“The subject-matter of philosophy
is, then, necessarily obscure, and this obscurity philosophy necessarily
reflects and expresses. But besides the expression of obscurity of expression,
and, while the former is pardonable, the latter is not, being when all is said
and done, nothing but bad craftsmanship.
The object of words is to express
meaning, and he who has learnt to use them well, will express his meaning with
the greatest ease and clarity. Hence, a writer should make it his first duty to
be clear and intelligible, not only in justice to himself, but also out of
compliment to his readers. Few philosophers have observed this elementary rule.”
('Philosophy' p.9 by CEM Joad)
A
great many words in popular usage in the communication spheres of politics,
business and popular commentary have become ‘buzzwords’. There are few terms I
like less than ‘U-turn’ (I picture politicians running madly in circles). It
appears that any genuine consideration of events and change of opinion by a
politician is now equated with losing face. Constant reinforcement of this idea
by the media is as childish as it is irresponsible and is partly why so many
politicians now resemble stilted robots.
The
general issue of the conflation of terms, in an atmosphere of general confusion
and obfuscation over their meaning, can be applied to a range of subjects. In
political discourse such language can have very stark real world consequences
as competing sets of vested interests dance a sort of demented waltz on the
backs of the populace as they vie for influence.
There
are some excellent investigative journalists, such as Ben Goldacre, who make it their business to blast
pseudoscience out of the water in particular subjects. To cover a comprehensive
analysis of the range of subjects in which these issues arise would take
several books. Though even within one subject you could spend several weeks
typing; I shall just illustrate one example that borders between the social and
the biological:
Sex and Gender
Two of the most conflated terms in popular usage are ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ and it appears abundantly clear that the majority of commentators have absolutely no understanding of the difference between the two terms. Not only is this sloppy journalism it is also unhelpful, not least because it leads to an overly simplistic and problematic view of human beings but also because the true complexity of the situation is genuinely fascinating. For example, the ‘I’ newspaper recently discussed the ‘gender’ of foetuses in an issue related to the illegal selective termination of pregnancies based on sex in the UK (such phrasing is at the very least unhelpful).
Sex
The definition of sex is, at its most basic level, simply the categories of male and female. The defining characteristics to fit individuals into these categories are, however, more complex and composite in nature than they might initially seem. A person can be defined genetically as being male or female by having XX or XY sex chromosomes (though there are genetic variations of this with XO, XXY, and XXX individuals). In turn by a person’s ‘gonads’, organs that produce gametes (a testes in a males, an ovary in females). This too can be subject to complexities with a variety of developmental variations that can result in people with vaginas with testes, people with penises having ovaries, and people can be born with both ovaries and testes. The external genitalia, a penis or a vagina, (again you can see where complexities start to arise and we haven’t even got to gender yet!). Secondary sexual characteristics and hormone patterns, can be even more variable than the previously mentioned characteristics.
(Taken from Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling, )
In mentioning all of these details what I am attempting
to illustrate is the complexity even inherent in biological sex. This is not to
say that sexes do not exist, or that the everyday reality of being a member of
a two sexed species is a fiction.
What it should be a good warning against are intuitive
sounding ideas such as many arguments in evolutionary psychology which draw
explanations of the social from the biological in a crude and reductive way– ideas may appear intuitive but
correlation does not imply causation.
Gender
Gender can generally be defined as “the collection of psychological [mental and behavioural] traits that differ between males and females” (Levay and Valente, p.188).
The term 'gender' is often, incorrectly, used interchangeably with 'sex'. However, it has a much more complex, and specifically human, definition.
All animals have two biological sexes, but only the human race has gender.
What makes this definition unique to the human species, is that we are the only truly cultural animal. Many other species of animal show behavioural differences between the biological sexes, but only humans have ideas of what being a 'man' or a 'woman' mean, which varies between cultures and within cultures over time. This is where biological explanations of the differences between men and women are potentially very destructive.
For example, only extremely limited
inferences can be made between the nature of human sexes by comparing us to
other species, even our closest relatives. To confuse sex and gender as the
same thing is to miss out what makes us human and rely on negative, clumsy
thinking with little to no explanatory value.
Human social existence is greatly variable and is manifested in an almost endless variety around the world. Not only are the norms expected of men in women socially in different societies around the world wildly variable but the idea of only two immutable, distinct sexes is a very culturally specific idea. Whilst the recognition that some individuals are transgender in the Western world has incrementally been gaining recognition there are a variety of gender identities around the world.
In spite of the real world complexities of both terms and their general conflation in popular discourse you do not need a PhD to understand the difference between the two terms.
Even relatively innocuous confusion of the terms is at best misleading. For example, the science editor of the Independent confusing the terms when talking about the idea that the Y chromosome may one day disappear:
"Reports of the demise of the male Y chromosome have been greatly exaggerated according to scientists who believe that the “end of men” is a gender apocalypse too far."
"This would suggest that medical treatments should in future be tailored more towards a patient’s gender, and that doctors may have more reason to treat men and women differently according to their sex, said Professor David Page, director of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts."
He clearly has no idea of the
distinction between the two terms, and he is supposed to be a science editor!
Mixing them up is not only factually wrong but deeply unhelpful when it comes to propagating unhelpful social stereotypes and inaccurate societal myths about how people are composed and the relations between men and women.
The reality is far more interesting and can even improve a nation's football skills...
Mixing them up is not only factually wrong but deeply unhelpful when it comes to propagating unhelpful social stereotypes and inaccurate societal myths about how people are composed and the relations between men and women.
The reality is far more interesting and can even improve a nation's football skills...
