>But we'll still have to take on the 'disdainful' task of explaining why
>general sexual dimorphism ("opposite sexes") evolved the way it did--
we don't have to know why the species evolved the way it did in order to make decisions about what to do right now. we will find it important to pursue historical anthopology in order to understand why notions of sexual binarism or monism or multiplicitous heterogeneity uphold or undermine relations of social inequality. furthermore there are opposite sexes only to the extent that you ignore the evidence that suggests otherwise and thus make a political choice to do so. there is *sexual* dimorphism only because you choose to see some things and not other things. this does not make physical realities go away. rather, it demands that we account for what we see and why,what we focus on and why. this is why i'm objecting to roger's claim that reproduction needs to be defined as limited to fertilization AND his decision to ignore everything else that goes into reproduction. a zygote does not reproduction make. a two minute old infant is not evidence that we've reproduced the species for if we left it to fend for itself it wouldn't develop language or the capacity to think.
kelley