Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Gender: a Postmodern idea Developed in Association with the Modern Concept of Sex; Implications for Evolving Sexuality

Altmetrics

Downloads

457

Views

97

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

21 May 2023

Posted:

23 May 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
A presently ubiquitous idea, how gender is defined remains deeply indebted to modern thought, depending on the concept of sex as its reference point. Originating with practices arising with capitalism, modern thought’s concept of sex was enhanced with the search for the norm regarding standardization, then further refined through the research program of eugenics. Gender, in contrast to sex, has its roots in sexual practice changes from the second half of the twentieth century onward, developed in association with 1980s postmodern thought. The presuppositions of the two concepts differ radically. Understanding the difference between sex and gender matters because gender is now more than a critique of sex—it’s an idea accepted and understood in popular culture and affects how people interpret their sexuality. This review examines the foundations of modern and postmodern thought then focuses on sex and gender with respect to their history within these modes of thought. The conclusion, pointing to future research, is that a further reformulation of sexuality will be required for gender, as a postmodern idea, to truly separate itself from the presumptions of sex as a modern concept, permitting individuals to express their sexuality as they choose without negative social and psychological repercussions.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Gender and Sexuality Studies

1. Introduction

Comparing the postmodern idea of gender with the modern concept of sex depends on an initial examination of the foundations of both modes of thought, as modernism and postmodernism each uphold very different principles affecting the development of the two terms [1]. It is because of distinct differences in foundational thinking that the modern concept of sex contrasts with that of the postmodern idea of gender. Nevertheless, these terms are often confused [2]. Sex is considered dependent on biological differences; gender on social factors [3] where, according to the Global Health 50/50 definition, these social factors include socially constructed norms that impose and determine roles, relationships, and positional power for all people across their lifetime [4]. With respect to the World Health Organization (WHO), the broader understanding of sexuality encompasses both sex and gender, as well as “roles, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure, intimacy and reproduction… Sexuality is influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, legal, historical, religious and spiritual factors” [5]. As such, it has been argued that the biological and sociocultural factors regarding sexuality are intertwined; therefore, the distinction between the terms sex and gender should be abandoned [6], providing additional reason for the confusion regarding the two terms.
These differences and how they affect our understanding of sex and gender will be the focus of this work with respect to the implications in relation to sexuality. Making this distinction is relevant because the postmodern idea of gender is no longer merely a critique of the modern idea of sex, as it was once [7]. Gender as a differentiating category is now accepted as conceptually meaningful [8]. As such, how sex and gender contrast with respect to their modern and postmodern foundations is a decidedly pertinent topic in need of the type of examination and refinement to be undertaken here. The principal conclusions of this examination are that (1) the meaning of these two terms has developed over time in relation to the foundational thought, respectively, of the modern or postmodern that each upholds, (2) this development of these terms corresponds but is distinct from their foundational modes of thought, and (3) as gender identity becomes increasingly independent from sex, individuals become progressively able to express their sexuality as they would choose, without negative social of psychological repercussions.

2. Foundations of Modern and Postmodern Thought

What makes modernity modern is, first and foremost, capitalism [9]. Central to capitalism is private property and markets, depending upon the development of an effective legal framework to protect rights related to both property and markets [10]. Capitalist modernity has advanced through the creation of property and expansion of markets by enforcing sameness, standardization and homogenization [11]. This is because the aim of modern thought is universalizing claims based on discovering a standardized norm [12], a norm that is defined in relation to the normal, bell or Gaussian curve [13].
Research described as modern is undertaken through empirical investigations (in quantitative analysis) or naturalistic and interpretative approaches (in qualitative analysis), or with a combination of both (in mixed methods) [14]. In this regard, the modern concept of qualitative analysis includes the collection of any analytical information other than that represented by numbers [15]. Investigations based on these research methods determine both what is intelligible to investigate in modern thought and what defines accuracy and completeness regarding the constraints of investigation [16]. As such, the norm in developing the standard is a construction to represent objectivity [17] and technological standards in modern thought depend on knowing the norm as well as finding the means for data and people to be judged in relation to the norm to the extent that technological standards are seen to represent a public good [18].
Postmodern thought, if it can be considered as looking for a standard at all, bases the result on whatever is the combination of actual differences [19] seen quantitatively in physical experiments and/or the views participants provide when they are interviewed or observed in qualitative research. In other words, this “standard” includes every result added together. It is a large, inclusive standard of actuality, rather than the modern, constructed one based on discovering the norm from bell curves [20]. As a set of approaches to data to increase inclusivity, what is postmodern is developed from Wittgenstein’s notion of family resemblances [21]. Although theoretically conceptualizable since the posthumous publication and translation of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations [22], postmodern thought in this regard became practical once supercomputers had the capacity to add together large data sets in aid of quantitative research [23], and the data mining of people's actual opinions was provided by social media for those conducting qualitative research [24]. In this way, these technologies emerged as vital components driving postmodern culture [25].
This difference in modern and postmodern thought has had a noticeable impact on how society thinks about some of the most basic tenets that define our society—notably, and most relevant to this review, the development of the idea of gender as distinct from the concept of sex [26].

2.1. Reproduction in Modernism Compared with Identity in Postmodernism

Recognizing these two distinct foundations to thought, what is important to a discussion of the difference between the modern concept of sex and the postmodern idea of gender is how sex and gender differ. Sex, in modern thought, originated as what is necessary for reproduction. This is because modern thought views the purpose of sexuality as reproduction [27]. With respect to modern thought, the result is that homosexuality, for example, must be considered perverse from this perspective in its standing outside the reproductive growth of the family [28]. In contrast, what is at issue with the postmodern notion of gender is each person’s relationship to their sexuality—reproduction per se is no longer the focus as gender cannot be said to follow from sex in any particular way [29].
Similar to its role in modern thought, sexuality is of primary importance in postmodern thought [30]. However, in contrast to modernism, with postmodernism there is no existence of the stable self [31]. As a result, people are expected to decidedly define their sexual identity, both for themselves and with respect to society [32]. Foucault [33] has been noted [34] (p. 70) as the theorist recognizing the historical break between the modern notion of sex as an attribute, activity and a dimension of human life, and the more recent postmodern understanding of sex as an identity. The concept of gender role was first introduced in 1955 with the term gender identity appearing in the early 1960s [35]. Still, it wasn’t until 1980 that gender identity disorder (GID) first appeared in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition [36]. To be considered here are the consequences of this change in the focus of sexuality from sex to gender.
When the differences regarding sexuality among people were considered important merely with respect to reproduction, as they were during the modern period of thought, sexuality was entrenched as binary [37]. What represented males was the presence of y chromosomes and females the absence of them [38]. These notions of male and female determined the meaning of sex—men and women were the two available norms to which all people were required to sort themselves. This although intersex individuals and hermaphrodites (defined as two distinct sexual presentations [39], where gonadal histology is a necessary criterion for hermaphrodites) have always existed within society and it has been estimated that at least 1:1000 individuals have some form of sexual development that is atypical [40]. Still, intersex individuals and hermaphrodites were considered non-groups during the modern period and people who were neither male nor female had the choice made for them at birth as to whether they were to be recognized as male or female [41]. These constructions were believed so fundamentally that severe penalties were devised and upheld for transgressions in classifying oneself as differing from these two extremes of male or female [42].
With postmodern thought, based on the view that what people actually think matters in devising how they are understood with respect to their sexuality [43], although people still could be differentiated with respect to a dichotomy by their chromosomes, how people actually see themselves might have little to do with these biological markers. The postmodern idea of gender came to society’s consciousness starting slowly in the 1980s when gender was recognized as representing a complex social system structuring human life experience [44]. However, it wasn't until the ability to make use of large data sets showed the full variation of people's views of themselves, that governments determined people could both decide their gender in fact and that they have a right to do so [45]. Questions still remain as to how often people can legitimately change their gender [46], but, for now, postmodern thought has encouraged citizens to realize that it is no longer useful to define people by sex outside of determining how and where in their bodies their reproductive material is located [32].

2.2. Decisions on Gender Continue to be in Relation to Sex

In this movement from classification by sex to thinking about gender, a relic of modern thought remains. This is the idea that it makes sense to continue to base one's decisions on gender in relation to sex [47]. In other words, being a man or a woman continues to be the standard by which one identifies their gender. Within postmodern thought, people still define themselves by thinking they want to assume the role of a man or of a woman as understood by society [48]. Even those who call themselves gender neutral or gender fluid [49] are neutral or fluid with respect to being on the scale of neither a man nor a woman, rather than something new entirely—although the possibility of the development of gender as a postmodern term distinct from sex arises with the evolving “furry” phenomenon of individuals who identify with anthropomorphic or cartoon animals [50].
What is a man and what is a woman remain based on the statistical constructs that were created by modern thought in looking for the norm. To this point, social structures make it clear from birth what being a man or being a woman is supposed to represent within society [51]. In this regard, it is because males have had social advantage in society that a criterion for determining if a female is considered to have a gender identity disorder is that the desire to be male is not due to the perceived cultural advantage [52]. When someone decides their gender, it is because they feel drawn to one extreme of sex or the other, in and of itself—or else they consider both extremes and say that neither represents them.
Consequently, as long as society cares about the statistical constructions of what is a man and what is a woman, thoughts about gender are still deeply imbedded in modern thought’s concept of sex—they thus become the basis for postmodern thought about gender. It won’t be until the question of whether a baby is a boy or a girl is asked with no more interest than asking if the baby has hair or not that society will have truly moved into a postmodern era of thought in relation to gender. In the same way that having hair or not at birth is seen to have little influence on how people live their lives—with how they keep their hair having few social ramifications [53]—whether or not they have y chromosomes resulting in a penis would be considered to have a similar level of influence on life decisions.

3. Modern and Postmodern Thought Regarding Sexuality

Although modern and postmodern thought are distinct and based on fundamentally different principles, compared with the period that can be described as pre-modern, they are both concerned with limiting sexuality in a prescribed manner. As such, they necessitate historical investigation.

3.1. Modern Boundaries of Sexuality

According to Foucault’s detailed examination of the history of sexuality, the pre-modern period represented “hundreds of years of open spaces and free expression” [33] (p. 5) with respect to sexuality. In Foucault’s estimation, this ended in the seventeenth century with the development of capitalism when sexuality became “an integral part of the bourgeois order” [33] (p.5). The explanation for this was that sex had to be repressed as incompatible with the new concentration on work that came with a capitalism [54] in support of the science that replaced prejudices and superstitions with concerns about verifiable facts regarding the natural world [55]. Sex as an activity, then, could be pursued only outside of and apart from work. Thus, backed by a new interest in acquiring comforts for the home through work [56], limitations to sexuality during this early period of modern thought were concerned with ensuring work was the primary activity of life rather than sex.
Work defined capitalism and the middle class foundation of the good life [57](p. 74). To the extent that people devoted themselves to their work, sexuality was kept to a minimum with the work ethic supporting capitalism [58]. The dividing line was between productive and non-productive activities with respect to capital, where the sex act was classified as non-productive and relegated to the home [59]. In that women could be taken from productive work as a result of pregnancy, a distinction between the sexes was formed because women could not be depended on to create capital [60]. Children were viewed, rather than as assets, as new entities that diminished capital for a significant number of years until the child matured and might yield a return on investment [61]. Capitalists, as such, continued to be less likely to want to invest in human capital although in the long run it might result in a more cost effective investment than physical capital [62]. In other words, the initial distinction between men and women in the early modern period related to the ability of men to create capital and women, as reproducers, to diminish that capital. When short-run return on investment was the driving force, the original differentiation between the sexes in modern thought was made apparent. This view of the necessary distinction between men and women as producers and reproducers that came with capitalism coincided with the outlawing of male homosexuality in the UK in 1885 as an abhorrent act lacking productivity [63].
However, the limitations with respect to sex were not to remain focused on work as in this early period of modern thought. What changed regarding understanding sex was the development in the nineteenth century of two distinct, yet equally important, disciplines in this understanding of sex—statistics and eugenics.
Although statistics may be said to have begun as a style of reasoning during the early modern period alongside the development of capitalism, based on concepts such as objectivity, fact, or truth [64] (p.3.), it wasn’t until the nineteen century, with Adophe Quetelet’s notion of average man, that the idea of ‘normal’ was originated by “applying the normal curve to cluster people as a distribution” [64] (p. 8). The work of Quetelet was pivotal in this regard [65]. Experimentation in the early twentieth century thus concentrated on determining what was normal with respect to the physical and social world [66].
One Victorian researcher who was directly influenced by the work of Quetelet was Sir Francis Galton, cousin of Sir Charles Darwin [67]. Galton followed Quetelet in applying his statistical techniques with respect to the normal curve to describe human beings to the extent that it has been argued that Galton’s work interpreted, adapted, and transported Quetelet’s ideas into the domain of psychology [68]. That he did so was because he believed certain human traits were more valuable than others, popularizing the idea that the human species could be ‘improved’ through selective reproduction [69]. Coining the term ‘eugenics’ in 1883 [70], Galton stated it was, “the science of improving stock . . . to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable” [70]. Following the evolutionary theories of Darwin, Galton upheld that an attempt should be made to exert control over human evolution to direct and improve humanity through sexual selection [71].
The First International Eugenics Conference was held 1912 in London, England. The five-day event was attended by Winston Churchill (then Britain’s Lord of the Admiralty and future prime minister), Charles Eliot (president emeritus of Harvard), and Alexander Graham Bell (inventor of the telephone). The president of the event, Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories were central for the eugenicist mission, stated then that “conscious selection must replace the blind forces of natural selection” and declared one of the movement’s leading goals to be to “stamp out feeble-mindedness from future generations” [72]. In response, The Journal of the American Medical Association praised the conference as “an event of great importance”, marking the seriousness with which eugenics was taken internationally [72]. This began the promotion of selective breeding and ultimately contributed to state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization, and genocide. Eugenics' may have begun in Britain, but it was understood, taught, and practiced with the most dedication in the United States and Germany [73]. By 1931, 28 of the 48 states in the U.S.A. had adopted eugenic sterilization laws [74].
Already by 1906, some of Galton papers on eugenics had been translated into German and published in the Archiv für Rassen und Gesellschafts-Biologiein [75]. Nazi policy on the responsibility of government to improve the human race followed the views expressed by Galton in those papers but primarily they were based on the published works of the American eugenics movement leading to the passage of the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) in July 1933—a sterilization program designed to emulate the success of sterilization laws in California [76]. The aim was for the German/Aryan people to flourish while eliminating undesirables, most notably Jews, but also those considered mentally, physically and sexually deviant [77].
Thus, it was a result of these three factors—capitalism, statistics and eugenics—developed over hundreds of years, that what represented the dichotomy of sex as a modern concept was fully realized. By the 1940s, being a man meant that a person displayed the qualities of a warrior, normally demonstrated in the working world [78]. Yet these qualities achieved their true purpose when men willingly went to war [79]. Women, on the other hand, though encouraged by media at that time to help in the factories when men were at war [80], were more importantly expected to take on the responsibility of caring for families [81]. The Nazi slogan for women became, Kinder, Küche, and Kirche (children, kitchen, and church) [82]. These male/female sex roles then became the dominant paradigm in American psychology for understanding the experiences of the sexes [83] solidifying the dichotomous understanding of sex.

3.2. In Between Period of Modern and Postmodern Views on Sexuality

The period between the end of World War II and the 1980s, when the idea of gender truly took form, was one of transition with respect to sexuality. The direction of this transition was initially guided by the 1946 results of the Nuremberg tribunal that assessed Nazi war crimes. The Nuremberg trials did not charge war criminals for their crimes against homosexuals, who were deliberately marginalized, and focused exclusively on the experiences of men in contrast to those of women [84]. Reinforcing binary sex differences thus was integral to the construction of international law in this formative period of postwar lawmaking [84]. This, in part, was seen to legitimize the aggressive treatment of homosexuals by authorities during this transition period [85]. Furthermore, little or no attention to crimes of rape and sexual violence were part of the forty-two volume of the proceedings of the Nuremberg trials where none of ‘rape’, ‘prostitution’ or even ‘women’ can be found among the headings or subheadings [86]. What the Nuremberg trials were able to accomplish with respect to sex was that genocide, in its purpose of endorsing eugenics for developing desired dichotomous sex qualities, was not to be condoned [87].
If the focus of sex, after the Nuremberg trials, was no longer to be developing desired sex qualities as it was when eugenics was endorsed, this permitted questioning of the modern understanding that sex was about reproduction. In this questioning, the idea that the focus of sex instead might legitimately be personal enjoyment began to be considered, evolving sex as something public [88]. It was during the 1950s that pornography became mainstream with the creation of Playboy magazine [89] and the idea originated of the playboy who pursued sexual encounters for their pleasure rather than for reproduction, reimagining the good life as a result [90]. Based on this new conception of sex as primarily for pleasure rather than reproduction, the need to ensure that pregnancy was not the result of these encounters led to research support for ‘the pill’ as an oral contraceptive, first available in 1962 [91].
Now that contraceptive protection against pregnancy was available to women (and abortion on demand started to become available throughout the world beginning in the late 1950s as a result of direct consequences resulting from legal recognition of women’s civil rights [92], further separating sex from reproduction), the playboy lifestyle was increasingly advanced in popular culture to become the ‘sexual revolution’—normalizing all forms of sexual exploration, including those outside the normal sexual boundaries imposed by the modern concept of sex as reproduction [93]. Marriage itself as a boundary was expanded with the swapping of mates in what was known as ‘swinging’ [94] while same-sex encounters that arose from orgies [95] and in and of themselves became accepted as commonplace [96], during this in-between period when sexuality was reappraised to be primarily about pleasure rather than reproduction.
With the 1970s, refining what was pleasure with respect to sex progressed publicly [97] and the traits that differentiated the sexes were modified as a result of the sexual revolution [98]. Men were considered those who were best at receiving pleasure, and women, those who were most capable of providing it, with sex for pleasure seen as a lifelong pursuit [99]. Men were considered manlier the larger their penis and the more hair on their chests [100]; and women epitomized being female the more sexually attractive and eager to have sex they appeared [101] (p. 147)—long full hair was desired for both sexes [102]. It was a time when pleasure also evolved to include sadistic and masochistic culture [103], with men considered natural sadists and women natural masochists—which then expanded in SM culture to male masochists and female sadists [104]. This accepted switch, in part, came from men feeling overburdened with their responsibilities regarding work and wanting to see themselves as “weak, helpless or inferior and implicitly or explicitly demanding considerations and advantages on this basis” [105]. In this regard, with respect to homosexual relationships, one partner was expected to assume the top (male) role and the other the bottom (female role), although in many societies only the bottom role defined a man as homosexual with the top seen as a ‘normal’ man of power [106] (p. 45).
It is quite possible that sex as pleasure would have continued to be upheld and expanded upon had not AIDS surfaced as a new and deadly sexually transmitted disease in 1981 [107] resulting from the HIV virus, primarily transferred by blood and semen [108]. In this regard, it was homosexual men who were most likely to be infected [109]. The result in popular culture was that, as homosexual sex was considered engaged in purely for pleasure, the idea of having sex primarily for pleasure was reconsidered [110]. The sex act now, at the beginning of the 1980s, was no longer only about either reproduction or pleasure, it was now something to be feared [111], especially as heterosexuals began to be infected by AIDS, predominantly in poorer countries [112]. Thought regarding sex as a result of AIDS was now at a historical turning point.

3.3. Postmodern Identities with Respect to Sexuality

Unlike the modern concept of sex, the postmodern idea of gender is not linked to the material conditions of capitalism [113]. As such, its concern is neither regulating the sex act by focusing on reproduction nor controlling reproduction so that sex could be enjoyed when it was performed. Resulting from AIDS, and the additional alarming fear of herpes simplex that became prominent a few years later [114], penetrative sex was now considered potentially dangerous [115]. Therefore, appearing sexually attractive in the way encouraged in the 1970s was seen as detrimental and, as a result, masturbation became identified as the safe form of sex with respect to sexually transmitted diseases [116].
A consequence of this new view of masturbation as likely the healthiest form of sex was that sexuality became something linked to self-enjoyment rather than being pleased by or pleasing another [117]. In defining self-enjoyment, how individuals related to sex norms regarding the modern ideals of men and women became the focus. Deciding who one was as a sexual being represented the idea of gender [118]. In this way, gender was a self-advertisement of the type of sexual life to which a person felt most connected. The purpose was no longer attracting a sexual partner (as this could be risky), instead, it was defining the way that each person preferred to approach the world as part of their belief system [119].
Although this was an entirely new way of thinking about sexuality, what was not new were the variables from which people could choose in making their decision of who they were as sexual beings. The options were men, women, or neither men nor women [120]. Choice in relation to dichotomous sex as an attribute was still the defining feature. What was interesting, however, was the way that what is a man and what is a woman was perceived to be in making this choice. The sexiness of the 1970s related to pursuing pleasure with the display of long hair was no longer relevant. Rather, in deciding their gender, people returned to the modern binary choices for one’s sex before sexuality became about pleasure [121] increasingly infantilizing themselves with the complete removal of their body hair [89,[122]. As sex for pleasure was now seen as potentially perilous as a result of AIDS and herpes, the only safe form sex with another was that which came with the purpose of reproduction in a fully committed relationship [123]. In other words, once again, when selecting their gender, the extremes people looked to were the image of strong man willing and able to fight, and the woman who would care for home, children and spirituality [124]. This has recently been noted in a study that found the extremes of sex to be greater the more gender equal the society [125]. One’s gender is thus defined as some form of melding of these extreme characteristics.
Gender, unlike the sex for pleasure of the 1970s, is with postmodernism a serious notion. When the sexual act could now result in detrimental consequences as a result of AIDS and herpes, deciding on one’s gender demanded dedication. If one’s gender was counter to the sex with which a person was born, the person, in valuing their gender, was expected and even encouraged to use the health system to medically change their sex to correspond to their gender [126]. Where being a man used to mean going to war for ones’ country, potentially it now meant going to war against one’s own body as medically based, normative understandings of sex and gender continued to place undue restrictions on people's autonomy [127]. It is, perhaps, in countering this definition of one’s gender that furry culture was initiated—to begin to determine gender as sometime irrespective of the ideals in identifying as either a man or a woman [128].

4. Discussion

With the overturning of Roe versus Wade in 2022, revoking the constitutional right to seek abortion care in the U.S.A. [129], it became evident that the idea that the sex act is primarily for fun was no longer predominant. When engaging in heterosexual sex, people were now expected to be responsible and if pregnancy was the result then the woman was legally expected to carry through with the pregnancy. In this way, women lost control over both their autonomy and privacy [130]. As a result, heterosexual acts were now considered ones that should be well-thought out and only engaged in by those with the expectation that a new life may be the result [131]. The heterosexual sex act, if considered playful at all, retained a focus on pleasure only in committed relationships where at least one person in the relationship was willing to take individual responsibility for the rise in pregnancy that has been predicted [132]. Furthermore, in this retuning focus on sex related to reproduction with respect to the extremes in ideals of gender identity, there is concern that the repeal of Roe v. Wade will lead to the cancellation of same-sex marriages because they are considered based on pleasure rather than reproductive responsibility [133].
Consequently, particularly in the U.S.A., heterosexuality now had two reasons to be feared: the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy that cannot be legally terminated. Furthermore, the overturning of Roe v. Wade has also brought with it increasing assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) rights in legislatures across the United States [134]. As a result, the chosen alternative increasingly has become identifying as asexual—that is, not attracted to others sexually [135]. Asexuals may be interested in hugging and cuddling [136], but they self-identify as lacking sexual attraction [137]. Some may avoid all forms of sex, but many asexuals achieve sexual gratification through masturbation [138].
As postmodernism has encouraged individuals to have gender identities rather than being displayers of their sex for others, it is reasonable for gender to abandon its current connection with the dichotomies of sex. What is envisioned is that people treat their gender as irrelevant to their biological makeup. Fitness for reproduction, that is, the social conventions for men and women with respect to reproduction based on biology, should no longer guide people in determining their gender. Rather, as an example, people would develop a similar attitude to their gender as they have to their hair. In the same way that no person likely would feel compelled to remove their scalp because they don’t like the hair with which they are born, in the meaning of gender that is not concerned with the modern understanding of sex, no person would undergo medical procedures on their body merely because the biology they were born with doesn’t match their gender. Just as people change their hair style whenever they want—with perhaps some social ramifications [139], but without legal and biological consequences—individuals should feel free to change their gender without medical intervention when it suits them and not be held legally and biologically accountable for doing so in following the postmodern understanding of gender as identity. Furry culture is one option that represents changing one’s gender as it suits the individual without medical intervention [140].
How this change would affect daily life is that when a baby is born, asking if it is a boy or a girl would become similar to asking if it has any hair. People will know that being born one sex does not determine the gender the child will choose similar to if the child is born with no hair it says nothing about the hair it will have in the future. The point is, in both cases, parents and society in general will have to wait to see how the child’s gender (and its hair) turn out. In the meantime, parents may refer to the child in the gender they prefer, just as they might choose to put a bow on the head of a hairless child. However, parents would be encouraged to watch for signs that their child is not comfortable with the ideas of gender that parents are suggesting with their words and actions. In the same way that, as they grow, parents give their children more responsibility in deciding how they keep their hair, it is envisioned they will offer the same type of responsibility to their children in deciding their gender.

4.1. Limitations

The account that has been presented regarding the evolution of sex as a concept in modern thought and gender as an idea of postmodern thought has been presented as if that evolution were straightforward and complete—it is not. The focus has been when attitudes changed regarding sexuality to the point that these changes represented the popular understanding of the time. However, each of the views regarding sex in the modern era of thought and the in between time instead of disappearing still continue to be represented today as subcultures in the world dependent on particular conditions.
For countries where factory work is undertaken under conditions similar to those of the beginning of capitalism, the concept of sex in defining sex roles corresponds to that of early modern thought [141]. In this way, the sex role of men today continues under these conditions to be to produce and that of women to reproduce, with the sharp distinction being between the workplace and the home where work is the defining culture [142]. Under these conditions, there is no consideration of the idea of gender as identity that is found in postmodern thought. In other words, the conditions of capitalism act as the controlling aspect of sex roles in these cases similar to early modern thought and, when such conditions exist with respect to production, how sex roles are understood remain as they were recognized during that period in history.
Regarding the search for the normal concerning the binary nature of sex that originated with Quetelet’s statistical revolution in the nineteenth century, to a large degree the interest in determining the normal with respect to men on the one hand and women on the other remains a focus of certain psychological research, even though there is current neuroscience evidence undermining the gender binary [143]. In this regard the core belief remains for this psychological research that there are two discrete categories sorting individuals and that membership to these categories is biologically determined, recognizable at birth, stable over a lifetime, important, meaningful in defining self, and remains powerfully predictive with respect to various psychological variables [142]. To this extent, such present psychological research is still bound to the sex roles understood as normal within modern thought, similar to the late nineteenth century.
Although public support for eugenic principles ended in Western countries with the rulings of the Nuremberg trials [144], Russia, for example, continues to represent the largest and most powerful country openly basing political decisions on ideology inspired by the eugenics movement with respect to sex. The invasion of the Ukraine, 24 February 2022, although not an ethnic conflict per se [145], represents the most recent example of Russian policy to regain territory that was at one time Russian [146] to be inhabited by Russian people, as the country’s leaders consider Russians to epitomize the sex roles of men and women most effectively and, consequently, for Russians to be the legitimate heirs to the region [147].
Considering sexual liaisons to be primarily about a full range of pleasure, and sex as a quality indicating the ability of men to engage in this pleasure and women to provide it through their sexiness [148], still remained a visible public interest once the idea of gender became commonplace. The rise of online pornography [149] and popular themes of SM in the twenty-first century [150] attest to this. However, that sex as pleasure was no longer to be supported publicly became evident with the guilty verdict of movie producer Harvey Weinstein who was convicted 24 February 2020 on two counts of committing a criminal sexual act in the first degree and third-degree rape [151]. Even more recently, 9 May 2023, the former president of the United States, Donald Trump, was found to have sexually abused columnist E. Jean Carroll [152]. Similar to many men of their age [153], they continued to presuppose sex being for pleasure and supported the roles of men and women in this regard since the 1970s—something brought to the forefront by feminist critique [154]. As a result of Weinstein’s convictions, public sentiment towards sex as pleasure turned [155], supported by the postmodern interest in gender as sexual identity developed with the early public focus on the #MeToo movement, founded in 2017, where women publicly self-identified as being victims of rape to an overwhelming and unexpected degree [156].
Left unmentioned in this account of the evolution of sex as a concept in modern thought and gender as an idea in postmodern thought is the role of religion in maintaining the dichotomy of male and female. The reason is that the role of religious teachings have been continuous in this regard [157]. It is because these religious views regarding the roles of men and women are based on texts that have not been modified over this period that religious views have not been a powerful catalyst in the evolution of sex as a modern concept or gender as a postmodern idea. For this reason, the role of religion in relation to sex and gender has remained outside this discussion. Nevertheless, certain religions over this period have become more militant in their views on the distinction they recognize in the sex roles of men and women, as has occurred with the fundamentalist influence of Islam in countries such as Afghanistan, Iran and Sudan [158].

5. Conclusions

The modern idea of sex and the postmodern idea of gender have been recognized as two terms that have changed their meaning over time and, though based on diametrically opposed principles, are common in their understanding that they are attributes in relation to a dichotomy of men and women. Sex has been revealed to have been primarily concerned with reproduction in modern thought and, during a transition period, with pleasure. In both ways, sex before postmodern thought was considered a positive activity. However, with the sex act between two individuals reevaluated as a result of a fear of AIDS and of herpes, sex between two heterosexual individuals became recognized as a non-positive activity (although not necessarily negative) in postmodern thought, requiring a committed relationship, leading back to the understanding that, by necessity, sex between individuals should be primarily about reproduction. One result from this change in thinking is that abortion is no longer a constitutional right in the United States and powerful white men are now being held accountable for their publicly perceived sexual transgressions. This may lead other countries to more openly embrace the idea that engaging in sex most importantly relates to reproduction. With the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals threatened, asexuality is the option that increasingly people are adopting for their gender identity. It has been suggested that gender identity, to be a separate idea from sex, cannot not be based on the statistically created sex binary. With gender identity separate from sex, individuals then would be free to express their sexuality as it suited them, garnering no more social interest than might a new haircut. The furry culture phenomenon represents a development in this direction in need of further study regarding the continuing evolution of sexuality.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mouzelis, N.P. Modern and postmodern social theorizing: Bridging the divide; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  2. Garofalo, E.M.; Garvin, H.M. The confusion between biological sex and gender and potential implications of misinterpretations. In Sex estimation of the human skeleton; Khales, A.R., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2020; pp. 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mikkola, M. Feminist perspectives on sex and gender. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Zalta, E.N., Nodelman , U., Eds.; Standford University: Stanford, CA., U.S.A. 2022. Available online: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/feminism-gender/ (accessed 13 April 2023).
  4. Global Health 50/50. Gender and global health. Available online: https://globalhealth5050.org/gender-and-global-health/ (accessed on 14 April 2023).
  5. WHO. Defining Sexual Health—Report of a Technical Consultation on Sexual Health 28-31 January 2002, Geneva. Sexual Health Document Series, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. Available online: https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research/key-areas-of-work/sexual-health/defining-sexual-health (accessed on 16 April 2023).
  6. Hyde, J.S.; Bigler, R.S.; Joel, D.; Tate, C.C.; van Anders, S.M. The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. Amer. Psychol. 2019, 74, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Delphy, C. Rethinking sex and gender. Women's Studies Intern. Forum 1993, 16, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rushton, A.; Gray, L.; Canty, J.; Blanchard, K. Beyond Binary: (Re)Defining “Gender” for 21st Century Disaster Risk Reduction Research, Policy, and Practice. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Sayer, D. Capitalism and modernity: An excursus on Marx and Weber. Routledge: New York, NY, U.S.A., 2002; p. 7.
  10. Hodgson, G.M. Conceptualizing capitalism: Institutions, evolution, future. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, U.S.A., 2019.
  11. Hall, S. The fateful triangle. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, U.S.A. 2017; pp. 118–119.
  12. Chen, X. Modernity. In The Essentials of Habermas. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [CrossRef]
  13. Żytkowski, A.; Tubbs, R.S.; Iwanaga, J.; Clarke, E.; Polguj, M.; Wysiadecki, G. Anatomical normality and variability: Historical perspective and methodological considerations. Translational Res. Anatomy 2021, 23, 100105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Taherdoost, H. What are Different Research Approaches? Comprehensive Review of Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Research, Their Applications, Types, and Limitations. J. Manage. Sci. Engineer. Res. 2022, 5, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ríos, Á.; Zougagh, M. Modern qualitative analysis by miniaturized and microfluidic systems. TrAC. 2015, 69, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kästner, L.; Haueis, P. Discovering patterns: On the norms of mechanistic inquiry. Erkenntnis 2021, 86, 1635–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Williamson, B.; Piattoeva, N. Objectivity as standardization in data-scientific education policy, technology and governance. Learning, Media Technol. 2019, 44, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tassey, G. Standardization in technology-based markets. Res. Policy 2000, 29, 587–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ashworth, M.; Guerra, D.; Kordowicz, M. Individualised or Standardised Outcome Measures: A Co-habitation? Adm. Policy Ment. Health 2019, 46, 425–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Murray, C. Human diversity: The biology of gender, race, and class. Twelve: New York, NY, U.S.A., 2020.
  21. Jeffries, S. Everything, all the time, everywhere: how we became postmodern. Verso Books; Brooklyn, NY, U.S.A., 2022; p. 14.
  22. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations; Anscombe, G.E.M, Trans.; Blackwell: Oxford, U.K., 1958.
  23. Chiolero, A. Post-Modern Epidemiology: Back to the Populations. Epidemiologia 2020, 1, 2–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Jarvis, C.M.; Eddington, S.M. “My freedom doesn’t care about your fear. My freedom doesn’t care about your feelings”: Postmodern and oppositional organizing in #OpenAmericaNow. New Media Society 2021. [CrossRef]
  25. Grant, I.H. Postmodernism and science and technology. In The Routledge Companion to Postmodernism, 3rd ed.; Sim, S., Ed.; Routledge: London, U.K, 2001; pp. 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  26. Fiorini, L.G. ‘Sexual and Gender Migrations. In Sexual Difference in Debate: Bodies Desires and Fictions. Routledge: New York, NY, U.S.A., 2018; pp. 69–78.
  27. Weeks, J. Sexuality, 5th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, U.S.A, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  28. Warner, M. Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet. Social Text 1991, 29, 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  29. Morgenroth, T.; Ryan, M.K. The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspect. Psychol.Sci. 2021, 16, 1113–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Rosewarne, L. Radical and Cultural Feminisms. In Companion to feminist studies; Naples, N.A. Ed.; Wiley Online Library, 2020; pp.53-71. [CrossRef]
  31. Longo, G.M. Feminist Empiricism. In Companion to feminist studies; Naples, N.A. Ed.; Wiley Online Library, 2020; pp. 231–246. [CrossRef]
  32. Sullivan, A. Sex and the census: why surveys should not conflate sex and gender identity. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2020, 23, 517–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Foucault, M. The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An Introduction. Vintage: New York, NY, U.S.A., 1990.
  34. Ishii, Y. Diversification as a new disciplinary power: Gender and sexual subjectivity in postmodernity. Int. J. Jap. Sociol. 2018, 27, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Di Ceglie, D. Gender dysphoria in young people. In Clinical topics in child and adolescent psychiatry; Huline-Dickens, S., Ed.; RCPsych Publications: Cambridge, U.K, 2014; pp. 349–364. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271738628_Domenico_Di_Ceglie_Gender_dysphoria_in_young_people_in_Clinical_Topics_in_Child_and_Adolescent_Psychiatry_ed_S_Huline-Dickens_2014_RPCPsych_Publications (accessed on 18 April 2023).
  36. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd Edition (DSM-III). American Psychiatric Association: Washington DC, U.S.A.; 1980.
  37. Grewal, I.; Kaplan, C. Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality. GLQ 2001, 7, 663–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Snell, D.M.; Turner, J.M. 2018. Sex chromosome effects on male–female differences in mammals. Curr. Bio. 2018, 28, R1313–R1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Tannenbaum, C.; Ellis, R.P.; Eyssel, F.; Zou, J.; Schiebinger, L. Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering. Nature 2019, 575, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ostrer, H. Disorders of sex development (DSDs): An update. J. Clin. Endocrin. Metab. 2014, 99, 1503–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Reis, E. Impossible Hermaphrodites: Intersex in America, 1620–1960. J. Amer. His. 2005, 92, 411–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chase, C. Hermaphrodites with Attitude: Mapping the Emergence of Intersex Political Activism GLQ 1998, 4, 189–211. [CrossRef]
  43. Paoli, A.D.; Masullo, G. 2022. The desexualization of society. A digital ethnography on the asexual community. Ital. J. Sociol. Educ. 2022, 14, 153–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Heise, L.; Greene, M.E.; Opper, N.; Stavropoulou, M.; Harper, C.; Nascimento, M.; Zewdie, D. Gender inequality and restrictive gender norms: framing the challenges to health. Lancet 2019, 393, 2440–2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kirkup, K. The Origins of Gender Identity and Gender Expression in Anglo-American Legal Discourse. Uni. Toronto Law J. 2018, 68, 80–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ashley, F. Thinking an ethics of gender exploration: Against delaying transition for transgender and gender creative youth, Clin, Child Psychol. Psychia. 2019, 24, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lindqvist, A.; Sendén, M.G.; Renström, E.A. What is gender, anyway: a review of the options for operationalising gender. Psychol. Sexual. 2021, 12, 332–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hoskin, R.A. Femmephobia: The Role of Anti-Femininity and Gender Policing in LGBTQ+ People’s Experiences of Discrimination. Sex Roles 2019, 81, 686–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. del Río-González, A.M. To Latinx or not to Latinx: a question of gender inclusivity versus gender neutrality. Amer. J. Public Health 2021, 111, 1018–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hsu, K.J.; Bailey, J.M. The “Furry” Phenomenon: Characterizing Sexual Orientation, Sexual Motivation, and Erotic Target Identity Inversions in Male Furries. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2019, 48, 1349–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Seelman, K.L.; Poteat, T. Strategies used by transmasculine and non-binary adults assigned female at birth to resist transgender stigma in healthcare. Int. J. Transgender Health 2020, 21, 350–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. King, M. Stigma in psychiatry seen through the lens of sexuality and gender. BJPsych Inter. 2019, 16, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Koval, C.Z.; Rosette, A.S. The natural hair bias in job recruitment. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2021, 12, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chitty, C. Sexual Hegemony: Statecraft, Sodomy, and Capital in the Rise of the World System. Duke University Press: Durham, NC, U.S.A, 2020.
  55. Saenko, N.; Voronkova, O.; Volk, M.; Voroshilova, O. The social responsibility of a scientist: The philosophical aspect of contemporary discussions. J. Social Studies Educ. Res. 2019, 10, 332–345. Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216457/ (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  56. Munro, K. “Social Reproduction Theory,” Social Reproduction, and Household Production. Sci. Society 2019, 83, 451–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Brand, U.; Wissen, M. The historical making of the Imperial mode of living. In The imperial mode of living: Everyday life and the ecological crisis of capitalism. Verso Books: Brooklyn, NY, U.S.A., 2021; pp. 69–100.
  58. Tierney, W.; Hardy, J., III; Ebersole, C.R.; Viganola, D.; Clemente, E.G.; Gordon, M.; Hoogeveen, S.; Haaf, J.; Dreber, A.; Johannesson, M.; et al. A creative destruction approach to replication: Implicit work and sex morality across cultures. J. Exper. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 93, 104060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Folbre, N. The unproductive housewife: Her evolution in nineteenth-century economic thought. Signs: J. Women Cult. Society 1991, 16, 463–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Edwards, M.E. Pregnancy discrimination litigation: Legal erosion of capitalist ideology under equal employment opportunity law. Social Forces 1996, 75, 247–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wrightson, K. Earthly necessities: economic lives in early modern Britain. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, U.S.A., 2000.
  62. Collin, M.; Weil, D.N. The effect of increasing human capital investment on economic growth and poverty: A simulation exercise, J. Human Cap. 2020, 14, 43–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fize, W. The Homosexual Exception? The Case of the Labouchère Amendment. Cahiers Victoriens Édouardiens 2020, 91, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zyphur, M.J.; Pierides, D.C. Statistics and Probability Have Always Been Value-Laden: An Historical Ontology of Quantitative Research Methods. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 167, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Raper, S. A confusion of curves. Significance. 2022, 19, 32–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kennedy-Shaffer, L. Before p< 0.05 to beyond p< 0.05: using history to contextualize p-values and significance testing. Amer. Statisti. 2019, 73, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Langkjær-Bain, R. The troubling legacy of Francis Galton. Significance 2019, 16, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tafreshi, D. Adolphe Quetelet and the legacy of the “average man” in psychology. Hist. Psychol. 2022, 25, 34–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Sear, R. Demography and the rise, apparent fall, and resurgence of eugenics. Populat. Stud. 2021, 75, 201–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Michell, J. “The art of imposing measurement upon the mind”: Sir Francis Galton and the genesis of the psychometric paradigm. Theor. Psychol. 2022, 32, 375–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yakushko, O. Eugenics and its evolution in the history of western psychology: A critical archival review. Psychother. Politics Int. 2019, 17, e1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Howell, J.D.; Hirshbein, L.; Stern, A.M. Entanglements of Eugenics, Public Health, and Academic Medicine: Reckoning with the Life and Legacies of Victor C. Vaughan. Bull. Hist. Med. 2022, 96, 516–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Liscum, M.; Garcia, M.L. You can't keep a bad idea down: Dark history, death, and potential rebirth of eugenics. Anatom. Rec. 2022, 305, 902–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Schultz, D. The Undesirables: The Transformation of American Eugenics from Sterilization to Abortion. Ave Maria Law Rev. 2022, 20, 296–325. Available online: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/avemar20&div=15&id=&page= (accessed on 7 May 2023).
  75. Galton, D.J.; Galton, C.J. Francis Galton: and eugenics today. J. Med. Ethics 1998, 24, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Spiegel, A.M. The Jeremiah Metzger Lecture: A Brief History of Eugenics in America: Implications for Medicine in the 21st Century. Trans. Amer. Clin. Climatol. Assoc. 2019, 130, 216–234. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6736015/ (accessed on 7 May 2023).
  77. Loroff, N. Gender and Sexuality in Nazi Germany Constellations 2021, 3, 49–61. [CrossRef]
  78. Webster, W. Allies. Mixing It: Diversity in World War Two Britain Oxford Academic: Oxford, U.K., 2018. [CrossRef]
  79. Ferguson, R.B. Masculinity and war. Cur. Anthropol. 2021, 62, S108–S120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wollney, E.; Sternadori, M. Feminine, Competent, Submissive: A Multimodal Analysis of Depictions of Women in U.S. Wartime Persuasive Messages During World War I and World War II. Vis. Communica. Quart. 2019, 26, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Loroff, N. Gender and Sexuality in Nazi Germany. Constellations 2012, 3, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Khelghat-Doost, H.; Arıboğan, D.Ü. The Psychopolitics of Motherhood in Post-conflict Public Policies: The Cases of the PKK and ISIS. In Conflict and Post-Conflict Governance in the Middle East and Africa; Elayah, M.A., Lambert, L.A., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pleck, J.H. The theory of male sex-role identity: Its rise and fall, 1936 to the present’. In The making of masculinities, Brod, H., Ed. Routledge: London, U.K., 2018; 21-38. [CrossRef]
  84. van Dijk, B. Gendering the Geneva Conventions. Human Rights Quart. 2022, 44, 286–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Belmonte LA. The international LGBT rights movement: A History. Bloomsbury Publishing: London, U.K., 2021. 2021. [CrossRef]
  86. Nelaeva, G. The impact of transnational advocacy networks on the prosecution of wartime rape and sexual violence: The case of the ICTR. Int. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2010, 85, 3–27. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41887428 (accessed on 13 May 2023).
  87. Lemkin, R. Genocide. Amer. Schol. 1946, 15, 227–230. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41204789 (accessed on 13 May 2023).
  88. Young, D.R. Making sex public and other cinematic fantasies. Duke University Press: Durham, NC, U.S.A., 2018. [CrossRef]
  89. Regan, H. Playboy and Pornification: 65 Years of the Playboy Centerfold. Sexuality Cult. 2021, 25, 1058–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Comella, L. Vibrator nation: How feminist sex-toy stores changed the business of pleasure. Duke University Press: Durham, NC, U.S.A., 2017. [CrossRef]
  91. Guttmacher, A.F. Oral contraception. Postgrad. Med. 1962, 32, 552–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Fernández, J.J. Women’s Civil Rights and the Worldwide Liberalization of Abortion on Demand and for Socio-Economic Reasons. Sociological Quart. 2021, 62, 87–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Karandashev, V. Love in Modern America and Europe. In: Romantic Love in Cultural Contexts. Springer International Publishing AG: Cham., Switzerland, 2017; 165–173. [CrossRef]
  94. Bruce, C. The End of Monogamy? An Exploration of Non-monogamous Relationship Dynamics. Can. J. Fam. Youth /Le J. Can. de Famille et de La Jeunesse 2022, 14, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Milam, E. The evolution of Darwinian sexualities. BJHS Themes 2021, 6, 133–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hammack, P.L.; Toolis, E.E.; Wilson, B.D.M.; Clark, R.C.; Frost, D.M. Making Meaning of the Impact of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) on Public Health and Sexual Culture: Narratives of Three Generations of Gay and Bisexual Men. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2019, 48, 1041–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Seidman, S. Constructing sex as a domain of pleasure and self-expression: Sexual ideology in the sixties. Theory Cult. Soc. 1989, 6, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Baumeister, R.F.; Vohs, K.D. Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 8, 339–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Potts, A.; Grace, V.M.; Vares, T.; Gavey, N. ‘Sex for life’? Men's counter-stories on ‘erectile dysfunction’, male sexuality and ageing. Sociol. Health Illness 2006, 28, 306–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Verinis, J.S.; Roll, S. Primary and secondary male characteristics: The hairiness and large penis stereotypes. Psychol. Rep. 1970, 26, 123–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Levine, E. Symbols of Sex: Television’s Women and Sexual Difference. In: Wallowing in Sex: the New Sexual Culture of 1970s American Television. Duke University Press: Durham, NC, U.S.A. 2007; pp. 123–168.
  102. Nell Trautner, M.; Kwan, S. Gendered appearance norms: An analysis of employment discrimination lawsuits, 1970–2008. In: Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace. Emerald Group Publishing Limited: London, U.K., 2010; pp. 127–150.
  103. Weiss, M.D. Gay shame and BDSM pride: Neoliberalism, privacy, and sexual politics. Rad. Hist. Rev. 2008, 100, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Felski, R. Redescriptions of Female Masochism. Minn. Rev. 2005, 2005, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Segal, L. The Belly of the Beast (I): Sex as Male Domination? In: Slow Motion, 3rd edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan: London, U.K.,2007 p. 171–94.
  106. Wegesin, D.J.; Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F. Top/bottom self-label, anal sex practices, HIV risk and gender role identity in gay men in New York City. J. Psychol. Human Sexual. 2000, 12, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Harden, V.A., and Fauci, A. AIDS at 30: A History. Potomac Books, Inc.: Washington, DC, U.S.A., 2012. W: Books, Inc.
  108. Sallah, M.M. Strategies for Preventing the Spread of HIV Infections among Youths: Counselling Implications. Zamfara Int. J. Edu. 2021, 1, 273–281. [Google Scholar]
  109. Herek, G.M.; Capitanio, J.P. AIDS stigma and sexual prejudice’. Amer. Behavior. Sci. 1999, 42, 1130–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Seidman, S. Constructing Sex as a Domain of Pleasure and Self-expression: Sexual Ideology in the Sixties. Theory, Cult. Soc. 1989, 6, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Dowsett, G. The ‘gay plague’ revisited. In Herdt, G., Ed. Moral panics, sex panics: Fear and the fight over sexual rights. New York University Press: New York NY, U.S.A., 2009; pp. 130–156.
  112. Chin, J. Global estimates of AIDS cases and HIV infections: 1990. Aids 1990, 4, S277–S283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Ingraham, C. Heterosexual Imaginary: Feminist Sociology ad Theories of Gender. Sociolog. Theor. 1994, 12, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Glover, E.D. Herpes: Removing Fact from Fiction. Health Edu. 1984, 15, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Garfield, S. The end of innocence: Britain in the time of AIDS. Faber & Faber: London, U.K., 2021.
  116. Kaestle, C.E.; Allen, K.R. The role of masturbation in healthy sexual development: Perceptions of young adults. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2011, 40, 983–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Fischer, N.; Graham, C.A.; Træen, B.; Hald, G.M. Prevalence of Masturbation and Associated Factors Among Older Adults in Four European Countries. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2022, 51, 1385–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Bates, A.; Hobman, T.; Bell, B.T. 2020. “Let me do what I please with it... Don’t decide my identity for me”: LGBTQ+ youth experiences of social media in narrative identity development. J. Adoles. Res. 2020, 35, 51–83. [CrossRef]
  119. Fausto-Sterling, A. Gender/Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Identity Are in the Body: How Did They Get There? J. Sex Res. 2019, 56, 529–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Suen, L.W.; Lunn, M.R.; Katuzny, K.; Finn, S.; Duncan, L.; Sevelius, J.; Flentje, A.; Capriotti, M.R.; Lubensky, M.E.; Hunt, C.; et al. What sexual and gender minority people want researchers to know about sexual orientation and gender identity questions: A qualitative study. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2020, 49, 2301–2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Löckenhoff, C.E.; Chan, W.; McCrae, R.R.; De Fruyt, F.; Jussim, L.; De Bolle, M.; Costa, P.T.; Sutin, A.R.; Realo, A.; Allik, J.; et al. Gender Stereotypes of Personality: Universal and Accurate? J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2014, 45, 675–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Dixson, B.J.W. , Rantala, M.J.; Brooks, R.C. Cross-Cultural Variation in Women’s Preferences for Men’s Body Hair. Adapt. Human Behav. Physiol. 2019, 5, 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Elia, J.P.; Eliason, M.J. Dangerous omissions: Abstinence-only-until-marriage school-based sexuality education and the betrayal of LGBTQ youth. Amer. J. Sex. Edu. 2010, 5, 17–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Elshtain, J.B. Cultural conundrums and gender: America's present past’. In Angus, I, and Jhally, S. Eds. Cultural politics in contemporary America. Routledge: London, U.K., 2022; pp. 123–134.
  125. Mac Giolla, E.; Kajonius, P.J. Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding’. Inter. J. Psychol. 2019, 54, 705–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hembree, W.C.; Cohen-Kettenis, P.T.; Gooren, L.; Hannema, S.E.; Meyer, W.J.; Murad, M.H.; ... and T’Sjoen, G.G. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J. Clin. Endocri. Metab. 2017, 102, 3869–3903. [CrossRef]
  127. Johnson, A.H. Transnormativity: A new concept and its validation through documentary film about transgender men. Sociolog. Inqui. 2016, 86, 465–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Mao, Y. Destigmatization in the Furry Fandom: A Case Study on the X University Self-organization in China. In 2022 International Conference on Sport Science, Education and Social Development (SSESD 2022). Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 52–60.
  129. Coen-Sanchez, K.; Ebenso, B.; El-Mowafi, I.M.; Berghs, M.; Idriss-Wheeler, D.; Yaya, S. Repercussions of overturning Roe v. Wade for women across systems and beyond borders. Reproduct. Health 2022, 19, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Risman, B.J. 2022. Gender & Society in a Post-Roe Era. Gender Soc. 2022, 36, 625–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Lawford-Smith, H. Gender-critical feminism. Oxford University Press: Oxford, U.K., 2022.
  132. Harris, L.H. Navigating loss of abortion services—a large academic medical center prepares for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. New Eng. J. Med. 2022, 386, 2061–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Belu, D.S. Reflections on the Repeal of Roe v. Wade. Gender Stud. 2022, 21, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Lieberman, L.D.; Goldfarb, E.S. Sex ed in the post-Roe world: Implications for public health education. Health Edu. Behav. 2022, 49, 919–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Brotto, L.A.; Milani, S. Asexuality: When Sexual Attraction Is Lacking. In Gender and Sexuality Development. Focus on Sexuality Research; VanderLaan, D.P., Wong, W.I., Eds. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Glass, V.Q. Queering Relationships: Exploring Phenomena of Asexual Identified Persons in Relationships. Contemp. Fam. Ther. 2022, 44, 344–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Catri, F. Defining asexuality as a sexual identity: Lack/little sexual attraction, desire, interest and fantasies. Sexual. Cult. 2021, 25, 1529–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. de Oliveira, L.; Carvalho, J.; Sarikaya, S.; Urkmez, A.; Salonia, A.; Russo, G.I. Patterns of sexual behavior and psychological processes in asexual persons: a systematic review. Int. J Impot. Res. 2021, 33, 641–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sims, J.P.; Pirtle, W.L.; Johnson-Arnold, I. Doing hair, doing race: The influence of hairstyle on racial perception across the US. Ethn. Racial Stud. 2020, 43, 2099–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Zaman, H.B.A. Furry acts as non/human drag: A case study exploring queer of colour liveability through the fursona. Queer Stud. Media Pop. Cult. 2023, 8, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Boris, E. Making the woman worker: Precarious labor and the fight for global standards, 1919-2019. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, U.S.A., 2019.
  142. Sun, W. Dark intimacy and the moral economy of sex: Rural migrants and the cultural politics of transgression. China Inform. 2022, 36, 112–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Hyde, J.S.; Bigler, R.S.; Joel, D.; Tate, C.C.; van Anders, S.M. The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. Amer, Psychol. 2019, 74, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Picón-Jaimes, Y.A.; Lozada-Martinez, I.D.; Orozco-Chinome, J.E.; Montaña-Gómez, L.M.; Bolaño-Romero, M.P.; Moscote-Salazar, L.R.; Janjua, T.; Rahman, S. , Euthanasia and assisted suicide: an in-depth review of relevant historical aspects. Ann. Med. Surg. 2022, 75, 103380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Mbah, R.E.; Wasum, D.F. Russian-Ukraine 2022 War: A Review of the Economic Impact of Russian-Ukraine Crisis on the USA, UK, Canada, and Europe. Advan. Soc. Sci. Res, J. 2022, 9, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Hunter, R. The Ukraine crisis: Why and what now? Survival 2022, 64, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Gaufman, E. Damsels in distress: Fragile masculinity in digital war. Media, War Conflict 2022, 175063522211302. [CrossRef]
  148. Choi, D.; DeLong, M. Defining female self sexualization for the twenty-first century. Sexual. Cult. 2019, 23, 1350–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Burke, K.; MillerMacPhee, A. Constructing pornography addiction’s harms in science, news media, and politics. Social Forces 2021, 99, 1334–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Harris, R. On Sadism: Placing the Rough Sex Defence Within a History of Sadistic Conceptualization. In ‘Rough Sex’ and the Criminal Law: Global Perspectives; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, West Yorkshire, U.K, 2022; pp. 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Boyle, K. Of moguls, monsters, and men. In The Routledge handbook of the politics of the# MeToo movement; Chandra, G., Erlingsdóttir, I., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, U.S.A, 2021; pp. 186–198. [Google Scholar]
  152. McGreal, C.; Pengelly, M. Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused columnist E Jean Carroll. The Guardian 2023, 9 May. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/09/e-jean-carroll-wins-trump-trial-verdict (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  153. Aroustamian, C. Time’s up: Recognising sexual violence as a public policy issue: A qualitative content analysis of sexual violence cases and the media. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2020, 50, 101341–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Andreasen, M.B. A monster, a pervert, and an anti-hero: the discursive construction of Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Louis CK in humorous# MeToo memes. Feminist Media Stud. 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Olson, G. Legal Facts, Affective Truths, and Changing Narratives in Trials Involving Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein and# MeToo. In The Routledge Companion to Narrative Theory; Dawson, P., Mäkelä, M. Eds. Routledge: New York, NY, U.S.A, 2022; pp. 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Lanius, C. Torment porn or feminist witch hunt: Apprehensions about the# MeToo movement on/r/AskReddit. J. Commun. Inqu. 2019, 43, 415–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Moon, J.W. Why are world religions so concerned with sexual behavior? Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 40, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Öztürk, C. Revisiting the islam-patriarchy nexus: is religious fundamentalism the central cultural barrier to gender equality? Z. Religion Ges. Polit. 2022, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated