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 →

[–]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.

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

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

You're mixing me up with Lawrence Kohlberg, you know, the guy who coined 'gender identity'. Oh wait, you didn't know that, even though I've reminded you on several occasions?

Again, what purpose does replacing "gender" with "sex" have, if you don't actually replace gender with sex in any of the examples where "gender" is used by TRAs?

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't see any use for their terms. "Gender identity" should not be written into law. It doesn't have place in science since it's an unfalsifiable concept. Newsmedia shouldn't use it like if it were a fact and so on so on. I think people need to stop playing along with this stuff.

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You're using the transgenderist re-definition of gender identity again. Gender identity is as "unfalsifiable" as class identity. As long as the social sciences have a place in science then Kohlberg's gender identity will as well.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I don't give a damn what you or Kohlberg think about "gender identity". It's transactivists who are writing the term into law around the world. Of course women care more about debunking their ideas than making sure you feel included.

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

So you finally realise that Kohlberg & I are not the same person. Finally, some progress. But you want to debunk the social sciences? That'd be counter-productive for any feminist to do. You might as well say that you don't give a damn what biology says a woman is since TRAs re-defined it in law. By your logic, you'd have to reject the word woman too on the exact same grounds you reject gender & gender identity.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I want to debunk transgenderism because is their ideas that are being written into law and turning society upside down. Kohlberg has been dead for years and you're the only one that I'm aware of who wants to re-define "gender identity". Anyone else who is fond of the term is on the TRA side.

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Stoller has been dead for years too, so why should we follow his lead in dividing synonyms into separate terms?

and you're the only one that I'm aware of who wants to re-define "gender identity"

That's like me accusing you of wanting to re-define "woman". Kohlberg's definition of gender identity is the definition of gender identity. TRAs want to re-define both "gender identity" & "woman". And you're willing to capitulate regarding "gender identity", bc, get this, you're not fOnD of the term LOL. Excuse me if an argument of aesthetics fails to convince me. Hopefully you never get displeased with the word "woman".