Human Sex and Gender

The topic of human sex and gender is a large one, and one that is infectious in it's spread, yet necessary to be discussed. So, to avoid major derails in other threads here in the OTC, as well as to allow for the open discussion of the issue, I am creating this thread to discuss the issue.

---

First, I feel that I should distinguish between sex and gender. I shall be achieving this by first giving a dictionary definition of both from various sources, and, then, giving a practical distinction.

• Sex:
  • Oxford Dictionary: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:
  • Merriam-Webster: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
  • dictionary.com: either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.

• Gender:
  • Oxford Dictionary: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):
  • Merriam-Webster: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
  • dictionary.com: No differentiation between sex and gender.

• A practical guide:
  • Sex: A set of classes differentiated by the differences in certain characteristics, most of which directly relate to the act of sex, in an individual.
  • Gender: A set of classes differentiated by what sex an individual perceives oneself to be, regardless of such a sex is possible, or occurs commonly in nature.

---

Next, I feel I should differentiate between the different sexes and genders commonly seen in people.

• Sexes:
  • Male: This is the sex that is defined by the individual having a penis, and lacking a vagina and prominent breasts.
  • Female: This is the sex that is defined by the individual having a vagina and prominent breasts, and lacking a penis.
  • Intersex: This is the sex that is defined by having some combination of the features of males and females.

• Gender:
  • Male: This is the gender that is defined by the individual perceiving himself to be of the male sex.
  • Female: This is the gender that is defined by the individual perceiving herself to be of the female sex.
  • Androgyny: This is the gender that is defined by the individual perceiving xirself as being a mixture of the male and female sexes.
  • Third Gender: This is the gender that is defined by the individual perceiving xirself as being of a sex unrelated to the male and female sex.
  • Multigender: This is the gender that is defined by the individual perceiving themselves as being of multiple genders at once.
    • Bigender: This is the gender that is defined by the individual perceiving themselves as being of two genders at the same time. This is a subset of multigender.
  • Agender: This is the class that is defined by a lack of any gender whatsoever.
  • Gender fluid: This is the gender that is defined by an individuals gender changing frequently.
  • Gender queer: This is the super-class that includes all genders that are not male or female.

---

Finally, I feel I should define the many terms that are used to differentiate the relation between sex and gender:

• Cisgender: This is the state in which an individual's sex and gender are the same.
• Transgender: This is the state in which an individual's sex and gender are opposite on the male-female continuum.
  • MtF: This is a type of transgenderism in which an individual's sex is male and gender is female.
  • FtM: This is a type of transgenderism in which an individual's sex is female and gender is male.
• Gender dysphoria: This is the state in which there is a discrepancy between sex and gender.

---

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Points of discussion? Questions about sex or gender? Points of confusion where you would like clarification on?

edited 21st Aug '12 3:59:15 AM by deathpigeon

Since this is more relevant to ths thread I will reply it here:

I am of the opinion that "it" covers everything from the "unknown gender" to "any gender" rather than just agender. Until English develops a word that can cover all that I think "it" is the best substitute for now.

edited 21st Aug '12 5:20:22 AM by IraTheSquire

"It" Is Dehumanizing.

S/he, him/her, his/hers are more neutrally acceptable. The most optimal term would be they, them, their.

edited 21st Aug '12 5:23:47 AM by KingZeal

To me the problem is the potential for inaccuracy. You can increase the chance that you will be accurate by saying he/she, and maximize it with he/she/it/they/xe.

I also have a problem with the trope "It" Is Dehumanizing as that sort of attitude can create an attitude of viewing agender people as less than human.

I also have many problems with the singular they, as I find it to be inaccurate, imprecise, inelegant, and unnecessary.

edited 21st Aug '12 5:27:01 AM by deathpigeon

Language doesn't work that way. Since the more apparent problem is the lack of the English language's ability to be truly gender-neutral, using a term originally intended for non-humans to describe the gender-neutral doesn't make it the word's fault.

In other words, wanting to expand the meaning of "it" is fine, but it questions why it's necessary in the first place. That would be like wanting to change the meaning of the word "monkey" so that it includes black people.

Singular they seems fine to me. :3 Appropriating a part of the language that was always there means easier for others to get used to. :3 Plus it's not like it any more ambiguous than every other part of the English language. :p

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᔪᐃᑦᑐᖅ

I can't even imagine how that spectrum would work out in, say, Russian, where a lot more words carry the gender.

But that interpretation of the word it isn't supported by the Oxford Dictionary, the Merrian-Webster, nor the dictionary.com definitions of the word. In fact, my proposed area of usage for the word would be more restrictive than the definitions given by those three sources as all three of them support Ira's use of it as an indefinite pronoun, while I find it to be needlessly imprecise and inaccurate, when used in that way.

edited 21st Aug '12 5:38:26 AM by deathpigeon

It doesn't matter. If the word "goggle" started being used as an epithet at some point in the future, that definition being excluded from the dictionary wouldn't make it less of an insult.

edited 21st Aug '12 5:44:47 AM by KingZeal

@Zeal: No, the thing is, you were saying that I'd have to expand the meaning of the word "it" to make "it" apply to agender people, which was what I was arguing against. The way you put it, what I was doing was twisting the language to include a definition of it that wasn't present, but it is present. That's also the basic premise behind why "It" Is Dehumanizing. It's not like expanding the word monkey to include black people, it's like referring to a calculator as a computer, it's not a common usage, but it is an accepted one.

More accurately, then, it's like referring to women (adult human female) in general as "girls", "females" or "dames".

Even if the word is accurate, the context changes the meaning. The worst thing you can do with a word is assuming it is removed from context.

edited 21st Aug '12 6:17:16 AM by KingZeal

Actually, I'd say that is a less accurate comparison as girls, females, and dames are all words that only refer to women, while computer refers to many things other than calculators as well, and it can refer to many things other than agender people as well. In addition, girls, females, nor dames are used with low enough frequency that women aren't generally the first thing you think about when you think about girls, females, and dames, while, with both computers and it, calculator and agender people aren't generally the first thing to come to mind, yet both are accepted meanings of the words. In addition, while I do agree that context means a lot to a words definition, the context of this situation is that it is a gender neutral pronoun, and agender people are gender neutral, and all other pronouns aren't gender neutral, so they aren't respecting the agender person's gender identity.

Also, and this is the clincher, for me, I know for a fact that there is a sub-set of agender people, though I don't know enough to give an accurate representation of how big said subset is when compared to the super-set of agender people, that definitely prefers to be referred to with the pronoun of "it" over any other.

That last part doesn't matter. There's a lot of black people who liked to be called "my nigga" because it's a form of informality. That doesn't mean it's good practice to assume that we should start calling every black person that.

And especially when you say this:

Human beings, in general, are not called "it" with enough frequency that the context will automatically be assumed to not foster ill intent. Especially when the EXACT same word can be used to dehumanize them. Going back to black people, part of the reason "negro" fell out of favor was the easy way it could be slurred to sound like "nigger".

In short, there's zero reason to use "it" at this point as opposed to finding a better term.

edited 21st Aug '12 6:33:02 AM by KingZeal

But how would you know unless you ask every single person how they'd like to be addressed? Some people would even be offended at even asking the question...

But you don't always need to use gender-specific words in conversation anyway: For example, instead of "How are You?" what about "How are things?" — or is too Imprecise?

And I get the feeling most people can't be bothered with things like this — they're more concerned with getting by in life day-to-day...

edited 21st Aug '12 6:42:53 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

The last part is the most important part. If people wish to be referred to with the pronoun "it", then the person should be referred to with the pronoun "it", regardless of any misgivings you may have with the usage of the pronoun.

Human beings are referred to as it with enough frequency that it doesn't seem out of place to refer to people with the pronoun of "it". In addition, generally, you won't know someone is agender unless they tell you, so an agender individual will almost always know when you know that it is agender, so it will likely be able to assume that you are not using it in a derogatory sense.

I do either always ask the person, get told their gender in a way that makes what pronoun the person wishes to be referred to, like being told that the person is female would tell me that they should be referred to as "she", or use the indefinite pronoun "he/she".

Of course you don't, and that's hardly imprecise, but pronouns are gender specific, so it would be inaccurate to refer to someone by the wrong pronoun, and some forms of indefinite pronoun usage are imprecise.

I fail to see how this is inapplicable to day to day activity, or even that hard. You refer to a person by the pronoun he/she/it/they/xe wishes to be referred to with, and, if you don't know, just ask or use something indefinite, like he/she.

There is a Third Option — use none of them and use other forms, like First Name Terms, Last Name Terms or just try not to refer to gender at all by sacificing accuracy in conversation. That's the other way.

Keep Rolling On

But you can't know what people want to be called unless you ask them first. You don't just assume they want to be called "it".

Citation Needed. Where is your basis for this?

That's circumstantial. People use the term "it" to refer to transgender people often, and often in a dehumanizing manner. Also, there are many other reasons to dehumanize someone that have nothing to do with sexuality or gender orientation.

That way is much more impractical, and just leads to awkward wordings. Like, "Hello, Jane. How is Smith today? I heard Smith was having a hard time with his divorce. I was hoping to give Smith some condolences." Speaking like that just comes off as weird and awkward.

But I do generally ask the person I'm referring to, first. I assume nothing.

Dictionaries arrange the meanings for words by how commonly they are used, with the most common being first, and least common being last. In the Oxford Dictionary, the second definition is "used to identify a person:", in the Merrian-Webster, the first definition is " that one —used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually in reference to a lifeless thing <took a quick look at the house and noticed it was very old>, a plant <there is a rosebush near the fence and it is now blooming>, a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded <don't know who it is>, a group of individuals or things, or an abstract entity <beauty is everywhere and it is a source of joy>" (emphasis mine), and on dictionary.com, the second definition is "(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.".

That is completely beside the point. Using "it" to refer to a transgender person is not what I was advocating, or even speaking about. I was talking about using "it" to refer to agender people. Completely different situations.

So we're hamstrung by the limitations of the English language then?

"Yup. That tasted purple."

I have a feeling I'm the only one here who has never met a transsexual or a transgendered person. I'm starting to feel rather backward.

Well, there is a man on my street who dresses in woman's clothing but that's a different kettle of fish.

Basically.

That would be gender expression, rather than gender identity.

You're not alone. I've never met one either.

I know plenty of gay people, but not one trans/agender, as far as I know.

Then again I have a limited social circle and I'm as perceptive as a brick so who knows.

I don't think I've ever actually met anyone like that.

"Yup. That tasted purple."

I had a M—>F teacher in college. She had gone through all the steps of the reassignment up to the restructuring, and may have gone through that too...I wasn't particularly interested in finding out.

edited 21st Aug '12 10:03:46 AM by Willbyr

How did the students react to her?