Gender is biological not social

This debate entirely boils down to semantics. While many stray from such debates, I'd rather present the following: (1) the fact that, In academia especially, Gender and sex are regarded as distinct concepts, Particularly in sociology, And (2) the fact that this distinction is useful. However, First, I must point out some miscellaneous contentions with my interlocutor's arguments. In my interlocutor's first sentence, They assert that gender is a "biological fact" and therefore cannot be a social construct. If it is "a fact", I would like see some evidence backing that up. Burden of proof, Of course, Belongs with the person making a claim - this is an issue I have with my interlocutor"s whole argument; lack of proof. Examples like a single person using them interchangeably in the 16th century, For example, Isn"t satisfactory nor is its misuse in common parlance. Only starting in the mid-20th century, With people such as Judith Butler, Simone de Beauvoir and so on, Was the distinction made. We are still in the process of the academic use of these terms being extend to common usage of this distinction and failure to appreciate this would be ignoring the fact that language regularly evolves. Now, To the first point I'd like to make: in academia and similar fields, The distinction between sex and gender is commonly drawn. Even when ignoring feminists such as the ones aforementioned and many more since, We see that within our language - that is, In terms of its construction, Etymology, Etc. - this distinction between sex and gender being evident. In terms such as "transsexual", Which has itself evolved from its original meaning, We can see this explicitly talks about sex distinctly to gender (as the term transgender exists and they describe different things). Moving on to examples of the use of this distinction in academia and elsewhere, I'll leave a plethora of links at the end of this argument[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] (including from the American Psychiatric Association and The Lancet). I don't expect my interlocutor to refute all of the links - it"d be far too much content for one post and I don't even agree with everything they say - but the fact is clear: the distinction is being made. The next thing I'd talk about is why the distinction is necessary, Particularly in academia but also common parlance. The signified of the terms describe distinct phenomena: (1, Sex) the biological - in no particular order, Genitals, Gonads, Hormones, Chromosomes and secondary sex characteristics - and (2, Gender) the social - that is, The socially constructed categories of masculinity and femininity (as well as non-binary genders, But that"s beyond the scope of this debate and would lead only to tangents). These two things are evidently distinct. For example, It is commonly known that in the past - as close as the 19th century - pink was considered masculine whereas today it is considered feminine. Likewise for blue but vice versa[10, 14]. Another example would be that high heels were originally considered masculine as they were used exclusively in the cavalry, Something at the time considered to be only masculine. Such use of high heels originated in Persia but later spread to Europe especially[11]. Yet another example we see is differences between concepts of masculinity and femininity across different cultures (for example, Two-spirit people in certain cultures of the indigenous people of the Americas[12, 13]). These examples show the fluidity of such a social construct. Did human biology alter to make this so? Is the human biology of sex different for each culture? While there have been some, A minority, Who claim that there is a biological cause for gendered colours, This claim is highly contested (what"s more likely is it being a result of events such as the advent of mass-marketing, The appropriation of traditionally masculine clothing into the feminine counterpart, Etc. )[14, 15, 16]. Given that there is a distinction between the two phenomena, An attempt to label them distinctly arose. In the 1950s and 60s, Academics began introducing the concept of gender to be distinct to that of sex. It caught on, But the process is ongoing. In fact, Prior to John Money introducing this use of gender in 1955, The term "gender" was incredibly uncommon outside of its use in grammatical categorisation (e. G. The French "piscine" is feminine)[8, 9]. My interlocutor asserts that it would be "pointless to distinguish sex from gender". However, We can see that this distinction always existed, Just in a different, But equally valid, Way (sex as earlier defined and gender being purely grammatical, Now with the added definition too). Therefore, There is a need for it due to the distinction that exists between the two. The labeling of this distinction as "pointless" is entirely false - there is a need for both terms as they signify separate phenomena. Rejecting the fact that the signified of the terms "gender" and "sex" as used in academia are distinct concepts is rejection of science. Rejecting the fact that, Save in common parlance ignorant of the science and history of the terms, Sex and gender have never been synonymous is rejection of history. To continue with your argument would be nothing more than rejection of truth and the prioritisation of your political agenda and feelings over it. ~ Sources ~ 1. Https://www. Psychiatry. Org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria 2. Https://www. Thelancet. Com/pdfs/journals/lanpsy/PIIS2215-0366(16)30310-8. Pdf (link doesn't format properly on DDO, Sorry) 3. Http://www. Personal. Psu. Edu/bfr3/blogs/applied_social_psychology/2011/10/the-social-construction-of-gender. Html 4. Https://philpapers. Org/archive/SVETMO-3 5. Https://www. Medicalnewstoday. Com/articles/232363. Php 6. Https://www. Diffen. Com/difference/Gender_vs_Sex 7. Http://sci-hub. Tw/https://www. Tandfonline. Com/doi/abs/10. 1300/J485v08n04_05 8. Http://people. Virginia. Edu/~ser6f/udry. Pdf 9. Https://web. Archive. Org/web/20120615160110/http://www. Oeb. Harvard. Edu/faculty/haig/Publications_files/04InexorableRise. Pdf 10. Https://www. Smithsonianmag. Com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/ 11. Https://www. Bbc. Com/news/magazine-21151350 12. Http://www. Ncai. Org/policy-research-center/initiatives/Pruden-Edmo_TwoSpiritPeople. Pdf 13. Https://masculinisation. Files. Wordpress. Com/2015/05/two-spirits-nadleeh-and-lgbtq2-navajo-gaze-by-gabriel-s-estrada. Pdf 14. Http://sci-hub. Tw/https://link. Springer. Com/article/10. 1007/s00381-007-0559-3 15. Http://sites. Psu. Edu/kovacikpassionblog/2015/10/29/why-is-pink-for-girls/ 16. Https://priceonomics. Com/is-pink--girly-a-myth/