Gender: A Postmodern Idea Developed in Association with the Modern Concept of Sex in Considering the Implications for Evolving Sexuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presently ubiquitous idea of how gender is defined remains deeply indebted to modern thought, depending on the concept of sex as its reference point. Originating with practices arising from capitalism, modern thought’s concept of sex was enhanced with the search for the norm regarding standardization, then further refined through the research program of eugenics. Gender, in contrast to sex, has its roots in sexual practice changes from the second half of the twentieth century onward, developed in association with 1980s postmodern thought. The presuppositions of the two concepts differ radically. Understanding the difference between sex and gender matters because gender is now more than a critique of sex—it is an idea that is accepted and understood in popular culture and affects how people interpret their sexuality. This review examines the foundations of modern and postmodern thought, then focuses on sex and gender with respect to their history within these modes of thought. The conclusion, pointing to future research, is that a further reformulation of sexuality will be required for gender, as a postmodern idea, to truly separate itself from the presumptions of sex as a modern concept, permitting individuals to express their sexuality as they choose without negative social and psychological repercussions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".