The Erosion of Meaning: How Language Lost Its Way on Sex and Gender

The Supreme Court’s deliberations often grapple with linguistic nuances, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s early days as a lawyer were no exception. Her secretary at Columbia Law School advised her to avoid distracting associations with the term “sex.” This suggestion reflected a growing trend where words like “gender” began to supplant “sex” in conversations about identity and biology.

This shift has led to a semantic mess that affects academia, medicine, law, and public policy. The proliferation of ambiguous definitions has created confusion, particularly around the distinction between sex and gender. Some argue that sex refers to biological characteristics, while others claim it’s a social construct. Meanwhile, “gender” has become a catch-all term for everything from identity to expression.

The concept of “gender role” was introduced in 1955 by researcher John Money. He believed people born with ambiguous or atypical genitals could be raised as either men or women, and that rearing would better predict a person’s “gender role” than biology. This idea laid the groundwork for subsequent debates about the relationship between sex and gender.

Feminist scholars in the 1970s popularized the use of terms like “gender” to differentiate biological differences from those imposed by society. Ann Oakley’s book, Sex, Gender, and Society, argued that biology may play little or no role in determining gender identity. Judith Butler challenged the assumption that gender mirrors sex and is binary, suggesting instead that both are culturally constructed.

However, not everyone agrees with this narrative. In 1997, Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundson revisited a case initially cited by John Money to demonstrate that nurture can override nature. Their reexamination revealed a more complex story, where the patient rejected their assigned sex and switched at puberty to living as a male.

The importance of sex as a distinct category has been reaffirmed in various fields, including medicine and public health. The Institute of Medicine (now National Academy of Medicine) convened a group of experts who noted that “sex, being male or female,” is an essential variable when designing studies. Despite this recognition, the term “sex” continues to lose ground in scholarship.

David Haig’s analysis shows how the use of “gender” instead of “sex” has become more prevalent since 1945. This shift reflects a broader cultural trend where language is used to blur distinctions and challenge traditional notions of identity. The consequences are far-reaching, as clear definitions give way to ambiguity and confusion.

The debate over sex and gender may seem esoteric, but its implications extend beyond academia. As we struggle to define these terms, we’re losing the ability to discuss issues like biology, health, and identity with precision. This has significant consequences for policy, law, and medicine, where clear definitions are essential.

In recent years, language has been used to blur distinctions between sex and gender. The use of “gender” instead of “sex” has become more prevalent in scholarship since 1945. This shift reflects a broader cultural trend where language is used to challenge traditional notions of identity. However, the consequences of this trend are far-reaching, as clear definitions give way to ambiguity and confusion.

The erosion of meaning in this context is not just a linguistic quirk; it reflects a deeper challenge to traditional notions of identity, biology, and culture. As we continue down this path, we must confront the possibility that our language may be losing its way – and with it, our ability to communicate effectively about some of the most fundamental aspects of human existence.