I used to say that the gender roles as defined in the Proclamation on the Family are unnecessary because if they are descriptive of reality, there’s no need to write them down, and if they are prescriptive, trying to change reality to something else, then they will fail. What I actually think is happening is that proponents of gender roles are trying to claim they are merely descriptive of reality to bolster a weak argument while really trying to prescribe what they want reality to be. So let’s unbox the difference between prescriptive and descriptive gender roles.

Descriptive claims describe what is:

  • “Many men are physically stronger than many women.”
  • “Most people are heterosexual.”
  • “Certain patterns appear more often in one group than another.”

Prescriptive claims prescribe what ought to be:

  • “Men should be strong and dominant.”
  • “Women should be nurturing and deferential.”
  • “Heterosexual relationships are the normal or correct form of intimacy.”

The trouble begins when descriptions are quietly turned into prescriptions.

Descriptively:

  • There are statistical differences between sexes on some traits.
  • Socialization, biology, and culture interact in complex ways.
  • Averages say nothing about individuals.

Prescriptively:

Gender roles are used to:

  • Limit acceptable behavior
  • Assign moral value to conformity
  • Punish deviation (shame, exclusion, violence)
  • Justify unequal labor, power, and opportunity

So while gender roles are often justified as “natural” or “how things are,” they are enforced as rules about how people should behave.

This is why:

  • A woman can be penalized for ambition
  • A man can be shamed for vulnerability
  • Nonconforming people face social or physical risk

That’s prescription, not description.

Let’s shift gears away from gender roles and look at how heteronormativity works as a prescription rather than a description. While it may be true to say that most people are straight…

Heteronormativity claims heterosexuality as:

  • Default
  • Normal
  • Expected
  • Superior

It operates as: “People are supposed to be straight, and other orientations need explanation, tolerance, or justification.” This becomes prescriptive through:

  • Legal structures (marriage laws, adoption rights)
  • Cultural scripts (romance, family, success)
  • Moral hierarchies (“family values”)
  • Social penalties for deviation

Even when presented as “tradition” or “nature,” heteronormativity tells people what kind of love and family is legitimate and permitted in society.

One of the ways this trick works is to phrase a supposed description of an observed current norm or trend as a prescription for expected future behaviors that require an exception or justification to alter. This trick allows those in power to avoid moral debate, to perpetuate inequality, and to frame resistance as unreasonable or rebellios. For example:

  • “Men are leaders” → becomes “Men should lead.”
  • “Women are caregivers” → becomes “Women belong in caregiving roles.”
  • “Most people are straight” → becomes “Straightness is normal; others are exceptions.”

This is more effective than admitting it’s a prescription because if you frame a thing as “natural,” opposing it feels futile or impossible. You aren’t fighting a wrong description or a bad idea. You’re fighting “reality.” A much healthier position would be:

  • Some patterns exist descriptively (e.g. most men have greater physical strength than most women).
  • No pattern should be morally or socially compulsory.
  • Averages never justify coercion.
  • Human flourishing is a byproduct of flexibility, not hard-coded scripts.

Gender roles and heteronormativity are certainly not the only examples of things that are put forward as a “description” but are really designed to enforce the status quo at the cost of personal freedom and well-being. Another one I thought of as I wrote this is the fact that we’ve never had a non-Christian US president, but of course, there’s no legal or constitutional reason that shouldn’t be possible. However, the “prescription” hiding in that “description” is why religion was used as a weapon against Obama (who is Christian), as a racist attack hiding as a moral concern.

Because these tend to be conservative positions, I tried to think of an example of a position on the left that does some similar work, and the best one I could come up with is the term “college-educated” which is often used as a heuristic to imply that the person is a credible source, a responsible adult, someone with gravitas, and it also implies that those without a college education are not those things–it marginalizes the uncredentialed as unqualified to have an opinion on an important public issue. This is not the case in all uses of the term “college-educated” because some fields do require special knowledge and education to become capable. I would not go to a doctor or dentist who did not possess the correct education, for example, but there are plenty of jobs where a person with a degree is sought and yet it’s unnecessary based on the work performed. On the left especially, there is probably a tendency to give too much deference to academic achievement and to be too dismissive of those without it.

  • What examples of prescription hiding as description can you think of in general?
  • Are there unique examples of this that you’ve heard at Church?
  • Are any of these examples uniquely LDS or are they common among conservatives in general?
  • Are there examples of prescriptive arguments hiding as descriptions among the left?

Discuss.