Print

Print


Perhaps it would be helpful if you state what that underlying argument is--on gender, not all things.

For there is, of course, a Jamesian semantic argument.  If one assumes a direct parallel between genetic, anatomical, and hormonal sex on the one hand and a set of characteristics and social roles on the other, then one may say gender is sex.  But then one simply has to find a new set of terms to differentiate them.

Cheers,
Nancy

>>> Tom Gray <[log in to unmask]> 07/17/07 2:54 PM >>>
Teh argument is that gender is socially defined.
However law is socially defined and language is
socially defined. Many philosophers even argue that
reality is socially defined (As an aside, this puts
Dawkin inanities into perspective).

So if the argument is that gender roles are socially
defined. The answer would be that the argument proves
nothing. There is an underlying argument that is not
being made explicit.

Tom Gray


--- Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


---------------------------------

Well then. Heaven will be full of all these sexed
souls with no options but premarital relations or
abstinence -- another absurdist joke on us made by our
creator? heh. Diana
Jesus said the would be no marriage,
but I don't think he said anything about sex. ;->
 
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Diana Manister 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?



Perhaps those social roles are fig newtons of our
imaginations. It comes as news, however, that souls
are sexed. I thought we could be done with all that in
heaven. heh. 

It is then astonishing how many brilliant scientists
and poets and
thinkers throughout history saw social roles.
Nancy

>>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> 07/15/07 1:07 PM >>>

As an artist (painter), it is clear to me that the
differences between
male
and female go beyond the biological and the contour;
it is, in fact, a
matter
of  heart and soul, and social roles have nothing to
do with it.

Kate

In a message dated 7/15/2007 12:53:55 P.M. Eastern
Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

Nancy  Gish wrote:
>
> Eliot is a dead poet and a topic of debate and 
study, not a
participant
> in the debate.
>
> Gender does  not mean sex, and its separate meaning
is one of those
that
> has become  quite distinct in usage.  It is not a
euphemism for sex,
> which  does not need a euphemism anyway, as in
academic terms it
refers
> to  biological difference as distinguished from
social roles.  Read
any
> current or recent texts on gender.
>  Nancy

Considering how fixed the distinction between sex and
gender is  I'm
amazed that any literate person isn't familiar with
it.

Even  after making the distinction (gender = social;
sex = biology)
there
still  remain problems: Up until a couple centuries
ago (this is debated
by some  of course) the model was one sex, two
genders: the difference
between men  and women was a difference of degree --
women were
incompletely 'cooked'  men. See Thomas Laqueur,
_Making Sex: Body and
Gender from the Greeks to  Freud_ (Harvard UP, 1990).
See also a fine
review by Stephen Jay Gould,  "The Birth of the
Two-Sex World," NYRB,
June 13, 1991.

Gould  emphasizes that in terms of biology there are
equal arguments for
the  one-sex and the two-sex models. Politically I
have held elsewhere
that  probably the most desirable model is one-sex,
many genders. But
that _is_ a  POLITICAL not a biological or medical
issue. The biology is
quite neutral  on the topic.

From Gould's review:

****
The "two-sex model"  replaced this concept of woman
and man as two
clumps
on a graded continuum  with a notion of two
fundamentally distinct
entities, bearing different  organs that imply
divergent behaviors and
aptitudes; (divergent perhaps,  but still eminently
rankable, for sexism
is the one invariant in this  history of transition).
Laqueur writes:

Thus the old model, in which  men and women wee
eighteenth century to a
new model of radical  dimorphism, of biological
divergence. An anatomy
and physiology of   incommensurability  replaced a
metaphysics of
hierarchy in the  representation of woman in relation
to man.

Why did this transition  occur, and why over a broad
stretch of time
centered on the early  eighteenth century? The answer
cannot lie in any
simplistic notion of  empirical discovery wrested from
nature by
triumphant science (quite a set  of male images). I
shall return to the
role of empirics among other causes  of transition
later in this review,
but a simple reason suffices to debar  factual
adequacy as a primary
agent of the switch: neither model is  "correct" by
any morphological
standard; both capture elements of  anatomical
reality.

******

Both models have supported  male-supremacist ideology,
but in different
ways, which can be crudely  summarized as hierarchical
vs "scientific."
Gould's review discusses that  contrast also.

Carrol







************************************** Get a sneak
peak of the all-new
AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour





---------------------------------
Missed the show?  Watch videos of the Live Earth
Concert on MSN.

---------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/904 -
Release Date: 7/16/2007 5:42 PM




---------------------------------
 See what you’re getting into…before you go there  



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097