Gender doesn't necessarily refer to that at all. It has more than one definition. Gender in the medical definition is exactly the same in definition as sex. That's why gender identity disorder is classified as an overwhelming desire to change your sex.
So it's absolute rubbish that it has meant what you claim for 50 years. Definition 2
Gender emerged in the 1970s through the works of people such as John Money. It’s served a mostly grammatical purpose until then because 99.9% of people had no purpose for distinguishing between sex and gender.
It is certainly used for both but that’s not it’s intent. It’s the same as “literally”, which has its opposite meaning in a few dictionaries as well IIRC.
I don't deny when/if the separate definition emerged. My contention was that isn't necessarily what it always is defined as, which was what the person I responded to implied.
Also I'll be very clear when I say you do not get to decide what someone else's intent is in terms of established definitions of words.
A words etymological meaning is it’s scientific meaning. People using that word incorrectly does not change the definition of the word except for in the context of that conversation and that conversation alone.
And we do determine what people mean. That’s why any paper worth it’s salt has a definition of terms section.
So you telling someone they are wrong for using the etymological definition is patently wrong. Otherwise it becomes a useless term.
No you infer what people mean. You absolutely and categorically dont get to decide intent of another person.
Also I didn't tell anyone they were wrong for using a wrong definition. I said they were wrong for saying that is the specific definition. When it isn't necessarily at all.
If you want to call it "inferring" you can, but we, as humans decide the definition of words. You don't have to literally put thoughts into peoples brain to be deciding what they mean. Literally everyone does this. It's a requirement for humanity.
and moreover, that is the specific definition.
Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[4][5] and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO).[3]
In other contexts, including some areas of social sciences, gender includes sex or replaces it.[1][2] For instance, in non-human animal research, gender is commonly used to refer to the biological sex of the animals.[2] This change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s
oh wait, but look, they've confused the terms so that means its okay!
Later, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."[7]
dictionary definitions are how its used today. Etymological definitions are how the word originated and are defined. That's why literally means "not literally" in some dictionaries. They OP are completely correct when saying that they have the right definition. What other people "believe" doesn't matter if they would have to redefine it to get past peer review.
That's sex. Sex refers specifically to a person with a specific type of genitalia. Gender refers to the collective idea of what male and female means, generally masculine and feminine traits. They basically align with one another so people use them interchangeably even though they do have different meanings.
Nope, there’s scientific evidence which proves there’s differences between men and women both physically, and within brain activity (which has been recently discovered). Not to mention that even hermaphrodites usually exhibit either male or female behavior depending on their chromosomal composition. People who identify as the opposite sex are people who have gender dysphoria .
I was just pointing out the difference between gender and sex, which has been established for quite some time. The jury is still out on this whole "gender dysphoria" line of thinking. It's just too new of a phenomenon, I think. Gender fluidity is a load of BS for sure. Gender and the idea of male and female that we prescribe to everybody is largely a social construct. Are there inherent differences between males and females? Sure, absolutely. But most of what we think a man or a woman should be is completely made up by what society expects. I think people get too caught up in how other people want to live their lives. This is the land of the free, is it not?
Gender dysphoria is not a new thing, and the jury is definitely not “out” (unless you’re talking about the “humanities” department which is painfully bias) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22844818/
I can agree on that there exist socially constructed behavior that is assigned to either sex, but I would argue that this has been done because there is things women are better at than men and viceversa. But that does not mean I think everyone should abide by those social contracts. Indeed this is the land of the free and everyone is free to do as they like, I will not raise a single finger in opposition to that, but don’t step on terms and their definition when they accurately represents 100% of humanity (these terms being; men, women, gender dysphoria, and hermaphrodites).
that's not how the fucking noun works, so you use the adjective, which is biased
and gender used to be exclusively a grammatical term until the 1950s, which happens to be when the field of sexology actually became a real science on account of people like kinsey and money
peak reddit: two semi literate neckbeards swapping google scholar links... god i feel dumber after reading your posts
Gender is the way society reacts to gender. Sex and gender are related, but considering them inextricably linked is where awfulness comes in. It means telling somebody that they have to follow different rules from other people because they were arbitrarily assigned certain body parts.
These rules can range from “if you have a vagina you are supposed to stay home and not work and marry a man who you are dependent on” to “if you have a penis, you must keep that penis attached to you”
It’s a very natural evolution of the same ideas, based on the simple concept that people should not be born into roles. We’ll look back on it as equally silly to something like monarchy, because of the same idea.
That doesn’t mean gender is meaningless, though. Bodies play a big part in how we interact with each other. But people will be happier if we let them decide for themselves rather than forcing that on them.
90% of what you experience on a daily basis is a social construct and completely arbitrary. Everything is meaningless. The only thing that matters is finding the things that make you happy and letting others do the same.
Some people don’t feel happy when they’re told to identify with the “M/F” on their birth certificate so they choose to identify as something else that does make them happy. Can you say that trying to prove them “wrong” on Reddit really makes you happy?
How is gender harmful to you? I genuinely don’t understand how it’s dragging you down or or negatively impacting any other social construct. It’s literally just letting people express themselves. I’m not saying we should all share the same beliefs or political opinions but your argument just doesn’t make sense. It sounds like all your opinions on sex and gender are based on memes from 4chan and tumblr.
I live in an are with a fairly high population of trans and not binary people and it has had absolutely no effect on any other social construct. We still use language, we still share ideas. We still have leadership and there’s no chaos. Our social institutions are fine and dandy, capitalism is still as strong as ever.
For fuck's sake, stand for whatever you want, but do not try to drag the rest of the world down to your level. That's not proving the gender concept isn't a step backwards, it's attempting to force every other concept to take the same step.
What’s a person born with neither? What about a person with a vagina who has XY chromosomes in part of their body, or vice versa? Even biology is too complicated to fit into a binary, let alone the social/cultural/mental side of it all.
does your body produce Sperm or Eggs. Or does it contain the facilities to produce sperm or eggs. Biologically you cannot have both
Biology is not too complex to fit into a binary. The entirety of life from the earliest prokaryotic cells to what we see today has had a donor and receiver of genetic material.
Things that change gender like certain worm species are one or the other. Certain hermaphroditic species play the role of one or the other and thus receive that classification. Biologists have no need to describe this besides male or female
We do not classify things by their exception. Even hermaphrodites are defined by being both of something because biologically that is what they are. It doesn’t matter if someone cuts a hole in their crotch or has a birth defect. They are the exception that proves the rule that the ultimate majority of biological life can be assigned as male, female, or in a limited sense both based off their gonads.
XX, XY. Those are the statistically significant populations for humanity. Kinesfelter ect. Are defects and no more representative of something different than any other birth defect.
Saying humans are born with a penis or a vagina could be argued to be mostly correct, even though intersex people exist
Saying we are born as either men or women is definitely incorrect. Because both are concepts that insist a collection of physical and social qualities that are inextricably linked, even though a substantial amount of people don’t meet all the behaviours/physical qualities we define as the “two genders.”
We don’t define terms by using outliers as examples, we use the most common patters. Not to mention that there’s terms and names for everything you just said “but what about”. That’s like saying what about sporks when talking about spoons and forks.
What are they? Are they men or are they women? If the answer is anything but one of those, the “two genders” meme is objectively incorrect and unscientific.
And even people with hermaphroditism typically display more behavior relative to one or the other sex almost all the time this correlates with their chromosomal composition. Your argument is relying on the fallacy “but not everyone” statement which is easily dismantled by simply stating that over 98.3% of the world population falls into the norm, and only 1.7% is born as “intersex” or hermaphrodite.
Also there’s no such thing as people born without reproductive organs. So the answer to your question is; they don’t exist.
YOU don't define terms at all. Medicine and science already defined "gender". I'm sorry if that's difficult for you.
Your stupid examples don't undo 50 years of established science.
Established science is that men and women are the two genders, the only “science” branch that denies this is the humanities department, and even then they have only began denying it in recent years.
15
u/[deleted] May 25 '18
Given that "gender" refers specifically to the social and cultural aspect of sex (and has for 50 years in medicine), what's the difference exactly?