Olivia Alphonsine Zivot

What is the difference between sex and gender? How does modern science inform and inhibit our understanding of the concepts of sex and gender? Above all, why do the answers to these questions seem to define – and challenge – the fundamental structure of modern society?

These quandaries form the basis of Anne Fausto-Sterling’s prolific book, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (2000). Though it was published more than two decades ago, Sexing the Body remains nonetheless contemporary; a meticulously researched and sometimes shocking historical exploration of how Western society has attempted to understand and define the “truth” of gender and sexuality. The work is decidedly interdisciplinary in its approach, as Fausto-Sterling is herself a truly interdisciplinary scholar. In her own words, she describes her perspective as that of both a “biologist and social activist,” (p.5). However, this modest self-description omits her credentials as a bona fide historian of science and leading scholar of modern feminist theory. In fact, the author’s multi-faceted identity plays an intrinsic role in the structure of her research: her uncanny ability to illustrate connections between the social sciences and hard sciences illuminates the issues at hand in a way that is palpable to both experts and laymen alike. It is important to note that the author is almost exclusively writing from a Western perspective, a limitation that she notes several times. However, the depth and thoroughness of the research conducted by Fausto-Sterling is undeniable.

The ultimate thesis of the book, in the author’s words, “is that truths about human sexuality created by scholars in general and by biologists in particular are one component of political, social, and moral struggles about our cultures and economies. At the same time, components of our political, social, and moral struggles become, quite literally, embodied, incorporated into our very physiological being,” (p.5). In other words, sex and gender have always been and will continue to be mutually dependent upon the social conditions in which they exist. For every biological “truth” uncovered by science, there is an equally relevant social consequence and context in which that truth manifests. For the purpose of understanding this concept, it can be said that sex is a biological profile of sorts, and gender is a social manifestation of that biology.

The book begins with an exploration of the prevailing dualisms that have historically informed conversations about sex and gender: male vs. female, heterosexual vs. homosexual, nature (biology) vs. nurture (socialization) and normal vs. abnormal. In many ways, dualisms paved the way for modern scientific exploration of these issues because they provided a framework of understanding the highly complicated and interdependent nature of sex and gender. Unfortunately, Fausto-Sterling argues, relying on dualisms to “parse the world… makes invisible the interdependencies of each pair,” (p. 21). Perhaps one of the oldest intellectual pursuits of humanity has been the attempt to define the difference between men and women. Prior to the age of scientific enlightenment in the 18th and 19th centuries, the difference between the sexes seemed so concrete and definite – made obvious by the different reproductive roles that the sexes play and the different roles that men and women played in an orderly society. Individuals who (both behaviorally and biologically) did not fit into the prevailing dichotomy of “masculine” or “feminine” were written off as exceptions to the rule, rather than viewed as normally occurring variations of human sexuality. This archaic concept of “normal” men and women is an early example of how gender itself is a social construct, informed by social norms rather than predetermined by biology.

The science of sexuality itself is relatively new – it was only towards the very end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century that scientists were making significant breakthroughs in understanding the anatomical and physiological differences between men and women. More than ever before, partly due to the increasing social status and authority of physicians and biologists, society endorsed scientific explanations for the quandaries of gender and sexuality. One such breakthrough was the discovery and investigation into the role of sex-hormones, such as testosterone, estrogen and progesterone. Furthermore, after WWI, research into chromosomes and DNA shed light on the molecular foundations upon which sex and gender are built. However, according to Fausto-Sterling, the path towards understanding these physiological processes was heavily influenced by the pre-existing social beliefs about masculinity and femininity held by the researchers themselves. In the words of the author, “despite a lack of overt intention, scientific work on hormone biology was deeply linked to gender politics. I argue that we can understand the emergence of scientific accounts of sex hormones only if we see the scientific and the social as part of an inextricable system of ideas and practices – simultaneously social and scientific.” (p. 148).

Among all the attempts to solidify the differences between men and women, there emerged a new medical practice to “fix” those who did not fit neatly into the dichotomy; in modern medicine, those individuals born with “ambiguous genitalia” are referred to as intersex, but throughout history have been referred to as hermaphrodites. Intersex individuals have had their own unique and changing place in society, and Fausto-Sterling illustrates the history of hermaphroditism with astounding humanity and thoroughness. The term hermaphrodite itself comes from ancient Greek mythology, as the offspring of Hermes (son of Zeus and variously known as the messenger of the gods, patron of music, controller of dreams, and protector of livestock) and Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of sexual love and beauty). Even Plato wrote that there were originally three sexes: male, female, and hermaphrodite. To quote the author, these early acknowledgments and the general acceptance of intersex bodies are, “the embodiment of a human past that predated dualistic sexual division.” (p.32). Of course, the changing social history of gender has had effects on everyone – men, women, and intersex alike.

Unfortunately, the rise of sexual science had a particularly nefarious outcome for intersex individuals: the surgical intervention on newborns born with ambiguous genitals and the earnest but misguided desire of medicine to “fix” these individuals, so that they might fit better into the dichotomy of male or female. To be both, let alone neither, became a medical problem which threatened the social order, rather than a normally occurring variation of human physiology. To this day, intersex individuals are fighting for recognition and acceptance, and above all protesting the surgical alteration of newborns who cannot hope to consent to such life-changing genital mutilation.

As medicine and scientific technology made significant strides during the latter half of the 20th century, there also emerged a scientific obsession with the structure of the brain itself, and how neuroscience might provide answers to the questions of sex and gender. In the 1990s, the gender differences hypothesis was hotly debated and informed by neuroscience, especially given new opportunities to view the brain through advanced imaging technology, such as MRI and CAT scans. This shift from focus on external anatomy to the internal structures of the brain were no less influenced by the social norms dictating scientific truths. Fausto-Sterling reiterates her claim that “scientists do not simply read nature to find truths to apply in the social world. Instead, they use truths taken from our social relationships to structure, read, and interpret the natural.” (p.115).

Again, the scientific desire to find structural answers to social differences captured the social imagination. Are there structures in the brain that pre-determine the differences between men and women? Do homosexual brains look different than heterosexual ones? Are men and women really predisposed to different attributes? In response to this resurgence of focus on anatomical explanations for gender differences, feminist scholar Judith Butler proposed that, “we look at the body as a system that simultaneously produces and is produced by social meanings, just as any biological organism always results from the combined and simultaneous actions of nature and nurture.” (p.23).

To this day, the social dilemmas surrounding sex and gender remain relevant. The way we understand and define sex and gender continues to evolve as the LGBTQ+ community gains significant political and social power, challenging legislation, discrimination and violence against those individuals who do not conform to the so-called “gender binary” system (wherein exclusively heterosexual and cisgendered individuals are considered acceptable). In order to fully understand modern debates and dynamic social movements surrounding sex and gender, it is necessary to explore the long and complex history of these issues throughout human civilization. To be sure, Fausto-Sterling seems to breathe modern life into the age-old discourse, and Sexing the Body is an invaluable resource for anyone wishing to educate themselves on these issues.

Bibliography

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. Basic Books, 2020.