Gender reveal parties have become increasingly common and extravagant. Although common, they are rather unnecessary, especially if it is held separately from a baby shower. But that is besides the point. While I could go on about these unneeded parties, the real issue lies with what they celebrate or reveal.
These parties welcome a child into the world by projecting expected gender stereotypes onto them, potentially limiting the child’s ability to determine who they really are. They confound sex and gender.
First off, the title “gender reveal party” is flawed in itself. The sex of the child is revealed, specifically relating to their anatomy. This follows the child’s DNA, not their gender.
So, what is gender? And how does it differ from biological sex?
Merriam Webster defines gender as the behavioral, cultural or psychological traits typically associated with one sex, but even this definition has become outdated with the expansion of the LGBTQ+ community. Gender is heavily influenced by societal traditions and expectations, so it can be referred to as a social construct.
A social construct is an idea constructed of shared understandings by a community or group. So, for example, the traditional view of family is that the man works while the woman presides over domestic affairs. A societal understanding grew from that that women were domestic beings, which, in reality, has nothing to do with their sex. It is strictly based on what is expected of women and their “assigned” responsibilities.
As mentioned earlier, sex is determined by one’s DNA. It is typically binary (a third, middle category named ‘intersex’ is also possible). This differs from gender. Gender is a spectrum; femininity to masculinity is a gradient anyone can move across.
Society has a binary expectation, but gender does not have to follow that assumption. For example, a biologically male person could express traditionally “feminine” qualities while identifying as a man, but a biologically male person could express the same qualities and not identify as a man. It depends on where the person finds they fit in society, even if that means going away from expectations.
Learning the sex of the baby is not a problem, but that specifically means the biological nature of the child, not their socially determined gender. Gender is not outrightly determined by the sex of the child, nor does it determine sexuality or personalities.
Why does it matter? What harm comes with assigning gender before birth?
Laura Tropp, a writer for the Smithsonian, says, “A ritual that sexes and genders a person before they are born places limits rather than offers possibilities on who they may become.” Labeling a child as a particular gender before they have the chance to discover themselves could limit their personality and true selves.
Marie Claire magazine writer Diane Stopyra says, “In a ritual that celebrates only a binary way of thinking about identity, we’re leaving a cross-section of the population out, adding to a culture of trans and intersex shame.” This tradition makes it harder for transgender, intersex and other nonbinary people to explain who they are or choose to be. Going outside of rigid gender expectations is hard enough, but if this starts before birth it escalates this difficulty.
Now, obviously, parents have the right to learn the sex of their child and celebrate it—-anticipate having a son or daughter, even. But, it is imperative to remain open to who that child will become, not what they are now.
Maddie Peters can be reached at pete9542@stthomas.edu.
You make terrific points in this essay, Maddie. I’ve noticed recently that there is some criticism of gender reveal parties but not for the important reason that you clearly articulate here. Instead the controversy revolves around the increasing number of injuries–and even a death–due to some of the outrageous stunts performed during some of these parties. Thanks for calling our attention to this controversial practice.
Couldn’t agree more that gender-reveal parties are unnecessary. Seems like an excuse to get more money from expecting parents, their friends, and family.
Your argument for this conclusion, however, is troubling. Only with a very shallow notion of freedom can you believe that social conventions or customs restrict freedom. That we must drive on the right side of the road is a social construct, true. It restricts our “freedom” to drive on the left side of the road. But I’d rather live without the “freedom” to drive on the left side of the road. Similarly, I would much rather boys be taught the conventions of chivalry—opening doors for women and the elderly, stepping to the side when passing on a side walk, etc—than that they have their natural urges left wild, uncultivated, and untamed. If you want to do away with particular gender norms, fine. Make the case that this or that gender norm is harmful. But don’t do away with all gender norms unless you want a society full of frat boys who follow every natural urge that pops into their undisciplined mind.
Very good points here Maddie, but I think you yourself have a lot to learn about these issues. “Now, obviously, parents have the right to learn the sex of their child and celebrate it—-anticipate having a son or daughter, even.” You seem to suggest that someone can only have either a son or a daughter, as if gender were indeed binary. I encourage you to continue to read up on these issues and to do more research for your articles dealing with gender identity in the future.
Interesting, perhaps the fact Maddie refers to “parents” in the plural is also a symptom of subconscious, socially constructed bias. Can’t a single parent have a child? Surely, in light of new reproductive technologies, there is no essential connection between sex between one male and one female and children. Surely, there is no essential connection between the parent(s) who raise the children and the germ cell origins. While we’re at it, let’s also do away with cisgender talk about gender “binaries” as if there were only two poles between which all the genders can be placed. If gender is a mere social construct, with no basis in the two biological sexes, isn’t gender more like a color wheel or even a polyhedron than a number line with two opposite and absolute end points? Saying gender is a binary infringes on the freedom of gender non-conforming individuals/personal-pluralities by making them fit between the two poles of male and female.
“Labeling a child as a particular gender before they have the chance to discover themselves could limit their personality and true selves.”
If ‘gender’ is a fluid ‘social construct’ that simply attempts to put a name to one’s personal conglomeration of desires, likes, dislikes, etc., then sure, it’s utterly subjective. In this case, there would seem to be innumerable ‘genders’–or at least, as many genders as there are unique individuals. This being the case, I’d argue that this so-called ‘gender’ is pretty meaningless.
Similarly, what is this ‘true self’ you speak of? What do you mean by ‘discover themselves’? Again, I’ll admit that every individual has particular desires, likes, dislikes, etc., but is our humanity–who and what we are–defined by what we find ourselves to desire, like, or dislike? Perhaps I am mischaracterizing your opinion, Maddie, but maybe I’m more accurately describing Ali’s opinion.
In the end, I think I agree more with Jonah. Humans seem to flourish more when they don’t just acknowledge and then celebrate their desires, but they seek and strive to live by what their reason and conscience says. For instance, it may be a constricting social construct to force your male child to play football rather than act in the play, but it seems helpful to encourage your male child to be disciplined in his academic and acting pursuits, though he may desire to shirk responsibility and indulge his immediate desires to play video games and…
Brother James, I think you are accurately describing my position. We now know today that gender is indeed a spectrum with infinite points. Myself, and I think Maddie as well, are following our reason and consciences on these issues. We see the discrimination and oppression that is so rampant today, even between parents and children! We cannot just sit back and watch as these things happen, and must do something about it. Hopefully, the government will step in at some point and take these children away from their abusers so they can indeed flourish, unrestricted by labels that their parents put onto them. Only then will this problem be solved and kids will stop being brainwashed by ideologies.
James, I took Ali Khabib’s original comment to be an example of irony, not literal. But your observations about Maddie’s article are commendable.
Five comments. First, Ali makes the comment, bordering on parody, that “kids [will] stop being brainwashed by ideologies” “[o]nly” when “the government … take[s] these children away from … their parents.” That is jaw-droppingly frightening, and sounds far more like brainwashing by ideologies than the idea that a man is a man and a woman a woman.
Second, one of the things I have always found fascinating about gender theory is that one’s gender identity is ineluctably dependent upon their sex. If I am a biological male but identify as a woman, I am “transgender,” because my gender corresponds to the opposite sex. If I am a biological male and identify as a man, I am “cisgender” because my gender matches my sex. If I am a biological male and identify as neither male nor female, then I am “nonbinary.” All three categories of gender identity are intelligible only in relation to biological sex, and even GLAAD’s media reference guide begins with a definition of “sex.”
Third, James characterizes at least Ali’s opinion as holding that gender is “defined by what we find ourselves to desire, like, or dislike.” According to this opinion, this defines the “true self.” I see (at least) two problems with this. First, deducing one’s gender identity from “desires, likes, dislikes, etc.” seems to presuppose and reaffirm gender stereotypes….
For example, a biological male who prefers theater to sports, pink to blue, presiding over domestic affairs to work, and identifying from that as “female” — this affirms the stereotype that all of these are feminine and not masculine. But I thought that was the problem to begin with — and frankly, actually borders on sexism (which is another peculiarity, where “women don’t belong in the workplace but at home” is “sexist,” not “genderist”). Put differently, the gender identity of the biological male in our example can only be grasped if we hold various socially constructed gender norms in place. Thus, gender theory would then seem to actually be reaffirming those norms rather than dismantling them.
Fourth, the article written by Maddie is espoused with a linguistic nihilism. She writes that “a biologica[l] male … could express traditionally ‘feminine’ qualities while identifying as a man, but a biologica[l] male … could express the same qualities and not identify as a man.” In other words, two people could “express the same qualities” yet “identify” differently. In that case, the same qualities are being called “masculine” and “feminine” in the same respect, and, if we accept that, gender is then — as James said — “utterly subjective” and ultimately “meaningless.”
Finally, the title of the opinion — even if I were to accept the author’s theory — is errant. She says that “gender reveal parties incorrectly label a child,” but this is not necessarily true, since most people’s gender identity actually does correspond to their sex.