Reply to comment

I read that New York Times article as well, and have some of the same doubts. On one level, some of the ideas presented in it are very practical; I, for one, would be very much in favor of lining up children in class by sneaker color instead of gender. But in the end, how much is that really going to help anything? Even if you take every possible step to discourage gender stereotypes in the classroom, kids who identify strongly with the opposite gender (or don't identify strongly with either gender) will still feel left out, because the world outside that small classroom is still very much divided in binary gender. I'm reminded here of a case from the 1960's where a boy who acccidentally had his penis cut off as an infant was raised as a girl for a time-the common belief then was that gender was a social construct and completely malleable for 18 months or so. But this "girl," Brenda, never felt "right" in a female body, was teased and had severe depression throughout childhood and adolescence, and eventually chose to live as a man again. Clearly in this case there was some sort of biological factor at work-if gender were completely socially constructed, "Brenda" should have had little trouble adjusting to female life. But how much of this identity is biologically based? And what specific biological factors are involved? There are probably people in the world who would reduce the gender identity issue to hormone and brain chemical imbalances, but I'm positive there's more than that. (I was definitely a Descartes supporter in class). How did "Brenda" instinctively know that she didn't belong in a female body? And for other children in that position...would medications to delay puberty or adjust hormones relieve the problem or only add to the confusion?