Resisting Sex/Gender Conflation: A Rejoinder to John Hood-Williams
- 1 August 1996
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Sociological Review
- Vol. 44 (4) , 728-745
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1996.tb00444.x
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Beyond the Natural BodyPublished by Taylor & Francis ,2003
- Feminism and the Power of LawPublished by Taylor & Francis ,2002
- Goodbye to Sex and GenderSociological Review, 1996
- Realist Social TheoryPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,1995
- Rethinking sex and genderWomen's Studies International Forum, 1993
- The new reproductive technology: problem or solution?Sociology of Health & Illness, 1992
- Dualism in biology: The case of sex hormonesWomen's Studies International Forum, 1991