So, about the word "gender." Originally it meant "type or category." Then linguists got hold of it and used it to label particular qualities of particular words. I don't know when people started using it as an euphemism for sex but it was sometime after that. People actually used the word "sex" quite liberally in the late 1800s to mid 1900s. The only reason I know that is I've read enough books from that time frame. Anyway, de-sexing gender would be taking it back closer to its original meaning, ironically enough.
It has never lost the 1398 meaning "Sex". It was often used in place of "Sex" in the 20th Century, primarily because "sex" was often used to mean "sexual intercourse" as in "they had sex last night". I am not proposing the de-sexing of gender at all. I am pointing out that for grown ups, it has never lost the original main meaning of "sex". The woke have attempted to subvert its meaning & we need to reject their assault on language and meaning completely.
Though I notice that "gender" is often paired with "masculine" or "feminine" - consistent with the late Justice Scalia's analogy - quoted in Wikipedia's article on Gender - differentiating between sex and gender:
"Gender is to sex as masculine is to male, and as feminine is to female".
Somewhat inefficient at best - if not totally confusing - to be having two words - "sex" and "gender" - refer to the same traits or features. Why there's a great deal of justification to use the former - as stipulated by 2a (sex) - to denote "biological differences", particularly the ability to produce either of two types of gametes - while using the latter to denote psychological and behavioural differences between the sexes.
An editorial in the British Medical Journal summarizes and justifies those different uses for the different words:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
But it's only been recently that science has figured out - in the late 1800s - that the production of gametes is what is essential to the whole process of reproduction. And why the biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have the ability to produce either of two types of gametes - sperm or ova - and those with neither ability are therefore sexless:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Your comment highlights something very interesting indeed.
While gender does now have many definitions, so does sex, but possibly because the woke are not emphasising "sex identity" they make no attempt to muddy that particular water, just gender... Which should speak volumes.
It's good to see that BMJ editorial as it highlights the subtle and sophisticated encroachment into the field of medicine itself.
As happens elsewhere, the authors try very hard to play on the fact that thanks - largely - to the very subjective - and therefore very unreliable - fields of psychology & philosophy, gender has accrued many new and alternative meanings.
What the authors do - this is a common failing of kind hearted people with good intentions, as well as people with less than honourable intentions - is to forget, ignore or deliberately conceal the simple fact, which is that primarily in the field of science & medicine gender has always been the synonym for sex.
Sex should not be confused with gender identity, or any other of the myriad definitions of gender.
Sex does mean gender and vice versa. Creating additional meanings from deeply subjective, invested fields of at best pseudoscience, and at worst - in the case of gender clinicians - in no way negates this fact or meaning.
Remember that many in the fields of psychological services have heavily vested interests in "gender clinics" which I don't need to point out are a mega industry that will seriously be threatened when this medical scandal is finally exposed.
Gender means sex and sex means gender. The semantics around trying to attribute other meaning is invariably clear obfuscation on behalf of adherents of post-modernist ontological metaphysics and the gender identity nonsense.
That's YOUR interpretation; it is most certainly not universally the case. Did you read that 2a section from OED for "sex"?
"The word sex tends now to refer to biological differences, while gender often refers to cultural or social ones."
Having two quite different meanings for the same word - "gender" in this case - causes no end of grief. As your own story about "fanny" illustrates.
Is it a fact or not that, as the BMJ article underlines, there are biological traits that are part and parcel of the process of reproduction, and that there are psychological and behavioural traits that strongly correlate with essential elements of that process? Maybe there's some benefit to having separate words to denote those different types of traits? The current convention is now that "sex" refers to the former, and that "gender" refers to the latter.
That "gender has always been the synonym for sex" - more or less - does not mean that it has to remain that way; it used to be the case that people thought the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Seems kind of pointless and rather inefficient, if not the cause of no end of quite unnecessary animosity and grief, to be having two words for the same sets of properties, particularly when there are solid reasons to re-define one of them.
But I wonder which definitions for the sexes you subscribe to. Do you accept the ones - from the Oxford Journal on Molecular Human Reproduction - that I quoted? Ones that are endorsed by Google/OED, Lexico, & Wikipedia?
People don't get to make up their own definitions. As they don't get to drive on any side of the road they want whenever they want. There's some merit and value in trying to find a consensus - some justification to come together over that sex/gender dichotomy.
Although I'll readily concede that there's a great deal of unscientific rot in the concept of gender, gender identity in particular which is almost entirely subjective - a merging of science, magic and religion:
"People don't get to make up their own definitions."
You've just provided ample evidence that that is precisely what they do...
That BMJ piece is an editorial comment, not a peer reviewed article.
I accept & stand by the primary scientific meaning that a particularly regressive, misogynistic & homophobic mind control cult are trying - through stealth, sophistry, obfuscation, confusion, deceit & persistence - to corrupt.
As I don't "believe" in Queer Theory, nor its disgraceful corruption & bastardisation of context & meaning. I will certainly not be indulging in linguistic gymnastics that permits regressive, dangerous & offensive stereotyping to be characterised as being in some ways normal or acceptable.
This is not about semantics or philosophical onanism. Put simply, this - right now - is an existential fight to claw back meaning from those who would pervert it for the benefit of paedophiles & sexual predators who primarily have women & children in their sights as targets.
So, yes as things stand & until sanity is restored. Sex is gender & gender is sex. Other concoctions of social & psychological characteristics are precisely that - social & psychological characteristics, nothing more, nothing less.
This is a very simple, straightforward matter. I would hope that you would have gleaned from the article that the whole point is to apply Occam's Razor to language surround sex, its immutability & to dispel nonsense around gender stereotypes & gender dysphoria.
What a bunch of pretentious and quite unscientific and irrelevant blathering.
Of course we "make up our own definitions"; the question is which definitions hold the most water, have the greatest degree of utility and consistency. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z. WE make up the definitions - they're "socially constructed". Though they're generally based on various principles of long standing value and justification; you might try reading the Wikipedia articles on taxonomy, and on extensional and intensional definitions:
"In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics."
Rather large number of species manage to reproduce because many members are able to produce sperm or ova. That makes those abilities the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as male and female; see:
You still are not able, or willing to say what definitions for the sexes you subscribe to. You're muddying the waters with references to the rot that "gender ideology" has engendered - so to speak - while ignoring or refusing to consider the scientific principles that give SOME justification to the concept of gender as a range of psychological and behavioural traits typical of those able to produce sperm or ova.
Dumping masses of dubious material that overwhelm many people is neither clever, nor an argument in itself.
Likewise, insults have little effect when you then go on to demonstrate a severe lack of academic rigour while trying to look academic.
This lack of understanding then flows through with grandiose statements that lack any respected authority or evidence.
Wikipedia is an online "collaboration" - not an authority - where many cults & sects create material to support their outrageous beliefs. They do this often by persistent re-edits until rational people give up & leave them to it. It has about the same credibility as anyone who can't answer the some question, "What is a woman?"
So far you have just flooded these comments with a significant amount of questionable material. To what end I'm not quite sure.
As things stand I have given you the benefit of the doubt. You asked questions, I have answered them. I didn't expect to be insulted but I suppose you're entitled to have a different viewpoint. I would however, suggest that if you are as convinced by your own offerings as you appear to be, write an article of your own clearly setting out & explaining your position & allowing people to see your views & evidence rather than just dumping all this meaningless Wikipedia stuff in the comments.
Well into the 80s we used the word Unisex - eg Unsex hairdressers, we used sex discrimination which was clearly about discrimination based on sex, rather than gender discrimination which be sex discrimination, but could be discrimination against people claiming a gender identity.
I think back then, if you used gender, you would have sounded very prudish.
We have some very short memories. In around 2012 a new phenomenon burst onto the scene for new parents - gender reveal parties - where people told everyone the biological sex of their unborn children!
Yes, it would have seemed prudish but I would certainly have asked older people about gender rather than sex out of politeness.
Well put! Excellent....
So, about the word "gender." Originally it meant "type or category." Then linguists got hold of it and used it to label particular qualities of particular words. I don't know when people started using it as an euphemism for sex but it was sometime after that. People actually used the word "sex" quite liberally in the late 1800s to mid 1900s. The only reason I know that is I've read enough books from that time frame. Anyway, de-sexing gender would be taking it back closer to its original meaning, ironically enough.
It has never lost the 1398 meaning "Sex". It was often used in place of "Sex" in the 20th Century, primarily because "sex" was often used to mean "sexual intercourse" as in "they had sex last night". I am not proposing the de-sexing of gender at all. I am pointing out that for grown ups, it has never lost the original main meaning of "sex". The woke have attempted to subvert its meaning & we need to reject their assault on language and meaning completely.
Some evidence that "sex" and "gender" have been used more or less synonymously since 1474 or earlier:
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/77468? (Gender; 3a)
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176989#eid23485946 (Sex; 2a)
Though I notice that "gender" is often paired with "masculine" or "feminine" - consistent with the late Justice Scalia's analogy - quoted in Wikipedia's article on Gender - differentiating between sex and gender:
"Gender is to sex as masculine is to male, and as feminine is to female".
Somewhat inefficient at best - if not totally confusing - to be having two words - "sex" and "gender" - refer to the same traits or features. Why there's a great deal of justification to use the former - as stipulated by 2a (sex) - to denote "biological differences", particularly the ability to produce either of two types of gametes - while using the latter to denote psychological and behavioural differences between the sexes.
An editorial in the British Medical Journal summarizes and justifies those different uses for the different words:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
But it's only been recently that science has figured out - in the late 1800s - that the production of gametes is what is essential to the whole process of reproduction. And why the biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have the ability to produce either of two types of gametes - sperm or ova - and those with neither ability are therefore sexless:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Your comment highlights something very interesting indeed.
While gender does now have many definitions, so does sex, but possibly because the woke are not emphasising "sex identity" they make no attempt to muddy that particular water, just gender... Which should speak volumes.
It's good to see that BMJ editorial as it highlights the subtle and sophisticated encroachment into the field of medicine itself.
As happens elsewhere, the authors try very hard to play on the fact that thanks - largely - to the very subjective - and therefore very unreliable - fields of psychology & philosophy, gender has accrued many new and alternative meanings.
What the authors do - this is a common failing of kind hearted people with good intentions, as well as people with less than honourable intentions - is to forget, ignore or deliberately conceal the simple fact, which is that primarily in the field of science & medicine gender has always been the synonym for sex.
Sex should not be confused with gender identity, or any other of the myriad definitions of gender.
Sex does mean gender and vice versa. Creating additional meanings from deeply subjective, invested fields of at best pseudoscience, and at worst - in the case of gender clinicians - in no way negates this fact or meaning.
Remember that many in the fields of psychological services have heavily vested interests in "gender clinics" which I don't need to point out are a mega industry that will seriously be threatened when this medical scandal is finally exposed.
Gender means sex and sex means gender. The semantics around trying to attribute other meaning is invariably clear obfuscation on behalf of adherents of post-modernist ontological metaphysics and the gender identity nonsense.
"Gender means sex and sex means gender."
That's YOUR interpretation; it is most certainly not universally the case. Did you read that 2a section from OED for "sex"?
"The word sex tends now to refer to biological differences, while gender often refers to cultural or social ones."
Having two quite different meanings for the same word - "gender" in this case - causes no end of grief. As your own story about "fanny" illustrates.
Is it a fact or not that, as the BMJ article underlines, there are biological traits that are part and parcel of the process of reproduction, and that there are psychological and behavioural traits that strongly correlate with essential elements of that process? Maybe there's some benefit to having separate words to denote those different types of traits? The current convention is now that "sex" refers to the former, and that "gender" refers to the latter.
That "gender has always been the synonym for sex" - more or less - does not mean that it has to remain that way; it used to be the case that people thought the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Seems kind of pointless and rather inefficient, if not the cause of no end of quite unnecessary animosity and grief, to be having two words for the same sets of properties, particularly when there are solid reasons to re-define one of them.
But I wonder which definitions for the sexes you subscribe to. Do you accept the ones - from the Oxford Journal on Molecular Human Reproduction - that I quoted? Ones that are endorsed by Google/OED, Lexico, & Wikipedia?
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/male
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female
People don't get to make up their own definitions. As they don't get to drive on any side of the road they want whenever they want. There's some merit and value in trying to find a consensus - some justification to come together over that sex/gender dichotomy.
Although I'll readily concede that there's a great deal of unscientific rot in the concept of gender, gender identity in particular which is almost entirely subjective - a merging of science, magic and religion:
https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/3728/430
"People don't get to make up their own definitions."
You've just provided ample evidence that that is precisely what they do...
That BMJ piece is an editorial comment, not a peer reviewed article.
I accept & stand by the primary scientific meaning that a particularly regressive, misogynistic & homophobic mind control cult are trying - through stealth, sophistry, obfuscation, confusion, deceit & persistence - to corrupt.
As I don't "believe" in Queer Theory, nor its disgraceful corruption & bastardisation of context & meaning. I will certainly not be indulging in linguistic gymnastics that permits regressive, dangerous & offensive stereotyping to be characterised as being in some ways normal or acceptable.
This is not about semantics or philosophical onanism. Put simply, this - right now - is an existential fight to claw back meaning from those who would pervert it for the benefit of paedophiles & sexual predators who primarily have women & children in their sights as targets.
So, yes as things stand & until sanity is restored. Sex is gender & gender is sex. Other concoctions of social & psychological characteristics are precisely that - social & psychological characteristics, nothing more, nothing less.
This is a very simple, straightforward matter. I would hope that you would have gleaned from the article that the whole point is to apply Occam's Razor to language surround sex, its immutability & to dispel nonsense around gender stereotypes & gender dysphoria.
"This is not about semantics or philosophical onanism." Ha ha great!
What a bunch of pretentious and quite unscientific and irrelevant blathering.
Of course we "make up our own definitions"; the question is which definitions hold the most water, have the greatest degree of utility and consistency. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z. WE make up the definitions - they're "socially constructed". Though they're generally based on various principles of long standing value and justification; you might try reading the Wikipedia articles on taxonomy, and on extensional and intensional definitions:
"In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
Rather large number of species manage to reproduce because many members are able to produce sperm or ova. That makes those abilities the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as male and female; see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
You still are not able, or willing to say what definitions for the sexes you subscribe to. You're muddying the waters with references to the rot that "gender ideology" has engendered - so to speak - while ignoring or refusing to consider the scientific principles that give SOME justification to the concept of gender as a range of psychological and behavioural traits typical of those able to produce sperm or ova.
Seriously...
Wikipedia? You are joking right?
Dumping masses of dubious material that overwhelm many people is neither clever, nor an argument in itself.
Likewise, insults have little effect when you then go on to demonstrate a severe lack of academic rigour while trying to look academic.
This lack of understanding then flows through with grandiose statements that lack any respected authority or evidence.
Wikipedia is an online "collaboration" - not an authority - where many cults & sects create material to support their outrageous beliefs. They do this often by persistent re-edits until rational people give up & leave them to it. It has about the same credibility as anyone who can't answer the some question, "What is a woman?"
So far you have just flooded these comments with a significant amount of questionable material. To what end I'm not quite sure.
As things stand I have given you the benefit of the doubt. You asked questions, I have answered them. I didn't expect to be insulted but I suppose you're entitled to have a different viewpoint. I would however, suggest that if you are as convinced by your own offerings as you appear to be, write an article of your own clearly setting out & explaining your position & allowing people to see your views & evidence rather than just dumping all this meaningless Wikipedia stuff in the comments.
Well into the 80s we used the word Unisex - eg Unsex hairdressers, we used sex discrimination which was clearly about discrimination based on sex, rather than gender discrimination which be sex discrimination, but could be discrimination against people claiming a gender identity.
I think back then, if you used gender, you would have sounded very prudish.
We have some very short memories. In around 2012 a new phenomenon burst onto the scene for new parents - gender reveal parties - where people told everyone the biological sex of their unborn children!
Yes, it would have seemed prudish but I would certainly have asked older people about gender rather than sex out of politeness.