How have anthropologists argued that gender is socially constructed

How have anthropologists argued that gender is socially constructed, with reference to the Japanese and Mosuo culture.Within this essay, it will be discussed how anthropologists have argued that gender is socially constructed. It is argued that this occurs as a result of human behaviour, thought or interference, which reflects the social norms within a culture and is not due to any physical, natural or biological difference (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). When anthropologists discuss the societal construction of gender, it is crucial to first differentiate between “sex” and “gender”. “Sex” refers to the biological and physical characteristics which define men and women, primarily concerned with genes and genitals (Torgrimson & Minson, 2005). Male and female are the two standard classifications of sex, however in some societies the recognition of a third sex, “intersexed”, refers to those that do not clearly fit these descriptions (Torgrimson & Minson, 2005). In contrast, “gender” refers to the behavioural, cultural or psychological traits and actions typically associated with the expectations of a certain sex within a society (Torgrimson & Minson, 2005). The notion that boys like blue and girls like pink is a gender difference; there is no natural or biological reason for this belief, as it is a social constructed concept. To further substantiate the argument that gender is a social construct, two contrasting societal examples will be cited; the patriarchal society of Japan, and the matriarchal society of the Chinese Mosuo. Each culture differs in what is deemed socially acceptable behaviour and characteristics for both men and women. It is this difference which has crafted the ideology that gender is not fixed, as is sex, but is a fluid, non-inherent identity, learned through enculturation. It further supports the supposition that gender cannot be innate, or males and females would display characteristics and behaviour appropriate to one sex only,