Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



6/06/2016 12:46 pm  #1


Sex and Gender

I've been thinking about this topic recently since it's been in the news.

Do you recognize a distinction between sex and gender? If so, what do you say that sex is? What do you say that gender is?

 

6/06/2016 1:18 pm  #2


Re: Sex and Gender

I too have been thinking of this topic due to its media exposure. I was going to post about it in my Leftow not Democracy thread but here will do:

@Catholics, there have probably been more articles about the transcendent horror of transvestites having free choice of gender bathrooms in the last couple of months than there have been on the Modal Problem of Evil since the latter's formulation in the early '80s. I hope you all feel suitibley ashamed!

A serious response to Greg how broached the question in all good faith:

I opt for a somewhat deflationary take on gender, viewing it largely as a construct out of various social roles, habits and aesthetics. Body dysmorphia though presents a more challenging case - in terms of bodily apperception/self-sensing does it feel different to have a male as opposed to female body? There are of course experiences pertaining to gender specific biological functions to take into account as well. If either of these two are the case, and the second surely is, and it's possible for someone of the opposite sex to have these experiences abnormally (say though a neurological oddity) then yes I would claim Gender is something above and beyond Sex.

A person's sex doesn't appear essential either though. Would NLers object to sex change operations of they actually worked that is transformed a fully fertile man into a fully fertile woman capable of beating children?

Last edited by DanielCC (6/06/2016 2:19 pm)

 

6/06/2016 2:09 pm  #3


Re: Sex and Gender

DanielCC wrote:

@Catholics, there have probably been more articles about the transcendent horror of transvestites having free choice of gender bathrooms in the last couple of Botha than there have been on the Modal Problem of Evil since the latter's formulation in the early '80s. I hope you all feel suitibley ashamed!

I think the modal problem of evil adds absolutely nothing to any other problem of evil and is a far easier topic that the ontology of sex and gender. But I suppose that's another topic.

DanielCC wrote:

I opt for a somewhat deflationary take on gender, viewing it largely as a construct out of various social roles, habits and aesthetics. Body dysmorphia though presents a more challenging case - in terms of bodily apperception/self-sensing does it feel different to have a male as opposed to female body? There are of course experiences pertaining to gender specific biological functions to take into account as well. If either of these two are the case, and the second surely is, and it's possible for someone of the opposite sex to have these experiences abnormally (say though a neurological oddity) then yes I would claim Gender is something above and beyond Sex.

I think that's a fairly standard account of gender, at least academically. As I understand her (influential) account (I haven't read her yet), Judith Butler takes gender to involve some sort of performance, the inhabiting of certain social roles, etc.

I suppose gender and gender identity are now distinguished. The latter is one's "personal experience" of one's gender. This is where, in popular presentations at least, terms like "self-perception" start cropping up. Taken literally, I don't think that can make much sense. It's supposed to be a sort of self-perception that can be dysphoric, so that someone with male genitalia who has been living "as a man" his (her?) whole life could "perceive" that he's really a she. So it's not supposed to be a perception of what gender roles one is or has occupied; it's really supposed to be a sort of perception in a fairly literal sense. There is (I think it would be implied) a fact of the matter as to what one's true gender is, and gender identity is one's perceiving that fact. (The terms, I think, are usually defined by activists and continental philosophers. As a result there often seem to be unaddressed category mistakes. I am sure someone has taken up the topic more rigorously, though.)

I think I agree with you that the sex/gender distinction is one worth developing. A lot of Catholics want to reject the distinction and just settle for sex, but I don't think that's necessary. I would have a modified account of what gender is, though.

DanielCC wrote:

A person's sex doesn't appear essential either though. Would NLers object to sex change operations of they actually worked that is transformed a fully fertile man into a fully fertile woman capable of beating children?

My tentative answer is no, and I'm as likely to shape my views on sex change operations on that possibility as I am to shape my views on personal identity on Derek Parfit's thought experiments.

Though there is a question as to what sex is. Again, a lot of Catholics and social conservatives are inclined to adopt a chromosomal account of sex, which I think I would reject for a "functional" one.

Last edited by Greg (6/06/2016 2:11 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

7/01/2016 9:53 am  #4


Re: Sex and Gender

DanielCC wrote:

 Would NLers object to sex change operations of they actually worked that is transformed a fully fertile man into a fully fertile woman capable of beating children?

Alexander Pruss has written something on this question:

"Even if the whole of the reproductive system were transplanted, including, say, a penis, testicles, and prostate, or a vagina, clitoris, cervix, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries, these organs would not have the same meaning, because surely they would not be directed toward their purposes by the whole organism. A normally functioning, genetically male human body presumably does not direct anything toward its own pregnancy and a normally-functioning, genetically female human body presumably does not direct anything toward making another person pregnant. Hormones would not help, because they would still be an extrinsic directing rather than an intrinsic one. Moreover, if Casey, genetically a woman, receives a transplant of Fred’s reproductive system, then even if it can be argued that the system would be directed toward human reproduction, it would arguably not be directed toward reproducing Casey but toward reproducing Fred, since the genetic material therein derives from Fred. It may be that if it were possible to change the genetic identity of the whole body, the person would become capable of the sexual union indicated by the newly modified body. But it is not clear that a person could survive a change of an entire chromosome throughout the body. Even if clinical death did not result, it is unclear whether the resulting human being would be the same person after such a momentous change."

Thoughts?
 

 

7/01/2016 9:57 am  #5


Re: Sex and Gender

Greg wrote:

Though there is a question as to what sex is. Again, a lot of Catholics and social conservatives are inclined to adopt a chromosomal account of sex, which I think I would reject for a "functional" one.

What do you mean by a functional account of sex? I would also reject the chromosomal account because of intersex cases.
 

 

7/01/2016 12:34 pm  #6


Re: Sex and Gender

The reason, by the way, that this is showing up now on "the left" is the effect of what is sometimes called "the oppression olympics". It seems pretty obvious that since gay marriage was achieved, there has to be a place to put to work all the sexual-liberation institutions, rhetoric, and enthusiasm, so people go looking for a "more oppressed" group to apply them to. South Carolina was stupid enough to try and press the issue over bathrooms, and so a national platform was found for it. Who knows how much money trans activist groups were able to draw in donations off of that, but I'm sure it was a start.

I think most trans and trans supporters get hung up on the idea of "gender role"- the set of generally expected behaviors for their gender -rather than on some spurious or loaded notion of gender. One often doesn't seem to feel like a girl (or what have you), just as such, but has the experience of desiring non-gender appropriate behaviors, being socially corrected in that desire, and rebelling in later life. I mean, I myself have been accused of some level of effeminacy simply for being slim and aloof. It's not a hard leap of imagination to see how I might think, given a few degrees more of non-standard behavior, that I'd be more socially comfortable in the role of a woman.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

7/01/2016 1:49 pm  #7


Re: Sex and Gender

ML wrote:

Greg wrote:

Though there is a question as to what sex is. Again, a lot of Catholics and social conservatives are inclined to adopt a chromosomal account of sex, which I think I would reject for a "functional" one.

What do you mean by a functional account of sex? I would also reject the chromosomal account because of intersex cases.
 

I mean that the sexes are defined by reference to the role they play in reproduction. There are, of course, infertile people; sometimes that is a result of sexual ambiguity and sometimes it is not. In the latter cases, at least, there are still organs that have some function in reproduction even if, by some accident, reproduction is not possible. In other cases it is probably hard to come up with a criterion for determining sex.

I'm not sure that I take intersex cases themselves to be a reason to reject a chromosomal account. My concern is more about certain conditions where someone has XY chromosomes but the Y chromosome has always been inactive, so everything appears female. (I think there are cases where the person is fertile, on a bimonthly basis.) A chromosomal account says that person is male.

One could think that intersex cases render the sex binary untenable; the sexes (however their defined) have to include both, none, or some sort of spectrum. But I think that is just to put too much stress on non-focal cases.

     Thread Starter
 

7/01/2016 2:01 pm  #8


Re: Sex and Gender

iwpoe wrote:

The reason, by the way, that this is showing up now on "the left" is the effect of what is sometimes called "the oppression olympics". It seems pretty obvious that since gay marriage was achieved, there has to be a place to put to work all the sexual-liberation institutions, rhetoric, and enthusiasm, so people go looking for a "more oppressed" group to apply them to.

A friend recently pointed me toward a blog post on this topic, though it has more to do with the eagerness with which groups argue that they are, in fact, the least privileged.

It's struck me, as protests and lists of demands have cropped up at America's universities, that part of the aim is to justify the continued existence of institutions of and expertise in sexual liberation. It is demanded that universities hire larger and larger groups of social justice professionals to run safe spaces and such. And the goal will be for similar roles to be developed, where they haven't been already, in lower education and in industries. Because what else are you going to do with your _______ Studies major?

iwpoe wrote:

I think most trans and trans supporters get hung up on the idea of "gender role"- the set of generally expected behaviors for their gender -rather than on some spurious or loaded notion of gender. One often doesn't seem to feel like a girl (or what have you), just as such, but has the experience of desiring non-gender appropriate behaviors, being socially corrected in that desire, and rebelling in later life. I mean, I myself have been accused of some level of effeminacy simply for being slim and aloof. It's not a hard leap of imagination to see how I might think, given a few degrees more of non-standard behavior, that I'd be more socially comfortable in the role of a woman.

I think this is right, and it is what gender dysphoria has to come down to: a certain profile of desires for occupying one gender role, frustrated because one is socially required to occupy the other.

     Thread Starter
 

7/01/2016 2:19 pm  #9


Re: Sex and Gender

I'm willing to think that there is a basic (primary?) gender dysmorphia where there is a direct misperception of the body or something like that (as when a person who is anorexic sees themselves as fat when they are emaciated), but that doesn't fit many stories one hears.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

7/01/2016 2:38 pm  #10


Re: Sex and Gender

Someone told me that many of the accounts are kind of like that: someone looks in a mirror and feels "alienated" from his/her body, as though it is "the wrong sex." (The accounts are supposed to be similar to people with body integrity identity disorder, where people look at their limbs and feel as though they are not theirs.)

I'm not sure whether that is accurate, though. I wanted to see if there is a repository of interviews with trans people, or something, that I could consult.

Ray Blanchard distinguishedbetween what he saw as two different sorts of transsexualism. He thought some transsexuals were just homosexual men; these were the ones who "felt" like they were women "from birth." He called the other class autogynephiles, and thought that transsexualism had a later onset; they, basically, are just sexually attracted to the idea of themselves as women. His work is somewhat controversial, I understand. (I think he suggested that the desire for homosexual transsexuals to transition usually passed; so his work could be taken to suggest that early transitioning is unwise. The notion of an autogynephile is also reductive; activists want to say that Caitlyn Jenner is really a woman, and that's some sort of deep fact about Caitlyn Jenner; they don't want to say that Caitlyn Jenner is just a man with a particular, uncommon sexual fantasy.)

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum