Esstenialism, Social Constructionism and Division

Social constructionist theory contrasts essentialism, which states that sexuality and “human behavior is natural predetermined by genetic, biological or physiological mechanism and thus not subject to change,” (29 Vance). Essentialism is a likely to be a more widely accepted view of human beings around the world. On the other hand, Social Constructionism seeks to change our meaning of how sexuality is derived. “Culture and society construct seemingly stable reality and experiences,” (30 Vance). Our culture has a large effect on how we act, and thus has a great impact on gender, gender roles and sexuality. This leads to the question, does this theory leave room for choice of who we are? Or, does this mean that instead of biology determining our sexuality, does our culture choose for us?

Leslie Feinberg writes in Transliberation that every person should have the innate right to choose their gender and begin life as “gender neutral”. “I am very grateful to have this chance to open up a conversation with you to why it is so vital to also defend the right of individuals to express and define their sex and gender, and to control their own bodies,” (3 Feinberg). Feinberg proceeds to complicate this notion by suggesting a new movement, transliberation which she says will expand on the different ways to be a human being. She asserts that a person, like herself, can be neither man nor women. “This either-or leaves no room for intersexual people, born between the poles of male and female,” (7 Feinberg). Instead of letting these people living in purgatory, we should use their situations as a new opportunity to create something new. It is true that not only these “transgender” labeled people feel this way, but every person can feel like this, no matter if they feel masculine or feminine. “…I see individuals express their gender in exquisitely complex and ever-changing ways, despite the laws of [science],” (10 Feinberg). Every person has the opportunity to be different, and there really is no person that can fit a cookie-cutter definition of man or women. Feinberg does a wonderful job of not pointing the finger at women/men, and not dividing people into groups. She is able to include everyone, and helps point out our similarities rather then our differences. This leads to why looking at the ethics of research on the genetic component of sexuality has great importance. “Genetics can tell us what is normal and that the content of what is normal tells us what ought to be...” which would most definitely lead to people being categorized and seems differently (48 Schuklenk). Feinberg would disagree with this type of testing because of its unconcealed result for the entire population. Not only does everyone would feel the pressure to confine to what is normal, but the people whose genes are dissimilar would find that it is impossible for them to change, but they shouldn’t have to.