Sex and gender

[chasw]

The English language is flexible. Due to its diverse origins, it easily changes with the times. The King's English is nothing more than a slightly out of date, but carefully pronounced version of the everyday speech of residents of London, Chicago and Brisbane. Accordingly, society's current hullaballoo and confusion about respecting a person's gender can, and I hope will, be solved with a simple linguistic convention.

I envision a trend in society to divide the total field of sex and gender-related referent terms into two distinct utterance categories: Sex and gender. Sex should refer to the biological place of an individual within H. sapiens' reproductive process. The total population can easily be divided into categories of female, male and intersex. Gender should refer to the personal sexual identity a person has chosen to pursue, spanning every possible gender name under the sun from straight man to straight women and beyond. Endless variety.

Thus, every person is free to acknowledge their biological sex, while also unabashedly adopting their choice of the many possible genders, or no gender at all for that matter. All humans should think of themselves as having both a sex name, commonly female and male, plus a gender name, commonly woman and man. Once this new convention is in wide use among English speakers, it can easily spread to other languages. We are condemned to freedom, we cannot avoid choosing a sexual identity of some kind, and being able to describe it to others, which is where language comes in. I'm tolerant of anyone's gender identity and I'm proposing a more logical way we can describe each other and avoid linguistic confusion. Thanks

[Immanuel Can]

It's easier than that. "Sex" is an adjective describing people and animals. "Gender" is grammatical term, referring to things like verbs. And that's the whole story. The rest is bunk.

[nemos]

I divide the human self into three components:
- Biological - females and males and some with any deviations - the function of reproduction, nothing at all depends on the will, what you are born is what you die.
- Social - men and women and others - determine the norms of behavior that are instilled, so that anything is possible.
- Mental or spiritual (not sure if I chose the term correctly) -
genderlessness - the part that elevates us to the "divine" level, body features or gender identity are irrelevant.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's easier than that. "Sex" is an adjective describing people and animals. "Gender" is grammatical term, referring to things like verbs. And that's the whole story. The rest is bunk.

Exactly. It was only used as an alternative to 'sex' because some people were too prudish to use the word 'sex', hence things like 'gender reveal' parties (US, of course). Does anyone really believe that they were to determine the 'self identity' of the baby? Insanity.

[Immanuel Can]

It's easier than that. "Sex" is an adjective describing people and animals. "Gender" is grammatical term, referring to things like verbs. And that's the whole story. The rest is bunk.

Exactly. It was only used as an alternative to 'sex' because some people were too prudish to use the word 'sex', hence things like 'gender reveal' parties (US, of course). Does anyone really believe that they were to determine the 'self identity' of the baby? Insanity.

Right.

Can you picture these gender-ideologues trying to run a farm? "Gee, I have ten cows and no calves...I don't understand...two of my cows identify as bulls..."

[Trajk Logik]

The English language is flexible. Due to its diverse origins, it easily changes with the times. The King's English is nothing more than a slightly out of date, but carefully pronounced version of the everyday speech of residents of London, Chicago and Brisbane. Accordingly, society's current hullaballoo and confusion about respecting a person's gender can, and I hope will, be solved with a simple linguistic convention.

I envision a trend in society to divide the total field of sex and gender-related referent terms into two distinct utterance categories: Sex and gender. Sex should refer to the biological place of an individual within H. sapiens' reproductive process. The total population can easily be divided into categories of female, male and intersex. Gender should refer to the personal sexual identity a person has chosen to pursue, spanning every possible gender name under the sun from straight man to straight women and beyond. Endless variety.

Thus, every person is free to acknowledge their biological sex, while also unabashedly adopting their choice of the many possible genders, or no gender at all for that matter. All humans should think of themselves as having both a sex name, commonly female and male, plus a gender name, commonly woman and man. Once this new convention is in wide use among English speakers, it can easily spread to other languages. We are condemned to freedom, we cannot avoid choosing a sexual identity of some kind, and being able to describe it to others, which is where language comes in. I'm tolerant of anyone's gender identity and I'm proposing a more logical way we can describe each other and avoid linguistic confusion. Thanks

I divide the human self into three components:
- Biological - females and males and some with any deviations - the function of reproduction, nothing at all depends on the will, what you are born is what you die.
- Social - men and women and others - determine the norms of behavior that are instilled, so that anything is possible.
- Mental or spiritual (not sure if I chose the term correctly) -
genderlessness - the part that elevates us to the "divine" level, body features or gender identity are irrelevant.

Sex and gender are the same thing. They are interchangeable.

Male and female are not specific to humans. They refer to the reproductive roles of all sexually reproducing species. Men and women are what are specific to the human species. They refer to the reproductive roles of humans, not chickens or deer (rooster/hen and buck/doe).

The social construction that some refer to as gender in that men and women behave differently within certain societies stems from the evolutionary concept of sexual dimorphism in that the efficiency of ones role in society is dictated by ones physiology (for instance women were better at taking care of the young while men were better at hunting).

Now, in a society where it is unlawful to walk around naked in public, how are we suppose to distinguish man from woman when we have to cover our bodies? We come up with guidelines by which men and women behave (wearing make-up, length of hair, style of clothes, etc.) So even in modern societies, gender refers to ones sex by means of social constructs. Wearing a dress does not explicitly mean you are a woman. It means you are a woman if you are following the social constructs as a guideline (implicitly) and every society is different. Trans people are the ones not following the guidelines, or are rejecting the social construction. Hetero and homo sexuals do not care about what gender you are. They care about your sex, as both are sexual orientations, not gender orientations. We seek partners of a particular sex and, in a society where we must where clothes or be imprisoned, we use the way one dresses to determine another's sex. Gender, if not a synonym for sex, is meaningless and not useful.

[Walker]

It's easier than that. "Sex" is an adjective describing people and animals. "Gender" is grammatical term, referring to things like verbs. And that's the whole story. The rest is bunk.

Exactly. It was only used as an alternative to 'sex' because some people were too prudish to use the word 'sex', hence things like 'gender reveal' parties (US, of course). Does anyone really believe that they were to determine the 'self identity' of the baby? Insanity.

Right.

Can you picture these gender-ideologues trying to run a farm? "Gee, I have ten cows and no calves...I don't understand...two of my cows identify as bulls..."

In Bizarro World that's just same old same old.

Two sexes. Gender talk applied to sex is an ostensible dodge to justify Individuality for those who go a-wandering, to justify with some sort of intellectualization that’s neither here nor there. Plain old monolithic identities of men and women don’t really allow for such greatness of individuality. I’ve even heard the suggestion that there are as many genders as there are people, which is just another way of saying, everyone is special.

Two legs good, four legs bad. Woman decibals good, man decibals bad. Woman humour good, man humour bad.

I figure that except for a rare few it actually is a physical thing and all the talk is an intellectual justification, and an opportunity for descriptions of one’s specialness with all kinds of fancy labels.

For others, it’s a need to keep raising the “individuality” bar of specialness, which gets changed all the time and paradoxically, follows the rule of doing what others individualists are doing … tattoos, funny haircuts, eating tidepods, claiming to be an Alphabet Person, etc.

Once upon a time just clothes were enough to be fashionable.

Back when men had more testosterone, to behave like a man was more acceptable. Now, if a man out in public raises his voice with enthusiasm and passion there will likely be a Karen around to call the authorities with a stranger-danger alert.

This is why men with normal T levels go to large sporting stadiums with other men, so for a little while they can shout and stomp in safety, without weapons, before putting the harness back on. Others have other manly outlets such as hunting, contests of strength and physical skill, and writing to organize the world rather than rhapsodize about the moon in June.

So what about the big hairy Testosteronies who wear dresses, big wigs and womens’ makeup, like Kaitland who was once the greatest male all-round athlete in the world?

I think the reasoning goes: someone who does like Kaitland must be very special, and the thinker thinks yes, special and unique also fits well on this non-Olympic frame, just as well as that massive bra fits Kaitland's Olympic back. Fame for fame’s sake, like the Kardashians.

[Walker]

Now, in a society where it is unlawful to walk around naked in public, how are we suppose to distinguish man from woman when we have to cover our bodies?

I can usually spot a woman from a block away while out walking, no matter what she's wearing.

[Trajk Logik]

Now, in a society where it is unlawful to walk around naked in public, how are we suppose to distinguish man from woman when we have to cover our bodies?

I can usually spot a woman from a block away while out walking, no matter what she's wearing.

Usually, yes, maybe 10 years ago. But with the rise of transgenderism can you be so sure today?

I also mentioned length of hair and make-up as other signs, so if you saw someone with short hair, no make-up, bulky clothes that hides their figure could you discern their sex?

Can you distinguish between women and trans-women in this picture?

[nemos]

... Men and women are what are specific to the human species. They refer to the reproductive roles of humans, not chickens or deer (rooster/hen and buck/doe)...

Do you claim that the reproductive mechanism is different for humans and "deers"? You won't say that people are not animals, and that life is divided into plants, fungi, animals and people?

...We seek partners of a particular sex and, in a society where we must where clothes or be imprisoned, we use the way one dresses to determine another's sex...

It sounds like you can be easily fooled with just a change of clothes and maybe something else. Women must wear dresses to make it clear to everyone that they are women, much like the Jews in Nazi Germany wore six-pointed stars.

[Walker]

Can you distinguish between women and trans-women in this picture?
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/249f4ba7 ... 6d28ca946b

Could you see their faces from a block away?

[Flannel Jesus]

It's easier than that. "Sex" is an adjective describing people and animals. "Gender" is grammatical term, referring to things like verbs. And that's the whole story. The rest is bunk.

Seems a bit too vaguely stated to be the whole story. "Gender refers to things like verbs." Okay so... what does that mean? Running is a gender? What other things are like verbs, that gender refers to? Does it refer to other parts of speech?

I think you'd have to write more words, more clearly, to create a post that could suffice as the whole story.

[Trajk Logik]

... Men and women are what are specific to the human species. They refer to the reproductive roles of humans, not chickens or deer (rooster/hen and buck/doe)...

Do you claim that the reproductive mechanism is different for humans and "deers"? You won't say that people are not animals, and that life is divided into plants, fungi, animals and people?

No. I'm claiming that we use different strings of scribbles to refer to adult human females and males than we do for adult female and male deer and chickens. It helps us to efficiently communicate the distinctions of not just sexes but the species under just one word. Instead of saying, "adult human female", you can say "woman". Instead of saying "adult female chicken", you can say "hen". It's more efficient to use just one word rather than three, that is if the reader or listener learned the same rules of the English language as you did.

To be clear, the string of scribbles, "woman" and "man" are not a woman or man. They are words and using different words does not change what a woman or man are, or change their distinctions. It just makes it more difficult to communicate with you.

Can you distinguish between women and trans-women in this picture?
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/249f4ba7 ... 6d28ca946b

Could you see their faces from a block away?

...We seek partners of a particular sex and, in a society where we must where clothes or be imprisoned, we use the way one dresses to determine another's sex...

It sounds like you can be easily fooled with just a change of clothes and maybe something else. Women must wear dresses to make it clear to everyone that they are women, much like the Jews in Nazi Germany wore six-pointed stars.

That's not what it sounds like at all. If you can be fooled by just one, then it makes you question all the others you see. Where is the transgender woman in the picture above? If Walker and nemos can't answer the question then you have proven my point.

[Immanuel Can]

"Gender refers to things like verbs." Okay so... what does that mean?

Well, you know about this if you speak a second language, something other than English. In French, or in Spanish, grammatical elements are marked as "masculine" or "feminine." In French, for example, many plants are assigned a feminine article, "la," and metric weights are masculine, "le." This has nothing in partcular to do with human sexuality. And that's "gender," and that's legit.

What other things are like verbs, that gender refers to? Does it refer to other parts of speech?

It depends on the language.

[Walker]

Where is the transgender woman in the picture above? If Walker and nemos can't answer the question then you have proven my point.

Your question was answered, just not in the way you like.

Takes more than a face to detect the form of a woman from a block away. In fact, this morning I took a long walk before sunrise. I was on a dark side street and I saw a jogger coming towards me, about 150 feet away. The (slow) jogger was wearing some kind of safety vest that lit up. It was dark, like I said, so when the jogger got close enough to see outlines, I knew right away it was a woman. Her face was masked against the cold and wearing a hat, but it was woman all right.

And I'm not the only one who can see it. From a good distance you can spot a woman, before you see the face, if you would only admit it. Legs, hips, shoulders, the physical movements.