|
ANNOTATION:
sex(e) is "slightly" clearer than gender, but sexuality doesn't exist
Kate is right, of course, about the meaning of the term gender and I used it wrongly in my comment. So, where I wrote: "dual gender procreation" I should rather have written: "dual sex(e) procreation". My objection focused more on the terms sexual and sexuality than on "sex(e)".
Thank you for the citation of the WHO on "gender". It is good to know that this influential organization uses such a clear concept. (And even then I think human beings are not born female OR male as it states, but male AND female (doesn't Genesis write that too?).
Since some time Discovery Channel frequently shows a documentary on "Intersex" about people who are not born female OR male but with attributes of both sexes. This fact was hidden for the broader public a long time, not in the least because it does not fit in our common concepts. And of course Simone de Beauvoir was right in "La deuxieme sexe".
I agree, that the word sex(e) is "slightly" (I like this) clearer. And I think, that is right as long as it is used only to point out the "little difference" between males and females. The jumping to the conclusion of anything being "sex_u_a_l" or a category like "sex_u_a_l_i_t_y" may be done between the ears, but not between hands and legs.
I do not know the writers you refer to. For me Jos Van Ussel, a dutch/flamish sexologist who wrote "De Geschiedenis van het sexuele probleem" (The history of the sexual problem) was important for gaining my insight. He writes, that the existence of the term "sexual(ity)" is not enough reason to conclude that any ontological category exists that matches the term, like the term "flogiston" doesn't guarantee the existence of an element with the supposed characteristics.
Copyright© 2002 Principia Cybernetica -
Referencing this page
|
|
|
