Re: sex, not gender 2 (fwd)

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote:

> 
> geezz!! richard, you still don't get it. 


I appreciated your trying to educate me, but I think I "get it" quite
well. I'm with you all the way on the deconstruction of gender.


the existence of sexual organs
> does not guarantee that you will develop a full correspendence
> of your biological identity. 


I already agreed with this.  But it's exactly the difference between sex
and gender that's involved.


there are many "men" around who
> are biological males, but who develop a different sexual identity. are
> they still unambigiously male? or what? it is the same with women too.
> think about lesbians. Men and Women are social categories that receive
> their meanings from society,not from reproductive organs. 


Right.  Now you're talking about gender, as opposed to sex.


Sexuality is
> part of the gender system through which sex roles "are created,organized,
> expresssed, and directed, creating the social beings we know as women and
> men, as their relations create society" .Futhermore, time has changed. we
> are not geared towards reproduction as seriously as we were in huntung
> gathering societies. so why should sex be reduced to reproduction only?
> are we living in the stone ages?


Now I think you're confusing "sex" as in male or female, with "sex" as an
activity that can be engaged in for procreation and/or recreation.

Of course the biological sex categories have different implications now
than they had in gathering & hunting societies (in social evolutionary
terms).  But the fact of biogical sexes is critical in understanding how
the original gender stratification system came to be.  It need no longer
exist, but a materialist understanding of its origins is much more
illuminating in terms of how to eliminate it than Butler's discursive
mumbo jumbo or many other idealist feminist conceptions.  If it's just bad
ideas/words/discourse in men's heads, why think they will ever be
eliminated?

Richard


> 

> 
> mine
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:55:53 -0700 (MST)
> From: Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Subject: sex, not gender 2
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I forgot to add why it's logical.
> 
> It's logical because we are a species with sexual reproduction based on
> having 2 sexes, male and female.
> 
> It's no wonder people don't take sociologists seriously, given the
> tendency to obfuscate the obvious.
> 
> RH
> 
>