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] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 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 -  (13 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.

[–]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.