Analysis Of Deborah Blum's 'The Gender Blur'

Throughout my reading of Deborah Blum’s, “The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over?” I have to admit that I had some mixed feelings. My initial reaction upon first glance, was that the essay was very intriguing. The title was inviting, the topic was argumentative, and the opening was captivating. However, after reading further and analyzing it from a rhetorical perspective, I admit that I was disappointed. Although Blum did indeed demonstrate examples of each ethos, pathos, and logos appeals, filling her writing with facts after facts, the overall writing was not well put together.
When starting off this reading, I was engaged immediately. Giving credit where credit is due, Blum started off with an ethos appeal which remained

consistent throughout the rest of the essay. She very obviously did her homework when researching for her debate, however, this was also where her fault lies. I’ve read Blum’s essay at least five plus times, each time trying to determine what her direct thesis was, with no luck. I found a few different ideas that I considered could possibly be her thesis (none of which lied within even the first two paragraphs), however, some of these statement she declared were actually contradicting to each other. Blum’s position was never made clear of whether or not she thought that gender identification was linked primarily to culture and societal raising of children or if biology was primarily at play.
Blum ended a heartwarming story about her younger son’s stereotypical “dinosaur phase” with what I originally thought was her thesis statement saying, “I looked down at him one day (…) and I thought; This goes a lot deeper than culture.” (Blum 1). My immediate thoughts were that this would mean she felt that gender identification was primarily linked to the biology of a human. Which she went on to talk about in a number of different ways throughout the rest of her writing. However, she then went on almost immediately to express that, “(…) the ways we amplify those early differences in childhood shape the adults we become (…)” (Blum 2). After stating that her son’s love of the “blood – swilling dinosaurs” and dislikes towards the “wimpy dinosaurs” were based not on culture but his biology, she turned around to contradictingly say that the way society endorse our children’s likes and dislikes in their early childhood, shape the people they become.
As I mentioned before, Blum was very strong in her use of the ethos appeal.

Throughout her essay she stayed consistent in providing a number of facts, proving to her readers that she did her research in each topic she addressed. However, this was also where her fault lies. Blum started off a beginning paragraph saying, “Consider the following statistics: Crime reports in both United States and Europe record between ten and fifteen robberies committed by men for every one by a woman.” (Blum 3). This statement in appearance seems as if we are all “learning something,” however, it has no credibility to back it up. The following paragraph she started off saying, “Three fourths of men use guns in those killings; 50 percent of women do.” (Blum 4). Another statistic with no credibility. In another paragraph she begins, “Let me make a cautious statement about testosterone. It not only has some body building functions, it influences some behaviors as well.” (Blum 14). This statement alone contradicts many of her previous ideas, and when analyzed from a rhetorical viewpoint, once again has no solid credibility to back it up. In nearly every paragraph throughout the first half of her essay, Blum started off with a new statistic or uncommonly known fact, none of which having any sort of credibility tied to them. This means that her readers are just trusting that what she says is proven to be true which could or could not be the case. This does not devaluate the overall credibility of her arguments considering ethos is in fact a very estimable appeal in writing. However, in Blum’s writing, it was excessive and I began to question how creditable all of these facts

were.
Now this is not to say that Blum did not present any creditable research throughout her essay as well. She provided examples of logos appeals also. In one of her beginning paragraphs she starts with a statement from a behavioral endocrinologist saying, “‘There’s plenty of room in society to influence sex differences,’ says Mark Breedlove, a behavioral endocrinologist at the University of California at Berkeley and a pioneer in defining how hormones can help build sexually different nervous systems.” (Blum 54). In this specific passage, she credited a behavioral endocrinologist in which she references again later on in her writing. However, once again, from a rhetorical analysis perspective, when looking for logos appeals, we look for logical reasoning throughout a piece of writing. This is something Blum lacked. When reading this essay, although I did easy understand it, my mind felt scattered. Every idea she had you had to retain until later on in her paper if it was relevant at all. Many of Blum’s ideas, although informational, did not flow with each other.