Kind of depends on what actions you have in mind, on what you mean by the term "gender", and which "they" you're referring to.
But it doesn't help much when you -- and far too many others -- insist that the only definition for "gender" is as a "grammatical class", and flat-out reject more scientifically tenable definitions for the term su…
Kind of depends on what actions you have in mind, on what you mean by the term "gender", and which "they" you're referring to.
But it doesn't help much when you -- and far too many others -- insist that the only definition for "gender" is as a "grammatical class", and flat-out reject more scientifically tenable definitions for the term such as this one from Merriam-Webster:
MW: "gender: 2b) the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
Whole concept of gender is a bit of a dog's breakfast, and it is maybe moot whether the idea is much better than phrenology or Chinese fortune cookies for categorizing personality types. But there is, in fact, a great deal of solid evidence that there are significant differences, by sex, in those "behavioural, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" or the other. Sexual dimorphism writ large:
You might also have some interest in my post on the "A Multidimensional Gender Spectrum" which attempts to put the concept on a more scientific footing, and which more or less starts off from that MW definition:
I expect "we" are more likely to "win" if we have "steelmanned" the concept. And have shown thereby that many of "their" claims -- like "born in the wrong body" and "change your genitalia, change your sex (act now! offer ends soon! 🙄) " -- are so much incoherent and quite unscientific twaddle, at best.
After reading Andrew Doyle's piece a few days ago on take over of dictionaries by activists, I'm a little leery about using dictionary definitions these days. Although that one seems not to be controversial.
While largely synonym for sex while I've been alive, and from what I can see before that, not so clear cut, at least in western society these days. I have to admit that I find the general kerfuffle a bit puzzling, as during my teenage years and through my 20s it seemed that we were getting a lot more accommodating to the idea that the member of one sex could behave in ways previously associated with the other sex in terms of interests and activities, displayed emotions, etc. Dress got a lot more androgenous, at least in professional attire and recreational attire. I guess I didn't they pay attention until more recently, when gender stereotypes have seemed to become more pronounced, especially with respect to behavior. And gender identity has become this huge thing, mostly for younger people (like below 30). Are people really thinking that much about gender? I guess so, but why?
So it's probably useless to try to define it by categories. Maybe not even worry about it, and just base everything on sex.
Or, be completely objective about it, and just classify it as:
- Man=male
- Woman=female
-Transman=female that presents like a man, including through modification''
- Transwoman=male that presents as a woman including through modification
- Non-binary=could be male or female, but hard to tell
Spaces (restrooms, shelters, prisons, etc) are by sex. For spaces that are used by trans or nonbinary, there are unisex spaces
Sports are by sex and sex only.
Other than that, live your life, no discrimination.
Though you might post a link or two yourself -- as all the Substack veterans say, "sharing is caring" ... 😉🙂
But as evidence of the rot that transgenderism has wrought -- so to speak -- you might take a gander at the Merriam-Webster definitions for "male" and "female" as he only gave one for "female":
"male: 1b) having a gender identity that is the opposite of female"
"female: 1b) having a gender identity that is the opposite of male"
The "Circular Definitions R Us" crowd.
But it's kind of necessary to have some "authoritative source" stipulate the definitions in play -- otherwise they're kind of useless: anyone can play. You might have some interest in an essay by a philosopher of science on the topic of definitions in general:
Kind of depends on what actions you have in mind, on what you mean by the term "gender", and which "they" you're referring to.
But it doesn't help much when you -- and far too many others -- insist that the only definition for "gender" is as a "grammatical class", and flat-out reject more scientifically tenable definitions for the term such as this one from Merriam-Webster:
MW: "gender: 2b) the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
Whole concept of gender is a bit of a dog's breakfast, and it is maybe moot whether the idea is much better than phrenology or Chinese fortune cookies for categorizing personality types. But there is, in fact, a great deal of solid evidence that there are significant differences, by sex, in those "behavioural, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" or the other. Sexual dimorphism writ large:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/yes-male-mammals-tend-to-be-larger
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
You might also have some interest in my post on the "A Multidimensional Gender Spectrum" which attempts to put the concept on a more scientific footing, and which more or less starts off from that MW definition:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/a-multi-dimensional-gender-spectrum
I expect "we" are more likely to "win" if we have "steelmanned" the concept. And have shown thereby that many of "their" claims -- like "born in the wrong body" and "change your genitalia, change your sex (act now! offer ends soon! 🙄) " -- are so much incoherent and quite unscientific twaddle, at best.
After reading Andrew Doyle's piece a few days ago on take over of dictionaries by activists, I'm a little leery about using dictionary definitions these days. Although that one seems not to be controversial.
While largely synonym for sex while I've been alive, and from what I can see before that, not so clear cut, at least in western society these days. I have to admit that I find the general kerfuffle a bit puzzling, as during my teenage years and through my 20s it seemed that we were getting a lot more accommodating to the idea that the member of one sex could behave in ways previously associated with the other sex in terms of interests and activities, displayed emotions, etc. Dress got a lot more androgenous, at least in professional attire and recreational attire. I guess I didn't they pay attention until more recently, when gender stereotypes have seemed to become more pronounced, especially with respect to behavior. And gender identity has become this huge thing, mostly for younger people (like below 30). Are people really thinking that much about gender? I guess so, but why?
So it's probably useless to try to define it by categories. Maybe not even worry about it, and just base everything on sex.
Or, be completely objective about it, and just classify it as:
- Man=male
- Woman=female
-Transman=female that presents like a man, including through modification''
- Transwoman=male that presents as a woman including through modification
- Non-binary=could be male or female, but hard to tell
Spaces (restrooms, shelters, prisons, etc) are by sex. For spaces that are used by trans or nonbinary, there are unisex spaces
Sports are by sex and sex only.
Other than that, live your life, no discrimination.
Easy
Thanks for the heads-up about Doyle:
https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-activist-takeover-of-online-dictionaries
Though you might post a link or two yourself -- as all the Substack veterans say, "sharing is caring" ... 😉🙂
But as evidence of the rot that transgenderism has wrought -- so to speak -- you might take a gander at the Merriam-Webster definitions for "male" and "female" as he only gave one for "female":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
"male: 1b) having a gender identity that is the opposite of female"
"female: 1b) having a gender identity that is the opposite of male"
The "Circular Definitions R Us" crowd.
But it's kind of necessary to have some "authoritative source" stipulate the definitions in play -- otherwise they're kind of useless: anyone can play. You might have some interest in an essay by a philosopher of science on the topic of definitions in general:
https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm#part5