Sex vs Gender: Are We there Yet? A Biological Location for Gender, not Sex.

Abstract

Research to date has left unexplained what may seem indefinable-gender identity. This article synthesizes important research that has not previously presented a case for a biological location of gender in the human phenotype. While gonadal sex and sexual orientation are accepted as emanating from genetic and hormonal templates, gender's existence currently has so far emanated from a nebulous 'somewhere' in the brain. Recent hypotheses have argued there is no natural dichotomy of gendered behavior and proposed a merging of otherwise distinct categories for sex and gender into a mosaic of sex/gender (Joel & McCarthy, 2017; Joel et al. 2016; Joel, 2011). However, this seems to detour around nonphysical behavior relevant to reproduction. This paper makes an original case for the sense of gender as neurophysiological and specifically centered within the reproductive axis. This fits in well with this current understanding of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences on sexual identity (Joel et al., 2020) and with the earlier biopsycho-social approach (Eagly & Wood, 2013) now favored in research into identity diversity.

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

“…Non-dimorphic sex differences in the structure of brain regions involved in cognition, emotion, personality, (e.g., prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, amygdala) are presented in support of a heterogeneous male/female mosaic (Joel et al, 2015;Maney, 2014). Following the proposal for an innate signature of gender in the reproductive axis along with associated behavior (Tannett, 2020), the rest of male and female behavior can be regarded as more of a montage of sameness, where general behavioral variety is available to all individuals (Joel & McCarthy, 2017).…”

“…This current paper is based on the replacement of traditional categorical measures of androgyny with a statistically utilitarian dimensional or continuous one. This is significant in reflecting the recent calls to figuratively classify masculine and feminine behavior unrelated to reproduction as non-innate continua (Tannett, 2020;Carothers & Reis, 2013) and so becoming theoretically available to both sexes.…”

“…Second; with contemporary models of behaviour, we can split behaviour as measured by traditional androgyny into innate or learned. Those behaviors related to general cognitive functions are more flexible (Joel & McCarthy, 2017) and to those related specifically to the reproduction such as courtship, mating, empathy, aggression, and the rearing of offspring are innate and substantially fixed (Tannett, 2020). Thirdly; gender (Schudson et al, 2017;van Anders, 2015;Carothers & Reis, 2013), sex (García-Acero et al, 2020;Ainsworth, 2015), and sexual orientation (Savin-Williams, 2014), are no longer seen as categorical, rather, canalized as masculine or feminine (Sisk, 2016;Mustanski et al 2005).…”

“…Forth; traditional androgyny may be regarded as a threat to a person's integrity by its perceived impact on the inner sense of self (Weigel et al, 2020). In other words, the traditional notion may threaten one's inner sense of inborn essentially driven difference by claiming it needs be merged with those of the opposite sex, i.e., a merging of the tendencies stemming from the innate cognitive behaviours relevant to reproduction (Tannett, 2020).…”