Editor’s note: As the commenters pointed out, I’m actually arguing that both gender and sex are social constructions.
I have a good example. This case is not unique, but it is rather interesting. An Indian runner who earned a Silver Medal in the Asian Games, was disqualified because she “failed a gender test.”
The IOA also asked its medical commission to inquire into Soundarajan’s case and report within 10 days.
There are no compulsory gender tests during events sanctioned by the International Association of Athletics Federations, but athletes may be asked to take a gender test. The medical evaluation panel usually includes a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist and internal medicine specialist.
An Indian athletics official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media said Soundarajan almost certainly never had sex-change surgery.
Instead, the official said Soundarajan appeared to have “abnormal chromosomes.” The official also said the test revealed more Y chromosomes than allowed.
I find it interesting that they had to get a half dozen experts to determine this women’s gender for her. If gender was just about chromosomes and/or genitalia, then this wouldn’t be such a big debate. I have heard of cases like this before with professional athletes and other people.
Now before, the biological determinists come crawling out of the wood work, I’m not saying that there is no biological basis for sex, but I am saying that the criteria used for assigning gender (and sex) are social in nature. One of the things that our social construction of gender teaches us is that there are “males” and “females” and that’s it. It also tells us that everybody fits into these two gender boxes, but the biological “truth” is a little more complex..
I agree that this is an interesting case, but at least facially it would appear to directly contradict the idea that gender is socially constructed.
Were gender mostly socially constructed, then the fact that this athlete has (I gather) lived her life as female would be all that mattered. Unusual chromosomes be damned; she’s a gal, because her society says so.
It seems to be biology saying “not so fast there” in this case.
I agree with Robert, although I also agree with you to an extent Rachel. (Gee, aren’t I coherent?)
If gender were mainly constructed by social definitions then because this woman has lived her life as a women she would be considered a woman, chromosomes be damned.
I think this case speaks to the variety inherent in human biology; even though it is clear that the overwhelming majority of women and men are easily identifiable as such by viewing their external genitalia or chromosomes, there are still a minority who do not fit into the gender binary so neatly.
Just a thought. There are 6 billion people and change on the planet. That means that there’s a pretty good chance of some rather peculiar outiers.
It does not follow from these outliers that we ought to worship at the shrine of Butler.
Just because something is not generally recognized as socially constructed does not mean that it is not a social construction. This case is, in fact, a great example of gender being socially constructed. A social construction an entity or artifact in a social system ‘invented’ or ‘constructed’ by participants in a particular culture or society that exists because people agree to behave as if it exists, or agree to follow certain conventional rules, or behave as if such agreement or rules existed. That is to say that gender doesn’t exist as black and white, but we agree to behave that way, so no matter what, everyone is either male or not, female or not… there is no in between, because we agree to agree, as a larger system, that there is no in between. If the larger system were able to accept that there are shades of grey here, and maybe even some yellow and green, then the social construction may cease to exist, to a degree.
If it’s chromosome abnormalities, then it might have been the bar body test, where cheek cells are collected and stained to detect any condensed inactive X chromosome in each cell. If there’s a bar body, it’s an XX, if there’s not, it’s XY and so forth. There’s some variety in gender by chromosome. XXY and XO as well as the controversial XYY and XXX. Some people born with XY chromosomes do not react to male hormones at the eighth week in utero by developing as male, so they develop as close to the default female sex as possible, but have no ovaries or uterus. These individuals would also not be affected by steroids, which are androgen based.
A.I.S.
At this site and others, it’s treated more like a medical adnormality or condition, but it does discuss socialization of gender. the above link mentions Maria Patina, the Spanish hurdler who failed a test in 1985 and contested it.
They are usually raised from birth as girls and are often socialized as girls. It used to not be diagnosed until the age of puberty, usually after complaints of delayed menarche.
I read an article where it was said that her mother had said she never reached puberty, including menarche. Well, that’s true if she had no uterus or ovaries, but also in many female distance runners(she ran the 800m), menarche may be delayed for years by low body fat that results from vigorous training that is part of the sport.
Actually,
One bar body= XX(female chromosome type) or XXY(Kleinfelters Syndrome, often externally male and usually raised as males)
Zero bar bodies= XY(chromosome type for male), XYY(male, formerly referred to as “super male”) XO(Turner’s syndrome, often externally female and raised as female)
Two bar bodies: XXX(“super” female), XXXY
So much for this test being absolute because as smartblkwoman said there is a minority who don’t fit neatly and that’s very important to remember.
these kinds of discussions confuse me. from my perspective, once you start counting chromosomes, the discussion is about *sex*, and not *gender*. it’s always been my understanding that the term “sex” is used in the context of someone’s biology – their genitals, reproductive function, hormone mix, chromosomes, etc. and the term “gender” is used in the context of someone’s social status.
please, correct me if i’m wrong.
I was going to say something along the lines of nexyjo- that does seem to be waht would be relevant to an athletics body- phsical sex and how if affects physical perfomance.
On those lines, why did they need a psychologist? I can’t see how they would be needed to decide sex as opposed to gender.
Nexyjo and Tinter,
I think to some extent you are right, but even though I teach it this way for purposes of not confusing my students, I’m not sure that there is a very clear line between sex and gender. Moreover, I would go on to say that both are social constructed, as this case indicates.
To all,
Thinking about the chromosomal test. The truth is few people have such a test, so unless there is some study that I am unaware of, it seems to me that we really don’t know exactly how much of the population does not fit into the XY XX dichotomy.
OK, I gotta ask.
How many Y chromosomes are allowed?
That’s a good question. It could be zero it could be one, but I really don’t know.
i believe there should be, and i also believe it’s to the advantage of the powers that be, that there isn’t a clear line. because when ones biological status is inalienably tied to ones expected behavioral role in society, the patriarchy runs rampant.
i’d further argue that to even have a discussion regarding the nature of “sex” and “gender”, one ought to define those terms up front. especially since people seem to have totally different ideas about what the terms actually mean.
traditional usage, according to dictionary.com, both here and here, suggest that “sex” is a biological state of being, while “gender” is a social state of being. since “gender” is defined in the context of society, it is socially constructed by definition.
“sex” on the other hand, describes biology. the diversity of life makes a clear line between the sexes impossible. though traditionally, we humans define “sex” in the context of reproductive function, and in my mind, there’s no wiggle room when reproduction comes into the picture. either one produces eggs or sperm. of course, there are those who produce neither, and they fall into some middle ground. but in the context of the biological, that’s to be expected, and the definition applies to what is most common.
i’d agree that “sex” could be socially constructed in where we draw the line between the sexes. but there’s nothing social about the biological ability to either produce eggs or sperm; abilities that seem to be mutually exclusive, at least in the context of human beings. certainly however, the result of what either ability has in our society, is socially construsted. but then, i’d argue we are talking about “gender”, and not “sex”.
I’m always a fit confused when people think they are onto something when they say “gender is socially constructed”. I think quite a few philosophers would say that if one chooses to see things a certain way, all of reality is socially/psychologically constructed, so what is the real point here? There seems to be some excitement about ambiguous/borderline cases, but this occurs with almost any macroscale catagory. At what number of hairs do people become bald? We don’t know exactly! Baldness is socially constructed!! But what is supposed to follow from this? It seems to me that all you have shown is that society has some unspecified amount of influence on what gets called what, but of course we already knew this because unless you beleive that language is divinely inspired, it was society that invented language in the first place.
The way I typically describe the social construction of sex is this (because almost everyone intuitively understands the social construction of gender without a lot of hoopla): There are biological distinctions between male and female, however, a definitive 2 sex system (of which there are only male OR female) and nothing in between or both, IS socially constructed. There is plenty of anthropological evidence that other societies construct sex as a 3 sex or more system, not a mutually exclusive binary as we have done. So while there may indeed be a biological reality where “females” produce eggs and “males” produce sperm, the fact remains that there ARE outliers and that we choose to force those outliers into one of the 2 established categories rather than giving it a 3rd or 4th category is a social construction, not a biological imperative.
It seems to me that reserving the word “sex” for biological distinctions and using the word “gender” for social distinctions, as psychologists tend to do, makes things pretty clear. Are some of you saying we should abandon the distinction between sex and gender? Isn’t that kind of a step backwards?
I have an alternate hypothesis that (I claim) could reconcile Rachel’s, Robert’s, and SBW’s positions. The part of gender that is most strongly socially constructed is the need to have everyone fall into one box or the other. The biology is the biology. Most people are clearly either male or female but some fall into various gray zones including gender dysphoria, various sex chromosomal abnormalities, the occasional other chromosomal abnormality (adrenal cortical hyperplasia, mutation in the androgen receptor, etc), and a few miscellaneous environmentally caused abnormalities. Would any of these matter (except for medical and fertility problems associated with some of the syndromes) if we weren’t obsessed with gender and the desire to make sure that everyone stays in their gender box? Thoughts?
ok, i agree. but as i said, it’s all about how we, as a society, choose to draw those lines, and whether or not we choose to add a few more lines, delineating additional biological classes. reproductively speaking, there are only two sets of viable types. so again, it hinges on how one defines “sex”.
when “sex” is defined on reproductive ability only, the lines are pretty clear. though admittedly, there are individuals who can’t reproduce, and in this type of system, fall between the cracks. when other criteria are added into the definition – chromosomes, genitalia, secondary characteristics, hormone mix, and so on, it becomes impossible to draw a clear line. natural biological diversity prohibits it. and here, as you say, is where society constructs “sex”.
Dianne is on the right lines, I suspect.
I wonder what the evolutionary or other pressure was that made us relatively intolerant of gender ambiguity – of simply recognizing that most people are one or the other but that there are some individuals whose physical sex isn’t clear.
Robert, Are you agreeing with me? Maybe I better change my opinion. LOL!
The problem in this case is not really that there are mens and womens sports separetly- at elite level, it is the only way it is workable. Given this, at elite levels gender (read:sex) tests are also sometimes nessecary, as otherwise the competition will be unbalanced.
I would guess the problem would be if the lines are unclear, and if the system does not properly cater towards those who fit into a grey area inbetween the two sexes. The only possible improvment I can think of, in this very specific arena, is to make sure the line is very clear and everyone fits on one side or another- that way at least noone is excluded alltogether. Any better ideas?
I don’t know if I agree with you or not, Rachel, because I haven’t seen your opinion :P
I definitely disagree with what I’d label the “strong construction” argument. That’s the one where raising our kids in a gender-neutral world would end up with 50% of dads being stay-at-home parents because they love babies and 50% of the world’s combat troops being women etc.
But I also disagree with the “strong biology” argument; there are lots of people who simply do not mesh comfortably with the social gender roles this particular society has created.
I guess I’m a gender liberal. The gender roles are valuable and useful, in that they provide templates that folks who really aren’t that interested in building a life around challenging norms for the sake of challenging norms can settle into. But I see them as sketchy guidelines, not blueprints that you have to follow or your project will fail. Guys who want to raise babies and gals who want to kill communists ought to be encouraged to follow their bliss, and society should be flexible and tolerant of the costs that this imposes.
I’m reminded of the vocational education program at my high school, mumbledy-mumble years ago. There was shop, for guys. There was home ec, for girls. You got assigned automatically to one track or the other, until my junior year I think it was. Then there was a lawsuit or a legislative intervention or something (at the time, I could not have cared less about it) and it changed: now you could choose whichever track you wanted (or you could take both, if you gave up an elective). About 5% of the shop students were girls then, and about 5% of the home ec students were guys.
The world didn’t end.
I think it’s worth noting that these female verification tests have never uncovered a single masquerading man, just dozens of previously unknown chromosomal abnormalities that confer no physical advantage.
I’ve always been especially amused by the story of the first woman to be disqualified by chromosomal typing. Eva Klobukowska was a Polish sprinter shown by the newly institute testing to be XXY, and so she was told she was really a man and that her reproductive system was non-functional, stripped of her medals, and barred from future competition. A couple of years later, she gave birth to a healthy baby. Oops.
I wonder what sort of sex testing they were doing back in Eva Klobukowska’s day. If I remember correctly, she’d have passed a Barr body examination, having two X chromosomes.
Of course, there must’ve been something else going on genetically with Eva Klobukowska, since she was not only physically female but fertile. Fascinating case.
I wonder what the evolutionary or other pressure was that made us relatively intolerant of gender ambiguity
I think that would be Religion, most of them seem to base their beliefs on intolerance.
This is why the Olympics stops testing chromosones – the last woman they disqualified (for having Y chromosones) went on to give birth less than a year later. It made them look rather foolish, as no doubt these people will sooner or later.
I generally find you can end the gender/sex as a social construct by asking people how sure they are they know there gender/sex. Few people have checked their chromosones, hormone levels, internal genitals check out with their own ideas…