5 ms·

You may well say so, but it is a novel use of an existing word, which has risen to more widespread use through feminist scholarship without, as far as I can see

You may well say so, but it is a novel use of an existing word, which has risen to more widespread use through feminist scholarship without, as far as I can see, any basis in reality or good reason. From [1]: > The first title in SCI to use gender in a nongrammat- ical sense was Hermaphroditism, gender and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: Psychologic findings (Money, 1955). John Money[2], as it happens, was a sex abuser who performed experiments, sick experiments, on a pair of brothers that led to them both committing suicide. I wouldn't usually go with the genetic fallacy of dismissing an idea because of its origins, but I have no problem with it here because I see no valid point for its novel use. This quote is at the end of the Wikipedia article, and it sums him up and, perhaps, the movement that seems so desperate to use his work: > If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 12 who's intensely attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way. Edit: Additionally > If you don't have the capacity to produce functional gametes, you're asexual. Being unable to produce a gamete does not make one asexual, all humans are either male or female. If you lose your genitals in an accident that doesn't make you asexual, it means you're male or female who had an accident. Humans are bipedal but if you don't have both legs you don't stop being human either. [1] The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#Controversies [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

esarbe 3y ago
> You may well say so, but it is a novel use of an existing word, So what? The way we use words changes all the time. We discovered that we want to differentiate between the innate sexual reproductive capabilities and their expression in society, now we use words differently. That's what language does; it changes with time. > If you lose your genitals in an accident that doesn't make you asexual You don't have to go as far as accidents; menopausal woman lose their ability to produce gametes. They lose their sexual reproductive capabilities. Does it make sense to speak of a sex if you don't have sexual reproductive capabilities? Seems weird to me. Additionally; there have always been differences in how various cultures expressed sexual identity. And what seems effeminate in one society is seen as manly in another one; expression of sexual identity and sexual identity are two different things. We're not dung beetles that only have instinctive behavior; we also have cultural and individual behaviors that are added to that. That's why it makes sense to me to differentiate between sex and gender.
- brigandish 3y ago
  > So what? No one has to accept it, that’s what’s what. > You don't have to go as far as accidents; menopausal woman lose their ability to produce gametes. They lose their sexual reproductive capabilities. Does it make sense to speak of a sex if you don't have sexual reproductive capabilities? Seems weird to me. Pre-pubescent boys do not produce gametes either but that doesn’t stop them being male. A male cannot produce large gametes but may not ever produce small gametes or may never again, and the opposite for females. Whether that’s weird or not to you has no bearing on anything but your ability to process the logic, that’s the way it is.
  - esarbe 3y ago
    > No one has to accept it, that’s what’s what. Sure; language is an agreement. No one can force you to communicate clearly and if it is your desire, you can go all day long babbling nonsensical syllables. No one can stop you; do as your heart commands you. > Pre-pubescent boys do not produce gametes either but that doesn’t stop them being male. So, you're arguing that we should not only consider the current state of an organism to determine its sex but rather the normal lifecycle and what kind of gametes the organism would have produced? Sure, we can go with that, if you prefer that. Does it change anything?
    - brigandish 3y ago
      I’m not arguing anything, that is the definition, based on current understanding that just so happens to align perfectly with observations of reality. It’s going to take a miracle of the sort that starts religions to change that, although it seems that there are plenty willing to believe already.
      - esarbe 3y ago
        You might want to have a look here for the complete definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex I again ask; does it change anything?

esarbe 3y ago

> You may well say so, but it is a novel use of an existing word, So what? The way we use words changes all the time. We discovered that we want to differentiate between the innate sexual reproductive capabilities and their expression in society, now we use words differently. That's what language does; it changes with time. > If you lose your genitals in an accident that doesn't make you asexual You don't have to go as far as accidents; menopausal woman lose their ability to produce gametes. They lose their sexual reproductive capabilities. Does it make sense to speak of a sex if you don't have sexual reproductive capabilities? Seems weird to me. Additionally; there have always been differences in how various cultures expressed sexual identity. And what seems effeminate in one society is seen as manly in another one; expression of sexual identity and sexual identity are two different things. We're not dung beetles that only have instinctive behavior; we also have cultural and individual behaviors that are added to that. That's why it makes sense to me to differentiate between sex and gender.

brigandish 3y ago
> So what? No one has to accept it, that’s what’s what. > You don't have to go as far as accidents; menopausal woman lose their ability to produce gametes. They lose their sexual reproductive capabilities. Does it make sense to speak of a sex if you don't have sexual reproductive capabilities? Seems weird to me. Pre-pubescent boys do not produce gametes either but that doesn’t stop them being male. A male cannot produce large gametes but may not ever produce small gametes or may never again, and the opposite for females. Whether that’s weird or not to you has no bearing on anything but your ability to process the logic, that’s the way it is.
- esarbe 3y ago
  > No one has to accept it, that’s what’s what. Sure; language is an agreement. No one can force you to communicate clearly and if it is your desire, you can go all day long babbling nonsensical syllables. No one can stop you; do as your heart commands you. > Pre-pubescent boys do not produce gametes either but that doesn’t stop them being male. So, you're arguing that we should not only consider the current state of an organism to determine its sex but rather the normal lifecycle and what kind of gametes the organism would have produced? Sure, we can go with that, if you prefer that. Does it change anything?
  - brigandish 3y ago
    I’m not arguing anything, that is the definition, based on current understanding that just so happens to align perfectly with observations of reality. It’s going to take a miracle of the sort that starts religions to change that, although it seems that there are plenty willing to believe already.
    - esarbe 3y ago
      You might want to have a look here for the complete definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex I again ask; does it change anything?