Linda Birke has vehemently criticized the idea that biology alone determines the experience and relative competencies of a woman. She has emphasized that a woman and her body is not a passive object which is to be scrutinized or to be controlled by others, but rather she is actively engaging in the ongoing process of change and transformation. She has emphasized that gender is a social construct that influences how women’s bodies are perceived regulated in the society, and she believes that societal expectations, cultural norms and power structures, shape our understanding of the biology related to the women’s body.

She has also expressed consciously about the incorporation of Intersectionality, which is acknowledging that women’s experiences are not only shaped by biological, but social identity such as and class. In this, she has highlighted how these multiple dimensions of identity intersect and influence women’s body and lived experiences.

She has actively encouraged women engagement in actively shaping their bodies by action, choice and self expression as she argues that the development and expression of women’s biology are influenced by various factors such as upbringing, educational, and societal regulations and importance of considering these context while examining women’s biology are very essential to our understanding of this important aspect. The women’s body exhibits a natural variation and there is no universal female body. It follows that this perspective has actively acknowledged the very fact that women’s bodies could change over time due to aging, reproduction and hormonal changes existing concurrent with the individual health experiences, which a particular woman undergoes during her lifetime.

She sees the process of embodiment as an ongoing method rather than a fixed state. She argues that women’s expression and identities are continuously shaping through the dynamic interaction between bodies, experiences, and social environments. It all focuses towards this particular fact that the life experiences and transformation that shaped their Life structure. This has been presented as a less rigid view of women’s biology that centers upon recognising the complexity, diversity and transformational nature of women’s bodies.

In doing all of these activities, it can be confidently pointed that she has encouraged an advanced understanding of interplay between culture, biology, and experiences that moves beyond the simplistic and deterministic interpretations of women’s biology. As far as the deterministic literature is concerned, there has been a major distinction between the concepts such as sex and gender, and in the case of women and female. Female is considered to be the biologist connotation that the organism which produces eggs. However, women is having a social meaning and it is historically contingent. Sex on the other hand is a biological assigning and to treat that particular body accordingly, that is either as a boy or as a girl- But the gender is a social idea, whose dichotomy is built upon that of sex.

In doing all this, she has pointed out how the bad which is oppressive and discriminated towards the very existence of the women is different from the good sign, which is objective and devoid of such agnostic antagonism. She has pointed how biology could be interpreted into different manners. The first one being the set of physiological functions that characterizes a particular particular species and second is to define a particular discipline, which is life science by which we attempt to define life and nature. The case of biological determinism is a stark and a grim reality of 21st century. It is considered to be that the social inferiority is explained through the mirror of the underlining biological basis. It is defending protecting and maintaining simultaneously the relationship of power which tells that one is superior to the other, and in this case Linda Birke Has considered that males are generally considered to be superior to the females, and in against this particular particular idea, she has presented her decent In the Book life, as we have known it.

By emphasizing a less rigid view of women’s biology and pointing towards the transformation and process of change, approach invites us to consider complex interactions between individuals’ experiences, societal factors and biology in shaping the women’s body. In simpler words. This exercise points towards this simple idea that more inclusive, recognizing diversity, more agency and authority, and acknowledging the live experiences of all the women’s has been the priority of this particular philosopher while expressing her views on this idea of gender influencing the scientific theories and the social world, this is evidently similar to the arguments that have been leveled by Donna Haraway, Blackwall’s Criticism against Darwin and Spencer And the dissenting opinion, which is presented by EB Duffey On the article of sex and education, which is written by Professor Clarke.

Do share your ideas and thoughts about this article with us! Like, share and ignite the barrel of knowledge with DU Times!

Chaitanya Sharma
B.A Philosophy (Hons.) from Hansraj College, University of Delhi


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here