On the assumption that there exists, in our multifaceted American culture, any “truism,” possessing some respectable degree of empirical integrity, it would, inarguably, amount to an observation that the origin and sustenance of all bigotry, is ignorance.
This note concerns the specific subject of gender discrimination, similarly, founded upon ignorance, but in our view, having a different etiology, and manifesting several nuanced features, as compared with racial, religious and ethnic prejudices. These latter three categories of odious bigotry have been the subject of earlier posts, in which we attributed their felt origin to early childhood instruction, in “we” (our culture) and “they” (other cultures); leading to insularity, and ignorant mythology regarding the “other, and eventually, to hatred and conflict.
The intransigent and unenlightened belief in the existence of a strictly defined dichotomy of gender, would seem to constitute the essential foundation of gender bias. Such erroneous assumption appears to manifest its widespread, consistent and reductive confirmation, at some time subsequent to the parents’ choice of pink or blue color for their toddler’s clothing; even perhaps as early as the time of the stereotypical selection of toys and playthings; consistent with the confirmed assumptions and observations extant at the naming of the newborn. It should be noted, however, that the traditionally accepted mantra of “dimorphism,” [ two (clearly) distinct iterations of mankind (only)] has recently been scientifically and empirically, debunked, and demonstrably shown to be erroneous and reductive.
As the scientific and medical studies uniformly show, the establishment of the sex of an organism is usually by the inheritance, at the time of fertilization, of certain genes commonly localized on a particular chromosome. This pattern effects the development of the organism by controlling cellular metabolism and stimulating the production of hormones that trigger the development of sexual glands or organs. An excess, or a lack, of hormones, during embryological development, may cause an individual to develop the superficial appearance of one sex, while retaining the genetic constitution of the other. Information concerning the common and natural existence of intra-gender diversity, is readily available.
There is a plethora of authoritative, scientific and medical studies, which demonstrate the plain error in the popular, reductionist, “binary” theory of gender; and clearly demonstrating that there is, in reality, an empirical continuum, or broad spectrum, of variation, between the two classically designated categories. In our [personally required], brief readings on the subject, we came across scientists who claim to identify as much as 25 or 27 (!) different inherited genders. Reason would certainly appear to dictate a societal need for additional recognized categories of gender, as a far preferable alternative to continuing to perpetuate bigoted, and possibly damaging assumptions, about who is like who.
Tragically, as a not uncommon result of such purely reductive and ignorantly biased assumptions, innocent and undeserving lives have been, and are, adversely affected; at the workplace, socially, medically and legally solely by reason of their nuanced, “costly” [hormonal] inheritance