I can't believe Wiktionary had the completely wrong definitions for gender! Sex is not the same as gender! Can someone please resort the translations to meet the right definitions? Thanks.
No, they absolutely are the same thing.
It would be inappropriate to not mention the controversy in both directions. Certainly in some circles gender has come to have a different meaning than sex. But that's new enough to still be called a movement, and certainly cannot be declared by fiat in contravention to most dictionaries. You can say words change, fine; but it's dishonest to say they never meant the same thing nor that most people don't use them as exact synonyms. So if your dictionary is descriptive, it has to describe both options. If your dictionary is prescriptive, it has to prescribe both options, at least as of today.--Mrcolj (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should the translation gloss include the word euphemism? E.g. the Dutch translation is not a euphemism, seks is only used in the sexual meaning, and sex as masculine vs. feminine is always geslacht. henne12:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, euphemism is unnecessary, thank you. Actually, colloquial English probably retains the same distinction as Dutch. Whatever the English usage, it is not defining of conceptual categories or word nuances in other languages, of course. It is helpful for English speakers to be reminded of this. Alastair Haines10:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that the systemic bias within sense 5 ("... The sex of individuals (male or female)") be addressed by alphabetically reordering 'female' and 'male' (in the absence of any other objective ordering rationale).
--Tyranny Sue06:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sexism in this, it's more natural to say "male and female", not the other way around. This especially applies to many translations, even if it may sound sexist, many cultures are not obsessed with these changes. --Anatoli02:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Please note, this has nothing to do with the gender type ordering discussion above.)
Senses 2 & 3 seem odd to me.
2. "differences between men and women, suggesting but not necessitating reference to sex"
Do we really think that gender means "differences"? Sounds wrong to me. But if we do, a quote (& maybe some etymological back-up) would be really helpful.
3. "(sociology) gender role; culture specific behaviour norms, normally but not necessarily, associated with one’s sex; condition of adopting such a gender role."
Wouldn't this belong better under "Derived terms" then start a new entry for "gender role"? ('gender role' as an entry would, I believe, be of interest as more than sum-of-parts for historical/cultural reasons.)
"A socio-cultural phenomenon that divides people into various categories such as "male" and "female," with each having associated dress, roles, stereotypes, etc." -- Really? Gender is a socio-cultural phenomenon? --Inops (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Rfv-sense "A socio-cultural phenomenon that divides people into various categories such as "male" and "female", with each having associated dress, roles, stereotypes, etc." See edit history. Previously had the usex "Gender in Western society is often viewed as a binary entity". (I would have phrased the usex "gender in Western culture is (usually) binary", with only slightly different grammar, and I think the definition could perhaps also be reworded.) I've added one quotation that I think supports the sense. - -sche(discuss)18:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How's this as a start for the missing definition of "gender" as verb: "1. (sociology, of a text, an object, etc) To associate with stereotypical characteristics of one or the other gender, usually invidiously." Two things about it: First, it doesn't exactly apply to the second quotation ("Yet because texts by “female authors” are not dependent on the voice to gender the text, the topics that they address and the traditions that they employ seem broader and somewhat less constrained by gender stereotypes."), which seems to be using "to gender" to mean "to associated with one or another gender" or just "to define as women's writing" Secondly, this isn't really a term from sociology per se, but rather one used in many disciplines influenced by Gender Studies -- anthropology, history, English, etc. The two examples are from a Biblical scholar and a literary historian, for example. Could we change the discipline of both definitions to "gender studies"?
From Gender:
examples of the use of gender to refer to masculinity and femininity as types are found throughout the history of Modern English (from about the 14th century).
1387–8: No mo genders been there but masculine, and femynyne, all the remnaunte been no genders but of grace, in facultie of grammar—Thomas Usk, The Testament of Love II iii (Walter William Skeat) 13.
c. 1460: Has thou oght written there of the femynyn gendere?—Towneley Mystery Plays xxx 161 Act One.
1632: Here's a woman! The soul of Hercules has got into her. She has a spirit, is more masculine Than the first gender—Shackerley Marmion, Holland's Leaguer III iv.
1709: Of the fair sex ... my only consolation for being of that gender has been the assurance it gave me of never being married to any one among them—Mary Wortley Montagu, Letters to Mrs Wortley lxvi 108.
"Identification as male/masculine, female/feminine or something else." Like what else? Can we get reliable CFI-compliant citations for genders that are not male/masculine or female/feminine? Equinox◑04:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand the relevance of the words "male" and "female" in "Identification as male/masculine, female/feminine or something else.".
The definitions of male/female are "Belonging to the sex which typically produces sperm, or to the gender which is typically associated with it." and "Belonging to the sex which typically produces eggs (ova), or to the gender which is typically associated with it." Surely "gender" does not mean identifying with one or the other kind of cell production, and using the second part seems circular.
In practice, there is often not a clear distinction between sex and gender. But generally when people talk about someone's gender, they mean that they are being assigned to a series of behaviours and attributes associated with each sex (hence the reference to male and female) – but not only with each sex, as reference can be made to many more than two genders. Ƿidsiþ11:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I agree that the reference to "male" and "female" is due to this idea of "a series of behaviours and attributes associated with each sex", but this is what is meant by "masculine/feminine" and "association with a (social) role or set of behavioral and cultural traits, clothing, etc". Therefore I think that talking about "male" and "female" is a misinterpretation and confusing, and that "Identification as masculine, feminine or something else" would be much clearer. To identify as "masculine/feminine" is clearly to identify with "a series of behaviours and attributes associated with each sex", therefore conveying the desired sense. What do you think ? Lboukoko (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with "identification as masculine" (dropping "male"), is that e.g. a girl who is a tomboy "identifies as masculine" but is a girl/woman/female — a male gender is obviously not the same as merely being "masculine"! In general I would say that although some have tried to insist on an absolute split between male/female/sex and masculine/feminine/gender, one should notice that this is not maintained in practice... which does, indeed, make it a bit tricky to define all these words... - -sche(discuss)23:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. "this is not maintained in practice": I agree on this, but the question (I would say) is whether this use is improper, out of confusion, or designating something genuine. I think that we can find in your answer two distinct concepts: "identify as masculine" and "being masculine". A "male gender" is to "identify as masculine". To be honest, this concept of "identifying as X" is very strange to me and has no meaning in my own experience of self, it seems to have a stronger meaning than any "identification" I might have myself experienced. And if we give such a deep meaning to "identify" then I don't think a tomboy would use this word to describe herself. I'm just trying to make sense of what other people mean. I think that it is legit to maintain a strict limit between what is considered a biological phenomenon(male/female) from the liberties that individuals take from the associations of traits and features as "typically male features" or "typically female features". Like I said above, if the definition of male/female are not modified, then it does not make sense to talk about "identifying as a male" as this has a biological meaning. Currently the only reference to something else than sex is to gender itself, and although I don't know Wiktionnary's policies with circular definitions I know that that makes me unconformable. I'm aware of the attempt by some to deny the scientific relevance of the concept of sex, and I wish them good luck to have this accepted by the community, but until then I think it'd be better to maintain a clear division between people's self identification (with this concept of "identifying" being really strong, therefore not relevant for tomboys) and a biological phenomena. Overall, replacing the word male by the definitions available on the Wiktionnary lead to nonsense or to a circular definition, therefore I'm in favour of removing it. Do you see a way to resolve this issue without removing the words male/female? Lboukoko (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It belatedly occurs to me that we might express things more clearer by dropping both "male" and "masculine" and saying "a man", i.e. "identification as a man or woman or something else". That avoids direct circularity, by no longer having any term defined directly as another term that is defined directly as the first term, and it solves the problem of otherwise seeming to include tomboys, effeminate men, etc as the 'wrong' or as separate genders. - -sche(discuss)19:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your answer, and the fact that you proposed a modification. However I don't see how this is solving the issue of circularity, because the definitions of man/woman also refer to the words male/female. Or maybe I don't understand the criteria for "circularity". I maintain my idea that the problem that you point to is based on a wrong understanding of what trans people mean when they use the verb "identifying". I would say that trans people use the definition 6 of identify while the people you are mentioning use the definition 4. Is there a way to. Is there a way to give such a precision? I think we are each concerned with one different issue (the inclusion of tomboys or effeminate men for you, and the non-circularity for me), and I hope we can find a solution that satisfy us both. Lboukoko (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's circular to reference "man" because man references "male", then your initial edit removing "male" but leaving "masculine" (which is defined in terms of "male") is also circular. The only way I can think of to avoid that level of circularity would be to remove mention of specific genders altogether, which I'm not necessarily opposed to doing, but which would be tricky to do without broadening the scope of the definition beyond what most usage bears out, since just saying e.g. "association with a (social) role or set of behavioral and cultural traits" would seem to include many other kinds of categories (e.g. nuns, or police officers, or butch lesbians) as genders. (I have seen a small number of works which refer to those kinds of categories as genders, but that may be better analysed as sense 2, "class", which is probably not entirely obsolete.) In my opinion, some circularity with very basic words is tolerable qand possibly unavoidable, since people are unlikely to reach the dictionary completely unfamiliar with all of them. - -sche(discuss)22:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it solves the problem because the definitions of masculine makes the link between the social and the biological in a way that man does not: the definitions 3 and 4 say "typically used by males" and "stereotypically associated with men". The definition for male does not make such a link, staying to close from the biological definition. 5.51.105.22319:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Lady Montagu and Charles Dickens quotes come under definition 1 (“type” or “kind”), not 3 (“sex”)[edit]
The use of “gender” in the two quotes from 1723 & 1849, from Lady Montagu and Charles Dickens respectively, means “type” or “kind”, i.e. definition 1. However, on this page they have been wrongfully interpreted as being meant as definition 3. Therefore they should be moved to be under definition 1 or be removed entirely.
To say truth, I have never had any great esteem for the generality of the fair sex; and my only consolation for being of that gender has been the assurance it gave me of never being married to any one among them […].
In consideration of the day and hour of my birth, it was declared by the nurse […] that I was destined to be unlucky in life; and secondly, that I was privileged to see ghosts and spirits; both these gifts inevitably attaching, as they believed, to all unlucky infants of either gender, born towards the small hours on a Friday night.
