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] 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".

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Where am I following Stoller's lead...?

I've never mentioned aesthetics in all our discusions. You're making things up.

No one is using Kohlberg's definition besides you. Furthermore, where is your source showing that Kohlberg's definition was the original one? John Money and Robert Stoller where the ones who started talking about gender outside of grammar. If you search Robert Stoller in the web several sources credit him with coining up the term "gender identity". But that is besides the point. It's trans activists who are written using the term to enshrine their chosen "identities" into law and make is so their "identities" are prioritized over sex. What is the usefulness of using Kohlberg's definition in fighting the sex denialism, the erasure of women's rights and the unethical experimentation on minors?

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

Every feminist who can't accept that sex & gender are synonyms are following Stoller's lead.

You said you weren't "fond" of the term gender identity. Aesthetics.

Your research methods are worryingly lacking. I thought you said you work in the hard sciences. Kohlberg's definition of gender identity is the original one from 1966. It's pretty easy to find, if you're looking for it. If you google things like "the origin of gender" it'll say: John Money 1955, which is incorrect on so many levels, Money coined "gender-roles" in 1955, gender is an ancient term, but apparently you would have just taken the top results as gospel. Maybe one day when you google 'woman' & it regurgitates some TRA definition you can try to distance yourself from that term too.

No one is using Kohlberg's definition besides you

Do you realise that you're saying I'm more informed on this topic than anyone else?

Julie Bindel seems to be using Kohlberg's definition of gender identity here, unfortunately shortening it to gender: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/26/how-important-is-gender

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

Every feminist who can't accept that sex & gender are synonyms are following Stoller's lead.

So, even if I avoid talking about "gender", I'm following Stoller's lead. What a nonsense!

You said you weren't "fond" of the term gender identity. Aesthetics.

Yeah, let's ignore the thousand words I write about my problems with the term. Dismissing them as pure aesthetics is far easier.

Your research methods are worryingly lacking. I thought you said you work in the hard sciences.

You dare to criticize my researching skills when you think using Google Images and a single book as an example is the definitive evidence you need to prove English speakers don't know the word sex may refer to state of being male or female until they reach adulthood?

You have done nothing in this post but extrapolate your puritanical uprising and education, that for some reason was also utterly lacking in biology, to all native English speakers, both past and present.

Kohlberg's definition of gender identity is the original one from 1966. It's pretty easy to find, if you're looking for it.

Source or you are making stuff up. Also, what I really want to know is whether Kohlberg originally talked about "gender identity" or if he used the word "sex" instead and you're re-interpreting his work because of your aversion of the word "sex".

If you google things like "the origin of gender" it'll say: John Money 1955, which is incorrect on so many levels, Money coined "gender-roles" in 1955, gender is an ancient term, but apparently you would have just taken the top results as gospel. Maybe one day when you google 'woman' & it regurgitates some TRA definition you can try to distance yourself from that term too.

I've said previously that both Money and Stoller usually didn't use the word alone. So, thanks for tell me what I already knew.

Julie Bindel seems to be using Kohlberg's definition of gender identity here, unfortunately shortening it to gender: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/26/how-important-is-gender

That is absurd. She couldn't be using Kohlberg's definition because she was talking about a newborn baby, who could not understand back then what females and males are. She clearly is talking about sex stereotypes and social expectations here.