Also known as Frank Francisco.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V06ullKogI[/yt]
I'll drink to that!
Last edited:
Sex and Gender
- Thread starter scotpens
- Start date
Also known as Frank Francisco.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V06ullKogI[/yt]
I'll drink to that!
I have two transsexual galli friends I met during my trip to the 31st century who are bothered when humans mix up their sex and gender, or otherwise misunderstand the complexity of ZW transsexuality, but by and large they get much more offended when we call them “chicken”. So while your drive for terminological correctness is certainly commendable, I'm not sure they'd appreciate it as much as you'd hope.
I, for one, welcome our new galliform overlords.
It's a self-serving myth that humans have a distinct cultural domain known as gender and other animals have sex. No, gender in humans is essentially identical to sex.
It's not a cultural construct or patriarchal conspiracy. The sexes (or genders) are fundamentally, irredeemably, evolutionarily different.
It's not a cultural construct or patriarchal conspiracy. The sexes (or genders) are fundamentally, irredeemably, evolutionarily different.
I disagree. As I mentioned earlier the Bugis culture is based on 5 genders (male, female, bissu, calabai and calalai) and it works well for them, in fact they have to recognise 5 genders for their society to be harmonious.
They recognised three sexes (male, female and intersex).
They recognised three sexes (male, female and intersex).
This is such a stupid statement it deserves nothing but ridicule and scorn.
I don't fink so. A true pedant would say that gender was a grammatical term.
However in the interests of 'putting this to bed', the OED says:
gender, n.
3. a. gen. Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.1 1. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups.
It indeed demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of evolution, psychology, and society. Gender, in the psychological and sociological sense, encompasses a much greater realm than sex, and while the two are almost always very closely tied, they are never "essentially identical" because, in this sense, they are two different things.
Nonsense. Gender is a social construct. Animals tend not to have it because most species lack the potential for complex social structures like those humans have, although it's not impossible for animals have different behavioral roles in their social lives that may be considered similar to gender roles.
Me too.
I think this is oversimplifying it, though. Much of the concept of gender is a social construct, but it is a social construct that is greatly informed by biology, which is why in most cases gender and sex do match. So while Talosian is completely wrong that sex and gender are exactly the same, not every aspect of gender is arbitrary, which it would be if gender were entirely a social construct with no basis in biology.
I never said it wasn't informed by biology, but what makes gender distinct from sex is the social component. The largely biological basis would, I think, be implied.
^I guess I just didn't get the implication, then, sorry. I think the problem comes when we try to distinctly separate the social from the biological, which is impossible to do, because the social is informed by the biological.
Given that "sex == gender" is the prevailing (and incorrect) assumption, that's what I was specifically trying to dispel. Do I really need to say "gender is informed by sex," given that everybody knows that already? I didn't think I needed to state the obvious.
Gender = Sex + Culture
Is that precise enough so everybody understands it?
^It just appeared to me that you were taking it to the opposite extreme, in effect saying that gender and sex don't actually have anything to do with each other, which is just as common a belief and just as false as the idea that they are the same thing. Again, it could very well just be me, but it wasn't obvious to me that you accept that gender and sex are related.
Oh, come on. The idea of gender being completely detached from sex is not "just as common" and you know it. The vast majority of people still think gender and sex are the exact same thing.
"Gender is a social construct" is true. I never said it is a completely social construct, but what makes it distinct from sex is the social factor. That's what makes it a social construct in the first place. I would hope people can follow the reasoning on their own without having to be guided from A to B to C.
Social constructs are quite often informed by non-social factors. That doesn't mean I have to spell out what those factors are at every turn in order to correctly say that something is, in fact, a social construct.
Sorry if I sound annoyed, just seems like you are arguing with someone who is already in agreement with you and doesn't need to be educated on what the difference between sex and gender is.
Whoa. Why are you being so agressive? Where is all this anger coming from? I've already said that it could very well just have been me missing what was implied...I am not arguing with you...I was agreeing with you!
What I was pointing out is that people tend to believe in two extremes, nature or nurture, and, in my experience, believing in one extreme is just as common as believing in the other. It seemed to me (and like I said before, it could have been just me) that you were taking the latter extreme in this case, which is wrong. I was wrong, and I already admitted that...I don't see why you think I am arguing.
What I was pointing out is that people tend to believe in two extremes, nature or nurture, and, in my experience, believing in one extreme is just as common as believing in the other. It seemed to me (and like I said before, it could have been just me) that you were taking the latter extreme in this case, which is wrong. I was wrong, and I already admitted that...I don't see why you think I am arguing.
It's not anger, just annoyance. I explained right after you initially responded to me that I wasn't saying gender and sex were unrelated, and then you kept restating your perception that I was saying that, every time I responded. I understand what you thought I meant, but after I explained, why keep bringing it up? It comes off as condescending.
I understand that you misunderstood my original post, and that's probably because I wasn't explicit enough, which is why I explained. I just didn't understand why you kept reiterating how you read my original post once I clarified what I intended.
Do you see how exasperating that could be?