Sex is Sex, Not Gender
I realized from a “discussion” I had with my supervisor that erroneous usage of the word “gender” in biomedical writing occurs at the highest levels. He wanted my grantsmanship opinion on a PI’s glossing over potential “gender differences in disease incidence”; I gave him my editorial opinion on his incorrect use of the term “gender”. Copying the relevant page from the AMA Manual of Style did not change his mind. He will continue to use the term “gender” haphazardly (despite, oddly, years of bench research in reproductive steroidogenesis), and I will continue to correct him on this. We’re both stubborn this way. But only I’m right. We’ll see how long I remain both right and employed.
Unfortunately, the AMA Manual of Style content is not available online. However, on p 25 of the J of the ADA Style Guide (which is based on the AMA Manual of Style), you will find clearly stated:
“gender vs sex: gender refers to the psychological/societal aspects of being male or female, sex specifically to the physical aspects. Do not interchange.”
As shown in this “crib sheet“, the APA Publication Manual confirms and elaborates on this very clear distinction:
Correct use of the terms “gender” and “sex”
The term “gender” refers to culture and should be used when referring to men and women as social groups, as in this example from the Publication Manual: “sexual orientation rather than gender accounted for most of the variance in the results; most gay men and lesbians were for it, most heterosexual men and women were against it” (APA, 2001, p. 63).
The term “sex” refers to biology and should be used when biological distinctions are emphasized, for example, “sex differences in hormone production.”
As an editor, I would of course add that nouns & pronouns can, depending on the language, have gender as well, though these are usually not studied in a biomedical setting.
George Smiley said,
September 8, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Yup, I agree. You’re right and Mr. Researcher Dude is both wrong and, given that he’s apparently unable to learn new things, rather dumb. By the way, what sort of institution are you working at? My grants do not seem, ever, to get the kind of internal vetting that yours are subjected to… of course, I’m funded so no complaints.
Unlike the alma mater of George Smilely, my institution is a US doctoral-granting university with, according to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, very high research activity. My office supports faculty in the six health sciences schools (dental medicine, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, public health, rehabilitation sciences/allied health). Since I’m used to working with a wider constiuency, I often contact potential collaborators in the schools of engineering, social work, education, business, arts & sciences, law etc. - but otherwise the non-health sciences schools have their own vice provost for research watching out for their welfare.
drugmonkey said,
September 9, 2007 @ 9:41 am
Just because this is where we’ve arrived in a politically correct spasm regarding psychological orientation doesn’t make it the OneGodlyTruth of linguistics. For many people “gender” is mapped to biological identity and “sex” is taken as less precise because it is also used to describe actions. The substitution of “gender” for “sex” and vice versa has an apparently long history (pitting actual use versus officiousness, obviously) and the pre-eminence of “gender” over “sex” in academe appears a phenomenon of the last few decades.
So have some pity on the OldGuyz, eh?
No can do. Scientific writing is about conveying meaning clearly, unambiguously, and economically. I don’t care how these terms are used in blogs & at cocktail parties. And from my frame of reference, you’re not in the OldGuyz club yet. Neither is the individual who inspired this commentary (not that I would tell him otherwise if it were so). - writedit
drugmonkey said,
September 9, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
ahh, no OldGuy me, that should be clear at least.
but here’s the thing. when I’m reviewing a rat or monkey grant that talks about “gender differences” well, I’m really not thinking transgender or sexual orientation anything like that. and so far, the communication has been unambiguous….
and this is why I put in the point, pulled from the Wikipedia entry, about the recency of the gender/sex usage in academics, even the Soc academics. this is not just “blogs and cocktail parties”. going by scientific presentations, the conversion is also far from complete, I still hear “gender” used where you think “sex” is more appropriate. it is changing, sure. but it is far from universal.
George Smiley said,
September 10, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Nope. Don’t buy it, folks. People who work on, say, sex determination in Drosophila don’t talk about genser ratios. They talk about sex ratios. And you don’t “gender” the flies when you determine the aforementioned ratio. You sex them. But, hey. What do I know? My experimental organism comes in “a” and “alpha” and “A/alpha”, and we call it mating type…
drugmonkey said,
September 26, 2007 @ 7:49 am
HA!
told ya it wasn’t a done deal…
Actually, this seems to make my point. writedit
Fixing Near-Miss Grant Applications « Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship said,
April 13, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
[...] concerns are incredibly minor, including a quibble over word choice (discussed!). Think, use of sex vs gender appropriately. Not relevant to the science at all. However, this A0 is not [...]