It truly does take an extensive effort to create the impression of being more interested about matters concerning sexuality and genitals than I am. From around March 2006 until the tail end of last year I was immersed in an trans-Atlantic effort to convince American mothers-to-be not to circumcise their healthy newborn boys. This was on the sound grounds of subjective decisions being best made by the subject and the fact that removing erogenous zones tends to decrease pleasure, but despite this solid logical foundation the matter proved considerably time consuming. Debates with advocates of “Parental choice” (as opposed to “Personal choice”) could be persistent drains of my time, frequently leaving little spare. It is quite a challenging task to exceed me along this front, then; but William Saletan is unquestionably one of the few men up to the task.

Seemingly endlessly fascinated with matters ranging from why parents should talk to their children about anal sex instead of oral and his bafflement about other sections of the media not being as interested over the matter as he is to the legal impact and importance of pornographic hypocrisy he seemingly rarely lays finger to key on another topic. And his seemingly indefatigable energies have led him to write an endless torrent of articles on the matter for years. Thus it was not entirely a surprise to observe that he had been given the task of writing about the birth of a child to a man. The results are perhaps not entirely tasteful, but certainly succeed in rousing further an issue kicking around in my head since the Liberal Conspiracy “Blogger’s Summit” (the pretentious absurdity of that title still threatens to overwhelm me…)

I was directed towards this series by Deborah Cameron, one of the writers cited, during her talk at Marxism 2008. It is perhaps the antithesis of the pieces written by Saletan late last year, on one of the few occasions he was able to drag his attention away from what lay between the humanity’s legs. Unfortunately in considering instead what coated their bodies he improved precious little, stating the case for inherent racial difference of intellect in a manner that at least partially relied upon the “research” of a notorious racist who’s dedication meant he pursued methods best understated as of sub-optimum scientific worth. Amongst them were comparing the brain size of the average “negro” to his penis.

In this, however, the rare argument is made that, despite the fathomless ocean of anecdote and entire self-help sub-genre dedicated to explicitly and solely outlining these differences between the two factions and then proclaiming them inherent and immutable, women and men are not really so different, after all.

That there is sound evidence to support this case is demonstrated by the fact that this is effectively six solid pages on constant references, links and explanations to and of scientific studies conducted in a reliable fashion. The importance of placing our faith in the scientific method rather than precise but limited annecdote is made finest by Cameron, who provides her own annecdotal tale of her father; who presumed females to be poor drivers and thus saw as much, earnestly surprised when she pointed out the many examples she noted of women driving just fine or men poorly.

More substantially during her talk at Marxism she outlined a study conducted where judges were made to listen to recordings of audio footage from standard conversations, then interviewed about them. The reaction of the subjects was to state that of the speakers the females had used the phrase “Like” in the context of informal quasi-Dadaist slang far more frequently than the males. In reality there was no difference. The cause of this is preconception: the judges imagined a female speaker using the phrase “Like” and their perceptions were scewed accordingly. This demonstrates the fallibility of informal observation of existence for gender disparrities: culture may succeed in shaping our prejudices more than it does in shaping our behaviour.

Furthermore it is valuable remembering firstly that the different treatment of the sexes begins before gender differences arise (babies dressed in blue will receive different treatment from nurses to those in pink) and secondly that while instances of culture impacting upon behaviour are clear and well understood the theories proposed by advocates of inherency are often based around ambiguous and sparse data (our knowledge about hormones, for example, is not nearly substantial enough to support the claims made in relation to behaviour). Especially given that differences in behaviour tend to be greater within genders than between them and the exact nature of the distinction varies widely across societies it seems inevitable that it must be accepted gender is a cultural construct rather than something that comes attached fully and indivisibly to sex and results in ready-conditioned newborn girls and boys that require “appropriate” treatment.

Considerable forces both in media and publishing, however, are unwilling to travel down this course of reasoning. This could be a matter of profit: with a society seeking reassurance that its fundamental components are still valid the provision of empty promises of inherency certainly sell well enough to sustain the aforementioned sub-genre. However I suspect that at least some of the defenders of the ineluctable gender binary are neither earnestly deluded dupes or profit seeking characters, but instead those willing to accept unsubstantiated arguments for fear of the alternative.

Perhaps then it is valuable to outline it: gender is a concept rather than an inherent outcome. Insofar as the differences between the genders are not imagined they are exagerrated and with or without this there is no evidence of inevitability. Accordingly gender is a creation of culture, one of the grandest memes rather than something largely biological in origin. This is not a position which should be underestimated: any idea which has such a substantial portion of the population in its thrall is clearly not to be underestimated and is sure to be thoroughly entrenched. But it leaves it susceptible to overturning in a fashion which limitations such as the inability for unaided flight can not be. Quite simply if gender is an idea, all it would take to put its power to an end would be for this to be realised and for it to be agreed that it is a bad idea.

This makes it perhaps understandable that such a determined effort would be offered by those reactionaries who have aligned themself in the defence of difference to describe the distinction of gender as innate and bound tightly to sex. If people are unclear where gender ends and sex begins or, better yet, consider the two terms to be interchangeable then they will find it impossible to evaluate whether the ideas which they permit bind them are wisdom or folly.

A concept central to the argument against this is interestingly one which was also relied upon by the early anarchists in their understanding of human nature: plasticity. The human mind, it is proposed, is set neither one way or the other but arrives unbiased and is largely an impression of what has been in contact with it. To the anarchists this allowed for an argument that those minds which were accustomed to living beneath hierarchy and under capitalism could adjust to life outside these confines with enhancement rather than simply continuing to act as they had done previously, but with less restraint. Instead a different environment would elicit a different response.

Although flawed in other ways Anarchy has provided a view of humanity which is broadly correct: although not decided entirely by their surroundings, as the Marxists would argue, minds alter depending upon their condition. In a society where throughout lives roles, modes of behaviour, patterns of speech and even colours are declared as belonging either to one faction or the other it is natural that the division along these boundaries shall become largely self-enforced. In this context being raised as one gender rather than (and frequently in contrast to) another results in the anticipated role, garb and other assorted defining features often being conformed to, an unpleasant set of consequences including the pay gap, the grade gap and cultural practices of the sort I tried to help wipe out. The mind was originally not set in any fashion; but after the conditions became clear the outcome was appropriate to the surroundings, which are gender dominated. This does not make it desirable and is not remarkable: indeed it is, if anything, notable that there is not a stronger bond amongst much of humanity to their assigned position.

To the extent that humanity is thus confined it is also unsurprising that where the unwritten gender laws (unwritten, perhaps, apart from recently in texts bearing the title template of Why women can’t X and men can’t Y and in antiquated Victorian etiquette texts) are not enforced upon the self there are other forces willing to ensure that it is by someone. When what effectively amounts to an ideology is mistaken for biology the consequence is naturally those who dissent, with the consequence being that the very flimsiness of the concept’s authority requires irrational responses in order to safeguard it. As “nature” is less thorough than genderists imagined they must enforce its laws with their own efforts or else realise it for the sham it is. These guardians are in no short supply: from the state-backed thugs beating women into burkas on the streets of Saudi Arabia to the unpaid but equally eager gentleman that recently set upon a young goth for wearing eyeliner and killed his girlfriend when she attempted to defend him. Pettier examples are rife, often more snide than vicious. I do not doubt that the vast majority of gender defenders deplore such tactics, but punishment is vital for such a system to remain in place; as well as an inevitable consequence of its existence: for as long as there is defiance of an idea its weakness will be apparent and those who’s reality demands its existence to be ironclad will protect it through crushing the deviant.

All the sake of fantasy.

But the very existence of this turbulent insecurity demonstrates the fragility of the concept which they will go so far to protect. If the foundations of the distinctions with which they define themselves were as deeply running as their ideology demands they would have no need to come to their aid. As it is their very efforts serve only to display the absence of substance in the supposed dichotomy.

This is what makes a struggle against the notion so valuable: not only is it not worth the blood spilt over it, not worth the brutal and unjust systems it props up firmly but it can be defeated. Already it has weakened enough to allow women in trousers, the work place and all manner of locations they would previously have been seen as shockingly innappropriate for. Already a man born a woman has given birth. Further triumphs are easily within reach and ultimately the entire rotten edifice is within fortune’s reach of receiving the tearing down it richly deserves.