|From:||John Cowan <cowan@...>|
|Date:||Friday, October 23, 1998, 18:58|
Raimundus A. Brown scripsit:
> And those who discuss gender differences are concerned with whole socially
> constructed categories that may have little or no real connexion with
> biological sex. Indeed, without wishing to be at all contentious, it seems
> to me that one could have a contact who is biological 'male'but socially
> 'feminine', and likewise a socially 'masculine' contact who is biologically
Just so, but it is the gender, not the sex, categories that we usually
wish to remember, unless we are concerned with reproduction. So
I suggest that the "gender" option is correct, but should have
as values "masculine", "feminine", and an option for entering
> Indeed, it's my
> understanding (possibly wrong) that those actually concerned with "gender
> issues" in the socialogical sense are generally of the opinion that sex
> difference is an accident of birth & doesn't count for much, except in
> purely biological terms [...]
And indeed sex difference is several different things: configuration
of external organs, configuration of internal organs, configuration
of chromosomes. These usually agree but not always.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan firstname.lastname@example.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)