On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Brad De Long wrote:
> >S/he had to undergo this procedure because we socially define
> >the male/female distinction as a physical one. It's not
> >that s/he is dumb; it is that s/he is trying to live up to
> >the definition of gender as a physical attribute, like hair
> >color. And note: to live up to this socially created
> >definition, s/he has to engage in particular social
> >relations with particular individuals. Like everyone
> >else, this person's gender is socially constructed, and
> >not biologically given.
> >
> >Miles
>
>
> Meaning that in our society gender is physical? But that the fact
> that gender is physical is a social fact?
>
> Seems to me that the difference between saying "gender is socially
> constructed" and "we have socially constructed a physical definition
> of gender" is analogous to the difference between "an ocean of water"
> and "a notion of water."
>
Hmm. In a sense, I actually agree with this. If there's a body of water, and social interactions involve this body of water, and people don't talk about it, it's not really practically a part of their reality. And note that this has nothing to do with the ontological question of whether or not the water's "really there". For it to be a part of social reality, people have to engage in social relations that make that object an important part of social reality. And thus with gender.
Miles