Gender and Biology

NIKK magazine’s focus is on gendering biology, a highly debated subject. The three articles we read for Monday are nicely summarized on p. 2 of the magazine. In this response I will talk mostly about the first two and how they relate to Butler’s post-structural theories concerning the construction of gender and the use of the body in performing gender and to Connell’s theories of masculinity, and specifically the “body-reflexive” practices.

In the first article about the Norwegian research project “Perceptions of gender, genes, and reproduction” talks about the troubling of gender in relation to new reproductive technologies. For instance, what was once seen as unnatural or a process of “de-naturalization” called “artificial reproductive technologies” has now shifted in name to “assisted reproductive technologies” (“re-naturalization”). This shift in linguistics, the author of the study states, dictates that the process of new medical technological interventions (like invitro) is seen as sustaining the natural state of the body rather than an unnatural means for reproduction. In this article the categories of what is seen as nature and as culture, in relation to reproduction, is changing. It is this change that signifies that in actuality “where we draw the line between nature and culture is a product of culture” and that culture (i.e. technologies, etc.) are ever-changing.

This relates to Butler’s point about the social construction of gender and how gender is performed or lived out with the body. Butler, I think, would agree that the distinctions between culture and nature have been influenced largely by cultural and social “norms” and thus should be labeled as social constructions. The shift in technologies, however, can also be related to Connell’s definition of body-reflexive practices and re-embodiment. Body-reflexive practices involve social relations and symbolism, “where bodies are addressed by social process and drawn into history” (27). The new technologies affect social relations and symbols that the affect the body. Connell would then argue that the body can be an agent as well as the object of these social processes. Attention to body-reflexive practices allows exploration of the physical sense of gender performatives. Women and men are using their bodies in different ways that skew the paradigms of reproduction (and this culture and nature). For instance, women are reproducing later or choosing to not carry a child at all and use a surrogate mother, etc.

In “Ghost Hunt” Thora Holmberg refers to a “third way” of understanding the constructedness and essentialness of gender and the body. Holmberg describes the conflict between Bulter-esque theories of construction and other more biologically-based arguments of essentialism. Gender theorist have tended to deconstruct “nature” and react somewhat skeptically to biological research and knowledge. The same is true for biologist. Thus comes the “third way” a balance between the two schools of though and practice. I couldn’t help but think the problems gender scholars have had with being considered credible in their work. With the scientific or empirical, often both masculinized and simultaneously more valued, a balance of science with cultural understandings seems ideal. Could this be considered ignoring the fact of science as socially constructed, or regardless is this "science" important to consider?

Butler has been criticized for ignoring the body and the scientific or biological/essential arguments. She perhaps fell into the trap of the “biological” slipping away like a ghost (11). Holmberg, however, believes that “still, it [the biological], appears to be haunting gender perspectives of the body.” Connell’s body-reflexive practice speaks to t his point, in which the body needs to be accounted for in gender identity and construction. Understanding the body as an agent for change or gender trouble (constructed) but also as an object of biology or essentialist (although perhaps constructed as well) allows for an alternative “extra-discursive” third way of understanding the body in relation to culture.

Gendering Animals shows how our anthropological gender stereotypes have carried over to the animal world. Looking at the "science" of animal biology and reproduction "provides dream artifacts for the gender hierarchy producing process" or in other words "troubles" gender. In this way some of the "essential" biology used deconstructs historically held notions about gender and sexuality. Similarly, the NY times article on human sexuality and sexual desire also uses empirical evidence that supports essential claims and a wide variance of experiences. In this article however, to what extent can we accept this type of research as completely valid? Perhaps only when it is coupled with other constructedness-type theories (third way)?