Is gender a biological or mental identity?

Mental

1 of 1

by Joseph Wigton

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The first issue that must be addressed with the subject of gender is what exactly are biological and mental identities. Biological identities form because an organism has evolved to ideally serve a specific role. These identifies involve clear physical distinction and specific ritual and seasonal mating.

To clarify this issue, many organisms are identifiable specifically by the distinction of gender. In these cases, the two genders could be confused by the novice observer as two separate species. Creatures like the black widow spider have a great variance of size, appearance, and function between genders. In such instances, there is often no social function within the species; thus, reproduction is the only force that bonds these creatures.

In such instances, there are rituals that revolve around mating. The female chooses a mate. The function of this process is specific to the evolution of the creature. The larger female cannot be forced to succumb and will sustain nutrition from the male. There are also seasons of reproduction that adhere to environmental and instinctual factors that are biological in nature. In essence, all attributes of gender and interaction are based on biological necessities revolving around reproduction.

Dolphins, however, have no secondary sexual traits. There is no visual sign of gender. It is only internally that they exist as male or female. Unlike the previous example, there is no specific mating period or ritual. Sexual activity is also not distinct to opposite genders. Masturbation and homosexual activity occurs. These attributes occur in social species to develop the mental attribute of closeness and intimacy.

Intimacy is developed socially between all members rather than biologically limited to cross gender interactions. Keep in mind that this applies specifically to gender and mating. Intimacy is biological in nature, but not in terms of gender for such organisms. This becomes an important distinction when moving on to primates. The biological union of higher mammals is social rather than gender based.

A group of primates, imagine gorillas, does not exist as a single family unit. It is not specifically the distinction of gender that has created the identify of the group. While there is clear evidence of secondary sexual features for these creatures, it must be considered how firm these limits are applied biologically. Is the role of gender based on situational and social actions that are mentally developed?

In the case of the males, a dominant male watches over and protects the group. On the surface, this appears to be a biological identity. In reality, it is a role mentally attributed to the largest male. Otherwise, there would be no submissive males in the group. Likewise, there would be no way of replacing the male. Assuming a biological connection, the submissive males should be hard coded without any ability to mentally make the transition to dominance.

In this perspective, it is best to view the human species. Three distinct previous examples have been made. The spider has a complete biological gender identify. The dolphin has almost no gender identity. The gorilla has a largely mental gender identify. It is clear that humans bare no connection with the spider. The question is where do humans fit between the two mammal groups?

In the case of the gorillas, there is still a biological connection to size and function. That may have been true in past stages of human society. In the not too distant past, females were favored based on attributes of mating rather than social function. Generally speaking, many modern females are ill-suited for childbirth. At the same time, most males have adapted to submissive social functions. Mating is also far less dependent on ritual or biological factors.

The only attribute that could be viewed as biologically inherited is the dominant male. This biological attribute identified the protector and decision maker in the group. The dominance of male social leaders is slowly fading away. Single mothers are prominent heads of individual groups. While the primate connection might seem like a good choice, there is really no relation left socially to humans.

Instead, humans inherit social identity above gender identity. Increasingly, there is less distinction between male and female. Traits that would have been repressed previously are allowed to blossom in the species. Dominance is a role that is filled by the most suited of either gender. The only factor left to biological identify is actual reproduction.

Biological identify in reproduction only matters to a species that is limited. Humans are not endangered. They also cover most of the earth. There is no natural factor that would biologically limit survival to clear cut boundaries. Rather, in a large population, it is social identity that benefits the species. Reproduction only serves a function in enough of the population to maintain equilibrium. Identity to the rest is inherent to intimacy, nurturing, and social harmony.

When there is no biological need for reproduction, there is no basis that any identify should be formed around gender at all. All attributes that carry over are mental attributed from past biological functions. In the future, it is likely that even these individual mental distinctions will give way completely to social constructions. The question isn't really whether gender is biological or mental. It is how far along is the species in leaving the classification behind and reaching a new stage of growth.

Learn more about this author, Joseph Wigton.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.