"Gender has NOTHING to do with Sex"

[Zylka]

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?

[Verto]

Where's my soft-core porn?

[Jon Miller]

I look forward to male mothers!

go arnold go

JM

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Verto
Where's my soft-core porn?

Off topic. Entirely.

Please, for the love of God please, let me shed my responsibilities in LLLLLLLLOOOOOOlllLLLmmmmmmmmmaaaoRRFF threads to be part of something shock free. At least every once in a while.

[Jon Miller]

basically, I think she is somewhat correct (like blue for example)

and somewhat wrong (like mothers for example)

in otherwords, I think our sex (physics characteristics) impacts our behaviors, but maybe not in all areas (some being contructs)

as for which is which, besides some obvious ones, I don't know

JM

[Jon Miller]

some people view

man:
physicist

which makes some women (Admitly weird) feel like they are wrongly gendered, or something

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

"The female/male roles and gender imagery we know today are completely random and arbitrarily arrived definitions, as far as Sex is concerned"

I think she's part wrong and part right. At some point, the biology does have an impact on gender roles. Testosterone and Estrogen does create differences in the mindsets of both sexes.

However, this doesn't mean that it is a solid line. There are plenty of females who are aggressive and do things on the 'male' gender track and many males who are more passive and do things on the 'female' gender track.

Though assigning sex to gender (for anything) should not be used to dispute the equality of the sexes.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Sounds like your prof is maddingly doctrinaire, or dumbing things down for the students, or most likely both.

Gender is obviously linked to sex, in that it is a set of social constructions rooted in social expectations of the sexes. Gender is not a natural product of biological sex -- hence "social construction" -- and that may be what she means, but that's a sloppy way of saying it.

[OzzyKP]

Nature vs. Nurture.

She is saying everything is a social construct, while clearly there is some of both and the two influence each other. I think your example was a good one.

Classic feminist who is going too far in one direction to overcompensate for the tilt over many past generations too far in the other direction. Tell her to find some balance.

And shave her damn legs.

[chequita guevara]

Gender is a social role, yes. Consider that in different cultures around the world, men and women have differing characteristics. For example, in Iran, men are considered the ones who let their emotions all hang out, while women are considered cold emotionally. Men read poetry while women take care fo family finances, etc.

Of course, some things are near universal. Men still are the bread winners, women still take care of children. The only society where this was an exception was in the Trobriand Isles, if Margret Mead is to be believed, and some accuse her of fudging her data. While there is some movement towards role swapping (men staying home, women bringing home the bacon) in Western socioety, it is by far the exception, and not the norm.

Now, I don't think it's wrong to have genders or even to have expected roles in society based on sex differences. What is wrong is coercing people into behaving according to them and punishing those who act differently.

Sexism and homophobia are both aspects of this, two parts of a larger heterosexism. Those who don't play their roles are punished to greater or lesser degrees. While in terms of nuturing and breadwining, it's mostly pyschological, with people made to feel as though they are lesser men or women for not chosing a particular role, for homosexuals it can be deadly. Nor was it that long ago that women in Western society who refused to conform were "allowed" to be raped in order to put them back in their places.

Remember what it was like when we were children. A boy marked as a "sissy" was not only subject to social ostracization, but was also an acceptable target for violence.

[Zylka]

basically, I think she is somewhat correct (like blue for example)

and somewhat wrong (like mothers for example)

in otherwords, I think our sex (physics characteristics) impacts our behaviors, but maybe not in all areas (some being contructs)

as for which is which, besides some obvious ones, I don't know

JM

Absolutely Jon.. but what she's actually asserting (in example) - is that Women putting on lipstick is an accepted Gender trait on a completely random basis. That the initial development of the practise had no connection to sexual traits or imagery whatsoever.

I would personally argue (as I've been taught from various Discovery channel / National Geographic Health programs on the sexes) - that the practise of lipsticking is a means of getting attention via sexual association.

More definitively, that lipsticking came about in subtle, perhaps subconscious symbolization of the fuller, more deeply colored female genetalia when aroused.

I also argue that while Blue for boys is indeed a fairly random and non connected Gender trait, that Pink for girls has sexual connotations just as vivid as the aforementioned. Am I really that much of a G-D pervert, or does this kind of stuff actually have bearing in reality for anyone else???

[Jon Miller]

I think that there is large bits that are sexual imagery..

but might sexual imagery change, dependent on the society? (in a society where few men see female genetalia for example)

JM

[chequita guevara]

Yes, you are that much of a ****ing pervert, but you are also correct.

[chequita guevara]

I don't think it's random at all. The purpose of makeup is to make someone look fertile, and the red of lipstick is intended to do exactly what you think, Zylka.

You'd think the professor would have some historical data.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zylka
I also argue that while Blue for boys is indeed a fairly random and non connected Gender trait, that Pink for girls has sexual connotations just as vivid as the aforementioned. Am I really that much of a G-D pervert, or does this kind of stuff actually have bearing in reality for anyone else???

You may owe her an apology on that one. In the 19th century, pink was considered a color for baby boys, and blue a color for baby girls.

I've no idea why, although it could be pink=look of active health among pale Norther Europe types and activity=maleness. But that's sheer speculation.