Article
Article name
Authors	Subbotina N.D. Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, dialectica@yandex. ru
Bibliographic description	Subbotina N. D. Are the Concepts of “Essence of a Woman” and “Essence of a Man” Out of Date? // Humanitarian Vector. 2020. Vol. 15, No. 2. PP. 43–53. DOI: 10.21209/1996-7853-2020-15-2-43-53.
Section	AXIOLOGY OF CULTURE
UDK	129
DOI	10.21209/1996-7853-2020-15-2-43-53
Article type
Annotation	The article analyzes the views of postmodernists who criticize the essentialist (essential) approach to the causes of gender differences and contrast it with an approach that defines gender roles as a social construct. The author shows the limitations of both approaches. If the first recognizes only biological, then the second – only social reasons for the gender roles of men and women. If essentialism considers the essence of man to be unchanged, then postmodernism absolutizes variability, being a kind of relativism. It is concluded that the third approach is needed, which is based on dialectics, taking into account the role of both natural and social causes, interconnected with each other. According to the author of the article, it is necessary to distinguish between biological, biosocial and social nature of man. The biological essence is determined by the role of two sexes in the continuation and preservation of the genus. At the genetic level, the male sex fulfills the task of development, and the female – conservation. The biosocial essence of a person is expressed in the fact that he has both natural and social components, so it also remains unchanged. If the biological essence of a man and a woman is different and according to it, they are opposites, then the biosocial essence of them is one. The social essence of man is manifested in the features of his social roles, and it is able to change. Society at different stages of its development has a qualitative diversity, which inevitably affects the essence of people living in this period.
Key words	sex, gender, man, woman, postmodernism, essentialism, sexism, naturalization and denaturation, biological, biosocial and social essence of man
Article information
References	1. Babayan, S. S. Gender and intercultural communication: potential intersection fields. Bulletin of KSU named after N. A. Nekrasov. no. 15, pp. 285–289, 2009. (In Rus.) 2. Badenter, E. Men’s Essence. Transl. from French by I. Yu. Krupichevoi, E. B. Shevchenko. M: Izd-vo “Novosti”. 1995. (In Rus.) 3. Batler, J. Gender Concern. Anthology of gender theory / comp. and comment. E. I. Gapova and A. R. Usmanova. Minsk: Propilei, 2000: 297–346. (In Rus.) 4. Batler, J. The appropriation of gender by the body: the philosophical contribution of Simone de Beauvoir. Women, cognition and reality: Studies on feminist philosophy.Comp. E. Harry, M. Piersel; trans. from English. M: ROSSPE`N, 2005: 292–303. (In Rus.) 5. Batler, J. Accidentally Foundations: Feminism and the Question of “Postmodernism”. Introduction to Gender Studies. Part II / Ed. S. V. Zherebkin. Xar`kov: XCzGI, 2001; SPb: Aletejya, 2001: 235–257. (In Rus.) 6. Vershinina, D. B. Gender aspects of the history of the West: the main discussion fields. Bulletin of Perm University, no.4, 2017. Web. 05.01.2020. https://www.cyberleninka.ru/article/n/gendernye-aspekty-istorii-zapada-osnovnye-diskussionnye-polya. (In Rus.) 7. Geodakyan, V. A. Sexual dimorphism and the “paternal effect” // Journal of General Biology, no. 5, pp. 657–668, 1981. (In Rus.) 8. Geodakyan, V. A. The role of sexes in the transfer and transformation of genetic information. Problems of information transfer: in 2 v. V. 1. M. Izdatel’stvo RAN, 1965: 105–112. (In Rus.) 9. Kimme,l M. Gender Society / trans. from English. M: ROSSPE`N, 2006. (In Rus.) 10. Kirei-Sitnikova, Ya. Transgender and Transfeminism. M: Salamandra, 2015. (In Rus.) 11. Nomerovskaya, A. D. The concept of normativity in modern theories of gender identity. Paradigm: philosophical and cultural almanac. Web. 05.01.2020. https://www.cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ponyatie-normativnosti-v-sovremennyh-teoriyah-gendernoy-identichnosti. (In Rus.) 12. Fuko, M. Use of pleasures. History of sexuality. SPb: Akadem. proekt, 2004. V. 2. (In Rus.) 13. Khitruk, E. B. Gender intersection as a factor in the denaturation of gender differences in Deidra McCloskey’s theory. Web. 05.01.2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324600302_Gendernoe_peresecenie_kak_faktor_denaturalizacii_polovyh_razlicij_v_teorii_Dejdry_Makkloski (In Rus.) 14. Khitruk, E. B. Strategies for the denaturation of the categories “masculine” and “feminine” in modern philosophy. Dr. philos. sci. diss. Tomsk, 2018. (In Rus.) 15. Ashmore, R. D., Sewell A. D. Sex/Gender and the Individual. Web. 05.01.2020. https://www.link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007 %2F978-1-4419-8580-4_16. (In Engl.) 16. Klysing, A. Exposure to Scientific Explanations for Gender Differences Influences Individuals’ Personal Theories of Gender and Their Evaluations of a Discriminatory Situation. Sex Roles, no. 5–6, pp. 253–265, Web. 05.01.2020. https://www.link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-019-01060-w (In Engl.) 17. Money, J. and Ehrhardt, A. A. Man and woman, boy and girl: Differentiation and dimorphism of gender identity from conception to maturity. Johns Hopkins U. Press. 1972. (In Engl.)
Full article
	0
	29