Article: Men are the weakest sex

[Kenneth Hyde]

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.

 

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.

 

Ken

 

From: International Gender and Language Association
[mailto:GALA-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of MJ Hardman
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 3:45 PM
To: GALA-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: [GALA-L] Article: Men are the weakest sex

 

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.

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.

MJ

On 12/7/08 2:57 PM, "Bryan James Gordon" <linguista at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

Well, this is simply appalling.

* 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.

* 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".

* Complaint of reduction of gene pool furthers indexical links of
reproductive irresponsibility with respect to homosexuality.

* 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.

* Repeated mention of penis size confirms that penis size is oh-so
important.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

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. 

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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gala-l/attachments/20081212/26a926e3/attachment.htm>