From Ben's Writing

An excerpt from this was submitted in a desperate attempt to get a scholarship

I think we over-stress the importance of gender as a non-biologically tied entity. If we were to find just one case where a gender role was totally or partially dependent on biology, the entire line of argument would be void. When we speak of gender and gender roles as social constructs we intend it to mean not that they do not exist, but rather that the reasons for them existing in the first place may no longer be present. For instance, we may find that it was logistically impractical for women to be sent out hunting since we could not afford to lose their reproductive power in the case of them being injured and or killed. A single man could inseminate a large group of women, but a single woman can only produce so many offspring. Thus we can, in a oversimplified way, explain why our society might be structured in the way that it currently is. Where women confined to the home task, etc. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this is a reasonable way of explaining the current state of affairs.

We also make the point the gender is not biologically tied. That is to say, there is nothing in our biology, which suggests that we need to fill the roles that we do. For instance, there is nothing biologically unique or novel about females that make her more capable of nurturing. Granted, it seems to make intuitive sense that women might be better nurturers because they bare the children, except that there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case.

What I find interesting is that this distinction between the causes must be made. It seems counter to most intuitions that gender and biology are not related, yet once it has been explained, it is hard to think of it any other way. I wonder what difference it would make if these roles were biologically based. The whole thrust of the above argument is that they are not, but more importantly that the environmental constraints the brought about these roles in our predecessors are no longer existent. The same argument could be used if gender was biologically based.

Our biology is a product of random mutations, selected for and against by natural selection — in the end, we retain those traits that are more capable of better existing under the environmental constraints imposed on them. What happens when we no longer have those constraints? Our biology does not instantly cease to function in the way it had before. It is not until through further mutation and naturally selective trimming that they might be dispensed of. Could it not then be said that the anti-gender roles argument would be just as powerful if these roles were biologically based? Hence, even if gender were biologically tied, if the environmental necessity of these roles was no longer required, then wouldn't we arrive at the same conclusion, that these roles are fabrications? Not, in this case, of our society, but rather, of our biology.

Having said all this, it could be argued that if these roles are biologically based, then those better equipped to fill these roles, biologically, should; otherwise, we may be doing some harm. For example, if it were that nurturing was an innately female trait, then it would be a disservice to her children if that father were to raise them (assuming of course, that a more nurturing parental figure results in a better, more well adjusted child | whatever that means.) However, if it were that women were innately more nurturing, it would be due to some advantage that that trait gave their sex (or our population). Yet if the reason for the adoption of this trait was no longer present, then there is nothing to say that anyone is worse off if we do not abide by it — since the reason it was important to abide by it is no longer present.

Further Ideas

A similar arguement was made for homosexuality, try finding the reference and draw parrallels to it (it is in my philosophy book ...)
Add testosterone example, and how it influences 3D/visual perception
Find an accepted reason why our society might be structured the way it is ... i.e. why men are in charge.
Steven Pinker argues that opposition to racism is based on moral, not scientific assumptions, and is not vulnerable to being disproved by bioscientific advances. "The case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable. It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups...".^[1] Pinker suggests that intellectual life may not at present be prepared to deal with this area of inquiry.^[2] (From: Race and intelligence|June 26 2006). "The Lessons of the Ashkenazim: Groups and Genes". The New Republic 234 (4771): 25-28., p. 2 end</ref> (From: Race and intelligence]])

Notes