Forum menu
I am probably going to regret this but...
There was a thread a week or so ago that unexpectedly turned into a heated discussion on what gender meant. Since it was raining yesterday I went to the library to read some dictionaries.
They offer two, hopefully uncontroversial, definitions; gender meaning genus or class and gender referring to nouns in language (male, female, neuter).
Then there are the definitions relating to people.
Collins, 2008 goes with "the state of being male, female or neuter" or "the members of one sex".
Longman, 1995 simply says "sex".
Oxford Concise, 1995 also says "sex".
Oxford Shorter, 1993 says "the state of being male female or neutral. Colloquial. Sex as expressed by social or culture distinctions".
Nothing in there that really helps, so off to the big library to read the full OED.
That says "males or females viewed as a group (sex) ... Originally extended from the grammatical sense, old Norman and Old French. In the 20th century as sex came to mean intercourse gender replaced it for the biological grouping of males and females."
They go on to say that it is "now often merged or coloured" by another definition:
"Psychology and sociology (originally US). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions rather than biological ones". This sense was restricted to academic publications from 1945 until 2007 until it was used in the New Yorker. The OED has no citation for a use in British English.
So there you go, 20 years ago it was a synonym for sex but an American academic definition is slowly changing the British definition as the language evolves.
I’m more shocked not only do you have one library in town but two.
Thanks, that's actually quite useful. (I've seen countless internet squabbles where there's heated debate but nobody ever seems to simply state the definitions they're using, nice to see a conclusive answer.)
I find it all quite confusing, especially with a younger generation now flooding the workforce at my place of work, whom I have a supervisory and pastoral responsibility for.
However, I’ve found that most of the time, Wheaton’s law serves me well.
However, I’ve found that most of the time, Wheaton’s law serves me well.
Don't be an unspecified genital?
Would you happily shop for curtains?
Yes...Female
No.....Male.
zippykona
Subscriber
Would you happily shop for curtains?Yes…Female
No…..Male.
lol
Would you happily shop for curtains?
Yes…Female
No…..Male.
Finally the argument can be put to bed
Not so fast
I self-identity as curtain-curious
Pull yourself together......
I’m more shocked not only do you have one library in town but two.
Blame the systematic oppression of the provinces by the London centric government. Or in this case Dick Whittington as the big library was his legacy, something that the panto inexplicably skips over.
...and what about gender blinds?
(at least the OP got some healthy exercise walking round town. )
…and what about gender blinds?
Horizontal or vertical?
All about the slats.
Finally the argument can be put to bed
Are there scatter cushions on it?
Language evolves. Dictionaries are a record of how it is used, not a set of rules.
Pull yourself together……
Fly
Language evolves. Dictionaries are a record of how it is used, not a set of rules.
So?
So?
So thinking that some dictionary entries settles the debate on gender is a misunderstanding of what dictionaries are.
So thinking that some dictionary entries settles the debate on gender i
It settles the debates I see, because they all involve one side arguing with one definition a other arguing using another definition. (Deliberately IMHO.) There may be other debates, of course.
the London centric government. Or in this case
Dick
Whittington
muuuust... resiiiiist....
It settles the debates I see, because they all involve one side arguing with one definition a other arguing using another definition.
So thinking that some dictionary entries settles the debate on gender is a misunderstanding of what dictionaries and debates are.
The "gender debate" has the square root of **** all to do with linguistics, if that were the case we could just invent a new word and everyone could go away happy.
Rather the gender debate is one side going, "look, we'll try and explain, but it's kinda really complicated" and the other side going "cock = boy, fanny = girl, simple" (and something about toilets).
If it wasn't for blinds..
It'd be curtains for us all.
As far as i am aware that last thread on the topic ended up in a regular user who contributed alot to many different topics leaving the forum.
Lets try and keep this one a little more caring shall we?
Do people flounce on sweaty as **** mumsnet? Or is it just here?
It settles the debates I see, because they all involve one side arguing with one definition a other arguing using another definition.
Only if you think that the final answer on the meaning of words is what's in the dictionary currently.
to do with linguistics
It was, fairly obviously, in the other thread. There was even an explicit debate about the meaning of words.
one side going, “look, we’ll try and explain, but it’s kinda really complicated”
That is very much not what happened last time.
As far as i am aware that last thread on the topic ended up in a regular user who contributed alot to many different topics leaving the forum.
Nice guy but he didn't leave he was banned. He didn't break the rules, but he wrote several posts that didn't break the rules which were referred to as "drip drip".
Staggering.
I was thinking of a she actually?
The “gender debate” has the square root of **** all to do with linguistics
It really is! A feminist says "we should adopt the boilogical definition of gender for toilet entry" and the anti-feminist says "no, we should adport the social/cultural definition for toilet entry". Only neither state in plain english which definition they've chosen so they get to have a good old squabble.
You might be seeing different debates to me but the ones I see usually fit that template.
Rather the gender debate is one side going, “look, we’ll try and explain, but it’s kinda really complicated” and the other side going “cock = boy, fanny = girl, simple” (and something about toilets).
.,.and your example proves my point. One side picks one defintion, the other picks the other and it's game on for a squabble!
I was thinking of a she actually?
I'm pretty certain she was banned as well although I didn't see it first hand, but it wasn't specifically over gender debates, According to Cougar or Drac she effectively stalked Cougar or Drac.
It happens all the time, even on this thread
A word or phrase can have a particular meaning among certain specialist circles. It can have a different meaning to other specialist circles and another different meaning to a wider general audience. It doesn't follow that any of those meanings are incorrect.
So "gender" has several completely correct meanings as higlighted by ajaj in his original post (and thankyou for taking the time to do so - I thought it was interesting anyway).
There is no point getting flouncy if you use the phrase "gender debate" and someone misunderstands what you mean. A "gender debate" to a French linguist might mean something different to an America psychologist. The phrase is useless without context.
You lot should see some of the debates about whether "Anglo-Saxon" is a racist term among historians. The answer seems to be - it depends on the context.
Maybe better said as
A feminist says “we should adopt the biological definition of sex for toilet entry”...
...and “no, we should adopt the social/cultural definition of gender for toilet entry”
..is how I understand the position.
Paul
Edit 'Toilet entry' as a rather glib placeholder for a wide range of issues.
That is very much not what happened last time.
Other media are available.
According to Cougar or Drac she effectively stalked Cougar or Drac.
Dunno who you're referring to, but I'm pretty certain that wasn't me. It's been a good few years since I last had a stalker, I'm fairly sure I'd have remembered.
Dunno who you’re referring to, but I’m pretty certain that wasn’t me. It’s been a good few years since I last had a stalker, I’m fairly sure I’d have remembered.
Whoever it was they deffo remembered because they posted about it in the last couple of weeks. (Which is how I know.)
Dunno who you’re referring to,
I do and i'm pretty sure she's back under a new login but is, thus far, playing nicely with others.
It wasn't so much stalking as twitter-abusing and it was more of a race thing than a gender thing that kicked it off
As far as i am aware that last thread on the topic ended up in a regular user who contributed alot to many different topics leaving the forum.
Nice guy but he didn’t leave he was banned. He didn’t break the rules, but he wrote several posts that didn’t break the rules which were referred to as “drip drip”.
As I recall GeeTee flounced because he couldn't stand the heat of being called out for his views and in any case I believe it was Rachel (allthegear) who was actually being referred to in the first place. Weeshoes (who Perchy is referring to) was a completely different case.
It's not hard to actually speak their name, last I checked that wasn't against the rules. Neither seemingly is being a world class arse which is evidently why one of the more "popular" members is allowed to refer to trans folk as [url= https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/new-labour-leader-direction/page/38/ ]"Blokes in dresses"[/url]. This forum never fails to live down to expectations.
Can anybody explain the difference to me between a 'bloke in a dress' and a transwoman who has chosen not to have any surgery?
I mean, I'm quite happy to refer to the transwoman however they want to be referred to, and to some extent I'll go along with the pronouns thing - but what is the actual difference?
I'd say the difference is less to do with the subject matter as opposed to the person discussing it.
HTH
Thanks for replying squirrellking, but I have no idea what that means.
Do you mean that the difference between a bloke and a dress and a transwoman depends on the perception of the person discussing the subject? So transgender is subjective rather than objective?
I think I agree with that to some extent, but it still isn't an actual difference between the two.
No, I'd say it's a matter of respect.
If you can't see that referring to a trans person as a "bloke in a dress" is inherently offensive then I'm afraid there's not much more to discuss here.
Someone said something about "drip, drip"...
I didn't say I'd refer to a transwoman as a bloke in a dress. In fact I specifically said "I’m quite happy to refer to the transwoman however they want to be referred to".
My question was can anybody give me an actual, quantifiable difference between a 'bloke in a dress' and a transwoman. So far nobody can - they just tell me there's nothing to discuss, which to me is a cop-out.
The Stonewall definition of transgender includes 'crossdresser', by the way, which as I understand the term can mean a 'bloke in a dress'.
You've found the Stonewall glossary. Most of the answer is there. You are looking at "trans", which includes transvestite.
My question was can anybody give me an actual, quantifiable difference between a ‘bloke in a dress’ and a transwoman. So far nobody can – they just tell me there’s nothing to discuss, which to me is a cop-out.
I'm far from an expert, and not sure why I'm getting involved but I'll hazard a guess...
I think the main problem is that "Bloke in a dress" doesn't really mean anything without more context. It could be any of the following or something else I've not thought of/bothered to list;
- Transwoman who hasn't had surgery
- Transvestite/Cross-dresser
- David Beckham wore a skirt once IIRC but I doubt he'd be considered a transvestite
- Drag artist
- A disguise
- Straight man on a stag do/Fancy dress
- Dame Edna tribute act
Whereas I'd suspect that a basic definition of a "transwoman who hasn't had surgery" is a person born in a male body but who doesn't feel male/masculine, yet doesn't like the idea of going through surgery.
Thanks verses, that’s a very good reply.
ajaj
Unfortunately most of the Stonewall glossary seems like a load of tosh to me. I’m happy to explain why at more length but I don’t want to needlessly upset people.