Passage Two

1．Identification of oneself as male or female is a foundation stone of a self-identity that is widely held to be the outcome of particular bodies and their attributes^[5]．Common sense encompasses a form of biological reductionism suggesting that the biochemical and genetic structures of human beings determine the behavior of men and women in quite definite and specific ways．Men are commonly held to be more“naturally”domineering，hierarchically oriented and power-hungry，while women are seen as nurturing，child rearing and domestically inclined．By contrast，many writers in cultural studies and other humanities have argued for the complete plasticity of sex and gender．That is，the influence of biology has been rejected in favour of understanding masculinity and femininity^[6]as cultural constructions．

2．The language of biology enables us to make behavioural and bodily predictions．At the same time，what it means to be gendered remains a cultural question．The language of culture helps to re-cast the way we talk about and perform^[7]“sex”with the consequences that we deem to be good，that is，acceptance of a wider range of sexualities^[8]．We may say that sex as biology and sex as the discursive-performative are different languages for different purposes．The problems felt by men trapped in women's bodies may be usefully approached using the predictions made available to us through the language of biochemistry and drug therapy．They may also be advanced through therapeutic talk and the re-description of self in the symbolic domain(including dress and bodily movement)．

3．On the one hand，there is evidence that points to the predictability of a range of male and female capabilities and behaviour that derives from genetics．On the other hand，there are also clear indications that masculinity and femininity are changeable．We can make a distinction between identity as a social construction，a representation with which we emotionally identify，and those human capacities and behaviours that correlate highly with certain biochemical structures of the brain．

4．The sex-gender distinction is now itself the subject of criticism．It is argued that sexual identity is not a reflection of a natural state of being but a matter of representation．The distinction between sex as biology and gender as a cultural construction is broken down on the grounds that there is in principle no access to biological“truths”that lie outside of cultural discourses．Thus，there can be no biological“sex”which is not also cultural．Sexed bodies^[9]are always already represented as the production of regulatory discourses．In this view，the body does not disappear．It becomes a variable^[10]rather than a constant^[11]．For poststructuralists，the cultural variations that exist between women(and between men)suggest that there is no universal cross-cultural category of“woman”(or“man”)that is shared by all．Rather，there are multiple modes of femininity(and masculinity)which are enacted not only by different women，but，potentially，by the same woman under different circumstances．The claim is that sex and gender are infinitely malleable in principle，even though in practice they are moulded and regulated into specific forms under particular historical and cultural conditions．As such，“women are constantly confronted with the cultural task of finding out what it means to be a woman，of marking out the boundaries between the feminine and unfeminine”．(Rewritten from Chris Barker，Cultural Studies:Theory and Practice，pp．283-284，289-290)

Questions for Understanding

1．What does biological reductionism advocate?

2．In what ways do men and women behave differently according tobiological reductionism?

3．According to the writer of the passage，what is the relationship between the language of biology and the language of culture?

4．What is the biggest problem in distinguishing sex and gender?

5．In what way does the writer say that the body has become“a variable”?