Gender vs. ... Se...x
Gender vs. ... Se...x
One of my small pet peeves is people who say they'll find out the gender of the baby at the ultrasound rather than the sex. Am I misguided or are they technically incorrect?
- Unit of Energy
- Title Bar Moderator
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:35 pm
- Location: Planet Earth...I think.
- Contact:
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
They are probably in the group of people that don't use the same definitions used in academics. In common terms, especially among religious people (in my experience), gender and sex are interchangeable as descriptions of humans.
- Indefinite Integral
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:57 am
- Location: Not Quite Provo...ish
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here, but my first reaction was "Wait, there's a difference?"Unit of Energy wrote:They are probably in the group of people that don't use the same definitions used in academics. In common terms, especially among religious people (in my experience), gender and sex are interchangeable as descriptions of humans.
"The pursuit of mathematics is a divine madness of the human spirit." ~ Alfred North Whitehead
-
- President of the Lutheran Sisterhood Gun Club
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:41 am
- Location: Calgary
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
Sex is the biology/physiology and gender is the social stuff. So my sex is female because I have ovaries and a uterus and 2 X chromosomes and female sex hormones, etc etc. My gender is feminine because I dress and act in ways that our society associates with being feminine (and the words for talking about gender are masculine/feminine, not male/female). I think that a lot of people (and especially religious people) use the word gender as a euphemism for sex because some people think it sounds dirty to be saying the word sex all the time. But that's the correct term. You don't go around talking about your dog's gender or the gender of your plants (for plants that have male and female parts). Well, some people probably do. But when you look at your baby's ultrasound you are finding out if they are male or female, not if they are masculine or feminine. It drives me crazy too, Defy V, not so much because I really want them to be using the right word but because I know so many people substitute gender for sex because people think sex is a dirty word.
- Unit of Energy
- Title Bar Moderator
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:35 pm
- Location: Planet Earth...I think.
- Contact:
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
I don't really see a problem with using sex and gender interchangeably in common usage. That's how language works. I do think using gender because sex is dirty is a problem, but I don't think that's the only reason people use the two interchangeably.
-
- Never Coming Back?
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
Personally I think that a lot of people use gender instead of sex simply because it eliminates a lot of ambiguity. For instance, if I overhear someone talking about gender, I can pretty much guess what they are talking about. That is not the case with the word sex.
[img]http://fredjikrang.petfish.net/Fence-banner.png[/img]
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
Fred, I'd argue that it in fact creates a lot of ambiguity. When discussing what gender a person that has been born is, what we are actually talking about is social identification. In discussions about gender ambiguity, social constructs, etc. we aren't talking about the biological sex. We are, however, if we are talking about changing a person's sex, or their sex being different from their self-identified gender. This very problem once got me into a lot of trouble in a philosophy class....
Deus ab veritas
-
- Never Coming Back?
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
But if we are talking about gender, we are talking about gender, and there is nothing else that we can be talking about.
If we are talking about sex, we could be talking about the physical act, the genetic identifier, sex appeal, etc.
That is what I mean by ambiguity.
If we are talking about sex, we could be talking about the physical act, the genetic identifier, sex appeal, etc.
That is what I mean by ambiguity.
[img]http://fredjikrang.petfish.net/Fence-banner.png[/img]
- bobtheenchantedone
- Forum Administrator
- Posts: 4229
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:20 pm
- Location: At work
- Contact:
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
No, because you could be talking about sex and using the word gender, so you're not talking about gender. And while that may not necessarily cause ambiguity, since the error is widespread, I will still zone out for a moment every time the error is made so I can correct it in my mind.
On a related note, my family is all about correcting grammatical errors, to the point that you absolutely cannot say something that they think is incorrect without being corrected, no matter how obscure the correct usage or widespread the error. However, using "gender" instead of the more appropriate "sex" is one of the very few allowable mistakes.
On a related note to my related note, my brother can't even hear the word "bra" without going bright red. Being the terrible sister that I am, I usually talk about bras or breasts or even sex at least once every time I'm at my parents' house.
On a related note, my family is all about correcting grammatical errors, to the point that you absolutely cannot say something that they think is incorrect without being corrected, no matter how obscure the correct usage or widespread the error. However, using "gender" instead of the more appropriate "sex" is one of the very few allowable mistakes.
On a related note to my related note, my brother can't even hear the word "bra" without going bright red. Being the terrible sister that I am, I usually talk about bras or breasts or even sex at least once every time I'm at my parents' house.
The Epistler was quite honestly knocked on her ethereal behind by the sheer logic of this.
-
- Never Coming Back?
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
But if we are talking about sex using the word gender the two terms are probably equivalent in that conversation. (Because, let's be honest, practically 100% of the time in every day usage there is no appreciable difference.)
[img]http://fredjikrang.petfish.net/Fence-banner.png[/img]
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
gender (n.) c.1300, "kind, sort, class," from O.Fr. gendre (12c., Mod.Fr. genre), from stem of L. genus (gen. generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also (male or female) "sex" (see genus) and used to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c.; the male-or-female sense from early 15c. As sex took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the common word used for "sex of a human being," often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is first attested 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
Etymonline.com
Etymonline.com
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
Not necessarily. When GAs say something like "gender is eternal," that's very confusing, because they might mean "biological sex is eternal" or they might mean something like "gender roles are eternal," and there's a huge difference between the two.Fredjikrang wrote:But if we are talking about sex using the word gender the two terms are probably equivalent in that conversation.
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
I think what bothers me is that people use gender to replace sex since sex is a "dirty" word (like people have been saying), and that's just completely ridiculous. Perhaps I'm also bugged because I used to say gender exclusively for that reason, and now that I've grown up a little I just find it silly.
And for that matter, when you do the ultrasound, you see anatomy, not if the baby has a flower headband or not.
And for that matter, when you do the ultrasound, you see anatomy, not if the baby has a flower headband or not.
-
- Never Coming Back?
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
Just saying that is seems less ambiguous to me. If ya'll can show me that it is more ambiguous for normal everyday conversation, then maybe I'll agree with you. But I'm not at all convinced. After all, again, almost 100% of the time a person's gender and sex are equivalent, or can be assumed equivalent (in the case of babies, etc.)
Also, gender, and gender roles seem like significantly different things to me, and my dictionary agrees.
Also, gender, and gender roles seem like significantly different things to me, and my dictionary agrees.
[img]http://fredjikrang.petfish.net/Fence-banner.png[/img]
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
Almost 100% of the time people in Utah aren't black. That doesn't mean our language shouldn't reflect what happens if, in fact, someone is black.
Deus ab veritas
-
- Never Coming Back?
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
Re: Happy Days in Random Chatter 10
And that shows that gender is more ambiguous than sex, how?
Also, there is a little flaw in your argument. People can be not black. They can't not have a gender, or a sex. (Maybe a confused gender/sex, but they have one none the less.)
Also, there is a little flaw in your argument. People can be not black. They can't not have a gender, or a sex. (Maybe a confused gender/sex, but they have one none the less.)
[img]http://fredjikrang.petfish.net/Fence-banner.png[/img]
Re: Gender vs. ... Se...x
The point is that a language structure which reflects usage for less than 100% of situations must needs adapt to explain the discrepancies. And although someone can be "not black" they cannot be raceless. A discussion that conflates gender with sex promotes an idea that both are binary, when that is not the case socially or biologically.
Deus ab veritas
-
- Never Coming Back?
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
Re: Gender vs. ... Se...x
Again, I disagree. A discussion that "conflates gender with sex" does not promote the idea that both are binary any more than a discussion of either of the two does the same. In other words, neither is binary and so equating them can not make either binary.
Also, as used in discussion we can assume that the person is using the word correctly. Which would be correct practically always.
And I find your argument that "a language structure which reflects usage for less than 100% of situations must needs adapt to explain the discrepancies." ridiculous, to be honest. Because there is no such thing as a language usage that reflects 100% of situations (See the "Perfect Language" thread.), and so every word would require an obscene amount of clarification in order to fulfill your requirement.
I think that a reasonable equivalent for gender-sex usage would be human-person. They are almost always equivalent, and so we can assume that the speaker is using it correctly. Or, to use your example of race, race-decent.
I still remain with my original opinion. Gender is less ambiguous in everyday conversation than sex, as far as single word usage goes. And I think that it is easily provable. Walk into a room and say "sex." Then ask people for what they thought of, and if they answer honestly, you will have a range of answers. Then walk into a different room and say "gender" and ask people what they thought of, and the answers will be much more consistent.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would disagree with that, so I don't really understand why all the argument.
Also, as used in discussion we can assume that the person is using the word correctly. Which would be correct practically always.
And I find your argument that "a language structure which reflects usage for less than 100% of situations must needs adapt to explain the discrepancies." ridiculous, to be honest. Because there is no such thing as a language usage that reflects 100% of situations (See the "Perfect Language" thread.), and so every word would require an obscene amount of clarification in order to fulfill your requirement.
I think that a reasonable equivalent for gender-sex usage would be human-person. They are almost always equivalent, and so we can assume that the speaker is using it correctly. Or, to use your example of race, race-decent.
I still remain with my original opinion. Gender is less ambiguous in everyday conversation than sex, as far as single word usage goes. And I think that it is easily provable. Walk into a room and say "sex." Then ask people for what they thought of, and if they answer honestly, you will have a range of answers. Then walk into a different room and say "gender" and ask people what they thought of, and the answers will be much more consistent.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would disagree with that, so I don't really understand why all the argument.
[img]http://fredjikrang.petfish.net/Fence-banner.png[/img]
Re: Gender vs. ... Se...x
What side you're on probably depends on whether you're more of a descriptivist or a prescriptivist.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Re: Gender vs. ... Se...x
Another one of my pet peeves is dried toothpaste on the toothpaste container.Defy V wrote:One of my small pet peeves is people who say they'll find out the gender of the baby at the ultrasound rather than the sex.
That's all.