Sex vs Gender: A Biological Location for Gender, not Sex.

Abstract

The origins of bodily sex are well understood but consensus on origins for gender are missing. While gonadal sex and sexual orientation are accepted as emanating from genetic and hormonal templates, gender’s existence, when it is acknowledged, currently has so far emanated from either social origins or a nebulous ‘somewhere’ in the brain. Although the characteristics of sex-related behavior relative to the physicality of reproduction are clearly dimorphic, other cognitive behaviors relative to reproduction have not been explicitly identified and presented. This article synthesizes important research to present a biological location of gender as opposed to sex. These cognitive behaviors can be differentially linked with reproduction throughout the lifespan. A physiological location for gender in the human phenotype may help advance this research further.

21st Century neo-androgyny: A measure of de-gendered androgyny.

“…However, as we noted, the social push to adopt this nebulous androgynous identity may threaten an individual's inner sense of self and supress individual effectiveness (Carlson, 1995). By not distinguishing between innately sexed behavior relevant to reproduction (Woodhill & Samuels, 2021) and non-innate or acquired behaviour (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) in the androgynous mix, traditional models of androgyny proposed, by default, that it consists of their ambiguous combination. By presenting androgyny as this combination of fixed (innate) and flexible (learned) behaviors, traditional models proposed some emasculation of men and 'masculation' of women.…”

“…The implications are the original categorical constructs and measures of psychological androgyny [such as the BSRI, the PAQ, and the EPAQ], are likely theoretically ungrounded (Ruscio & Ruscio, 2008;Morawski, 1987). While it is valid to ask to what extent are reported innate differences between the sexes due to physiological differences (the intrauterine organizational effects of genes and hormones), and to psychosocial factors (activational effects of the post-natal environment), it can be said with some confidence that factors such as genetics, hormones, and epigenetics (how nurture shapes nature) act in parallel to produce sex differences in some reproductive behavior in both the brains and bodies of males and females (Woodhill & Samuels, 2021;Fernandez et.al., 2018;Chaplin, 2015;Diamond, 2013;Rice, Friberg, & Gavrilets, 2012). With similar confidence it can be said the remainder of behavior associated with the general cognitive functions of reasoning, organization, and the execution of complex thoughts, including levels of intelligence, remain a mosaic (Joel & McCarthy, 2017;Jones & Lopez, 2014), and as such need be the only behaviors relevant to the theory of psychological androgyny.…”

“…A more contemporary view of identity has the categories of male and female as 'fuzzy' (Haslam, 2002); that is, there are not two distinct categories of sex and gender. Instead, these are presented as gradations of the variables associated with all people generally, as linear and continuous (Carothers & Reiss, 2013), or circular and continuous (van Anders, 2015), or canalized (Woodhill & Samuels, 2021).…”