Myhre, Fausto-Sterling, and Levy all investigate the complicated process to figure out what it means to be a female in these three readings. Fausto-Sterling takes a novel approach to feminist issues, considering biological and physiological differences. She distinguishes the differences between sex and gender as “sex” represents the body’s anatomy and physiological workings” and “gender” represents “social forces that [mold] behavior” (4). Sex differences are complicated today by choices of certain people to manipulate their bodies. Levy refers to these individuals as “FTMs” (female to males), or individuals participating in the “butch flight” (127). Similarly, the issue of gender is complicated even more so with different sexual orientations and choices. Fausto-Sterling describes that while there are only two identifiable sexes (male and female), there are several more genders. There are heterosexual men and women, gay men and lesbian women, and bisexual men and bisexual women (11). Acknowledging these differences helps create a more comfortable identity for people who do not fit in with the status quo. “Transsexuals, transgendered people, and... a blossoming organization of intersexuals all have formed social movements to include diverse sexual beings under the umbrella of normality” (15). However, no matter how many differences experts pick up on, I would argue that one major dichotomy still remains. Although you may not just be a “man” or a “woman” anymore (you might be a woman who is a lesbian/boi), society will still decide whether or not you are “normal”.
For this reason, people like Myhre, who decide to go against what is seen as a “normal” girl, will continue to be ostracized and alienated. Not unlike many of the bois Levy described in her chapter, Myhre’s short hair sets her apart from the entire female gender. Myhre’s described that, “Giving up my ‘feminity’ was my first act as a feminist. I didn’t consider myself any less of a woman, but not working at looking like a woman meant that most people considered me masculine” (86). Here, Myhre shows that although she considers herself one thing (a strong female), the rest of society saw her as something different (more along the lines of a weak male). In addition, the bois and femmes that Levy describes may feel comfortable in their communities that she describes, such as San Francisco and on online websites such as Craigslist, but once they leave their comfort zones, the rest of society is probably not as welcoming.
In the end I agree with Fausto-Sterling that, “Ultimately, the sex/gender dualism limits feminist analysis” (21). It will be interesting to learn more about the biology of sex and gender as we read more in “Sexing the Body”, but I am not sure how pertinent the information will be to the general public. Figuring out the physiological differences seems less of a pressing issue than finding a better way to deal with those who outwardly reject their gender. I hope to move towards being able to embrace people like Myhre who point out that her choice to dress in a masculine fashion only reflects dignity and self respect (88).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Response to Caren 2/15 “The Female Gender”
ReplyDeleteTo follow along and expand upon Caren’s train of thought, the imposition of “normality” seems to be one thing consistent when comparing the gender and sexuality trends of different historical periods and geographic locations. Yet Caren’s comment, about people “who outwardly reject their gender” makes me wonder – couldn’t this mean that such people are not rejecting their gender, but instead are rejecting the gender imposed upon them? To be honest, I got a little confused with Fausto-Sterling’s explanation of sex versus gender and the presumed relationships between biology and environment/experience. The mobius strip analogy helped it to make a little more sense, though like I do think that reading more of “Sexing the Body” may help to clarify. As a molecular biology major, I do admit that while reading I did have a tendency to lean on the biological parts of the explanation (and perhaps that is partially why I began to be confused, since “male” and “female” sex organs are not necessarily discrete and mutually exclusive). But from a general perspective, specifically in the context of Levy’s interviews with bois, FTMs, trannies, butches, femmes, and the like, I began to imagine what a world would be such as that desired by Myhre: “I imagine a world in which there is no simple categorization by sex, no gender, but only people. I imagine a world in which I am no longer stared at. I imagine a world in which people are attracted to me not because of what sex I am (or appear to be) but rather because they find me fascinating” (Myhre 88). Would it be where “the norm” is a spectrum, rather than a collection of discrete categories? Is that possible? Much of science lies in the ability for things to be categorized, which is probably a large part of why many struggle to understand those who blur the lines.
This is in another vein, but I feel like I should comment – perhaps I’m not interpreting Levy correctly, but following my reading of Levy’s interviews with bois and FTMs, combined with Fausto-Sterling’s overview of sexuality and gender I’m not sure I completely agree with Levy’s statement that “this isn’t about being a lesbian, it’s about being a woman. Or a girl” (Levy 138). The gist of what I gathered from her conclusion of the chapter “Womyn to Bois” is that many gay young women, like many straight young women, are investing themselves in “being ‘like a man’” (Levy 138). But, isn’t this the kind of binary thinking that Levy just described through her many interviews that many, many young people are trying to break away from? Doesn’t “like a man” imply that there is a definition for what a “man” is? Of course traditionally and historically there are characteristics and mannerisms associated with one of two genders, but again this is a binary system, one that many, but not all, people (at least in their minds) abide by. I did find it interesting that some women, namely butch women, seem to reproduce the type of male dominance and objectification of women that feminists are trying to do away with (such as “bros before hoes,” and “bros up bitches down” (Levy 130). Even so, I think that from her perspective as long as she herself remains connected to a traditional binary view of gender that her argument is only applicable to those who also subscribe to a binary view of gender.
My Response to Caren's Post:
ReplyDeleteOn many forms, like those for schools, it asks you to check your sex. Since there are biologically two sexes there are two options to check: male or female. However, when I was filling out papers for a summer class at NYU, instead of asking my sex, they asked me what gender I was, and gave me three options: male, female or other. After reading Myhre, Levy and Fausto-Sterling’s readings I was constantly brought back to wondering if the gender question would spread to other institutions. However, I couldn’t help but think that even if it did, I don’t know that Myhre would approve of it. Because at the end of the day it is still a label. “I refuse to live my life in a box labeled ‘Female.’ In my more ambitious and perhaps foolishly hopeful moments, I imagine a world in which there is no simple categorization by sex, no gender, but only people” (Myhre 88). It would seem that checking oneself off as “Other” would further alienate people, for it enhances the fact that they are different from the social norm. Ultimately, people do not consider themselves as an other. However, what would be a more appropriate way to address the fact that there are no more definitive lines in today’s culture? Is it better to label everyone that is different as “other” or should they be left to fill in a blank? It almost seems like this issue of sex and gender is going to get increasingly blurry before it becomes clear.
However, like Kirsten I am still confused. I too understand the difference between sex and gender. However, with gender whether someone is a man or woman, don’t they exhibit certain characteristics. For example, Levy addresses the fact that some straight and gay young women are acting “like a man” (Levy 138). Thus, would the straight women consider themselves to be on more of the female spectrum and the gay woman lean towards the male side?
Ultimately, I understand the concepts that the readings addressed. However, when I tried to imagine how these concepts would be placed into the real world I became confused. I think that this just further shows how difficult of a topic sex and gender is in today’s society. We are no longer living in a society where people can fit into a box: male or female. Today there are too many in betweens. However, since there are how does society address this? I have no answer or possible solution to this problem. Thus, I seem to be left just scratching my idea in confusion.