Just because something is a social construct doesn't make it not real. Laws and marriage are complete constructs. Sex and taxonomy are incomplete models to make sense of actual things going on. Because gender is rooted so firmly in psychology, it is my opinion that we cannot know to what extent it fits into either of these categories.
How can one study the interests of small children and whether more boys prefer robots, army toys, cars and sports; and more girls dolls, fairies, jump rope and games of house, when advertisements, media, and well-meaning parents all have influences in what children play with? How can we know whether any of that influences gender identity without a control group?
Anyway. Instead of working on the assumption that there is nothing real or inherent about gender and invalidating a lot of people's identities, I propose we follow the same model as we do talking about sex and taxonomy: acknowledge the limitations of the system, keep an eye out for how that affects the way we conceptualize it, and continue learning more. Maybe, with sufficient lack of social cues, we'll turn out to be a largely nonbinary society. Maybe not. As they say on Tumblr, it costs $0 to respect other people's labels and identities.
OK, that got saltier than I intended at the end there. Better quit while I'm ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment