Introduction
Gender and sexuality issues have been the subject of contested and protracted discourse and the intensity of this debate, particularly over the man-woman dichotomy, is not likely to dissipate any time soon. The essence and implications of this biological distinction are among the most contentious issues plaguing societies today. The present discourse hops onto that bandwagon by evaluating the claims advanced by some of the precursors to this discussion. Judith Lorber and Anne Fausto-Sterling exhibit reasoning that is arguably way ahead of their time, being that their respective articles are 1993 publications. Accordingly, this discussion embodies summaries of their articles on the prevailing sexual dichotomy and a comparative critique of the arguments advanced by these scholars. Lorber and Fausto-Sterling exhibit distinct perspectives but, nonetheless, demonstrate how the biological distinction between a man and a woman and the resulting social constructions are tools for exclusion, oppression, exclusion, and discrimination.
A summary of Fausto-Sterling’s the five sexes: Why male and female are not enough
This author begins the article with a real-life account that is demonstrative of the complications associated with the man-woman dichotomy and the implications it can have on those who do to fit into its precepts. She narrates the story of one Levi Suydam, who had the features and sexual characteristics of both sexes and the irony of his/her vote being determinative of the outcome of an election in 1843 (Fausto-Sterling 1993). She criticizes the notion that only two sexes exist and asserts that such a categorization defies nature as, biologically, there are numerous gradations, perhaps five or more, ranging from male to female. The author outlines and explains the recognized categories of intersex groups: the hermaphrodites, male pseudo hermaphrodites, and female pseudo hermaphrodites. She suggests they be recognized as additional sexes but maintains that human sexuality is a spectrum. The author also provides a historical account of intersexuality as evidence that it has existed for a long time. Finally, she critiques the medical attempts to manage these conditions and encourages their recognition and acceptance as sexes beyond the typical male and female. Thus, the article advocates for inclusion beyond the male-female dichotomy.
A summary of Judith lorber’s believing is seeing: Biology as ideology
This author decries the gendered behaviors and structures resulting from the biological distinction between men and women, that is the genesis of skewed social relations. She explains that there are minor biological differences between men and women, but social constructions result in the designation of male or female categories based on those attributes (Lorber 1993). The author relies on examples such as sport, technology, and the use of bathrooms to demonstrate how gendered relations are fostered and entrenched to the detriment of women. The crux of this article is that these distinctions that have resulted in the subjugation of women are merely social constructions that support a patriarchal system that is typically designed to disadvantage women. Accordingly, this article is a typical embodiment of feminist discourse designed to illuminate on the inequalities cause by the social distinction based on biological attributes that has disadvantaged women since time immemorial.
A critique of Fausto-Sterling’s and Judith lorber’s views
A cursory reading of both articles reveals that, while both authors discuss the dichotomy characterized by the biological distinction between men and women, they focus on distinct areas. Fausto-Sterling focuses on intersexuality and the need to expand the categories of sexes from the present dichotomy. As noted, she asserts that human sexuality is a spectrum that cannot be limited to male and female only (Fausto-Sterling 1993). In contrast, Lorber focuses on the same dichotomy but in relation to its implications on the lives of women. In that regard, she decries how contemporary society relies on biological distinctions to justify gendered relations and social statuses, which, more often than not, are skewed against women (Lorber 1993). Notably, while the former author’s argument for the recognition of a broader categorization of human sexuality seems ahead of his time, the latter’s arguments are a continuation of a protracted struggle for equality and non-discrimination for women.
Notwithstanding their distinct approaches and issues under focus, a deeper reflection of their respective arguments reveals that both authors speak out against the reliance on the biological, sexual dichotomy to perpetuate exclusion and oppression. Fausto-Sterling, by encouraging the recognition of intersexes as additional sexes and a broader acknowledgement of sexuality as a continuum, advocates for inclusion. It is arguable that this stance is informed by the realization that the male-female distinction is simply a means of exclusion, such that those who do not fit into the designated categories are disadvantaged. Interestingly, her suggestions have become a reality almost three decades later as LGBTQs have recently attained recognition and legal status. Unfortunately, Lorber’s views on the oppression and subjugation of women on account of their biological characteristics are supported by the reality of the contemporary world, where women still face discrimination in numerous respects. Hence, both authors establish that the sexual dichotomy is harmful.
Conclusion
This discussion explores the perspectives held by the forerunners in the debate on the essence and implications of the man-woman dichotomy. Accordingly, it embodies a summary of the respective arguments advanced by two visionary scholars who expressed their dissatisfaction and unsuitability of the dichotomy. The gist of Lorber’s perspective is that the biological distinction between men and women is just a convenient excuse for oppressing, discriminating, and subjugating the latter. This argument finds support in the obvious influence of patriarchy in the contemporary setting. Conversely, Fausto-Sterling contends that, rather than a dichotomy, there exists a spectrum of human sexuality with male and female at the respective ends. This proposition also finds support in today’s reality of the LGBTQ community. It seems, therefore, that the male-female dichotomy only serves patriarchal interests that benefit from exclusion and oppression.
References
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1993. “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough.” The Sciences: 20-25.
Lorber, Judith. 1993. “Believing is Seeing: Biology as Ideology.” Gender and Society 7(4): 568-81.