>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.
Sure. Did I say otherwise?
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.
Don't get your point.
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.
Let's see: I have somehow chosen that for many species reproduction is sexual, not asexual. Can there only be myths about why sexual reproduction emerged that support either women's liberation or patriarchy? Can we ever get at actually truer theories of how this major transition in evolutionary history was made?
> rather, it demands that we account for what we
>see and why,what we focus on and why.
Is it possible to focus on quesitons in evolutionary history that have no political consequence? Does everything have to be 'relevant'? Isn't this the reason evolutionary theory has been undermining itself by trying to speak to the human concerns covered in the press--tabloid and otherwise.
Yours, Rakesh