BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN VERSION:2.0 CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260605T094554Z DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20220317T161500 DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20220317T181500 SUMMARY:Three strands in sex/gender concepts UID:20260607T224659Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm TZID:Australia/Melbourne LOCATION:Babel Building (139)\, Melbourne\, Australia\, 3010 DESCRIPTION:

Cognitive\, social and developmental psychologists have amassed a wealth of data about the complex patterns of understanding associated with sex/gender terms like &lsquo\;woman&rsquo\; and &lsquo\;man&rsquo\;. We focus on three core strands in the conceptual understanding of the term &lsquo\;woman&rsquo\;: (1) biological sex\, (2) social role\, and (3) affiliation (identifying as a member of the class &lsquo\;woman&rsquo\; or &lsquo\;man&rsquo\;). In the recent philosophical literature\, many theorists have privileged one of these three core strands to argue that &lsquo\;woman&rsquo\; has a univocal reference &ndash\; a biological kind\, a social class\, or an affiliative identity kind. We argue against these univocalist approaches and suggest that ordinary sex/gender concepts &ndash\; and the words used to express them &ndash\; should be understood as having complex meanings that may be sharpened by context. We contrast our approach with family resemblance interpretations (Stoljar) and standard contextualist proposals (Saul\, Diaz-Leon). We draw on the literature on polysemy to show that the complexity of our sex/gender concepts need not lead to confusion or breakdowns in communication.

ORGANIZER;CN=Francois Schroeter: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR