Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!tittle
From: bloch%mandrill@ucsd.EDU (Steve Bloch)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: gender/sex (was feminist spirituality)
Message-ID: <6752@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>
Date: 5 Jul 89 05:12:35 GMT
References: <1336@cattell.psych.upenn.edu> <42102@bbn.COM> <6740@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <12411@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: Steve Bloch <bloch%mandrill.UUCP@ucsd.EDU>
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 24
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>[in response to my comment]
>Here you're confusing "sex" and "gender". The physiological differences
>(organs etc) are what define sex (as in male or female).  Gender, on the
>other hand, has been abstracted from its linguistic context to refer to
>the social and psychological manifestations of sex, i.e.  masculine and
>feminine.

Just to make sure I've got this... at first glance, this looks as
though you're DEFINING "gender" to be whatever isn't natural and
eternal, and then making a big deal about the fact that gender isn't
natural and eternal.  A second look says you're defining "gender" to
be whatever isn't physiological, which isn't quite so circular, but it
brings in the centuries-old problem of to what extent human behaviour
is determined by physiological factors.  (See Gould's _The Mismeasure
of Man_ and somebody's _The Tangled Wing_ for two views.) Can you give
me a clearer picture of where this sex/gender distinction lies?

(By "you're defining..." I don't mean to imply that this whole thing
is the fabrication of one R. Shapiro, only that you're the one telling
it to me at the moment.)

"The above opinions are my own.  But that's just my opinion."
Stephen Bloch