It was a class on the efficacy of group communication, which subsequently involved the dynamics of societal communication – society being the ultimate group communication we partake in on a daily basis. Gradually, the discussion veered towards the concept of ‘synergy’ and how it permeates us. How the interaction of two or more agents produce a combined effect that is much greater than the sum of their individual effects.

As the facilitator of the dialogue, I gave the class the example of ‘yin’ and ‘yang’ as a duality that forms the definitive whole. Yin (female) and yang (male) qualities are present in each one of us. But when one of the qualities is dominant in an individual, we assign that person that social gender. As such, when ‘yin’ is dominant in a person, we label the person feminine and expect the person to behave in certain distinct ways.

We are biologically born male or female. But since the moment of our birth, we are assigned certain preconceived social roles that are relative to our biological features. If we learn the new-born is a boy, we automatically start buying gifts in blue; similarly in pink if the baby is a girl. In fact, retail outlets would seldom have baby clothing in any other shade than blue or pink. What about the rest of the colour palette? Perhaps babies are better off concentrating on only one shade at a time, or so feel the social and retail gurus.

Think about it: babies look neutral at birth, at least if you consider their face. You cannot tell a boy from a girl in your local supermarket, unless you see the colour of their clothes or their hairstyle when they are old enough to have one.

But their gender becomes evident the moment you see their clothes and other gear socially assigned to them. Yes, this becomes prominent because their parents choose to make them wear certain colours.

So we assign children a socially-accepted role right from the moment of their birth. But is it fair on them? Does this not make social communication dictatorial – one person in a leadership position decides who should wear what and behave how?

Can we not let the children grow up without a socially-assigned gender role? They do have the freedom of choice and let them exercise it. Why do we have to call a man feminine if he chooses to be soft-spoken and polite, and prefers to wear floral printed shirts or even wear make-up? In spite of his choices, he can be a heterosexual person so far as his biological needs are concerned.

Why do we even have to assign roles of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)? The more we assign roles, the more we label them. And the more we label them, the more we take away their freedom to choose.

Why can we not open up the possibilities of gender roles and let each individual, born male or female, decide how they want to behave socially when they are mature adults? That way househusbands will not remain a rarity. Even Tom-boys would cease to be an expression.

Technological evolution in recent times has made us adept at multitasking – we claim technology has made us achieve more than we ever did before. Can we not extend the same multitasking aspect of our lives to gender roles too? That way the Tom-boy can be a home-maker and be equally successful at dabbling with global IT projects.

If this sounds too complicated, try this: the next time there is a new-born boy in your family, buy pink for him and tell us about the reactions you receive from his near and dear ones!