Sex, gender, and sexuality are central to family life. Not only are they all involved in the partner(s) that we choose, but the construction of behaviors and roles related to gender are impactful to the operation of family life. Before we discuss their meanings, we will first acknowledge the socially constructed binary systems that influence society’s thinking about these topics.

Socially Constructed Binary Systems

Black and White. Masculine and feminine. Rich and poor. Straight and gay. Able-bodied and disabled. These are binaries.

A binary is a social construct composed of two parts that are framed as absolute and unchanging opposites. Binary systems reflect how this idea has become embedded in our culture, creating an exaggeration of differences between social groups until they seem to have nothing in common. An example of this is the phrase “men are from Mars, women are from Venus.” Ideas of men and women being complete opposites invite simplistic comparisons that rely on stereotypes: men are practical, women are emotional; men are strong, women are weak; men lead, women support. Binary notions mask the complicated realities and variety of unique human beings. They also erase the existence of individuals, such as multiracial or mixed-race people and people with nonbinary gender identities, who may identify with neither of the assumed categories or with multiple categories.

We know very well that men have emotions and that women have physical strength, but a binary perspective of gender prefigures men and women to have nothing in common. They are defined against each other; men are defined, in part, as “not women” and women as “not men.” Thus, our understanding of men is influenced by our understanding of women. Rather than seeing aspects of identity like race, gender, class, ability, and sexuality as containing only two opposing categories, conceptualizing multiple various identities allows us to examine how men and women, Black and White, and the like may not be so completely different after all, and how varied and complex identities and lives can be.

Understanding Sex and Gender

Although the words “sex” and “gender” are at times used interchangeably in social settings, scientists and sociologists make a clear distinction between these two terms. As we discussed in Chapter 2, a person’s sex refers to the biological category based on anatomy and physiology. This category is assigned at birth, most typically as male or female. A small percentage of the population (less than 1%) is born as intersex, meaning that there is a combination of primary and secondary sex characteristics that indicate both male and female features. In these situations, parents and medical professionals work together to make a decision about which sex to assign and whether any surgery is warranted. In the past, it was common for surgery decisions to be made by the doctor and parents as early as possible. But as scientific evidence and individual choice about gender have both evolved, this practice is now being questioned.

Gender, on the other hand, is the social expression of a person’s sexual identity. While sex is biological, gender has a biological component but is influenced by society. Each person develops their own gender identity. In the past, a binary gender system was accepted, meaning that people typically identified as male or female. You may be aware of people who identify as nonbinary, basically meaning that a person sees the binary system as too rigid and feels that their gender cannot be defined within a binary system. Gender expression is the pattern of behaviors that a person exhibits in the social world, especially as it relates to behaviors typically associated with boys/men, girls/women, or nonbinary people. Ideas about gender evolve over time, which reminds us that it is a social construction.

A popular phenomenon that began in 2008, gender reveal parties, is really about biological sex. At these events, parents-to-be gather with friends and family to reveal whether their in-utero fetus is a girl or a boy. Typically, the socially constructed ideas of color (pink for a girl and blue for a boy) are used to symbolize the sex of the baby. A cake, smoke bombs, balloons, or other festive objects are used to reveal the sex by cutting into the cake, releasing the smoke bombs or balloons, and so forth (figure 3.3). Often, the parents are surprised as well, having delivered the concealed medical information to a baker or event planner in advance.

As you can see, sex and gender are relevant to each other, but they have differing meanings. Because these terms often get confused, basic definitions are provided to highlight the basic differences.

Sex: One’s biological identity, based on anatomy and physiology, is female, male, or intersex.

Gender: The social expression of one’s biological sex. This includes gender identity, or which gender one identifies with, which can encompass women, men, nonbinary, and other developing terms, as well as gender expression, which is one’s outward expression of behaviors related to a gender category.

Gender Identity and Gender Expression

A binary gender perspective assumes that only men and women exist, obscuring gender diversity and erasing the existence of people who do not identify as men or women. A gendered assumption in our culture is that someone assigned female at birth will identify as a woman and that all women are assigned female at birth. While this is true for cisgender (or “cis”) individuals—people who identify in accordance with their gender assignment—it is not the case for everyone. Some people assigned males at birth identify as women, some people assigned females identify as men, and some people identify as neither women nor men. This illustrates the difference between the assignment of biological sex, which doctors place on infants (and fetuses) based on the appearance of genitalia, and gender identity, which one discerns about oneself. The existence of transgender people, or individuals who do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, challenges the very idea of a single-sex/gender identity.

Transgender people may or may not have surgeries or hormone therapies to change their physical bodies, but in many cases, they experience a change in their social gender identities. They may identify as nonbinary, gender fluid, or genderqueer, for example. Some may use gender-neutral pronouns, such as they/them, rather than the gendered pronouns she/her or he/his. As pronouns and gender identities are not visible, trans communities initiated a way of communicating gender pronouns by verbally asking and stating one’s pronouns (Nordmarken, 2013). These practices have gradually been adopted by the general public.

The existence of sex variations fundamentally challenges the notion of a binary biological sex. Intersex describes variation in sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that do not fit typical definitions of what is culturally considered “male” or “female.” “Intersex,” like “female” and “male,” is a socially constructed category that humans have created to label bodies that they view as different from those they would classify as distinctly “female” or “male.” The term basically marks existing biological variation among bodies; that is, bodies are not essentially intersex—we just call them intersex.

The concepts of “transgender” and “intersex” are easy to confuse, but these terms refer to very different identities. To review, transgender people experience a social process of gender change, while intersex people have biological characteristics that do not fit with the dominant sex/gender system. One term refers to social gender (transgender) and one term refers to biological sex (intersex).

The Social Construction of Sexualities

Sexuality, sometimes called sexual orientation, is the pattern of romantic and/or sexual attraction, feelings, and behaviors to others in relation to one’s own gender identity. First, let’s look at how social constructions affect our ideas about sexuality.

What does it mean to be “heterosexual” in contemporary U.S. society? As historian of human sexuality Jonathon Ned Katz shows in his book The Invention of Heterosexuality (1999), the word “heterosexual” was originally coined by Dr. James Kiernan in 1892, but its meaning and usage differed drastically from contemporary understandings of the term.

Kiernan thought of “hetero-sexuals” as not defined by their attraction to the opposite sex but by their “inclinations to both sexes.” Furthermore, Kiernan thought of the heterosexual as those who were attracted to both sexes and engaged in sex for pleasure, not for reproduction. Katz further points out that this definition of the heterosexual lasted within middle-class cultures in the United States until the 1920s, then went through various radical reformulations up to the current usage (Katz, 1999).

Looking at this historical example makes visible the process of the social construction of heterosexuality. First of all, the example shows how social construction occurs within institutions—in this case, a medical doctor created a new category to describe a particular type of sexuality based on existing medical knowledge at the time. “Hetero-sexuality” was initially a medical term that defined a deviant type of sexuality. Second, by seeing how Kiernan—and middle-class culture, more broadly—defined “hetero-sexuality” in the 19th century, it is possible to see how drastically the meanings of the concept have changed over time.

Typically, in the United States, in contemporary usage, “heterosexuality” is thought to mean “normal” or “good”—it is usually the invisible term defined by what is thought to be its opposite, “homosexuality.” However, in its initial usage, “hetero-sexuality” was thought to counter the norm of reproductive sexuality and be, therefore, deviant. The norm of reproductive sexuality (having sex to have children) in the 19th century defined what types of sexuality were regarded as “normal” or “deviant.”

To be a “heterosexual” in middle-class culture in the United States in the early 1900s was not something desirable to be. The very definition of “hetero-sexual” as deviant, because it violated “proper” reproductive sexuality. Like all social constructions, the meaning of “hetero-sexuality” has changed over time and will continue to change.

Heterosexuality is no more and no less natural than homosexuality or bisexuality. People—particularly sexologists and medical doctors—define heterosexuality and its boundaries. This definition of the parameters of heterosexuality is an expression of power that decides what types of sexuality are considered “normal” and which types of sexuality are considered “deviant.” Cultural norms define what is considered “natural.”

Heterosexuality is deemed “compulsory,” meaning that in our culture, all people are assumed to be heterosexual, and society is full of both formal and informal enforcements that encourage heterosexuality and penalize sexual variation (Rich, 1984). While we now know that there is not one binary contrast to heterosexuality, what range of sexualities exist? Just like gender, sexuality is neither binary nor fixed. There are straight people and gay people, but people are also bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, queer, and heteroflexible, to name a few additional sexual identities. In general, the idea of sexuality being seen on a continuum or other graduated model is now favored rather than the existence of a binary system.

The concept of attraction, with affection and romance rather than sex as an emphasis, has also emerged. Identities such as biromantic, heteroromantic, panromantic, and related terms are used by people to describe themselves. Sexual and romantic attraction, relations, relationships, and identity can shift over a person’s lifetime. As there are more than two genders, there are more than two kinds of people to be attracted to, and individuals can be attracted to and can relate sexually to multiple people of different genders at the same time or over a span of time.

Sexuality as Privilege and Oppression in Family Life

Compulsory heterosexuality plays an important role in reproducing inequality in the lives of sexual minorities in many aspects of their own and their families’ lives. For example, up until a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2017, same-sex spouses were not allowed to be listed on their child’s birth certificate in many states (Paven v. Smith, 2017). As of 2022, each state is still able to make its own laws about LGBTQIA+ discrimination in foster care, second-parent adoption, and parental presumption in same-sex relationships. Many states continue to explicitly allow discrimination within the foster care system and adoption placement or have no laws to prevent discrimination. Examples include:

• Not requiring training for foster parents regarding LGBTQ+ youth
• Not permitting second-parent adoptions for same-sex couples, regardless of whether their relationship is legally recognized
• Laws permitting discrimination based on sexuality in adoption or foster placement

In addition, gay men and lesbians have lost custody battles over children due to homophobia—fear, hatred, or prejudice toward gay people (Pershing, 1994). Media depictions of gay men and lesbians are few and often negatively stereotyped, but figure 3.4 illustrates the expressive joy of two people in love.

Heteronormativity structures the everyday ways in which heterosexuality is privileged and normalized. For instance, sociologist Karen Martin studied what parents say to their children about sexuality and reproduction and found that with children as young as three and five years old, parents routinely assumed their children were heterosexual, told them they would get (heterosexually) married and interpreted cross-gender interactions between children as “signs” of heterosexuality (Martin, 2009). This kind of socialization is an additional element of normative sexuality—the idea of compulsory monogamy, where exclusive romantic and sexual relationships and marriage are expected and valued over other kinds of relationships (Willey, 2016). Heteronormativity surrounds us at a very young age, teaching us that there are only two genders and that we should desire and partner with one person of the opposite gender whom we will marry.

Relationship Structures Continue to Be Created

Symbolic interaction theory, described in Chapter 2, reminds us that society can change more quickly than our language does. We use words to symbolize actions and relationships, but we are constantly in the state of catching up. At the same time, the words that we choose as symbols for relationships contribute to the socially constructed world that we inhabit.

For example, there are people who are very close lifelong partners who may not have a romantic, sexual, or familial relationship determined by blood or legal ties. Queerplatonic relationships, which originated from the asexual and aromantic parts of the LGBTQIA+ community, are described as “nonromantic significant-other relationships of ‘partner status’” (Chasin, 2015). It is a nonromantic and nonsexual relationship, but it is more intimate than friendship. The term “platonic life partnership” (PLP) is credited to April Lee, who created a TikTok video and blog posts on the subject that went viral in 2021 and 2022. With roots as far back as the 18th century, when women developed live-in friendships called “Boston marriages,” the PLP does not limit partners from pursuing romantic or sexual relationships with other people. It merely makes the platonic partner the central relationship (Klein, 2022). This is what Lee has to say in her April 2022 blog post:

When we were discussing making this commitment to each other, we found ourselves coming back to the idea of conditional versus unconditional love. Because the foundation of our partnership is our ability to help one another work on ourselves, we consider our love conditional. The rule is: “I’ll keep loving you as long as you keep loving yourself.” And we’ve given each other permission to leave if either of us has given up on ourselves or is no longer serving a purpose in the other’s life, apart from providing comfortable company.

Renee moved in a few months ago, so I guess you could say that we are currently in our honeymoon phase. That said, I’ve been waiting for 12 years for that to end. So far, I just keep finding more things to love about her—and to love about myself when I’m with her.

This experience has made me believe that the majority of people, myself included, have been navigating interpersonal relationships using the same outdated roadmap. We’ve romanticized the notion that one person could be our everything: our roommate, our financial and emotional support, our co-parenting partner, our best friend—and on top of all of this, they have to also be our lifelong lover. It just doesn’t seem realistic.

I’ll never glamorize a platonic life partnership—they take just as much commitment and communication as any other partnership…

…But it’s a relief to not have to worry about keeping a romantic connection alive while discussing the logistics of our shared life.…It’s based on one very common and flawed assumption: that romantic love is the best kind of love that exists. While I’m a romantic myself, I can’t honestly say that this has been my experience (Lee, 2022).

“Queer” is a term that has been used in a derogatory way to describe people who did not fit on the “normal” side of the gender or sexuality binary. However, being “queer” has been increasingly embraced by many members of the LGBTQ+ to describe themselves. The meaning varies based on the person who is using it, and as with all labels, it is important to pay attention to how any individual describes themselves. Being “queer” can be used to signal the rejection of binary systems. Other times, it is used as an umbrella term by people who, in any number of ways, do not see themselves as fitting into some kind of normative gender or sexuality group. This multiplicity suggests that the culturally dominant binary model fails to accurately describe the wide variety of lived experiences.

As society becomes increasingly accepting and knowledgeable about the variety of ways that healthy relationships can be formed, it is likely that new language will continue to be created to reflect a fuller range of relationship structures.

Comprehension Self Check

Licenses and Attributions for Sex, Gender, and Sexuality

Open Content, Original

“Understanding Sex and Gender” by Elizabeth B. Pearce. License: CC BY 4.0.

“Sexualtiy as Privilege and Oppression in Family Life” by Elizabeth B. Pearce. License: CC BY 4.0.

“Relationship Structures Continue to Be Created” by Elizabeth B. Pearce. License: CC BY 4.0.

Open Content, Shared Previously

“Socially Constructed Binary Systems” adapted from “Introduction: Binary Systems” in Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies by Miliann Kang, Donovan Lessard, Laura Heston, and Sonny Nordmarken. License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Adaptations: lightly edited.

“Gender Identity and Gender Expression” adapted from “Gender and Sex–Transgender and Intersex” in Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies by Miliann Kang, Donovan Lessard, Laura Heston, and Sonny Nordmarken. License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Adaptations: edited for brevity.

“The Social Construction of Heterosexuality” adapted from “Social Constructivism” in Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies by Miliann Kang, Donovan Lessard, Laura Heston, and Sonny Nordmarken. License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Adaptations: edited for brevity.

“A Range of Sexualities” adapted from “Sexualities” in Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies by Miliann Kang, Donovan Lessard, Laura Heston, and Sonny Nordmarken. License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Adaptations: updated legislation; edited for focus on family topics.

Figure 3.3. “Gender Revealing Party” by mastermaq. License: CC BY-SA 2.0.

Figure 3.4. “This is Us!” by Sharon McCutcheon. License: Unsplash License.

References

Chasin, C. D. (2015). Making sense in and of the asexual community: Navigating relationships and identities in a context of resistance. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcasp.2203

Katz, J. N. (1999). The Invention of Heterosexuality. University of Chicago Press.

Klein, J. (2022, April 1). PLPs: The Platonic partnerships that pair up friends for life. BBC Worklife. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220401-plps-platonic-life-partnerships

Lee, A. (2022, February 8). How My TikTok Famous Platonic Life Partnership Works. Refinery29. https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2022/02/10854249/platonic-life-partners-tiktok-explained

Martin, K. A. (2009). Normalizing Heterosexuality: Mothers’ Assumptions, Talk, and Strategies with Young Children. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400202

Nordmarken, S. (2013). Disrupting Gendering: How Trans and Gender Variant People Interrupt and Transfigure the Gender Accomplishment Process. Conference Presentation, Eastern Sociological Society Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.

Paven v. Smith, 2017, No. 16-992, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf

Rich, A. (1994). Blood, bread, and poetry: Selected prose, 1979-1985. Norton. ISBN 9780393311624

Willey, A. (2016). Undoing Monogamy: The Politics of Science and the Possibilities of Biology. Duke University Press.