Natural, but not Normal? Or, Normal, but not Natural? : The Gender Free Baby Kristianne C.

Anor The genderless baby, Storm, has attracted much media attention with a mixture of appraisals and critiques. Jonathan Kay, a writer for the National Post, is critical of the Stocker familys decision to raise its children in a so-called gender-neutral atmosphere and does not believe that the argument for the social construction of gender holds water. He notes that not all girls are the same, just as not all boys are the same; however, he contends that the vast majority have enough in common that each sex becomes a very real club drawing in its membership at the age of toddlerdom, by sheer force of commonality (Key 2011). Essentially, Key is attempting to explain gender in terms of biology, thus, implying that he sides with nature, whereas it can be inferred that the Stocker family sides with nurture, in the ever persistent nature versus nurture debate. The nature versus nurture debate asks the fundamental question: Is our behavior a result of our biology or culture? Closely related to gender, the nurture side of the argument maintains that it is cultural forces and learned phenomena via the process of enculturation that are the primary determinants of who we are. The nature side of the argument, on the other hand, maintains that it is our biological genes and hereditary material that are responsible for determining who we are. In this essay, I will explore the basic arguments for the nature/nurture debate and apply these arguments to help explain the concepts of gender and sexuality and examine the relationship these concepts share. I will then analyze both the nature and nurture models from the perspective of gender and sexuality and offer critiques of each, concluding with a comment as to why biological models are so popular within our society, Before undertaking this endeavour, the concepts of social construction, gender, sexuality, and naturalization need to be explained.

Social Construction, Gender, Sexuality, and Naturalization Carole Vance applies the social construction theory to gender explanations and articulates it in terms of the 1970s feminist movement. I will apply her articulation of social construction throughout my analysis. Vance argues that the theoretical reexamination [of theories used to link gender with sexuality] led to a general critique of biological determinism, in particular of received knowledge about the biology of sex differences (1995:2). Essentially, the supposed link between gender and sexuality gave rise to critiques about biological determinism the nature argument, thus, insinuating that the link between gender and sexuality may be ambiguous. Biologically determined sex (i.e. male and female) cannot articulate gender performances/gender roles; therefore, use of biological determinism cannot articulate gender performances/gender roles. The biological determinism model is limited to the binary classification of male and female. This dichotomy inadequately represents the multiplicity of gender performances staged on a daily basis; as we will see, gender is not a fixed entity. The dynamic nature of gender is best represented through the social construction model as it recognizes variations in the occurrence of sexual behavior and in cultural attitudes which encourage or restrict behavior (Vance 1995:6). Encompassing variations within sexual behavior and gender performances, the social construction model better articulates the overall notions of gender and sexuality in terms of learned behaviour. The concept of gender remains ambiguous. For the purpose of this analysis, I will use Will Roscoes definition of gender a multidimensional category of personhood encompassing a distinct pattern of social and cultural differences (Roscoe 1993:341). Roscoe also asserts that gender categories often draw on perceptions of anatomical and physiological differences between bodies, but these perceptions are always mediated by cultural categories and meanings

(Roscoe 1993:341). As defined by Roscoe, gender is therefore, a product of social construction as it is shaped and mediated by culture. Sexuality, for the purposes of this analysis, will be defined as ones sexual orientation or sexual preference (i.e. heterosexual, homosexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.). Naturalization is understood as the societal acceptance of certain acts, beliefs, and practices. For a certain thing to be naturalized, it must fit under the heteronormative narrative of Western culture. Heteronormativity embodies all levels of intimacy that the Western culture characteristically considers as the norm. Essentially, it is the dominant form of arrangements in Western social life. The Naturalization of Learned Behaviors The Nurture Argument If you want to really know someone, you dont ask whats between their legs, says David Stocker, father of the genderless baby, Storm. Storms parents may be on to a nuanced approach to parenting letting their child decide with which gender he or she may comfortably identify. Because gender is a notion that is socially constructed and not biologically determined, little Storm has the power to select what he or she wants to be. The ambiguity of the linkage between sexuality and gender now becomes pertinent. Storm was assigned a sex at conception that remains undisclosed to the public. Because Storm will grow up selecting his or her gender, he or she will define what gender roles he or she wants to participate in, without knowing or having been influenced by what has been naturalized in the heteronormative narrative. Hypothetically, Storm could grow up identifying with the female gender, but could have been assigned the sex of male from conception, or the converse. With that, there is no distinct correlation between gender and sex; but, could there be a parallel between gender and sexuality?

The nurture argument maintains that gender and sexuality are socially constructed through phenomena such as learned behaviour. Gayle Rubin alludes to Michel Foucaults The History of Sexuality, by arguing that desires are not preexisting biological entities, but rather, that they are constituted in the course of historically specific social practices (Rubin 1984:276). The nurture argument rejects the notion of human beings being genetically hardwired and having our desires pre-determined. Instead, the nurture argument underlies the assumption that gender and sexuality are constituted in society and history, not biologically ordained (Rubin 1984:276). Following this argument, the parents of Storm argue that it would be wrong of them to impose a gender on their children, as he or she must learn, grow, and develop into the person he or she may inevitably become. Having been nurtured in such a way that promotes a self-asserted gender identity, Storm has complete flexibility in choosing what he or she wants to become. However, does he or she have that same freedom and flexibility in deciding who he or she wants to become? Arguably, If you are born with male genitalia, the logic goes, you will behave in masculine ways, desire women, desire feminine women, desire them exclusivelyand never change any part of this package from childhood to senescence (Warner 1999:37-38). Storm and the general public are both unaware of what genitalia he or she was born having which is fine as Storm will grow up attuned to a gender-neutral domestic environment. What happens, however, when he or she is socialized and immersed into Western culture? If his or her gender and sexuality is truly shaped by culture, then will his or her views and behaviours also change from childhood to senescence? The Naturalization of Biological Determinism The Nature Argument Stocker is entirely wrong: There is no single datum of information about a young child that will tell you more about his or her temperament, interests, energy level and maturity level

than his or her sex (Key 2011). Jonathan Key, like many other critics, argues that there is just something unnatural about letting a child assume/construct his or her own gender identity. Ignoring ones birth genitals only naturally prolongs acceptance into the second club we join in life: gender. Parents have no control over this process (Key 2011). Maybe, the Stocker family may not be on to a nuanced parenting approach, after all. Sex is a biological reality and every human being is born with one. Gender is a recent theory-based locution and always has to do with a persons sexuality (Key 2011). Key asserts that the concepts of gender and sexuality are indeed parallel. The only way to explain gender to a child is to explain sexual desire (Key 2011). If this is correct, then Storm will assume a gender in his or her young age, that he or she will not completely fathom; thus, a gap in who Storm is set to eventuate. The nature argument, implicitly presumes existence of a lawlike relationship among phenomena (i.e. a natural law is presumed). Natural laws, according to Popper, are characterized by their factual regularity, such as the laws of classical thermodynamics (1962). These natural laws must be distinguished from normative laws, which describe actions and phenomena that are more frequent or widespread (Popper 1962). Nonetheless, distinguishing normative laws from natural laws, allows sound argumentation of the nature side of the nature versus nurture debate. The nature argument, then, concurs with Roscoes definition of gender, recognizing that gender is something socially constructed specifically, patterned behaviours encompass gender identity and gender roles (Wilson 1979:121). What the nature argument contends is that sex is to be distinguished from both gender and sexuality, maintaining that gender and sexuality are intertwined. Each individual is assigned a sex male or female at conception. Upon assignment, each individual is then able to select with what gender he or she most comfortably identifies. However, the socially constructed notions of gender and sexuality are not fully reliant

on culture alone. The nature argument maintains that a persons biology does have equal influence over decisions in gender identification and thus, perhaps even sexuality. The nature argument relates ones sex to ones gender and sexuality by hormone secretion. Testicular secretions play an integral role in the male sexual drive of humans and animals, whereas ovarian secretions appear to be more important in influencing the female sexual behavior of animals (Wilson 1979:124). Sexual identities incur the secretion of specific hormones, as dictated by specific gonads. Although some question the study of behaviour of animals in their natural habitat in its relationship to human behavioral patterns, advocating that the former has no relevance to the latter (Lancaster 2003), others question the wisdom of not pursuing the study of animal behaviours specifically, primate behaviours, to learn more about human behavioural patterns (Pavelka 1995). By studying the sex and behavioural patterns of primates and how they come to participate in distinct gender roles, physical anthropologists and primatologists can then apply their data to the human species. Completed studies on primates with ambiguous genitalia has hypothesized that if hormones are involved directly or indirectly in the development of gender identity, one could reasonably predict that gender identity would be most imperfect in primates with ambiguous genitalia. However, even if this were true, gender identity would not be expected to be influenced in every primate. All medical defects that cause ambiguous genitalia vary in severity among affected individuals consequently involve variable degrees of genital abnormality. One would not expect abnormalities of gender identity in those individuals with minor or no defects in genital development (Wilson 1979:127). Essentially, the general conclusion of Wilsons

study was that gender role and identity correspond to the predominant anatomical development and hence to the predominant prenatal hormonal milieu (Wilson 1979:129). Applying this conclusion to Storm, it can be inferred that Storm will assume the gender role and identity that corresponds to his or her assigned sex; thus, whats between his or her legs, as per David Stocker. Nature Versus Nurture and the Popularity of Biological Models Having analyzed in depth, both the nurture and nature models of human development in gender roles and sexuality, it can be inferred that both models present very important data which can be extrapolated to form a nurtured nature position. The point that gender and sexuality are socially constructed notions which have been naturalized into a heteronormative narrative can be extracted from the nurture argument. The point that sex is distinguishable from the connection between gender and sexuality can be obtained from the nature argument. Together, these points can comprise the general viewpoint of a nuanced position in the nature versus nurture debate. Holistically, the nurture argument is rather extreme as Kroeber (1952) characterized culture as the patterns and values transmitted by interconditioning of zygotes, applying terminology obviously beholden to biological perspectives (Abramson and Pinkerton 1995:2). On the other hand, holistically, the nature argument is rather extreme and essentialist and ignorant to the impact of culture. With these flaws, the amalgamated nuanced position, nurtured nature, could be best defended in the nature versus nurture debate. Why, however, is the biological model so popular in todays Western society? Why is it when you type the phrase scientists find the gene for into Google, about 68 000 results appear? (Jones 2011). Because of the media, the public favors the proposed biological model to express gender, sexuality, and reproduction. However, the public is only getting a one-sided account of

the explanations of gender, sexuality, and reproduction. Nature and nurture always work together. It makes no sense to try to separate them (Jones 2011). The term genetic has become so dangerous that geneticists need to remind the public how little it means. One gene can do very different things, and the same thing can be under the influence of many genes and nurture nearly always gets a look-in (Jones 2011). Perhaps the reason Western society is so obsessed with the genderless baby, Storm, is because there has been an obvious power transfer from society to the infant. Foucault argues that power manifests itself in various institutions and is exercised by these institutions simultaneously (1978). These institutions create and perpetuate narratives of heteronormativity, which then translate into the naturalization of socially constructed gender roles and performances. The prevailing hegemonic accounts of masculinity and femininity are socially constructed; thus, these hegemonic accounts are unnatural behaviours that are learned and nurtured, by power institutions. The involuntary transfer of power from society to Storm causes the stringent heteronormative narratives formulated and perpetuated by power institutions to become futile. Should Storm cultivate and embrace his or her own form of masculinity or femininity, then he or she would be breaking the hegemonic ideals of masculinity and femininity, effectively asserting that these ideals are nothing more than products of social construction, therefore, underscoring the futility of heteronormative narratives. In conclusion, Sex, gender, and sexuality may be related but they are not synonymous; the pattern of their articulation is negotiable and negotiated constantly (Robertson 1998:18). Storm may partake in gender roles he or she may designate as natural, but society deems as not normal, or Storm may partake in gender roles he or she may designate as normal, but society deems as not natural. So, what is normal, but not natural or natural, but not normal?

References Cited Abramson, Paul R, and Steven D. Pinkerton 1995 Sex Hormones and Sexual Behavior. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, Michel 1978 The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction. New York: Random House. Gayle, Rubin 1984 Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality. In Pleasure and Danger. Carole Vance, ed. Pp. 267-313. London: Routledge. Jones, Steven 2011 Francis Galton: The Man who drew up the ugly map of Britain. BBC News, June 16: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-1377520.. Accessed November 9, 2011. Kay, Jonathan 2011 Take it from me Gender-Free Parenting Doesnt Work. National Post, June 1: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/01/jonathan-kay-take-it-from-me%2%80%94-gender-free-parenting-doesnt-work/., accessed November 9, 2011. Lancaster, Roger 2003 The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture. California: The University of California Press. Pavelka, Mary S. McDonald 1995 Sexual Nature: What Can We Learn from a Cross-Species Perspective? In Sexual Nature, Sexual Culture. Paul E. Abramson and Steven D. Pinkerton, eds. Pp. 17-19. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Popper, Karl 1962 Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge. Robertson, Jennifer 1998 Takarazuka: Sexual Politics and Popular Culture in Modern Japan. California: The University of California Press. Roscoe, Will 1993 How to Become a Berdache: Toward a Unified Analysis of Gender Diversity. In Third Sex Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History. Gilbert Herdt, ed. Pp. 329-372. Vance, Carole 1995 Social Construction Theory and Sexuality. In Constructing Masculinity. Maurice Berger, Brian Wallis and Simon Watson, eds. Pp. 1-12. London: Routledge.

Warner, Michael 1999 The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life. United States of America: The Free Press. Wilson, Jean D 1979 Sex Hormones and Sexual Behavior. In Sexual Nature, Sexual Culture. Paul R. Abramson and Steven D. Pinkerton, eds. Pp. 121-134. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.