On Sunday 04 October 2009 09:55 AM, ss wrote: > Pranesh Prakash wrote, [on 10/3/2009 5:49 PM]: >>> I'm just wondering about the distribution of Silk membership wrt gender. > > Exploring socio-psychology (whatever that means) on the lines of "I will not > talk about balls in front of women but will use the word square just in case > anyone accuses me of thinking of what's inside your underwear" reminds me of > what unrevealed thought process might have been used in naming this thread > gender rather than sex.
The revelation of the hitherto unrevealed: To be honest, I'd first typed "Gender/sex on Silk". Sex on Silk sounded like, well, sex on Silk. Plus, the traditional distinction has it that sex is biological while gender is sociological, and I was really interested in the latter. And before you ask, I dismissed asking about sexual orientation along with gender because it is often considered intrusive. (I do recall a fresher's orientation game in my first trimester (yes, that's what we called each of the three terms of the academic year in college) in which people were asked to either step forward on the basis of: 1) Forward if male, backward if female; 2) Forward if straight, backward if LGBT/unsure; 3) Forward if monthly family income above [a figure I can't recall now], backward if not; 4) Forward if 'upper caste', backward if not; 5) . . . Of course, answering any of the questions (indeed, taking part in this game itself) was optional. But it made for an interesting exercise in our discussions of sociology. And people felt most uneasy answering the question about sexual orientation.)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
