Imposing human-type gender normativity
More hilarity on the Women’s Studies list. My friend Daphne Patai responded to a message that referred to ‘some mythically uniform
biologically based concept of “women”‘:
Unfortunately, the “biologically-based concept” IS what unites all women. It
is far from “mythical.” There is such a thing as biological sexual
dimorphism, period. The social/historical construction of what it means to be
a woman is a separate issue, but the biology is very real.Hard to believe one wants to teach one’s students from a starting point that
is patently false. As I’ve commented many times before on this list, the
existence of biological anomalies does not change the fundamental facts, and
I don’t see it as a service to our students to attempt to deny those facts.
The next day there was a reply, quoting ‘There is such a thing as biological sexual
dimorphism, period.’ – let’s call this one Helen, because that is not her name:
She’s right, of course, but only insofar as “dimorphism” is a sign, a construct, with the same relationship between signifier and signified that any sign possesses. Does “dimorphism” exist “in nature”? Well, sure, but so do “anomalies,” themselves “natural” and only defined as a “violation of the law” (a-nomos) if one constructs them so culturally. No culture, no dimorphism. Period.
I’ve been keeping my head down, having stirred up enough hornet’s nests for awhile, but I had to reply to that:
Well, not quite. No culture, no concept of dimorphism, of course, but the phenomena that dimorphism names go on existing with or without the concept. That thing that’s happening on the area we call ‘the Gulf Coast’ right now would still be happening even if no one called it Ike, or a hurricane, or lots of wind and rain.
Helen came back today:
Actually the appropriate analogue here would be between whether Ike is an “anomalous” weather pattern or simply weather. Folks who insist on dimorphism do so to reinforce a notion of stability and absolutes in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Call it a hurricane, or call it Central Park, but it’s still no less real than a clear day and only defined by a binary if we insist on defining everything with a binary. Students benefit from having the ability to think critically about these matters. I am happy to be someone that comprehends the concepts and is able to help them do so.
I love that – she is happy to be someone that comprehends the concepts. Only she doesn’t! It’s not quite so amusing that she ‘helps’ the students to do likewise. I answered again (might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb) –
Really? So a zoologist who (for instance) points out that gorillas are more sexually dimorphic than chimpanzees does so to reinforce a notion of stability and absolutes in spite of all evidence to the contrary? I can’t get any intelligible meaning out of that.
A new respondent came back with something so funny that it looks like a hoax, but I don’t suppose it is.
I’m not too familiar with why zoologists do what they do :) But I
would suggest that just by invoking the term “dimorphism” on both
gorillas and chimpanzees, the zoologist would be imposing human-type
heterosexual & gender normativity on them. I believe that’s called
anthropomorphism, which I think (I’m not sure) received a lot of
criticism for imposing human myths onto the animal world and hence
reproducing and reinforcing the views of such normativity (for her
audience) as naturalness by way of science (claims of objectivity and
neutrality). In addition, especially if the zoologist is from the US
or Europe (or especially if she -generic she- received her zoology
education there), I’d imagine, it would be quite hard for her to think
about gorillas and chimpanzees without unconsciously invoking in
herself some remnants of scientific racism in the background (i.e. can
the zoologist think about material realities in the absence of
history, language, and ideology?).
I replied, but then sadly the manager closed the thread, so that’s the end. Makes you think, don’t it.
“Makes you think, don’t it.”
In best British tones.
Well, not quite, Ophelia.
In worse British tones.
They’re ‘avin’ a larf.
They’re laughing all the way to lucrative employment on Women’s Studies courses.
*G knows he’s just picking up a drumstick to bang on the same thing again, but he just can’t help himself*
Feminism is far too important to be left in the hands of postmodernists.
*sigh*
My favorite version of this was stated on an IRC channel by a wingnut who uses postmodernism as a smokescreen for advocating clerical fascism. His phrasing: “You assume a meaningful dichotomy between existence and nonexistence.”
From what I’ve gathered through much reading and argument, the point of the extreme social constructivists is that, while these facts exist “in nature” (e.g. not invented by society), it is human societies who notice the facts and give them importance. This, according to the constructivists, merits calling the biological facts “socially constructed.”
This only works as a non-trivial point if you believe that there could easily be a society that ignores those facts. In the case of the physical differences between males and females, I really don’t see how such a society could exist.
On a related note, I wish postmodernists would define precisely what they mean by “socially constructed.” I’ve heard them use it to mean everything from “imagined by society” to “influenced by society,” which is an unhelpfully large range of meaning.
Oh, and to defend the poor new respondent, it’s of course quite true that zoologists have “imposed human-type heterosexual and gender-normativity” on gorillas, chimps, and other animals they’ve studied. E.g., they have assumed that chimp females would behave like traditional expectations for human females–assumptions that have been exploded by discoveries of chimp females taking sexual initiative and inventing tools.
Someone needs to explain to New Respondent why noticing biological dimorphism doesn’t fit into this category, though.
Serious question what is meant by this?(unconsciously invoking in herself some remnants of scientific racism ) and why would it only aply to someone from the U.S or Europe?
Jenavir: Spot on. And notice the key difference. Presented with evidence from the field that assumptions *some* of them (not all of them by any means) had made about the sexual behavior and sex-dependent social roles of our closest cousin species were quite incorrect, scientists incorporated the new evidence into their understanding of the world. These theory-befuddled, jargon-blathering postmodernist nitwits never gather any actual evidence about the world, and they certainly don’t reevaluate any positions in light of new evidence – or even old evidence. It’s not just that they fail to be scientists, it’s that they fail to be honest intellectual inquirers or truth-seekers of any sort.
G: To quote your own words, spot on!
Of course, the rational-irrational dimorph is itself socially constructed.
Maybe its unconsciously racially questionable too, but it seems obvious that people are oppressing these wimmin by implying that their privately-imagined rationalist paradigm may in some way superpose phallocentric values or authority on the world-creating re-imaginings of the Womens Studies List participants, whether s/he/they/other consent or not.
Clearly, if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around, it makes no sound. Equally clearly, imposing dimorphism (upright and fallen) on trees is a binary concept that only exists if we insist on defining everything with a binary…
Ah, social constructivism. From words being arbitrary (a concept exciting only to monolinguists) to the phenomena they label being arbitrary (a concept exciting only to moral cretins) in one fell dishonest swoop.
How many social constructivists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Into what?
Excuse my ignorance – but is “biological sexual dimorphism” basically men having wangers and women not?
This is a bit like the faith argument, isn’t it? Because it simply “doesn’t matter” to Helen whether or not sexual dimorphism is a biological truth or just a cultural myth*. For the purposes of her argument, I mean. I’m presuming her argument is that cultural myths around sexual difference are really REALLY important – and that’s fine, but that’s the important bit, NOT claiming that sexual dimorphism is real. The equivalent I’m thinking of is claiming that the earth is 6,000 years old.
*Although this is SO stupid, how, how is it JUST a cultural myth??
One thing I don’t understand: if the postmodern Women’s studies people are correct, the evil patriarchy is fast at work brainwashing everybody into believing the blindingly obvious, things such as “humans have two biological sexes” or “chimps have two biological sexes, too.”
I don’t get it. Why bother “brainwashing” everybody into believing what everybody naturally believes anyway, because it’s so damn obvious to begin with?
It’s as if we live in a through-the-looking-glass “1984” world, where the party’s entire propaganda machine is geared toward convincing everybody that 2+2 is not 5, but 4.
Rather pointless, isn’t it?
dzd: “My favorite version of this was stated on an IRC channel by a wingnut who uses postmodernism as a smokescreen for advocating clerical fascism. His phrasing: ‘You assume a meaningful dichotomy between existence and nonexistence.'”
That’s almost as bad as assuming a meaningful dichotomy between two successive output dumps from The Postmodernism Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/).
Risky business.
It’s also very reminiscent of Frederique Apfel Marglin, who said something about the binary of sickness and health…
If binary thinking is bad then we need to abandon the binary opposition of good and bad which means that we cannot say that binary thinking is bad.
As for the social construction of concepts, that is surely a socially constructed concept. It is therefore not real and so its advocates have been brainwashed by patriarchy.
Assuming that claims of objectivity and neutrality are impossible, I have to ask which branch of the sciento-phallic conspiracy the new respondent is acting on behalf of?
I can do postmodernism, me.
Well – I guess they will be vehemently opposed to same-sex relationships then.
“Excuse my ignorance – but is “biological sexual dimorphism” basically men having wangers and women not?”
Most often it means differences other than the sex organs, since those are sort of assumed if there are separate sexes (oh no, more normativity! :)
dirigible: don’t forget the binary distinction between binary distinctions and non-binary distinctions.
And G.: yes, that’s an excellent point. The reason why we know scientific racism and other such evils are false is because of more and better science.
Some species of birds are so non-sexually dimorphic that you can’t tell what the hell sex they are without turning them upside down and examining their vents, and not always even then.
Chicken Sexers of the World, Demand Liberation from Divalent Heteronormative Ideology/ies!
“It’s not just that they fail to be scientists, it’s that they fail to be honest intellectual inquirers or truth-seekers of any sort.”
I think the intellectual dishonesty of postmodernists is something that’s often overlooked in favour of mocking their ridiculous pronouncements.
The reason they resort to personal attacks and nonsensical rhetoric is because they are completely uninterested in intellectual investigation.
They are essentially fraudsters who have conned their way into universities using a combination of obscurantism and emotional blackmail to take over whole departments and destroy any genuine intellectual activity. It makes university hell for any student in these departments who actually wants to learn anything.
The last quoted comment by a “new respondent” is wonderful . Starting with “I’m not too familiar with why zoologists do what they do :)”, it then proceeds to tell us why they “do what they do “. Obviously having a clue what you’re talking about is a no-no in these circles.
Do your parents know how you are wasting their hard earned money tying your silly little brains in knots discussing this nonsense. A job at MacDonald’s would give you so much more intelligent and worthwhile food for thought, plus you’d get to actually earn some money and do something useful with your lives.
Jakob,
Heartily agree.
My favourite aspect of this is disliking binary distinctions while using a computer.