Sex and gender are synonyms.
I give up.
I am sorry the dictionary disagrees with you. On a side note, it is interesting you chose to associate yourself with Dexter facepalming.
It's even more amazing when I didn't link Gender to my statement of there being people with chromosomes differing from the norm(xx.xy). Nice to see you putting "words in my mouth". I'm not sure what you're arguing about or whether you're confusing yourself, I stated that gender and sex are not synonymous, and I stated that gender is assigned due to a person's sex.
Since you still refuse to accept that Gender is not biological, let's have a look here:
(American Psychological Association)
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdfSex refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex
(i.e., atypical combinations of features that usually distinguish male from female). There are a
number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal
reproductive organs, and external genitalia.
Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a
person’s biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as
gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations
constitute gender non-conformity.
Gender identity refers to “one’s sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender” (American
Psychological Association, 2006). When one’s gender identity and biological sex are not
congruent, the individual may identify as transsexual or as another transgender category (cf.
Gainor, 2000).
There you go, "gender" is Not biological and Not synonymous with "sex". Go take a few basic classes in your nearest college before posting again please. This is technically a topic that cannot be place in either or due to various organizations having different meanings for the words "gender" and "sex", but the fact is that sex is largely biological and gender societal. Gender is assigned based on the sex of the person, but is Not synonymous with "sex".
You can keep cherry picking all you like, gender is generally driven by sex. Sex doesn't determine your gender identity necessarily always, but it is the primary determining factor, not societal conditioning. Just keep making new hybrid words and finding specialized psychological definitions that precisely fit your argument. The fact is psychology is not a hard science. Furthermore the field of psychology is broken. Did you know there is no definition for sanity in the DSM? Psychology seeks to pathologise every behavior in order to sell medications and therapy.
There are far too many variables to call it truly scientific, and most psychological studies do not meet the basic standards for the scientific method. Polls and surveys certainly are not scientifically reliable, and are well known to be easily influenced by the phrasing of the questions among other variables that are not controlled easily.
" Reliability of diagnosis
Reliability in diagnosis means that clinicians should be able to reach the same correct diagnosis consistently if they use the same diagnostic procedure (e.g. standardized clinical interview, observation of the patient’s symptoms, neuropsychological examination with scanners and diagnostic manuals). This is called inter-judge reliability.
Reliability can be improved if clinicians use standardized clinical interview schedules, which define and specify sets of symptoms to look for. The individual psychiatrist must still make a subjective interpretation of the severity of the patient’s symptoms.
The introduction of diagnostic manuals has increased reliability of diagnosis over the year even though the manuals are not without flaws.
Reliability of diagnosis is a necessary prerequisite for validity. Rosenhahn (1973) performed a classic study that challenged reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnosis and showed the consequences of being labeled as “insane”. In this study eight pseudo-patients were diagnosed as suffering from severe psychological disorders but they were in reality imposters.
Study: Cooper et al. (1972) The US-UK Diagnostic Project
The aim of the study was to investigate reliability of diagnosis of depression and schizophrenia.
The researchers asked American and British psychiatrists to diagnose patients by watching a number of videotaped clinical interviews.
The British psychiatrists diagnosed the patients in the interview to be clinically depressed twice as often. The American psychiatrists diagnosed the same patients to be suffering from schizophrenia twice as often.
The results indicated that the same cases did not result in similar diagnosis in the two countries. This points towards problems of reliability as well as cultural differences in interpretation of symptoms and thus in diagnosis.
Validity of diagnosis
Validity of diagnosis refers to receiving the correct diagnosis. This should result in the correct treatment and a prognosis (predictive validity). Validity presupposes reliability of diagnosis.
It is much more difficult to provide a correct diagnosis and give a prognosis for a psychological disorder than for a physical disorder because it is not possible to observe objective signs of the disorder in the same way.
The DSM-IV manual does not include etiology but only symptoms. Sometimes patients have symptoms that relate to different psychological disorders so it can be difficult to make a valid diagnosis.
Study: Mitchel et al. (2009) Meta-analysis of validity of diagnosis of depression
The study used data from 41 clinical trials (with 50,000 patients) that had used semi-structured interviews to assess depression.
The general practitioners (GPs) had 80% reliability in identifying healthy individuals and 50% reliability in diagnosis of depression. Many GPs had problems making a correct diagnosis for depression.
Generally GPs were more likely to identify false positive signs of depression after the first consultation. Michel et al. argued that GPs should see patients at least twice before making a diagnosis since accuracy of diagnosis was improved in studies that used several examinations over an extended period.
Evaluation of the study: (1) The strengths of meta-analysis are that it can combine data from many studies and it is possible to generalize to a larger population; (2) Limitations of meta-analysis are that it may suffer from the problem of publication bias; since data from many different studies are used there may also be problems of interpretation of the data because it is not certain that each study uses exactly the same definitions.
Rosenhan (1973) On being sane in insane places
Aim:
To test reliability and validity of diagnosis in a natural setting. Rosenhan wanted to see if psychiatrists could distinguish between “abnormal” and “normal” behavior.
Procedure:
This was a covert participant observation with eight participants consisting of five men and three women (including Rosenhan himself). Their task was to follow the same instructions and present themselves in 12 psychiatric hospitals in the USA.
Results:
All participants were admitted to various psychiatric wards and all but one were diagnosed with schizophrenia. The last one was diagnosed with manic depression.
All pseudo-patients behaved normally while they were hospitalized because they were told that they would only get out if the staff perceived them to be well enough.
The pseudo-patients took notes when they were hospitalized but this was interpreted as a symptom of their illness by the staff. It took between 7 to 52 days before the participants were released. They came out with a diagnosis (schizophrenia in remission) so they were “labeled”.
A follow-up study was done later where the staff at a specific psychiatric hospital were told that impostors would present themselves at the hospital and that they should try to rate each patient whether he or she was an impostor. Of the 193 patients, 41 were clearly identified as impostors by at least one member of the staff, 23 were suspected to be impostors by one psychiatrist, and 19 were suspected by one psychiatrist and one staff member. There were no impostors.
Evaluation
This controversial study was conducted nearly 40 years ago but it had an enormous impact in psychiatry. It sparked off a discussion and revision of diagnostic procedures as well as discussion of the consequences of diagnosis for patients. The development of diagnostic manuals has increased reliability and validity of diagnosis although the diagnostic tools are not without flaws.
The method used raises ethical issues (the staff were not told about the research) but it was justified since the results provided evidence of problems in diagnosis which could benefit others. There were serious ethical issues in the follow-up study since the staff thought that impostors would present, but they were real patients and may not have had the treatment that they needed"
http://www.appsychology.com/IB%20Psych/IBcontent/Options/abnormal/Abnormal%20Q/2Abnormal.htmThe above proves how easily manipulable the processes of modern psychology are, and how unreliable they can be.
You can redefine words to mean whatever you like, that doesn't mean everyone else is going to go along with your ideology.
