Sex/Gender: Historical Development, Key Theories, and Contemporary Debates
Notes on Sex/Gender (Mara Viveros Vigoya)
Purpose and scope
Traces the modern concept of gender as a distinction between biological sex and social gender.
Emphasizes gender as a historically situated, culturally constructed category developed through feminist scholarship and other disciplines.
Distinguishes between two strands: the historical development of gender and its political/epistemic uses in feminist theory.
Historical antecedents and early developments
Margaret Mead (1935): demonstrated social/cultural variation in masculine/feminine roles; argued for the arbitrariness of gender classifications and rights to express individuality; did not question the hierarchical status of men vs. women.
Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex, 1949/1953): women as Other, not natural, produced as a historically variable cultural project; famous line: “One is not born, but becomes a woman.”
1940s onward: medical discourses on gender in the US linked to explanations of sexual deviance; John Money introduced “gender roles” in his doctoral work and used gender concepts in attempts to normalize intersex conditions; Money argued sexual behavior/orientation lacks innate basis but did not deny biological determinism entirely.
Robert Stoller (Gender Identity): differentiated sexual identity (belonging to a biological sex) from gender (product of socialization); key work: Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity (1968).
Ann Oakley (Sex, Gender and Society, 1972): radicalized the use of gender as learned, non-automatic; helped denaturalize sex; critical shift toward viewing gender as a cultural construction.
The Sex/Gender Dyad and early feminist debates
1970s-1980s debates framed nature vs. culture and cultural variability of gender roles; foundational US feminist anthropology works (Rosaldo 1974; Ortner 1974; Rubin 1975).
Sherry Ortner (1974): linked women’s subordination to the symbolic association of nature with women and culture with men, privileging culture over nature.
Michelle Rosaldo (1974): subordination rooted in public (men) vs. domestic (women) sphere; public male domain privileged over private.
Gayle Rubin (The Traffic in Women, 1975): reinterpreted kinship and incest taboo via the “sex/gender system”; argued marriage/exogamy reorganize social relations to subordinate women; defined gender as a socially imposed division of the sexes and a product of social relations of sexuality.
Rubin’s broader claim: sex/gender system transforms males/females into “men” and “women,” enabling completion of identity through pairing; gender reflects social relations of sexuality and not mere natural categories.
Debates between “equality feminists” (early 1980s) and “difference feminists” (late 1970s onward): equality feminists sought to abolish difference to achieve equality; difference feminists argued for re-evaluation of femininity and the value of feminine contributions.
Carol Gilligan (In a Different Voice, 1982): argued that male-centric universal norms overlooked contextual and care-based reasoning; supported the view that biology and social inequality are not natural inevitabilities.
Emergence of “gender as cultural elaboration of sexual difference” enabling critique of social inequality; many feminists defined gender via sex but contested the temporal/logical primacy of sex over gender ( Rubin; later materialist feminists argued for social construction of sex as linked to class and power).
Materialist feminism vs psychoanalytic feminism (France) and the shift beyond binary thinking
French debates around work and sexuality: psychoanalytic feminists vs materialist feminists.
Luce Irigaray (1974/1985): critiqued phallocentric psychoanalysis; argued for the re-articulation of feminine sexuality and denounced Freudian/Lacanian male-centered viewpoints; highlighted the repression of the feminine through male-dominant codes.
Materialist feminists argued that sexuality and gender are historical, social, and arbitrary; insisted that women’s oppression is rooted in social class and material relations with men; asserted that “women” are a social group oppressed by the male class.
Tensions between these strands: divergent diagnoses of causes and strategies for change; some scholars attempted to bridge work and sexuality (e.g., advertising and labor concepts) later on.
In the US, debates about equality vs difference were often framed through liberalism and object-relations theory (Chodorow), rather than Freudian/Lacanian psychoanalysis; some criticized the simplification of equality/difference as a binary opposition.
Conceptualizations of gender as a multidimensional construct
Sandra Harding (1983): gender as a meaning-making category, organizing social relations and shaping personal identity.
R. W. Connell (1987, 1995) and other scholars: gender as a structure that orders social practice; interacts with race, class, nationality; gender relations are part of the broader social structure.
Joan Scott (1986): gender as constitutive of social relationships based on perceived sex differences; four interrelated elements: symbolic, normative, institutional, and subjective aspects; gender as a primary signifier of power relations.
Hawkesworth (1997) and Varikas (2006): emphasize complexity and multiple logics within gender; need to avoid overstating gender’s explanatory power.
The rise of multidimensional definitions allowed analysis of power relations and social structures beyond gender, including race, class, and nation.
The rise of masculinity studies and men in gender theory
Initially, feminist work focused on women; by mid-1970s, “men’s studies” emerged in several regions, including Australia and the US.
Michael Kimmel (1992, 2009): two orientations of masculinity studies: allies of feminism (linking masculinity to power and urging men to recognize their power) vs autonomous masculinity studies (supporting men who feel disempowered).
Australian feminist R. W. Connell (1995): criticized the field for lacking a coherent science of masculinity; called for viewing masculinity as a structure of social practices, not an isolated object.
Éric Fassin (Fabre and Fassin 2003): traditional masculine domination vs reactionary modern domination; modern domination arises in response to feminist and LGBTQ movements and challenges to patriarchal order; backlashes are a response to perceived losses of power.
Kimmel and Fassin emphasize that much men’s violence is tied to perceived power loss, not inherent male nature.
Sex and sexuality; gender vs sex; biology as a political arena
Feminists sought to separate women from nature and place them in culture; contested reductionist biology that claimed sex as a fixed natural category.
1990s: sex conceptualized in relation to biological materiality but increasingly seen as dependent on social discourses; gender precedes sex or constitutes it in social reality.
Shift from anatomo-physiological framing to discursive framing; use of rhetorical figures (e.g., synecdoche) where genitalia identify sex, which becomes exterior signs of gender identity.
Judith Butler (1990a, 1993a) highlighted that gender is deeply entangled with biology and heteronormativity; the nature/culture dichotomy persisted in gender/sex distinctions and influenced sexuality regulation.
The linkage of gender and sexuality became so tight that critique of sexuality as a separate domain became necessary; subsequent debates explored sexuality as a distinct field with its own politics.
Early feminist sexuality debates centered on bodily autonomy: 1970s slogan “my body is mine”; Adrienne Rich argued compulsory heterosexuality as foundational to women’s oppression; Wittig argued heterosexual contract constructs women as natural property of men; Rich proposed a Lesbian Continuum to destabilize heterosexual centrality; Rubin (1984) offered nuanced critiques of anti-porn feminism and pro-sex liberalism, advocating an autonomous theory of sexuality that recognizes different forms of oppression.
Theoretical challenges to universalized gender and the rise of postcolonial and transnational critiques
Third-wave/feminisms since the 1990s foregrounded diverse sexualities and deconstructed strict gender binaries; emphasized trans, intersex, gender-nonconforming identities; questioned medicalization and pathologization of trans identities (Stryker, Whittle; Califia).
Butler (1993b) noted gender’s normative character and its openness to transgression; trans activism and queer critiques challenge homonormativity and seek to reframe minoritarian identities as critique of majoritarian norms.
Latin American queer studies emerged in dialogue with feminists to address local realities and transnational connections; the approach connects gender/sexualities with local, regional, and diasporic contexts.
The open mesh of gender possibilities is used to critique monolithic identities and to promote plural, polycentric understandings of gender and sexuality.
Critiques of universalized accounts of gender; essentialism, postcolonial and global south perspectives
Feminists of color argued against a single universal feminine subject; binary oppositions (masculine/feminine, human/machine) were overly simplistic.
Haraway (cyborg) and Mohanty (Third World women) pushed against essentialism and argued that Western feminism often misrepresents non-Western women; warned against “orientalist” representations that legitimize Western superiority.
Chandra Mohanty (1988) criticized ethnocentric analyses of Third World women; warned about “orientalist” discourses that portray Third World women as uniformly oppressed.
Trinh T. Minh-ha (1987) cautioned about discursive colonization and helpless representation of women of color; argued for diverse voices that resist framing by Western paradigms.
Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyěwùmí (1997): argued gender does not operate identically in all cultures; Yoruba social organization emphasizes seniority, not gender; language may not mark gender as a primary social category.
Bibi Bakare-Yusuf (2003): critiques Oyěwùmí’s conclusions and highlights the need to distinguish language meaning from social reality; questions simplistic readings of Yoruba power structures.
Hazel Carby (1987) and Hortense Spillers (1987): Black women’s oppression cannot be fully explained by whiteness-centered models; slavery created different social categories for Black women, not the same “woman” as white women; calls for Black feminist discourses and self-representation.
Segato (2003) and Gloria Wekker (1997): African diasporic religions show gender/sex/biology as interwoven and not strictly binary; orixás studies challenge family-centric Brazilian norms; two-sex model is a cultural construct rather than universal truth.
Lugones (2008a, 2008b, 2010): coloniality of power extends to gender; decolonizing gender requires recognizing oppression and resistance of colonized women; gender as a category emerged within European epistemic matrices; gender must be reinterpreted to include experiences of colonized women; resistance is strategic and context-specific, not monolithic.
Spivak (1985, 1987): cautions against “representing” subaltern women; strategic essentialism can be a politically practical tactic to mobilize for change, despite risks of essentializing identities.
Donna Haraway (1991): cyborg as a metaphor to think beyond essentialist categories and to explore hybrid identities; used to critique fixed gender binaries.
Globalization, neoliberalism, and coloniality in gender politics
The era of globocentrism (Coronil) describes the shift from Eurocentrism to global power networks; neoliberal globalization affects gender through: masculinization of work in multinational corporations, cyberspace gender/race dynamics, care-work expansion, maquiladoras, call centers, and violence in contexts of trafficking and conflict.
The gendered effects of global capitalism include divergent outcomes: some gains in human rights and diversity, but deepening inequalities across gender, race, and class; new forms of gendered labor and violence emerge.
Feminist epistemologies of the Global South argue for context-specific theories that address local realities and resist imposing Western frameworks; emphasize comparative and relational praxis in a transnational context.
Key concepts and terms (definitions and implications)
Sex/gender system (Rubin, 1975): a socially constructed system that organizes kinship, marriage, and gendered roles; transforms individuals into “men” and “women” through social relations of sexuality; central to understanding gendered power structures.
Patriarchy (Delphy, 2001): system of gender-based subordination rooted in economic relations; women defined as a class through unpaid domestic labor; complexe power relations between men and women structure gender.
Rapport social de sexe (social relations of sex): inseparable term in the sexual division of labor; an episteme tying gender, sex, and power together.
Two-sex vs one-sex models (Laqueur, 1990): classical shift from the one-sex model (feminine bodies as lesser versions of masculine) to a two-sex model (male/female as distinct, determined by anatomy and biology); biology historically naturalized a gendered order.
Gender as performative and constitutive (Butler): gender norms are enacted and can be transgressed; gender is linked to heterosexual norms in many feminist theories; gender is not fixed but open to disruption.
Strategic essentialism (Spivak): pragmatic use of essentialist terms to mobilize political action, acknowledging risks of reinforcing essentialist thinking.
Oppositional consciousness (Sandoval): activists who read power relations across race, class, and gender to form a political identity that resists hegemonic norms.
Coloniality of power (Quijano, Lugones): power structures rooted in colonial histories continue to shape gendered and racial hierarchies globally; gender analysis must account for colonial legacies and resistance.
Orixás (Segato): gender/sexuality relations in Afro-Brazilian religious contexts challenge Western binary notions of gender; religious practice can destabilize conventional family structures and social norms.
Black feminism and intersectionality (Carby, Spillers, hooks, Lorde, etc.): emphasizes that racialized oppression shapes gender dynamics; Black women experience oppression differently due to histories of slavery and racialized labor.
Queer theory and trans/queer critiques: challenge binary gender norms and heteronormativity; emphasize fluid identities and the political potential of minoritarian identities.
Ethico-political implications and practical takeaways
Recognize that gender categories are historically contingent and culturally specific; avoid universalizing experiences of women or men.
Understand how gender intersects with race, class, sexuality, and nationality to produce diverse oppression and resistance patterns.
Acknowledge the politics of representation: avoid blanket claims about “women” or “men”; amplify voices from the Global South and marginalized groups.
Consider how globalization and neoliberal governance shape gendered labor, care-work, violence, and rights; address unequal power relations in policy and research.
Use multiple analytical lenses (feminist, postcolonial, queer, Marxist, socio-cultural) to avoid reductionist explanations of gender.
Connections to broader theories and fields
Links to foundational feminist anthropology and sociology (Ortner, Rosaldo, Rubin) and to gender theory debates (Harding, Connell, Scott).
Integration of psychoanalytic and materialist strands in feminist debates, with later critiques favoring materialist analyses of power and structure.
Cross-regional dialogues (North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, the Caribbean, and the Global South) reveal both shared concerns and divergent analytic frames.
The rise of transnational feminism and postcolonial critique reframes gender and sexuality within global capitalist contexts and local histories.
Notable quotes and references to key thinkers
Beauvoir: "One is not born but becomes a woman".
Rubin (1975): "the sex/gender system"—social apparatus transforming males and females into “men” and “women.”
Irigaray (1974/1985): critiques Freudian/Lacanian phallocentrism; emphasizes feminine difference.
Rich (1980): compulsory heterosexuality as a condition of women’s oppression.
Wittig (1971/1992): heterosexual contract as social structure that defines women through male relations.
Spivak (1985, 1987): critique of representation; strategic essentialism in mobilization.
Lugones (2008a, 2010): coloniality of gender; decolonizing gender requires recognizing cross-cutting oppressions and resistances.
Segato (2003) and Wekker (1997): gender/sex in Afro-Brazilian religions and Caribbean contexts; challenge Western binaries.
Mohanty (1988) and Trinh Minh-ha (1987): postcolonial critiques of Western feminist universalism and representation.
Notes on special terms and footnotes (selected summaries)
Footnote discussions cover: wave periodization critiques; linguistic gender in Latin languages; MacKinnon’s view on sexuality’s relation to feminism; Scott’s distinction between gender identity and sexual identity; the late-1990s expansion of gender perspective in Latin America; masculinities as a field; and methodological cautions in feminist research.
The notes also include definitions of terms like gender as a relational, structural category and references to the broader body of literature on gender studies and feminism across regions.
Summary takeaway
Gender is a dynamic, historically situated construct that combines social organization, power relations, cultural practices, and political struggles.
The field has evolved from essentialist or biologically framed views toward nuanced, multidimensional analyses that account for race, class, sexuality, national context, and global power structures.
Ongoing debates around universality vs. particularism, the nature of gender/sex, and the role of activism (including queer and trans movements) continue to shape contemporary theories and policies.
Practical applications for exam preparation
Be able to distinguish between sex (biological) and gender (social/cultural construction) and explain how scholars view their relationship.
Know major historical milestones and figures (Beauvoir, Mead, Money, Stoller, Oakley, Rubin) and their contributions.
Understand the difference between equality and difference feminism, and how these debates evolved in the US context.
Articulate the key tenets of materialist feminism vs psychoanalytic feminism, and how French debates framed work and sexuality.
Explain the concept of the sex/gender system and how it organizes kinship, marriage, and gendered labor.
Discuss the critique of universalism in gender theory by feminists of color, postcolonial feminists, and global South scholars.
Describe the role of trans, queer, and intersectional critiques in expanding our understanding of gender.
Connections to broader course themes
The material connects to foundational feminist theory, postcolonial critique, and contemporary debates about globalization and neoliberalism.
Encourages cross-disciplinary methods (anthropology, sociology, gender studies, philosophy, and political theory) to analyze gender in diverse contexts.
References and suggested further reading (selected)
Beauvoir, S. de. The Second Sex.
Rubin, G. (1975). The Traffic in Women.
Money, J., and Ehrhardt, A. (1972). [on intersex and gender roles in development].
Stoller, R. (1968). Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity.
Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, Gender and Society.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs, and Women.
Mohanty, C. (1988). Under Western Eyes.
Lugones, G. (2008, 2010). Colonialidad y género.
Segato, R. (2003). [Brazilian religious practices and gender].
Wekker, G. (1997). The Politics of Afro-Caribbean Gender.
Spivak, G. C. (1987). In Other Worlds.
Trinh, T. Minh-ha (1987). Woman, Native, Other.
Butler, J. (1990, 1993). Gender Trouble; Bodies That Matter.
Connell, R. W. (1987, 1995). Gender and Power; Masculinities.
Harding, S. (1983). Feminism and Methodology.
Scott, J. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis.
Fassin, D. (2003). [discussions on traditional vs. reactionary domination].