What is ‘gender?’ What is ‘sex?’

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 23
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
In English, ‘gender,’ a word, began its life as a grammatical designation of noun types in the 14th century; either female, male, or neuter. We have effectively lost this distinction since English, other than for egghead grammarians, gender is no longer taught in schools. When I began elementary school in 1954, grammatical gender was no longer taught, all English nouns were neuter, except that as an educational construct, I never encountered the word ‘neuter’ until 8th or 9th grade, and I had no sense of noun gender, female or male, until I started taking French in 9th grade.
 
‘Gender’ in the biological sense defining biological, or genetic female and male began as an English word a century later; the 15thcentury. The word ‘gender’ continued its uninterrupted biological definition until the early 20thcentury, when ‘sex’ [which had its own origin in English in the 13th century], and which, until the early 1900s, shared a common definition with gender, began to slide into reference to the sexual act, i.e., intercourse, or coitus.
 
Thereafter, in the 1960s, among sociologists and psychiatrists, ‘gender’ began to slide from its genetic reference [female and male] to a distinction of social reference as separate behaviors between females and males, and then, including behaviors, slid further in the 1980s to suggest multiple genders as a matter of personal and social choice, regardless of the genetic indicators at birth.
 
Language use in the modern era [advent of the 20thcentury] tends to be lazy in this “slide,” or transference of meaning, such as has occurred with ‘gender’ and ‘sex.’ Historically, when technology introduced new concepts, academia became adept at coining new words to keep pace with technical changes. Thus, we did not maintain the term, ‘acoustic wire phone,’ coined by Robert Hooke in the 1660s [similar to a “tin can phone”], when Alexander Graham Bell developed the wired telephone in the 1880s. 
 
Technical change was slow enough to allow language syntax to keep up with creation of new words to describe the technical changes by lexography. Computer technology, however, has been so rapid in its development, lexographers have been left in the dust, even with words having naught to do with computing technology. Even science of other disciplines is strained. Consider that, though the typewriter has given way to the keyboard, a now common tool, a mouse is one of those lazy slides. Even now that  ‘mice’ no longer even have a tail [wire], they maintain the moniker assigned in the mid-60s. “Floppy disk,” and “hard disk” are antiquated concepts, such that now, any disk is becoming passé in favor of chips. ‘Chip,’ itself, is a borrowed, slide term, isn’t it?
 
Just so, ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ have both suffered by the slide, when they should have long since had new words assigned to both to allow separate meaning for new concepts.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Nice.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
I’m thinking this topic would make an interesting debate, but a specific resolution so far escapes me. Any thoughts, and would the topic interest you?
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Gender’ in the biological sense defining biological, or genetic female and male began as an English word a century later; the 15thcentury. The word ‘gender’ continued its uninterrupted biological definition until the early 20thcentury, when ‘sex’ [which had its own origin in English in the 13th century], and which, until the early 1900s, shared a common definition with gender, began to slide into reference to the sexual act, i.e., intercourse, or coitus.
 
Thereafter, in the 1960s, among sociologists and psychiatrists, ‘gender’ began to slide from its genetic reference [female and male] to a distinction of social reference as separate behaviors between females and males, and then, including behaviors, slid further in the 1980s to suggest multiple genders as a matter of personal and social choice, regardless of the genetic indicators at birth.
Can you explain your implied assertion that gender (originating in the 15th century) was rooted in a "genetic reference" when genes weren't discovered until the 19th century, 400 years later?
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@fauxlaw
to suggest multiple genders as a matter of personal and social choice, regardless of the genetic indicators at birth.

Not that you will agree with anything I am going to lay out here and this will be very unorthodox but....
One of the biggest obstacles for religious folks related to this concern is that they believe that God has some gender role or some feature that resembles being a male. Likewise they probably feel that a created soul is given some physical feature that determines that soul a male or female. What they are blinded to, or ignorant about is the fact that male and female features only appear as related to physical bodies prepared for a soul by their parents during conception. A soul exists independent of physical bodies, was created by a Reality that precedes created forms... souls came into that equation as having no physically prepared features that determined whether they were male or female.
The ignorance is further perpetuated by the fact that most fundamental religious folks shun the concept of reincarnation, where a soul can inhabit any number of physical embodiments including both male and female, or any other number of species and roles. We've had this discussion before and I know you believe that God has some physical body and body parts that make God a male lol, so really there is no talking sense into you. Maybe I'm just giving readers something more to digest then.

In essence, a soul who has inhabited a physical body may have no connection to the physical features it was given through birth and despite social pressures that soul may completely reject the idea that it has to conform to a certain role. And actually in most circumstances a soul will probably hide their innate feelings of having no real connection with their prepared sex features, and you may never even know that. Others, as time allows more freedom you will see more and more that there are many souls who feel as if they relate to something in contrast to what they may have been born with. And while it may seem like some sort of abomination to people like you and I, in truth it makes no real difference, because it has no real relevance to the person or soul.
A soul can play whatever role it wants to, it has no real obligation to any particular gender or sex. I mean in reality who really cares what a soul chooses other than those who think it's weird or abnormal? what difference does it make to you and I?
I admit, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the whole scenario of say.....a female wanting to change their genetic features to the opposite sex and playing a role that is opposite to what they were born as, but that's just because I happen to relate more with a male role and I happen to have a male body. So to me personally, I feel I fit in with what I am currently. But that's just coincidence and I have no plans of judging anybody for what they decide. And actually I know a girl who feels they wanted to be male and has undergone operations to make it possible, and that soul to me is still a great person. She looks like a male now lol, but I still have the same good feelings towards him. So I don't really have any say in the matter, who am I to dictate what experience they wish to have?

In creation, there must always exist the principle of duality in all things and this is where you find the contrasting roles of dual forces and attributes. God has no contrasting features of duality because God exists as a single unit. There is no other thing that can make God distinguished from some other feature. This only applies to creation where we have the contrast of opposing forces and opposing sides to create the illusion of there being an actual separation of events. Souls come directly out of the heart of God, they have no relevance to created things until they are sent into created worlds where they inhabit created embodiments prepared for them to experience worlds.

So while God, including souls may have distinct attributes or characteristics they gravitate towards they have no physical features independent of creation. What happens is, is when a soul inhabits a body in creation their perception is glued and confined to that experience and they become ingrained to believe that they are that which they appear as. So their perception of being "male" or "female" is dictated by what they appear as in a physical body. The majority of the time this works just fine...the soul "thinks" they are male or female because they inhabited male or female features and that's what they are.

That's kinda how creation is supposed to work but not always, because a soul who happens to relate more with the female principle may be inhabiting a male body and to them they have no real connection to that role. This is where you begin to see what we label as an abnormality, where a soul is no longer playing the role they happen to be born as. And to make things worse, a soul could have inhabited a female body in a previous experience. They then left that form, only to engage in an entirely different body in another place and now they still have a conscious connection to their previous role.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter, only to those who hold some sort of moral value in the physical system of physics but in reality it has no relevance to the actual soul which role they prefer. At least it can't be deemed moral or immoral by anyone judging the situation, it is what it is and it only matters to the one experiencing it. When they leave their physical body behind they leave their male or female role behind.

Again I must point out though, that a soul can gravitate towards attributes that appear feminine or masculine and creation has two distinct principles of feminine and masculine and they both serve a purpose. But as far as soul goes, they can embody any features given to them despite what attributes they relate most with. A soul can relate more with the feminine side of creation and embody a male featured role....hence you have transgenders and homosexuals, who may have a male body but be attracted more towards the male principle, or have a male body and be more inclined to the female principle.

Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
They're the same thing. 
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@drafterman
Can you explain your implied assertion that gender (originating in the 15th century) was rooted in a "genetic reference" when genes weren't discovered until the 19th century, 400 years later?
Must I do all your research for you? Can't do a little inquiry of your own? What am I; a paid tutor? No.

According to the OED:

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.  Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 
 c1390  (▸?c1350)     St. Theodora l. 110 in C. Horstmann Sammlung Altengl. Legenden (1878) 36 (MED)   Hire name, þat was femynyn Of gendre, heo turned in to masculyn.
1474   in C. L. Kingsford Stonor Lett. & Papers (1919) I. 142 (MED)   His heyres of the masculine gender of his body lawfully begoten.
a1500  (▸a1460)    Towneley Plays (1994) I. xxx. 408   Has thou oght writen there Of the femynyn gendere? 

sex, n
1.a. Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions; (hence) the members of these categories viewed as a group; the males or females of a particular species, esp. the human race, considered collectively. 
 
▸ a1382    Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.(Bodl. 959) (1959) Gen. vi. 19   Of all þingez hauyng soule of eny flesch: two þou schalt brynge in to þe ark, þat male sex [L. sexus] & female: lyuen with þe.
 
Do I need to translate lexographic syntax for you? That will cost extra.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
In fact, as you suggested, I do not agree with virtually everything you've said. I notice you offer no reference for anything, thus this is you own thunking. That's fine. I do not agree that God is androgynous. The key is that most of Christendom, and other religions, do not acknowledge the possibility that we have not just a Father in Heaven, but a Mother, a goddess if you will, as well, a Mother [or Mothers] who gave birth to each spirit [your "soul"] and we are, therefore, their literal children, first, and then children of mortal parents. Gender has purpose, parenthood has purpose, childhood has purpose, and these relationships extend into the eternities. 
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Wagyu
Yes, as I've demonstrated above #7
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
can gender be changed?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Ultimately, no. At least, not when one agrees that gender = sex, as the OED clearly stipulates, social engineering notwithstanding. That is, I believe cis-gender is the only gender that truly exists, as I've said, psychology be damned. That said, even a sex-change operation, MtF or FtM, does not alter the genetics of that individual. Further, both testicles and ovaries are removed in a sex-change, so transference of any genetic material is impossible.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Well:

A. I'm in too much agreement.

B. I don't have the time to dedicate to a debate, against such a worthy debater as yourself.


Gender and Sex.....  Diluted definition and the confusing corruption of words.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Must I do all your research for you? Can't do a little inquiry of your own? What am I; a paid tutor? No.
This is your thread, your post, your argument. I expect you to do your research. You've made an implicit claim that is not supported by the existing, providing information.

According to the OED:

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.  Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 
 c1390  (▸?c1350)     St. Theodora l. 110 in C. Horstmann Sammlung Altengl. Legenden (1878) 36 (MED)   Hire name, þat was femynyn Of gendre, heo turned in to masculyn.
1474   in C. L. Kingsford Stonor Lett. & Papers (1919) I. 142 (MED)   His heyres of the masculine gender of his body lawfully begoten.
a1500  (▸a1460)    Towneley Plays (1994) I. xxx. 408   Has thou oght writen there Of the femynyn gendere? 

sex, n
1.a. Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions; (hence) the members of these categories viewed as a group; the males or females of a particular species, esp. the human race, considered collectively. 
 
▸ a1382    Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.(Bodl. 959) (1959) Gen. vi. 19   Of all þingez hauyng soule of eny flesch: two þou schalt brynge in to þe ark, þat male sex [L. sexus] & female: lyuen with þe.
 
Do I need to translate lexographic syntax for you? That will cost extra.
Neither of these reference genes. You haven't explained at what point gender became rooted in genetics (if it did so at all). It cannot have been when the term was coined (as you implied) because there was no conception of genetics in the 15th century.

If you are unwilling to expand and support your argument, you can save time and just say that it is unsupported bollocks and we can all move on our way. Otherwise I will task you to actually - you know - support your claims. It is not my job to support the claims you are making.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@drafterman
When did I say "gender" and "gene" have the same root? I did not. You are asking for that link. You are asking that feather and weather have the same root. Sorry, not playing that semantic. You have your own bag of marbles...
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@fauxlaw
When did I say "gender" and "gene" have the same root? 
You have linked gender and genetics:

Thereafter, in the 1960s, among sociologists and psychiatrists, ‘gender’ began to slide from its genetic reference
I am asking you to support that link since the word "gender" came about centuries before genetics was a thing.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@drafterman
True, I did say that. What I meant, and should have said, was a slide from cisgender, i.e., gender as designated at birth; be it male, or female. I used the term 'genetic' as a historic recognition that 'gender' was always just male or female.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Isn't all of Man's problem's due to God's poor understanding of quality control?  I'm guessing that God couldn't make it through MIT.
 Studies suggest that there are likely genetic causes of transsexuality, although the precise genes involved are not fully understood. One study published in the International Journal of Transgender Health found that 33% of identical twin pairs were both trans, compared to only 2.6% of non-identical twins who were raised in the same family at the same time, but were not genetically identical.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
the precise genes involved are not fully understood. 
And you blame God for "quality control?"

We passed "quality control" by Walter Shewhart at Bell Laboratories in the 1920s in favor of statistical process control and subsequence "quality assurance." The main point was that we do not inspect quality into a product; it is simply built correctly the first time by understanding failure modes and working to prevent them in the first place rather than merely inspect for them, but do nothing toward prevention, or perfection.

But none of that relates to God because he did not create a perfect world, and there was wisdom in that because we cannot just be perfect without our own efforts in the matter. Otherwise, of what use is free agency, which is a necessary step [steps] of passage to achieve perfection on our own? That is why an imperfect world, with its naturally occurring flaws, was created. Could God have created a perfect world? I suppose, but then, again, what of free agency? That is, to figure this stuff out on our own by learning what works and what doesn't ourselves. God does not want or need a bunch of yes-men. He wants children who learn and grow to become like him by their efforts, failing though they sometimes are. Hopefully, we learn sufficient to make fewer and fewer errors.

47 days later

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Yeah... gender was never determined by "genetics" - functionally speaking - we didn't have a good grasp on genetics until the 1950s. It's like saying that trees were determined by radiometric dating, even though radiometric dating wasn't a thing until recently. It is a common misconception that such is the case, but the greeks and Romans had a very different view of gender than you do - which was more of subservience and objectification than anything else.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@drafterman
It's actually a matter of knowing there was a physical structure to DNA in the 19th century [before we even knew what to call it] when a Swiss biochemist began investigating placental tissue in the late 1860s. He called it nuclein [the term deoxyribonucleic acid came later] and had a basic idea of its function, but not yet its form.

Etymology of words is what is needed here. The concept we discuss was was once called heredity. Genetics is a term coined in about 1905, derived from Greek genos, meaning birth.

Four years after, gene was the term applied to the then thought root of what the physical form of genetics took, i.e., a bio-chemical structure of genetic, or hereditary traits.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, we've had a more-than-rudimentary idea of genetics - although once know by the term hereditary - for thousands of years. Come on, this is not really new science.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I would have to disagree - we have indeed had a basic idea of genetics, but as I distinguished above - functionally speaking - we've had even less of a grasp on it - that is until the 1960s - specifically the ability to actually read genomes. 
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh, is it reading, now, that has become the measure by which we gage understanding? See, that's the problem: how to measure. And what tools to use for measurement. And assurance that everyone using the tools are using them to best advantage to obtain the most accurate result. There comes a time, my friend, that the measurement tool we use is not as revealing as our ability to assure we use it correctly, repeatably, and reproducibly. Or, are we satisfied, as are so-called climatologists, that we can clean clouds with carbon credits and government grants? Or, for that matter, that heredity, genetics, and genomes are merely detail orientation?