UNIT 1: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEX AND GENDER
Structure
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3 Contextualizing Sex and Gender
1.4 The Sex-Gender System
1.4.1The Many Roles of Gender
1.4.2 Some Criticisms of the Sex-Gender Binary
1.5 The Paradox of Gender
1.5.1 Sexing the Body
1.6 Let Us Sum Up
1.7 Unit End Questions
1.8 References
1.9 Suggested Readings
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In this Unit we will be looking into how sex and gender are differentiated and what are the
current debates on this issue. You will also learn about how these concepts emerged and their
importance for gender discourses. This unit will familiarize you with sex and gender as a
system, roles of gender and criticismofsex-gender as a binary division.You will also learn how
gender is constructed as a paradox and how sexing of the body takes place.
1.2 LEARNING OUTCOMES
After studying this unit, you are able to:
• Define the concepts of sex - gender in relation to the sex-gender system;
• Describe the various gender roles and patterns existing in society;
• Understand sex and gender in relation to the body; and
• Discuss the feminist critique of sex-gender binary opposition.
1.3 CONTEXTUALIZING SEX AND GENDER
What is the difference between sex and gender? In the English-speaking world, the sex-
gender distinction is one of the most important contributions of feminism. Those with even a
bit of familiarity with feminism and in women’s studies have certainly come across these
terms. At one level, they are easy to distinguish – sex refers to the biological differences
between male and female bodies, while gender refers to the social and cultural
This unit is structured to help understand the questions of sex and gender from the concepts
of feminist theory. The actual terms – sex and gender – exist only in the English language.
No other language – French or German, Tamil, Hindi or Chinese — has two terms that refer
to the biological and social differences of the two sexes. The distinctions between “biology”
and “social” have been compared to the distinctions between nature and culture. These two
terms have played a significant role in theorizing feminism.
The unit beings with background information on the terms sex and gender. The term ‘sex’ is
used casually to refer to men or women as well as to refer to sexual activity. In classic texts
like Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), the notion of sex is
used to discuss and criticize the entire process of what makes “women” different from “men.”
Today, these processes are called social construction. Wollstonecraft believed that women
were raised to be the weaker sex unlike men who were granted the capacity for rational
thought and political action. The famous work of the French feminist Simone de Beauvoir’s
The Second Sex (written in France in the 1949 and translated into English in 1955), is
another classic treatise on the nature of women’s oppression in society and history. In
historical writings, there are those who saw no reason to make a distinction between
biological sex and social gender. They used the term ‘sex’ to refer to both.
The term ‘gender’ originates in grammar and linguistics. It referred to the use of different
genders in particular languages with no other connotations. For instance, chair has a feminine
gender in Hindi, and the sun has a masculine gender. Other languages have similar patterns
for used of ‘gender.’ English is not a strongly gendered language the way German and French
languages are. Among the Indian languages there is considerable variation in the grammatical
use of gender in language.
In the 1950s, American psychologists and sociologists used the term gender to refer to the
gender identity of human beings. They made a sharp distinction between the biological
notions of male and female (such as genital differences, chromosomal or hormonal
differences) and the way humans acquired a sense of themselves as boys and girls or men and
women. Some of these psychologists argued that it mattered very little what exact biological
characteristics a particular body might have – what really mattered was how such a child was
socialized by their family and broadly, by the society.
1.4 THE SEX-GENDER SYSTEM
It was these ideas of a strong difference between biological sex and social gender that
feminists used since the 1970s to understand women’s oppression. One of the earliest
formulations came in a 1974 essay by Gayle Rubin, in which she explained “the sex-gender
system”. Rubin analyses women’s oppression by making some very plausible claims:
regardless of whether we are feminist or against feminist ideas, it is what we think are the
causes of women’s oppression that determine the imagination of a future society. Thus, if we
believe that men are innately aggressive and violent by nature, there would be little scope for
change, other than to physically alter men’s very nature or to get rid of them. But, if we
believe that social and economic relations in society play a role in women’s oppression, then
an alternative and more egalitarian future is possible by changing these social and economic
structures.
In Rubin’s theory, biological differences between men and women form the backdrop for the
gender system i.e a social structure of how kinship are formed, particularly the institution of
marriage in which ‘ownership’ of women exchanges hands between men i.e. from father to
husband. In this exchanging or “giving” of women, men have rights that women do not.
There are other structural relations like labour that highlights the differences between men
and women, whereby certain tasks are regarded as men’s work and others as women's. Rubin
further theorizes that such social structures when imposed on natural differences result in
exclusive gender identities that suppress any natural gender predisposition i.e. “feminine”
traits in a man are suppressed just as “masculine” traits in a woman.
Rubin also emphasizes that the sex-gender system is not only about division of world into
two distinct groups of people - men and women, but also that socialization and development
lead to compulsory heterosexual relations, preferably through marriage. In other words, a
woman must be married to a man. A critical look at the sex-gender system is necessary not
only to promote a society in which men and women are equal, but also to provide tools of
analysis for the LGBTQI (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex) movements.
Alternate sexualities like the LGBTQI are treated as deviants and sexual minorities are
adversely affected by the existing normative heterosexual social structure.
1.4.1 The many roles of gender
Feminist theories evolved from the distinction between sex and gender to argue that
consequences of biological differences are less adverse for women as compared to the
implications of the gendering process of men and women in society. When a baby is born, the
first question asked is – whether it a boy or a girl? Not how the mother is. Or whether the
child is healthy. Once the sex of the child is determined, the social construction process
begins and takes over the life of the child. Pink and blue clothes in western societies for
example announce the sex of the child. In an interesting experiment conducted in Britain, it
was found that behaviour towards a baby changed based on the perception of whether the
baby was a boy or a girl. A baby dressed in typical girl clothes was handed over to the
relatives and friends who came to greet the newborn. The visitors held the baby softly and
gently, rocked the baby in their arms, and spoke in feminine ways. The behaviour and
treatment of visitors were remarkably different when the same baby was dressed up to look
like a boy. They tossed the baby in the air, spoke to the baby in strong tones, and remarked
how it would grow up to be like his father. Thus, very stereotypical notions of being a girl or
boy were projected onto the baby in this experiment.
There are innumerable ways in which children are socialized differentially – from ‘gender’
appropriate toys for girls and boys, rules of play and so on, which become only stronger as
the child grows older. That very few little girls play cricket or few boys play with dolls; and
how concerns are raised if a girl were to play with a toy gun all goes into shaping and
consolidating gender identities.
Check Your Progress-1
1) Conduct a Survey in your family/ peer group/ neighborhood to see how people
respond to cultural stereotypes.
Scholars argue for an emphasis on gender rather than biological sex for two reasons: First, to
explain the extent to which societies and cultures differ according to the roles assigned to
men and women; and second, to understand change in the course of history. If women’s roles
were based only on their biology, then the wide variation and change cannot be accounted
for. For example, there are several societies such as Eskimo peoples, or Native American
nations, where the relations between men and women are relatively equal. In many parts of
Africa, it is women who are the mainstay of agricultural production and even trade, unlike the
mainstream Indian society where women are invariably treated as secondary workers and the
“farmer” (Kisan in Hindi) is thought of as male! Equally interesting are the norms of
behaviour and dress codes for men and women in different cultures and at different historical
moments. In the field of fine arts too one finds example like the paintings of Ajanta where the
styles of depicting bodies of men and women are very similar making it difficult to tell apart
their gender identities. Even in pre-industrial England, dress codes and behaviour among
aristocratic men would appear extremely feminine to a modern person. Such men were
dainty in appearance, wore high heeled shoes, wigs, colourful clothing and used makeup.
Several scholars including anthropologist Henrietta Moore offers interesting examples to
explore of gender differences across different societies. The works of these scholars prove the
extent of variation and change in the social construction of men and women at different
historical moments. While Gayle Rubin focuses mainly on women, many gender theorists
focused on men and notions of masculinity and compared them with corresponding notions
of femininity. They pointed out that it is not enough to look at the social construction of
women in society and history, but that men were equally socially constructed despite their
relative positions of privilege compared to women of their group or class. Indeed, such
theorists criticized approaches that only focused on the role or oppression of women as
providing an incomplete picture. However, the early works in the field of women’s studies
conclusively showed the general invisibility of women. Gender theorists critiqued
mainstream thinkers and held them responsible for making women and their gender i.e the
overall unequal relations between men and women invisible.
The word “man” in most languages has a double meaning – “man” can refer just to
biologically male person as well as to ‘mankind’ generally i.e. the entire human race. (In
Hindi words like Manush also embody both meanings.) “Woman” on the other hand has no
such double meaning – the term women refer only to female persons, (including those who
may wish to be included as women, such as transgender person). It is never used to refer to
all of humanity. An interesting example in Hindi would be the words ‘beta’ and ‘beti’ used
for small children. Little girls are routinely referred to as beta in everyday life – but use of
‘beti’ is restrictively used only to refer to girls. Calling little boys ‘beti’ is unthinkable. Other
examples are “caveman” or “man power”, that stands for both men and women. There is,
thusa fundamental asymmetry in the man-woman dyad – the first moves across two registers
claiming universal status while anchored in the male. The second has only a particular
meaning which never includes men. It is precisely this gender asymmetry that has made it
possible in much of modern history for ‘man’ to claim a false universality, to stand in for
everyone, while actually excluding women (and others). A famous example here is the
universality that came to be embodied in the “Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man and
the Citizen”. The declaration claimed universality of rights but in fact excluded women and
working-class men without property. Thus, the use of the word ‘man’ or pronouns like ‘he’,
prior to feminist criticism of such usage, created a false impression of being universal and
inclusive. In recent times, it is common to use ‘she or he’ or “s/he” to signify both genders.
Another correction in common usage is the use of neutral word ‘person’ rather than ‘man’, as
in ‘chairperson’ instead of ‘chairman’.
Check your Progress-2
1) Define the concepts of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ within the sex-gender system, given
examples in support of your arguments.
1.4.2 Some Criticisms of the Sex-Gender Binary
The scholarship focusing on gender relations were also critique in the work of Judith Butler,
a philosopher, feminist and a queer theorist. Her criticisms are complex and have evolved in
her numerous writings but a short summary is useful to further understanding of gender.
According to Butler, a common problem in the use of the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in a
manner similar to Gayle Rubin’s, is that there is an assumption of a given biological fact of
sex as something fixed in the body, which is then provided meaning by social gender. To use
an easy metaphor, it is as though sex is the body (like the determination of the sex of a baby),
while gender are the clothes that come later. Butler questions if indeed feminists and other
scholars believed that biological sex has little to do with gender, then why proceed with two
sexes and two genders, with gender faithfully following sex.
Butler instead turns the sex –gender distinction on its head: There is nothing like a pre-social
notion of sex fixed by “nature”. Rather “sex” is as much the product of social and political
institutions as ideas of gender, concluding that sex is the effect of gender rather than its
cause.
Precisely because gender is an open-ended and contingent process involving complex
formations of identity (a person’s sense of self in relation to others), as well as sexual desires
(which may be for the opposite sex but could equally be for the same sex), it has been
necessary, especially in modern western societies, to “fix” such potentially fluid identities
through recourse to notions of an immutable and unchanging sex rooted in biology. Judith
Butler’s work has therefore looked at gender identity as a process that is constantly being
created through repeated everyday acts and performances of that identity, constrained by
ideas, discourses and institutions that are shaping these identities and giving them
recognizable meanings. Much of Butler’s work shows where and how this happens, the roles
played by both gender norms and norms of heterosexuality, and how it can be questioned.
1.5 THE PARADOX OF GENDER
Another aspect of the sex-gender binary is called the paradox of gender. Some of the major
aspects in the biological distinction of the sexes – for example, are the body size of men and
women that show considerable internal variation. On an average, male bodies are more
muscular and taller than female bodies. Such distinctions are the basis for making different
rules for men and women in the field of sports for instance. Another anatomical and
physiological difference is procreation – it is women who can bear children as a consequence
of sexual intercourse with men. Until the mid-nineteenth century in western societies and the
middle of the twentieth century in countries like India, women had, on an average, a high rate
of fertility, giving birth to many children in the course of their reproductive lives. As a
consequence, women under these conditions also experienced high rates of child and
maternal mortality. In such situations, where everyday life was subjected to considerable
uncertainties and physical hardship for the vast majority, both men and women have had to
endure the consequences of their biological vulnerabilities to a considerable degree.
This condition changed substantially after the rise of capitalism and colonialism. The
consequent creation of wealth in western societies in an unprecedented scale through the
expansion of cities as new sites of production led to a gradual increase in standards of living.
Correspondingly, western families underwent major transformations, especially among the
new middle classes, so that by the end of the nineteenth century families had far fewer
children and, under improved conditions of public health, mortality rates also came down.
Moreover, children started attending schools in increasing numbers. The nature of work also
changed – with productive labour moving outside the household into factories and offices in
urban areas, and agricultural production being the province of smaller and smaller number of
people. These developments are used to make an argument that the significance of biological
difference – childbirth for women and physical strength for men no longer enjoyed much
social significance.
It was replaced by rising significance of social differences supported by arguments that with
the developments stated above, women had more opportunities to engage in new kinds of
work, married at late ages or stayed single, did not have to be worn out by repeated child
birth and childcare. It has therefore said that a kind of bipolar gender regime was created
during this era. In other words, precisely when the significance of basic biological
distinctions ware reducing, gendering was increasing.
1.5.1 Sexing the Body
The notions of the anatomical body and physiological body, are the basis of ‘sex’ and by
extension, regarded as nature and therefore essentialist. In the feminist theorizing on the
distinction between sex and gender, less attention was paid to sex as compared to questions
of gender which was considered culture and therefore more prone to change and transform.
Feminists argued that while women’s biological reproduction made them child bearers, it this
had no consequences on their general capacities. Women are as capable of working, thinking,
taking political decisions as men are. Feminists interested in the field of science were keen to
investigate ideas of sex and their possible relationship to gender. Common understanding of
the anatomical differences of sex is that it is fixed. Biological female have one or more of the
following — female genitals, an XX chromosome structure and female hormones. Men, on
the other hand, are biologically identified by male genitals, an XY chromosome and male
hormones. Sexing the body is about understanding what all this mean, how have scientists
discovered and theorized these various aspects, whether all women and all men have these
characteristics and in the same way and are we in fact indisputably divided into two sexes.
These aspects inevitably take one into the realm of science. However, science is not as
objective and neutral as it may seem. Scientific research has exerted tremendous influence
the understanding of biological theories about sex and what is regarded natural development
of men and women in society. Anne Fausto-Sterling, a biologist and a feminist argues that
despite what scientists believe, it is impossible to separate purely “scientific” or “biological”
characteristics of men and women. They are invariably entangled and embedded in social
ideas, that is to say, our notions of gender. According to contemporary sscience, a
combination of external genital characteristics, chromosomes and hormonal balance
determines the sex of a person. But there are no clear answers to what exactly is this
combination and how does it work or not.
These concerns gain prominence in situations where the combination of scientific
determinants of bodies are not obvious – such as the bodies of those who are intersex (with
different combinations of male and female characteristics), or when external genitals are not
matched by the corresponding male or female chromosomes. Thus, how can the sex of a
person be determined if for instance, a particular body has the XY chromosome but not the
corresponding male genitalia. The functioning of hormones, for instance is also quite
complex, since men and women have, in fact, both male and female hormones in their
systems. Fausto-Sterling has shown quite convincingly how scientists as far back as the 18th
century onwards believed that it was necessary to maintain a clear distinction between two
sexes and that indeterminate sexes should be “normalised” as far as possible, and brought as
close as possible to male or female sex. This belief grew stronger over the years until 1990s
and has only been more widely criticised in very recent years.
In other words, one can see that scientists have been guided by social norms, especially by
ideas of deviance or abnormality, rather than any ideas of pure science.
Fausto-Sterling believes that there is no hard and fast line to be drawn between sex and
gender, and the early line drawn by both feminists and certain psychologists was quite
premature. Sex and Gender are far more entangled. In fact, it would be a mistake to believe
that there are two distinct kinds of processes -one guided by genes, hormones and brain cells
and the other by the environment we live in, experience, learning and social forces more
generally. Nor is it prudent to displace biology entirely and claim that everything is shaped
by social processes. These are false dichotomies and looking for answers purely in the natural
sciences or exclusively in the social sciences provides an incomplete picture.
The sex -gender distinction is still used by various feminists, social scientists and scientists
but no definitive conclusions can be drawn. The above debates on the sex-gender distinction
hasled to greater open-mindedness and acceptability in the variations of identities of human
beings. Feminists have long argued that distinctions of sex and gender has been largely used
against the interests of women. Various scientific theories have been used to justify women’s
unequal status with claims that the nature of women’s brain constrains their capacity to think
or reason as men do; or those certain genes make a man or a woman heterosexual or
homosexual. Such theories are used to reinforce gender asymmetries, or to fix sexualities of
people. There are a growing number in the larger society that are more sensitive to and open
to alternative gender identities of men and women. A growing LGBTQI movement and their
supporters have demanded taking sexual orientation out of the closet of deviance and
abnormality. The rights of inter-sex people are gaining ground, as well as those of
transgender and others to have identities that do not have to conform to one of two sexes or
genders causing the sex-gender distinction to transform and experience significant change.
Sex-gender is not the only way in which women are selectively differentiated from men and
pressed in society. There are other forms of discrimination and inequality in society with
powerful effects on the lives of women and men. Other units of this course will be discussing
issues pertaining to class, caste and race, questions of disability and so on, which are equally
relevant to understanding the oppression of women and the way to realize a future with
greater equality.
1.6 LET US SUM UP
This unit has discussed the theoretical and historical context of the categories of ‘sex’ and
‘gender.’ Sex-gender system, as a concept, is not as simple or obvious as it may first appear.
Gender roles, the relation of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ with the body, the impossibility of clearly
defining categories of ‘sex’ in scientific or biological terms; all reveals the complexity of
these concepts. A brief examination of Gayle Rubin’s and Judith Butler’s work on these
related concepts helped to view the sex-gender binary from a critical perspective. Finally, the
unit touched upon how the conventional definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ negatively impacts
on women and the LGBTQI+ communities.
1.7 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1) Do you agree that gender roles are significant in determining the thinking about ‘sex’ and
‘gender’? Explain with the help of examples.
2) Write your understanding on “sexing the body” in your own words.
3) Write about conventional understandings and definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’?, specially
in the context of women?
4) Describe the “paradox of gender” with the help of examples.
1.8 REFERENCES
Butler, Judith (1990). Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.
De Beauvoir, Simone (1949). The Second Sex. (translated by H M Parshley, Penguin 1972.)
Fausto-Sterling, Anne (2000). Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sex.
New York: Basic Books.
Moore, Henrietta, L. (1994). A Passion for Difference: Essays in anthropology and gender.
Indiana University Press.
Rubin, Gayle (1974). “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex”. In
Rayna R. Reiter (Ed.), Towards an Anthropology of Women. Boston:Beacon Press.
Wollstonecraft, Mary (1792). Vindication of the Rights of
Womanwww.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3735238 2.9
1.9 SUGGESTED READINGS
Moore, Henrietta, L. (1994). A Passion for Difference: Essays in anthropology and gender.
Indiana University Press.
Moi, Toril (2000). What is a woman? New York: Oxford University Press.
Rubin, Gayle (1974). “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex”. In
Rayna R. Reiter (Ed.), Towards an Anthropology of Women. Boston:Beacon Press.
The unit adopted from the course MWG-002. Modifications are done as per the requirement
of the BGS-011 .
