About the origins of the word "gender"

submitted by BiologyIsReal from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

But the use of "sex" to mean one specific sex act, aka "sexual intercourse," is a much more recent development, one that only emerged in the early 20th century.

Anyone who lived earlier than that is dead now lol.

It didn't supplant the traditional meaning

Didn't it? Let me just check again: sex. Seems you're still wrong.

I'm still waiting for the reason to use "sex" instead of "gender" to refer to male & female. All I'm getting so far is "bc it's a dead tradition that has no chance of being resurrected, but let's keep pretending it's just as popular as ever, while also admitting it's been replaced".

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

I'm still waiting for the reason to use "sex" instead of "gender" to refer to male & female. All I'm getting so far is "bc it's a dead tradition that has no chance of being resurrected, but let's keep pretending it's just as popular as ever, while also admitting it's been replaced".

Crack a biology book. Or since pictures is more your speed, do a google image search of "biological sex."

[–]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

If the "biological" part is so integral, maybe stop arguing about the meaning of "sex" on its own. How would a biology book prove your point? The only time it would use the word 'sex' would be to refer to intercourse or organs, not males &/or females.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How would a biology book prove your point? The only time it would use the word 'sex' would be to refer to intercourse or organs, not males &/or females.

Wut? You think the fact that plants and animals are male and female isn't discussed in biology books? Clearly you've never looked at a biology book.

Also, sex and reproductive organs are not the only parts of the human body that are sexed. Every nucleated cell is sexed. There are thousands of differences in the anatomy and physiology of human males and females.

When doing an online search, adding the "biological" to the word sex tells the search engine which meaning of the word is being referred to.

No one is denying that "sex" has the meaning you say it has. We are disagreeing with your contention that this is the only meaning the word has.

[–]SnowAssMan 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

All you have to do to prove me wrong is post an excerpt from a biology book demonstrating what you're talking about.

Notice how you don't have to add anything to the word 'sex' for the search engine to know that you're talking about sexual intercourse.

Both gender & sex have two different meanings, but there is a hierarchy of meaning, practically no one even knows gender's second meaning (masculinity & femininity). Type sex into the news tab on Google. Why bother holding onto the lesser known meanings, when it only makes feminist discourse less accessible & has zero benefits?

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

As someone with a background in the life sciences, I can tell you biology and medicine literature do use the word sex to mean the biological category.

[–]SnowAssMan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

But everyone else hasn't got that background. What sort of biology books do you think regular people are reading, especially children & teens? Do you think "sex" ever gets a mention outside reproduction contexts? It's just not practical to insist everyone use more academic language when referring to everyday things in informal discussions.

Again, there aren't even any drawbacks to people exclusively understanding gender to mean male & female & sex to mean intercourse. Using this terminology wasn't the catalyst to the transgender craze, quite the reverse. Gender has been a synonym for sex from the very start, it's only recently that regular people are saying "sex & gender are not the same thing" & it's thanks to transgenderism. No idea why GC feminists went along with it.

Why relegate gender to pointlessly mean masculinity & femininity? It's not catching on. Why try to share the word "sex" with the far more popular & stigmatised concept of sexual intercourse? It's impractical & overly formal & easily censored from children. There are only drawbacks. It also legitimises transgenderism more, bc you're handing them "gender". It's called "gender critical feminism" & it's critical of transgenderism – thereby legitimising "gender" as meaning gender-swap desire + role-play. It's simply counter-productive.

On top of that, we've all heard men say that they are "biologically female", right? So what has holding onto "sex" got GC feminism? Relinquishing "gender" was just the first step to inching single-sex terms out of the conversion altogether. It's like one of those Native American treaties with the US, & feminists are playing the part of the Native Americans.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

understanding gender to mean male & female & sex to mean intercourse.

Please for the umpteenth time stop saying sex=intercourse, meaning penetration with a penis. Saying all sex involves penetration is a male-centric, penis-focused POV. It's homophobic particularly against lesbians, and ignores that even amongst heterosexuals and gay guys not all sex does or has to involve penetration!

[–]SnowAssMan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You mean like oral? That's called 'oral sex'. It's not penis-focused or male-centric, it's reproduction-focused, just like the word itself is: sex. It's a type of reproduction: sexual reproduction. Male & female describe the reproductive roles within a species that reproduces sexually. You could broaden the definition of sex to include other forms of erotic activities, making it orgasm-focused, maybe. But wouldn't re-purposing the word that describes reproduction, to also refer to homosexual erotic activities itself be heteronormative?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oral sex is still a kind of sex. Some oral sex is indeed penis-focused. Whereas you keep insisting that sex exclusively means PIV intercourse.

You are taking a very narrow view of what reproduction in higher organisms means and requires to be successful. Human sex has evolved to have many more purposes other than fertilization of ova by sperm. Such as pleasure, intimacy and pair-bonding.

The aim of reproduction is the perpetuation and continued adaptation of species. There's a lot more to the perpetuation of the species Homo sapiens than conception alone; conception is just the starting point. The ancillary functions that human sex has evolved to have - such as intimacy, pair bonding, the release of oxytocin in parties of both sexes, and up-close-and-personal familiarity with a body (or bodies) other than one's own - serve purposes that can help both individual organisms and the group survive. After all, the species Homo sapiens only remains in existence and keeps adapting when fertilized human eggs result in newborn babies, and babies live long enough to reproduce themselves and raise their own offspring to maturity.

Most human sex acts are actually not done for the purpose of conception. Indeed, conception is something that most people very much don't want to happen in the vast majority of sexual encounters that humans engage in. Which is why people who have sex with members of the opposite sex typically take measures to avoid conception. This is true even in most acts of PIV intercourse. Even amongst those who have or want children, most persons who engage in PIV sexual intercourse are not seeking for conception to occur each and every time. But having conception-free sex with another person still can serve ancillary functions - closeness, caring, pleasure, relaxation, emotional release, emotional intensity - that assist in the survival and perpetuation of the species and individuals involved.

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Even pleasure-sex follows the reproductive model, even makeshift anal sex does. Even homosexuals form couples (instead of thrupples). So the word itself is heteronormative & the actions associated with it are heteronormative, but I shouldn't call it "intercourse" on account that that's heteronormative? Anyway, seeing as the term "homosexual intercourse" exists you can get off my back regarding my use of the word "intercourse" now, since apparently it's not exclusionary after all.

You over-estimate the role of the sire. Biological fathers play no role at all in parenting their biological offspring in the Mosuo tribe – one of the only matriarchies in existence. Perhaps mixing romance, sex & child-rearing together is only cultural, not natural.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Since when is the Mosuo tribe the model for most of humanity?

As for your comments about couples and thrupples, and how these supposedly relate to het and homosexuality, I don't understand. You seem to think that pair-bonding is inherently heteronormative, and that societies based on heterosexuality are never polygamous.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I think you're misunderstanding my position: I avoid saying gender outside of grammar.

It's called "gender critical feminism" & it's critical of transgenderism – thereby legitimising "gender" as meaning gender-swap desire + role-play. It's simply counter-productive.

Gender critical means being critical of all sex sterotypes, not only transgenderism. To be honest saying gender critical feminist is redundant, imo. I guess it was coined because some "feminists" started enforcing sex sterotypes. It's like socialists calling themselves capitalism critical socialists because some "socialists" started talking about the wonders of the free market.

On top of that, we've all heard men say that they are "biologically female", right? So what has holding onto "sex" got GC feminism? Relinquishing "gender" was just the first step to inching single-sex terms out of the conversion altogether. It's like one of those Native American treaties with the US, & feminists are playing the part of the Native Americans.

John Money, Robert Stoller and their colleagues were the ones who started differentiating between sex and gender. If you think those guys were any sort of feminists, then back up your claims. It shouldn't be difficult seeing as you're so familiar with their work. Go ahead, Snow, I'm all ears about what those guys did for women's rights.

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

You: "I avoid saying gender outside of grammar". Also you: "Gender critical means being critical of all sex stereotypes"

I'm all ears about what those guys did for women's rights

...um, but I never said Stoller was a feminist, so why would I defend that random statement? In any case it makes no difference either way. You're the one using his definition: sex-stereotypes. You have this idea that you disagree with him & that I agree with him – when it's the other way 'round. He thinks gender means sex-stereotypes & so do you, I think we should reject that definition in favour of the original/colloquial one: synonym for biological sex. Confusingly, you also sometimes use the transgenderist definition of gender.

Gender became synonymous with biological sex again after the end of the 2nd wave. Transgenderism resurrected the differentiation, but changed the definition of gender. So maybe stop blaming Stoller & the word "gender"? Right now there is a battle over the word gender going on & for some reason GC feminists are on the transgenderist side. They shake their fists at Stoller & transgenderism, but call themselves "gender critical" thereby using either Stoller's & transgenderism's definition of gender depending on the context.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You: "I avoid saying gender outside of grammar". Also you: "Gender critical means being critical of all sex stereotypes"

You're unbeliable... I was just repeating the explanation that I've heard for the name of the subs. This was needed because you thought the name was due only to transgenderims. There are plenty of women who, evidently, find the term useful. I'm just not among them.

...um, but I never said Stoller was a feminist, so why would I defend that random statement?

You said that his ideas on "gender" were perfectly concondart with feminism. You also said feminists that femists should reclaim the words "gender" and "gender identity" despite the fact those terms didn't come from feminists in the first place, that was on Money and Stoller. So, why is so imprtant to you that I use these words, other than your reluctance of anyone suing the word sex?

You have this idea that you disagree with him & that I agree with him – when it's the other way 'round. He thinks gender means sex-stereotypes & so do you, I do not agree with Stoller at all. He believed in strict sex stereotypes and "true transsexuals", and found violence against women desirable.

I think we should reject that definition in favour of the original/colloquial one: synonym for biological sex.

You keep saying "gender" instead of "sex". I won't.

Confusingly, you also sometimes use the transgenderist definition of gender.

What are you talkiing about? The only time I use their terms is for debating them.

Gender became synonymous with biological sex again after the end of the 2nd wave. Transgenderism resurrected the differentiation, but changed the definition of gender. So maybe stop blaming Stoller & the word "gender"? Right now there is a battle over the word gender going on & for some reason GC feminists are on the transgenderist side.

Transgenderism didn't come from nowhere, but it's a evolution from transsexualism. And it turns out Stoller was involved in the early days of the latter. I place the original blame of what is happening today in the doctors who decided to enable the fantasies of men who claimed to be "women" and the people who allowed men who took hormones and undergone surgeries to resemble women to legally "change" their sex. I don't think the word "gender" has all the blame, but there is no doubt, imo, trans activists took full advantage of it.

They shake their fists at Stoller & transgenderism, but call themselves "gender critical" thereby using either Stoller's & transgenderism's definition of gender depending on the context.

I did not choose this name and I became mod of this sub by chance. I only use "GC" for convenience when describing the position of posters here.

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You also said feminists should reclaim the words "gender" and "gender identity" despite the fact those terms didn't come from feminists in the first place, that was on Money and Stoller

WTF? "Gender" has been a part of the English language since at least the 19th century, not the 60s, so "gender" didn't come from Stoller. Feminism adopted Stoller's view that gender & sex should have two separate meanings, they also adopted his definition of gender. So how does feminism adopting his distinction between sex & gender make Stoller a feminist?? If anything that would make feminists "Stollerists".

Gender & sex are synonyms. Then the trouble started with Stoller deciding they should describe two different things, then the trouble started in earnest when 2nd-wavers decided to adopt the idea, then the trouble continued with transgenderism also hopping onto the idea that the two words describe separate things, now radical feminists like you guys continue the trouble by also insisting that the two words describe different things. It was a bad & completely unnecessary idea & continues to be a bad idea. Hence my reasonable suggestion to abandon the two separate definitions & go back to treating them as synonyms again, the way most people do anyway.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

WTF? "Gender" has been a part of the English language since at least the 19th century, not the 60s, so "gender" didn't come from Stoller.

I meant the meaning related to the different social norms for women and men.

Feminism adopted Stoller's view that gender & sex should have two separate meanings, they also adopted his definition of gender. So how does feminism adopting his distinction between sex & gender make Stoller a feminist?? If anything that would make feminists "Stollerists".

I never said Stoller was a feminist...

Gender & sex are synonyms. Then the trouble started with Stoller deciding they should describe two different things, then the trouble started in earnest when 2nd-wavers decided to adopt the idea, then the trouble continued with transgenderism also hopping onto the idea that the two words describe separate things, now radical feminists like you guys continue the trouble by also insisting that the two words describe different things. It was a bad & completely unnecessary idea & continues to be a bad idea. Hence my reasonable suggestion to abandon the two separate definitions & go back to treating them as synonyms again, the way most people do anyway.

Can you at least adress my actual points instead of someone else's ones? I already told you I avoid using the word gender. So how am I to blame for the confusion between "gender" and sex?