Counterpoint: physiologists should not distinguish "sex" and "gender".

A proper use of the terms sex and gender, whether the concepts are used heuristically or operationally, requires that the terms have clear, distinct definitions. Gender has no such definition. King (11) offers three not entirely consistent definitions. The first definition is that gender is a social construction limited to “social, cultural and psychological aspects that pertain to the traits, norms, stereotypes and roles . . . for those whom society has designated as male or female. . . .” (5), which do not exist within a person (7). As used in physiology and medicine, however, psychological aspects and traits certainly exist within persons. The second definition, from the American Psychological Association (1) limits gender to “. . . use when referring to men and women as social groups.” This definition apparently excludes individuals, so is inconsistent with the first definition. Furthermore, because the main concerns of physiology and medicine are individuals, not groups, it seems irrelevant to physiology. The third definition, from the Institute of Medicine combines elements of the first two: gender includes both an individuals’ “. . . self-representation as male or female and how the individual is responded to by social institutions. . . .” (9a). There is, however, a crucial difference. The difference is that the causes of self-representation are not limited to socially constructed causes. Thus, gender may include biologically caused aspects of self-representation. For this reason, this definition seems inconsistent with either of the first two. Which concept of gender are physiologists enjoined to use properly?