Sex/Gender: Which Is Which? A Rejoinder to Mary Riege Laner

Abstract

This article is a challenge to Mary Riege Laner's exhortation to "Let sex be sex and let gender be gender" as expressed recently in the pages of Sociological Inquiry (Laner 2000, p. 471). I examine the theoretical and linguistic underpinnings of such a view, critique the sex/gender distinction on which it is based, and endorse the maneuvers of a number of poststructuralist thinkers who have sought to problematize that very distinction. I argue instead that the classic sex/gender distinction of second-wave feminism goes wrong on (at least) three counts: (1) it is ahistorical in an area where historical specificity matters; (2) it rests on a simplistic and untenable account of language; (3) the conceptual dichotomy it posits-demarcating gender from sex-is not sustainable and cannot withstand close scrutiny. Finally, I question whether the import of the poststructuralist critique necessitates a move to epistemological and ethical relativism in the field of sex/gender studies.When language games change then there is a change of concepts, and with the concepts the meanings of words change. (Wittgenstein 1969, § 65)

Gender Dimensions of Public Service Motivation

“…Th e use of biological sex to measure gender, aside from providing analytical ease, is consistent with the close interrelationship between sex and gender ( Acker 1992 , 251;Burrell and Hearn 1989, 2 ), particularly given that one's biological sex determines the societal messages one receives about appropriate roles and behavior. Measuring gender as biological sex is a common methodological choice, but it is one that has been intensely debated ( Cresswell 2003;Hood-Williams 1996, 1997Laner 2000Laner , 2003Willmott 1996 ). Th is discourse includes scholars who argue that biological sex and gender are distinct, with the former pertaining to anatomy and the latter the social construction ( Laner 2000( Laner , 2003Oakley 1972 ), and others who argue that the two concepts cannot be separated in any meaningful way ( Cresswell 2003;Hood-Williams 1996, 1997.…”

Gender and Organizational Rule Abidance

“…The use of biological sex to measure gender, aside from providing analytical ease, is consistent with the close interrelationship between sex and gender (Acker 1992, 251; Burrell and Hearn 1989, 2), particularly given that one’s biological sex determines the societal messages one receives about appropriate roles and behavior. Measuring gender as biological sex is a common methodological choice, but it is one that has been debated intensely (Cresswell 2003; Hood‐Williams 1996, 1997; Laner 2000, 2003; Willmott 1996). This discourse includes scholars who argue that biological sex and gender are distinct, with the former pertaining to anatomy and the latter the social construction (Laner 2000, 2003; Oakley 1972), and others who argue that the two concepts cannot be separated in any meaningful way (Cresswell 2003; Hood‐Williams 1996, 1997).…”

On the Reconceptualizing of Gender: Implications for Research Design

“…Most importantly, it means that the current convention is insufficient and-contra to Laner (2000)more vigilant policing of the sex/gender distinction is not likely to result in improved quality or to enable us to overcome spontaneous sociology. What is required, as Cresswell (2003) convincingly argues, is a paradigm shift from biological foundationalism to social constructionism. In this view, gender (the social) is seen as foundational-as what "comes first."…”