Introduction to the Lesson
The purpose
of this fourth lesson in the unit is to introduce the education student
to the mental models, concepts and constructs known as gender and human
sexual identity. Like "race" and racism, discussions of these
concepts and constructs are rarely free of prejudice. At the heart of the
great "gender " debate is whether aspects of gender and human
sexual identity are biologically determined or socially constructed. What
becomes increasingly clear is that notions of what is a man or woman markedly
different today than what they were in 1950, 1850 or 1750. It is equally
clear these same notions will probably be different in 2050. Sklar, Moore,
McNair and Bushong offer orienting definitions that shape discussions of
gender in this lesson. According to
Kathryn Kish Sklar:
During the past two hundred years between 1800
and 2000, the social construction of gender has changed dramatically in
the United States and throughout the world. Changes in female and male
identities have been shaped by profound social, economic and political
transformations - particularly changes in family life, in labor force participation
and in public culture.
Even more important than these abstract social
forces are the social movements that have interpreted and contested the
meaning of our gendered identities. Social movements like feminism or religious
fundamentalism have advocated specific answers to the question: What does
it mean to be a woman or a man? These movements have helped us redefine
our personal lives in response to the cascade of social, economic and political
changes that flow around us.
In the new century, social movements will probably
continue to help us in that regard. Look for movements that address two
aspects of gendered changes: those that continue the agendas set during
the past two hundred years and those that offer new agendas. The old agendas
between 1800 and 2000 might be summarized as coming to terms with the erosion
of patriarchy as the organizing principle of gender identity. (http://inside.binghamton.edu/millennium/sklar.html)
So, what is gender? C. Moore writes:
Traditionally, gender has been used primarily
to refer to the grammatical categories of "masculine," "feminine,"
and "neuter," but in recent years the word has become well established
in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender
gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice
of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories,
while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According
to this rule, one would say "The effectiveness of the medication appears
to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient", but "In peasant
societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined".
This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed,
and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels. (http://cs.smith.edu/~cmoore/story/gender.html)
McNair (1998) defined gender as:
a social construct comprised of the beliefs,
values, and attitudes regarding how men and women should think, feel and
act and what they should look like, aspire to etc.
And according to Carl W. Bushong:
When we speak of gender, in a context other than
language, it is a recent concept in our culture, both lay and professional.
It was not until 1955 that John Money, Ph.D. first used the term "gender"
to discuss sexual roles, adding in 1966 the term "gender identity"
while conducting his gender research at Johns Hopkins. In 1974, Dr. N.W.
Fisk provided our now familiar diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria.
Previously, one's sexual role was considered
one of two discrete, non-overlapping congenital attributes-male or female
determined by one's external genitals. These
two mutually exclusive categories allowed for no variation. Of course,
we acknowledged the cultural differences in sexual roles, but there still
could be only two modes of expression - of being.
We then began to see one's gender as a continuum,
a blending, analogous to a "gray scale."
But, our distribution of gender was still bimodal, that is, most people
are lumped at the two ends ... with only a minority in the middle. The
great majority would be either male or female with all that implies.
But, my review of current research and experience
with gender dysphoric, gay and traditional clients has led me to see gender
not as a bimodal male or female dichotomy but as a matrix-a possible
mix of male and female development within the same individual.
Ken Jett addresses the complex construct
known as human sexual identity. He says:
Definitively, sexual identity is
difficult to pin down. While some see sexual identity as gender, defining
one as a male or female (Bohan, 1996), others see it as being identical
to sexual orientation (the object of one's affectional feelings be it opposite
sex or same sex), and still others see it made up of many components (Shively
and DeCecco, 1993). Shively & DeCecco (1993) have one of the most comprehensive
models. They believe that sexual identity is comprised of four components:
biological sex, gender identity, social sex-role, and sexual
orientation.
Biological sex is
usually easy to ascertain. The doctor normally congratulates the parents
on a bouncing baby boy or a beautiful baby girl. Of course, there are situations
in which a visual determination is not always possible. At these times,
chromosomal sex is determined. Gender identity is basically
one's conviction of being male or female. This is not contingent upon biological
sex. Social sex-role is primarily gender role. It refers
to the socially ascribed to characteristics of what is masculine and what
is feminine. Masculinity and femininity can be seen as one continuum or
two separate continua (Bem, 1974). Lastly, sexual orientation
historically has been viewed as a bipolar model ranging from heterosexual
to bisexual to homosexual (Kinsey et al., 1953). Shively and DeCecco (1993)
suggest the use of a model that has two aspects one relating to physical
preference and one relating to affectional preference. This model allows
for both fantasy and behavior. One can have affectional preferences for
the same sex, but does this alone make them homosexual? I am suggesting
that it does not. The fantasy and behavior along with the other components
define sexual identity. (http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/gendid/sexident.html)
This lesson was developed to address
elements of competency #3 on the barriers to understanding diversity for
education majors who are taking EDG 2701 in partial fulfillment of the graduation
requirements for an Associate of Arts degree in Teaching (Elementary), Teaching
(Secondary), Early Childhood and Exceptional Education.
Competency #3 reads (in part) as follows:
"The
student will examine barriers to understanding diversity by
Demonstrating that cultural differences
among students and teachers are natural and inevitable and should be celebrated.
Defining the concept of prejudice and
learning ways to reduce or eliminate it and its related "isms."
Reviewing one's own viewpoint and value
system, and compare and contrast these with the viewpoints and values of
others from diverse backgrounds.
Defining the concept of a cultural
filter and explain how it affects the way a person or a group perceives
reality.
Defining the concept of transformation
(including paradigms and paradigm shifts) and explain how it affects the
way a person or a group reduces or eliminates prejudice and discrimination.
(A complete list of all the competencies
for EDF 1005 is provided below by clicking on the link titled competencies) | 
