Judith Butler would vehemently disagree with you that sexuality occurs at the
jucture of biology and social construction. The radicallness of Butler's
account, is that sex is in no way biologically motivated. If it were, one
has some grounds to label lesbians, gays, as abnormal, based upon thier
bilogocal make-up, which because of X and Y chromosomes, dictates that
females should behave like females and males should behave as males in
the realm of sexuality. Butler's point, borrowed from Foucualt, is that we
are to imagine sex as devoid of biological determiantions, to view it
entirely as a social construction. In such a way, one's sex can not
be construed as noraml or abnormal, it simply is what it is. To rest
sex on any notion of the biological, would, for Butler, put an inherent
limit on the sexualities open to individuals, it is to play the game
of normalizing sexuality (as is the case now), by attaching it to
biology as the foundation of noraml human sexuality. Such a notion may
appear ridiculous to you, since it avoids our obviously biological
nature as organisms (we are clearly creatures composed of genes, etc.), but it is what Butler would like you to imagine
when you conceive of sexuality, and when you attempt to critique
contempoary controls and limitations on human sexuality. It is a theoretical
vantage point from which to conceive of sexuality, perhaps not to be taken
literally, but to be taken quite seriously in the realm of the political.
jucture of biology and social construction. The radicallness of Butler's
account, is that sex is in no way biologically motivated. If it were, one
has some grounds to label lesbians, gays, as abnormal, based upon thier
bilogocal make-up, which because of X and Y chromosomes, dictates that
females should behave like females and males should behave as males in
the realm of sexuality. Butler's point, borrowed from Foucualt, is that we
are to imagine sex as devoid of biological determiantions, to view it
entirely as a social construction. In such a way, one's sex can not
be construed as noraml or abnormal, it simply is what it is. To rest
sex on any notion of the biological, would, for Butler, put an inherent
limit on the sexualities open to individuals, it is to play the game
of normalizing sexuality (as is the case now), by attaching it to
biology as the foundation of noraml human sexuality. Such a notion may
appear ridiculous to you, since it avoids our obviously biological
nature as organisms (we are clearly creatures composed of genes, etc.), but it is what Butler would like you to imagine
when you conceive of sexuality, and when you attempt to critique
contempoary controls and limitations on human sexuality. It is a theoretical
vantage point from which to conceive of sexuality, perhaps not to be taken
literally, but to be taken quite seriously in the realm of the political.