| Title |
Gender as a historical kind: a tale of two genders?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology & Philosophy, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10539-018-9619-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marion Godman |
| Abstract |
Is there anything that members of each binary category of gender have in common? Even many non-essentialists find the lack of unity within a gender worrying as it undermines the basis for a common political agenda for women. One promising proposal for achieving unity is by means of a shared historical lineage of cultural reproduction with past binary models of gender (e.g. Bach in Ethics 122:231-272, 2012). I demonstrate how such an account is likely to take on board different binary and also non-binary systems of gender. This implies that all individuals construed as members of the category, "women" are in fact not members of the same historical kind after all! I then consider different possible means of modifying the account but conclude negatively: the problem runs deeper than has been appreciated thus far. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 26% |
| Australia | 2 | 11% |
| Austria | 1 | 5% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 5% |
| Finland | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 95% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 24% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 7 | 17% |
| Psychology | 5 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,068,792
of 25,743,152 outputs
Outputs from Biology & Philosophy
#65
of 722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,985
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology & Philosophy
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,743,152 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.