General status of gender relations vs. Quibbles

Rob Schaap rws at
Wed Nov 24 22:33:09 PST 1999

Okay, I'm harping on a bit, but ...

Sez Yoshie: "No oppression, no gender."

Is there a distinguishing remainder after gender is gone, Yoshie? I guess I was using (but carefully not defining) 'sex' as the set of distinguishing stuff left after we (happily) subtract the historically contingent 'gender'. Am I way off (I have read some books, Yoshie, it just might be that I didn't understand 'em - in which case a little list help seems justifiable to me).

"No oppression, no race."

Reckon this is unambiguously on the nail, though.

Oh, and Kelley (I'm on my third and last post). it's not so ridiculous to suggest that the genes of homosexual or bisexual men might play the same role (however decisive that may be) in their homosexual choices as 'selfish gene theory' suggests they play in heterosexual choices, is it? Young men have quite a few features in common with young women. And the selfish gene theory cares not a toss about individual moments of logical incoherence (ie that it's not particularly functional for a homosexual man to tend to prefer young lovers). It is required only that men in general tend to such a preference for the theory to be coherent.

Cheers, Rob.

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list