On Tue, 7 May 1996, Jed Olson wrote:
> I'm not sure where Judith Butler's argument ends here and where
> yours begins, but I find the above simplistic and totalizing. Of course
> one's sex is not entirely composed of "social constructions-" what about X
> and Y chromosomes, sex hormones, sperm and eggs, genitalia, etc.? You
Wouldn't it be rather simpler here to return to the old distinction
between sex and gender that Butler wants to throw out? The original
intention of this was to point out that although babies are born with one
of two chromosomal sexes and (usually) a penis or a vagina, this is not
the same as the discourses that take up this biological variation and
enmesh it within a web of binary oppositions. It seems as if the loss of
the sex/gender distinction is leading us (here at least) backward to
nature/nurture not forwards.
>
> Butler
> > maintains that heterosexuality (fucking only those of the opposite sex) is
> > the dominant discursive formation in Western society, although it is not
> > complete in its hegemony, since many diverse sexualities reveal themselves
> > (are performed) within the formations of power.
>
> Isn't heterosexuality also the dominant discursive formation within the
> physio-chemical "language" of biology, as well as within "Eastern",
> "tribal" and "native" societies?
Er...no. Because most humans tend to reproduce themselves and this is
done with the 'opposite' sex, doesn't imply that 'heterosexuality is the
dominant discursive formation'. Ancient Greek 'heterosexuality' was quite
different from modern heterosexuality in terms of discourse, even if it
did also involve baby-making. So is Pathan 'heterosexuality' and so is
!Kung 'heterosexuality'. Here again it seem useful to distinguish between
the biological and the discursive (which of course includes the
discourses of 'biology' the science).
Call me old-fashioned.
Dave Hugh-Jones
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
'Yes, that's my mother all right, but my mother's the Virgin Mary, you know.'
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
dash2@xxxxxxxxx
> I'm not sure where Judith Butler's argument ends here and where
> yours begins, but I find the above simplistic and totalizing. Of course
> one's sex is not entirely composed of "social constructions-" what about X
> and Y chromosomes, sex hormones, sperm and eggs, genitalia, etc.? You
Wouldn't it be rather simpler here to return to the old distinction
between sex and gender that Butler wants to throw out? The original
intention of this was to point out that although babies are born with one
of two chromosomal sexes and (usually) a penis or a vagina, this is not
the same as the discourses that take up this biological variation and
enmesh it within a web of binary oppositions. It seems as if the loss of
the sex/gender distinction is leading us (here at least) backward to
nature/nurture not forwards.
>
> Butler
> > maintains that heterosexuality (fucking only those of the opposite sex) is
> > the dominant discursive formation in Western society, although it is not
> > complete in its hegemony, since many diverse sexualities reveal themselves
> > (are performed) within the formations of power.
>
> Isn't heterosexuality also the dominant discursive formation within the
> physio-chemical "language" of biology, as well as within "Eastern",
> "tribal" and "native" societies?
Er...no. Because most humans tend to reproduce themselves and this is
done with the 'opposite' sex, doesn't imply that 'heterosexuality is the
dominant discursive formation'. Ancient Greek 'heterosexuality' was quite
different from modern heterosexuality in terms of discourse, even if it
did also involve baby-making. So is Pathan 'heterosexuality' and so is
!Kung 'heterosexuality'. Here again it seem useful to distinguish between
the biological and the discursive (which of course includes the
discourses of 'biology' the science).
Call me old-fashioned.
Dave Hugh-Jones
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
'Yes, that's my mother all right, but my mother's the Virgin Mary, you know.'
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
dash2@xxxxxxxxx