Sex, Gender, & Homosexuality

The articles this week highlight how historical science and cultural ideologies shape distinct definitions of what is male or female.  Since the Renaissance era, scientific research produced greater knowledge about the anatomy of the body especially with the idea of the one-sex model.  Science defined sex based on biological features such as the penis or vagina.  The knowledge produced by science not only progressed into understanding about sex, but also competed among social and cultural existence.  Eventually, the idea of the two-sex model added a third model based on characteristics of homosexuality.  In addition to, the term gender was produced due to culturally constructed ideals of the individuality.  The knowledge of the body was developed among science and cultural interpretations.  Precisely how science became the dominant knowledge of sex is highly emphasized by our history of leading medical doctors (mostly male) that advocated medical training.

According to Thomas Laqueur in “Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud” he argues that throughout medical history the body shifted from being seen as a one-sex model to a two-sex model.  There was a struggle of power and position to justify distinctions between the male body and the female body.  Indeed, different interpretations of the body clash into one another.  In this chapter, illustrations of male and female anatomy are provided to demonstrate contemporary interpretations. Below is an example of one of the images used to compare anatomical differences between man and woman organs. 

Laqueur mentions that “these pictures are ideological in that they overtly distort observation in the interest of one political position or another.  I simply want to point out what is already well established in the criticism of high art: pictures are the product of the social activity of picture making and bear the complex marks of their origins” (165-166).  The representation of these images continues to shape people’s point of view.  As a result, some interpretations of the body continued to be leading purveyors of science.

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~canessa/images/George%20Bartisch%20(1575).jpg

In “Fluid Sexes” by Jennifer Terry, she argues that “the subject of homosexuality had a spectral presence and functioned as a means for positing what constituted proper manhood and womanhood in advanced societies” (Terry 159).  The idea that the two-sex model appeared to be the framework for sex differences effectively conflicted with homosexual desires because they conformed to normal characteristics for male and female traits.  Thus, these complicated issues involving same-sex desires caused authorities to conceptualize homosexuality.  She discusses how endocrinology, cultural anthropology, and psychology present evidence of categorizing specific sex traits.  These present views of sex and how they shape gender roles and sexing as it is today.  In conclusion, she referenced Magnus Hirschfeld research that described “masculinity and femininity were abstract and changing categories rather than the expressed essences of an underlying biological difference between men and women” (175).  This chapter depicted several views of homosexuality and sex differences that continue to challenge gender ideologies in various cultures.

In some of our readings, they explain that there are no “true” explanations for the unknown.  Thus, our interpretations are highly emphasized in our understanding from various ideologies like religion or science evidence.  For example, medical authority assert scientific evidence to make it seem legitimate.  According to Janice Irvine, “The power of medical ideology in the construction of sexual desires derives from its expansion, its authoritative voice” (Irvine 327).  Meaning, society has expanded further research on science which positions it into a hierarchical figure above all ideologies.  In society, we need to recognize that we too have a responsibility to take.  We can’t blame science or other people for our poor judgement.  Science is a phenomenal foundation to our understanding that is reflected upon other individual’s knowledge.  Thus, subjectivity can create a paradigm of positive and negative reinforcements of nature. 

Today we notice in our generation that the subject of homosexuality has become a theme for humor in television series and films.  Does humor about homosexuality reinforce stereotypes?  Or is it breaking down male and female labels.  In some shows like Glee, homosexuality demonstrates what negative reinforcements are like in schools.  Kurt, who is openly gay, is bullied by another student Dave Karofsky because of his sexuality.  In this episode, Kurt tries to stand up to Karofsky, but only finding out that Karofsky is gay too.  Discrimination is an act of hatred from one person on another.  It is a behavior in society that is produced by these definite meanings of sex and gender.  Therefore, our behaviors act upon the existence of indifference.  How we respond to these differences is reflected on our own individual knowledge.  If Karofsky accepted his sexuality then he wouldn’t bully Kurt because he understands that Kurt and him are alike. 

These readings reflect a significant understanding of the body.  Our interpretations of the body have symbolic meaning.  Human sexuality is defined in many dimensions such as biological, sociological, psychological, cultural, etc.  Therefore, these various ideologies affect one another that create distinct definitions of the body.  Overall, our interpretations are significant because they shape culture and culture is a reflection of representation.

References:

Irvine, Janice M.  1995. “Regulated Passions: The Invention of Inhibited Sexual Desire and Sexual Addiction.” In Deviant Bodies: Critical Perspectives on Difference in Science and Popular Culture.” Edited by Jennifer Terry and Jacqueline Urla. Pp. 314-337.  Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Laqueur, Thomas Discovery of the Sexes, IN Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Pp 149-192.

Laqueur, Thomas New Science, One Flesh, IN Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Pp 63-113.

Terry, Jennifer. 1999. “Fluid Sexes.” IN An American Obsession: Science, Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Society.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp159-177.