gender

[MaC]

A continuation of the argument between EarlAW and myself. 


His argument is that gender roles are bad because their taught by society and they hinder individuality.
(Correct me Earl if this premise isn't what you stated) or if you want to modify your position)

My argument is that even without society, that we inherently act a certain way because we're born with that knowledge, and society is bad since it promotes androgyny.

For those who've never took a basic psych class, I side with option 1, he sides with option 2

That said vote and discuss.

[A18]

Nouns: Gender
People: Sex

Anyway, obviously both sexes have different natural behavioral patterns.

[12th Doctor]

While society can influence certain norms on the sperate sexes, the differences between the two are clearly deep rooted and biologicaly inherited.

[Richard]

Nouns: Gender
People: Sex

HAHAHAHA, correct.

I voted nature.

[opebo]

Nurture, obviously.

[Hatman 🍁]

Actually, I am more in the middle ground, but leaning towards nurture. I know there are quite a few things that are genetic, biological and inate. But when it comes to basic gender roles, most roles are nurture, rather than nature. 

[The Dowager Mod]

A little of both?

[Gabu]

I can't really vote in the poll because I personally think that there's a little of both.  There obviously are innate differences between the sexes that aren't going to go away no matter how much we try.  For example, men naturally have more muscle mass than women.  Some women who are extremely fit can certainly have more muscle mass than your average man, but this is abnormal.  Also, men tend to have intelligences nearer to the extremes (either really bright or really stupid), while women tend to have intelligences that are more moderate (neither brilliant nor moronic).

However, I personally reject the notion that every single difference is purely natural and innate in being male or female.  For example, fifty or sixty years ago it was the norm that women were one of three things: schoolteachers, housewives, or nurses.  In the 1960s, it was greatly frowned upon when women like my mother pursued things other than these three paths.  In the 1930s, women like my grandmother were flatly told that they were not even allowed to pursue any path other than these.  My grandmother recounted how she went to a person and said that she wanted to be a doctor, and that person told her in a matter-of-fact sort of voice, "No, you don't.  You want to be a nurse," and that was that.

In those days it was completely assumed that women naturally just stay at home and care for kids and take care of their husbands.  Yet when the stigmata associated with women doing something other than these three things finally began to wane, women participation in other fields greatly increased over what it used to be.  Although it certainly didn't equal male participation in many fields, it was nevertheless there, and gave trouble to those who would argue that women simply didn't want to do those things.

When things are so heavily deep-rooted in a society that they seem like they're just completely natural, it can be extremely hard to tell what is actually natural and what only seems that way because it's so prevalent.

[Hatman 🍁]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm pretty sure both sexes have the same intelligence quotient range, so I would have to disagree with you there.

Otherwise, I agree with you completely Gabu. Gender roles are shaped by society, with the help of some biologicial differences.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm pretty sure both sexes have the same intelligence quotient range, so I would have to disagree with you there.

Oh, there are obviously women who are either really bright or really stupid too.  They're just not as prevalent.  I read an interesting study once that said that the genetic factor behind intelligence is closely linked to the X chromosome in humans.  Since men have only one X chromosome, they are more likely to have an intelligence at one of the extremes than women, who have a second X chromosome to dampen the effects of the first.  The study offered this as an explanation for why the vast majority (thought certainly not all) of the people in history hailed as "extremely brilliant" were men.  It also offered this as an explanation for why the vast majority of those in the group stereotyped as "dumb jocks" are also men.

[Hatman 🍁]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm pretty sure both sexes have the same intelligence quotient range, so I would have to disagree with you there.

Oh, there are obviously women who are either really bright or really stupid too.  They're just not as prevalent.  I read an interesting study once that said that the genetic factor behind intelligence is closely linked to the X chromosome in humans.  Since men have only one X chromosome, they are more likely to have an intelligence at one of the extremes than women, who have a second X chromosome to dampen the effects of the first.  The study offered this as an explanation for why the vast majority (thought certainly not all) of the people in history hailed as "extremely brilliant" were men.  It also offered this as an explanation for why the vast majority of those in the group stereotyped as "dumb jocks" are also men.

What about "dumb blondes"? And, while it hasnt happened in the past, because historically women were not supposed to act intelligentaly, we are seeing some very smart women coming out of the wood works. In fact, take high schools for example. Girls are now testing much better then men. And most of the smartest kids in the class were girls.

[minionofmidas]

Both.

[Beet]

Nouns: Gender
People: Sex

HAHAHAHA, correct.

I voted nature.

Actuall, they are interchangeable. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

3. a. The condition of being female or male; sex.
    b. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.

In reply to the question, its obviously both.

[Emsworth]

Nouns: Gender
People: Sex

HAHAHAHA, correct.

I voted nature.

Actuall, they are interchangeable.

Indeed, although I believe that "sex" is preferable in a scientific context.

[dazzleman]

Mostly nature, some nurture.

[Schmitz in 1972]

I'm going it's some of both but it's more nature.

[A18]

Nouns: Gender
People: Sex

HAHAHAHA, correct.

I voted nature.

Actuall, they are interchangeable.

Indeed, although I believe that "sex" is preferable in a scientific context.

If people misuse a word enough, the definition gets put in the dictionary. Doesn't mean much.

[Gabu]

If people misuse a word enough, the definition gets put in the dictionary. Doesn't mean much.

What it does mean is that you're fighting a lost cause.   Languages are always evolving.

[Richard]

Nouns: Gender
People: Sex

HAHAHAHA, correct.

I voted nature.

Actuall, they are interchangeable. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

3. a. The condition of being female or male; sex.
    b. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.

In reply to the question, its obviously both.

My OED disagrees.  And the OED is the only authority on English.  It may have started to become more acceptable, but that is no excuse for bad English.

[Hatman 🍁]

I thought sex was what your genitals were, and gender was what your "nature" was.

[Gabu]

I thought sex was what your genitals were, and gender was what your "nature" was.

Dictionary.com has the following usage note with regards to "gender" and "sex":

Usage Note: Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as “gender gap” and the “politics of gender.” This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say “The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient,” but “In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined.” This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.

Traditionalists (like someone here) will tell you that it's bad English to use "gender" instead of "sex" to refer to the set of sexual organs an organism has, but personally, enough people do it that I don't really have much of a problem with it, and I'm usually quite a pedant when it comes to English.  I'm sure that tons of people hated it when "cool" first began to mean "something for which you have favorable feelings", but now it's standard usage in casual chatter.  My personal take on it is that language is for communication, and if what you're saying facilitates communication as easy as anything else would, it's fine by me.

[Hatman 🍁]

Well the definition I used is the one I had to put on various tests in both high school and univsersity. I've heard it in my grade 11 sociology class, and in 2 university classes I have had. It must be those liberal teachers feeding me leftist propoganda

[Gabu]

Well the definition I used is the one I had to put on various tests in both high school and univsersity. I've heard it in my grade 11 sociology class, and in 2 university classes I have had. It must be those liberal teachers feeding me leftist propoganda

Well, in casual conversation, I have basically two tests for whether a word should be used or not:

Will everyone involved know what I'm talking about if I use this word?  Will people understand what I'm saying better if I use a different word?

If the answers are "yes" and "no", respectively, then I'd say go for it.  I don't care about keeping a language sacred; all I care about is that everyone understands what I'm saying.

[DanielX]

Nouns: Gender
People: Sex

Anyway, obviously both sexes have different natural behavioral patterns.

Of course, in German, a young lady has no sex, but a turnip does... (Paraphrasing Mark Twain)

[MaC]

It must be those liberal teachers feeding me leftist propoganda

pfft. No wonder you consider yourself a feminist.