Subject:
|
Re: Couldn't resist
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:10:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
139 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > Not to push the point, I'd say there _is_ a gradient between "female" and
> > "male". I don't think the differences are as utterly obvious as they first
> > seem.
>
> I was hoping to avoid that quagmire, but you're correct. Your post
> crystalizes the difference between "sex" and "gender," which are distinct
> characteristics not to be interchanged.
>
> thoughtful discussion mostly snipped
>
> Is sex important? Absolutely, in both a societal sense and a longitudinal,
> species-spanning way, since it is, at present, the only way by which we are
> able to make more humans!
Talk about up-to-the-minute. See these topics:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11562
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11564
> I didn't want to weigh down this basically light-hearted discussion, but you
> raised a valid point.
I agree (about being a drag etc). Still, I thought .debate was a good place
for discussion of Adam's rib (or Eve's funky chromosomal mutation). I'm
still cite-seeking, but I actually think DaveE is in a very particular sense
wrong when (s)he says (at http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/fun/?n=7719):
> [W]e're all female [is] another obviously silly result. I don't really expect
> anyone to take it seriously :)
Of course, if this is ploughed ground I don't have to be a clod and dredge
it up.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) I was hoping to avoid that quagmire, but you're correct. Your post crystalizes the difference between "sex" and "gender," which are distinct characteristics not to be interchanged. Gender, in the modern usage, describes the *relative* (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
