We Don't Have to Be Blank Slates

Nor bundles of biological imperatives

Photo by Matt Flores on Unsplash

I realized, recently, that civil rights movements struggle with their stance on nature versus nurture. Feminism often claims that nurture reigns supreme: women are no different from men, we are all blank slates, socialization is responsible for every social concern. The gay rights movement, on the other hand, favors nature: we were “born this way.” Questioning either narrative risks accusations of misogyny or homophobia, respectively. Women simply cannot be thought of as naturally passive or maternal. Same-sex attracted people cannot have been shaped by early experience or choice. Yet why would different groups be governed by different natural laws? Clearly, leaps are being made.

Perhaps that’s why the trans movement’s message is convoluted. On the one hand is nature: male and female brains, anomalous cerebral mappings, endocrine disorders, sex as a constellation of biological markers. On the other is nurture: the ever-expanding menu of freely-chosen genders, self-actualization via body modification, everything’s socially constructed, tear down the oppressive cisheteronormative system.

But we need not be defined purely by nature, nor shaped solely by nurture, to defend our rights. A society can pursue tolerance and fairness without taking a hard line on the age-old nurture versus nature question. Besides, all signs suggest we’re influenced by a combination of both. Some gendered connotations are clearly socially constructed—like those of the colors pink and blue, whose meanings have flipped over time. Others feel very innate. Same-sex couples appear to throw sex differences into sharp relief: it’s no longer surprising when a pair of gay men open their relationship or a lesbian couple adopts a gaggle of children and cats.

Regardless of how we got here, the traits of men and women fall on overlapping normal distributions. That means—for example—that women on average are shorter than men on average, even if a particular woman is taller than a particular man. The same applies to interests and personality traits. It’s been shown that “men are more interested in things” while “women are more interested in people”—on average. But that doesn’t mean that a particular woman isn’t skilled at math, nor that we should close off opportunities for her to study the subject or work in the field. It makes sense to limit opportunities to those who can complete the relevant training and pass the exams, not those who look like they can. After all, those overlapping bell curves, while describing averages, also demonstrate that a significant number of women fall outside the norm. And ethically, it’s wrong to treat people as walking collections of stereotypes. It’s right to treat each individual as a human being with potential and feelings and rights.

The question of nature versus nurture is a fascinating one. But it is orthogonal to the cause of women’s rights.

The conflation of feminism with blank slatism has only harmed the cause. First, it’s provided fodder for critics who point out inconsistencies in feminism. For example, feminists have alternatively claimed both that men are naturally violent, and that their aggression is socialized—tamed with proper parenting or exacerbated by video games. Second, it causes unnecessary division in the movement. According to the analysis of one feminist, AGPGate arose partly as clash between blank-slate feminists, who believe that men can enjoy fashion, and sex-essentialist feminists, who believe that men are perverts whose activities must be curbed. I think male perversion requires a more nuanced analysis, but evidence supports this historical division. Third, blank slatism muddles the message. Who cares how a particular woman became interested in the CIO position at a tech company? What matters is equal access to such opportunities.

Because the nature versus nurture question cannot be answered, and because it isn’t important in this context, I view liberalism as the appropriate guide for feminism (as well as for other civil rights movements). Human rights are best supported when individual liberty is prioritized, all persons are equal before the law, regulation of behavior is minimal, and speech is free, so that oppressive cultural practices can be debated, critiqued and corrected.