Gender as a historical kind: A tale of two genders?

Marion Godman

doi:10.1007/s10539-018-9619-1

Gender as a historical kind: A tale of two genders?

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avis › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review

Abstract

Is there anything that members of each binary category of gender have in common? Even many non-essentialists find the lack of unity within a gender worrying as it undermines the basis for a common political agenda for women. One promising proposal for achieving unity is by means of a shared historical lineage of cultural reproduction with past binary models of gender (e.g. Bach in Ethics 122:231-272, 2012). I demonstrate how such an account is likely to take on board different binary and also non-binary systems of gender. This implies that all individuals construed as members of the category, "women" are in fact not members of the same historical kind after all! I then consider different possible means of modifying the account but conclude negatively: the problem runs deeper than has been appreciated thus far.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Artikelnummer	21
Tidsskrift	Biology and Philosophy
Vol/bind	33
Nummer	3-4
ISSN	0169-3867
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9619-1
Status	Udgivet - 2018
Udgivet eksternt	Ja

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1007/s10539-018-9619-1

Andre filer og links

Link to publication in Scopus

Citationsformater

@article{796d7efd71664169b5803bc9a72ff13a,

title = "Gender as a historical kind: A tale of two genders?",

abstract = "Is there anything that members of each binary category of gender have in common? Even many non-essentialists find the lack of unity within a gender worrying as it undermines the basis for a common political agenda for women. One promising proposal for achieving unity is by means of a shared historical lineage of cultural reproduction with past binary models of gender (e.g. Bach in Ethics 122:231-272, 2012). I demonstrate how such an account is likely to take on board different binary and also non-binary systems of gender. This implies that all individuals construed as members of the category, {"}women{"} are in fact not members of the same historical kind after all! I then consider different possible means of modifying the account but conclude negatively: the problem runs deeper than has been appreciated thus far.",

keywords = "Adaptationism, Common ancestry, Cultural evolution, Gender, Historical kinds, Scaffolded reproduction",

author = "Marion Godman",

year = "2018",

doi = "10.1007/s10539-018-9619-1",

language = "English",

volume = "33",

journal = "Biology and Philosophy",

issn = "0169-3867",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gender as a historical kind

T2 - A tale of two genders?

AU - Godman, Marion

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Is there anything that members of each binary category of gender have in common? Even many non-essentialists find the lack of unity within a gender worrying as it undermines the basis for a common political agenda for women. One promising proposal for achieving unity is by means of a shared historical lineage of cultural reproduction with past binary models of gender (e.g. Bach in Ethics 122:231-272, 2012). I demonstrate how such an account is likely to take on board different binary and also non-binary systems of gender. This implies that all individuals construed as members of the category, "women" are in fact not members of the same historical kind after all! I then consider different possible means of modifying the account but conclude negatively: the problem runs deeper than has been appreciated thus far.

AB - Is there anything that members of each binary category of gender have in common? Even many non-essentialists find the lack of unity within a gender worrying as it undermines the basis for a common political agenda for women. One promising proposal for achieving unity is by means of a shared historical lineage of cultural reproduction with past binary models of gender (e.g. Bach in Ethics 122:231-272, 2012). I demonstrate how such an account is likely to take on board different binary and also non-binary systems of gender. This implies that all individuals construed as members of the category, "women" are in fact not members of the same historical kind after all! I then consider different possible means of modifying the account but conclude negatively: the problem runs deeper than has been appreciated thus far.

KW - Adaptationism

KW - Common ancestry

KW - Cultural evolution

KW - Gender

KW - Historical kinds

KW - Scaffolded reproduction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046876461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10539-018-9619-1

DO - 10.1007/s10539-018-9619-1

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0169-3867

VL - 33

JO - Biology and Philosophy

JF - Biology and Philosophy

IS - 3-4

M1 - 21

ER -