Resisting sex/gender conflation: A reply
UNSPECIFIED. (1996) Resisting sex/gender conflation: A reply. SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 44 (4). pp. 728-745. ISSN 0038-0261Full text not available from this repository.
The irony of the rejection of the sex/gender distinction is that it renders sociology per se an impossible enterprise. For it is my submission that, contra Hood-Williams (1996) and others, the biological and the social constitute distinct, irreducible levels of reality: to conflate (in a 'downwards' or 'upwards' direction) the two levels is immediately to render analysis of their relative interplay at best intractable. It is indeed arguable that Hood-Williams is not so much concerned with (rightly) rejecting the so-called 'additive' approach to the biological and the social where the biological base is seen a priori as immutable, but more fundamentally with rejecting the necessary dualism of nature and culture (ie the biological and the social). In contradistinction, a realist defence of the sex/gender distinction will be made, involving critical reference to various major writers in the field and offering a brief but tentative discussion of the provenance of gender.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||H Social Sciences > HM Sociology|
|Journal or Publication Title:||SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW|
|Publisher:||BLACKWELL PUBL LTD|
|Official Date:||November 1996|
|Number of Pages:||18|
|Page Range:||pp. 728-745|
Actions (login required)