<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<title>Re: [GALA-L] Article: Men are the weakest sex</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Goudy Old Style";
panose-1:2 2 5 2 5 3 5 2 3 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Goudy Old Style","serif";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style","serif";
color:blue'>Given that the use of “gender” as a euphemism for “sex”
predates the modern linguistic expansion of “gender” to refer to
self-defined, language-specific noun classes (such as the multiple genders of
Bantu languages), I hardly see how we can maintain a sense of peeved-ness.
For example, although the OED doesn’t give a date for the broad
linguistic use (they merely refer to “recent philologists”), they
do have attested uses of “gender” for “sex” going back
to the 1300s. The sociological meaning (of gender as a construct without
a necessary relationship to physiological sex) seems to go back to the 1960s at
least. And since the word derives from a historical root that was
polysemic in the extreme, I don’t see how we can claim that it was “ours”
originally.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style","serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style","serif";
color:blue'>None of which should be construed as an apologist position on the
article under discussion. I agree that it is appalling. Just that MJ’s
pet peeve triggered one of my pet peeves, and I had some rare spare time to
respond to it. =) Besides, I think that, as gender theorists, it’s
incumbent on us, more than on others, to occasionally revisit our roots and
make sure we are still on a good path.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style","serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style","serif";
color:blue'>Ken<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style","serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> International Gender and Language
Association [mailto:GALA-L@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] <b>On Behalf Of </b>MJ
Hardman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, December 07, 2008 3:45 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> GALA-L@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GALA-L] Article: Men are the weakest sex<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>A
pet peeve of mine: 'gender' is a linguistics term which refers to a
grammatically marked noun-class (mostly overt, sometimes covert) which may or
may not have anything to do with sex. Genders may depend on shape, animacy,
humanity and a host of other things, none of them having anything to do with
sex.<br>
<br>
And then, as I remember from a child, the horrible word S-E-X could not be said
out loud, so the word 'gender' was imported from linguistics, since English
(and IE in general) gender is sex-based, to use as euphemism. Well!
We lost the word and now it means 'sex' to most people. Appalling
indeed. On both counts, the one above and the one below.<br>
<br>
MJ<br>
<br>
On 12/7/08 2:57 PM, "Bryan James Gordon" <linguista@GMAIL.COM>
wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Well, this is simply appalling.<br>
<br>
* Use of the word "gender" to refer to both gendered behaviours such
as playing with dolls and tea sets, and the biological "gender" of
various animals at risk from chemicals.<br>
<br>
* Use of the word "gender-bender" furthers indexical links of
perversity and corruption with respect to transpeople, drag queens,
genderqueers, and even ordinary tomboys and "sensitive men".<br>
<br>
* Complaint of reduction of gene pool furthers indexical links of reproductive
irresponsibility with respect to homosexuality.<br>
<br>
* Considering the extant studies linking "gender-deviant" behaviour
such as boys playing with tea sets to adult homosexuality and transgenderism,
the Rotterdam study is an instrument the writer is using to deliberately link
chemical-medical deviance to these phenomena. Apparently, it's not our fault
we're queer, and we should just be tolerated while the researchers figure out a
chemical way to ensure proper gendering of future generations.<br>
<br>
* Repeated mention of penis size confirms that penis size is oh-so important.<br>
<br>
* In conjunction with the gendered revulsion associated with small penisses in
our culture is the fear tactic of repeated mention of "feminised
genitalia", without ever defining what exactly that means.<br>
<br>
* Continual mention of statistics of "male" deformities among various
species without any mention of the extent to which these statistics deviate
from the pre-exposure norm.<br>
<br>
* Serious information structure buried in passage about polar bears:
"hermaphrodite polar bears – with penises and vaginas – have
been discovered and gender-benders have been found to reduce sperm counts and
penis lengths in those that remained male". The word "remained"
indicates a presupposition that the presence of a penis and a vagina
characterises a non-male. Therefore, the writer assumes that these
hermaphrodites are in fact not male. This means that the writer has no interest
in chromosomal sex as a purportedly Natural or Real thing underlying variation,
and instead is drawing the line at the question, "Does the body have a
penis or a vagina?" Since the OR is exclusive, the answer "both"
is not valid, and the body cannot be classified.<br>
<br>
Of course nobody's going to argue that endocrine disrupters are a good thing.
They are, in fact, baaaaad! But the overt decision to replace the term with
"gender-benders" indicates some serious screwed-uppedness. <br>
<br>
An interesting side point we may want to look at is the style of the article.
Myself, I haven't read much of the right-wing press since about 2000 or so, but
from what I recall, even the worst of the American right-wingers tend to try
for a semblance of considered, rational objectivity that has never been popular
in the UK. The UK has a very different press tradition, and although I know
very little about it, this article seems to me to have various threads of
alarmism and tabloid-like schadenfreude, even overtly placed nods towards these
styles, that less often make it into "scientific" reporting on this
side of the pond. Not to say that American objectivist BS is a good thing; it
is not! But this may partially explain this piece.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>