(Toplumsal) Cinsiyet İkiliğini Sorgulamak: Güncel Çalışmalar Ne Gösteriyor?

Abstract

İnsan türünün cinsiyet açısından iki zıt gruba ayrıldığı ve tüm bireylerin bu iki gruptan birine ait olduğu varsayımı “(toplumsal) cinsiyet ikiliği” olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu anlayışa göre cinsiyet biyolojik açıdan iki-biçimli (dimorfik) bir sistemdir ve dolayısıyla cinsiyetle ilişkili diğer özelliklerin de iki-biçimli olduğu varsayılır. Yani her bireyin ya dişi ya da erkek olarak doğduğu ve hormonlarının, beyin yapısının ve psikolojik özelliklerinin de buna paralel olarak şekillendiği kabul edilir. Öte yandan, bu varsayımın bilimsel geçerliliği, özellikle son 20-30 yıldaki ampirik ve meta-analitik çalışmalardan elde edilen bulguların etkisiyle giderek daha fazla sorgulanmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, bu yazıda, (toplumsal) cinsiyet ikiliği varsayımının geçersizliğini gösteren güncel araştırma bulgularının bütünlüklü bir şekilde sunulması ve tartışılması amaçlanmıştır. Söz konusu bulgular, insanlardaki cinsiyet olgusunun -ne biyolojik ne de psikolojik açıdan- ikili kategorileştirmeye sıkıştırılamayacak düzeyde çeşitlilik içerdiğini göstermektedir. Bu sebeple, ikili cinsiyet modelinin yerine, cinsiyet olgusunun çok-boyutlu, dinamik ve etkileşimsel doğasını dikkate alan alternatif yaklaşımların kullanılması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• toplumsal cinsiyet
• biyolojik cinsiyet
• cinsiyet ikiliği
• cinsiyet farklılıkları
• cinsiyet çeşitliliği

Questioning the Gender Binary: Insights from Contemporary Research

Abstract

The assumption that humans are divided into two opposing groups in terms of gender/sex and that all individuals belong to one of these two groups is called “gender binary”. In this view, sex is considered as a biologically dimorphic system, and therefore all gender-related characteristics are also assumed to be dimorphic. In other words, it is accepted that every individual is born either male or female and that their hormones, brain structure, and psychological characteristics are shaped accordingly. On the other hand, the scientific validity of this assumption has been increasingly questioned based on the findings of empirical and meta-analytic studies in the last 2-3 decades. This article aims to present and discuss current research findings that challenge the gender binary. These findings show that humans exhibit diversity that cannot be confined to a binary categorization – neither biologically nor psychologically. Therefore, instead of the gender binary model, it is recommended to use alternative approaches that take into account the multi-dimensional, dynamic, and interactive nature of gender/sex.

Keywords

• gender
• sex
• gender binary
• gender differences
• gender diversity

References

1. Ainsworth, Claire. “Sex Redefined” Nature 518 (2015): 288-291. https://doi.org/10.1038/518288a
2. Ansara, Y. Gavriel ve Peter Hegarty. “Cisgenderism in Psychology: Pathologising and Misgendering Children from 1999 to 2008” Psychology & Sexuality 3, no. 2 (2012): 137-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2011.576696
3. Alexander, Michele G. ve Terri D. Fisher. “Truth and Consequences: Using the Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex Differences in Self-Reported Sexuality” Journal of Sex Research 40, no. 1 (2003): 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552164
4. American Psychological Association (APA). Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People” American Psychologist 70, no. 9 (2015): 832-864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906
5. Archer, John. “Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Setting: A Meta-Analytic Review” Review of General Psychology 8, no. 4 (2004): 291-322. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291
6. Bettencourt, B. Ann ve Cyndi Kernahan. “A Meta-Analysis of Aggression in the Presence of Violent Cues: Effects of Gender Differences and Aversive Provocation” Aggressive Behavior 23, no. 6 (1997): 447-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997)23:6<447::AID-AB4>3.0.CO;2-D
7. Blackless, Melanie, Anthony Charuvastra, Amanda Derryck, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Karl Lauzanne ve Ellen Lee. “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Synthesis” American Journal of Human Biology 12, no. 2 (2000): 151-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2<151::AID-AJHB1>3.0.CO;2-F
8. Carothers, Bobbi J. ve Harry R. Reis. “Men and Women Are From Earth: Examining the Latent Structure of Gender” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104, no. 2 (2013): 385-407. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030437

9. Clarke, Victoria ve Virginia Braun. “Toplumsal Cinsiyet,” Eleştirel Psikoloji ed. Dennis Fox, Isaac Prilleltensky ve Stephanie Austin (İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 2012), 306-327.
10. DuBois, L. Zachary ve Heither Shattuck-Heidorn. “Challenging the Binary: Gender/Sex and the Bio-Logics of Normalcy” American Journal of Human Biology 33, no. 5 (2021): e23623. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23623
11. Eliot, Lise, Adnan Ahmed, Hiba Khan ve Julie Patel. “Dump the ‘Dimorphism’: Comprehensive Synthesis of Human Brain Studies Reveals Few Male-Female Differences Beyond Size” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 125 (2021): 667-697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.026
12. Else-Quest, Nicole M. ve Janet S. Hyde. Kadın Psikolojisi ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet: İnsan Deneyiminin Yarısı ve Daha Fazlası, çev. ed. Şeyda Türk (Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, 2021).
13. Else-Quest, Nicole M., Janet S. Hyde ve Marcia C. Linn. “Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis” Psychological Bulletin 136, no. 1 (2010): 103-127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053
14. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough” Sciences 33, no. 2 (1993): 20-24.
15. Fisher, Terri D. “Sex of Experimenter and Social Norm Effects on Reports of Sexual Behavior in Young Men and Women” Archives of Sexual Behavior 36 (2007): 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9094-7
16. Gettler, Lee T., Thomas W. McDade, Alan B. Feranil ve Christopher W. Kuzawa. “Longitudinal Evidence That Fatherhood Decreases Testosterone in Human Males” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 39 (2011): 16194-16199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1105403108
17. Goldey, Katherine L. ve Sari M. van Anders. “Sexy Thoughts: Effects of Sexual Cognitions on Testosterone, Cortisol, and Arousal in Women” Hormones and Behavior 59, no. 5 (2011): 754-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.12.005
18. Goldey, Kaatherine L., Lanice R. Avery ve Sari M. van Anders. “Sexual Fantasies and Gender/Sex: A Multimethod Approach With Quantitative Content Analysis and Hormonal Responses” Journal of Sex Research 51, no. 8 (2014): 917-931. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.798611
19. Gray, Peter B., Sonya M. Kahlenberg, Emily S. Barrett, Susan F. Lipson ve Peter T. Ellison. “Marriage and Fatherhood Are Associated With Lower Testosterone in Males” Evolution and Human Behavior 23, no. 3 (2002): 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00101-5
20. Gürel-Kayaoğlu, Aysel. “Dişi Beyin ve Er Beyin” Miti: Beyin ve Cinsiyet/Toplumsal Cinsiyet Tartışmaları,” Eleştirel Psikoloji: Yaklaşımlar, Gündemler, Tartışmalar ed. Umut Şah, Aysel Gürel-Kayaoğlu, Baran Gürsel, Doğa Eroğlu ve Eser Sandıkçı (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2022), 381-406.
21. Hamilton, Lisa D., Justin M. Carre, Pranjal H. Mehta, Nathan Olmstead ve Jeffrey D. Whitaker. “Social Neuroendocrinology of Status: A Review and Future Directions” Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 1 (2015): 202-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-015-0025-5
22. Hyde, Janet S. “The Gender Similarities Hypothesis” American Psychologist 60, no. 6 (2005): 581-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
23. Hyde, Janet S. “Gender Similarities and Differences” Annual Review of Psychology 65, no. 1 (2014): 373-98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057
24. Hyde, Janet S. “Sex and Cognition: Gender and Cognitive Functions” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 38 (2016): 53-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2016.02.007
25. Hyde, Janet S., Rebecca S. Bigler, Daphna Joel, Charlotte Chucky Tate ve Sari M. van Anders. “The Future of Sex and Gender in Psychology: Five Challenges to the Gender Binary” American Psychologist 74, no. 2 (2019): 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307
26. Joel, Daphna. “Male or Female? Brains Are Intersex” Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 5 (2011): 57. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2011.00057
27. Joel, Daphna. “Genetic-Gonadal-Genitals Sex (3G-Sex) and the Misconception of Brain and Gender, or, Why 3G-Males and 3G-Females Have Intersex Brain and Intersex Gender” Biology of Sex Differences 3 (2012): 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/2042-6410-3-27
28. Joel, Daphna. “Beyond the Binary: Rethinking Sex and the Brain” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 122 (2021): 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.11.018
29. Joel, Daphna, Zohar Berman, Ido Tavor, Nadav Wexler, Olga Gaber, Yaniv Stein, Nisan Shefi, Jared Pool, Sebastian Urchs, Daniel S. Margulies, Franziskus Liem, Jürgen Hänggi, Lutz Jäncke ve Yaniv Assaf. “Sex Beyond the Genitalia: The Human Brain Mosaic” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 50 (2015): 15468-15473. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509654112
30. Joel, Daphna, Alicia Garcia-Falgueras, Dick Swaab. “The Complex Relationships Between Sex and the Brain” Neuroscientist 26, no. 2 (2020): 156-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858419867298
31. Jonason, Peter K. ve Terri D. Fisher. “The Power of Prestige: Why Young Men Report Having More Sex Partners Than Young Women” Sex Roles 60 (2009): 151-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9506-3
32. Knight, George P., Ivanna K. Guthrie, Melanie C. Page ve Richard A. Fabes. “Emotional Arousal and Gender Differences in Aggression: A Meta-Analysis” Aggressive Behavior 28, no. 5 (2002): 366-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.80011
33. Lightdale, Jennifer R. ve Deborah A. Prentice. “Rethinking Sex Differences in Aggression: Aggressive Behavior in the Absence of Social Roles” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 20, no. 1 (1994): 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294201003
34. Lindberg, Sara M., Janet S. Hyde, Jennifer L. Petersen ve Marcia C. Linn. “New Trends in Gender and Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis” Psychological Bulletin 136, no. 6 (2010): 1123-1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276
35. Maney, Donna L. “Perils and Pitfalls of Reporting Sex Differences” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371 (2016): 20150119. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0119
36. Marwha, Dhruv, Meha Halari ve Lise Eliot. “Meta-Analysis Reveals a Lack of Sexual Dimorphism in Human Amygdala Volume” Neuroimage 147 (2017): 282-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.021
37. Petersen, Jennifer L. ve Janet S. Hyde. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on Gender Differences in Sexuality: 1993 to 2007” Psychological Bulletin 136, no. 1 (2010): 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017504
38. Rehman-Sutter, Christoph, Olaf Hiort, Ulrike M. Krämer, Lisa Malich ve Malte Spielmann. “Is Sex Still Binary?” Medizinische Genetik 35, no. 3 (2023): 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1515/medgen-2023-2039
39. Reich, Christian G., Michael E. Taylor ve Margaret M. McCarty. “Differential Effects of Chronic Unpredictable Stress on Hippocampal CB1 Receptors in Male and Female Rats” Behavioural Brain Research 203, no. 2 (2009): 264-269. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.05.013
40. Richardson, Deborah S. ve Georgina S. Hammock. “Social Context of Human Aggression: Are We Paying Too Much Attention to Gender?” Aggression and Violent. Behaviour 12, no. 4 (2007): 417-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.11.001
41. Ruigrok, Amber N. V., Gholamreza Salimi-Khorshidi, Meng-Chuan Lai, Simon Baron-Cohen, Michael V. Lombardo, Roger J. Tait ve John Suckling. “A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Human Brain Structure” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 39 (2014): 34-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.004
42. Saguy, Tamar, Michel Reifen-Tagar ve Daphna Joel. “The Gender-Binary Cycle: The Perpetual Relations Between a Biological-Essentialist View of Gender, Gender Ideology, and Gender-Labelling and Sorting” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 376 (2021): 20200141. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0141
43. Shelton, Jama ve S. J. Dodd. “Binary Thinking and the Limiting of Human Potential” Public Integrity 23, no. 6 (2021): 624-635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.004 Stone, Alison. Feminist Felsefeye Giriş, çev. Yonca Cingöz ve Bilge Tanrısever (İstanbul: Otonom Yayıncılık, 2016).
44. Şah, Umut. “(Anaakım) Psikolojide Cinsiyet ve Cinselliğin Özcü, İki-Kutuplu ve Normatif İnşası: Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirme” Eleştirel Psikoloji: Yaklaşımlar, Gündemler, Tartışmalar ed. Umut Şah, Aysel Gürel-Kayaoğlu, Baran Gürsel, Doğa Eroğlu ve Eser Sandıkçı (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2022), 359-380.
45. Şah, Umut ve Göklem Tekdemir. “Discourses of Psychologists on Sex/Gender in Turkey: A Qualitative Study” Asya Studies 5, no. 16 (2021): 151-161. https://doi.org/10.31455/asya.909345
46. Tan, Anh, Wenli Ma, Amit Vira, Dhruv Marwha ve Lise Eliot. “The Human Hippocampus is Not Sexually-Dimorphic: Meta-Analysis of Structural MRI Volumes” Neuroimage 124 (2016): 350-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.050
47. van Anders, Sari M. “Beyond Masculinity: Testosterone, Gender/Sex, and Human Social Behavior in a Comparative Context” Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 34, no. 3 (2013): 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2013.07.001
48. van Anders, Sari M. ve Neil V. Watson. “Social Neuroendocrinology” Human Nature 17, no. 2 (2006): 212-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-006-1018-7 van Anders, Sari M., Richard M. Tolman ve Brenda L. Volling. “Baby Cries and Nurturance Affect Testosterone in Men” Hormones and Behavior 61, no. 1 (2012): 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.09.012
49. van Anders, Sari M., Katherine L. Goldey ve Sarah N. Bell. “Measurement of Testosterone in Human Sexuality Research: Methodological Considerations” Archives of Sexual Behavior 43 (2014): 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0123-z
50. van Anders, Sari M., Jeffrey Steiger ve Katherine L. Goldey. “Effects of Gendered Behavior on Testosterone in Women and Men” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 45 (2015): 13805-13810. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509591112
51. Zell, Ethen, Zlatan Krizan ve Sabrina R. Teeter. “Evaluating Gender Similarities and Differences Using Metasynthesis” American Psychologist 70, no. 1 (2015): 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208