 In the previous module, we talked about two types of speech activities, proptok and gossip and we rejected this view that they are exclusively related with men or women. Now in this module we will see about arguing whether there is any role in deciding meaning of this speech activity or not. It is highly gendered speech activity. This is conclusion of the research conducted by different researchers in the field of anthropological linguistics. So we start with this and see whether it is verified by the following talk or not. Sometimes it is defined as coverl. Now coverl is included in the basic meaning of argument. What happens? When we relate it with men, we exclude coverl from it and when we relate it with women, we attach coverl with it. Basically argument means to give reasons to support one's claim. If I say Pakistan has constitutional crisis to prove my claim, to prove my supposition, I have to give evidence. Coverl means on the other side. Coverl means expression of anger, we become sentimental, we react sharply and what happens as a result of this? Our relations become sour, relations are broken and people feel bad, especially the communicants who were involved in arguing. Relating argument with reason and coverl with emotion, it creates space for gendering of argument. How? Because usually in gender ideology it is thought that men are intellectually superior to women. Only they can give reasons and women are inferior intellectually. They are prone to emotions. They can't argue and if ever they try to do that, they become emotional and they can't argue further. Men argue, the conclusion is that men argue but women coverl. Which dispute? Now both are essentially disputes. If you offer reasons, so this is verbal dispute, verbal disagreement and if it is coverl, it can be verbal or even physical. So both are basically disputes but one dispute is agreement, the other dispute is coverl. So it depends who disputes. If the person, the arguer who does arguing is a male, so then this dispute in other words, he-she does arguing and if women coverl, she does bickering, tu-tu-meh-meh, that is called an Urdu. But this gender-based classification of arguing, this is not universal. The communities with this gendered view of arguing are dominated by men, scientific community, where men are dominated, researcher community, scientists, they are dominated by men. But it may not be case right now when I am talking about this. In previous researches on the basis of which I am talking, this was the case that research community that is called scientific community that was dominated by men and there was often debate on certain issues. They argued with each other, they proved their point of view. So this debate is called argument. In some communities arguing is a game. The focus is on the claim being argued, not who is the arguer. This situation takes place in debate contest, colleges and universities, they hold debate contest and what happens over there? They give a topic, both arguers offer their evidences, supports to their claims. This is also a kind of debate. So here it is looked upon favorably and it does not matter whether the debater is a female student or male student. Here gender has no role at all. It varies from community to community. Then every argument does not end in connection, does not end in connections, in relations between the participants. If we talk about argument that is done by women, we say that as a result of that there is breaking of relations. But see every argument that is even on some dispute, on some opposing ideas when it ends, often it is observed that people take it by clapping. It happens often when we see for example during election campaigns, U.S. presidents they talk about their achievements, their contributions and the opponents they talk about their own achievements. So they argue with each other. What happens at the end of the argument? There is a thunderous clap but every argument does not end with breaking of relations. So we conclude on the basis of these points that men are intellectually superior by gender ideology. They are superior to women. Women are less rational so they can argue. Women are emotional and can only shout and cover up. They can't offer reasons but these perceptions are gendered. Both can argue and both can cover up. Utility in TV talk shows where sometimes even men shout and cover up when they don't have any reason to defend their argument.