Scribd
Upload
4 views2 pages

Lecture 3 Notes

The document discusses various perspectives on gender, including 'Gender as Self I.D.', 'Gender as a Map', and 'Semantic Contextualism'. It highlights the complexities of defining gender, particularly the challenges of circular definitions and the impact of societal norms on individual identity. Additionally, it raises questions about non-binary identities and the contextual meanings of 'woman' in different settings.

Uploaded by

ayo.kol03
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views2 pages

Lecture 3 Notes

The document discusses various perspectives on gender, including 'Gender as Self I.D.', 'Gender as a Map', and 'Semantic Contextualism'. It highlights the complexities of defining gender, particularly the challenges of circular definitions and the impact of societal norms on individual identity. Additionally, it raises questions about non-binary identities and the contextual meanings of 'woman' in different settings.

Uploaded by

ayo.kol03
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Date: 11th February 2025

SP Lecture 3: Gender

Using the engineering method to think about gender.


Why should our account of gender reflect people’s sense of
identity?
Possible views:
• Gender as Self I.D.
• Gender as a Map
• Semantic Contextualism

3 types of harms (Kapusta)


1. Oppression and domination

Gender as Self I.D.

Self ID
 The self id view shows how someone is in complete control of their
gander  identification of a woman
 This suggests that one has total authority over womanhood
 Woman = someone who calls themselves a woman  problems =
structure/

Circularity  you cannot define woman in terms of itself and needs


another word to replace woman in its definition

Trans people  how some people can be mistaken for

Gender as a map
Katherine Jenkins
 There’s 2 senses of gender
o ‘woman’ as a map 
 Take a norm around leg hair 
o The norm for men is not to remove leg hair.
o The norm for women is to remove leg hair.
o Suppose Susan (a woman) and Tom (a man) both decide not
to shave their legs. They have made the same choice, but in a
different context and with reference to a different “map”.
o For Susan: not shaving her legs = transgressing the norm
o For Tom: not shaving his legs = conforming to the norm
 You don’t need to follow nor agree with the norm to feel like it
applies to you  1 way of understanding Susan’s actions is by
rejecting that norm whereas Tom disagrees
 Jenkins argues that
What about those who totally reject these maps? Does that mean
anything?
Are there genders for which there are no maps? (Eg gender queer, non-
binary) What would it be to be non-binary under Jenkins’ account?
 Gender is more like a gender rather than a map

Does ‘woman’ mean different things in different contexts?


 Semantic Contextualism
 Perhaps the analysis is  medically; you are a woman if you have a
womb (natural kind), queer café; woman if you wear she/her on a
badge (social kind)
o Different contexts

You might also like