The human society is a rather complicated phenomenon where the interrelations between the human beings are complex and various. The social stereotypes and norms distinguish people according to their race, age, wellbeing level, social status, and, what is most important, sex and gender. The issue here is that the public understanding of both terms is rather misperceived which causes a lot of controversy in the society. Aaron Devor and Deborah Rudacille are the scholars dealing with the gender issues in their works, and the present paper will focus on the comparative analysis of the ideas expressed by both authors aimed at finding out their major similar and different points and explaining both.
To start with, the arguments presented by Devor (2007) have the development of gender in children as their main focus. Claiming the age differences in forming and understanding the basic gender behaviors and public attitudes to them, Devor (2007) argues that “learning to behave in accordance with one’s gender identity is a lifelong process” (p. 383). The further development of this idea is reflected in the simple rule that Devor (2007) concludes from his research: “All persons are eiÂther male or female. All males are first boys and then men; all females are first girls and then women” (Devor, 2007, p. 384). The author is also concerned with the topic of intercultural understanding of gender, which is different across nations and ethnic groups. Nevertheless, certain stereotypes are common to all the societies of today: “A more evenÂhanded description of the social qualities subsumed by femininity and masÂculinity might be to label masculinity as generally concerned with egoistic dominance and femininity as striving for cooperation or communion” (Devor, 2007, p. 387).
Nevertheless, the main idea of Devor’s (2007) paper is the consideration of the development of gender awareness in children. Examining this topic, the author comes to the idea that “children begin to settle into a gender identity between the age of eighÂteen months and two years” (Devor, 2007, p. 383). The next stage of this process comes at the age of three when children have “firm and consisÂtent concept of gender” (Devor, 2007, p. 384) and moves further to the age of five to seven years when the complete and permanent understanding of gender group belonging comes to them. Finally, Devor considers the role of language in the “establishment, depth, and tenacity of gender idenÂtity” (Devor, 2007, p. 385) and concludes that gender is more a social than innate concept.
As contrasted, the paper by Deborah Rudacille (2007) has certain similar and different points of discussion. First of all, the focus of the work is on other aspects of the gender perception issue. Rudacille (2007) builds her argument on the basis of the historical and medical data that defend the idea of the gender variance and transsexuality: “…gender crossing is so ubiquitous, that genitalia by itself has never been a universal nor essential insignia of a lifelong gender” (Rudacille, 2007, p. 454). Defending this idea, Rudacille (2007) addresses the research works of other scholars including Bullough and Diamond who argue that “gender variance should be considered neither an anomaly nor a pathology, but a simple variation” (Rudacille, 2007, p. 459). Drawing from these ideas, and from the drawn line between the biological notion of sex and the social one of gender, Rudacille (2007) expresses probably the leading thought of her paper reading that “sexual orientation is invisible, but gender identity is difficult to hide” (p. 460).
Moreover, the bulk of the paper by Rudacille (2007) is dedicated to the historical exemplification of transsexuality as a usual phenomenon in the human society. Here another difference from the reading by Devor (2007) can be observed. Rudacille (2007) argues that “many (though not all) of the persons whose names and stories are known to us today were born female and lived some or all of their lives as men” (p. 455). The author exemplifies her argument by the cases of Chevalier d’Eon, Adelaide Herculine Barbin and other people with the only aim – to come to the conclusion that unites this work with the paper by Devor (2007). Rudacille (2007) claims the freedom of sexual orientation and makes admits gender as one of the most controversial topics of the society: “Biological sex (and therefore gender identity) is thus regulated by the state in a way that sexual orientation is not. Citizens of the United States and most other nations are not required to announce their sexual orientation or to affirm it in legal documents” (Rudacille, 2007, p. 472).
To conclude, the works by Devor (2007) and Rudacille (2007) touch upon the controversial topic of gender identification in the modern society. These works are different in their focuses while the former examines the shaping of gender awareness in children and considers the public attitudes towards gender, while the latter studies the issues of public attitudes towards various sexual orientations and transsexuality and exemplifies the arguments putting the ideas in the historical context. Nevertheless, both works are similar in their focus on the issues of sex, gender, sexuality, and public attitudes towards these phenomena.
Works Cited
Devor, Aaron H. “Becoming Members of Society: Learning the Social Meanings of Gender.” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Eds. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen and Bonnie Lisle. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 383 – 393.
Rudacille, Deborah. “The Hands of God.” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Eds. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen and Bonnie Lisle. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 454 – 472.