In today’s mainstream American society, and most societies around the world and in every time period, there have been a set of norms that men and women are supposed to adhere to. While these norms vary across cultures and time, there have always been ways in which men should act and ways in which women should act. These sets of acceptable behavior are often taken for granted and accepted as natural and “just the way it is.” From a young age, people are socialized into acting a certain way based on their sex, male or female. This sex and gender classification is seen as concrete and unchangeable. In this essay I will examine this phenomenon and look at sex and gender from a different standpoint. I will present sex and gender as a reenactment of social expectations, as a recreation of what is generally accepted as real and the truth. Looking at sex and gender as a reenactment ties in well with historical reenactments because both are seen as accurate depictions of what really happened and what is considered the definitive truth. By examining both historical and sex/gender reenactments, I will show how both are not the definitive truth, but simply one possible interpretation of reality while many alternative interpretations exist.
From the moment of birth people are placed in one of two categories, male or female. From then on this classification affects people’s expectations of our behavior, looks, desires, interests, and many other aspects of our lives. While a few deviations from this set of expectations are generally accepted, a person who does not follow a lot of these expectations, or someone who defies one expectation seen as important (such as sexual desire), is often subject to social punishment for this transgression. Social punishment involves teasing, discrimination, hate crimes, and other ways in which people who are considered deviant are negatively treated for their so-called deviance. Examples of this is when a young boy is made fun of for playing with toys designed for girls, or a girl being considered “unnatural” for wanting to play football. While these activities are what these people naturally want to do, they are seen as unnatural for them based on their sex. This social punishment occurs whenever an individual does something considered “unnatural” for their gender.
Gender Ideologies as a Collection of Knowledge
Looking at gender as a reenactment of social norms is a useful way to understand both the way in which our knowledge of gender is constructed and the actual performance of gender. When we think of the word “reenactment” we usually think of a retelling of a historical event. We envision people dressed in the proper attire for the time period they are reenacting, with the type of tools and equipment they used in that time period. We also envision them behaving in a way that the people they are representing are thought of as behaving, and doing the same things that the actual historical figures did. The reenactment is supposed to portray the historical event as real as possible so that the audience experiences the historical event “as it really happened.” But how do we know how the event really took place? How do we really know that the reenactors know what happened, or that they are telling the story truthfully? It is impossible to genuinely know what really happened in the past. History can be distorted; certain aspects can be left out, exaggerated, made up, or forgotten. It is important to realize that our knowledge of history is controlled by those who have power in the present. In other words, the people who presently control knowledge get to decide which knowledge is definitive, what to include and what to leave out.
It is important to look at alternative knowledges when we want to understand history and decide for ourselves what we believe is the truth. When I took two classes on women in
The same examination of knowledge is required when we look at what gender is. Definitive knowledge about gender is based on scientific studies about how our biology makes us who we are. While scientific and medical studies are very useful and often reliable, we must look at the biases that the test may have as well as personal agendas and beliefs the people doing the study might have. People like to think that male and female brains are different, that our hormones determine our personality and gender expression, that males and females are different not just in terms of biology, but in our behavior as well. This is most likely because knowledge is largely controlled by heterosexual males. Many large educational institutions are controlled by white heterosexual males, whose personal opinions and beliefs decide on what in included in our knowledge of gender. This is not to say that all white heterosexual males believe the same things and suppress knowledge about what gender is; but it is an acknowledgment that we do still live in a society that holds many prejudices towards people in terms of sexual and gender identity.
When looking at what is considered definitive knowledge about gender we must realize that the information we get is filtered by the media and is only one perspective of a complex issue. We must not take our knowledge of gender for granted, but instead examine and question what our knowledge is based on. Ideas we take as facts may not be the truth; “facts” about gender can be exaggerated, left out, and made up like they are in history. Just as people often see reenactments as an exact replica of a historical event, they see gender expectations as a replica of how people really act. Reenactments are powerful tools and are useful in many ways; this is why our view of gender identity and roles is often so unquestioned.
Gender Expression and Norms as a Reenactment of Social Expectations
Looking at gender as a reenactment not only works for understanding how knowledge is presented, controlled, and valued but also works for understanding gender roles and behavior as a reenactment itself. Reenactments in the familiar historical context are a type of performance. Gender can be seen in much of the same way, as a performance. When discussing reenactments and gender it is important to look at the “re” part of reenactment. Reenactments are not the real event; they are a representation of it, or a retelling. They are not the actual event. Historical reenactments are reproductions of a historical event or time period. Gender expression is a reenactment of ideas about how males and females are supposed to act. Just like historical reenactments are not the actual historical event, reenactments of gender are constructed and artificial.
We are given script to use in our daily activities that tell us how we are supposed to behave in certain situations, how we are supposed to dress for our daily performance, and ways in which we are supposed to act in order to effectively portray our character. For example, women are typically supposed to wear feminine looking clothes to accentuate the female body and act in ways in which are seen as feminine, such as being more reserved in conversation. This is all done to convince other members of society that they are “real” women. When someone does something that is not on the script of how men and women are supposed to act, it often confuses the other actors in the reenactment. People are thrown off and don’t know how to react. Even a simple unexpected event such as when a woman opens a door for a man throws people off. Often when I do this, I see the man pause as if thinking about what to do in reaction. Such a simple unscripted act can throw off an entire “performance” of gender.
The idea of gender itself is a reenactment. Gender is not a natural identity, it is a social construction based on biological sex. Reenactments are a type of performance that includes many other aspects of performing arts. One of these is melodrama, the idea that one must exaggerate a point in order for it to seem real. When someone is performing onstage they have to overemphasize things such as bodily movements, facial expressions, and clothing. This is all done so that people in the audience can clearly see what is going on onstage from a distance.
We perform our gender in much of the same way as actors portraying characters on stage. In order for someone to come across as a member of the masculine or feminine gender they must behave and look in ways that emphasize the expectations for that gender. Women’s clothing is often designed to call attention to the female from, primarily breasts and hips. Feminine dress is an essential part of being seen as a woman in society. When a woman wears clothing that is loose, does not accentuate the feminine body and is seen as otherwise masculine, no matter how female looking her actually body is, she is seen as less feminine. Woman are also expected to emphasize their femininity by wearing make up and having hair that is done in a way that looks what society considered appropriate for a female individual. None of these ways of looking are inherently innate to being female, but often times all of these ways of performing gender are seen as natural. Women who do not wear make up, form fitting clothes, or have short hair (which is considered masculine in our society) are seen as less female, even though they are as biologically female as a woman who is considered feminine. The same is true for men in our society; men are expected to exaggerate their masculinity in order to be seen as not feminine. In other words gender expression is melodramatic; exaggerated masculinity and exaggerated femininity are what is seen as the natural way to be. In the way that society is constructed one must exaggerate their gender in order to be seen as a “proper” member of their sex. Simply being biologically male or female is not enough, we must perform it in order to be convincing to our audience.
While many people see males and females performing their respective masculine and feminine activities as natural, there is a lot of contrary evidence that we witness in everyday life. For example look at the information featured in women’s magazines. There are pages after pages of instructions on how to look more feminine, including clothing, make up, hair styling, and ways of attracting men. If our gendered behavior is so natural, then why must women be instructed on how to appear feminine?
When I think about whether or not people’s gendered behavior is natural or taught I think of when I was younger and entering puberty. While I was experiencing physical changes in my body, I didn’t become what people expected of me as a young woman. I remember my mother telling me how to sit, talk, walk, and generally how to act like a woman; my mannerisms did not fit into the expectations of what they should be now that I was officially a woman. She kept telling me that I was a woman now and that I should show it by acting feminine. I always replied with something like “I’m a girl, that’s feminine enough.” Apparently it wasn’t enough. I was told that it was “not normal” for me to have no desire to do things like wear make up or shave my legs. I was supposed to naturally want to do things that were the opposite of natural. The natural thing to do was to let my body be natural; getting rid of all the hair on my legs and covering my face with make up seemed unnatural to me. While gendered ways of behaving are taken for granted and seen as natural, the idea that people have to be taught how to act like a woman or man contradicts the theory that males and females behave in different ways because of perceived innate differences.
Physical Sex as a Reenactment of Biological Expectations
So far in this paper I have analyzed gender expression as a reenactment of expectations of people bases on their physical sex. What if we can take it even further and look at biological sex as a reenactment? Just as we often see people’s behavior as men and women as natural, we see two clearly defined biological sexes, male and female. While the majority of individuals fall into the categories of male and female, there are a substantial number of people who do not. Some children are born intersexual, having physical sex characteristics of both males and females. Some individuals change their biological sex from male to female or female to male. How do we explain this? Clearly biological sex is not as concrete as we often assume it is.
When a child is born intersexed it is considered a medical abnormality. Usually surgery is done to “correct” the “problem” and the child is raised as either male or female and given the proper hormones. This is supposed to enable people to live their lives as a “normal” male or female and to avoid confusion later on in life. The result of this type of treatment for intersexed individuals has proven to be anything but a benefit to most people. Many intersexed individuals feel that they were assigned the wrong sex, or that no assignment was right for them and that they prefer to be both sexes. In this case biological sex is a reenactment of how the medical society believes that there are two distinct sexes with nothing in between. In reality intersexed individuals can function well in society without intervention to make them either male or female. The surgery performed on intersexed infants in done more for the convenience of society than for the individual. We do not want to question the beliefs about sex that we think are the truth.
If we look at how our view of intersexuals is a reenactment instead of the actual “event” of sex we can see that our view as sex as two defined categories of male and female is flawed. We have a two sex model of biology that does not allow for the many people who are not either completely male or completely female. While models are useful in making larger ideas easier to understand they leave information out. This is why they are models; they are representations of a larger idea rather than the idea itself. Reenactments are models meant to help people understand previous events. The problem arises when we accept the model or reenactment as reality. In this case we accept that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that anyone in between is a mistake that must be corrected. We forget that models leave things out; in this case intersexuals are left out. Instead of adjusting the model in the case of inersexed individuals, we adjust individuals to fit the model. The “correcting” of intersexed children by surgery, hormones, and nurturing is a reenactment of our views that there are only two sexes, male and female. It is a reenactment because the two sex system that we see as natural is not natural for every individual and has to be recreated for those who do not fit our idea of what normal is.
We can also analyze transsexuals in terms of reenactments. Here the question is more about whether or not a person changing their biological sex is a reenactment or not. From a first glance it would appear that transpeople are reenacting the two sex system by changing their original biological sex into the other sex. This works until we remember that the current two sex model we have is itself a reenactment of what we think is real. While there are of course males and females, the idea that sex is concrete and unchangeable is questionable. We must ask ourselves what is biological sex? Is it hormones, chromosomes, primary, or secondary sex characteristics? Everything but chromosomes can be changed so it is possible that one can actually change their sex without it being artificial. What is needed here is a reevaluation of the view of biological sex as either male or female, with no possibilities of being both, neither, or any other possibility. We must look at this model as a reenactment of our societal beliefs that males and females are separate sexes and that an individual is born either male or female. We must also realize that biological sex is not as concrete as we think it is.
Recall the concept of definitive and alternative knowledges that was used in looking at how society views gender. Here the definitive knowledge is the mainstream and currently medically accepted view that there are only two sexes. The alternative knowledges acknowledge that while most individuals are male or female, some people are neither, both, or any other variation of sex. Looking at the alternative views of biological sex is beneficial because it allows for people who are marginalized by the definitive view that does not allow for variations in biological sex. By creating models that are more flexible in terms of biological sex, intersexuals and transpeople are not seen as problematic and allows for people to live their lives as they feel most comfortable. Just as people feel cramped and uncomfortable in a society that sees gender expression as either masculine or feminine bases on biological features, many people feel uncomfortable in a system that dictates what is normal and abnormal in terms of sex.
Questioning Definitive Knowledge and What We “Know”
Much of what we “know” goes unquestioned and is taken as the absolute truth. In order to better understand sex and gender we must reevaluate the beliefs we hold about it. We must examine if we really “know” what we do about sex and gender or if these “facts” are just strongly held beliefs. If we look back in history about what people “knew” about the world we see that many ideas and theories had to be reevaluated and sometimes thrown out. We must look at our theories about sex and gender in the same critical way. What we know as the facts now could look ridiculously untrue years from now. A reevaluation of sex and gender is necessary in order to better understand ourselves in terms of our sexual and gender identities. It is also necessary in order to end discrimination and prejudice against people who do not fit mainstream society’s rigid view of sex and gender and to allow people to be themselves without fear of social punishment. We must look at our system of sex and gender as a reenactment of social norms rather than the reality of what sex and gender really is.
