Gender as a historical kind: a tale of two genders?
- PMID: 29769752
- PMCID: PMC5943372
- DOI: 10.1007/s10539-018-9619-1
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.
References
- 
    - Bach T. Gender is a natural kind with a historical essence. Ethics. 2012;122:231–272. doi: 10.1086/663232. - DOI
 
- 
    - Bach T. Social categories are natural kinds, not objective types (and why it matters politically) J Soc Ontol. 2016;2(2):177–201.
 
- 
    - Bem SL. The lenses of gender: transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1993.
 
- 
    - Boyd R. Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philos Stud. 1991;61(1–2):127–148. doi: 10.1007/BF00385837. - DOI
 
- 
    - Butler J. Gender trouble: tenth anniversary edition. New York: Routledge; 1999.
 
LinkOut - more resources
- Full Text Sources
- Other Literature Sources
- Miscellaneous
