Now would you kindly give me a evolutionary explanation for why except for at best 4% of the human population people do have one of only two biological sexual identities in which the chromosomal, genetic and hormonal aspects are perfectly consonant?
Of course in the broadest evolutionary terms, not only do we have to explain why parthogenic females aren't the only ones who populate the earth but also why sexual reproduction is often carried out by separate males and females, not hermaphrodite species--like many snails and flatworms--that each produce both their own gametes (eggs and sperm).
On the face of it, politics has nothing to do with human's *general* sexual dimorphism.
How is 'sexing' a political or discursive affair except in the assignment of sex to hermaphrodites? Well yes Hubbard does suggest (and only suggest) the biological transformations in body type, hormonal production, gait, etc that come from being 'sexed' from birth on. Yet who on this list has denied this? Indeed Roger has proposed some of the strongest arguments in defense of this idea. But we have little quantitative idea of its importance. And I would like for someone to explain to me if Butler is saying more than this.
Of course you say yourself sex(es) won't disappear (Hubbard agrees), only the 'opposite sexes model'? So sexes are not a political affair, but then you just said that they are? And what precisely do you mean by the 'opposite sexes' model? Citation would suffice. I can't find a definition in Hubbard's Politics of Women's Biology.
Since Yoshie is ticked off by my response to Kelley, I'll respond to the latter here:
>how is it the case that it's uninteresting to ask what sex is? why would
>you think that it's okay to ignore the fact that for the majority of time
>we've been doing sexology studies the issue of what is sex has been defined
>by men in such a way as to systematically exclude the sexualities of het
>women and queers?
But hetero women and queers do have a biological sex. Overwhelmingly (except for--what?--less then 4% of the population) heterosexual women are biological women in the chromo, genetic *and* hormo sense as are lesbians. Gays are almost always biological men in all those senses too. This whole debate about sexing seems to me a false trail, and for those who pride themselves as experts in gender theory, please consult Fausto Sterling's book for the actual conclusions she thinks derivable from the study of hermaphrodites, esp. considering the predominant importance of the social definition of sex for juveniles when the genetic and chromosomal aspects are not consonant.
At any rate, Kelley it just seemed to me that you were trying to prove that the assignment of sexual identity is political by showing that the definition of a sexual act is political--something that was not in debate, and had not been challenged. To keep up the political heat you just shifted the focus of debate to a new aspect of sex. this is legerdemain.
Also not in debate is the feminist claim that that child rearing arrangements and sexual division of labor are not written in our genes, and have historically been variable. Who exactly has questioned this that you feel under attack on this list?
But then I don't understand what you are getting at any more than Yoshie's argument that sexual identity is political but it is not political. That's why I suggested it was time for a break. Honest readers of this collective outpouring have every reason to be confused by what thesis you are pursuing here, how it differs from Yoshie's, how it differs from Butler's, etc.
At least in Yoshie's case, I understand that she is defending Gould's and Hubbard's deflationary critiques of sociobiological explanation (naturalisation) of men's and women's behavior as rooted in the general sexual dimorphism that we inherit as our evolutionary heritage. Yoshie argues that the ideological use to which this general dimorphism has been put is undercut by recognition of Fausto Sterling's two or three extra genders under which less than 4% of the population falls (and I have not been convinced that 'correction' through surgery or hormonal therapy is always cruel normalisation; nor does Fausto Sterling herself really make this argument). At any rate, I don't follow Yoshie here at all: from Fauto Sterling on five genders to the end of the ideological 'opposite sex' model, though there seems to be a plausible argument here.
At any rate, I have been persuaded that her and Hubbard and Gould's cautions regarding sociobiology are worth heeding (see the post I just reposted). I don't read either however as denying that our sexual identity is given biologically,
And we don't have anyone on this list defending a EO Wilson, Robt Trivers or Margo Wilson-like sociobiology in regards to gender differences. Katha and Roger have surely not made any such argument. But you are making it sound as if Roger had.
> [ i also told you that
>it would illluminate and offer a critique of your criticism of butler.
Again I did not offer a "critique" of Butler but raised certain questions about the specific passage that Doug had downloaded. As far as I know each one of my questions or challenges is answered in the book from which the passage was excerpted. And I have been told offlist and offline that this is indeed the case. I was just gauging the extent of Doug's support of Butler's ideas. From what I gather Doug is quite selective in his defense of her corpus, so to speak.
>and phallus btw doesn't equal your dicks
Which means I guess that you can be one.
Yours, Rakesh