next »

[voxprincipalis]

"Gender is the night"?

(aaahhh.. can't... hold... back....)

When a slender gender-bender is a spender set on splendor, but can't render legal tender, so the vendor cries "Offender!" --

THIS is what they call...


[No! No! Must STOP thinking in Dr.-Seuss-speak!]

It's all y'all's fault, of course. If you wouldn't stop bringing up words that are so gosh-darned fun to say, I wouldn't be having this problem.

VP

[adhoc]

Gender as a verb? How do you do that?

Serious response: "Gender," as a verb means "to engender;" it is not sex related.

Humorous aside: I agree, you never outgrow your need for genders, especially the opposite ones.

[prof_mom]

There are lots of articles and I have read many of them. I can tell you that the researchers don't agree either. I can also tell you that most of our notions of binary gender are outdated and leave some people out. Bem is the most famous, but much of her work is quite dated now. I can give you the cites if you wish to pm me.

Most argue that gender is a state to which you identify yourself, or a category to which others may assign you. I tend to be assigned mostly to masculine gender due to my personality. This can fluctuate from extremely masculine to very feminine.

Biological sex is a category based on physical characteristics. As CBL points out, this may vary too. However, it varies less frequently.

Silly discussion? Maybe. It's less silly than "posting while plastered" and that has it's value.

[happybunny17]

Humorous aside: I agree, you never outgrow your need for genders, especially the opposite ones.

Or, perhaps, you never outgrow your need for genders, especially the same ones.

[acrimone]

I have to say, I find it incredibly ridiculous and wrongheaded to say that a binary conception (or any other conception) is "outdated" or inapplicable (or even false) simply because it "leaves some people out."

If something is useful with 98% or 99% or 99.99% application, then it's pretty darn useful.  This is especially so when, as is the case with the "sex" issue, there is very little harm with the outlying cases of inapplicability.

I realize a lot of people will take issue with that last assertion, that there is little harm.  But here's a thought: it's OK to be different, and it's OK to be singled out as different if you really are.  If a kid is deathly allergic to peanuts, the answer is to put the kid in a special environment where peanuts are not allowed, because the huge, overwhelming majority of kids love peanuts.  And they are healthy.

Using "gender" as some sort of nuanced "non-binary" category that allows for flexibility is like outlawing peanut butter in a public school.  It causes a gross inefficiency solely for the purpose of being able to account for a tiny minority of cases.

On the other hand, this whole discussion is all quite tangential to my post, since almost EVERY SINGLE DAMN FORM you see will have "Gender" followed by "Male" or "Female," and we know exactly what they are asking.

I'm simply b*tching and moaning about the fact that "gender" is used as a direct substitution for the word sex in situations where it is simply inaccurate.

[voxprincipalis]

I have to say, I find it incredibly ridiculous and wrongheaded to say that a binary conception (or any other conception) is "outdated" or inapplicable (or even false) simply because it "leaves some people out."

Oh dear. I see a large and angry firestorm coming your way. You might want to get yourself a flame-retardant umbrella or something.

I'm simply b*tching and moaning about the fact that "gender" is used as a direct substitution for the word sex in situations where it is simply inaccurate.

I ask purely as a matter of curiosity -- in your opinion, what is "inaccurate" about "gender"? From your other statements, I gather that you don't really take seriously the cases of people who have a particular set of sex organs but who identify socially with members with contrasting genitalia. So if that's not the issue for you, what is?

Interestingly (IMHO), dictionary.com defines the two terms in somewhat the reverse of what I have always understood them to mean (sex=biological, gender=biological and/or social). Not that dictionary.com is the ultimate source, but it's a good quickie. I have included only the relevant portions of both definitions below.

gen?der1? [jen-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   Grammar.
a.   (in many languages) a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun, as, in English, the choice of he to replace the man, of she to replace the woman, of it to replace the table, of it or she to replace the ship. The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20; often the classification correlates in part with sex or animateness. The most familiar sets of genders are of three classes (as masculine, feminine, and neuter in Latin and German) or of two (as common and neuter in Dutch, or masculine and feminine in French and Spanish).
b.   one class of such a set.
c.   such classes or sets collectively or in general.
d.   membership of a word or grammatical form, or an inflectional form showing membership, in such a class.
2.   sex: the feminine gender.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
sex? [seks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   either the male or female division of a species, esp. as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.
2.   the sum of the structural and functional differences by which the male and female are distinguished, or the phenomena or behavior dependent on these differences.
3.   the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct.
4.   coitus.
5.   genitalia.
–verb (used with object)
6.   to ascertain the sex of, esp. of newly-hatched chicks.


(So apparently there are more than two possible genders, at least linguistically...)

VP

[adhoc]

Or, perhaps, you never outgrow your need for genders, especially the same ones.

Fair enough.  Viva la genders!

[adhoc]

I'm simply b*tching and moaning about the fact that "gender" is used as a direct substitution for the word sex in situations where it is simply inaccurate.

OK, I'm a little confused now. I thought you were reminiscing about forms that simply asked for one's sex and lamented the fact that they have often been replaced with forms asking about gender. Were you making a larger point?

[acrimone]

Vox,
Dictionary.com has a definition for "ain't" as well (although it is flagged as nonstandard).

It also has this to say:

Usage Note: Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.

Look, I'm a reactionary.  I don't see a reason to change things when the old ways work perfetly well, particularly when the new usage doesn't even really encapsulate the reasons that are being put forward for the change.  Which leads me to...

Adhoc... that's exactly my point.

[voxprincipalis]

Look, I'm a reactionary.  I don't see a reason to change things when the old ways work perfetly well, particularly when the new usage doesn't even really encapsulate the reasons that are being put forward for the change.

Thanks, I understand your stance better now.

VP

[francie_]

Serious response: "Gender," as a verb means "to engender;" it is not sex related.

Adhoc, I was just looking at definitions in the same "quickie" place as VP , and you are correct that "gender" is indeed a verb, although that usage is archaic.

FWIW, perhaps because I've studied languages that classify nouns by gender for so many years, it's a matter of complete indifference to me whether some form asks for my "sex" or my "gender."  I had no idea I was on the forefront of a liberal revolt against the "old ways."  Wow.  I'm usually so behind the times.

[happybunny17]

Look, I'm a reactionary.  I don't see a reason to change things when the old ways work perfectly well, particularly when the new usage doesn't even really encapsulate the reasons that are being put forward for the change.

I think that this sums it up quite nicely.  Gender identifications are complex and for many, ever-fluctuating.  Whether one wants to identify as male or female is entirely a personal matter, in my opinion. But, getting back to the forms, which  are the topic of this discussion (or perhaps they aren't anymore), I also have a problem with the substitution of "gender" for "sex."  And, my problem is precisely that the "authors" of such forms don't really know what they are asking for; the mere presence of only two boxes is ample proof of that.  Asking someone's sex is usually much more straightforward than their gender, and I agree with acrimone's statement quoted above completely.

On a sidenote: I remember being a very amused highschool student when I came across a special offer advertised on the back of a pack of Camel cigarettes. I don't remember what they were giving away, but the questionnaire that you had to fill out it get it offered three options for the category of sex: male, female, other.  At the ripe old age of 15 (don't ask what I was doing smoking then; that's a whole other question), I remember laughing about this with my friends and not really getting it. Maybe it was just a joke or maybe it was a political statement, but it has stuck with me all these years, and it did make me and my friends think a bit.  Maybe opening up the categories would make some laugh, maybe it would make some uncomfortable, but perhaps that laughter and discomfort might lead to some thought...Yes, I know, I'm an idealist.

[prof_mom]

I have to say, I find it incredibly ridiculous and wrongheaded to say that a binary conception (or any other conception) is "outdated" or inapplicable (or even false) simply because it "leaves some people out."

Settle down a bit and think about this. If you want to debate, we can debate. I see no reason for you to be so antagonistic here. Also, you are mis-representing my argument.

First, I did NOT say gender is largely outdated BECAUSE it leaves people out. I said it is outdated AND it leaves people out.

Most of the time, biological sex can be thought of in binary terms. Most people are either male (have a penis) or female (have a vagina). Some people have both or neither, but that is pretty rare.

On the other hand, gender is very fluid and a binary definition does not make any sense. Almost no one is either totally masculine or totally feminine. I said the notion of gender is out dated because the way it is conceptualized originated in the 60's. As with most people, I have masculine characteristics (decisiveness, good problem solving abilities, career oriented), but I also have feminine ones (mothering, nurturing, etc). I wonder how one would operationalize this construct in a way that made sense today. What can we say about femininity? Does that necessarily describe all women and only women? Cooking and cleaning? Well, that's not me.

Finally, your peanut idea is just silly. Can you really say that you would rather put a child's life in danger so another child can bring peanuts to school? Kids can have peanuts at home. There is no need to put a child with a sever allergy at risk so another child can enjoy a snack. Now, that is an incredibly ridiculous argument.

[larryc]

Calvin: "Verbing weirds language."
http://look.onemonkey.org/verbing_sm.jpg

[anthroid]

"Outdated" is not relevant.  Gender (or sex, for that matter) is not binary.  There are scads of ethnographic examples of a third gender--the berdache, for instance, in many American Indian groups.  It is simply inaccurate to argue that there are only two sexes, or genders, or whatever, and, that, further, you can know very much at all by knowing someone's sex.  Gendered understandings--ideas about what makes masculinity and femininity vary so widely by culture that it's almost nonsensical to believe that secondary sex organs are determinative of anything.  It is culture that makes us behave as we do as men and women, not biology.  Biology sets the stage; culture gives us the lines and props and prompts and stage directions.

Thus spake anthroidthrustra.