In class we discussed how gender creates certain biological differences in both men and woman based in part on Judith Butler’s essay. For example men are usually going to be naturally stronger than woman, and that women are the only ones who can bear children. However in the modern day we are able to overcome some of these of these biological differences using surgeries and medicine. For example women could take steroids, which would increase the amount of testosterone they have allowing them to get stronger. I also read an article that in the near future men could possibly have surgery and drugs that would allow them to bare children. Is this kind of modification morally permissible? Is it morally permissible to ignore nature? I ask this question because I am wondering whether or not these scientific breakthroughs destroy the identity of both genders, and is that right? These scientific advances would seem to destroy the differences between sex and gender. If science could eliminate the difference in gender, should feminists support such it? It would remove most of the differences between men and women, and it would make the two genders harder to tell apart. It could eliminate oppression because anybody could be any gender. Science would provide a way for women to overcome biological differences, and be able to compete in the same job as men. The difference in gender could become ambiguous which might eliminate the stereotypes of men and women that society often forces people to adhere to. After all if both sexes had the same abilities, why would people discriminate in work places? Both people have the same abilities, so why assume that a woman can’t do a particular job.
Aristotle, the famous ancient philosopher and sexist, argued that there was natural law that should not be violated. Aristotle argued that what was true of nature should be true everywhere. He makes many arguments based off of observations that he makes between men and women. While the use of natural law usually applies to issues such as justice, he looks at nature to make most of his arguments about how life should be lived. He would argue that if it’s true in nature it should be true everywhere else. Therefore he would argue that these advances would therefore be immoral because it defies nature. However many women might argue that these breakthroughs will allow women to be free from what constricts them biologically. No longer would they have to be the ones to have children, everyone would be capable of the same things, and it would be harder to tell the difference between the two sexes. Wouldn’t this mean greater freedom for everybody?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These are interesting questions because you're right, if science begins to afford men the opportunity bear children then it does blur the lines of sex and gender, or does it? I think it would not so much blur the lines of gender and sex but one’s ability to indentify. I don't personally think that it will totally undermine the structure. There will still be the issue of privilege because if a man becomes a woman he is no longer a recipient of male privilege and if it became common knowledge that he was once a man then he would go on to experience alienation and this whole different experience of “otherness”.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether something like this should be accepted by feminists, I don’t know. I’d probably lean towards no because this sort of gender blurring doesn’t necessarily bring about the kind of equality that the feminist movement has been working toward because there is still the binary system of gender norms that is in place. Just because it becomes more acceptable for women and men to take on each other’s specified traits doesn’t mean that there will also be a change in the power dynamic. I still think that that men will still have certain rights that will be unattainable to women.