Article Analysis of Why Do We Make So Much of Gender?

In my analysis, I will focus on Allan G. Johnson’s essay on “Why Do We Make So Much of Gender?” In this essay, he explains the difference between a person’s biological structure and identity. In advocating for the difference of sex and gender, Johnson has his credibility proven, uses counterarguments that he refutes after being claimed, and through his disappointed tone.  

The editor of Johnson’s essay sets up his credibility in the introductory paragraphs before his essay begins. It is told to the reader that he has a PhD in sociology and informs the reader that Johnson has a former teaching background at Wesleyan University and Hartford College for Women. He is now a public speaker on topics such as gender and race. In his essay, he talks about how gender and sex are two different things, and society needs to separate identity from sex. With his credibility proven to the reader, it is easy for him to get his argument across and to be believed and trusted. In his essay he says, “...patriarchy and women’s oppression are rooted in society, not biology, and therefore aren't inevitable or immutable” (para 2). When he says this, the reader is getting fully grasped into his argument, because of the credibility that was set up for him, by the editor of his essay. But his credibility is not the only thing that is good in his essay. 

Johnson addresses a couple of counterarguments in paragraphs 5 through 7 in his essay. He says, “...however ‘simple’ sex differences may be, they are crucial and central to human life because of their role in human reproduction” (para 5). He then goes ahead to explain his contradiction, which says, “...humans and human societies don’t assign as much importance to reproduction as we might think” (para 5). In this counterargument and refutation, he is shooting down the idea that there is a stark difference between sex and gender, because of the reproductive cycle. He then continues to refute his counterargument in more detail in paragraph 6. He explains how humans need to support themselves and other people in humanity that are already living. By having counterarguments and refutations throughout his essay, he makes his argument more persuasive. However, he also has an extremely disappointed tone that helps his argument even more.  

Throughout his argument, he uses strong words and phrases to help the reader understand his disappointment with our society. For example, he says, “It is women, not men, who shave the hair from their bodies, who feel compelled to deny their inherent juiciness lest they be accused of being bitches or sluts, who learn to look upon their own flesh as an enemy, who are taught that anger and rage are unbecoming in them” (para 13). When the reader is reading this, they can infer that he is disappointed within human society. He addresses as a society we are dehumanizing people from their identities. Johnson makes it noticeably clear that women are the ones who are “heroic” as he states previously in paragraph 11. He allows the reader to fully grasp the thought of what women are going through in society; we are not treating women with the respect they deserve.  

In Conclusion, Johnson provides his credibility from the editor's introduction, evidence through counterarguments, and a disappointed tone. The editor says that he has a PhD in sociology, was a former teacher at Wesleyan University and Hartford University for women, and that he is now a public speaker on specialized topics, such as race and gender. He used counterarguments and refutations throughout his essay to supply evidence. However, he lacked to add other evidence. He brought in Sam Keen, but there was no evidence in his essay that Keen was credible. He had just brought him in to show that he had some evidence. Keen also was brought in to back up the opposing side of the story. He should have brought in other outside sources and expert testimonies to further his stance. He also could have added anecdotes to make his argument sound more persuasive. Johnson had a good essay and most definitely appealed to the readers' emotions through his tone. He sounded disappointed and let down when explaining what is going on in our world regarding gender identity.