In two distinct lines of thought which of course tend to oppose each other bringing about the two antagonistic sides in the whole argument over the subject matter. On one side, some people define gender based on their biological origins and structure thereby categorizing them as either male or female, though another category of gender has recently come into play and is rapidly claiming recognition as far as the classification of gender is concerned. This third gender is the transgender which is mainly common in America and is a fusion of the two biological definitions. A proper classification of the third gender as far as its biological orientation is concerned has not yet been devised, but it still cut across the two main ones (Dube, 2001).On the other hand, the term gender has been defined on the social basis depending on the roles carried out by the two biologically defined gender categories. It is good to note here that the social definition fuses both the biological orientation of the two gender lines with the social roles assigned to each biological gender in the society. By doing this, the society dictates what roles each gender mentioned above has to play in life and still come up with the two extremes but with different roles. Depending on the social classifications, two distinct lines can be drawn therefore categorizing gender as either the masculine or the feminine gender depending on the roles assigned to them by the society. Engles argues that the societal definition has been the more advanced and rampantly used the two different ways of defining the term gender. Since everyone comes from a given society, each person, therefore, views gender in a different perspective though owing to the societal model of classification which is actually very clear and has no intermediate (Engels, 1948). To this extent, therefore, I would like to bring to the attention of the reader the purpose of this paper and the issues tackled within with regard to gender matters and concerns.
Beauvoir, S. d. (1988). The second sex. London: Cambrodge University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Connell, R. 2. (2002). ‘Gender regimes and the general order’ in The Polity Reader in Gender Studies. London: Polity Press.
Dube, L. (2001). Anthropological explorations in gender: Intersecting fields,. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Engels, F. 1. (1948). The origin of the family, private property and the state. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Foucault, M. (1989). The history of sexuality. Penguin: Harmondsworth.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Englewood.
Geetha, V. (2002). Gende. Kolkata: Stree Publications.
Jackson, S. a. (2002). A sociological reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Lorber, J. (1984). Paradoxes of gender,. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Moore, H. 2. (2002). The Cultural Constitution of Gender’ in The Polity Reader in Gender Studies. London: Polity Press.
Nongbri, T. (1994). ‘Gender and the Khasi social structure’ in Patricia Uberoi: Family, Kinship and Marriage in India. Delhi: OUP.
Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.
Ortner, S. (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture?’. In Michele Z.Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere (eds), Woman, culture and society, 67- 87.
West, C. a. (1987). ‘Doing gender’, in Gender and Society. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples