Under Construction Journal Issue 6.1 UNDER CONSTRUCTION JOURNAL 6.1 | Page 66

However, psychological studies have shown that the increased levels of testosterone in men -as opposed
to women- increase aggressive behaviours. For instance, research shows that in men, levels of
testosterone are about seven to eight times as great as in adult females (Torjesen 2004). Anecdotal and
early correlational evidence suggests that higher levels of circulating testosterone in men are associated
with increases in male stereotypical behaviours, such as physical aggression and anger, which could
explain the gendered perception that men are more aggressive than women (Torjesen 2004). Of course,
women have an entirely different set of hormones related to menstruating and pregnancy that causes a
whole range of different emotions and behaviour traits such as increased anxiety, forgetfulness and
feelings of fear (Nierenberg 2017). We could, from this information, suggest that gender is essential to us;
the that the traits of the masculine and feminine gender are, birthed from the biological repercussions of
our sex. However, if we refer to Aristotle’s distinction between essence and accidents, it gives a new
version to the query. Change of behaviours within people could be explained by the differentiation
between hormones or we could suggest that such traits are, in fact, accidents to our existence rather than
essential.
Gender Essentialism
Furthermore, Judith Butler states that gender isn’t actually able to be essential in the first place. She
specifies that, as gender is not actually a thing or a fact, its existence relies on the acts that we class as
gender specific, which without there is no gender to exist. Butler says this is:
“because there is neither an “essence” that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective
ideal to which gender aspires, and because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create
the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all…”
John Hick’s (1990) position on the Replica Theory also reinforces this. He presents a philosophical exercise
that imagines a man called John Smith who lived in America. According to this thought experiment, he
suddenly disappeared, and a replica of him suddenly appeared in India. His friends and colleagues,
sceptically, carry out a series of tests from talking to this individual to gather whether or not this new John
Smith is the same person who was originally in America. Hick’s idea was that once all the similarity tests
prove positive, Smith’s friends would have no choice but to accept the replication as the actual John Smith,
because there is technically, no difference between the two. However, there would indeed be a difference
between the replica and the individual who appeared in India. Perhaps not to the friends and family but
57