Sex -n. one's physiological sexual identity
Gender -n. one's psychological sexual identity

Personal anecdote: If you have ever met him, then you would know that my ten year old brother has a personality which can be described as bubbly, hyperactive, or possibly ADHD, depending on your mood. And if you knew me as a ten year old, then you probably would have described me as quiet, shy, introverted.

Recently on our family trip to Yellowstone National Park in the US, my mum was once again complaining about what a difficult child my brother was. Our family friend replied, "But he's a boy! Boys are meant to be like that. If he was as demure and quiet as your daughter, it would have been more cause for worry."

It's not the first time I've heard this, and it vexes me every time.

The family friend later on in the day also went on to ask my dad whether he will bequeath his business to his son. This woman had known my brother and I for less than 24 hours, so she could not have known us well enough to be judging on merit. I would have thought that in this time and age, that if a parent was indeed going to bequeath something of value to their children, the decision would have been made according to their merits and aptitude. But apparently, what was between our legs was more important.

For me, sexism is just as bad as racism. In both cases, crimes are committed, promotions are given, and expectations of personality and aptitude are imposed on us simply because of a physical trait that we have no control over.

At the root of sexism, I believe, are the rigid diamorphic conceptions of gender, and the relentless expectations of conformity to these conceptions. You are either male or female; males are supposed to like this and do this, females are supposed to like that and do that. Those who do not conform are weird, abnormal, going against nature.

The first problem with this is, what is considered 'normal' or 'natural' are just social constructions. That boys are supposed to like trucks and girls are supposed to like pink; that men are rational while women are emotional - there's nothing inherent in that. I have never liked pink and don't have a single pink thing in my wardrobe, while my brother refuses to eat half the things offered to him but will eat anything that is pink. My best subjects during high school was maths and economics, supposedly male strong suits, while my brother is one of the most emotionally volatile people I know. Does that make me less of a woman and him less of a man? Neither of us fits entirely and perfectly into the categories of male and female according to expectations of contemporary society.

This rigid conception of male and female is damaging in that they are often the source of prejudice and hence sexism. Women are emotional and irrational - therefore cannot be trusted with a job that requires reliability. Men are rational and less emotional - therefore they are charged with shouldering the responsibility for his family. If he fails or his wife earns more than him, then he is emasculated. Yes, less and less people hold these views, but until gender is conceived of as fluid rather than rigid, in that personality traits and aptitude should not be assumed based on sex, then sexism will prevail. Until a man can like pink and not have his masculinity questioned, and a woman can love driving trucks without being derogatorily labelled a dyke, then there will be sexism. Yeah I know, this is not likely to happen in the near future if at all. Because if gender is to be completely fluid then there cannot be different genders at all, since for difference to exist it as to be defined by what it is and what it is not - which is exactly where the rigid conception of male and female arises from. And distinctions between genders are not going anywhere. This diamorphic conception of gender is also problematic in that it discriminates against and ridicules those who physically straddles these supposed boundaries, such as hermaphrodites and transexuals.

Guess sexism is here to stay for a while.