Gendered adjectives 1 - circular definitions and stereotypes

Gender is a difficult topic to write about, and I've long wondered what makes it so tricky.

Because this is Wordly Explorations, I am going to focus on the words we use; more specifically, the adjectives that cloud the topic of gender.

There are very basic definition issues. We get people mixing up the meaning of the words sex (i.e. biology) and gender (i.e. social identity and role). This results in reams of confusion when people discuss (rant about) gender as though it had the same definition as biological sex, e.g.: 'People are born with their gender between their legs and that's it!' Um, what? These are two very different concepts. 

But the real drama happens when we try to debate gender. There are (again) very basic conceptual issues when we try to discuss how humans act (human traits and behaviours) which is the key aspect of a person's social identity and role (i.e. gender). 

We discuss human traits and behaviours with two gendered adjectives: masculine and feminine. A sign that these words are not up to the job is the proliferation of new words; recent examples are gender fluid, non-binary, toxic masculinity, as descriptions of gender. But I don't think these words have helped make anything clearer.

I wonder if we could find other adjectives to conceptualise and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leave gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human. Words that make it possible to discuss this topic and increase shared understanding.

In Part 1 I will explain the specific problem with these gender adjectives, before I suggest some other words we could use in Part 2.

A binary or trinary of categories

This is not an article about gender itself, but about words that could enable better conversations about this topic.

Most often, the words masculine and feminine are portrayed as representing either side of a dichotomy division of gender. Even those who avoid using a dichotomy often characterise masculine and feminine as the end points on a continuum, with neutral or androgynous in the middle. 

A dichotomy of gender specifies the idea that human traits and behaviours exist in two categories based on biological sex, but with a middle overlap or messy bit. This seems a grossly inadequate representation of the vast and complex array of human traits and behaviours. (Remember we're not talking about biological sex of male, female and intersex.We are talking about how humans act (gender), which is a different concept.) 

Some use a trichotomy of masculine, feminine and non-binary. Non-binary or gender-fluid is actually a third category, not a rejection of the categories currently in the binary, so we get a 'trinary' (I guess), and still in reference to (reacting against) the dichotomy of masculine/feminine.

Our sex and our gender are central to our self-concept as a person. They are integrated as a core aspect of personality. We can't lightly abandon the way gender is conceptualised as a dichotomy. Some people do reject the gender assigned to them, but that is not the same as rejecting the idea that gender is the basis for a binary division of human traits and behaviours. 

Definitions that are 'shouldy'

Some people attempt to avoid the difficulty of genuinely discussing gender by saying masculinity means 'pertaining to men' and femininity 'pertaining to women'. But these words do not mean that at all.

Masculine/feminine and masculinity/femininity are a type of word we call 'normative', in that their very definition carries an idea of 'what is considered normal'. This applies to both masculinity and femininity, but let's just look at the first to see how this works. (My underlining in examples below.)

From Merriam-Webster, masculine is defined:

♦️ having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man

♦️ possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men.

From Wikipedia, masculinity is defined:

♦️ Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviours, and roles associated with boys and men. As a social construct, it is distinct from the definition of the male biological sex. Standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods. Both males and females can exhibit masculine traits and behaviour.

From Urban dictionary, masculinity is described:

♦️ Masculinity is properly defined is an aspirational and normative style of being and living as a natural-born man that a critical mass of the members of that population applaud. Masculinity may evolve over time and diverge within cultures, but there are trans-historical and trans-cultural aspects that any reasonable man can realistically point to ... ('This' is masculinity. 'That' is not masculinity.)

The concept of 'what is considered normal' is incorporated into the definitions with the words appropriate, usually associated, traditionally associated, standards, aspirational and normative style. The same applies for definitions of feminine, but you get the idea already, right?

So, masculinity means how men 'should be' and, likewise, femininity means how women 'should be'. What's normal, what society agrees is normal. I will not bother right now about finding a 'reasonable man' to point to 'this' and 'that', but I understand what the Urban dictionary author is saying. 

We all somehow know what masculine and feminine 'should be', even if we don't like it, even if we don't think it applies to us. The 'what is normal' or 'what should be' concept is IN the words.

Definitional circles kill fruitful discussion

Source: Pixabay

But, if masculine means 'as a man should be' and man means 'a person with masculine traits', you are stuck in a definitional circle. (You can find such circles everywhere.) This circular definition is a bit like 'a man is masculine human is a man is a masculine human is a man', ad infinitum.

Given that these adjectives for gender (masculine/feminine) mean the 'standard, appropriate, normal set of attributes, behaviours and roles' for being a man/woman, we run into trouble when we try to talk about gender stereotypes and about how we could loosen up rigid gender roles when they are damaging or limiting. 

This circular definition prevents fruitful conversation about how men and women 'are' and 'could be' and 'should be', and helpful discussion about how gender can be both a positive and negative aspect of our humanity.

Real men have masculine human traits

Here's the problem with the words themselves. 

People end up saying things like 'Women should be more masculine to succeed in politics' and 'Men need to be more feminine to reduce violence and conflict it the world'. Or even, 'People in business need both hard and soft skills', which is just a poorly camouflaged concept of hard = masculine and soft = feminine. The gendered dichotomy of human behaviour and traits is just barely below the surface.

However, if you say that a man is adopting more 'feminine' traits by staying home to care for his young children, you are very close to saying he is not as a man should be, not a real man. And if you say a woman has 'masculine' traits of dominance, you are implying that she is not a real woman.

If we can only describe human traits using words that refer back to their 'traditional' gender assignment, i.e. 'this' is a masculine trait, 'that' is a feminine trait, we end up implying that men who exhibit 'traditionally feminine' traits or women who exhibit 'traditionally masculine' traits are contravening their sex, not just their gender. They are not normal.

 The normative function of the gender adjectives then shouts, 'not appropriate, not normal, not standard', and ultimately not a real man/woman. 

A whole raft of important and normal human traits that then become off limits. This is not good for any of us.

The pernicious influence of stereotype threat

The circular definition and the inherent normative meaning of the words - 'what is considered normal' - is the rock-hard foundation of the stereotype.

It leads to both men and women adopting gender-stereotyped behaviour (whether they want to or not) under the pernicious influence of 'stereotype threat'. People usually want to fit in, be appropriate and be considered 'normal.' This means a person can (unknowingly) change how they behave because they fear that unless they adhere to their gender norms, their social identify and their value as a person is under threat.

Source: Bag of tricks

For example, research links the threat of being seen to violate gender norms with women’s under-performance in maths and leadership aspirations. 

Likewise, research showed that men performed more poorly when decoding non-verbal cues if the test was described as designed to measure 'social sensitivity' a term considered a 'traditionally feminine' skill. However, when the task was introduced as an 'information processing test', men did much better. No threat to their gender identity, no need to change their behaviour.

Stereotype threat goes well beyond research; there is a fierce resistance among many who write about gender, saying things like 'attempts to feminise men will fail'. This really means 'attempts to make men into women will fail.' Saying, 'I think men should be more like women' (and vice versa), is interpreted as 'I think men should be not real men' (and vice versa). 

This is the result of talking about human traits and behaviours with a dichotomy of normative gendered adjectives. 

For example, if vulnerability is normatively a feminine trait, then a man who feels vulnerable might be accused of 'being a woman', and definitely not a 'real man'? (Men report fear that they are not 'really a man' if they don't act as though they are strong all the time, so they hide their feelings.) Among those men who eschew a whole swathe of traits and behaviours as 'traditionally-feminine' and therefore 'not okay for a man', the idea of being 'more feminine' or 'more like a woman' won't get any traction. The barriers come up to protect our personal identity. So, yes, it will fail.

I'm okay, you're okay; we're both human

But not just those men. It's all of us. I don't like my excellent map reading skills described as 'like a man'. I don't like the inference that I am not a real woman. I don't appreciate it when people compliment my enjoyment of DIY as 'amazing for a woman' or mock my male partner as 'not much of a man' when they see me putting the rubbish bins out on the street.

Each of us needs to be affirmed that we are okay, and our sex and gender are key in how we see ourselves in the world. We each want to feel safe and acceptable. So, if our traits and choices are described by words that imply (or directly state) that we are not a real man/woman, we don't like it.

To me, the issue seems more extreme for men, due to feminism expanding previously restrictive ideas about ways to be a woman somewhat, but not having much success at expanding ideas about ways to be a man. The constraints around masculinity seem tighter and more rigid. 

But the constraints of a false dichotomy of human behaviour and traits apply to everyone. 

We lack words to discuss gender without implying criticism 

Those who experience a deep conflict between what society says someone of their biological sex 'should be' and what they want to be and how they see themselves, tend to see gender itself (i.e. the concept of social identity) as THE problem. They consider that gender results in emotional and social restriction, limits on personal freedom, lack of authenticity, stifling of individuality, etc. They want things to change.

But WHY would anyone else change? What rationale can those who want a post-gender future provide to the rest of us to hold less of a 'traditional' masculine or feminine gender identity? What does any suggestion that men/women need to be more 'like each other' have as its basis? Just criticism; criticism of men and women for being the way they are that is implied in using normative gendered adjectives.

And criticising someone is never a great starting place to encourage them to think about making a change, even change that might benefit the individual.

Sigh.

It is gender or is it seeing human traits as a dichotomy?

Having social roles and a gender identity is not the problem; humans actually need a sense of their role and place within their society. The problem is the dichotomy of two gender roles rigidly enforced by society and our own fear of not being seen as acceptable. Being restricted to one of two gender roles stifles normal human variety and needs.   

If we can only describe our human behaviours traits as masculine or feminine, we are stuck in the normative definitional circle of 'normal gendered behaviour = real man/woman = normal gendered behaviour = real man/woman = ...', and on and on.

But I've been wondering: does gender have to be foremost in our way we think about being a person? Is placing masculine/feminine as the top of two columns to organise all traits, behaviour and social roles the only way to conceptualise human traits, e.g. this trait (e.g. caring) is feminine, that trait (e.g. aggression) is masculine.

Surely there must be another way to talk about human traits and behaviours that doesn't start with a reference to the sex and gender of the people exhibiting them. A way to talk about the multiple facets that make any person who he or she is, without conceptualising human traits as based on a dichotomy of 'traditional' gender differences. And without saying they are maybe not a 'real' man or woman if they have the 'wrong' traits.

In Part 2, I present a suggestion I think could help break the circular definition and the stereotypes.



Images used under Creative Commons

• Ribbon by the author
• Circle: Pixabay.com [Public domain]
• Research: Bagxofxtricks [CC BY-SA]