That is a concept we are expected to accept in a University course I'm currently taking. The course is an Urban Studies requirement called "The Gendered City"; with fairly general status - more or less regarded as a second year class.
We first went over the lesser assertion that "Gender does not equal Sex". I imagine near anyone is able to accept such idea by dividing the two terms into independent definitions:
Gender - Set(s) of roles and symbolic imagery attributed to each sex
Sex - Biological physicality defining a human as Man or Woman
Ie.) for Sex - in defining the term on the most visible scale (duality of Man and Woman)
Male:
-Penis & Testes. Lack of (feeding capable) breasts
-Reproduces genes by insemination
-[More] Testosterone; and all physical attributes associated with the chemical (Larger, higher muscle mass, squarer chin and leaner face, [More] bodily and facial hair, etc.)
Female:
-Vagina, Ovaries & Uterus. (Feeding capable) breasts
-Reproduces genes by facilitating birth
-[More] Estrogen; and all physical attributes associated with the chemical (Smaller, higher proportion of fat mass, more rounded, softer face, [Less] bodily and facial hair, etc.)
Ie.) for Gender - in defining the term on scale of what has been widely accepted in the past and/or present as a gender trait
Man:
The Color Blue
Breadwinners
Hunters
Aggressive
Woman:
The Color Pink
Mothers
Nurturers
Passive / Gentle
[...]
Regarding both those lists, most will likely agree that the definition of Gender is full of polarized traits that are much more random and arbitrarily defined than the traits in Sex. Most would just as likely degree that the traits in gender differ in that they are interchangeable. Yet getting back to the title quote of this thread.. Our Proffessor seems to hope that our class comes to "realization" that those traits (and others) under Gender, have NO binding, route, or exaggerative form of any trait that can be found in Sex.
Knowing there was a similar thread a while back discussing Gender vs. Sex, it would still be wonderful to refresh and explore new ideas regarding the problematic definition. To explore such in a challenging way, it would obviously be great to hear from minds like Che, St. Leo, and Zkribbler. Hopefully there are others out there who can shed light on perspectives that lean in similar fashion.
In my own, off top of the head example for class challenging her assertion - I pointed out cosmetic leg shaving as a Gender trait which exaggerates the Sex based feminine form of [less] body hair.
Though with that, and with tons of like examples from the class - the Proffessor had gone on to say that such traits are "so interchangeable" and dynamic (ie - it can and may be applied as male Gender trait in the future); that Gender and Sex therefore still have nothing to do with each other. "The female/male roles and gender imagery we know today are completely random and arbitrarily arrived definitions, as far as Sex is concerned"
Do you agree? What is this teacher aiming at? Her definition of both Sex and Gender seem not to differentiate from that described above. So how do you, yourself, perceive the notion?
We first went over the lesser assertion that "Gender does not equal Sex". I imagine near anyone is able to accept such idea by dividing the two terms into independent definitions:
Gender - Set(s) of roles and symbolic imagery attributed to each sex
Sex - Biological physicality defining a human as Man or Woman
Ie.) for Sex - in defining the term on the most visible scale (duality of Man and Woman)
Male:
-Penis & Testes. Lack of (feeding capable) breasts
-Reproduces genes by insemination
-[More] Testosterone; and all physical attributes associated with the chemical (Larger, higher muscle mass, squarer chin and leaner face, [More] bodily and facial hair, etc.)
Female:
-Vagina, Ovaries & Uterus. (Feeding capable) breasts
-Reproduces genes by facilitating birth
-[More] Estrogen; and all physical attributes associated with the chemical (Smaller, higher proportion of fat mass, more rounded, softer face, [Less] bodily and facial hair, etc.)
Ie.) for Gender - in defining the term on scale of what has been widely accepted in the past and/or present as a gender trait
Man:
The Color Blue
Breadwinners
Hunters
Aggressive
Woman:
The Color Pink
Mothers
Nurturers
Passive / Gentle
[...]
Regarding both those lists, most will likely agree that the definition of Gender is full of polarized traits that are much more random and arbitrarily defined than the traits in Sex. Most would just as likely degree that the traits in gender differ in that they are interchangeable. Yet getting back to the title quote of this thread.. Our Proffessor seems to hope that our class comes to "realization" that those traits (and others) under Gender, have NO binding, route, or exaggerative form of any trait that can be found in Sex.
Knowing there was a similar thread a while back discussing Gender vs. Sex, it would still be wonderful to refresh and explore new ideas regarding the problematic definition. To explore such in a challenging way, it would obviously be great to hear from minds like Che, St. Leo, and Zkribbler. Hopefully there are others out there who can shed light on perspectives that lean in similar fashion.
In my own, off top of the head example for class challenging her assertion - I pointed out cosmetic leg shaving as a Gender trait which exaggerates the Sex based feminine form of [less] body hair.
Though with that, and with tons of like examples from the class - the Proffessor had gone on to say that such traits are "so interchangeable" and dynamic (ie - it can and may be applied as male Gender trait in the future); that Gender and Sex therefore still have nothing to do with each other. "The female/male roles and gender imagery we know today are completely random and arbitrarily arrived definitions, as far as Sex is concerned"
Do you agree? What is this teacher aiming at? Her definition of both Sex and Gender seem not to differentiate from that described above. So how do you, yourself, perceive the notion?
Comment