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 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (54 children)

I'm still waiting for your arguments to be substantiated. You make claims without backing them up & dismiss evidence without reason.

Worst case scenario: the word 'gender' becomes the word to refer to biological sex – what hellish results do you predict for such a dystopian future? Please tell me your reason for resisting such a "change".

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

Hundreds of millions of papers and books about all the life sciences and other fields - biology, zoology, agriculture, horticulture, plant science, genetics, medicine, child development - and materials concerning subject areas like pet care, livestock, dog breeding, and so on would have to be rewritten if "gender" were to replace "sex."

Since you seem most interested in image searches, do an image search for "plant sex" and "biological sex." Yes, sex does mean various sex acts today, including coitus. But it doesn't mean only that. People know which way the word is being used based on context. Just as people know that the word "foot" has different meanings in the statements: "I broke my foot," "I'll foot the bill," "Put the blanket at the foot of the bed" and "I am five foot eight."

[–]SnowAssMan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

Hundreds of millions of papers and books about all the life sciences and other fields - biology, zoology, agriculture, horticulture, plant science, genetics, medicine, child development - and materials concerning subject areas like pet care, livestock, dog breeding, and so on would have to be rewritten if "gender" were to replace "sex."

The horror.

Just look at how stigmatised the gay movement is bc of it's association with sex. Why tf would you want to add that obstacle to feminism? Especially when there are literally no benefits?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

Just look at how stigmatised the gay movement is bc of it's association with sex.

Whoah, what? Speak for yourself. Gay people might be stigmatized in your mind, but that's because you think sex itself is obscene and shouldn't be mentioned - and you seem to have a special and even worse problem with homosexuality.

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

I'm getting sick of this "he who smelt it dealt it" attitude I keep getting from you lot. It's childish. Just the other day I saw a clip of Ben Shapiro complaining about kids learning about homosexuality, bc in order to learn about it they have to learn about sex. Here is the clip with over half a million views, which apparently only happened in my head:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOT_HH3Ut_A&t=65s

Half your country is that moron. So quit pretending homophobia & the stigmatising of sex only exists in my head, bc that would make my head at least as big as half your country.

Anyway, is that really the extra obstacle you want for the feminist movement? And for what? So that some straight guys can ponce about saying how "biologically female" they are anyway?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

Even if half the USA were homophobic, a figure you seem to have pulled out of thin air, it still wouldn't mean that everyone in the English speaking world believes as you do that "sex"=PIV intercourse, that "sex" itself and any mention of it is obscene, and therefore the very word "sex" is an inherently unmentionable word that would be best replaced by "gender" so as not to remind you and them of something - sex - that you and they find dirty and repugnant.

You seem to be the one in synch with Ben Shapiro on this, not me or any of us GC feminist posters. Which is demonstrated by the fact that you spend your time watching and sharing his videos.

I'm not gonna look at a Shapiro video, but I do understand the concern some parents have about teaching small children about sexual orientation in ways that expose them to the graphic details of adult sex acts. This takes us back to the difference between something being inherently obscene and inappropriate for children that you refuse to acknowledge.

IMO, it's fine for schools to use teaching materials that show little kids that people can love and marry someone of the same sex as well as the opposite sex, and that same-sex couples can have children/families together. But little kids don't need to learn in school the graphic details of what gays and lesbians get up to in bed, or how exactly they got about having children, just as they don't need to know the graphic details of PIV sex or everything heterosexual couples go through when TTC. There's a big difference between the "Heather Has Two Mommies" age-appropriate kind of teaching that teaches kids about the variety of human love relationships and and the age-inappropriate teaching now often being promoted by dodgy "diversity and inclusion" orgs like the UK's Proud Trust that seek to teach children in school about the wide variety of sex acts there are and acquaint them with the details of oral sex, "anal play," strap-ons, rimming, fisting, butt plugs and so on.

Also, what is appropriate for children to learn changes dramatically depending on their age. A three-year-old is very different to an eight-year-old in this respect and both in turn are very different to 12 year-olds.

that would make my head at least as big as half your country.

You said this, mate, not I or anyone else you disparage as "you lot." Own goal.

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

Parents don't want sex to be a topic for their kids & at least half of them think homosexuality is a sex topic ≠ all that crap you made up about what I said.

Ben Shapiro's views actually represent half the USA's views, that much is clear from the engagement he gets. So you can stop acting as if he's just some mate of mine, or a figment of my imagination who has an obscure opinion held by almost no one.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

Lmao these wild claims and you’re having a go at me cause I can’t give you a curriculum that’s no longer taught. This is just a joke isn’t it, snow? The whole four days of this have been a bit.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

This is just a joke isn’t it, snow?

I doubt it. This is his typical arguing style.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

I’m gonna choose to believe it’s a bit because it’s really funny imo.

Half of America agrees with some guy because his YouTube video has a lot of views, also you girls need to listen to me because you’re all bad at feminism. Listen to the man speaking and let him correct you sweetie.

You couldn’t write that as dialogue for a sexist manager character on tv cause it would be too on the nose and he’s saying it of his own volition like it’s brilliant.
I love it.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I've backed up my claims in the OP, which you chose to ignore. And I've explained my arguments since we began discussing about gender months ago. You disagreeing with me doesn't change that fact.

Worst case scenario would if we end up without words for talking about sex because we are only left with "gender identity".

[–]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

Now that's a leap in logic worthy of Judith Butler.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

How so? That is exactly what transactivists want.

[–]SnowAssMan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

And you're playing the part of an unwilling ally. AGPs are appropriating all biology-based terms, why capitulate to any degree? Giving them gender won't make them leave "biologically female" alone, as we have all seen. So your reluctance to take "gender" back is what is heading us towards that dystopia you predicted.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Gender is not a biological term, rather it's used in grammar, sociology, psychology and feminist theory. Yes, there has been an increase in scientific literature in people using "gender" and "gender differences" instead of "sex" and "sex differences". However, you can still find plenty of use of plain old "sex", meaning the biological category, not the sexual act. And, of course there are several multi-word terms that don't use gender (e.g. sexual dimorphism, sex determination, sex hormones, sex chromosomes, sex-linked inheritance, etcetera). Me not using the word gender as a synonym for sex won't change that, especially when I keep talking about why sex matters. It's transactivists who are trying to make sex to be unspeakable.

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

What should happen to all the terms that have 'gender' in them: gender-roles, gender identity, gender inequality etc? You say 'gender' isn't a biological term & that only 'sex' is. Are the aforementioned terms referencing biology? If you say "sex-roles" instead of "gender-roles", is 'sex' no longer a biological term? What's the difference between "sex" & "gender" within the gender-role vs. sex-role comparison?

Then there are terms like "gendered behavioural patterns", "feminine gender-role preference", "gender non-conformity", "cross-gender conformity". "feminising gender indicators" "gendered language" – can the word "sex" really do the job?

Everyone was saying "gender" instead of "sex" before transgenderism arrived on the scene. So if the word isn't to blame, why do you think disposing of it will solve the problem?

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I think MT has provided elsewhere with good alternatives that can be used, and have used indeed, insteas all those "gender" based words. There is no need to act like if it were impossible to talk about sexim and misogyny without using the word "gender". The only one who doesn't have a good alternative is "gender identity", but I don't think I've seen anyone else who is not on the QT side who is fond of the word.

Everyone was saying "gender" instead of "sex" before transgenderism arrived on the scene. So if the word isn't to blame, why do you think disposing of it will solve the problem?

I think is part of the problem, not the only problem.

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The fact that there is no difference between "gender-roles" & "sex-roles" reveals that 'sex' & 'gender' are synonyms, even within feminism, making the distinction illusory. No one even says "sex-roles" anymore. If you look up "sex-roles", most of the info is on reproductive roles. It's unrealistic & unnecessary to try to turn back time & change "gender-roles" back into "sex-roles".

The only one who doesn't have a good alternative is "gender identity"

So the only terms the role-players use: gender identity, misgender, transgender, will remain unchanged? Then what difference does it make to "favour sex over gender", when every use of the word "gender" (& the frequency of its use) remains unchanged?

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

The fact that there is no difference between "gender-roles" & "sex-roles" reveals that 'sex' & 'gender' are synonyms, even within feminism, making the distinction illusory. No one even says "sex-roles" anymore. If you look up "sex-roles", most of the info is on reproductive roles. It's unrealistic & unnecessary to try to turn back time & change "gender-roles" back into "sex-roles".

Says the guy who want we adopt his personal definition of "gender identity".

So the only terms the role-players use: gender identity, misgender, transgender, will remain unchanged? Then what difference does it make to "favour sex over gender", when every use of the word "gender" (& the frequency of its use) remains unchanged?

What?! Stop being disingenuos, Snow. Even if you disagree with me, you should know by now I regard terms like "gender identity", "trans gender" and other are only usefull for people who believe in this stuff. I don't, so I don't use them. They certainly should be used a lot less.

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

Everyone was saying "gender" instead of "sex" before transgenderism arrived on the scene.

No we weren't.

Some people started saying "gender" when they meant "sex," and that helped open the way for transgenderism to take hold amongst the elites and the spread amongst the general population.

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How on Earth did using the word "gender" as a synonym for sex "help open the way for transgenderism"?

Again, gender has always been a synonym for sex. It's only 2nd wave feminist theorists who decided that the two words should refer to different things based on what Stoller said. Transgenderism doesn't use either of those definitions, but if the ideology exploited anything, it's the feminist insistence that gender & sex are not synonyms. Every time you insist that gender & sex not be treated as synonyms you help the transgenderist cause.