Gender difference: social construction versus biological determinism

Gender Differences and Their Explanations

The question of gender difference is one that has been the focus of much debate, confusion and conjecture in our modern societies. The issue of sexual and gender preferences and differences is possibly one of the greatest mysteries of being human. There are many divergent views on the issue of sexual and gender differences. These range from the view that gender is religiously determined to genetic views of the natural place of gender and gender roles in nature. A third more modern view is that gender is constructed. As one article states, 'Gender' is the term now widely used to refer to those ways in which a culture reformulates what begins as a fact of nature. The biological sexes are redefined, represented, valued, and channeled into different roles in various culturally dependent ways (the Social Construction of Gender).

In other words, a contemporary view if that is that gender, gender difference and sexual roles are a social fabrication and that there are no real or natural differences between the sexes, except for the obvious physical differences. This was to be one of the central finding from the interviews that were conducted.

The interviews were constructed to provide the broadest and most open-ended responses to the question of gender. The questions were especially intended to allow the interviewees to present their personal views and opinions. They were encouraged to express their views as freely as possible. The questions were also designed to provoke responses and to explore the existential depths of the meaning of gender in their lives.

The two interviewees were college students who were chosen at random. The only basis for the choice was that one should be female and the other male. The female interviewee was found to be something of a feminist in her approach to the subject. It became clear in the interviews that she had strong views about the social construction of gender. She was of the opinion that sexuality and gender were largely a result of a biased approach to gender differences that emanated mainly from a male-dominated society. Therefore, from this point-of-view I found that the issue of gender became a social and even a political subject. Both respondents were heterosexual.

The male interviewee was more conservative in his views and had a more conventional approach to the question of gender. In general he saw gender differences as having natural or genetic reasons. He was also of the opinion that the differences between men and women were to some extent religiously based and that society has deviated to a certain extent from this God-ordained pattern of difference. What was especially enlightening was that these two respondents had very different views about gender and they often differed in terms of their answers to the questions. These differences and the dialogue that was set up as a result of their responses had the effect of making me question and explore my own views on the subject.

I also learned from the interviews that one of the central and overriding aspects of a study of gender is that our society is conflicted about the meaning and reality of gender differences. I was fortunate in that the two interviewees had very different responses to the questions. The one saw gender and sexual difference as natural and an unquestionable fact that was part of nature's plane. The other saw gender as being essentially a false construction that was created to a great extent by power, the media and male-based dominance of society. It became clear from the answers to the interview questions that these two respondents reflect something of the diversity of opinion on the subject. It also made me aware that there is no real consensus about the meaning of gender in our society or a unified or accepted understanding of what constitutes gender difference.

2. What is gender?

A particular focus of the interviews is that they were constructed to investigate the way that gender is perceived on a very personal level by the respondents. The response to the open-ended question -- what is gender- was enlightening. Both respondents did not address the question in a theoretical way but from their own perceptions and experiences. The male interviewee was of the opinion that gender was the natural difference between the sexes and that it was a reflection of a natural order in life. He supported his view with references to science and biology as well as modern genetics.

However, what was interesting was that he also referred to religion and Biblical texts to support his view that the difference between male and female was in fact ordained by a higher power and that it was essentially something that we should not question. He remarked that, "We cannot question the difference between male and female because it is a natural thing instituted by God." He was however evasive when asked questions relating to the rights of homosexuals -- although he condemned them in theory he was ambivalent about their rights as human beings.

A very different response to the same question was received from the female respondent. She said that although there were obvious physical differences between the genders but that this was only part of the meaning of gender. She was of the opinion that gender was largely socially constructed. When I asked her to expand on this she said the following; "Gender, the difference between male and females is something that is created by the society and the power structures in that society."

2. gender as a social construction

The female interviewee tended to refer most of her answers to the issue of the social construction of gender. She also referred to the way that gender was perceived in different cultures and that that these views of gender often differ in radical ways. However, a central focus of her argument was that gender was still generally constructed by a male rather than a female view of life in most countries in the world. She also emphasized the view that female roles and opportunities in society are determined by the way that the society defines gender. The example that she gave was that women were still were not able to rise to higher positions in commerce and industry as they were perceived as being the "weaker sex."

The male interviewee reacted very differently to questions relating to male and female roles. He was of the opinion that it was natural and 'right' for women to be seen as homemaker and a gender that should be relegated to the home and the task of bringing up the children. . He saw nothing wrong with this as this was the way that "…nature had intended things to be." From his perspective gender roles were linked to different abilities that were applicable and appropriate to each sex and that there was " nothing wrong or biased about this."

The issue of sexual preferences also led to the same division of opinion. For the male respondent homosexuality was not a viable sexual option as it transgressed the natural order of things. When asked whether should be included and accepted in society he however he seemed to be in two minds and felt that they also had rights. The female respondent was also somewhat unclear about homosexuality and tended to see this in terms of both genetic factors and the influence of the media on young people.

4. Conclusion

The interviews and the responses were extremely enlightening. What was very clear was that these two interviewees had very divergent views about the meaning, role and status of gender. On the one hand there was the view that gender or rather gender differences were something that had been created by man, culture and society. This was contrasted by the view that gender differences were not constructed but was in fact innate and part of the natural order to things. They were also linked to religious views and conceptions. This view however found it difficult to account for variations in gender preferences and homosexuality.

What became clear from the interviews was that these two interviewees represent very different views of gender that are possibly reflected in the larger society. They were however similar in some respects; for instance they both were subject to certain gender stereotypes. This also suggests that the meaning of gender is not clear and that it is obscured by stereotypes in the media and cultural views and ideas.

While the interviews provide insight they also raised a great number of questions. For example, to what extent is gender a social construction and to what extent is it genetic or innate; are all gender characteristics only the result of a learning process in society; to what extent is the media a part of the problem and to what extent does it serve to from our ideas and notions of gender and sexuality. These are issues that provide as great deal of food for thought. These interviews have certainly opened my eyes to a plethora of possibilities and the complexity of this issued.