The main criticism I can see being directed at you here is that you are veering away from the usual academic usage of the term 'gender'?

That is main thing I can see.

In day to day speech people say 'woman' and refer to 'females' the vast majority of the time. I have come across scientists in the past who attacked people for even suggesting there were different 'races' because they could not think of anything else other than the biological definition of 'race' (where clearly they are correct). This is what I think may have happened in this thread. If not that I am not really sure what is going on :D

to normalize behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate, let alone normalize — Outlander

What behaviour are you referring to here?

What behaviour are you referring to here? — Jamal

Anything that shouldn't be normalized. In a society that tolerates and encourages slavery, for example, it might be "normal gender behavior" for males to engage and casually talk about such acts in a mocking, friendly way. That would mean, at least to me, the idea of "gender" being just a word to describe "what other people of your sex expect from you" doesn't seem to be exactly a well of depth worth discussing. It's just a benchmark or expectation of a given society. Relevant only to that society as long as that particular society exists. I just don't see how that's particularly fruitful as far as philosophical debate goes. Perhaps it's just over my head. :confused:

The reason I posted was to try and understand the impasse between OP and @Banno. Both smart people, so, it just makes me wonder exactly what the other person isn't "buying" or otherwise not seeing eye to eye is. I haven't read every single post from the beginning, so I merely offered my preliminarily assessment: "Some people have looser definitions of a word than others, so perhaps that's what the current impasse is rooted in." Just wanted to get OP's opinion on my opinion, I suppose. :smile:

For the sake of advancing the discussion and ensuring no one party is hung up on something trivial, of course.

The reason I posted was to try and understand the impasse between OP and @Banno. — Outlander

:up:

Otherwise, I still have no idea what you meant by "behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate."

For what it's worth, the OP's substantive claim is this:

Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. — Philosophim

Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance.

Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance. — Jamal

So are you saying that most people around the world when someone says woman they do not imagine a female? This is clearly bogus.

I do imagine you mean that most academics around the world would disagree. Which is likely correct and definately correct in related fields of interest.

The way I put it was inadequate. What I should have said is that those who disagree with the OP find that statement, or more specifically its role in @Philosophim's argument, to be problematic.

EDIT: It's what is implied by "the default goes to sex" that's the problem, namely that we can be satisfied with the definition of "man" and "woman" as relating solely to biology.

to normalize behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate, let alone normalize — Outlander


What behaviour are you referring to here? — Jamal

Otherwise, I still have no idea what you meant by "behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate." — Jamal

It's not really relevant in comparison to the discussion.

Other than it's an attempted (and in some societies, successful) moral hijacking of social norms and words that describe social norms to include things behaviors and attitudes that were once shamed and ridiculed. For example, when someone is hesitant to do something for clearly logical reasons, one might choose to belittle him and question his "manhood" so as to ironically make him do things at the behest of another person, which actually makes him like a "woman" according to historic and many modern standards. It's the jarring disconnect that people don't realize how responding to comments of the sort in fact make them less than men but like children following the behests of others.

It's social engineering. Effectively making any person do things they otherwise wouldn't do, generally immoral, dangerous, or destructive things by suggesting if they don't they're not "normal" or "not a man" or "not a woman" or whatever it is they're supposed to "be like" per social opinion. Peer pressure. Fall of the monarchy. Rise of the darkness that is unrefined human nature.

Specifically, I'm referring to how drastic and pronounced it's become to normalize behavior that was historically shamed and punished by simple phrases such as "be a man", thus showing how far the moral rot of many modern societies has advanced. It's a passing social commentary on the state of morality, more so than anything else. But never you mind. It's being handled.

For what it's worth, the OP's substantive claim is this:

Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. — Philosophim


Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance. — Jamal

Ah, yes. Back on track. This stands to reason since, per definition of the OP, "gender" is a reference to cultural norms. How many cultures are there on Earth? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps, counting sub-cultures and small civilizations, perhaps unheard of? Sure. So, one may argue it would simply be—not just difficult or inaccurate—but impossible to account for something that varies from social sphere to social sphere ("social expectation of behavior" ie. gender, if you define it as such) in favor of something absolute and constant (sex).

That much is understandable. Isn't it? :chin:

Edit: Your money is pounds. My money is dollars. I wouldn't go around to another person in another country talking about "dollars", especially if I know their money is or might be different. I would say what is constant and universal: "money." So, yes, sometimes more broader, universal terms are to be favored over what one is comfortable with and that is generally accurate (to one's particular understanding).

Your circumlocutions are making me nauseous, Outlander. :wink: