Poll: Gender recognition offence

[1981]

I will draw the debate away from the fallacies of 'gender is a construct, because we arbitrarily say it is' and focus it on the biological factors that determine our behaviour, many of which are driven directly by our biology, where our social interactions do not even enter into the equation.

If you want to have a rational debate, provide sources to back up your claims. I've never seen a single study that would prove that human gender is purely biological. Nor have I seen anyone here claim that gender is purely a social construct.

Roles vary between animal species and even within a species. Dominant females may end up becoming pack leaders etc.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Nor have I seen anyone here claim that gender is purely a social construct.

Gender is either a social construct, or the mix of biology and the meaning we give it, the idea which I've been defending. Can't construct something that's already there after all, and the moment we have biological components, it means that whatever meaning we give to gender ourselves, is in turn based on that biology.

I've already shown biological components, so the social construct theory is already in the rubbish bin.
It'll stay there untill something really unlikely happens, like someone disproving the existance of hormones or disproving all of evolutionary biology.

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

 

[Rosiv]

Nor have I seen anyone here claim that gender is purely a social construct.

Gender is either a social construct, or the mix of biology and the meaning we give it, the idea which I've been defending. Can't construct something that's already there after all, and the moment we have biological components, it means that whatever meaning we give to gender ourselves, is in turn based on that biology.

I've already shown biological components, so the social construct theory is already in the rubbish bin.
It'll stay there untill something really unlikely happens, like someone disproving the existance of hormones or disproving all of evolutionary biology.

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

Saying gender is a social construct does not imply biology has absolutely nothing to do with gender traits, though I can understand how someone might read it that way. I am no professor of behavioral psychology, I am not trained or practiced in explaining these concepts, so the confusion is likely due to my poor ability to explain. Please bear with me as I try again.

To use your chair analogy, this would be like someone saying "this chair is made of wood" but not making special note of the glue that holds the wooden dowels in place or the varnish finish. Saying the chair is made of wood in no way implies there are zero non wood components to the chair, it only implies that wood is the overwhelmingly important part of the construct. A chair is a wooden chair if it is primarily wood. A trait is said to be a gender trait if it is primarily influenced by the social construct of gender. A trait is a sex trait if it is primarily influenced by biology.

People think of gender backwards. Think of gender like you think of sex. Sex is not encompassed or defined by sexual traits. Sexual traits (sex in the specific) are the result of the biological construct of sex (sex in the general). That is to say, sexual traits are the result of influences of sex as a mode of reproduction. Similarly, gender traits are the result of the social construct of gender. That is to say gender traits are the result of influences of gender roles and expectations in society.

We cannot say "we are not sure" as to the origins of gender. The very statement is nonsensical. Because we are 100% sure, we made the definition. By definition, with absolute zero ambiguity, gender is of social origin. That is what it means. It would be like saying we are not sure what a square is. We are absolutely 100% sure what a square is. We defined it. Sometimes we may not have the tools or otherwise lack observational ability to determine if an shape is a square, but that does not mean we don't know what squares are.

Similarly, what we might not be sure about is if any one trait is a gender trait, a sexual trait, or a more even mix. That is where research is being done and people are figuring things out. A big part of the study of sex and gender is disentangling sex and gender. And again, to be absolutely clear, this in no way implies an absolute binary where traits are only gender or only sexual.

So, to specifically explain my statement you called out, it might be better to write that as "Gender (in the specific as it applies to traits), by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment (which would be gender in general, the social construct of gender, or gender as it applies to society).

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

Saying gender is a social construct does not imply biology has absolutely nothing to do with gender traits, though I can understand how someone might read it that way. I am no professor of behavioral psychology, I am not trained or practiced in explaining these concepts, so the confusion is likely due to my poor ability to explain. Please bear with me as I try again.

To use your chair analogy, this would be like someone saying "this chair is made of wood" but not making special note of the glue that holds the wooden dowels in place or the varnish finish. Saying the chair is made of wood in no way implies there are zero non wood components to the chair, it only implies that wood is the overwhelmingly important part of the construct. A chair is a wooden chair if it is primarily wood. A trait is said to be a gender trait if it is primarily influenced by the social construct of gender. A trait is a sex trait if it is primarily influenced by biology.

People think of gender backwards. Think of gender like you think of sex. Sex is not encompassed or defined by sexual traits. Sexual traits (sex in the specific) are the result of the biological construct of sex (sex in the general). That is to say, sexual traits are the result of influences of sex as a mode of reproduction. Similarly, gender traits are the result of the social construct of gender. That is to say gender traits are the result of influences of gender roles and expectations in society.

We cannot say "we are not sure" as to the origins of gender. The very statement is nonsensical. Because we are 100% sure, we made the definition. By definition, with absolute zero ambiguity, gender is of social origin. That is what it means. It would be like saying we are not sure what a square is. We are absolutely 100% sure what a square is. We defined it. Sometimes we may not have the tools or otherwise lack observational ability to determine if an shape is a square, but that does not mean we don't know what squares are.

Similarly, what we might not be sure about is if any one trait is a gender trait, a sexual trait, or a more even mix. That is where research is being done and people are figuring things out. A big part of the study of sex and gender is disentangling sex and gender. And again, to be absolutely clear, this in no way implies an absolute binary where traits are only gender or only sexual.

So, to specifically explain my statement you called out, it might be better to write that as "Gender (in the specific as it applies to traits), by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment (which would be gender in general, the social construct of gender, or gender as it applies to society).

Well yea if you define anything as something, then by that defintion it is true. But I'm arguing that our defintions of gender or sex might be misplaced, or that we shouldn't have so much conviction on terms that have been so volitle throughout the ages.

If I define "x is 3", this doesn't mean I should be belived right? There should be some level of proof to it.

There is research being done on the biological origins of gender, there is research being done on the social origins of gender. The quality of both I do not know.

I know that there are social effects on sex, I certainly know that there are biological effects on sex.



So I just think anyone know claims " x is y " should expect some level of disbelief, given the "boldness" of the claim. Its not like the soft sciences should be making these claims anyways, they can only suggest right?

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Spoiler

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

Saying gender is a social construct does not imply biology has absolutely nothing to do with gender traits, though I can understand how someone might read it that way. I am no professor of behavioral psychology, I am not trained or practiced in explaining these concepts, so the confusion is likely due to my poor ability to explain. Please bear with me as I try again.

To use your chair analogy, this would be like someone saying "this chair is made of wood" but not making special note of the glue that holds the wooden dowels in place or the varnish finish. Saying the chair is made of wood in no way implies there are zero non wood components to the chair, it only implies that wood is the overwhelmingly important part of the construct. A chair is a wooden chair if it is primarily wood. A trait is said to be a gender trait if it is primarily influenced by the social construct of gender. A trait is a sex trait if it is primarily influenced by biology.

People think of gender backwards. Think of gender like you think of sex. Sex is not encompassed or defined by sexual traits. Sexual traits (sex in the specific) are the result of the biological construct of sex (sex in the general). That is to say, sexual traits are the result of influences of sex as a mode of reproduction. Similarly, gender traits are the result of the social construct of gender. That is to say gender traits are the result of influences of gender roles and expectations in society.

We cannot say "we are not sure" as to the origins of gender. The very statement is nonsensical. Because we are 100% sure, we made the definition. By definition, with absolute zero ambiguity, gender is of social origin. That is what it means. It would be like saying we are not sure what a square is. We are absolutely 100% sure what a square is. We defined it. Sometimes we may not have the tools or otherwise lack observational ability to determine if an shape is a square, but that does not mean we don't know what squares are.

Similarly, what we might not be sure about is if any one trait is a gender trait, a sexual trait, or a more even mix. That is where research is being done and people are figuring things out. A big part of the study of sex and gender is disentangling sex and gender. And again, to be absolutely clear, this in no way implies an absolute binary where traits are only gender or only sexual.

So, to specifically explain my statement you called out, it might be better to write that as "Gender (in the specific as it applies to traits), by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment (which would be gender in general, the social construct of gender, or gender as it applies to society).

Well yea if you define anything as something, then by that defintion it is true. But I'm arguing that our defintions of gender or sex might be misplaced, or that we shouldn't have so much conviction on terms that have been so volitle throughout the ages.

If I define "x is 3", this doesn't mean I should be belived right? There should be some level of proof to it.

That depends on what x is and what kind of definition you are making. If you are trying to figure out the value of an existing x then yes, you can't just say x is whatever you want. You need proof. No one is disputing that. But that is because you are not defining it at all, you are discovering it's value. This is a vital distinction, and exactly what is not happening with the definition of gender.

I can't prove to you the definition of gender. It is a intensional definition, meaning it describes a meaning to which a thing may be checked against (like a category.) You cannot prove such a definition any more than you can prove the definition of a square or of whole numbers or of 3. There is nothing to prove.

As for why the terms sex and gender were decided on for their respective definitions, hell if I know. I didn't come up with it.

There is research being done on the biological origins of gender, there is research being done on the social origins of gender. The quality of both I do not know.

I know that there are social effects on sex, I certainly know that there are biological effects on sex.

This of course depends on what you mean by "gender", "social effects", "sex" and "biological effects", and several other terms I am not going to bother enumerating. Just because gender and sex are often used interchangeably does not mean they are interchangeable in formal definition.

What you might consider "research being done on the biological origins of gender" might be better described as "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits". Language is not precise, and even if it were people might mislabel or misspeak because people are not perfect.

So I just think anyone know claims " x is y " should expect some level of disbelief, given the "boldness" of the claim. Its not like the soft sciences should be making these claims anyways, they can only suggest right?

Again, I think you are mixing up discovering a value and describing a definition.

When the claim is made that "trait x is y" that is, as you say, a bold statement that should be met with appropriate suspicion. In soft sciences these sorts of claims are what you called "suggestions" in that the multitude of variables involved makes absolute proof virtually impossible. This is why peer review, redundant testing, alternate experiments, etc., are so important. They are absolutely vital. Soft sciences may not be able to prove many individual such claims beyond any doubt, but they can demonstrate and establish them beyond reasonable doubt. Soft sciences can and do create theories with predictive power.

On the other hand, "term x is defined as meaning y" is not a claim. It is a statement of definition, one that may or may not be accepted by the scientific community, but not based on proof because it is not a matter of proof. If psychologists cannot define terms of psychology, who can?

And by the way, all of this stuff about definitions is logic and mathematics, not gender studies or psychology or even biology. It is as hard a science as you can get.

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

Spoiler

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

Saying gender is a social construct does not imply biology has absolutely nothing to do with gender traits, though I can understand how someone might read it that way. I am no professor of behavioral psychology, I am not trained or practiced in explaining these concepts, so the confusion is likely due to my poor ability to explain. Please bear with me as I try again.

To use your chair analogy, this would be like someone saying "this chair is made of wood" but not making special note of the glue that holds the wooden dowels in place or the varnish finish. Saying the chair is made of wood in no way implies there are zero non wood components to the chair, it only implies that wood is the overwhelmingly important part of the construct. A chair is a wooden chair if it is primarily wood. A trait is said to be a gender trait if it is primarily influenced by the social construct of gender. A trait is a sex trait if it is primarily influenced by biology.

People think of gender backwards. Think of gender like you think of sex. Sex is not encompassed or defined by sexual traits. Sexual traits (sex in the specific) are the result of the biological construct of sex (sex in the general). That is to say, sexual traits are the result of influences of sex as a mode of reproduction. Similarly, gender traits are the result of the social construct of gender. That is to say gender traits are the result of influences of gender roles and expectations in society.

We cannot say "we are not sure" as to the origins of gender. The very statement is nonsensical. Because we are 100% sure, we made the definition. By definition, with absolute zero ambiguity, gender is of social origin. That is what it means. It would be like saying we are not sure what a square is. We are absolutely 100% sure what a square is. We defined it. Sometimes we may not have the tools or otherwise lack observational ability to determine if an shape is a square, but that does not mean we don't know what squares are.

Similarly, what we might not be sure about is if any one trait is a gender trait, a sexual trait, or a more even mix. That is where research is being done and people are figuring things out. A big part of the study of sex and gender is disentangling sex and gender. And again, to be absolutely clear, this in no way implies an absolute binary where traits are only gender or only sexual.

So, to specifically explain my statement you called out, it might be better to write that as "Gender (in the specific as it applies to traits), by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment (which would be gender in general, the social construct of gender, or gender as it applies to society).

Well yea if you define anything as something, then by that defintion it is true. But I'm arguing that our defintions of gender or sex might be misplaced, or that we shouldn't have so much conviction on terms that have been so volitle throughout the ages.

If I define "x is 3", this doesn't mean I should be belived right? There should be some level of proof to it.

That depends on what x is and what kind of definition you are making. If you are trying to figure out the value of an existing x then yes, you can't just say x is whatever you want. You need proof. No one is disputing that. But that is because you are not defining it at all, you are discovering it's value. This is a vital distinction, and exactly what is not happening with the definition of gender.

I don't see how saying "x is 3" in my context is not defining. I mean x as anything, so if I say it is "something", then I am defining it.

This is more philosophy than math really, so its my fault for a bad analogy.

I can't prove to you the definition of gender. It is a intensional definition, meaning it describes a meaning to which a thing may be checked against (like a category.) You cannot prove such a definition any more than you can prove the definition of a square or of whole numbers or of 3. There is nothing to prove.

As for why the terms sex and gender were decided on for their respective definitions, hell if I know. I didn't come up with it.

Well that is sort of my point. Someone(s) came up with the definition(s) either indirectly or directly. Regardless, when you make "any" claim, you should back it up.

And is there not a definition of a square? There are trigonometry proofs for all types of shapes. Yes I understand Math revolves around axioms, but there is still proofs one can do to determine what is a square, even if we defined it. It is the reliability of those proofs on the definitions we make that in my opinion, makes the definition really hold any weight.

For example, if I were to come up with a shape, and it had 10 sides, according to my definition of square( 4 sides, right angles) it would not be one.

There is research being done on the biological origins of gender, there is research being done on the social origins of gender. The quality of both I do not know.

I know that there are social effects on sex, I certainly know that there are biological effects on sex.

This of course depends on what you mean by "gender", "social effects", "sex" and "biological effects", and several other terms I am not going to bother enumerating. Just because gender and sex are often used interchangeably does not mean they are interchangeable in formal definition.

What you might consider "research being done on the biological origins of gender" might be better described as "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits". Language is not precise, and even if it were people might mislabel or misspeak because people are not perfect.

I am not being intentionally obtuse, but how are the statements: "research being done on the biological origins of gender" versus "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits" any different in effect? They both state the possibility of gender having biological origins. Does affixing the qualifier "traits" after gender somehow change it?

So I just think anyone know claims " x is y " should expect some level of disbelief, given the "boldness" of the claim. Its not like the soft sciences should be making these claims anyways, they can only suggest right?

Again, I think you are mixing up discovering a value and describing a definition.

When the claim is made that "trait x is y" that is, as you say, a bold statement that should be met with appropriate suspicion. In soft sciences these sorts of claims are what you called "suggestions" in that the multitude of variables involved makes absolute proof virtually impossible. This is why peer review, redundant testing, alternate experiments, etc., are so important. They are absolutely vital. Soft sciences may not be able to prove many individual such claims beyond any doubt, but they can demonstrate and establish them beyond reasonable doubt. Soft sciences can and do create theories with predictive power.

On the other hand, "term x is defined as meaning y" is not a claim. It is a statement of definition, one that may or may not be accepted by the scientific community, but not based on proof because it is not a matter of proof. If psychologists cannot define terms of psychology, who can?

And by the way, all of this stuff about definitions is logic and mathematics, not gender studies or psychology or even biology. It is as hard a science as you can get.

I feel that we just should not limit any discussion of any term to one science. If researchers want to investigate the possible biological causes of homosexuality, why should they not?

I am not saying psychologists cant define their own terms, but what makes it "their" terms in the first place? Sciences are connected. Psychology is a wide field, it involves the study of the brain to a degree, which intersects with biology. There are people from all of these fields studying gender, why is one more right than the other?

Or the possible biological causes of gender, why should they not?

A key part of the scientific method is asking questions. So if either sociologists or biologist ask the right questions and gather the right data in the right scope, I do not see fault in saying that "gender could be either biological or sociological" in origin.

And as to your last part, I would say "stuff about definitions" is more philosophy than math, regardless the "hard" vs "soft" was my error in assuming one would be better than the other. As I stated above, we should just investigate the origins of gender by whatever field, and when the questions stop being asked, then we can say gender originates from "a" or "b" or both. To assume one over the other would be bad logic no? That is what they did when they assumed homosexuality was biological only in the past yes? And now we know there are alot of factors that are related.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Spoiler

That depends on what x is and what kind of definition you are making. If you are trying to figure out the value of an existing x then yes, you can't just say x is whatever you want. You need proof. No one is disputing that. But that is because you are not defining it at all, you are discovering it's value. This is a vital distinction, and exactly what is not happening with the definition of gender.

I don't see how saying "x is 3" in my context is not defining. I mean x as anything, so if I say it is "something", then I am defining it.

This is more philosophy than math really, so its my fault for a bad analogy.

Spoiler

I was attempting to distinguish between the common usage of "define" and the logic/mathematical usage of "define". Basically, the common usage of define is ambiguous and imprecise. The definition used in logic is not. Basically, there are (at least) two possibilities of the meaning of your statement "x is 3". In one case you are reporting a fact or making a claim. This is not a defining in the formal sense. A claim can be contested and even disproved.

The other possibility is defining in the formal sense. I'll get back to this in a minute.

I can't prove to you the definition of gender. It is a intensional definition, meaning it describes a meaning to which a thing may be checked against (like a category.) You cannot prove such a definition any more than you can prove the definition of a square or of whole numbers or of 3. There is nothing to prove.

As for why the terms sex and gender were decided on for their respective definitions, hell if I know. I didn't come up with it.

Well that is sort of my point. Someone(s) came up with the definition(s) either indirectly or directly. Regardless, when you make "any" claim, you should back it up.

But it is not a claim. This is where you seem to be hung up. Defining something is not a claim in any way. Think of it as purposing a symbol that encompasses an idea. "9" is the symbol that we have defined to mean the idea of the number 9, but you cannot back up that "9" is the correct symbol to represent the idea. People may or may not accept it for various reasons, but it's essential "correctness" as a symbol is not something that can be debated in the same way the correctness of a claim can be.

And is there not a definition of a square? There are trigonometry proofs for all types of shapes. Yes I understand Math revolves around axioms, but there is still proofs one can do to determine what is a square, even if we defined it. It is the reliability of those proofs on the definitions we make that in my opinion, makes the definition really hold any weight.

For example, if I were to come up with a shape, and it had 10 sides, according to my definition of square( 4 sides, right angles) it would not be one.

There absolutely is a definition of a square. But try to separate in your mind the symbol, the definition, and any proofs or tests that might determine if a shape is a square.

Consider it like this:

First we recognize a useful idea. "This shape seems like it has special significance."

Then we assign a the idea to a symbol. "We will call this shape a 'square'. It is defined as [formal definition of a square]."

Then we come up with the proofs and tests that allow us to test a given shape against the definition. "Check the number of sides, the length of the sides, and the angles of the connecting sides."

You cannot create a test to check against a definition until the definition has been created.

Now, creating a reliable test that checks if a shape is a square is a fairly trivial problem. Determining if a trait is gender or sexual or a combination of both is many, many orders of magnitude more complex. We are working on creating those tests now. Insisting the validity of a definition relies on the test that determine if a thing fits that definition is essentially demanding that scientists have all the answers before they begin their research.

There is research being done on the biological origins of gender, there is research being done on the social origins of gender. The quality of both I do not know.

I know that there are social effects on sex, I certainly know that there are biological effects on sex.

This of course depends on what you mean by "gender", "social effects", "sex" and "biological effects", and several other terms I am not going to bother enumerating. Just because gender and sex are often used interchangeably does not mean they are interchangeable in formal definition.

What you might consider "research being done on the biological origins of gender" might be better described as "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits". Language is not precise, and even if it were people might mislabel or misspeak because people are not perfect.

I am not being intentionally obtuse, but how are the statements: "research being done on the biological origins of gender" versus "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits" any different in effect? They both state the possibility of gender having biological origins. Does affixing the qualifier "traits" after gender somehow change it?

They are very different in effect, but the difference is subtle unless you are used to thinking about things like this in highly precise language. They can mean the same thing, but the first statement is ambiguous. It can mean several things.

In particular, the second does not state the possibility of gender having biological origins. This is vastly oversimplifying it, but think of all traits that might be gender or sex traits being sorted into two different columns based on our best experiments. Again, to be clear, this is a massive oversimplification just to illustrate the idea. It is not a binary question.

The second statement suggests that some trait might have been categorized as primarily gender and and research is being done to determine if this is the case. The suggestion is not that gender might have biological origins, but that something thought of as a gender trait is not a gender trait.

On the other hand the first statement can mean all sorts of things, it is ambiguous. But in particular it does suggest that gender might have biological origins, which is counter to the formal definition of gender. Gender, by formal definition, cannot have biological origins because it is defined as having social origins. Anything that has biological origins is by definition not gender.

Again, for the sake of simplicity I ignored the possibility of a non binary answer to the question.

I feel that we just should not limit any discussion of any term to one science. If researchers want to investigate the possible biological causes of homosexuality, why should they not?

They totally should? No one is saying that.

I am not saying psychologists cant define their own terms, but what makes it "their" terms in the first place? Sciences are connected. Psychology is a wide field, it involves the study of the brain to a degree, which intersects with biology. There are people from all of these fields studying gender, why is one more right than the other?

The distinction between what we might call biological traits and social traits between the observed sexes was first seriously considered by psychologists (specifically psychologists that studied the effect of biology on sexual behavior.) They were the first ones doing the research, they made definitions and names for things so they could talk about it and study it properly.

Turns out the distinction had far reaching implications across several major disciplines. Everyone else who later also studied the topic used the established terms and definitions so they too could talk about it and everyone involved would understand.

Psychologists defined the terms because it was first considered as a problem of psychology. That is the only reason.

A key part of the scientific method is asking questions. So if either sociologists or biologist ask the right questions and gather the right data in the right scope, I do not see fault in saying that "gender could be either biological or sociological" in origin.

Nothing is stopping a biologist or sociologist from studying the sex/gender distinction. In fact, many, many biologists and sociologists do study it. But they use the language decided on by the people who studied it first because it wouldn't make sense to rename it.

And as to your last part, I would say "stuff about definitions" is more philosophy than math

Not in the formal sense. Logic and mathematics have nailed down what it means to define something because without formal definitions language is ambiguous and cannot be used in logical discussion. Defining something has a very specific meaning in logic and mathematics. It has nothing to do with philosophy. And what we are discussing here are formal definitions.

Regardless the "hard" vs "soft" was my error in assuming one would be better than the other. As I stated above, we should just investigate the origins of gender by whatever field, and when the questions stop being asked, then we can say gender originates from "a" or "b" or both. To assume one over the other would be bad logic no?

Again, the problem is that you are not divorcing the idea of gender and gender traits in your mind.

A trait may be influenced by biological or social factors.

If the trait is primarily influenced by biological factors it is a sex trait, falling under the category of sex.

If the trait is primarily influenced by social factors it is a gender trait, falling under the category of gender.

Now, assuming one over the other in relation to specific traits would be bad logic, as would not using every tool at our disposal to study it (meaning different scientific disciplines and the relevant tools and perspective they bring to the table.)

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

Spoiler

That depends on what x is and what kind of definition you are making. If you are trying to figure out the value of an existing x then yes, you can't just say x is whatever you want. You need proof. No one is disputing that. But that is because you are not defining it at all, you are discovering it's value. This is a vital distinction, and exactly what is not happening with the definition of gender.

I don't see how saying "x is 3" in my context is not defining. I mean x as anything, so if I say it is "something", then I am defining it.

This is more philosophy than math really, so its my fault for a bad analogy.

Spoiler

I was attempting to distinguish between the common usage of "define" and the logic/mathematical usage of "define". Basically, the common usage of define is ambiguous and imprecise. The definition used in logic is not. Basically, there are (at least) two possibilities of the meaning of your statement "x is 3". In one case you are reporting a fact or making a claim. This is not a defining in the formal sense. A claim can be contested and even disproved.

The other possibility is defining in the formal sense. I'll get back to this in a minute.

I can't prove to you the definition of gender. It is a intensional definition, meaning it describes a meaning to which a thing may be checked against (like a category.) You cannot prove such a definition any more than you can prove the definition of a square or of whole numbers or of 3. There is nothing to prove.

As for why the terms sex and gender were decided on for their respective definitions, hell if I know. I didn't come up with it.

Well that is sort of my point. Someone(s) came up with the definition(s) either indirectly or directly. Regardless, when you make "any" claim, you should back it up.

But it is not a claim. This is where you seem to be hung up. Defining something is not a claim in any way. Think of it as purposing a symbol that encompasses an idea. "9" is the symbol that we have defined to mean the idea of the number 9, but you cannot back up that "9" is the correct symbol to represent the idea. People may or may not accept it for various reasons, but it's essential "correctness" as a symbol is not something that can be debated in the same way the correctness of a claim can be.

Sounds like we are just arguing semantics at this point. It is a claim because you state it to be true, that is analogous to defining something. If I make up a bunch of squiggles on a piece of paper and tell everyone, "Hey guys these squiggles mean the symbol 9 now", why should anyone else trust or accept that to be true? Where does that authority come from?

And is there not a definition of a square? There are trigonometry proofs for all types of shapes. Yes I understand Math revolves around axioms, but there is still proofs one can do to determine what is a square, even if we defined it. It is the reliability of those proofs on the definitions we make that in my opinion, makes the definition really hold any weight.

For example, if I were to come up with a shape, and it had 10 sides, according to my definition of square( 4 sides, right angles) it would not be one.

There absolutely is a definition of a square. But try to separate in your mind the symbol, the definition, and any proofs or tests that might determine if a shape is a square.

Consider it like this:

First we recognize a useful idea. "This shape seems like it has special significance."

Then we assign a the idea to a symbol. "We will call this shape a 'square'. It is defined as [formal definition of a square]."

Then we come up with the proofs and tests that allow us to test a given shape against the definition. "Check the number of sides, the length of the sides, and the angles of the connecting sides."

You cannot create a test to check against a definition until the definition has been created.

Now, creating a reliable test that checks if a shape is a square is a fairly trivial problem. Determining if a trait is gender or sexual or a combination of both is many, many orders of magnitude more complex. We are working on creating those tests now. Insisting the validity of a definition relies on the test that determine if a thing fits that definition is essentially demanding that scientists have all the answers before they begin their research.

I am arguing more on the point that gender was never really defined well to begin with, so it is anyone's game to make a definition and then argue it, or it is no ones. Your definition is only true if we assume no other interference from other fields, that seems a bit nonsensical and a very large assumption.

If I defined a square as something with four sides and 4 right angles, then I could be wrong in that my shape could also be a rectangle. Just like if I defined gender as only being socially influenced, does that not eliminate the possibility of it being influenced by biology? Why do that in a definition?

There is research being done on the biological origins of gender, there is research being done on the social origins of gender. The quality of both I do not know.

I know that there are social effects on sex, I certainly know that there are biological effects on sex.

This of course depends on what you mean by "gender", "social effects", "sex" and "biological effects", and several other terms I am not going to bother enumerating. Just because gender and sex are often used interchangeably does not mean they are interchangeable in formal definition.

What you might consider "research being done on the biological origins of gender" might be better described as "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits". Language is not precise, and even if it were people might mislabel or misspeak because people are not perfect.

I am not being intentionally obtuse, but how are the statements: "research being done on the biological origins of gender" versus "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits" any different in effect? They both state the possibility of gender having biological origins. Does affixing the qualifier "traits" after gender somehow change it?

They are very different in effect, but the difference is subtle unless you are used to thinking about things like this in highly precise language. They can mean the same thing, but the first statement is ambiguous. It can mean several things.

In particular, the second does not state the possibility of gender having biological origins. This is vastly oversimplifying it, but think of all traits that might be gender or sex traits being sorted into two different columns based on our best experiments. Again, to be clear, this is a massive oversimplification just to illustrate the idea. It is not a binary question.

The second statement suggests that some trait might have been categorized as primarily gender and and research is being done to determine if this is the case. The suggestion is not that gender might have biological origins, but that something thought of as a gender trait is not a gender trait.

On the other hand the first statement can mean all sorts of things, it is ambiguous. But in particular it does suggest that gender might have biological origins, which is counter to the formal definition of gender. Gender, by formal definition, cannot have biological origins because it is defined as having social origins. Anything that has biological origins is by definition not gender.

Again, for the sake of simplicity I ignored the possibility of a non binary answer to the question.

I still don't understand why your definition of gender is somehow absolute, the definition has changed throughout the years. Making arbitrary classifications means I can arbitrarily ignore them. You state that the separation of the definitions is useful previously. Although I have not seen the usefulness of it shown here.

I feel that we just should not limit any discussion of any term to one science. If researchers want to investigate the possible biological causes of homosexuality, why should they not?

They totally should? No one is saying that.

And as for your last statement in the previous quote, "Again, for the sake of simplicity I ignored the possibility of a non binary answer to the question."

Why are you ignoring this possibility? This is what I am implying. Researchers assumed it was something biological in origin that caused homosexuality, even the psychologists. Why should they assume solely biology, when it could be an intermixing of two factors?

I am not saying psychologists cant define their own terms, but what makes it "their" terms in the first place? Sciences are connected. Psychology is a wide field, it involves the study of the brain to a degree, which intersects with biology. There are people from all of these fields studying gender, why is one more right than the other?

The distinction between what we might call biological traits and social traits between the observed sexes was first seriously considered by psychologists (specifically psychologists that studied the effect of biology on sexual behavior.) They were the first ones doing the research, they made definitions and names for things so they could talk about it and study it properly.

Turns out the distinction had far reaching implications across several major disciplines. Everyone else who later also studied the topic used the established terms and definitions so they too could talk about it and everyone involved would understand.

Psychologists defined the terms because it was first considered as a problem of psychology. That is the only reason.

First come first serve is more dogma than science. What are these "far reaching implications" anyways? I don't understand why complex behavior cant it any sense be influenced by biology.

A key part of the scientific method is asking questions. So if either sociologists or biologist ask the right questions and gather the right data in the right scope, I do not see fault in saying that "gender could be either biological or sociological" in origin.

Nothing is stopping a biologist or sociologist from studying the sex/gender distinction. In fact, many, many biologists and sociologists do study it. But they use the language decided on by the people who studied it first because it wouldn't make sense to rename it.

People rename things all the time though. Homosexuality use to be considered a mental disorder until political pressure caused it to be renamed. This wasn't even an effort on science, just people considered with stigma mind you.

Should we use old terms for race since whoever founded the field of "skull reading" started it first? Or do we rely on genetics and heritage? We rely on the one that is more reliable, making assumptions on skulls was weak at best, where as we have been able to model how skin color is a continuous trait or how body shape and size can be effected not only by biology, but by epigenetic factors. For some reason, I guess the sociological definition,( since it is stated to be of sociological origin) is above this?

And as to your last part, I would say "stuff about definitions" is more philosophy than math

Not in the formal sense. Logic and mathematics have nailed down what it means to define something because without formal definitions language is ambiguous and cannot be used in logical discussion. Defining something has a very specific meaning in logic and mathematics. It has nothing to do with philosophy. And what we are discussing here are formal definitions.

I would say it does have much to do with philosophy, there is an entire branch of it devoted to arguing definitions. I mean philosophy covers logic too, they study it but just not to the intensity that a mathematician would. Again though this is just semantics and it is my fault for introducing the red herring, I do not see the point in discussing the difference.

I don't even understand how it could be a formal definition, language is ambiguous so how could their definitions be anything but informal, and therefore subject to change?

Regardless the "hard" vs "soft" was my error in assuming one would be better than the other. As I stated above, we should just investigate the origins of gender by whatever field, and when the questions stop being asked, then we can say gender originates from "a" or "b" or both. To assume one over the other would be bad logic no?

Again, the problem is that you are not divorcing the idea of gender and gender traits in your mind.

A trait may be influenced by biological or social factors.

If the trait is primarily influenced by biological factors it is a sex trait, falling under the category of sex.

If the trait is primarily influenced by social factors it is a gender trait, falling under the category of gender.

Now, assuming one over the other in relation to specific traits would be bad logic, as would not using every tool at our disposal to study it (meaning different scientific disciplines and the relevant tools and perspective they bring to the table.)

I do not see how I am assuming one over the other. All I see is that traits in general can be complex and have multiple sources of input, like height or weight, etc...

So when someone tells me "Oh these traits are only caused by biology or social influences, I would be in great disbelief. Making arbitrary categories does not make someone more "correct", what makes this separation between biological and social effects so absolute when we know that in practice, there is alot of intermixing.
Even the definition of sex has social influences, which one can see through the various tensions the intersexed community has to deal with.

I am just not sure you could convince me of pure social construction on the concept of gender or most things.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Sounds like we are just arguing semantics at this point.

YES! WE ARE ARGUING SEMANTICS! Because until we nail down the semantics we cannot properly discuss the issue because misunderstanding will happen. I'll come back to this later.

It is a claim because you state it to be true, that is analogous to defining something. If I make up a bunch of squiggles on a piece of paper and tell everyone, "Hey guys these squiggles mean the symbol 9 now", why should anyone else trust or accept that to be true? Where does that authority come from?

The authority comes from everyone deciding to use that symbol. Why is "9" the authoritative symbol for the idea of the number nine? Because it is accepted by the community at large. This is why the meaning difference between "gender" and "sex" is authoritative. Because everyone (or nearly everyone) who studies the concept uses those words to mean those things.

I am arguing more on the point that gender was never really defined well to begin with, so it is anyone's game to make a definition and then argue it, or it is no ones.

I imagine that is why gender was the term chosen. It was an ill defined kinda sort of synonym for sex until someone actually came along and gave it a proper definition.

It was anyone's game until it was well defined. It is now well defined and the definition is accepted among the disciplines.

Your definition is only true if we assume no other interference from other fields, that seems a bit nonsensical and a very large assumption.

No, it is only true if other fields decided to go along with that definition, which they did.

If I defined a square as something with four sides and 4 right angles, then I could be wrong in that my shape could also be a rectangle. Just like if I defined gender as only being socially influenced, does that not eliminate the possibility of it being influenced by biology? Why do that in a definition?

Yes, it does eliminate the possibility of it being influenced by biology, that is the entire point. Just like the definition of a square eliminates the possibility of squares also being triangles. It was defined that way because it is useful to be able to make the distinction between "influenced by biology" and "influenced by society" in the same way it is useful to be able to make a distinction between triangles and squares.

But do not confuse this absolutely vital point: Defining gender as being only socially influenced does not indicate traits have to be categorized in a binary way.

Say you have a trait that is influenced by both biological factors and social factors. This trait would encompass in it both sex and gender. The parts of the trait that are the result of biological influences are sex, the parts of the trait that are the result of social influences are gender.

Again, for the sake of simplicity I ignored the possibility of a non binary answer to the question.

I still don't understand why your definition of gender is somehow absolute, the definition has changed throughout the years.

The definition of gender is absolute because it was designed to be so. The fact that this definition is assigned to the symbol "gender" is not absolute.

Making arbitrary classifications means I can arbitrarily ignore them. You state that the separation of the definitions is useful previously. Although I have not seen the usefulness of it shown here.

How can we communicate if we do not have definitions? I am 100% serious with that question. If I tell you a number is odd it has a very specific meaning. I am communicating an idea. Would you argue that the separation of the definitions of odd and even are not useful? The classification of even and odd are just as arbitrary as the classifications of gender and sex. You can ignore those classifications, but then the usefulness of the classifications is lost to you.

They totally should? No one is saying that.

And as for your last statement in the previous quote, "Again, for the sake of simplicity I ignored the possibility of a non binary answer to the question."

Why are you ignoring this possibility? This is what I am implying. Researchers assumed it was something biological in origin that caused homosexuality, even the psychologists. Why should they assume solely biology, when it could be an intermixing of two factors?

I stated my reason within the section you quoted. "For the sake of simplicity". I only ignored the possibility in order to make a simpler statement so I didn't have to get bogged down in all sorts of minutiae, but I specifically called out that I was making that simplifying assumption so I would not suggest that traits cannot be a mix.

The principle of gender/sex distinction fully allows and encompasses the idea that any given trait can be a mix of the two factors. I have stated this many times in our discussion. I would like to remind you of the first line of the first post of mine you responded to:

"The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix."

First come first serve is more dogma than science.

This is not first come first serve. It is not about who gets to be right or who has naming rights or any similar bullshit. It is a purely practical matter. The first person to want to talk about a thing has to create a term for that thing in order to talk about it. Others accepted that term. That is all.

What are these "far reaching implications" anyways? I don't understand why complex behavior cant in any sense be influenced by biology.

THEY CAN AND OFTEN ARE! This is a vital part of the idea of gender/sex distinction. As I have stated over and over, traits may be sex, gender, or a mix. This includes complex behaviors.

People rename things all the time though. Homosexuality use to be considered a mental disorder until political pressure caused it to be renamed. This wasn't even an effort on science, just people considered with stigma mind you.

Yes, things are renamed all the time. Again, no one is disputing that. (Though your homosexuality example is not a case of renaming but of changing categorization.)

Should we use old terms for race since whoever founded the field of "skull reading" started it first? Or do we rely on genetics and heritage? We rely on the one that is more reliable, making assumptions on skulls was weak at best, where as we have been able to model how skin color is a continuous trait or how body shape and size can be effected not only by biology, but by epigenetic factors. For some reason, I guess the sociological definition,( since it is stated to be of sociological origin) is above this?

I don't even know where to start with this, so I am just going to state the position clearly instead of addressing your individual points, is that ok?

We should use the terms that are accepted and used until they are changed and new terms are accepted and used.

That is all, I don't know why you are making this so difficult.

I would say it does have much to do with philosophy, there is an entire branch of it devoted to arguing definitions. I mean philosophy covers logic too, they study it but just not to the intensity that a mathematician would. Again though this is just semantics and it is my fault for introducing the red herring, I do not see the point in discussing the difference.

I don't even understand how it could be a formal definition, language is ambiguous so how could their definitions be anything but informal, and therefore subject to change?

This is exactly what formal definitions try to deal with, as I previously stated. Language is ambiguous, but you cannot discuss logic or build proofs using ambiguous terms. Formal definitions try to remove ambiguity from language so it can be used in logical discussion.

I do not see how I am assuming one over the other.

I am not saying you did assume one over the other. Not sure where you got that from.

All I see is that traits in general can be complex and have multiple sources of input, like height or weight, etc...

Yes! You are exactly correct! Traits in general can be complex and have multiple sources of input! That is the central idea of the gender/sex distinction, recognizing the reality of multiple inputs. The entire point was to name and acknowledge the reality of the different inputs so they could be properly studied and determine which inputs have effects on what.

So when someone tells me "Oh these traits are only caused by biology or social influences, I would be in great disbelief. Making arbitrary categories does not make someone more "correct", what makes this separation between biological and social effects so absolute when we know that in practice, there is alot of intermixing.

You are insisting that the gender/sex distinction means something it does not. Again, as I have stated over and over, the gender/sex distinction does not insist on binary categorization. That is your misunderstanding of the concept. This is why we are still, after pages and pages of writing, discussing the most basic semantics of the issue. Because you are hung up on the semantics. We cannot go any further until we clear up the issue of semantics, because until then it is impossible to have a coherent discussion about the issue.

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

Sounds like we are just arguing semantics at this point.

YES! WE ARE ARGUING SEMANTICS! Because until we nail down the semantics we cannot properly discuss the issue because misunderstanding will happen. I'll come back to this later.

It is a claim because you state it to be true, that is analogous to defining something. If I make up a bunch of squiggles on a piece of paper and tell everyone, "Hey guys these squiggles mean the symbol 9 now", why should anyone else trust or accept that to be true? Where does that authority come from?

The authority comes from everyone deciding to use that symbol. Why is "9" the authoritative symbol for the idea of the number nine? Because it is accepted by the community at large. This is why the meaning difference between "gender" and "sex" is authoritative. Because everyone (or nearly everyone) who studies the concept uses those words to mean those things.

I am arguing more on the point that gender was never really defined well to begin with, so it is anyone's game to make a definition and then argue it, or it is no ones.

I imagine that is why gender was the term chosen. It was an ill defined kinda sort of synonym for sex until someone actually came along and gave it a proper definition.

It was anyone's game until it was well defined. It is now well defined and the definition is accepted among the disciplines.

Your definition is only true if we assume no other interference from other fields, that seems a bit nonsensical and a very large assumption.

No, it is only true if other fields decided to go along with that definition, which they did.

If I defined a square as something with four sides and 4 right angles, then I could be wrong in that my shape could also be a rectangle. Just like if I defined gender as only being socially influenced, does that not eliminate the possibility of it being influenced by biology? Why do that in a definition?

Yes, it does eliminate the possibility of it being influenced by biology, that is the entire point. Just like the definition of a square eliminates the possibility of squares also being triangles. It was defined that way because it is useful to be able to make the distinction between "influenced by biology" and "influenced by society" in the same way it is useful to be able to make a distinction between triangles and squares.

But do not confuse this absolutely vital point: Defining gender as being only socially influenced does not indicate traits have to be categorized in a binary way.

Say you have a trait that is influenced by both biological factors and social factors. This trait would encompass in it both sex and gender. The parts of the trait that are the result of biological influences are sex, the parts of the trait that are the result of social influences are gender.

Again, for the sake of simplicity I ignored the possibility of a non binary answer to the question.

I still don't understand why your definition of gender is somehow absolute, the definition has changed throughout the years.

The definition of gender is absolute because it was designed to be so. The fact that this definition is assigned to the symbol "gender" is not absolute.

Making arbitrary classifications means I can arbitrarily ignore them. You state that the separation of the definitions is useful previously. Although I have not seen the usefulness of it shown here.

How can we communicate if we do not have definitions? I am 100% serious with that question. If I tell you a number is odd it has a very specific meaning. I am communicating an idea. Would you argue that the separation of the definitions of odd and even are not useful? The classification of even and odd are just as arbitrary as the classifications of gender and sex. You can ignore those classifications, but then the usefulness of the classifications is lost to you.

They totally should? No one is saying that.

And as for your last statement in the previous quote, "Again, for the sake of simplicity I ignored the possibility of a non binary answer to the question."

Why are you ignoring this possibility? This is what I am implying. Researchers assumed it was something biological in origin that caused homosexuality, even the psychologists. Why should they assume solely biology, when it could be an intermixing of two factors?

I stated my reason within the section you quoted. "For the sake of simplicity". I only ignored the possibility in order to make a simpler statement so I didn't have to get bogged down in all sorts of minutiae, but I specifically called out that I was making that simplifying assumption so I would not suggest that traits cannot be a mix.

The principle of gender/sex distinction fully allows and encompasses the idea that any given trait can be a mix of the two factors. I have stated this many times in our discussion. I would like to remind you of the first line of the first post of mine you responded to:

"The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix."

First come first serve is more dogma than science.

This is not first come first serve. It is not about who gets to be right or who has naming rights or any similar bullshit. It is a purely practical matter. The first person to want to talk about a thing has to create a term for that thing in order to talk about it. Others accepted that term. That is all.

What are these "far reaching implications" anyways? I don't understand why complex behavior cant in any sense be influenced by biology.

THEY CAN AND OFTEN ARE! This is a vital part of the idea of gender/sex distinction. As I have stated over and over, traits may be sex, gender, or a mix. This includes complex behaviors.

People rename things all the time though. Homosexuality use to be considered a mental disorder until political pressure caused it to be renamed. This wasn't even an effort on science, just people considered with stigma mind you.

Yes, things are renamed all the time. Again, no one is disputing that. (Though your homosexuality example is not a case of renaming but of changing categorization.)

Should we use old terms for race since whoever founded the field of "skull reading" started it first? Or do we rely on genetics and heritage? We rely on the one that is more reliable, making assumptions on skulls was weak at best, where as we have been able to model how skin color is a continuous trait or how body shape and size can be effected not only by biology, but by epigenetic factors. For some reason, I guess the sociological definition,( since it is stated to be of sociological origin) is above this?

I don't even know where to start with this, so I am just going to state the position clearly instead of addressing your individual points, is that ok?

We should use the terms that are accepted and used until they are changed and new terms are accepted and used.

That is all, I don't know why you are making this so difficult.

I would say it does have much to do with philosophy, there is an entire branch of it devoted to arguing definitions. I mean philosophy covers logic too, they study it but just not to the intensity that a mathematician would. Again though this is just semantics and it is my fault for introducing the red herring, I do not see the point in discussing the difference.

I don't even understand how it could be a formal definition, language is ambiguous so how could their definitions be anything but informal, and therefore subject to change?

This is exactly what formal definitions try to deal with, as I previously stated. Language is ambiguous, but you cannot discuss logic or build proofs using ambiguous terms. Formal definitions try to remove ambiguity from language so it can be used in logical discussion.

I do not see how I am assuming one over the other.

I am not saying you did assume one over the other. Not sure where you got that from.

All I see is that traits in general can be complex and have multiple sources of input, like height or weight, etc...

Yes! You are exactly correct! Traits in general can be complex and have multiple sources of input! That is the central idea of the gender/sex distinction, recognizing the reality of multiple inputs. The entire point was to name and acknowledge the reality of the different inputs so they could be properly studied and determine which inputs have effects on what.

So when someone tells me "Oh these traits are only caused by biology or social influences, I would be in great disbelief. Making arbitrary categories does not make someone more "correct", what makes this separation between biological and social effects so absolute when we know that in practice, there is alot of intermixing.

You are insisting that the gender/sex distinction means something it does not. Again, as I have stated over and over, the gender/sex distinction does not insist on binary categorization. That is your misunderstanding of the concept. This is why we are still, after pages and pages of writing, discussing the most basic semantics of the issue. Because you are hung up on the semantics. We cannot go any further until we clear up the issue of semantics, because until then it is impossible to have a coherent discussion about the issue.

To be honest, if you willfully admit to arguing semantics then we shouldn't be contining this. I wasn't trying to be obtuse when I said I didn't understand, its just the only way your defintions work is if everyone is(has the potential to be) some type of intersexed person, which is possible, I just never really considered it or thought it to be true.


I will conceded the disscussion, but I still don't get why your defintion is somehow true or even useful.