Re: sex, not gender

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

>Why try to make something complicated out of something simple?

Because reality is not simple. 

>From your perspective, there are two types, and the minority that don't
fit into you dichotomy are what? Freaks? That's the way one of every four
hundred Olympians felt when they were told they were not the "sex" they
have believed they were all there lives. Physical examinations passed them
(so we are not even discussing the large number of "sexually ambiguous"
who exist in our society), but the psychological trauma had occurred.

There is a legal movement to ban genetic testing in the Olympics precisely
because of this, and many countries already ban such testing. Maybe you
might wish to attack the anti-genetics testing contingent of the
international Olympic movement as "politically incorrect"? I would say
they desire a policy based on the reality of sexual differentiation, not
on Western society's crude sexual duality and the caste system it
justifies.

I thought you were concerned about scientific accuracy. You treat reified
scientific constructions about sexual duality as if they were handed down
from on high, categories above critique or specification (in sledgehammer
fashion you redefine specificity as obfuscation). I don't know how much
you know about modern Darwinian theory, Richard, but it doesn't deal in
types--typing is an archaic prescientific procedure.

>It's logical because we are a species with sexual reproduction based on
>having 2 sexes, male and female.

The color red is logical because we have many colors and one is not like
any of the others. Richard, all you have done is stated a definition.

>It's no wonder people don't take sociologists seriously, given the
>tendency to obfuscate the obvious.

I certainly see why you are so defensive about sociobiology. And you are
not ideological?

Andrew