Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T05:20:47.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender Concepts and Intuitions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Mari Mikkola
Mari Mikkola*
Affiliation:
Furness College, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UKLA1 4YG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper has two goals: it takes issue with a revisionary analysis of the concept woman and it defends certain linguistic intuitions about the use of the term ‘woman’. A number of contemporary feminists have been concerned with how to best define the concept woman: how best to cash out under which conditions someone counts as a woman. This concern strikes non-feminist philosophers and ordinary language users as surprising since (ordinarily) cashing out the said conditions doesn't appear to be problematic: aren't women simply human females? Most feminists disagree. They standardly understand woman as a gender concept and gender ascriptions are taken to depend on some social traits (like one's social role or position). These are distinct from sex ascriptions that are thought to depend on anatomical traits (like chromosomes and genitalia).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 559 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bettcher, T.M. 2007. ‘Evil Deceivers and Make-Believers: On Transphobic Violence and the Politics of Illusion.’ Hypatia 22 (2007) 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. 1999. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chodorow, N. 1995. ‘Family Structure and Feminine Personality.’ In Feminism and Philosophy, Tuana, N. and Tong, R. eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Frye, M. 1996. ‘The Necessity of Differences: Constructing a Positive Category of Women.’ Signs 21 (1996) 991–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, S. 1995. ‘Ontology and Social Construction.’ Philosophical Topics 23 (1995) 95–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, S. 2000. ‘Gender and Race: (What) are They? (What) Do We Want Them To Be?’ Noûs 34 (2000) 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, S. 2003a. ‘Future Genders? Future Races?’ Philosophic Exchange 34 (2003) 4–27.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S. 2003b. ‘Social Construction: The ‘Debunking’ Project.’ In Socializing Metaphysics: The Nature of Social Reality, Schmitt, F. ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S. 2005. ‘What Are We Talking About? The Semantics and Politics of Social Kinds.’ Hypatia 20 (2005) 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, S. 2006. ‘What Good are Our Intuitions?’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 80 (2006) 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyes, C. 2000. Line Drawings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, H. 2005. ‘Intuitions and Semantic Theory.’ Metaphilosophy 36 (2005) 363–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, C. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mallon, R. 2004. ‘Passing, Travelling and Reality: Social Constructionism and the Metaphysics of Race.’ Noûs 38 (2004) 644–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saul, J. 2006. ‘Gender and Race.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 80 (2006) 119–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. 2005. ‘Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science?’ American Psychologist 60 (2005) 950–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelman, E. 1988. Inessential Woman. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Stoljar, N. 1995. ‘Essence, Identity and the Concept of Woman.’ Philosophical Topics 23 (1995) 261–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, A. 2004. ‘Essentialism and Anti-Essentialism in Feminist Philosophy.’ Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (2004) 135–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanesini, A. 1996. ‘Whose Language?’ In Women, Knowledge and Reality, Garry, A. and Pearsall, M. eds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, I.M. 1997. ‘Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective.’ In Young, I.M. Intersecting Voices. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar