It is evident that numerous people perceive the term ‘regulation’ as an institutionalized framework or a process meant to streamline various provisions in people. Nonetheless, the term acknowledges the laws, rules, and policies constituting the legal instruments meant to render people regular in this context. Critically, the regulation of gender has assumed critical provisions than expected. There are norms through which such regulations are embodied.
Nonetheless, it is critical that the phenomenon becomes problematic at some instances. Discussing the aspects of gender on empirical grounds is important compared to putting it on abstractions as evident in the article. On a broader context, it is agreeable that actual gender regulations have concentrated on the works regarding feminists and lesbians/gays since these parties resonates various aspects of gender thus ruling the phenomenon (Butler, 2004).
Agreeably, it is important to understand (as posed by numerous question regarding this topic) how gender is regulated, the imposition of such regulations, incorporation of such provisions, and how the victimized parties cope up with such regulations. This is an important consideration in various contexts.
There are numerous contemplations and questions that can be subjected to the provisions of gender regulations in order to unveil their deeper meaning. Nonetheless, this is subjective to various factors that tend to regulate the phenomenon. Additionally, it is imperative to remember at least two stipulations regarding the subjection and regulation of gender as derived from the Foucaultian scholarships.
These are the reasoning provisions meant to insinuate the aspects of gender regulations. For example, regulatory powers act upon, shape, and reform their preexisting subjects. This is quite considerable in the context of gender regulation. The second stipulation is that when one becomes a subject to the concerned regulations, then, he/she is being regulated by that phenomenon. Precisely, the regulatory discourses that form the gender subjects similarly require/induce the concerned subject.
It is agreeable with the article that the suggestions claiming that gender is a norm necessitate extensive elaborations on the matter. It is evident that a norm does not equate to rules or laws; nonetheless, it operates with social practices in its entire implications. Additionally, it is agreeable that a norm might be analytically separable from the practices associated with it.
Contextually, norms might either be explicit or not; however, they regularly remain implicit and incomprehensible when they operate as normalizing principles in the social contexts (Butler, 2004). Thus, gender can be associated to norm under given circumstances despite the alleged regulation.
Agreeably, norms administer the aspects of social intelligibility of action; nonetheless, it is hardly similar to the actions it governs. Its status and effects are independent from the actions it governs. This relates to the aspects of gender regulation mentioned earlier. Claiming that gender is a norm hardly translates to the normative views of femininity and masculinity as claimed by the provided article.
It is important to note that gender is the apparatus through which production and regulation of males and females occur. This exists concurrently with hormonal, chromosomal, and other viable provisions. It also considers the psychic, normative, and formative roles that gender assumes. Precisely, gender might refer to the mechanism through which notions of masculine and feminine emerge and ultimately get neutralized.
Concurrently, there are symbolic tendencies and social norms worth considering in this context. This occurs with regard to the mentioned aspects of gender regulation, which is still controversial when scrutinized critically. It is crucial to understand this provision in various contexts. According to Levi-Strauss, the rules governing sexual exchanges elicit viable subject positions in its entire contexts.
This is a critical provision when considered and scrutinized elaborately. There are also other personalities who have contributed considerable to this pertinent topic. Ewald denotes that norms can alter constraints into mechanisms thus affecting and shifting thoughts in numerous aspects.
It is imperative to understand the provisions of norms and the problems of abstractions as noted in the article. These are helpful in providing avenues through which one can argue over the matter. Thus, it is debatable that discourse can be used to produce individuals of varying calibers.
It is important to concur with Foucault that discipline is capable of producing individuals while referring that discourse can manage, utilize, and constitute individuals who embrace it provisions. Norms help in producing common standards on which other regulatory aspects can emerge. Accordingly, norms are capable of regulating social phenomena and other internal limits in this context.
Additionally, normative individualization tends to possess no exterior in the gender regulatory contexts. There are other counter arguments regarding the aspects of the norms (Butler, 2004). For example, all oppositions in the norm are advertently contained in the very norms. The phenomenon equally relate to the aspects of normative factors.
Norms can hardly be lessened to its instances and neither can it be extracted from its instantiations. Gender norms require the aspects of reality in order to unveil their appearances and idealized dimensions. Hence, it is inferable that individuals are governed by gender, which is also a subject of norms and other related stipulations. Conclusively, it is important to do justice to people with respect to sex and trans-sexuality.
Reference
Butler, J. (2004). “Gender regulations,” Undoing gender. New York, NY: Routledge