“Biology is merely the study of “what is”, of natural variation. In fact, in the natural world, gender is not strictly fixed. While rare, there are instances of hermaphrodism, of XXY or XXX genotypes, of men with ovaries or women producing levels of testosterone equal to or greater than that of men. … The problem comes not in the natural variation (i.e., biology), but rather in the human need to categorize and squeeze all that variation into two black-or-white boxes. I would argue that the fixed notion of gender is a human concept, and more from a need to understand how to integrate the body into society than from the biology of the body.” –Viajera

I think a big part of the apparent gap between views comes from euphemism. We’re used to ‘gender’ being used as a polite word for ‘sex’, as in all those forms that ask you to check one: “Gender: Male/Female”. But it isn’t.

There is no gender in the natural world. The natural world has sex-linked chromosomes and hormones that produce a variety of body shapes and body functions. Usually the effect is that any given mammal develops as male or female, but sometimes the results are more intersex or infertile.

Gender is, as J.D. Regent said, a social construct: two boxes that we try to sort people into. There are a bunch of restrictions and expectations applied to people in each box, and society is set up to give the people in one box a lot more power and safety than the people in the other box.

I have always understood feminist thought as saying that our reproductive anatomy does not determine our personalities, intelligence, ambitions, or anything else than our reproductive capabilities—in contrast to patriarchal thought, which claims that women and men are different kinds of people with nothing in common.

You seem very excited about these issues, and that is a wonderful thing. You are probably wondering what taboo you have broken that your posts aren’t being received with the same enthusiasm with which they are posted, and this can be a confusing, enigmatic thing.

It is obvious that you have done a lot of academic work on these issues, and you are communicating in an academic style: I know this is true + here is someone else who thinks the same thing = my point is proven.

That in itself isn’t inherently bad, but it does closely resemble the privilege shown when dominant groups communicate with oppressed groups. Sue Monk Kidd calls this the Churchman Voice. To members of the oppressed class, whether women or other minorities though this style often triggers some red flags.
I am a member of the group which gets to define reality + this is what I believe = I have proven my point.

This is a space where collaborative communication is practiced. If you look at the posts which were well-received you’ll find a lot of people saying “I believe,” “In my experience,” “I personally,” etc. A striking example is the difference between your initial posts and Magpie_Seven’s response, if it helps to see a man use this communication style.

These interjections are missing from your posts and most of the posts which respond to you, because you are being definitive and the respondents are trying to let you know that you have crossed a boundary.

I know that you have probably been told that this sort of hedging makes your argument weak, in a different forum that would be correct, but here it is a sign of respect and a tool which keeps this community of people with very strong opinions civil and viable.

Hope that helps.

Bella-

Ok, I’ll shut up now!

I remember a prof of mine once saying when engaging in a conversation, try and know as much as you can about the history of that conversation. His context for saying this was primarily in academic and/or philosophical and/or intellectual conversations about ideas. So I think he was sort of whispering to me to fill you in on some relevant readings on the subject–but as you note, the readings are not exactly what you are discussing here and, again, I apologise for misreading the focus of this thread. (I just kind of think you’ll find the two pieces by MacKinnon pretty cool. And the Toril Moi book, well, here’s a description:

Book overview
What are the political implications of a feminist critical practice? How do the problems of the literary text relate to the priorities and perspectives of feminist politics as a whole?
Sexual/Textual Politics addresses these fundamental questions and examines the strengths and limitations of the two main strands in feminist criticism, the Anglo-American and the French, paying particular attention to the works of Cixous, Irigaray and Kristeva. In the years since publication this book has rightly attained the status of a classic. Written for readers with little knowledge of the subject, Sexual/Textual Politics nevertheless makes its own intervention into key debates, arguing provocatively for a commitedly political and theoretical criticism as against merely textual or apolitical approaches.
With a new afterword in this edition, Sexual/Textual Politics is a must-read for all those interested in feminist literary theory.

Peace, Julian

I think you make a very good point, it seems to me that being compelled to wear the veil is just the flipside of Western sexiness. Both are ways which women are denied the ability to define themselves and denied the ability to negotiate how they will be viewed.

One thought that seemed to resonate as the sandfairy put the sleep in my eyes, is that there is simultaneous movement in the creation of bodies (female, male, and the ones that are not singly male or female) – at once biological, and social. So in this sense, there will be difficulties if a definition is required, as it will be difficult to define bodies as wholly biological or wholly social, in my opinion.
If used as a functional term to refer to both biological and social issues/process/thoughts, then at least it seems to be a little bit less problematic, kind of like the views expressed by JD, viajera and bluebears, mixed together in the Mackey thinking pot.

In terms of feminisms, coming to terms about bodies, as abstract and/or material, from my reading, there isn’t a consensus, either in academia and/or activist circles that I frequent.