I am not saying that they aren’t well reasoned and thought out or that the view point isn’t valid. But saying that you won’t listen to anyone that disagrees with you while commenting on people clingingy on to ignorance seems a bit hypocritical. Whats the difference between someone clinging to the view that gender is all biological factors and KellyM clinging to hers. There is no difinitive right answer to issues related to gender.
I don’t think KellyM should be charged with fraud if the laws of Illinois allow her to identify herself as female when they ask her what her sex is. I think that Illinois should change the question to what gender you are or stay with an accurate definition of sex. Her answer to which sex she is should be male and without laws to the contrary (such as in Illinois case) if she answered female she would be commiting fraud.
I’ve put “F” on every form I’ve had to fill out, save one, that asked for sex or gender since I transitioned. I do not believe this constitutes fraud. The exception is, of course, my change-of-name filing with the SSA – and that only because they rejected my first one (which said “female”).
My driver’s license says “male” only because I was not permitted to change it in Indiana (my name change was executed there, and Indiana’s standard for change of sex on driver’s license is completed surgery – yes, I did ask) and the Illinois DMV clerk who handled the transfer of my license to Illlinois didn’t offer to correct it.
All my other paperwork lists me as female, including all my medical records.
It’s my experience that, 99.4% of the time, the terms “sex” and “gender” are used synonymously and interchangably, and when questions about them they appear on forms the real question being asked is almost always “which of the two standard American gender roles best fits you?” The vast majority of people neither knows nor cares about the distinctions between sex, gender, and gender role; if they did, they probably wouldn’t be asking about my sex or gender in the first place.
That one does indeed come across as narrow-minded. KellyM, if you’re going to define validity of cites this narrowly, I think there’s not much room for debate. It is somewhat akin to arguing about the origin of the universe and refusing to acknowledge any source other than the Bible as a valid cite.
Note that I said “somewhat akin” – I don’t think you’re being quite that unreasonable. But unless you can offer a concrete, supportable reason that only gender researchers are qualified to have opinions on gender, backed up by evidence that comes from a non-gender researcher… you’ve kind of painted yourself into a corner.
No they are not used synonymously and interchangably. Sex and gender are two distinct things and if people interchange them they are using them incorrectly. It is true that 99.4% (not exactly sure just using KellyM’s number) of the time ones gender and ones sex are the same. If I am a doctors office they want to know what sex I am, the SSA wants to know what sex you are, presumbly the DMV wants to know what sex you are becuase that is what they are asking.
What exactly is the difference between a gender and a gender role? In my book gender is how the different sexes act in a society. Their role of each sex in society is what defines how gender is described which I suppose you can call their gender role. But then how do you define gender?
I do. You fit (as far as I know) all the criteria of the male sex and if you fill out your sex as female you are commiting fraud. If you fill out your gender as female that is fine becuase from what you are telling me that is which gender you are.
No, it’s akin to only accepting claims about psychology from acknowledged psychologists. I think it’s pretty well-accepted that when one is citing an expert to support one’s claims, that expert had better actually be an expert in the field under discussion. Your garden-variety sociologist is not an expert on gender, and so garden-variety sociological references cannot be taken as authoritative on gender.
Many people in the social sciences still haven’t heard about the final outcome in David Reimer’s case (who, by the way, committed suicide last week). A lot of them have never heard about how this once-celebrated “proof” that gender is not inborn was dramatically shown to be wrong, and still labor from the false assumption that gender is entirely the product of culture. Since ignorance of the facts is so still pervasive on this issue in the social sciences, it is wise to be selective in choosing which “experts” one trusts.
You did not disqualify sociologists on their lack of knowledge or expertise you disqualified them becuase they do not “recognize the difference between gender and gender role.”
Sociologists can be considered experts on gender along with other sociological concepts such as race or class. Even though it might not be their specific research area your garden variety sociologist probably knows a heck of a lot more about gender than you or I do. I don’t agree with your claim that many people in social science don’t know about David Reimer. It is the most famous test case of gender and probably the most famous sociological study. I can’t imagine any introductory sociological class not talking about it let alone someone with a PHD not knowing about it. Furthermore you still haven’t defined what you mean by gender and gender-role. In any case none of this matters you are of the male sex and if you claim otherwise you are commiting fraud.
Umm… that’s compatible with what she said. If “sex” and “gender” mean different things, but 99.4% of people don’t know this and use them synonymously, then they are wrong, but the answer they’re looking for still is “what do you look like, and can you please make our lives easier by being born that way.”
Actually, to use your analogy, it’s akin to only accepting claims about schizophrenia from those specializing in studying it. Gender is a social and sociological phenomenon – we define ourselves in the context of our society.
I agree that you want to be selective in choosing experts. However, I think you’re being overly narrow in doing so, and, from an outsider’s perspective, it looks to me like you’re claiming to be the only one who can determine the validity of a given expert.
I’m not going to claim that the average sociologist is well-qualified to hold an opinion on gender. I am going to claim that sociologists as a group are more qualified than the rest of the population, and are a valid source for a cite on a discussion of the same.
That’s really what it comes down to, I think. If you’re going to claim the right to determine the validity of any cite, then there is little basis for discussion – there is no debate when one party defines the rules. This should not be construed as disagreeing with your fundamental point – I support your desire to self-identify as a woman and think you should be able to do so without being accused of fraud. However, treis raises very valid points regarding the difference between biological “sex” and sociological/psychological “gender” which you are sidestepping by claiming his sources are not qualified to have an opinion.
At this point, it’s not a debate.
And, on the subject of Reimer:
This, for me, casts some doubt on Bruce Reimer’s own suicide. Given the biological foundations of depression, it is quite possible that the “gender reassignment” was not the only cause of his suicide – although it no doubt played a large part in it.
Thats not what I said ** Shade **. I said that if people use sex and gender as the same word they are using them incorrectly. I went on to say that sex and gender are related and that in most instances ones sex is the same as ones gender. I mean that a majority of people of the male sex will identify themselves as of the male gender and a majority of the female sex will identify themselves as the female gender.