Sex and Gender Are Dials—Not Switches
Exploring sexual diversity as obliquely interconnected dimensions.
Posted May 13, 2016 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan
It has become more and more common for young people around the world to describe themselves not as a “man” or a “woman,” but as “something else.” One term for this something else is transgender .
Transgender is an umbrella term for a wide variety of different identities (e.g., genderqueer, gender variant, gender fluid, gender non-conforming, hyper-feminine gay man, asexual, etc.). The common core of transgender identities is they don’t fit within traditional cisgender binaries of men versus women (“cisgender” refers to people whose sexual and gendered identities align in typical ways).
Transgendered individuals frequently face intense prejudices and physical dangers in trying to live their authentic lives around the world (looking at you, North Carolina ). Here is a brief, emotionally-compelling video describing some transgender people’s problematic experiences with health care in the USA. It’s a powerful video, I encourage you to watch it and think about how cisgenders would feel if they were treated like transgender people in your society. Think about it.
Another increasingly common variation of sexual identity expression is transsexuality . Recently, Caitlyn Jenner, the Wachowski sisters, and many other famous people have publically announced they have changed their sexual identity from male to female (or vice versa).
According to a widespread conception of what it means to be transsexual , most transsexual women were always “women” in terms of their inner psychology (i.e., they felt their sexual identity was “woman” and they often had female-typical/feminine-gendered desires, interests, and attitudes). Transsexual women were never really men on the inside, according to this narrative; they were women who had the misfortune of being born in the wrong sexual body. Not everyone agrees with this view, including many transsexuals themselves (see here ), but it is a very common narrative.
A Periodic Table of Sexual Diversity
Some sexual scientists have tried to chart the many different expressions of sex/ gender identity , putting together formal models of what we know about variations in sexual identity (man, woman, something else), gendered identity (masculine, feminine, androgynous, something else; note: the term “gender identity” is often conflated with sexual identity, here I use gendered identity to refer to the degree a person is typically masculine and/or feminine for their society), sexual orientation ( androphilic [finding male bodies erotic], gynephilic [finding female bodies erotic], bisexual, asexual, something else), mating orientation (monogamous, polyamorous , open, something else), and other important forms of sexual diversity.
Leading sexual scientist Sari van Anders (2015) recently made an excellent attempt at integrating several of these sex/gender diversities here . She distinguishes between sex (including male and female as dimensions), gender/sex (man and woman as dimensions), and gender (masculine and feminine as dimensions), emphasizing variation in the intensity of each sexual configuration.
The esteemed Anne Fausto-Sterling (2012) has argued for using dynamical systems theory to understand varying influences on sex/gender diversity (see also Fausto-Sterling et al., 2012). She emphasizes the John Money's classic 5-sexes approach of Genetic Chromosomal Sex ( XX , XY, 45X, 47XXY, XYY, etc.), Fetal Gonadal Sex (ovaries versus testicles and sex as subsequent gamete production), Fetal Hormonal Sex ( in utero exposure to testosterone and subsequent organizational effects), Internal Reproductive Sex (uterus/cervix/fallopian tubes vs. vas deferens/prostate/epididymis), and External Genital Sex (vagina/clitoris vs. scrotum/penis).
Sexological legend Milton Diamond also has a compelling model of sex/gender diversity he calls Biased-Interaction Theory (see Diamond, 2006).
Sexual scientists have learned a lot about sex/gender identities, but really we’ve just begun to understand the causes underlying the myriad ways humans express their sexual selves. There is much work to be done.
A Scientific Understanding of Sex and Gender Is Challenging
As I see it, there are three big challenges with trying to create integrative models of sex/gender diversity (or developing a “Periodic Table” of sexualities). The first is that, unlike atoms, human sexuality doesn’t come in the form of clean, distinct categories (actually, in some ways atoms don’t either).
Even something as simple as “male” versus “female” as a category is an oversimplification that ignores intersexual conditions. For example, people with complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome have X and Y chromosomes (typically, this makes one “male”), but they usually grow up as female and are completely unaware they are chromosomally male until infertility issues lead to a genetic revelation.
There are a wide variety of other intersexual conditions or disorders of sexual development (DSDs), including different types of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia , Klinefelter Syndrome , Swyer Syndrome , and 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency in which a person with X and Y chromosomes has a feminine looking body until reaching puberty , after which their body begins to take on a masculine appearance. Interestingly, several field studies of 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency find that even though parents often assign and raise these children as girls, once puberty is reached nearly all of these children develop male sexual identities and gynephilic sexual orientations (Gray et al., 2016). In total, perhaps as many as 1.7% of all humans have an intersexual condition (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). So, sexual categories can be scientifically problematic, even for something as seemingly simple as male/female sexual identity.
A second big challenge with creating a Periodic Table of sexual diversity is most expressions of sexuality do not take the form of one, simple dimension (let alone category). Think about sexual orientation, for instance. Most sexual diversity scientists believe sexual orientation should be thought of as at least two dimensions : Androphilia (whether someone finds male bodies erotic) and Gynephilia (whether someone finds female bodies erotic). It is true many people are high on only one of those dimensions, but most people (especially women) probably do not find only one sex erotically interesting (Chivers et al., 2007; Lippa, 2006).
For those who want measuring sexuality to be easy, wait...it gets worse. Even these two dimensions are too simple, as sexual orientation is a lot more than just who turns you on erotically. A popular measure of sexual orientation, the Klein Sex Grid (see below), measures sexual orientation in terms of who you are attracted to, who you have sex with, who you fantasize about, how you self-identify, and much more. It also measures facets of sexual orientation in the past, present, future, and ideal contexts. No, most of the important expressions of sexual diversity cannot be understood in terms of a simple, singular dimension.
The third challenge with creating a Periodic Table of sexual diversity is that even if sexual scientists could agree precisely 70 distinct dimensions underlay human sexual diversity, perhaps clustering in 7 major domains (let’s call them the Sexy Seven ), we face the incredibly complex problem of organizing precisely how these dimensions are statistically (and causally) related to one another.
Are all the sexual diversity dimensions independent, meaning if we know something about a person on one dimension (e.g., masculine gendered identity), we don’t know anything about how they score on other dimensions (e.g., gynephilic sexual orientation)? Empirically, it appears most sexual diversity dimensions are not independent (they may be called obliquely related ). So, if we know a person is masculine in one way, we know it is likely (though not perfectly so) the person is masculine in other ways, too.
Again, though, oblique associations are not perfect when it comes to sexuality, especially when you dig down into the details underneath broad labels like “sexual orientation.” For example, although who we have sexual intercourse with often correlates with sexual orientation, it is not perfectly correlated (e.g., many prisoners engage in same-sex behaviors, but do not consider themselves homosexual; Beck & Johnson, 2012). Even more complicating is the finding that people’s sexual diversity levels can change over time, such as with the relatively frequent occurrence of sexual orientation fluidity in women (Diamond, 2008; Kuhle & Radtke, 2013).
What this means is that although male/female, masculine/feminine, androphilic/gynephilic, and so forth might be scientifically useful as overall summaries (a sort of shorthand until we figure out what is really happening), massive amounts of sexual diversity exist under that surface-level description. The underlying variation is not random (cisgender men are usually more masculine and gynephilic, on average, than cisgender women), but a lot of hidden and scientifically important sexuality exists underneath sexual labels. Scientifically, this is a problem.
Sex and Gender as Dials (Not Switches)
I’m certainly not the first to suggest so, but I would argue a useful solution to many of these problems with a Periodic Table of sexual diversity is to think about sexuality as a series of interconnected, dimensional dials (rather than just a few categorical switches).
As an example, think about the many forms of sexual diversity associated with sexual identity differences . Rather than thinking about men/women as categorically different (or different along one dimension of masculinity versus femininity), I think it is more useful to think about sex differences as a series of numerous interconnected, multidimensional dials. Dials that can be turned up or down (individually, or in combinations) depending on one’s genetics , hormone levels, organizational effects in utero , activational effects of puberty, and a wide range of social, historical, and cultural factors (Pirlott & Schmitt, 2014; Schmitt, 2015).
One of the most powerful sources of moving up and down the many dials of sex/gender are the organizational effects of prenatal androgen exposure. Below, Ellis (2011) illustrates the differing typical testosterone experiences of human males and females across development.
According to the organizational hypothesis of sex differentiation, a key cause of male-female sex differences is the prenatal experience (or lack thereof) of androgen-related brain masculinization (Baron-Cohen, 2004; Lombardo et al., 2018). In humans, a critical gestational period exists during the second trimester during which male brains, but typically not female brains, are permanently altered in function and structure in ways producing masculinized physical and psychological traits (e.g., personalities, cognitive abilities, play preferences; Cohen-Bendahan et al., 2005; Hines, 2010).
As noted by Schmitt (2015), evidence supporting this organizational effect view arises from several sources, including:
Perhaps as a result of these differential in utero exposures to testosterone, when we look around the world we find across all (or nearly all) cultures that men and women differ, on average, in many regards. Ellis (2011) documented 65 apparently universal sex differences in cognition and behavior, ranging from preferences and attitudes to interests and abilities.
Below is a (very limited) Top 10 List of sex differences that appear to transcend cultures…
Physical Traits (e.g., height, upper body strength, pubertal timing, voice, face, hips)
Mental Abilities (mental rotation/systematizing versus mental location and verbal ability)
Mate Preferences (face/body cues found attractive, fertility versus status mate choice)
Sexual Desires (sex drive, paraphilias, short-term versus sexual fluidity, long-term)
Personal Values (power, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, vs. benevolence, universalism)
Occupational Interests (things/realistic/investigative vs. people/artistic/social professions)
Social Interests (stick toys and competitive sports versus doll toys and domestic interests)
Social Behaviors (rough-tumble play, physical aggression , risk-taking versus compliance)
Mental Health ( psychopathy / ADHD /retardation versus depression / anxiety /dependence)
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.