Beyond The Binary: Chapters 1-4, Gender Attribution

 In the book "Beyond the Binary: Thinking about Sex and Gender" by Shannon Dea, the concepts of gender attribution, sex, and gender are discussed. Dea notes how the words sex and gender are used as synonyms, when in reality they do not have the same meaning. Sex refers to the biological aspect of a person, with reference to their chromosomes, hormone levels, and anatomical properties. On the other hand, gender is more of a loose spectrum, as it includes a variety of factors such as clothing, self-expressive tools such as makeup, behavior, and the identity a person chooses for themselves. If we only consider sex and not gender, it is accepted that females are born with XX chromosomes and males are born with XY chromosomes. However, this method of thinking becomes problematic if a person does not identify with the chromosomes they were born with, which exemplifies the importance of gender in conversations about identity.

There are advantages of treating gender and sex of distinct ideas rather than synonyms. One advantage is that gender expression changes a lot more often over time and location than sex does, so it would be difficult to use the same word if one concept is static and the other one is dynamic. Another advantage is that for a long time people have often thought about sex as an unchanging biological feature of a person, so they come to the conclusion that gender is also a consistent aspect of identity. By separating sex and gender, people are more likely to understand that gender does not follow the same rules as it is fluid and variable. Accepting gender as a loose concept is also helpful to combat biological assumptions or gender norms about the manner in which women and men should act. For example, women are less likely to be automatically categorized as emotional while men are less likely to be categorized as aggressive.

Philosopher Judith Butler further challenges the ideas of gender and sex that many of us have. Butler argues that we should view sex as a social construct that is malleable just as we view gender as a dynamic concept. Upon further examination of sex, Butler states that the biological facts many people hold to be true are produced by people who have alternative political or social agendas. I agree that sex sometimes includes more than strictly male or female because people with Klinefelter's syndrome (shoutout to sophomore year genetics class) are born with XXY chromosomes and females with Turner's syndrome are born with only one functional X chromosome. I can see how biologically, sex is also technically not a binary concept. However, I do not think that sex in itself is 100% a social construct. While I know that many of the ideas about males and females reflect the social values of a time period, I do think there are still some concrete biological factors that don't fully make sex a social construct. I can see that the biological sex markers that we pay attention to depends on the social importance we place on those markers. I was struck by the example of putting less importance on the difference between 9 and 10 toes compared to the major attention we place on who has a penis rather than a vagina. I understand that we choose to acknowledge certain biological factors more than others, but I still am not convinced that this means all sex attributes are social constructs based on socially/politically motivated science and these factors that they have no biological meaning. Maybe I do not know enough about the counterarguments against this, but I know Dea will address this complicated idea later in the book and I look forward to learning more about it to further my understanding.

I agree with Butler in the sense that viewing sex as socially constructed would "pull the biological rug out from under gender norms" (26). I think it would be difficult to take the biological aspect of sex away from society because we focus so heavily on that. Glamorous gender reveals for couples are on the rise, with exploding pink smoke baseballs or blue paintballs being used as a way to reveal the sex of their child. Although I really don't appreciate that certain colors are specifically attributed to males and females (which I can see is a social value), I could also see how many parents would be unhappy if a healthcare professional didn't specify a distinct sex for their unborn child. Also, one of the many ways doctors determine whether or not a baby is healthy is by examining the physical traits they can see through an ultrasound, which is visible as early as 18-21 weeks of pregnancy (another shoutout, this time to my dad for telling me that one). I think if we completely disregard sex by saying it is a social construct, many of these standards for healthy child development or health in general would be unclear. Again, I am not sure if I am understanding Butler's claim properly, but I do see at least a little value in accepting the biological aspects of sex as useful information.

The term gender attribution is defined as the decision that a person subconsciously makes about another person's gender when they look at that person for the first time. People constantly attribute genders to strangers, even if we do not realize we are doing it or if we aren't actively trying to make these assumptions. We don't notice this process until we see a person who is androgynous or if their stereotypically masculine and feminine cues are combined. Unfortunately, when we attribute gender to people we assume that they are either male or female, but we don't naturally assume that someone could be neither or both. An issue with gender attribution is that we the cues we utilize to make these assumptions are never only true for one gender, as some men wear makeup or jewelry and some women have short hair or don't wear skirts. 

I think it is difficult to interact with someone without performing a gender attribution, but I do not think it is impossible. By changing the way we think about gender and retraining our brains to include non-binary and gender fluid individuals, I think we would eventually make gender attributions other than male or female. The binary idea of male and female is heavily ingrained in our society, so we naturally make these assumptions. Even when we go to the store, so many products are unnecessarily gendered, from razors to chocolate to beer. After reading this chapter, I realized that I often attribute gender to people even from a distance. Without even talking to someone, we attribute gender to them based on how they are dressed, how they walk, and what their hair looks like. It is unsettling to think about how I naturally do this without even asking the person what pronouns they prefer. It is possible to meet someone without assuming their gender as I have done that before, but I notice that I only don't assume gender when the person doesn't have clear feminine or masculine cues to begin with. We use masculine and feminine cues to categorize people just as we use other group memberships such as race in the process of group categorization, a cognitive process that makes it easier for our brains to absorb information and organize it. Although this is naturally occurring, it is our job to rewire our brains to fight against stereotypes and include other genders in our attribution process. If we teach people from a young age that gender and sex are different and that there is more to gender identity than male and female, maybe it will be easier to not make these gender attributions.