Split from https://libcom.org/forums/theory/poverty-identity-politics-21052018
radicalgrafitti wrote:
nice means stupid, gay means happy, girl means child of either sex, yes this is how we understand wordsWords change meaning, in case of John Money he took the existing term 'gender' (from grammar) and used it as a term in his theory, whence you use it today, thanks to that abuser John Money.
Noa Rodman wrote:
radicalgrafitti wrote:
nice means stupid, gay means happy, girl means child of either sex, yes this is how we understand wordsWords change meaning, in case of John Money he took the existing term 'gender' (from grammar) and used it as a term in his theory, whence you use it today, thanks to that abuser John Money.
And?
Fleur wrote:
Seriously Noa, I don't give a flying fuck about etymology or who first coined the phrase. It is entirely irrelevant. I just wanted someone to explain what is this morass of identity politics that people keep rattling on about. You don't have an answer anf you're just digging a bigger and bigger hole. If the best you can come up with is John Money than it is blatantly obvious that you do not have a single clue on the subject of transphobic in radical circles.The scientific bankruptcy of the definition of one of the key concepts of "identity politics" (there are whole departments on "gender" studies are there not?) is quite relevant I would say. I don't want to hound you with questions, particularly from TERFs, but can you define what gender is without relying on stereotypes?
jospanner wrote:
And?No need to dispute it, it's just basic info.
Noa Rodman wrote:
jospanner wrote:
And?No need to dispute it, it's just basic info.
Mitochondria is the Powerhouse of the Cell
I can be irrelevant too.
Noa Rodman wrote:
Fleur wrote:
Seriously Noa, I don't give a flying fuck about etymology or who first coined the phrase. It is entirely irrelevant. I just wanted someone to explain what is this morass of identity politics that people keep rattling on about. You don't have an answer anf you're just digging a bigger and bigger hole. If the best you can come up with is John Money than it is blatantly obvious that you do not have a single clue on the subject of transphobic in radical circles.The scientific bankruptcy of the definition of one of the key concepts of "identity politics" (there are whole departments on "gender" studies are there not?) is quite relevant I would say. I don't want to hound you with questions, particularly from TERFs, but can you define what gender is without relying on stereotypes?
you haven't established that current usage of "identity politics" is based on john money apparently using the same term, its not exactly like no one else could independently put those two words together,
and even if you had you haven't shown that nothing in how the term "identity polities" is used has changed since then,
and even if you had you haven't shown you still haven't shown his opinion of it was correct.finally, you clearly have no concept of what science is, cause its not fucking looking up some phrase, finding the first usage you can and adopting the views of who ever that was
Noa Rodman wrote:
jospanner wrote:
And?No need to dispute it, it's just basic info.
It’s actually garbled fucking nonsense. Use of “Gender” in the sense of social roles of men and women predates Money’s academic career (def 3b in below link). Its use to mean “Males or females as a group” can in fact be traced back to the 15th century (def 3a in below link).
You’re right about John Money existing and it being a loan word from grammar originally, but a good effort at having every single part of a sentence be factually wrong.
Noa Rodman wrote:
The scientific bankruptcy of the definition of one of the key concepts of "identity politics" (there are whole departments on "gender" studies are there not?) is quite relevant I would say. I don't want to hound you with questions, particularly from TERFs, but can you define what gender is without relying on stereotypes?Genders are the sets of expressions of human behaviour and appearance that we use for shorthand in grouping and identifying people. As a social phenomenon, gendered oppression is a serious problem that faces many of us. The rigid definition of "man" and "woman" as defined by genitalia has resulted in many people being placed in social categories that are extremely uncomfortable to the point of self-harm and suicide.
The bioessentialist nature of these sets is largely unknown, being part of the emergent complexity of neurons and chemicals, but there is some evidence to suggest that, although a social expression of human motivations, it may not be entirely socially constructed. This is not to say that our biology necessarily predetermines who we are, but can possibly influence it, at least in some portion of the human population.
That said, this is my understanding of gender. It is nebulous, difficult to define, but is nonetheless real.I contrast this to the TERF ideology of gender, which is demonstrably nonsense.
I admire your effort, jospanner but you're wasting your time here. Noa doesn't actually believe that gender is even a thing and he thinks that being trans is a sexual preference, no relation to gender identity. He did a whole fucking thread on it *eyeroll emoji*Note to Admin, during the site redesign please bring the smilies back. Ta.
Hmm. Sounds TERFy.
Fleur wrote:
I admire your effort, jospanner but you're wasting your time here. Noa doesn't actually believe that gender is even a thing and he thinks that being trans is a sexual preference, no relation to gender identity. He did a whole fucking thread on it *eyeroll emoji*Note to Admin, during the site redesign please bring the smilies back. Ta.
oh yes it was quite incredible https://libcom.org/forums/general/talking-about-lovesex-forums-15112017
edit oh apparently emojis dont work at all here? i guess Unicode is not supported
radicalgraffiti wrote:
oh yes it was quite incredible https://libcom.org/forums/general/talking-about-lovesex-forums-15112017Good god what piece of work.
Sadie wrote:
It’s actually garbled fucking nonsense. Use of “Gender” in the sense of social roles of men and women predates Money’s academic career (def 3b in below link). Its use to mean “Males or females as a group” can in fact be traced back to the 15th century (def 3a in below link).You’re right about John Money existing and it being a loan word from grammar originally, but a good effort at having every single part of a sentence be factually wrong.
Sorry but def 3b doesn't mean "social roles of men and women" as you imagine.
It says “Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.1 1. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups.”
And it explains:
Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 (sometimes humorously), as also in Anglo-Norman and Old French. In the 20th cent., as sex came increasingly to mean sexual intercourse (see sex n.1 4b), gender began to replace it (in early use euphemistically) as the usual word for the biological grouping of males and females. It is now often merged with or coloured by sense 3b.
Noa Rodman wrote:
Sorry but def 3b doesn't mean "social roles of men and women" as you imagine.“In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’”
Does it not?
In any case, Money did not invent the modern usage of the term “gender” all on his own, being that there's a clear timeline for both senses that predate his work and your attempts to sugest that he did are a pretty transparent and pathetic attempt to tar trans people by association with a researcher who actively harmed both trans and GNC cis people a great deal with his absolute fucking bullshit. Even if it were true, it wouldn’t confer any innate authority for Money on the legitimacy of any such term. The “Big Bang” for instance was originally a derisory way of referring to that theory of the origins of the universe, the inventor of the term thought it was bunk and despite this it continues to be the go to term for it long after it became the consensus position for the vast majority of physicists.Basically you’re taking rubbish and you should answer Fleur’s question.
Interesting, that one quote you found Sadie is from 1945, by the American psychologist Isaac Madison Bentley (he also uses "gendering"). The same Bentley used it again in 1950. But John Money is still correctly regarded (not by "me" personally, but basically in the literature) to have first popularized it (and specifically the term "gender role" or "gender identity").