FIRST PRINCIPLES FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS TO GUIDE POLITICS AND POLICY NO. 63 | JUNE 30, 2017 Sex, Gender, and the Origin of the Culture Wars: An Intellectual History Scott Yenor Abstract Many Americans today have accepted what seemed inconceivable just a generation ago: that gender is artificial, is socially constructed, and can be chosen freely by all individuals. This notion—that biological sex can be will- fully separated from gender—originated in the arguments of influential radical feminists writing from the 1950s through the 1970s. The premises of their theories, in turn, have ushered in the new world of transgenderism. Yes- terday’s shocking theory has become today’s accepted norm, with more changes to come. Yet whether this new world will prove to be fit for human flourishing remains to be seen. any intractable controversies in today’s cul- philosophy assumed that society’s prevailing opin- Mture wars relate to issues of sex and gender. ions about men and women were grounded in sex so Americans disagree, for instance, about whether that gender corresponded to sex. Beauvoir demurred. marriage is limited to a man and a woman, who She drew a distinction between gender (society’s pre- can use which bathrooms, and whether we should vailing opinions about what man and woman should hope that mothers should take care of children—at be) and sex or biology (the seemingly immutable least in their formative years. These controversies characteristics of the body and closely linked psy- are emblematic of the inability to say what a man is, chological traits). There is no reason, feminists from what a woman is, or even whether stable sexual iden- Beauvoir onward would argue, for sex to be destiny: tities are linked to our bodies. A woman’s biology had seemed to direct her toward This confusion has origins in the revolution that family life and make her dependent on a husband. the French feminist Simone de Beauvoir initiated Such feminists promised to bring forth a new, after the Second World War. Before the publication independent woman who would overcome her gen- of Beauvoir’s The Second Sex in 1949, science and der. This new woman would no longer take her bearings from what her body or society suggested about her destiny. In this mode of thinking, gender This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/fp63 is merely an idea constructed to keep women in a The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE subordinate position. This critique claimed to show Washington, DC 20002 how biological realities and social mores contrib- (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org uting to womanly identity were neither necessary Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of nor healthy, and it posited a future where women any bill before Congress. would be free to define their identities without any FIRST PRINCIPLES | NO. 63 JUNE 30, 2017 reference to their bodies. A world of complete free- sphere of personal relations. Many facets of family dom would be a world “beyond gender”—a world in life have been roiled by the feminist effort to separate which no members of society would make assump- sex from gender and subsequent efforts to create a tions about an individual based on biology. world beyond gender and without preconceived roles. The feminist aspiration to create a world without In addition, the supposedly objective application gender, first articulated by Beauvoir in the 1940s and of liberationist science identifies even more socially later by American disciples such as Betty Friedan, constructed distinctions. Since society manufac- Kate Millett, and others in the 1960s, prepared the tures gender difference, the theory goes, gender can ground for a more radical vision in the 1990s by be unmade and remade by properly reconstructing scholars like Judith Butler, who extended the idea to society. This is the foundation of a world built on the include advocacy for transgender rights. liberation of the individual and the freedom to create The idea of a supposedly socially constructed an identity without social or biological constraints. gender foisted on all individuals is bound to cause intense debate and hence ever more radical calls to Feminism Before the Separation of Sex “deconstruct” gender in the name of greater auton- from Gender omy and creativity in human identity. The new lib- Feminist thinkers of all stripes today define erating philosophy would deconstruct or expose themselves against biological essentialism and its norms as arbitrary obstacles to healthy human iden- concomitant political and cultural patriarchy. Bio- tity. Taking things a step further, “queer theory,” logical essentialism alleges that the differing charac- derived from the post-structural thought of Michel ters and roles of men and women have a permanent Foucault, questioned the naturalness and necessity basis in sexual biology and innate psychological pro- of everyday practices of self-control of sexual pas- clivities originating in sex. Thus, according to this sions, the prominence of heterosexual norms, and theory, biological sex goes a long way in determining the binary conception of gender. how societies conceive of gender, with perceptions of The result has been a spiraling revolution in women as more passive and caring and less aggres- which what had seemed natural and possibly also sive and violent than men,1 more sexually modest or crucial to human identity is alleged to be extrane- less promiscuous than men,2 less physically power- ous, accidental, and repressive. From this revolution ful than men,3 and more interested in and affection- proceeds another level of confusion about extending ate with children than more daring, rough-and-tum- marriage to same-sex couples, gendered pronouns, ble men,4 among a myriad of other differences. transgender issues about the use of public restrooms The most influential defender of patriarchy on and locker rooms, the importance of fidelity to mar- such grounds during the 19th century was Charles riage, and any number of additional permutations of Darwin, who defended the sexual basis for gender such issues. on apparently authoritative, scientific grounds.5 This revolution has required ongoing readjust- Especially in The Descent of Man, published in 1871,6 ment on the part of government, as well as in public Darwin argues that males and females have differ- mores and even in the conception of language. It gives ent characters because they have different genetic rise to new opinions and sentiments, suggests new makeups derived from the successful procreative concepts, and modifies every aspect of life within the and survival strategies of genetic forbears.7 1. David P. Barash, Out of Eden: The Surprising Consequences of Polygamy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 27–33 and 42–45; Steven E. Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2004), pp. 134–158. 2. Barash, Out of Eden, pp. 60–72; Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, pp. 48–54. 3. Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, pp. 168–173; Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano, Playing with the Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 52–58. 4. Barash, Out of Eden, pp. 113–126; Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, pp. 190–204. 5. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. H. M. Parshley (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), pp. 6 and 23. 6. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998), pp. 617–622. 7. Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), pp. 139–140. 2 FIRST PRINCIPLES | NO. 63 JUNE 30, 2017 n Strong men capable of surviving gained sexual extending rights to women within America’s tradi- access to women capable of attracting men and tional dedication to individual rights and limited nurturing children—according to Darwin, the government.10 natural basis for the idea that men are aggressive The crowning achievements for first-wave femi- and women passive; nists lay in establishing a legal right for women to own property, legal acceptance for divorce, and ulti- n Men had to be sure of their progeny in order to mately the right to vote. If women had not previ- provide protection, so women at least affected to ously appeared interested in exercising such rights, be more modest and passive sexually—the natu- argued first-wave feminists, this apolitical appear- ral basis for the sexual double standard; and ance was traceable to society’s failure to protect such rights. They were concerned that, as John Stu- n Men provided for the family, while women spe- art Mill argues in The Subjection of Women (1869), cialized in caring for the children—the natural no society could yet know what woman actually is basis for the division of labor between the sexes. because “the whole force of education…enslaves [women’s] minds” to motherly and wifely sacrifi- Similar ideas are also found in the thinking of cial duties.11 The old system of coverture in which Sigmund Freud, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, women lost their legal identity within marriage had August Comte, and others. Each thought that women underestimated the capacity of women for citizen- are less inclined to run for political office, put career ship. Women and men could choose differently from before family, pursue wealth aggressively, or be sex- one another under this regime of greater freedom ually promiscuous.8 Otto Weininger even argues and independence.12 that the emancipation of women is a contradiction The legal framework for which first-wave femi- in terms, and many feminists influenced by Beau- nists fervently wished was established, more or less voir cite his Sex and Character as representative of throughout the Western world, during the first third this patriarchal scientific tradition.9 of the 20th century.