Moral Constraints on Gender Concepts

Are words like ‘woman' or ‘man' sex terms that we use to talk about biological features of individuals? Are they gender terms that we use to talk about non-biological features e.g. social roles? Contextualists answer both questions affirmatively, arguing that these terms concern biological...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Publié dans:Ethical theory and moral practice
Auteur principal: Laskowski, N. G. (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Springer Science + Business Media B. V [2020]
Dans: Ethical theory and moral practice
Sujets non-standardisés:B Philosophy of gender
B Moral Philosophy
B Polysemy
B philosophy of language
B Contextualism
Accès en ligne: Accès probablement gratuit
Volltext (Verlag)
Description
Résumé:Are words like ‘woman' or ‘man' sex terms that we use to talk about biological features of individuals? Are they gender terms that we use to talk about non-biological features e.g. social roles? Contextualists answer both questions affirmatively, arguing that these terms concern biological or non-biological features depending on context. I argue that a recent version of contextualism, floated by Jennifer Saul and defended by Esa Diaz-Leon, doesn't exhibit the right kind of flexibility to capture our theoretical intuitions or moral and political practices concerning our uses of these words. I then propose the view that terms like ‘woman' or ‘man' are polysemous, arguing that it makes better sense of the significance of some forms of criticisms of mainstream gender ideology.
ISSN:1572-8447
Contient:Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s10677-020-10060-9