new’ musicology; and recent developments in the pursuit of queer visibility within music studies. Building upon these recent developments, this work concludes that the integration of queer theoretical perspectives and queer aesthetic sensibilities within musicological discourse allows for a serious reconsideration of musical meaning and signification. In the development of a queer musicology, a committed awareness of queer theory, histories, styles and sensibilities, together with an embodied scholarly approach to music, is paramount. It is through this discursive nexus that musicology will be able to engage more fully with the troubling, performative and contingent qualities of gender, sexuality and desire.

Log In

Distinguishing Sex and Gender