One of the most controversial questions in feminist philosophy, and maybe the most controversial of all, concerns our determination as sexual or gendered human beings: Is it nature or is it our culture, or society, that makes us what we are—women, men, other? And if it is both, to what extent and in which sense is it nature, and to what extent and in which sense is it social life? Whatever the answer may be, one widespread and allegedly useful modality (...) to cast the question consists in naming “sex” the biological aspects and “gender” the cultural or social aspects of this dimension of our living. The distinction, however, has raised a number of issues; the attempts to overcome the distinction, which is... (shrink)

ABSTRACT In this article, I address a highly controversial question of feminist philosophy, namely, the so-called sex/gender distinction, from a Deweyan perspective. I argue that Dewey's naturalism provides useful insights for dealing with and solving the problems concerning this particular type of dualism. My argumentation unfolds in three steps. First, after having briefly introduced the meanings of the two terms, I outline two different, both unsuccessful strategies for overcoming the sex/gender distinction, namely, what I call the radical social constructionist and (...) the nondialectical naturalist strategies. Second, I draw on Dewey's version of naturalism with the aim of conceiving of human beings as simultaneously naturally and socially constructed. Third, I sketch out the hypothesis that Dewey's way of overcoming the pernicious dichotomy between nature and society may be useful for outlining a critical metaphysics of gender. (shrink)