[Fwd: Re: ignore this, it's about women and sexism ...]]]]

Katha Pollitt kpollitt at thenation.com
Tue Nov 30 10:09:36 PST 1999

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> This is where we might or might not differ. It doesn't take postmodernism
> to argue that "sex" (a political interpretation of biological facts) is
> historically constituted.

Isn't GENDER the "political interpretation of biological facts"? Are sex and gender now just synonyms? It seems to me, Yoshie, that you are encoding your conclusion in your premise. You want to argue that there can be no apprehension of biological facts that is not infused with political interpretation--"sex" is always "gender". But instead you define your terms in such a way as to slip your argument in without actually making it.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list