I suspect this has run its course and it has become rather tedious. To tell the truth, surely it hardly matters but seeing as Stephen posted the message I will send my reply. I see no sense or logic at all in a distinction behind the words in brackets that “Bulls are male (not masculine) and cows are female (not feminine)”. They exhibit in their behaviour and attributes the same characteristics of masculinity and femininity, as adapted appropriate to their species, as do humans and any other species. The phrase about something “as useless as tits on a bull” is used in the broader sense of gender and what is best for masculine and feminine roles or indeed any inappropriate addition (like a propeller on a bus), than just physical sex. One could argue the case with male sea horses as they show the feminine habit of giving birth to their young. Thus they are not male in their behaviour, but neither are they female (because they produce sperm, not eggs) but they are I believe undeniably feminine in that attribute, as they have the mother role. It seems absurd to me to suggest people have more in common with ships and cars and cyclones and words in grammar that like people are assigned a gender, than they have to life forms that according to this argument, do not have a gender. I suspect the view being put against mine is built upon the concept that gender applies uniquely to humans, within living things and also to inanimate objects. In biology we need to get away from the idea that humans are a separate system from other life. We are not. Otherwise it is applying a Christian value or term or just European cultural, to science. Which he objects to. This seems completely wrong to me. I don’t actually think Stephen thinks that. As far as the ideas of the sexism in human society, there is no shortage of other mammal species that run a similar system of males taking a domineering role over females.
Hi Stephen,
An interesting idea and sounds mostly credible. A discussion point, though I don’t think there is an answer, it is just a word use thing and words do have a range of uses. I agree with your end point. I believe the patriarchal Christians would have invented these ideas as their way of interpreting nature. Although the reason for doing so was to exploit fundamental biological features to maintain a sexist system. They did not appreciate that humans have the same basic biology as other species, through common descent. Thus set up a silly system whereby there is a dividing line: humans – everything else, that really doesn’t exist in nature. Thankfully hopefully we have a more advanced and liberal view. So I think it reasonable to extend the idea of masculine and feminine features to nature. It is these features that denote gender. So I can’t imagine any reason why gender should apply to people, tropical cyclones, all French and Latin nouns and boats, but not to goshawks, gorillas or corn. But as in the examples I have others have used, the concept as gender when it contradicts sex is really rather silly.
Philip
