Nature vs. Nurture 2.0

I think I enjoyed reading Fausto-Sterling a lot better than I did Ogas and Gaddam. I feel like Fausto-Sterling approached the topic of sexuality in a much more open and willing to learn attitude, where as Ogas and Gaddam already had their minds set on men and women and the clear-cut distinctions between the two and why they act the way they do. I feel like while reading Gaddam I was reading material that I already knew, like we discussed in class, but while reading Fausto-Sterling there were new arguments presented on how gender is socially (and politically, in a sense) constructed. Fausto-Sterling was a bit more difficult to read in my perspective, because it was more scientifically and historically based and she put up some difficult questions and tested the beliefs of how gender has been socially constructed. She puts questions up against society that made me question not just the idea of men and women, but how instincts and biology shape gender and the meaning of a "man" and a "woman". One part that really stuck out in my mind was on page 23 when talking about Elizabeth Grosz, a feminist philosopher. Fausto-Sterling states, "She believes that biological instincts or drives provide a kind of raw material for the development of sexuality. But raw materials are never enough. They must be provided with a set of meanings, a 'networks of desires' that organize the meanings and consciousness of the child's bodily functions." I strongly agree with this statement, because I believe that biology plays a role in everything, to an extent, which is defined here as the "raw material". Then, that raw material is used to create meaning; to create gender. The sex of someone is biologically there, it is the gender that can be created, and that is why I strongly agree with Grosz.

I think that Fausto-Sterling works as an intervention because she takes into consideration more of the social and political aspects of gender that Gaddam. I think that she expands on these issues and gives more logical reasoning that is more believable in my opinion. By testing questions of gender and society, it takes a bit of a "time-out" from Gaddam and looks into issue more deeply. I think that Gaddam looks at gender on the surface, and Fausto-Sterling looks at it much deeper.