SEX AND GENDER

▪ Sex is defined as biological: male or female, based on anatomy, chromosomes, and

hormones.
▪ Gender is defined as social: the roles, behaviors, expectations, and identities that
societies assign to people based on their sex.

Gender is an area that cuts across thinking about society, law, politics and culture, and it is
frequently discussed in relation to other aspects of identity and social position, such as class,
ethnicity, age and physical ability. Gender is also an important concept within a range of social
and political debates and may influence these debates differently according to cultural context.
Gender is a ‘heavy’ word: politicians and public figures often use it with negative connotations,
for example in referring to ‘gender police’, or to ideologies that ‘threaten our kids’. These are
examples of how gender can be misunderstood and politicised.
There are some languages which do not have a word for ‘gender’. In such cases, the word
‘sex’ is normally used, and in order to distinguish between sex and gender, different terms
may be employed, for example ‘biological sex’ may be used to refer to ‘sex’, and ‘cultural and
social sex’ may be used to refer to ‘gender’.
However, even when the terms exist in the language, ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are often used
interchangeably.
The European Institute for Gender Equality, an autonomous body of the European Union,
provides very extensive definition of gender: “Gender refers to the social attributes and
opportunities associated with being female and male and to the relationships between women
and men and girls and boys, as well as to the relations between women and those between men.
These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned
through socialisation processes. They are context- and time-specific, and changeable. Gender
determines what is expected, allowed and valued in a woman or a man in a given context. In
most societies, there are differences and inequalities between women and men in responsibilities
assigned, activities undertaken, access to and control over resources, as well as decision-making
opportunities. Gender is part of the broader sociocultural context.”

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF SEX AND GENDER?

▪ While sex is rooted in physiology, gender is a social construct that changes across time,
place, and context.

GENDER AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

 ▪ Gender is not a universal truth but a product of social norms and expectations.
▪ Graddol and Swann (1989) argue that biological differences alone cannot explain why
people express masculinity and femininity differently in different contexts.
▪ Gender roles are learned and flexible, not determined by biology.

POLITICAL DIMENSION OF SEX AND GENDER

Biological Explanations and Male Dominance
• Claims like "women are naturally more nurturing" or "men are naturally more logical and
assertive" have historically been used to justify male privilege — for example, by
restricting women’s participation in politics, education, or the workforce.
• Example: In many societies, the belief that women’s primary role is motherhood has
been used to exclude them from leadership positions or high-status jobs, reinforcing the
idea that women “belong” in the private sphere (home) rather than the public sphere
(workforce, politics).

Feminist Critiques
• Feminists argue that these biological arguments are not neutral; they serve to
maintain social inequalities by presenting cultural norms as “natural” or “inevitable.”
• By challenging these explanations, feminists expose how language and science can be
politically charged and how they can reinforce oppressive systems.
• Example: The belief that women are naturally emotional has been used to justify
excluding them from decision-making roles, despite evidence that men can be just as
emotional and that women can be just as rational.

Why Challenging Biological Essentialism Matters

• Recognizing that gender is a social construct (i.e. shaped by society and culture rather
than just biology) allows us to challenge and change oppressive norms.
• It opens space for more equitable opportunities by recognizing that gender roles can be
reshaped through education, policy, and activism.
• Example: Legal changes like paternity leave or gender quotas in politics challenge the
notion that men are “naturally” providers and women are “naturally” caregivers.
THE FLUIDITY OF GENDER
Gender as Performed: “Doing Gender” (West & Zimmerman, 1987)
• Instead of seeing gender as a fixed category based on biology, West and Zimmerman
argue that gender is something we do — an ongoing performance in everyday life.
• For example, how we dress, speak, or act in different social settings demonstrates that
gender is an active process.
• This means that people enact gender roles depending on social expectations and
interactions — it’s not just something you have, it’s something you perform.

Gender is Context-Dependent
• Gender expectations and norms shift across cultures and historical periods.
o For example, in some Indigenous cultures (such as Native American two-spirit
traditions), gender is understood as more fluid and inclusive than the strict male-
female binary found in many Western societies.
o Historically, women in some periods (like the 19th century) were expected to be
“delicate” and confined to the home, while in other periods (like during World
War II), they were encouraged to take on traditionally “male” roles in factories
and industries.
• This shows that gender roles are not universal or timeless — they’re shaped by social,
cultural, and historical contexts.

Active Agency in Shaping Gender Identities

• Individuals are not just passive recipients of gender norms; they actively shape and
negotiate their own gender identities.
• People may choose to challenge, resist, or redefine traditional gender expectations.
o Example: A woman might choose to work in a male-dominated field like
engineering, thereby challenging stereotypes about “women’s work.”
o Example: A non-binary person might use gender-neutral pronouns and adopt a
style that mixes traditionally “male” and “female” traits, actively reshaping their
identity.
PRE-FEMINIST: EARLY APPROACHES
Biological Approach
• In the early 20th century, some linguists tried to explain differences in men’s and
women’s language use through biology — as though differences were natural or
inherent.
• For example:

Otto Jespersen (1922), a Danish linguist, made several claims:

o Women use more adverbs of intensity (like “awfully pretty” or “terribly nice”)
— supposedly because women are more emotional and exaggerative.
o Women’s unfinished sentences (e.g., trailing off mid-sentence) were interpreted
as evidence of their lack of logical thought or planning.
o Men as innovators — he claimed men coin new words and are creative with
language, while women supposedly have a smaller vocabulary and are less
imaginative in language use.

Problems with this Approach

• Jespersen’s ideas were largely based on folk linguistics (popular beliefs) rather than
rigorous research.
• He ignored social factors — like women’s limited access to education, or the social roles
that constrained their language use.
• His claims also reinforced stereotypes about women being emotional, illogical, and less
capable of intellectual contributions.

SHIFT IN FOCUS: BIOLOGICAL TO SOCIAL

▪ Starting in the 1970s, feminist linguists challenged biological determinism, arguing that
gendered language reflects social roles rather than innate differences.
▪ Researchers like Trudgill (1974) and Labov (1990) studied language variation and found
that women often use more “standard” forms of language, while men use more “non-
standard” forms (e.g. multiple negation).
▪ Trudgill suggested this was because women were more status-conscious.
▪ Feminist critics, however, argued that this ignored the social pressures on women to be
polite, correct, and well-spoken in order to navigate a male-dominated society.

From Biology to Social Roles

• Starting in the 1970s, feminist linguists challenged the idea that men and women speak
differently because of biological factors.
• Instead, they argued that language differences reflect social roles and expectations
placed on men and women.

Key Researchers
• Peter Trudgill (1974):
o Studied sociolinguistic variation in Norwich, England.
o Found that women often use more “standard” forms (e.g., avoiding multiple
negatives like “I ain’t got no money”) while men use more “non-standard”
forms.
o Suggested that this was because women are more status-conscious — they
wanted to “speak properly” to align with higher social status.

Feminist Critiques
• Feminist linguists challenged these interpretations, pointing out that:
o Women are often socially pressured to speak politely, correctly, and to conform
to “good manners” in order to be taken seriously — especially in male-
dominated settings.
o Language differences can be strategic: women may use more standard forms as a
way to gain respect, avoid criticism, or be accepted in higher social or
professional circles.
o This means that women’s use of language is not simply about status, but about
navigating power and inequality in society.
LANGUAGE AS SOCIAL PRACTICE
What’s the Shift?
• Earlier studies mostly looked at how men and women speak differently (e.g.,
vocabulary, pronunciation).
• They also examined gender bias in language—like using “mankind” to mean everyone,
which invisibilizes women.

The New Focus

• Later studies expanded the scope:
o Instead of just documenting differences, they started to ask: How does language
itself shape gender and power relations?
o This means analyzing how the way we speak and the words we choose create
and maintain social hierarchies—like who has authority, whose voices are
heard, and whose voices are silenced.