The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Are there only two genders/sexes?in Science

Fredsnephew

@WilliamSchulz ;

Transgenderism. Is a modern possibility. 

Facilitated by modern medical and surgical capabilities.

Transgenderism is not relative to the question:    "Are there only two genders/sexes?" 

Neither are bathrooms relative to this question.

GrahamNoble

Lets get some things straight first.  Gender and sex are 2 different terms.  Gender is defined as being either male or female, but is used more as a social reference than a biological reference.  Sex is defined as being male or female, which is determined based on their reproductive functions.  Now, once that is said and done, lets get into my argumentative point.

Yes, there can technically be more than two genders.  Gender is a social classification, which means it is liquid and can change with the society.  If society says there are more than two genders then there are more than two genders.  If society says there are only two genders then there are only two genders.  This is not a concept that is set in stone so, if the majority chooses so, the concept can change.

In regards to sex, there are only three different classifications someone can preside under: male, female, and hermaphrodite.  Since a hermaphrodite has both active male and female sex organs, the only way a Homo sapien sapien would be classified as a hermaphrodite would be because of an extremely abnormal genetic mutation, so I'm going to leave that out and focus on the overwhelming majority.  The only categories that Homo sapiens can be classified as are male and female.  This is down to the genealogy, with whether someone is born with XY chromosomes or not.  Since genes are being researched every day, this fact is approved by scientists around the world and is being used as the basis for a lot of genealogy studies.  The fact is that there are drastic differences between the male and female genomes, which is why they are classified separately.  If scientists a third group of people with a genome drastically different than male and female genomes, then they would add another sex.  At the moment there are only these two sexes because there is only proof of two sexes.

eweber18

There are two genders.  For all of human existence until now, nobody ever questioned their gender.  In today's world, people look for their own problems to have because of the lack of adversity in modern culture.  If science is taken into account for everything else in the world, one cannot disregard it when talking about the number of genders that a person can be. 

scharles18

The definition of gender is "The state of being either male or female" therefore you have to be one or the other even if you think you're something else, I could wholeheartedly think I'm an octopus but that doesn't change my biological features. 

asmithmier18

I would say biologically there are 2 sexes (male and female), but your gender is how you define yourself, which doesn't necessarily have to be the same as your sex.  Physically, you can have female reproductive organs, but you could identify as male if that is how you see yourself and how you feel most comfortable.  So no, I do not think there are two genders because there are many ways people can identify themselves, but I would say there are 2 sexes.

landerson18

There are only two sexes, male and female. 
Gender is not a social construct, nor is it disconnected from sex. 
Gender (and sex) is not malleable. 
There are only two genders. 

Varrack

No. However, a distinction between gender and sex must be made before we can answer this.

Gender: "describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine." 

Sex: "refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs."

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

Since the former is merely conceptual, and has no reason to be binary, we can safely assume that there can be more than two genders.

Since intersex people exist, and neither have solely male nor female sex organs, then it would be nonsensical to put them into a binary category of "biologically male" or "biologically female". 

Applesauce

Varrack said:

No. However, a distinction between gender and sex must be made before we can answer this.

Gender: "describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine." 

Sex: "refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs."

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

Since the former is merely conceptual, and has no reason to be binary, we can safely assume that there can be more than two genders.

Since intersex people exist, and neither have solely male nor female sex organs, then it would be nonsensical to put them into a binary category of "biologically male" or "biologically female". 

if a person has xx chromosomes what are they called?
if a person has xy chromosomes what are they called?
there are terms for those with chromosomal abnormalities, hermaphrodite being one of them.(very rare condition and usually are assigned, surgically corrected with chromosomal analysis)
what is a person who was born with a penis called?
vagina?
regardless of surgical advances, plastic surgery might mimic those organs but they are not, in fact the same as what people are born with.
you can believe you are the king of England, but that doesn't make it so.

someone234

http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/2013/lgbtq-has-misinterpreted-their-case-they-believe-there-are-actually-0-genders-not-more-than-2

someone234 said:

To be crystal clear: I am on the left-wing side and completely anti-conservative on anything other than gun rights and Islamophobia (I agree with conservatives on those two things).

I am extremely sure that the reason the 'there are only 2 genders' quip keeps hitting LGBTQ+ hard is because they are trying to fight it when they really should deny it from the angle there are ultimately no genders and we invent the 'gender roles' from 0 and add the 2 as well as many others that could be added and identified with.

No, I didn't steal this idea from anywhere, I searched the Internet far and wide and other than mock-meme images mocking LGBTQ logic, there is no-one explaining it how I do and truly meaning it.

The term 'physical sex' is binary according to them but the translation of that into a gender is purely invented according to them and thus ultimately they think there are 0 genders and we add them on, not that there are more than 2 and this is why they lose when they defend the idea there are more than 2 as the Conservative debater makes them concede that male and female are 2 and the other genders on the spectrum have no clear name.

MajoMILSdlGMGV

@someone234 How exactly does that work?

I'm contemplating the idea about there being 0 genders, but a lot of things just don't sit right with me, so I want to understand this view a little better. Does this mean that the psychological aspects that come with being a certain sex are just made up? Or does it mean that these cannot be called genders or be boxed into two categories?

someone234

MajoMILSdlGMGV said:

@someone234 How exactly does that work?

I'm contemplating the idea about there being 0 genders, but a lot of things just don't sit right with me, so I want to understand this view a little better. Does this mean that the psychological aspects that come with being a certain sex are just made up? Or does it mean that these cannot be called genders or be boxed into two categories?

You just answered your own question. It's made-up. The link between the physical sex and the behaved gender is not binary at all and is entirely 'playing a role' from ultimately 0 'right roles' to play.

cdog1950

First, in the natural world, there  are clearly more than 2 sexes/genders. However, science has failed to come completely to terms with this fact, most likely because  of latent anthropomorphism.  Assuming that what is again meant in this debate is "human" sexuality, then most of the arguments above are invalid  due to be being based on faulty Cartesian logic.  Any human subject is not a body with/without some specific genitalia and also a mental construct of a particular gender, it is an integrated biological system. Since there are more than two viable genotypes, plus the innumerable possibilities of gene expression/phenotypes,  there clearly appear to be more than two genders. How or who am I (or you) to define what another human believes itself to be? "I think, therefore I am," surely extends to what you believe  yourself to be. That would seem to be a basic human freedom. Given however, that each of us should also be "free"  to make our own private judgement of the true (or false) nature of each other. The restroom problem that this debate appears to always degenerate into, is a separate problem.

Satyamsingh

Well if you go by physical body,there are generally two.
By generally I mean there are also cases of a pregnant man.there are also cases of people not wanting any sex.
What's the point of this is that its called evolution. Currently there are few gay/lesbians/etc but evolution starts slowly.

Varrack

@Applesauce I'm not sure what you're getting at. What is your criteria for being biologically male or female?

MajoMILSdlGMGV

@Satyamsingh You are talking about sexual orientation which is way different than sex or gender. Sex is also different from gender, although there is a correlation between them. 

Satyamsingh

@Varrack
Chromosome

Satyamsingh

@MajoMILSdlGMGV

It's not about sexual orientation. It's about things changes mood,physicals etc over time & that's called  evolution

Satyamsingh

We had 2 genders  in starting  .
I heard a case of man getting pregnant ,so this is evolution.
In future this will be also present.
See my point is at present most humans have one of 2 genders and 4 types of sexual orientation. But this is starting of evolution cycle ,in future these 4 sexual orientation will become 4 types of gender.this will happen by evolution (that actually works & its the reason for presence of you and I).but yes it takes time.

someone234

Satyamsingh said:

Well if you go by physical body,there are generally two.
By generally I mean there are also cases of a pregnant man.there are also cases of people not wanting any sex.
What's the point of this is that its called evolution. Currently there are few gay/lesbians/etc but evolution starts slowly.

The pregnant man was a trans man who was born female. The creator if life is always female in any species with gender and this is why God, who creates life, is actually female.

averyapro

   Here we go again. Everyone getting confused between what the difference between gender and sex is. Sex is what you are born with and if you have an X or Y chromosome. However, gender is what people identify as. For example, there are many types of genders out there and some people identify differently as what they are actually born as. 

someone234

averyapro said:

   Here we go again. Everyone getting confused between what the difference between gender and sex is. Sex is what you are born with and if you have an X or Y chromosome. However, gender is what people identify as. For example, there are many types of genders out there and some people identify differently as what they are actually born as. 

How is everyone getting confused? Only the conservatives are.

Varrack

@Satyamsingh alright, let's talk chromosomal abnormalities. Have you heard of Klinefelter syndrome? Turner syndrome? Triple-X syndrome? What is the biological sex of those who lack or have too many X or Y chromosomes?

See how it makes no sense to put everyone into a binary?

BaconToes

CYDdharta said:
Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?  Are those the people demanding to use the restrooms and locker rooms of people of the other sex?

Sorry, late post since this is the first time I'm posting on this debate(i think?) But there is something called, ready?
gender-neutral bathrooms.
or they could just use any bathroom they feel like, why put restrictions on where we do our business?

BaconToes

CYDdharta said:
No, it wasn't conservative outrage that caused this to be an issue.  It was never an issue before, in fact, it wasn't an issue at all until liberals pushed it.  Our country was established well over 200 years ago.  There have always been people with chromosomal abnormalities, but it was never a problem before, not until liberals made it a problem.

Never a problem?
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2017/05/02/429529/widespread-discrimination-continues-shape-lgbt-peoples-lives-subtle-significant-ways/
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-workplace-issues
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/01/16/not-just-cake-shop-lgbt-people-battle-bias-everyday-routines/1031339001/

Satyamsingh

@Varrack
You are not getting my point.all the things you listed ,
Can't we say it is possible start of evolution?

Satyamsingh

The question was are there 2 gender or sexes.and what I am saying is that most if human have AT PRESENT- only two-m/f,some have gay &led & few might have what you listed.but this is at present situation.
Now can't according to evolution what you listed which are currently very few become majority in future.can't they be start of evolution.
See nothing is permanent.
Without evolution nor you would have existed nor me.

CYDdharta

There are 2 sexes.  There are as many more genders as someone wants to delude themselves into believing.

BaconToes

CYDdharta said:

There are 2 sexes.  There are as many more genders as someone wants to delude themselves into believing.

but I wouldn't say "delude," but, that's my point.

Applesauce

BaconToes said:

CYDdharta said:

There are 2 sexes.  There are as many more genders as someone wants to delude themselves into believing.

but I wouldn't say "delude," but, that's my point.

then what would you say?  pretending, misinformed, mentally ill?  how would you define or label someone who thinks they are something they are not?  delusion is actually the proper word like it or not.
http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/factsheet/psychosis
we have words to describe the genetic and chromosomal abnormalities as well, both instances are abnormal.

Applesauce

Varrack said:

@Applesauce I'm not sure what you're getting at. What is your criteria for being biologically male or female?

normal chromosomes,genitalia, normal testosterone and other hormone levels probably more I suppose

BaconToes

Applesauce said:

BaconToes said:

CYDdharta said:

There are 2 sexes.  There are as many more genders as someone wants to delude themselves into believing.

but I wouldn't say "delude," but, that's my point.

then what would you say?  pretending, misinformed, mentally ill?  how would you define or label someone who thinks they are something they are not?  delusion is actually the proper word like it or not.
http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/factsheet/psychosis
we have words to describe the genetic and chromosomal abnormalities as well, both instances are abnormal.

I see you have agreed with CYDdharta's statement about there being 2 sexes and "many more genders."
I know many people have posted this, but I will do so again.
Gender- the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
Sex- 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.

scharles18 said:
The definition of gender is "The state of being either male or female" therefore you have to be one or the other even if you think you're something else, I could wholeheartedly think I'm an octopus but that doesn't change my biological features. 

Just saying, I like how scharles18 cherry picks the definition.

sadolite

SilverishGoldNova said:

What do you think? I personally believe that there are only 2 genders. Lets make it simple. Chromosones determine your gender, and chromosomal abnormalities are not genders. If you have a Y chromosone, or 2, or 3 of them, etc, you are male. If you don't have one, you are a female.  

someone234 said:

@WilliamSchulz if it's consensual why is it wrong or are you referring to trans women overpowering cis women?

sadolite

Gender is just a play on a word. "Sex" Sex can mean what most think it means (sexual intercourse) or it can mean "Gender" In my view gender just means what it means Male or Female.  Pretending to be, wanting to be or because of some mental disorder thinking you are not what you are doesn't change the  gender you were born as anymore than wishing you didn't have to pay taxes, or believing you  don't have to pay taxes or pretending you don't have to pay taxes exempts you  from having to pay taxes.

CYDdharta

BaconToes said:

CYDdharta said:

There are 2 sexes.  There are as many more genders as someone wants to delude themselves into believing.

but I wouldn't say "delude," but, that's my point.

Considering there are only 2 genders, what term would you use to denote such a diversion from reality?

TheShaun

To start with, gender is a synonym for biological sex. The alternate definitions, which includes words like personality, personal identity, social, or cultural, were created by social justice warriors and is not the official definition accepted by the vast majority of the world. So, for my response I will be using the official definition recognized world wide.

There are two genders. XX and XY. All other combinations are deformities, not alternate genders. In the cases of deformities, it's based on the gender they mostly resemble physically.

Sonofason

Gooberry said:

“You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y," she wrote. "You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa."

This is from a biology teacher, and one of the best summaries thus far.

I have read most of the responses to your question, and I've seen good arguments on both sides.  However, I'd like to take a different approach.  For human beings, words are important.  I should say over time, they have become very important to us.  However, I imagine, if evolution is true, that there must have been a day in history when our ancestors did not use words at all...a time when we were not human beings at all...a time when there were no words at our disposal to distinguish us from mere animals.  I can't say that I know very much about the thought processes of animals, but it seems pretty clear that reproduction occurs in all species, regardless of the thought that any particular individual or species having life is capable of having.  What we see today, what we have learned and are capable of communicating to others because of words  is that sexual reproduction requires the combining of genetic information from two individuals of different types (sexes). "In most higher organisms, one sex (male) produces a small motile gamete that travels to fuse with a larger stationary gamete produced by the other (female)..  Sexual reproduction requires male or female germ cell usually possessing a haploid chromosome set and capable of initiating formation of a new diploid individual by fusion with a gamete of the opposite sex"
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=eC7vWqbiNa-m_QbDra2wBw&q=sexual+reproduction&oq=sexual+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i67k1l4j0i20i264k1j0i67k1l4j0.361.2393.0.5024.10.5.1.3.3.0.113.422.4j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.9.448.0..35i39k1j0i131k1.0.fSaEMxl3uMs

I seriously doubt that our primitive ancestors knew this.  In the same way, I don't think my dog knows this.  Does a dog think, "wow, look at that sexy poodle"?  No, he doesn't.  I doubt he has any thought regarding his approaching sexual encounter at all...his physiology likely determines every action he takes.  But one day in our primitive history, one of us actually put two and two together and a concept developed in her mind beckoning for a means to express it to one of her peers, which eventually, upon mutual agreement became a word to symbolically express the concept that was realized.  She notices that "the boys" all had something "the girls" did not have, and she created the word male for the concept of those that have it and female to those who do not have it.  Perhaps a deity told her what to call it...I have no idea.  But once the distinction was made, and the concept formed, it became a necessary end to develop a word to communicate this difference to others.  The distinction was made, and the words were formed prior to any knowledge or science explaining or showing the difference between male and female chromosomes.  Thus, male and female are concepts created by human beings for the purpose of communicating the obvious physical differences between the have(s) and the have-not(s).

Because the words male and female were created to express the concepts of those who have and those who do not have particular physical attributes, there can only be two sexes today...the have(s) and the have not(s).  

If you would like to invent new words for your own new concepts, feel free to do so.  If you want to call it gender...by all means do so.  But with regard to male and female, we only have two choices, and that is male and female.

MayCaesar

@SilverishGoldNova

There are two biological sexes in the human species defined by the predominant chromosomes, and individual members of the species tend to exhibit both in various proportions - usually with one sex dominating over the other within the organism (leading to the binary male/female classification), but not necessarily.

Gender, on the other hand, characterizes what role in the collective a given individual plays based on the (perceived) sexual characteristics the individual exhibits. There can be infinity of genders in theory (when the roles are significantly diversified), or there can be none (in a society where perceived sexual characteristics do not have any effect on one’s societal role), or two, or five, etc.

You could say that there is two genders in the sense that you personally distinguish between only two gender roles and assign one of them to every individual you encounter. In someone else’s eyes, there is more than two genders, or less than two. The society, ultimately, consists of individuals with unique perception of gender roles, so, strictly speaking, the exact number of genders is undefined for the society as a whole, and highly subjective on an individual basis.

MajoMILSdlGMGV

TheShaun said:

To start with, gender is a synonym for biological sex. The alternate definitions, which includes words like personality, personal identity, social, or cultural, were created by social justice warriors and is not the official definition accepted by the vast majority of the world. So, for my response I will be using the official definition recognized world wide.

There are two genders. XX and XY. All other combinations are deformities, not alternate genders. In the cases of deformities, it's based on the gender they mostly resemble physically.

@TheShaun gender used to be a synonym for biological sex, but as almost everything in this world, language evolves, time and social factors can affect the meaning of a word. You may still use gender as a synonym of sex, but the fact is that the meaning has changed, whether it was because social justice warriors began this change makes no difference, it is still a change nonetheless.

TheShaun

@MajoMILSdlGMGV, no, it is still a synonym for biological sex according to the vast majority of the English speaking world. For a word to evolve it must be recognized and accepted by a large number of the population that speaks the language. This has not happened with the word "gender". Until it does, people who use it otherwise are technically using it incorrectly.

EmeryPearson

This debate is semantical. 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
"Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."

If you chose to equate gender with sex, there are only two sexes. 
If gender does not equate to sex, there is the possibility for more than two genders.


This boils down to how you define words, which literally makes it semantical. As I consider Oxford a reliable source on the definition of English words, I see no reason to consider @TheShaun 's personal definition of gender more seriously. Therefore, yes, there are more than two genders, and yes, there are only two sexes.

TheShaun

@EmeryPearson You may trust them, but I do not trust any group, organization, or institution that has been swayed by the modern feminist narrative. The vast majority of the English speaking world does not accept gender as something other than biological sex. Oxford only changed it due to pressure from outside sources with a dishonest agenda. I see no reason to trust them on anything they were pressured into doing.

EmeryPearson

@TheShaun
"You may trust them, but I do not trust any group, organization, or institution that has been swayed by the modern feminist narrative."

It's not just Oxford, basically any dictionary agrees. I would reconsider, but you offer no sources to the contrary. Language evolves with how we use words. 

"The vast majority of the English speaking world does not accept gender as something other than biological sex. "

Again, no source. As this has to do with defining an English word, I'd refer you back to the dictionary.

"Oxford only changed it due to pressure from outside sources with a dishonest agenda. I see no reason to trust them on anything they were pressured into doing."

Them, and basically every other dictionary, as they adapt to how we use words. Again, no sources. 

No evidence which presents a reason to not use the word as defined, as I use all other English words. There's no logical reason presented to make a singular exception for the word 'gender'.

whiteflame

@TheShaun

You're making a lot of bare assertions to support your argument. If a dictionary, particularly one as well-regarded as Oxford, is swayed so tremendously by some modern movement, then I have three questions for you.

First, why isn't the term valid if the organization is swayed by a narrative that is clearly so widely held? You're assuming that the feminist movement is relatively small or not representative of a significant portion of the population. Feminists represent 20% of the population, and some of their ideologies are held by the vast majority of the population.[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html] Even if you're willing to dismiss the fact that 20% of the population is a significant number that warrants at least some attention, I don't think you can dismiss the reality that a lot of their views are held by non-feminists.

Second, why does a vast majority of people have to hold that a definition is valid in order for it to be valid? Since when is popularity the basis for awarding meaning to a given word? What if the majority of the English speaking population doesn't even know a given word? Does that word not exist on the basis that its definition is unknown? I suppose you might respond by saying that an unknown definition is different from a misattributed one, but if we're talking about popularity as the sole basis for awarding a definition to a word, why does it matter what the reason is? On that basis, a great deal of the English language basically doesn't exist under your view.

Third, why do you trust any aspect of any dictionary if they are all subject to separate agendas? If I accept your view, then I have no reason to trust anything pretty much any dictionary presents as a factual definition. Other agendas could easily be behind a lot of the vocabulary in those dictionaries, and if they're succumbing to this pressure, then there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't succumb to others. For that matter, why can you trust any dictionary? Clearly, all of them are in on this; Oxford is hardly the only dictionary presenting this kind of definition. If you're trusting the history instead, that's also clearly subject to influences that lead to alterations. It doesn't seem like this argument offers you any means to defend your point, since it just calls every possible source you could use into question.

TheShaun

@whiteflame
First, it isn't as widely held as you believe. Feminists are more heard of today because they are getting louder, not bigger. The percentage of people who identify as a feminist has actually been decreasing due to the crazy and/or violent methods they use to push an illogical narrative. The Huffington Post is not a reliable source due to it's well known left wing bias in favor of modern (third wave) feminism. Also, if a person holds the same beliefs as a feminist that were also created by feminism, then they essentially are a feminist themselves. Feminists and feminist supporters are still a minority and decreasing in population percentage. Most people agree with the goals of old school feminism(ie. equal rights), but not the narrative of modern feminism(ie. all men are potential rapists, pay gap, white privilege, institutionalized racism, etc).

Second, because that's how the evolution of language works. Words that are not accepted by a significant amount are typically labelled slang or they become extinct. This is how we as a society gain and lose words. There are old words that "technically" have a certain definition, but no one uses the word in that form anymore. Even though dictionaries refuse to eliminate old definitions that no one uses anymore, people do not consider the no longer used definition as an actual definition anymore. Language is not based on what a dictionary says, it's based on how we use the words to convey our thoughts. When a person uses the word "gender" in casual conversation, the extremely vast majority think male and female. Even a lot of feminists recognize this. Their entire purpose of trying to change it is to push their narrative.

Third, I only trust the parts that match the common usage by society. For example, even though an old definition of a "fag" is a cigarette, it now is only used as an insult towards gay men(in America at least). Even though the word technically held a different meaning, it's no longer used that way. It's old definition is essentially dead due to evolution of language. Yet, the dictionary still uses it. There are even words that began to become popular, but were quickly abandoned. The dictionaries did not even cover these words even though the majority considered them words. Dictionaries accepted the feminist definition of "gender" only because of the pressure applied by them. It will eventually lose and be abandoned due to the ever growing disapproval of the modern version of feminism. Therefore, dictionaries are not a 100% representation of (at least) the American version of English.

On a side note, the entire purpose of the evolution of language is for it to become easier to convey a thought more specifically and with less explanation. Changing the definition of "gender" in the way feminists are attempting would be a de-evolution due to people being required to explain which definition they are going by. That is unless majority eventually accepts the new definition. That will not happen due to the ever growing disapproval of modern feminism and decreasing percentage of feminists that I mentioned earlier. It's much more logical to just use the word "personality" in place of feminists' version of "gender" since they are basically the exact same thing.

TheShaun

@EmeryPearson
Read my responses to whiteflame. It covers your inquiries and prevents me from having to repeat myself.

EmeryPearson

@TheShaun

No worries, as it's unsourced, it doesn't add any validity to your claims. 

EmeryPearson

TheShaun said:

@whiteflame
First, it isn't as widely held as you believe. Feminists are more heard of today because they are getting louder, not bigger. The percentage of people who identify as a feminist has actually been decreasing due to the crazy and/or violent methods they use to push an illogical narrative. The Huffington Post is not a reliable source due to it's well known left wing bias in favor of modern (third wave) feminism. Also, if a person holds the same beliefs as a feminist that were also created by feminism, then they essentially are a feminist themselves. Feminists and feminist supporters are still a minority and decreasing in population percentage. Most people agree with the goals of old school feminism(ie. equal rights), but not the narrative of modern feminism(ie. all men are potential rapists, pay gap, white privilege, institutionalized racism, etc).

Second, because that's how the evolution of language works. Words that are not accepted by a significant amount are typically labelled slang or they become extinct. This is how we as a society gain and lose words. There are old words that "technically" have a certain definition, but no one uses the word in that form anymore. Even though dictionaries refuse to eliminate old definitions that no one uses anymore, people do not consider the no longer used definition as an actual definition anymore. Language is not based on what a dictionary says, it's based on how we use the words to convey our thoughts. When a person uses the word "gender" in casual conversation, the extremely vast majority think male and female. Even a lot of feminists recognize this. Their entire purpose of trying to change it is to push their narrative.

Third, I only trust the parts that match the common usage by society. For example, even though an old definition of a "fag" is a cigarette, it now is only used as an insult towards gay men(in America at least). Even though the word technically held a different meaning, it's no longer used that way. It's old definition is essentially dead due to evolution of language. Yet, the dictionary still uses it. There are even words that began to become popular, but were quickly abandoned. The dictionaries did not even cover these words even though the majority considered them words. Dictionaries accepted the feminist definition of "gender" only because of the pressure applied by them. It will eventually lose and be abandoned due to the ever growing disapproval of the modern version of feminism. Therefore, dictionaries are not a 100% representation of (at least) the American version of English.

On a side note, the entire purpose of the evolution of language is for it to become easier to convey a thought more specifically and with less explanation. Changing the definition of "gender" in the way feminists are attempting would be a de-evolution due to people being required to explain which definition they are going by. That is unless majority eventually accepts the new definition. That will not happen due to the ever growing disapproval of modern feminism and decreasing percentage of feminists that I mentioned earlier. It's much more logical to just use the word "personality" in place of feminists' version of "gender" since they are basically the exact same thing.

This is entire statement is an opinion piece. Which is why it's so weak. Your claims here suffer from the issues your previous claims do, they are presented as your opinion without evidence. I would be able to take your claims over the dictionary, but so far, your offering me your opinion rather than information, so I am unable to do so.

whiteflame

@TheShaun

Alright, let's go through this.

On the first point, you argue that feminist views are not nearly so widespread as they appear based on that article. First off, you don't provide any source beyond your opinion on this. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you can automatically dismiss any source that doesn't match your views; you need to present a source that isn't yourself in order to justify your argument. Second, dismissing the source based on its perceived bias is fallacious. I'll admit that the Huffington Post has a bias, but that doesn't make the poll itself biased, nor does it make the conclusions based on that poll biased. If you presented a Breitbart source, I wouldn't dismiss it based solely on the website's reputation - I would analyze the contents of the post itself and examine whether it was flawed. Third, Huffington Post is far from alone in these conclusions. The Washington Post, in conjunction with Kaiser Family Foundation, found that these numbers were actually much higher, with 6 in 10 women and one-third of men allying themselves with the group. CBS found that an overwhelming majority of women consider the actions of the feminist movement to be positive. Gallup found that up to 30% of Americans identify as feminists, and a significant majority support their actions. Fourth, I don't know why you're trying to help my point, but if you truly believe that "if a person holds the same beliefs as a feminist that were also created by feminism, then they essentially are a feminist themselves" then all of this self-identification stuff is a massive underestimate, and pretty much every poll agrees that most of the US, if not the vast majority of the US, are feminists. Fifth, you're overcomplicating your own point by arguing that there are two different kinds of feminism. Whether it's old school or modern, both characterize themselves as feminists, and, as you said, anyone who holds any of these views are essentially feminist themselves. If you want to separate out these two, then I've got advice for you: don't call them feminists at all. Talk about specific arguments rather than referring to the overall movement. You're just making things harder by talking about feminism when this entire argument is about gender and sex differences.

On the second point, you're asserting, but you aren't really responding. Why is popularity the basis for a word's meaning? You keep stating that that's just how things work, but that doesn't answer my question. WHY do things work that way? An even better question: why SHOULD things work that way? Why should popular context be the only context? It's been your argument that gender has a specific context, that that is the context accepted by the majority of the population, and therefore that it can only be that context. So you aren't just arguing that gender should have one specific meaning, you're arguing that ALL words should have one and only one specific meaning, and that that one meaning should be decided based on popularity. I guess dictionaries should do a poll of the population to establish the meaning of every term? On that basis, if the majority of the population deems it so, could the term "fag" refer to Harley-riding motorcyclists? Better yet, if the majority of the population shifts to the supposedly feminist view (you don't seem to be consistent on this, as you argue that "[e]ven a lot of feminists recognize" the definition you're supporting) that gender is separate from sex, would you be willing to accept that outcome? You say that this will never happen (though your support for this is wanting), but even if I accept that the movement is losing adherents now, it seems like a stretch to argue that that will never change. Movements have their up- and down-swings. It's entirely possible that feminism could become more widespread at some point in the future.

However, the way you continue arguing this seems to subvert your own point. You say that "[l]anguage is not based on what a dictionary says, it's based on how we use the words to convey our thoughts." This runs contrary to your own argument. You're essentially stating that the dictionary isn't what defines a word; rather, we define words ourselves when we use them to convey a certain message. This seems to take the issue entirely out of the realm of majority opinion because every instance in which someone uses a word can essentially be a redefinition because every usage of every word is simply employed for the purpose of conveying an idea to someone else. You can argue (as you seem to be) that understanding that conveyance is important and that, if a definition is widely held by others, using it incorrectly ends up making the process of conveying thoughts more difficult. However, that runs contrary to your argument that the USER of a word defines a word, not the dictionary and not those listening to that usage. So, which is it? Does the user of a word define a word, or do the listeners who hear the word define it, and, regardless of which you choose, doesn't that mean that people can define words in different ways in order to be heard and understood by diverse audiences? Even if 90% of people agree with you, wouldn't it behoove a speaker to use the gender definition we are going by if they are speaking to a member or set of members of the 10% who don't agree with you? If collective understanding is the chief reason we are awarding a meaning to the word "gender," then doesn't it make sense that speakers focus on understanding over a desire for a single definition? You assume that our usage of the term is confusing, yet it is our confusion over YOUR usage of the term that led to this discussion in the first place. If everyone just agreed to accept a small bit of clarification over what each person means when they use the term, wouldn't that be simpler than always butting heads over which of us is correct?

On the third point, you're distracting from the issue I'm presenting. If dictionaries do not define a word, as you've now argued, then how should we define words? Presumably, we'd have to poll the entire English speaking population of the world for every single term, establish a meaning based on what the vast majority of the world's population believes (no clue what you'd do if you can't come to a majority consensus), and release some kind of book that provides those results to everyone (considering it would be a book relating to the use of words in common parlance, let's go out on a limb and call it a "diction-ary"... wait a minute...). Note that I say "the world" and not "the US" because words aren't defined solely in American parlance. English isn't a language solely confined to the US, so it stands to reason that any modification in the way we use English should not be solely within an American context. So, this is what we'd have to do if we chose to get rid of dictionaries as a basis for the English language, unless of course you're suggesting that we should simply eschew them and demand that people adhere to nebulous and unfounded "majority opinions" on the matter of what each word means. In fact, now that I think about it, that's all you've been arguing for this whole time. You've asserted multiple times that the vast majority of the US population believes gender and sex are synonymous, yet you haven't supported that via any objective metric. Strange. On that basis, I guess I can argue that the vast majority of the population agrees that gender has a meaning entirely separate from sex, and that you should be required to use the term as I do. No? That doesn't work for you? Well, why not? If you are willing to police my language based on your personal opinion of how the majority of the population perceives the term, then why can't I do the same to you? Hell, I've even given you actual evidence to show that a majority of the US population agrees with feminists, and you seem to be under the impression that most feminists hold a similar view to mine. At least my argument has some support. What does yours have again?

Lastly, you argue that "personality" and "gender" are effectively one in the same, given the context we are using. This couldn't be more wrong, and it shows a complete lack of understanding of the definition we are providing, though because a) you don't agree with that definition anyway, b) you're dismissive of any definitions that don't come from your view of what a majority of people believe, and c) you're clearly unwilling to separate sex and gender and therefore take into account the multifaceted nature of gender, I don't feel any need to re-post the definition for your perusal. I'll simply follow your lead and assert that they are different enough to warrant the two being non-synonymous.

MayCaesar

TheShaun said:

@EmeryPearson You may trust them, but I do not trust any group, organization, or institution that has been swayed by the modern feminist narrative. The vast majority of the English speaking world does not accept gender as something other than biological sex. Oxford only changed it due to pressure from outside sources with a dishonest agenda. I see no reason to trust them on anything they were pressured into doing.

I think your argument has merit; however, I would like to make one major, one minor and one uncertain objection.

Major objection: while it is true that the vast majority of English speakers does not consciously differentiate between the definitions of "gender" and "sex", the context in which each these terms is used still differs. In most official documents, for example, you will be asked about your "gender" or "gender identification", not "sex". "Sex" is rarely used in informal English either when separating between men and women; rather, this word denotes sexual activity. However, when we talk about males/females among non-human mammals, such as lion, we never talk about their gender and use the term "sex" instead.
These notions support the claim I will suggest: the vast majority of English speakers do differentiate between "gender" and "sex" - and they differentiate them similarly to how Oxford dictionary and many other dictionaries do - even if they are not consciously aware of it.

Minor objection: when two words have exactly equal meanings, then one of these words is redundant. It makes sense for "sex" and "gender" to denote different things, otherwise we would only need one of these words. In fact, from the philologist point of view, you could argue the reverse: if "sex" and "gender" are both used, then the implication is that they have different (even if the difference is subtle) meanings. Such is the workings of history of languages: redundant words and expressions disappear from the active language with time.

Uncertain objection: while I have not made a proper research on this, I highly suspect that the current definition of these terms in Oxford dictionary has been used among scientists consciously for quite a while. Could you provide evidence of the opposite?

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

Major objection: while it is true that the vast majority of English speakers does not consciously differentiate between the definitions of "gender" and "sex", the context in which each these terms is used still differs. In most official documents, for example, you will be asked about your "gender" or "gender identification", not "sex".

That is simply not correct, most official documents ask about sex, not gender.  Even a California drivers license lists "Sex", not "Gender".