why isn't socialization tied to biology? i hope you don't mind if an ftm follows this blog, but i know i have a lot of trouble fitting in with cis men. and sometimes there are classes to help trans women adopt female mannerisms. it's very obvious how i was treated differently before and after transition and i do think feminism accurately describes the childhood i had even if i don't identify as a girl and was very uncomfortable with my body. socialization isn't chosen so i don't disagree with it
Let me post a different question. If gender socialization were rigidly deterministic, how could we account for the variety of social and subjective outcomes produced by it?
I’m not prepared to give a thorough overview of socialization. However, it’s clear that for many feminists, the actual nature of gender socialization is less important than its political use as a boundary marker for womanhood, for feminist authority, and for feminist priority. Any conversation about socialization needs to address this baggage first.
As it is, the concept of gender socialization has been distorted and ossified within radical feminism (especially) to fulfill two functions. First, to explain how people with a female birth assignment are meaningfully “women.” And second, to rationalize why trans women couldn’t be. Both represent the same project IMO, which is to define what and who is the subject of feminism or lesbianism (with all the political and social implications associated with that). Explanations of socialization have been tailored to produce the desired answers to these questions.
Defining “women” as a political or social position (e.g. a class within patriarchy) would bypass the problem of gender/sex essentialism, which many feminists rightly call into question. However, in an effort to limit this class position to “females,” radical feminists have re-linked it to anatomy through the concept of socialization. The result is a new gender/sex essentialism. Womanhood is identified in an essentialized result of “female socialization,” which is said to proceed exclusively and inflexibly from female sex assignment. A natural, rigid, biological distinction between “male” and “female” is uncritically affirmed as a basis for this assignment (and subsequent claims to womanhood).
With “female socialization” named as the maker of womanhood and linked intractably to sex assignment, it can then be used to disqualify trans women from womanhood. The logic goes that trans women are inherently male, therefore are male-socialized, therefore are embodiments of patriarchy and female oppression. Their bodies, presence in women’s or lesbian spaces, and very conceptual existence are framed as a (sexual) violation of “women” and as a reinforcement of patriarchy. If this were true, trans women would necessarily need to be eliminated as part of a feminist program.
I’m sure you’re aware of this loaded nature of “socialization.” What I’m hearing is that you want recognition for the way socialization has shaped you and dictated your childhood experiences, and you sense that a shift in the understanding of socialization could compromise your interpretation of your experience.
To be clear, interpreting FTM/trans men’s socialization isn’t a primary concern of this blog. But if we want to understand the process of socialization, we first need to think about what socialization is.
Just grabbing some sociological definitions from google, socialization is “the process of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society;” it’s “a learning process, one that involves development or changes in the individual’s sense of self.” What’s important here is that socialization is: 1) a learning process; and 2) related to subjectivity (an individual’s sense of self).
The learning process by which we internalize the values and worldviews of our society–and form a subjective location within the social matrix–is complex. Social learning in general is complex. It can involve both direct and indirect messages about gender. A parent encouraging a child to behave in some ways while scolding them for behaving in others, on the basis of whether the behavior is appropriate for boys or girls, sends a direct message about what boys and girls are supposed to be like. The parent is also sending the message that the child is/should be a boy or a girl, but that’s just one part of the lesson, and won’t automatically determine a person’s sense of self just because it is repeated.
Children (and adults) are also inundated with indirect messages about gender. We constantly witness gendered behaviors and interactions, and the responses they elicit. A child might witness how their mother interacts with their father and vice versa. They’ll see how adults interact with other adults and children of different genders, and how other children interact with each other. Gender and gendered interactions are depicted in media, in marketing, through divisions of labor, and in other areas. These interactions do not just broadcast messages about gender in isolation, but also signal how gender is constructed through race and class, etc.
The result is a complex system of gendered meanings, which we all encounter, learn, and (re)produce throughout our lifetimes.
How a gendered subjectivity and social location is developed in an individual must also be complex, and it’s a process that’s poorly understood. There is not a universal “female subjectivity” or “female experience of socialization.” Not only are our experiences informed by factors such as culture, race, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, religion, and class, but they are also personalized in terms of our immediate social and family environment. The structure of our family; the beliefs and values of our family members, mentors, and friends; idiosyncrasies in the way people interact with us–not to mention sheer random events in our lives–all influence our social experience and subjective development.
Furthermore, our own individuality must be taken into account. Our personality, neurotype, interests, beliefs, affinities, and mode of presentation (etc) can also affect what we are exposed to, who or what we identify with, how people interact with us, and what subjective effect our experiences have on us.
For example, I’m the oldest of three sisters. As pre-teens and teenagers, my sisters began to express an interest in makeup and clothes, and cultivated more typically feminine aesthetics, often with each other or with their friends. I’ve never been interested in makeup; it wasn’t pushed on us by my parents and it wasn’t a big deal among my friends. Consequently, I never learned much about it. Many of the other trappings of femininity are also a mystery to me, and I don’t relate to many images of feminine womanhood. Why did this aspect of socialization pass over me and not them?
Given the complexity of the learning process and the variability in individual subjective outcomes, I can’t conclude that socialization is tied deterministically to a single factor like biology or sex assignment.
That’s all I have to say about socialization for now. I hope it gives an idea of what my approach to gender will be on this blog.
