Should Essentialism Be Used To Explain Gender Behavior And Classification?

I am not convinced that the theory of essentialism can be used to explain gender behavior and classification. In high school, I learned that essentialism stipulates that identity is dependent upon a set of ascriptive characteristics, such as sex, height, and weight. This is problematic first in that it fails to account for the classification of individuals lacking these ascriptive natures, such as members of the Trans community. It implies that a M-F individual is in fact not female, given her former sex. We have been taught that this is wrong; this individual is, indeed, female, as she has undergone a change. Essentialism, in essence, leaves little room for change.

Furthermore, essentialism is problematic in that it creates models of behavior. That is, males are expected to act in a way completely distinct from females. Indeed, while females are nurturing, calm, and subservient, males are brazen, aggressive, and unemotional. It creates a standard, and those that fall outside of the standard are considered anomalies. In reality, however, it seems more likely that those that fall within the standard are anomalies. Nobody is just one thing. You can be both brazen and nurturing, depending upon the circumstance. I do not believe that these kinds of traits are dependent upon physiological attributes, and

While I don’t think that gender plays any real role, I certainly believe that expectations of gender can play a part. Let’s face it, women are stereotypically portrayed as timid. Whether it’s true or not, it’s a concept that has invaded our communities. Thus, I expect that women will react as they believe they are expected. They make seek resolution for both parties by playing peacemaker. Furthermore, they may be less likely to enter a conflict, as they feel that it is not their place to do so. They make have lower expectations of themselves and thereby hold