netmouse | A poll for the gents on reading

I also self-identify as a "reader", but I haven't done much of it lately.

me too!

I've read several anthologies and magazines, but only two single-author books, so I only answered for the two books. The anthology I'm currently reading also includes works by female authors.

I put in an extra .5 for the female contributions to the two anthologies; I think they averaged out at about 25% each, though I haven't gone back to count stories/pages/etc. Neither of them was the Mammoth Book of anything....

My numbers are pretty badly skewed by re-reading right now, since of the 17 books (15 in my most recent booklog post, plus two since then), three are by Robert Heinlein, another three are Brian Daley's Han Solo books, and two are Bujold's Chalion books. My re-reading tends to be streaky like that.

well, any time period is going to have a couple people who are skewed like that. you're probably ballanced by the female-authored series Alex just read in one fell swoop.

I also ignored anthologies.

I do not identify as being of the male "gender" because I am not a property of nouns in certain languages. I do identify as being of the male sex, though.

You do also know that the "property of nouns" definition is only one of the formally acceptable definitions, right? And that "sex" isn't actually a synonym for the one Netmouse is using, because "sex" is a biological distinction and "gender" is a societal and cultural one?

I also know several other things:

- The definitions of words are mutable over time
- The use of the word 'gender' as a PC substitute for sex is a recent change. For example http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender lists it as a second definition.
- I'm not embarassed to use the word sex to describe my identity - biological, societal and cultural.

Therefore, where possible and practical, I seek a return of the word to its original meaning, before 'sex' was marginalized by the Puritans.

I am not, however, using gender instead of sex in order to be PC. I do it in order to be specific. I'm not embarrassed to use the word sex for my identity either - but I am cisgendered, meaning my biology and my gender identity are the same. I recognize, however, that this is not the case for all people. Since the poll has to do with a social, not biological, question, I used the term gender. Your resistance to the term seems to reflect a view that those who are not cisgendered are not worth recognizing or accounting for in our use of language. I would disagree, especially since my immediate community includes some of those people, and I welcome and cherish them.

The use of gender meaning sexual identity (behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex) will be the second definition in the dictionary from now on - that is a chronological order, not an indication of recency (it does not indicate exactly how recently it was adopted), range of use, or preference. In just this way, the first definition of tarmac (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tarmac) is the trademarked brand you probably didn't even know existed, while the second definition is the one in common use, meaning "a road, airport runway, parking area, etc., paved with Tarmac, tarmacadam, or a layer of tar." Hand in the dictionary is only described as the set of cards being held by a player in the 9th definition of the term. Does that mean it is less true than earlier definitions? Not at all. Would you insist hand can only mean a part of the anatomy, and not a group of cards, or a worker in a ship's crew? Many words are like that in the dictionary. The dictionary is useful for a lot of things, but debates of this sort are not one of them.

I checked my OED. The word gender, to describe a person's biological disposition has been in use since the 1500's. Then around 1963, in the heat of the feminist movement, it became the much misused politically correct term people seem to have a problem with.

I understood her reference and am one of the non-cisgendered people she is talking about as I can and have identified as both.

Interesting. Can you post the full entry? I'd be very interested in reading it.

But you are right in your historical comment that much of this is about the embedded connotations of words. To my ears, the word 'gender' in the non-linguistic sense is filled with connotations of euphemism, political correctness and bowdlerizing.

I didn't have a problem understanding her, I just felt I needed to raise awareness on a point I feel strongly about.

I don't know if you have access to the OED online, but here is the link... http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50093521?query_type=word&queryword=gender&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=pAyg-oQHEGu-5904&hilite

Yeah, unfortunately I don't have a license. I guess it'll have to wait until I get to a library.

First, let's start with the factual, again from Merriam-Webster:

cisgender
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

---

Next, allow me to make very clear that my point is about Semantics - the meanings of words.

In particular, I take considerable exception to this remark: "Your resistance to the term seems to reflect a view that those who are not cisgendered are not worth recognizing or accounting for in our use of language."

There is absolutely no need to go making up words and then misrepresenting the viewpoint of those who prefer not to adopt such coinages. There is nothing wrong with the following rewrite of your sentence:

"Your resistance to the term seems to reflect a view that those who have different biological and social identities are not worth recognizing or accounting for in our use of language."

I should add, of course, that I STRONGLY disagree with said sentiment - I am in the LGBT family and have many friends who have such distinctions in their lives. We just don't choke the language with neologisms.

---

Here's an epistemological question for you. Why would you assume that I probably don't know where tarmac comes from (I can even cite an Elvis Costello song with the original 'tarmacadam')? Do you think that such an assumption might be offensive or irritating to the reader?

---

As I said, my point is about Semantics. The dictionary is the authority on the current meaning of words. If you can't accept a factual authority in debate, we should stop now.

I didn't make up the word cisgender. If you google it you get 19,900 responses. That's quite a lot for a word I made up. Furthermore, I defined it for you, then I used it. There's no particular reason to get huffy about the use of a word that was clearly defined earlier in the same statement. According to wikipedia, cisgender has been in use for over a decade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender). It has only recently become more commonly used. Dictionaries take a while to catch up, by their very nature.

What do you propose the word sex should mean with regard to the masculine and the feminine, if you insist that one ought to use only sex and not gender when describing a person? Do you think it better to make the term sex nebulous (meaning non-specific as to body parts) than to use other terms? Is that what you propose?

Does your epistemological question actually contradict the truth of my assertion as to the information contained in a dictionary entry?

(I am so pleased you know the word 'tarmacadam'. I didn't. Very few paved spaces these days are actually paved with tarmacadam. The patent was established in 1901. Do you know the name of the patent holder too? )

*shrug* knowing the whole word doesn't actually mean your first thought was that the definition was solely of a patented product and not the material generally or surfaces laid with it. In any case, I would assume you probably didn't know that for a very simple reason: I didn't know it. Tarmac was simply the first word that came to mind for which I thought I probably didn't know the original meaning of the word, and when I looked it up I found I was correct.

Since you were already irritated by my use of the word "gender" there was little cause for me to expect to be able to avoid irritating you while making further statements. What I was mainly aiming for was for us to approach some logical common ground.

The dictionary is *an* authority on the current definition of words, *and* the most recent definition in the dictionary - e.g. the current definition - is generally not the first one - by the rules published in the front matter of the dictionary. You seemed to be arguing earlier that the original definition in the dictionary was somehow the strongest definition and not merely the oldest one. Did I mistake your earlier implication?

"If you google it you get 19,900 responses."

I think this is critical to understanding our different viewpoints. I am a staunch believer in democracy as a form of government, but not as definition of truth or reality. I get over 1.2 million hits from googling 'pr0n' but I do not consider that a word.

---

On the wikipedia article: Interesting reading. Prior to this discussion, I hadn't heard the term before. It is true that dictionaries take a while to catch up, but I think this is a feature, not a bug. It keeps fads from creating chaos in the language.

----

Regarding what I propose. Fair enough, it is reasonable to ask for a constructive approach beyond just criticism. In my view, there is nothing wrong with the statement: "I'm a male, but feel more comfortable doing rather than ."

In other words, I think it is more productive if we describe ourselves in our particular details rather than create yet more categories to box people in.

"I'm a Holly." ;)

---

The intent of the epistemological question was simply to raise your awareness that I felt you were making untoward assumptions about me. It is orthogonal to the discussion at hand.

But, while we are here, no, I don't know who the patent holder is. I would guess it was someone named MacAdam or similar, no?

---

"What I was mainly aiming for was for us to approach some logical common ground."

Indeed. This is my hope, too. And to clarify, I wasn't irritated by your use of the word 'gender' as you did. Life is waaaay to short for that. I just felt I needed to raise my wee hand in objection.

---

"You seemed to be arguing earlier that the original definition in the dictionary was somehow the strongest definition and not merely the oldest one. Did I mistake your earlier implication?"

Yes, I think so. As Rileybear pointed out, the word 'gender' has developed an awful lot of baggage over the years. I am not saying that one definition is stronger than another, but rather that I would really like to drop that usage (and the baggage that goes with it) in favor of an older usage which is plainer, clearer and less euphemistic.

I'm jus' talkin' 'bout plain talkin', ma'm. ;)

Ugh. LJ just did Something Evil to my post. I think it may have been the angle brackets. Let's try this paragraph again:

Regarding what I propose. Fair enough, it is reasonable to ask for a constructive approach beyond just criticism. In my view, there is nothing wrong with the statement: "I'm a male, but feel more comfortable doing [ insert tradional female roles of choice here ] rather than [ insert contrasting male roles here ]."

Being able to make a distinction between biological sex and cultural identity is actually useful. Why would you want to campaign to eliminate that?

No, not all. Please see my comments above.

BTW, I'm amused by your nick in this particular context, given that 'tlatoani' is the Nahua word for 'one who speaks' and thus one who would pay considerable attention to words... ;)

tlatoani is a lawyer and one of the most particular users of words that I know.

Can you explain how using 'sex' instead of 'gender' would not have lost the distinction between biological and cultural identity?

(or, in contrary fashion, would not have made some people in the LGBT family you claim as your own feel uncomfortable because of having different biological sex and cultural gender identities? (feel free to consult with trans friends to check that thought before answering this one)

Edited 2009-08-28 21:37 (UTC)

I do pay considerable attention to words, I just feel that language should be vibrant and evolve, rather than be locked in a glass case to look at -- or worse, be pruned back to what it was centuries ago.

I was also raised by anthropologists, who taught me the difference between "sex" and "gender," and the value of being able to distinguish between the two when discussing the place of individuals in society. When I make the distinction, it isn't political correctness, it's precision.

You're free to try to change modern usages, but you risk looking like a nut when you try to correct other people who are using the word correctly.

And yes, I do of course know what my handle means.

Niltze.

"I do pay considerable attention to words, I just feel that language should be vibrant and evolve, rather than be locked in a glass case to look at -- or worse, be pruned back to what it was centuries ago."

Actually, in general, I agree with this. Where we part, perhaps, is that I do not believe all change is good simply because it is change.

---

"When I make the distinction, it isn't political correctness, it's precision."

Then please demonstrate for us two sentences. One in which 'sex' cannot be used and one in which 'gender' cannot be used.

---

"You're free to try to change modern usages, but you risk looking like a nut..."

Oh, heck, I'm a fan. I gave up on worrying about looking like a nut decades ago. :)

---

"And yes, I do of course know what my handle means."

I by no means intended to imply you didn't, please accept my apology if you took it that way. I was defining both for the larger audience and by way of introducing the focus on words.

Actually, in general, I agree with this. Where we part, perhaps, is that I do not believe all change is good simply because it is change.

I don't either, but I do believe that fighting against linguistic change is (a) usually futile and (b) kind of arrogant. And sometimes it's also (c) inappropriate.

I don't think you'd argue, for example, that I shouldn't use the term "firewall" to describe the IT security concept, since that isn't its original definition.

Then please demonstrate for us two sentences. One in which 'sex' cannot be used and one in which 'gender' cannot be used.

A sentence where "sex" cannot be used: A good example would be the sentence in Anne's original post which triggered this discussion. Since she was trying to limit the scope to readers who identify as male, rather than those who are biologically male, using "sex" would not have gotten her the result she wanted. She would want a F to M transgendered person to answer this quiz, for example, but not an M to F one. The sentence would still have made sense with "sex," but it would have gotten her a different sample of people.

A sentence where "gender" cannot be used: "What gender is your snake?"

I know perfectly well what she means, and am willing to provide that information.

I understand what people mean when they say "It's the bomb." for something good. It revolts me, but I understand it. If someone used that phrase, I might well make a similar argument for discontinuing that particular usage of 'bomb'.

If you understand it, the first requirement of communication is being fulfilled.

You're fighting for language change; but the bit you want to change is going to destroy a lot of useful distinctions on an issue people are currently very involved in. You need a VERY good reason for doing that -- and even then you shouldn't expect to be loved by the people who care about the distinctions you want to destroy.

Possibly it would be better if different terms had been chosen, letting us go back to what you describe as an older usage of "sex" (I haven't looked into your claims, and have no opinion about the history there). But at this point, there's going to be a lot of cost to some very politically active and some rather vulnerable people if you succeed (overlapping sets, not identical).

I'm going to try to give you an accurate answer on this, but as I read a ton of throwaway books on planes, I have to look at my shelves back home.

I appreciate it, thanks!

My reading has been curtailed this past month because of the twins...

well, and it would be. :)

Hope that's going well.

There you go, using that excuse again. You know, you're going to have to give it up in about eighteen years.

Ummm... I read a lot and don't really care who the author is... well as in if they are male or female.

Read the entire Sookie Stackhouse series the other weekend...so maybe more than 50% of the books I've read recently have been by female authors.

Some authors I've no idea if they are male or female... either just initials or a non-gender specific first name and I don't look it up.

I know you read a lot. if you'd prefer to limit the poll to just a month, that's fine. If you have any names you don't know the gender of, let me know what they are and I'll see if I can find out.

I really haven't read very much in the last few months. There's been a convention in the way.

In fact, I can't remember any book that I both started and finished in the last two months. I can remember only three books that I finished during that period and all of them were written by men. I know that I have a couple of books that were written by women going but I may have to restart one of them because it has been so long since I read any of it.

I generally count a book as having been "read" in the time period when I finished the book. And I don't count a book as having been read unless and until I finish it. That's what I figured people would do, since it's what I would do.

I don't have enough info to fill this out for my hubby, but he just completed a book by Robin Hobb.

My numbers for July and August are badly skewed by 2 batches of rereading, accounting for 9 of the 11 books I read in the period. None of which are in-genre.

Going for the full year-to-date, I get 29 by men, 7 by women, with the books that were not re-reads heavily concentrated among the women.

This is an interesting pattern that two of you have now reported.

If we'd caught things slightly differently, I might have been rereading Sayers or Ellis Peters or Bujold instead, skewing the other way. But the new stuff skewing female is interesting, certainly. Possibly too small a sample to mean much yet. And three of them were a series I read because they were recommended to me by a woman!!!

Right now, I can't remember the last time I got a chance to read fiction for pleasure. I have a lot of books in the shelves in my office, but very few bought in the last five years.

All my reading of books these days is reading out loud to my kids. Even then, I can't remember very specifically exactly what I've read; and for a bunch of what I do remember, I couldn't tell you who wrote it.

There are exceptions - My son likes the "Magic Tree House" series by Mary Pope Osborne. I know I've read from several of those. I like the books by Sandra Boynton, and my kids do too. I like to read Dr Seuss books, my kids have more mixed reactions to those.

Is this supposed to be just fiction books, or both fiction and non-fiction? How to I count an anthology of mixed authors?

well, since you're female you should wait for the next poll, but I'm going to say you call an anthology based on the majority of the authors.

The males squeezed out a bare majority in novels (which were all I counted) but interestingly enough, the three anthologies I read the last two months were all *edited* by women. I'm not sure I've seen enough anthologies lately in Fantasy/SF to spot a trend, but it seems that female anthology editors have become much more common.

Another interesting factoid is that the percentage seems to hold fairly steady. Sitting on my "waiting to be read" shelf are 32 books, 13 of which are by female authors, or 40%. (Of course, if we were talking not just SF/F, there's about another six by Janet Evanovich on the same shelf...)

I ignored the books by women that I've got but haven't started to read, and the books by women that I read for professional reasons (Susan Shirk, Michaeline Crichlow, Anita Waters). That does skew things a bit.

I see I'm not the only person who's read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies...

I was torn on the whole "self-identify" thing, but i figured i'd put what it says on my driver's license.

I don't read much (i'd like to, but i don't), but i also feel like your poll is geared toward fiction. Maybe that's assumed? Most of what i read is non-fiction.

A poll for the gents on reading

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

"Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

Re: "Gender"

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject