Views: Gender

By Ellis Asher

(Image Edited, Image by Unsplash)

In my opinion, the topic of Gender is perhaps the best representation of the divide between the right and the left, the line in the sand upon which all political discourse can be mapped, in theory at least. If I were to guess as to why I would probably state that it would have something to do with the relatively new nature of the discourse. The concepts of “Gender” of course, only existing really since the 1970’s, and the current discussions we are having about the role of Gender in the identity of the individual and the group has only really gone from a few intellectuals theorising to a mainstream perspective recently; as close as the 2010’s.

And those claims aren’t baseless, Robert Stoller being the one who coined the term in 1968 in his book “Sex and Gender”, however the ideas behind them can date back to the 1940’s, when intellectuals first proposed that the roles performed by each sex can function independent of the sex, and as such proposed a separation of the two concepts.

Before this to be a man was to both be born male and to act in a masculine manner, to differ from this is to be an exception. But with the reclassification of the two concepts you could be born a man and act in a different manner, reclassifying you under the manner you act, rather than the prior concept based in biological sex.

Those are the facts as best I can put them in an objective manner, and it is here where the line is most visible. The right-wing, conservative types will tend to map the characteristics onto biological sex and claim that the two are one, the left-wing progressives will do the inverse and separate the concepts, claiming there is no hard line to be drawn in the new, bigger classification of “gender”.

The divide here seems to be that conservative typed people will generally favour boxing up concepts, drawing the hardest lines possible so that each aspect of our society has a definition, a clear function and a clear border around it and its limitations, and that the obsolete function are to be done away as we have no need for them.

The inverse of this would be the left-wing view of spectrums, groups and power. That society is a series of interactions rather than functions, that there need be no lines drawn as to where our group begins or ends, no lines drawn on how many groups there are and no lines drawn as to where our borders are.

It’s no mistake I used the word border, as borders are typically also issues divided by left and right, however it is paramount in any analysis of political issues that we mention not all peoples in one group follow the same ideas, much like the concept of both borders and gender.

If there is one last note to be had on the divide between the left and right on gender it could be that the left wing stance interprets gender roles and categories as groups of individuals, therefore the group's individuals identities are grouped by the person themselves, while the right wing stance would be that the individuals that belong to a group via a genetic basis rather than one of an identity. And while the discussion is about groups, as with many elements of politics, it is important not to forget the individuals behind the labels of the groups.

Further analysis into the concepts of gender are, at the moment, quite a hot topic, and it is only really recently that the right leaning positions have gained any traction. The most notable areas of contention have been with bathroom usage and sports team allocations, as both have established divisions between the genetic definitions of gender, which I will be referring to as biological sex, and clear reasons in place as to why.

Bathroom Rights. Firstly we will start with bathroom rights, a battle which I would say has been narrowly won by the progressives for now (in this nation at least). The decision on which bathroom one can use was previously decided by your sex. The purpose of the separation was to create a separate, safer space for women and to provide more dignity due to the difference in anatomical structure. For instance, if a woman were being somehow harassed by a man they could retreat to the bathrooms as it would be an area they wouldn't be permitted to enter. Also, if a woman wanted to use the restroom to deal with her bodily functions, such as periods, then she could see to it in a shared space with those who not only understood, but likely shared the same functions. She would also not need to listen to any, potentially crass or misogynistic comments made by a man in the same area. Overall the decision to split the bathrooms by sex seemed like one to provide more dignity. However the argument was made, more or less, by the progressives that people who do not share the biological sex of the designated bathroom but still identified with them, transgender individuals, may share some if not all characteristics of the respective gender and thus should be permitted to use the area as they would benefit from the same functions of the division. Thus, most left wing arguments call for the division to run along the lines of gender rather than sex.

Seen as this debate was irrefutably instigated by the progressives, most right wing arguments are responses to this proposition, which argue that the fact that progressive views of gender allow for personal choice means that the characteristics of the individual, which the right argues is largely tied to sex, can be completely ignored, and that this would violate the dignified nature, and whole purpose, of the divided bathrooms.

Transgender individuals, make up a small percentage of the population, likely less than 1%, and those that fully transition can be downwards of 0.5%, I say likely and can as the ONS figures also include non-binary individuals and thus distort and inflate the raw numbers.

My view on this particular issue is, mainly as the sample of the population in discussion is so small, that the effects of altering the usage of public bathrooms to fit a progressive view of gender is significantly less troublesome than the consequences for sticking to a more conservative view. However I do believe that private businesses should be able to ask their patrons to use whichever aligns with the companies policy, as businesses have the right to refuse service and we should reflect by law that people can make the rules within the bounds of their own business operation, provided that operation is within the law. To limit that is to kill the entrepreneur and is widely counterintuitive to the policies own intention of inclusivity.

After all, whichever definition of Gender you subscribe to, the actual word is still something created by man(kind) and thus, all your position can be is an interpretation.

This will likely never be reflected in government policy however, as nearly 100% of the people in power in the UK and it's neighbours all favour government policy being reflected in all aspects of life, especially if those aspects take priorities over businesses. Why? because they are in the government, it benefits them individually, and if they don't decide this then someone new will come along, promising to do double the work they do for just that fraction more power, and then a fraction more, and then a fraction more, ect.

The march against freedom is perpetual, and this would be just another step as the government encroaches ever towards forcing companies to operate under their models, then under them directly, then for them (taking the profits of the labour of course), and before long you live in a communist "utopia" where the food comes in one flavour; none. Gender In Competitive Sports

But with my biases aside, there is another significant discussion to be had on the topic of gender. Similarly to that of the bathroom choice it is a discussion of segregation for a function, however it appears to me that this may be the first victory for right wingers, as they have a very popular push behind the movement and a real chance to make change.

This is of course, in sports.

Whilst the arguments surrounding classification in bathrooms were mainly to do with definition and individual rights, many sports, especially combat sports, segregate for different reasons.

It is a scientific fact that biologically, men are usually stronger and faster than women, due to primarily genetic reasons. Physical activities, especially fighting sports can have advantages from bone structure, height, speed, physical strength, hormones and many more genetic factors, which typically favour men. This is due to many factors, like the benefits of testosterone, the size of men, leading to and including bigger hearts and lungs, and more.

However, I am not a biologist myself, but no serious biologist is yet to provide evidence against any of those claims. I do, as always, encourage you to do your own research on this, which means properly reading studies on sexual dimorphism, consulting experts and finally, putting your ideas to peer review, even if it is just asking someone who disagrees if they can see any reason as to why you may be wrong.

We will move forward in this argument with the notion that the physical divide between the sexes is primarily genetic, because it is, but I will first acknowledge that there can be a social force too, with sports typically being seen as male dominated anyway, however since this itself could be due to the genetic factors and differences it is safe to call it the primary factor, or at least the source of the divide.

With that said, it is thus wrong to pit someone with a significant disadvantage up against someone with a significant advantage, especially in any form of physical altercation. In the same way as it is wrong to hurt someone who is elderly, or to a lesser extreme, how fighters are placed into weight categories they must stay in, it would be cruel and undignified to unblur the clear lines drawn here.

Now, I'm well aware some individuals who disagree with that position like to use the tactic of branding whoever defends the provable need for a separation of biological men and women as "bigots", so I would like to take this time to clarify that I am in no way opposed to a separate (biological) women's division prospering in any combat sport, provided the event is fair as in men's divisions. I am not opposed to women who bring in bigger crowds than other people being payed more for their value than others, as they will be being payed for that merit. These are things that bigots and sexists oppose and I will not tolerate being painted as a member of that group.

The Gender Pay Gap

Merit is an important discussion to be had on the topic of Gender, as there appears to be 2 arguments and lots of straw-manning. I danced around the topic of the "Gender Pay Gap", referring to a financial gap between the average man and the average woman's annual earnings, as reported by the ONS. I will cover the left wing position, then what the left wingers say the right wing thinks, then what a right winger would actually say.

According to the progressives, the gap in average earnings is down to sexism. This is awfully predictable as many left wing positions on most gaps are usually that they must be socially constructed, thus must be the result of discrimination of that construction, and thus must be bridged by social action, or rather, government force. Subsequently, left wingers see all opposition to this movement as supporting that discrimination, and it is typical to be labelled as a sexist, or in this case, a misogynist.

Now that the straw men have been established, we can get down to the actual discussion behind the gap. Some left leaning figures admit that there is no massive conspiracy to keep women from employment but propose various reasons as to why the gap exists, firstly, employment etiquette. On an individual level women may receive different treatment for various reasons, but I will simply put it at, well, because men and women are, at least on some level different. However as history has shown discrimination because of artificial and imagined differences has been wrong and has lead to failure for all parties involved, as not utilising the correct tools will not get your company far, and if it somehow survives then either a movement in the market because of illegitimate discriminatory behaviour or a rival themselves hiring those who you discriminated against will see you put out of business eventually.

The right's position seems to focus around the discussion of maternity leave as the key factor for women in employment. I will however note that the many right wingers, especially conservatives, assume a meritocratic nature in most if not all businesses, which isn't always the case. Sexism does certainly exist in society, but if you unmask it to the public, we typically confront it, and as far as that goes, I think we are doing a pretty good job so far.

The right wingers main arguments on maternity are that since women are the ones who take time off during pregnancy, and biologically, women are the only people capable of getting pregnant, it makes sense that women, on average, earn less. And in reference to hiring practices they state the argument that not all women, but any woman could get pregnant, and many conservatives believe this is a legitimate reason to oppose hiring for a job that requires constant presence, like a farmer.

If you are wondering why the phrase "not all _, but any _" sounds familiar, it's because it was widely used to describe all men as dangerous when many radical misandrists made legal proposals for a curfew for men in the UK.

The second issue with the pay gap however contradicts this claim, as some, typically left leaning economists, claim that women are being payed less for the same work.

This is the part where we see that the issue of the gender pay gap, and gender as a whole, is an issue of factors. When you get past the straw men arguments, both sides are discussing the same gap and pointing to different factors, usually because they disagree on the causes. The right usually tend towards things being traditionally imposed, either by genetics, or by the borders we created to fill a function, while the left typically don't care for the factors behind the barriers, but oppose their very function as they view the root cause itself of a barrier, or a divide of any kind, to oppose unity, and thus be discriminatory. Function, or unity?

My opinion, on the topic of the pay gap is that if we actually analyse the data we can find that the difference isn't from the employer, but from the employee themselves. Job preference is largely made up by a few things, mainly your personality, but can also be partly social, especially since large parts of your personality will be adapted socially. These differences make for different job choices, different commitments to that job, and different hours worked.

An example of this is that men tend to work more dangerous jobs, which may pay better for that danger.

Perhaps one of the experts in this field, regardless of your preference to his political works, is Dr Jordan B. Peterson, a professor of psychology at the university or Toronto, Canada. He specialised in, among other things, personality, and has spoken extensively about how they are different between men and women, and even on this topic, about how that affects career choice and thus pay.

Other Views & A Conclusion

The Catholic Church's stance on Gender is maybe best examined across 2 stories, Genesis 2:18-24 and Mark 10:2-16. The genesis verse explains how men and women were created, and teaches that women were made of men. It draws a definite distinction but continues in saying that they are made of the same body, and join to become the same body, aka marriage. amongst all the teachings, however controversial, this may be the most important as it outlines the basis of the next set of teachings, those in Mark 10, which talk about relationships and in particular divorce, in Mark 10 the Pharisees (religious leaders) confront Jesus with a sort of 'gotcha' question to trap him (metaphorically).

The short of it is that Moses permitted divorce in the church, under certain conditions. They ask Jesus who doesn't really denounce divorce but denounces re-marriage. This, and a few other parts of the scripture are the basis of annulment in the church.

The reason for the significance of these teachings, and the teachings of other faiths is that whilst there are many political dimensions to Gender, and many that change, these teachings are followed by billions globally and tend not to change nearly as frequently, the catholic church's teaching has been consistent for nearly the past 2000 years, with very little, very slow change, mostly based on re-interpreting the same texts.

Overall, the issues of Gender seem complex because of the quantity of factors behind the divides, the argument about those factors causes, and subsequent arguments made about what to do about it afterwards.

It seems neither political side is wholly right or wrong on this topic, likely as there is so little consensus on the very definitions of the argument.

But I predict that while this is not viewed as among the most important issues now, it may well be in the future, and if that comes to pass then we, as a society, will require a serious discussion on how we progress with how we define ourselves, the causes and factors of our daily interactions and if we value unity, or function.