This essay examines the distinction between biological sex and socially constructed gender, arguing that cultural interpretations of bodily difference — rather than physiology alone — determine gender roles. Drawing on Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity, the Bem androgyny scale, and historical examples such as ancient Athenian sexuality, the paper challenges the assumption that gender must be binary. It also critiques mainstream sexuality textbooks for reinforcing dual-gender frameworks, and explores how transgender and transvestite identities further demonstrate the constructed, performative nature of both sex and gender. The essay ultimately argues that gender ideology is so pervasive that individuals routinely reinterpret behavior to conform to dominant male/female stereotypes, even when their actions contradict those norms.
Sex is a biological given. Some animal species have one sex, some have two, and some have more than two — a fact interesting to scientists in terms of physical construction. Gender, however, is what culture "does" with these distinctions of physiology. Gender is how culture interprets the apparent biological differences between human bodies of different sexual anatomy. What does it mean, for instance, that a certain body may be capable of giving birth, while another may not? It is here — in the distinctions between bodies observed and imposed by culture — where sociologists and theorists of gender identity find their theoretical interests aroused and poised for deconstructive action.
One of the most important theories posed by gender identity scholars is that the distinction of two sexes — male and female — as well as the distinction of two genders — man and woman — is questionable. The existence of intersex individuals and other bodies of indeterminate gender calls into question the bifurcation of gender as well as the division of "sex" into male and female categories. Gender roles tend to be solidified fairly stringently in our culture along lines of male and female alone. Yet the existence of biological diversity, as well as cultural diversity that arises for cultural rather than physical reasons, reveals how arbitrary notions of both sex and gender can be (Butler, 1990).
Even a book that attempts to analyze the construction of gender from a progressive perspective — such as Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America — confines itself to the contemporary American experience and divides the female and male experience of sexuality in physical terms in chapters three and four, respectively. In doing so, it accepts the dual character of American social definitions of gender within its own construction.
The book's highlighting, in the title of chapter ten, of "atypical" sexual activity also implies that there is a typical form of human sexuality against which all other sexualities are measured. Yet across human history, it was "typical" for the same male sexual body — to cite just the ancient Athenian example — to pass through multiple gender roles. A young Greek man would begin as the passive sexual recipient of an older mentor's affection, before assuming the role of husband and father. He would then take on the adult male gendered role of one who might enjoy multiple male and female sexual partners. Although not every male-bodied person in ancient Greece performed these roles, this was culturally and physically typical of the aristocratic male in that society. In other words, gender identity was dependent upon age, class, and station in life, as well as sexual physiology and arousal.
"Transgender and transvestite identities reveal gender's constructed nature"
"Bem's androgyny scale and its conceptual tensions explored"
"Gender ideology persists despite contradictory evidence"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.