Can he (Mr Howard) do this? Does he have a license?

If so, can I announce that henceforth there is also an indoor/outdoor distinction (we use sex inside but gender on the beaches and streets), or an inert/mobile distinction (we use sex when standing, gender when moving), or a happy/sad distinction (we use sex when we like our better halves, gender when we’re pissed off)…..?

I’m just teasing you. Howard makes sense. But let’s admit that this was not the ORIGINAL context of those words.

We must distinguish from the outset the difference between the male-female spectrum and the masculine-feminine. The former has to do mostly with anatomy and physiology; the latter describes behavior, attitude, and the mind. Figure 13.1 illustrates this distinction graphically. Graph A is about sex differences, graph B gender differences. Your sex is how your body is put together; your gender is about the role you engage in daily.

So there you have it. Sex refers to tangible male versus female anatomy. Gender signifies intangibles, such as behavior, attitudes, and one’s perceived role in society.

Hence, sex confusion is a lot rarer than gender confusion. Being confused about one’s gender is a cakewalk compared to being confused about one’s sex.

Makes sense.

We are having to break other rules in the Tech Quarterly. EG, rule = “film”, not “movie”. But movies are not films anymore ….

Some hangers-on were there who wanted some too. Sensual lovers, lovers of honour and lovers of pure form. As if reading my mind, Cheri booted out the first two lots and left me with the lovers of pure language. I shared all I had with them and they were very nice to me.

Anyway, I’m reminded of that old joke about the person filling out the application form and in the blank next to “Sex” they write something inane like “not enough.” Based on this post, if the application form were updated and used the term “Gender” the joke responses could be things like ‘under development,’ or ‘in transition.’

Who says The Economist has no sex scandals?

incidentally, it may amuse you that we did once debate the style guide internally: A couple of years ago I started an internal wiki. That turned out to be ahead of its time and it fell into disuse. But not before a subversive minority wrote a new wiki-style-guide.

Johnny was not pleased.

The writer of the Style Guide appears to frown on euphemisms, like “disadvantaged”, preferring “poor”; and “hearing impaired”, preferring “deaf”.

I assume that if one speaks of a country whose people don’t earn much, or otherwise have little money, one should call it a “poor” country.

However, if I should come across a sentence describing a country as “poor” I wouldn’t quite know what it meant. Would it mean culturally “poor”? (which most “rich” countries arguably are); or economically “poor”? I think just saying “poor” is inadequate.

As for “hearing impaired” and “deaf”, I think someone is “hearing impaired” if he can hear only a little; and “deaf” if he cannot hear at all. So “deaf” would be incorrect if applied to someone who hears only a little. The Style Guides’s writer would appear not to recognise this distinction.

These examples may only be the tip of an iceberg of other indistinctions and inadequacies in the Economist’s Style Guide

Perhaps it needs a re-haul.

So, why not “gender”, and the Economist style-guide be damned.

I note with interest that in German, “Geschlecht” can mean either “sex” or “gender”. In French, “genre” can mean “gender”.