‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.' This famous assertion, excerpted from Simone de Beauvoir's Deuxième Sexe, concentrates the idea that sexual identity is an identity that one acquires, and whose acquiring is influenced by socialization, education, ideology and cultural expectations. This idea has to be understood as a part of the existentialist movement, whose guiding concept is that one's identity is not innate, insofar as one gets an identity by living, not by being born. At the same time, Simone de Beauvoir's assertion also takes part in the constructionist theory of gender, whose guiding idea is that sex and gender have to be distinguished, and that sexual difference does not unavoidably give rise to inequality between men and women, as this inequality is a social fact, not a natural one.
This theory of gender appears in contrast with the determinist theory, which considers that the biological characteristics of men and women determine their behavior, and with the deconstructionist theory, which jettisons the supremacy of the sex-categorization based on biological evidences.
Thus, the question that arises from these debates is to find out whether sexual identity is natural and innate, or social and constructed. In the first section, I will aim to explain why biological evidences do not seem to suffice to explain the behavior of men and women, and even to make a bi-sex-categorization. In the second section, however, I will try to show how biological issues recently re-arose in the debate on sexual identity, and to explain in what ways this could reconcile determinist, deconstructionist and even constructionist theories of gender.
The determinist theory of gender is the only one that ruled, until the first objections –mostly by feminists- arose against it. The search for the biological origins of the differences between men and women is not new, and has not ever been the province of scientists. Indeed, prior to the nineteenth century, most explanations of gender difference came from theologians, who considered that ‘God had created man and woman for different purposes, and that those reproductive differences were decisive.' Such differences have had -and still have- considerable consequences on the interpretation of the gender roles. ‘The education of women should always be relative to that of men.
[...] Hormones and sexual organs are spuriously considered as dividing human beings accurately into two sexes in all cases. However, some people, for instance those who are born with the Klinfelter's syndrome, do not appertain to a category more than to the other one. Moreover, sexual differences do not concern everybody in every situation (indeed, pregnancy does not concern all the women, but only those who are pregnant). When women are in a situation comparable to that of men, sexual differences do not always have importance and visibility. [...]
[...] Indeed, it does not deny the existence of sexual differences, as well as the possibility of sexual inequalities. ‘I am not saying that physical differences between male and female bodies don't exist, but that these differences are socially meaningless until social practices transform them into social facts'.[6] Thus, the real problem is that gender inequalities are not justified by sex inequalities, and they are an unjust social fact, not a biological one. ‘A just future would be one without gender. [...]
[...] ‘Women did not run in marathons until about twenty years ago. In twenty years of marathon competition, women have reduced their finish times by more than one-and-one- half hours; they are expected to run as fast as men in that race by 1998 and might catch up with men's running times in races of other lengths within the next 50 years because they are increasing their fastest speeds more rapidly than are men.'[10] According to deconstructionist theories of gender, the process of searching or even just admitting biological origins of inequalities between men and women –considered as just or not- is spurious. [...]
[...] However, a systematic objection against determinist theories of gender should be avoided, insofar as the negation of biological and scientific issues is too ideological; even deconstructionist theories of gender tend to reject a too strong sex/gender distinction. An exaggerated mistrust toward determinist theories of gender is useless, for the ‘all is genetic' dogma is now outdated. Indeed, scientists argue more and more often that cultural environment is determinant in getting one's sexual identity, even though they believe in biological and chemical causes of human beings' behaviors. [...]
[...] Discuss with references to determinist, constructionist and deconstructionist theories of gender. ‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.'[1] This famous assertion, excerpted from Simone de Beauvoir's Deuxième Sexe, concentrates the idea that sexual identity is an identity that one acquires, and whose acquiring is influenced by socialization, education, ideology and cultural expectations. This idea has to be understood as a part of the existentialist movement, whose guiding concept is that one's identity is not innate, insofar as one gets an identity by living, not by being born. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
