Gender rant which could have gone on and on.

Yesterday morning while waiting to go to work I found myself trying to keep myself occupied so I picked up the first thing nearby to flick through. The thing I picked up was Saturdays copy of The Daily Mail. I briefly flicked through the pages until I came across a story about a child, now named Livvy, who finished year 5 a boy and returned to school year 6 a girl. Having grown up through early childhood with a preference for girls toys, the colour pink and having long hair. It was decided to allow Livvy to live as a transgender girl full time, as opposed to only at home which she had done up until this point. Unfortunately Livvy and her family came under attack with her parents being accused of nurturing their Little boy incorrectly and 'confusing' him. At the beginning of year 6 for Livvy included an assembly held by the headteacher explaining Livvy's alternative lifestyle choice. What highlighted to me was that the headteacher defined Livvy's situation as being the result of a medical condition not unlike being disabled or having glasses. This was to ensure Livvy was not bullied by the other children while seeming to ensure that Livvy's situation is still understood to be a violation of what should have been. This is a classic example of the heterosexual imperative shaping western attitudes, where the two sexes; male and female, are understood to be binary opposites. This ultimately results in strict definitions of gender roles and since this is understood as 'nature' anyone who deviates from these gender guidelines is defined made into a problem or convalescent. I believe it to be a terrible shame that Livvy can only receive empathy from her peers as a medical anomaly.

This story reminds me of an essay I wrote for my final year, I had to assess the usefulness of the binary opposite model of sex relations. My conclusion was simply that they are not at all. Scientific study consistently finds that there is no hard evidence to suggest any differences between the sexes, with exception to reproductive hardware, there is no difference in natural abilities. Women aren't predisposed towards flowers, pink, motherhood, sensitivity or more suited to searching for berries etc, and men aren't predisposed towards fighting, math, machinery or hunting. These are just cultural norms assumed to be natural and unfortunately are reinforced with pop science accounts with no real supporting evidence. The truth is human bodies are not strictly dimorphic, there is much overlap between individuals in what are defined as male and female characteristics, to a point in which defining a distinct set of separate sex characteristics which are alternate to one another is over enthusiastic guesswork. As for Livvy she is not suffering from any medical condition of gender, she is simply daring to have a preference different from the overly strict and long out of date norm.

Hi Guys... (there is no one reading :-<)

Yet again I post filled with the desire and resolve to become a regular blogger, to voice my thoughts and feeling aloud hoping to find a discourse with others over matters, both trivial and salient. I have completed a degree in Sociology and am desperate to continue to keep my grey matter glowing. I have looked back over my previous posts and am embarrassed by the sentiment of immaturity it makes me experience. I have no strict theme for my blog, I will just write what happens to dominate my delicate mind. That said, I'm sure my thoughts will be lined with what my lecturer called the Sociological Imagination (after C. Wright Mills' work, something I strive to develop). Whether I'm managing to apply what I've learned or just getting carried away with an incomplete understanding of my chosen discipline will surely be revealed (and will cause me some anxiety).

Anyway I'll stop writing now, as I'm sure I will have begun to sound a fool.