The objective and natural reality of sexual reproduction and sexes ( as I defined them earlier , opposites and complements) is a fundamental principle of modern, scientific biology. To deny it is to deny the validity of modern biology and Darwinism.

So, to deny the objective and natural reality of sex puts leftists in an a similar position as the rightwing , religious deniers of Darwinism and scientific biology,who also deny biology’s objective and natural validity.

R.S.: I’m glad that everything went smoothly for the movie showings. And I also appreciate your commentary, over here and on the “Shootist” post.

C.B.: Hey. Hope all’s well with ‘ya.
You know, I think I’ve mentioned that I’m a bit of an “anthro-nerd” myself, and that I do posess a B.A. in said field of study. Probably my favorite class, though it was by no means the class I scored the highest in, was human osteology.

^^^^
CB: Oh , I didn’t catch that you got a degree in it. And you went to Mexico. I bet you visited the National Museum of Anthro there. How about the archaeological digs in the subways ( Of course I was there in 1973 !)
^^^^^

At the University of TN we have a really big, well-respected dead-body lab called the Body Farm. We’re technically not supposed to call it that, out of respect for the families of people who donate their bodies, we’re SUPPOSED to call it “The Facility.” For some reason that seems creepier to me than the Body Farm. But at any rate, if you’ve heard of the lab, that’s it’s popular name. But I’ll come back to this lab and all that in a minute, ’cause I need to address something you said while talking about sexual dimorphism.

CB: In paleontological fossil finds, females can be distinguished from males based on sexual dimorphism , including pelvis width, and a few other characteristics. They never have a problem categorizing a fossil as male or femele. This is a good way to demonstrate the acutality of sexual dimorphism, and the difference between the sexes.

Alright, y’all, I’m getting ready to wax osteological so, I’m just giving fair warning, this might be boring as all get-out.

Elaina: ‘K. Charles, there’s a good reason that folks use the phrase “never say never.” What you’re saying here about paleontological osteology just isn’t true. I know because I’ve had conversations, both with paleontologists and students who are studying to BE paleontologists about sexual dimorphism and indeed, at times it can be quite difficult to distinguish male and female human samples from one another.

There aren’t any concrete areas of skeletal biology that can guarantee that the skeleton in question is male or female. And the bones, themselves just as bones, are not the only guide; a person looks at markings on bones, i.e. at the grooves and dents in bones where the muscles attach, such as the nuchal lines in the skull and the deltoid tuberosity on the humerus. But what I’m saying here is that, when you are learning how to sex a skeleton something that you have to learn first is that the answer is usually not obvious, and these manifestations of dimorphism are only there most or some of the time, and you really shouldn’t rely on them individually to determine sex. They are cumulative. You take the measurements, from the pelvis and the skull and even from the long bones, and you punch them into a computer program (FORDdisc) and then budda-boom, budda-bing, the computer says it’s a boy! (I’m simplifying here. Sometimes when it’s difficult to sex the skeleton, frequently the case, and very frequently when the skeleton’s sutures are not fully fused and show evidence of being that of a subadult, osteologists and forensic anthropologists and all those “pro” folks have to rely not just on what the ‘puter tells them, but their own eyeballing, and a multitude of other factors to figure out what’s going on.)

^^^^^
CB: Yes, I am interested in learning more about this, and my description before should not be taken as anywhere near technically advanced

‘K but basically, in general you seem to be confirming that sexual dimorphism is central concept in the Farm and paleoanthropology. The fact that “it” can’t always be determined from the bones, doesn’t contradict the notion that most of what you describe above seems to be an effort to use “it” , sexual dimorphism, no ? Your whole discussion above assumes that sexual dimorphism is a valid concept, unless I misread it.

I didn’t make up sexual dimorphism. It was taught to me by anthropologists; and your discussion confirms that it is a anthropological concept.

^^^^^^^

See, this is why I think that attempting to base the struggle between the genders in biological science is shaky at best. Because SCIENCE is shaky at best. Scientists admit to this. The scientific method is designed to generate theory from hypothesis, not provide “exact” answers, especially not as it pertains to social problems. Gah.

^^^^^
CB: No , I would cop to the above demonstrating that science is shaky at best. Of course, the evidence of sexual dimorphism is mainly in living populations. They just use it to try to distinguish fossils.

And I don’t agree that scientific approach doesn’t give answers to social issues. The different levels of exactness don’t invalidate social scientific conclusions.

For example, the notions of male supremacy,racism and capitalism are the products of social science. Pretty much our whole feminist approach is based on social science.

So, I am not down with dissing social science or science.

^^^^^^^

And Charles. “Pelvis width” is a PART of “sexual dimorphism,” and the “few other factors” are actually several.

^^^^^
CB: Yes, I like getting back to more specifics and details.

^^^^^

When a forensic anthropologist is working on sexing a skeleton,

^^^^^
CB: The important overall point here is that they do _sex_ skeletons. That makes my point in this discussion. As I say, I am glad to get your tutelage in more specifics of forensic anthro, but these details don’t contradict , but rather support , the main point I am making here.

^^^^

they don’t just measure cross-ways the pelvis in millimeters and say, “this is wider than those of males, so it’s gotta be female.”
Small measurements have to be considered, such as the width of the pubic bone, the sub-pubic angle, the width of the greater sciatic notch (less reliable than pubic bone, but used in many cases due to the whole pelvis not being intact,) the auricular surface and the preauricular sulcus are all factored in. These measurements are always taken, it’s part of the “rules.” Even if a forensic anth. eyeballs the skeleton in question and it’s one of those really rare ones where all the primary and secondary sex characteristics are right there where they “ought” to be, they have to take all these things into consideration.

^^^^^^
CB; But there _are_ primary and secondary _sex_ characteristics. I am very glad to hear your expertise, but you are bringing more evidence for my position in the larger discussion here. That there are “sex” characteristics” is my point. That there are more than the ones I mentioned just make my point stronger, don’t you see ?

I am not disagreeing with you that you have a more sophisticated understanding of sexual dimorphism. I am saying in detailing even more of what sexual dimorphism is you support what I am saying in this discussion.

^^^^^

^^^^^

AND they have to jive completely with the findings in the long bones and the skull. Ain’t always the case.

^^^^^^^^

And, in regards to what you’re saying about “sexual dimorphism” being the “exact” reason for male-dominance, and for horrible events such as rape and abuse, I’d like to ask, what part do you think culture plays in these events?

^^^^^
CB: See _The Origin of The Family, Private Property and the State_ In general, after that period of transition in human culture and history, men started to dominate women . I’d say that that is the cultural origin of rape and abuse, roughly speaking.

I’d say male abuse of general physical advantages is cultural, not natural. I do NOT think the _mental_ state by which human males dominate females is natural. It is an abuse of sexual dimorphism.

Teaching boys not to hit girls is a fundamental human moral requirement, because of this potential abuse of a natural condition.

Similarly child abuse. No one would deny that adults are “dimorphist” with children. But it is critical to human society that children be protected.

^^^^^^

On the other post, I mention that varying degrees of human sexual dimorphism in different cultures has not been studied (at least, not to MY limited knowledge) with an “eye out” for possible cultural factors being influential in shaping biology.

It’s also important to note, going back to the discussion of the human skeleton, that male and female skeletons are more difficult to sex, the younger they are. On a skeleton, “secondary sex” features do not show up until they would have in the soft tissue. Subadult skeletons are incredibly difficult to sex, to the point that it’s a fifty-fifty shot. Teenagers are easier. The pelvis is indeed the place where sexual dimorphism is most evident. But when you start throwing that tired “upper body strenght is the source of male power and the prime illustration of sexual dimorphism” around, well, it’s just not a correct statement, to be blunt, and it’s really taking science only to the place you want it to be and avoiding a lot of factors that are just as “there” as the width of our pelvi.

^^^^^
CB: The reason domestic violence is not a symetrical problem is that in general, men are stronger physically for purposes of fighting.

^^^^^^^^

The thing that scientists have done that I disagree with is that they’ve said that this point of physical divergence is the REASON for cultural divergence– and I’m saying that the cultural divergence could very well be just as influential to the human (skeletal and otherwise) biological divergences of which you speak, when applied over long periods of time, as they have.

^^^^^
CB; I see what you are saying. I am not saying that sexual dimorphism is the cause. Or at least, I am saying that the reason we as feminists emphasize that the problem of women beating up men is not anywhere nearly as important a problem as men beating up women is because men take advantage of this preexisting condition of sexual dimorphism.

I’m not sure if that is what you are getting at as I read again what you say above. Maybe you are saying that cultural differences are causing bigger men to mate with smaller women causing greater sexual dimorphism ? In other words, you are suggesting a way in which culture is causing biology ? Give me a response reiterating what you mean.

^^^^^^^

I realize that when I say “long periods of time” that in relation to the entire fossil record maybe the period of time isn’t long, but humans get taller, bigger, and their biologies change, relatively quickly, with the changing winds of culture, or ways of knowing and doing and spreading knowing that are distinctly human.

And I’d like to raise the question, is it purely a biological coincidence that human sexual dimorphism in skeletons becomes more evident in those stages of life in which they are supposed to become, in adhesion to societal norms, “fully” male or “fully” female?

^^^^^^
CB: The only thing is that our close primate relatives have sexual dimorphism, no ? But I don’t mind exploring what you suggest.

^^^^^^^

Back to the Body Farm, briefly: During bone lab, one day, my instructor came in to inform us that a new body had been brought in and that the scientists downstairs had been having a helluva time figuring out whether it was a male or female. The long bones appeared to be the normal lenght attributed to a petite female, but the markings on the bones indicated very heavy musculature. The skull’s overall size of the skull was consistent with that of a female but the features appeared very robust and again, the sites of muscle attachment were heavy. There was only a partial pelvis, if I’m remembering correctly, and the measurements therein just weren’t giving up enough information to tell-it could have gone either way. Looking at sutures indicated that the skeleton was an adult. I think the closest they came to an ID was that it was, possibly, a very physically strong female.

Now, I’ve talked to forensic experts, I’ve been in their classes and heard them lecture, and it seems that the general consensus is that there’s a degree of difficulty in establishing the “sex” of a skeleton, even among contemporary humans. Many factors have to be considered and averaged with one another.

^^^^^
CB; OK. But none of these biologists doubts the validity of the categories female/male , do they ? This is the point I am arguing with Julian.

^^^^^^^

When talking of paleontological samples of skeletal remains, the degree of difficulty increases, due to the fragmentary nature of the remains that we have, a lack of complete skeletons to compare to one another, and also a lack of completeness or an intersectional focus of study; that’s to say an insufficient degree of study, together, of biology and culture working together. I mean, there aren’t just piles and piles of complete skeletons of early hominids lying around to study the “bare bones” in such a way that would determine concretely what you’re saying they determine, Charles.

^^^^^^
CB; Yes, what I am saying does not depend on it being easy to tell sex when the fossils are fragmentary (!) I never said it is always easy to tell.

The point here is that everybody assumes there _is_ something to distinguish. That’s the cogent point in this discussion. My argument here doesn’t fail because they can’t tell everytime from the fragmentary remains they have. They always assume that if they had the whole organism, there would be females and males. That’s the critical point in this discussion.

^^^^^^^^

So, here’s my “pick apart your comment” answer to some of the other stuff you’ve said here re: sexual dimorphism and rape:

CB: It is uniquely a male crime exactly because of sexual dimorphism, the general physical differences between women and men. This has to do with strength,

Elaina: You are completely ignoring culture, and that culture teaches men to be domineering towards women at the same time it teaches women to fear men.

^^^^
CB: I don’t know that I am ignoring it. Furthermore, if women were just as strong as men, I’m really not so sure that most of them would just take being beat up because they are enculturated to be passive and dominated. I really have to question you on that. Most of the women I know would not stand to be beatup or raped if they had the physically ability to defend themselves.

Also, rape introduces a qualitative sexual dimorphism factor.

^^^^^^

This is key in Gringo Capitalism. It wouldn’t work without this cultural indoctrination. And the degree of dimorphism of which you speak doesn’t occur in extreme degrees the majority of the time. Men would have a hell of a harder time raping women if women weren’t taught to fear them, and if men weren’t taught that women existed only for them and as receptacles of their wants and needs and abuse. “Sexual dimorphism” is not the key determinant in the oppression of females by males. It might be part of it, but it ain’t a final answer.

^^^^
CB: I didn’t say that sexual dimorphism is the key determinant in the _overall_ oppression of females by males.

I said that it is the key factor in domestic physical abuse and rape being overwhelmingly male against female. Domestic abuse and rape are not the totality of male supremacist oppression.

^^^^^^

C.B.:…but also the qualitative difference between the sexual organs of males and females. A woman can’t very well force a man get turgid, the necessary condition for the man to have sex with the woman.
Elaina: Well, I have to add here that a woman might not be able to “force a man to be turgid” but it’s very feasible that a woman could shove something hard and pointy into a man’s asshole. The forceful shoving of anything into an asshole is a form of rape. I’m just putting that out there. My time is limited, I’m looking at the clock and getting antsy, so I can’t afford right now to go into the exceptions to this “rule” you’re talking about.

^^^^^^
CB: Yes, that’s true :>). And nowadays, the woman could have a gun to dominate in the force part.

Note your “submissive” enculturation as a woman didn’t prevent you from thinking up this aggressive plan. :>)

^^^^^^

I agree that rape is a masculine weapon against women. But taking it completely out of a cultural context and attempting to explain it using biology is shaky ground, at best. There is no “hard science” that explains in a way that isn’t questionable the “biological” differences in physical strength between men and women in a way sufficient to account for patriarchy.

^^^^^
CB: I’m not trying to account for all of patriarchy by it. For that see _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ , for starters.

^^^^^^

As I said, this conversation here is crossing over into the discussion happening on the “Shootist” post, and I’d like to see y’alls views on what’s going on there.

In the meantime, I’ve gotta go to work!!

Peace.

Comment by Elaina — 3/6/2006 @ 3:25 pm

Thanks for that reply.

I think you are carrying lots of human made perceptions and assumptions, rooted in male supremacist reality, into what you say below, that I will do my best to expose and discuss further. Thanks for taking the time to write what you did. It sounds like you’re pretty frustrated, as perhaps we both have been with one another here on the land of the blog, but I am still holding out hope that we can write to and with one another, towards greater mutual understanding and empowerment.

CB: Sex is a biological concept. It is a form of reproduction of lifeforms. It originated about a billion years ago. Before that all lifeforms on earth reproduced by cloning. In cloning an individual member of the species. reproduces itself without any interaction with another individual member of the species. In sexual reproduction, there are two types of individuals. It takes one from each type copulating in order to reproduce a new member of the species. If you have two individuals of the same sexual type , they cannot reproduce. The two types are opposite sexes.

JR: Biology is a human enterprise, a field of study by subjective, worldview-shaped humans trying to pretend they can fully understand the world as if it is entirely outside of them, that is, objective. And sex is a human concept, greatly impacted by many political assumptions and values. Yes, the human animal tends to be, and generally is, sexually dimorphic.

^^^^^
CB: No, biology is an objective science. Objective reality , reality outside of the human mind, does exist. Holding to this principle is the definition of a materialist.

Sex is an objective reality. It existed before humans did ( by a billion years), so it does not originate as a human concept. It originates as an objective reality.

^^^^^^

I can imagine how frustrating it might be if you are sensing I am trying, through post-structuralist tricks of the trade, to avoid or deny that simple reality. The human species, like and unlike other mammals, requires a sperm from the male and an egg from the female to reproduce.

I say like and unlike, because, for example, the skeletal differences in humans, especially in certain regions of humans, is not that different, compared, say, to gorillas, where the male can be twice as large as the female. In the human animals species, the females can be larger than the males, the males and females can be approximately the same size, and these stature differences vary across regions of the world.

^^^^^
CB: Use of normal curves works here. The male normal curve will be to the “right” of the female. They overlap so that, of course, some individual women are larger and stronger than some individual men. However, even if a woman is heavier than a man, her muscles may not be as strong. Also, if we take brothers and sisters of the same parents the man will likely be bigger and stronger.

^^^^^

CB: They are _naturally_ opposite.

JR: Only if you choose a definition of opposite that means, simply, dimorphic.

^^^
CB: No, I gave you the reason they are opposites earlier. It is not just the “definition”. There is an objective sense in which they are biological complements – differences that are necessary to each other.

^^^^^^

Dimorphic doesn’t mean “opposite”. But if that’s your definition, that’s your definition.

^^^^^
CB: It’s not just my definition. It is the logic of what I explained to you regarding the necessity of having one from each “opposite” or “complementary” group to have a fertile union.

^^^^^^^^

I am not going to try to convince you of anything here about this, except to ask you to note that words are human constructions, designed to try and describe various realities: “external” ones, “internal” ones, magical ones, mythic ones, etc.

^^^^
CB: I was a structuralist (Levi-Straussian) before I was a Marxist. I have two degrees in cultural anthropology. I don’t say that to brag. I say it to let you know that I know what you are getting at, but I have a critique of it that has considered everything you are saying. I already know and have known for decades all about culture, symboling, language, “human constructions” as you apply them here. I have taken all that into account in this analysis; my analysis includes what you are saying but is also a critique of the concept you are putting forth that is more sophisticated than you think.

Sex, in the biological sense, is a unity of opposites not constructed by human culture and language, but a reflection of objective reality in human language.

^^^^^^^

You are using a language, English, as if it is somehow more than that, as if spoken or written words are somehow “true” and “actual” beyond the human community that speaks that language.

^^^^^
CB: There is an objective reality beyond the human community that speaks that language. Humans are not capable knowing absolute truth. However, we are capable of knowing relative truths about objective reality. ( See Lenin _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_)

My use of “sex” here is a relative truth regarding objective reality

^^^^^^^

You are aware, I’m sure, that different languages means the world is seen in different ways. Swedish doesn’t make use the term “gender” the way English does, for example. “Sex” is understood in English differently than the terms that approximate it in other languages and cultures understand it. I’m not just playing a post-modern shell game, here, Charles. I’m going somewhere meaningful with this, so just hang on for the ride, if you will.

^^^^^^^
CB: I’ve already heard your whole position about 30 years ago. My critique of what you are saying “knows” all that you are trying to say here, and goes beyond it.

^^^^^
^^^^^^^^

CB: It is precisely the natural sense in which they are opposite.

“Natural sense”? What’s that?

^^^^^
CB: There is objective reality, nature. There is a world beyond our minds and words. Nature is not entirely a socio-historical construct.

Irrespective of the human mind, sex exists in objective reality as complementary and opposite members of a species , as I described to you earlier.

^^^^^^

Your language, laden with an unowned perspective on the world, is tautological.

^^^^
CB; Wrong. I am conscious of what perspective of the world it implies exactly because I have been through all the analysis of language and culture that you are about to give. I already know and have debated at length ( I still debate them some on some other lists) all the issues you are about to raise, thinking that I don’t know them.

^^^^^^^

For you “opposite” and “dimorphic” are synonymous.For me, and many feminists, they are not, either intellectually, linguistically, or experientially. When I speak with women, I do not, in any way, feel I am talking to “opposites” of myself.

^^^^^
CB: Your feelings are not a reflection of the objective difference between males and females that I analyzed earlier.

What you feel can’t get around the fact that you can make a baby with a woman and you can’t make a baby with a man. That is an objective definition of opposites, as used here.

^^^^^

Nor when I speak with men. “Opposites” is something some minds experience when they comprehend the world, and there are some brain researchers which argue that partly this is a survival mechanism, one which can be overstimulated and overcharged in times of crisis, such that, for example, someone will say something to someone else, or cast a glance, or make a gesture, and that “survivally” part of the brain “sees” danger, sees “enemy”, sees “other than me”. There are whole cultures in the world, as you know, that hold there are not such oppositional divisions, except in our perception, and in the degree to which we construct and maintain them, socially/politically.

^^^^^^
CB: Uhhh, no I don’t know of any such whole cultures. Want to name one ? All cultures I know of reflect this objective fact in their socio-historical categories. Male/female is universal , as far as I know.

^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^

CB: Humans reproduce sexually

JR: And sometimes through medical means, such as with test tubes and the like. That is, many a baby are both with no dimorphic genital intercourse taking place.

^^^^^^
CB: But even with test tubes, you have to get a sperm from a male, and an egg from a female. You can’t get a fertile result if you take both cells from members of the _same_ ( not opposite) sex.

^^^^^^^

CB: ( not by cloning)

JR: Yet! ; )

^^^^
CB: Yes, I’ll be in the movement to stop that.

^^^^^^

CB: and therefore the human species has sexes.

JR: To keep with your discourse, there are, in fact, more than two sexes. One in one hundred human births, according to some studies, produce what is called “intersex” babies, which are too often surgically altered not for medical reasons, but for social-aesthetic-political reasons. I knew a person with no sex. They had no genitals from birth, just a pee hole, but not vulva either. What sex was that person, Charles?

^^^^
CB: Depends on what their reproductive cells could fertilly unite with. If their reproductive cells are fertile when united with females’ cells , then they are male. Otherwise, if fertally mate with males, then female.

^^^^

I assume this person is still alive. What would you call that person, using pronouns?

^^^^
CB: I’d say pronoun has to do with gender, although gender is determined by sex in the vast majority of cases. So, answer question above first… Then..

^^^^
There are xxy and other genetic formations in the human species. What sex are they, and what sex are they the opposite of?

^^^^^^
CB: See above. Sex is determined by who the individual can mate fertally with.

I’m not sure if there are types that cannot mate fertilly with either sex. If so, they are sexless. Sex is defined as I did above. There are only two sexes.

^^^^^^^

^^^^^

If we’re going to make science a religion, which the Left does a lot, then what do we do with the evidence of “more” or “other” than two sexes?

^^^^^
CB: Science is not religion. They are “opposites” with respect to fundamental concepts. Religion demands belief without evidence ( See the story of Job in the Bible) Science demands belief only based on evidence.

There are only two sexes. There may be individuals who are not in either sex, but they are sexless, not a third “sex”.

^^^^^^^

Answer: in patriarchal science-dominated cultures, we write that off as “aberrant” or “unnatural” or “a fluke”, because to validate this reality would be to mess with the whole “opposite sex” hypothesis, and would make many people have to rethink some basic assumptions about their worldviews and values.

^^^^^
CB: Wrong. Science has the good reasons I gave you in the prior post to speak only of two sexes. Sexes are defined based on reproduction, and the role of the opposite sexes in reproduction, i.e. individuals must be from the opposite sexes to have fertile sex.

You are talking about gender.

^^^^^^

CB: To have sexes means to have opposite sexes, by definition. Two opposite sexes is part of the definition of sex. You can’t have one sex.

JR: Then you are not aware that from the time of Aristotle, to the 18th century, I believe, the common-sense thinking was that there was “one sex”.

^^^^^
CB: Yea, I have heard that , but common-sense was wrong.

Aristotle’s physics and astronomy was wrong too. They had to throw out all of Aristotle’s physica and astronomy to make progress in those areas in “Modern” times.

^^^^^^

I will quote from a book that describes this in detail. The sex was “man/male” and what we now call woman/female was believed, for a very, very long time, to be a lesser or aberrant man/male, but a man/male nonetheless. The science of the time had “reasonable” explanations for how this was the case, and why. So, my point, again, is that the discourse you are using, and what you are referring to is “a point of view” that is not transcultural or transhistorical.

^^^^^

CB: I didn’t say it was transhistorical. The Europeans have had messed up ideas about sex for a long time. So, what ?

Now that one sex idea, only men, that’s male supremacist and “patrirarchal”. You are putting forth a grossly male supremacist view as a retort to my analysis of sex ? And you claim to be arguing as a feminist ? I’d say I have the better feminist argument on this.

^^^^^^^

If the Mbuti Pygmies have no terms for “boy” and “girl”, “woman” or “man”, and they share childcare and other social work, if physically they are the same size, in what sense is there an “opposite” sex in that society?

^^^^
CB; Pygmies are not an exception to biological sex as I have explained it to you here at length. A biologically male pygmy cannot produce a baby with another male ( pygmy or American). Same for biologically female pygmy and another female of any culture.

^^^^^

There are some anatomical differences among the people, yes. There are many physical differences in Western European societies/cultures too. Blue eyes and brown eyes are real, right? But Hitler and his gang made “blondness, blue-eyedness, paleness, and certain other physical features, that really do “exist” to use your discourse, as a way to create races, and call them “natural”.

^^^^^^
CB: The biologically invalidity of the concept of race consists in the claim that certain physical types are correlated with greater or lesser morality or intelligence or “courage” et al. It is not that certain people don’t have different actually existing _and_ genetically or naturally generated skin colors, hair textures ,and facial features. It is that these physical characteristics are not correlated with inferior or superior morality, intelligence and all the other things the racists claimed that they were.

^^^^^

It is no different with “sex”.

^^^^^
CB: Yes it is. It is objectively true that members of the same sex cannot produce offspring together. They must mate with the opposite sex to do so.

^^^^^^

Some physical differences are noted, some are given significant meaning, some are given mythic meaning, some political meaning, and once those meanings are “set” into the society, they are taken as “natural” and “universal”, when, really, really even in “biology” they are not “natural”.

^^^^
CB: Wrong

^^^^^^^

Race is not “natural”. It is a human construct, made real through force and other social means. Dark skin pigmentation, and pale skin, and different shaped eyelids, and various shaped noses and lips are all “real”, right? But to say they make up “races” is a huge leap away from “biology” into politics.

^^^^^
CB: Correct. See above.

Race is an invalid biological category. It is a valid political category; valid not in the sense that it is good, but that the world has in fact been shaped by this immoral political category.

^^^^^

The same with gender/sex.

^^^^^^
CB: Wrong on sex. True on gender.

^^^^^^

No difference, except in patriarchies,

^^^^^
CB: No Even in non-patriarchal society, sex is a valid category.

^^^

this observation is like saying “Jesus was a human being who was born to Mary, from her DNA, and a male’s DNA–Joseph’s or the man who possible raped her” to Christians. It’s called heresy, blasphemy, sacrilege. The Left has its own religions, usually unowned as such, with their attendant stories and myths, and the myth of “opposite sexes” is among them, in both Right and Left worldviews.

^^^^^^
CB: The concept of sex as I use it here is not a religious concept. Wrong.

^^^^^^^

CB: The notion of one sex is nonsensical, because two opposite or complementary sexes is inherent to the definition of sex.

JR: Oh, just you wait till I quote the passages from a “history of sex” book I have read. You’ll be amazed, and will realize how the way you think of things is entirely particular to this time and location in which you live. (I’ll post that later today or Monday, hopefully.)

^^^^^^^
CB: There are other times and places that use the same concept of sex, because it is an objective reality. You mean that there was some non-sense in the “common-sense” of Europe as you described above. That’s people who believed that the earth is flat or that the sun goes around the earth. In fact, it’s a lot of the same people. So what ? Their thinking has been superceded by a way of thinking that corresponds better with objective reality.

Would you cite people who believed the earth is flat as some kind of proof that the spherical earth theory is just another subjective and ethnocentric concept, no more or less valid than the flat earth theory ?

^^^^^^^

[JR wrote:] But these sexes have all the same hormones (in varying proportions), both have nipples, both have labia (male labia are fused), both have a highly sensitive nerve-packed organ with a shaft and head (clitoris, penis), both have pleasure zones beyond those fixated on in patriarchy, both “biological sexes” cry, both bleed, both hurt. Bot can excel in sport, in academic pursuits, in caring for young. What’s opposite, then, about women and men?

[CB responded:]
CB: Only one two members of the opposite sexes can have _fertile_ sex together.

JR: In philosophy, this is called tautology, isn’t it?

CB: No, it is not a tautology. It is an empirical observation.

^^^^^

You have set up the terms, their meanings, such that there is no way for you to comprehend anything outside what you have set up as “true” or “real”.

^^^^^^
CB; No, it is a way of describing the empirical facts that have been observed. There are sperm cells and there are ovum cells. A given individual never has both, etc. The definitions of sexes are based on these empirical observations.

^^^^^

This is why it’s so damned annoying, among other reactions, to speak to some white supremacists, or some fundamentalist Christians, who hold so tightly to “The way the world is” that to suggest any other possibilities is to be “ridiculous” “absurd” or “insane” (or evil). Leftist scientists would just as soon avoid dealing with the assumptions they carry into their perceptions and “objective findings”. I think you are doing this too–being rigid in this way, fundamentalist, as it were, with a Leftist accent.

^^^^^^^^
CB: I could say the same thing about you. You are religiously wed, ( a new religion) to the world not being constructed as valid biology has discovered it to be. It conflicts with your politico-religious agenda which doesn’t want to see two opposite biological sexes. So, you are rigid in denying the biological version of the world. It is you who are like the religious white supremacists.

And you share with these white supremacist religiosos the denial of biology. White supremacist religiosos are right now trying to get biological science, Darwinism out of the schools.

So, it is u who is closer to the white supremacist religiosos, in that you both deny the findings of modern biology.

In Marxist terms, you are both idealists/religious, not materialist , philosophically. Over the last ten years I have been arguing this same issue with post-modernists of various types, and long ago I realized that post-modernists are philosophical idealists in their denial of the existence of objective reality. So, a while ago I started analyzing them as falling into religion. So, this is not a new criticism I make of your position.

The fun part here is that it is _you_, not I, who has a common philosophical position with the rightwing, racist religiosos. Your anti-biology causes you to fall in with strange bedfellows.

^^^^^^^

CB: A man and man can’t impregnate each other. A woman and woman can’t impregnate each other. Only a woman can be pregnant by a man. Only a woman can be pregnant. Only a man can impregnate. This is a rigorous definition of the oppositeness of the sexes, their complementarity.

JR: Many women and men, too, cannot cause impregnation, when “together”. Does this make them something else?

^^^^^
CB: Yes, they are not actually functioning members of either sex. This doesn’t invalidate the general principle I describe above.

^^^^^^^^

Only some females can be pregnant, and others of many ages cannot. Again, you take “blue eyes, pale skin, and blond hair” and turn it into a race. I do not.

^^^^^
CB: No, _I_ don’t turn it into anything.

It is invalid as a biological category in the sense that the physical characterisitics do not correlate with moral or intellectual or other characteristics. Racist society makes the socio-econo-political concomittants of physical types actual.

^^^^

I don’t attribute the same significance to these “biological differences” that you do, nor do I think “difference” equals “opposite”. And now you are making synonyms out of “opposite” and “complimentary”. Check the dictionary: those aren’t synonyms.

^^^^^^
CB: That would be “complementary”, rooted in “complete”. To have a complete fertile pairing takes one from the two opposite groups or classes of biological types.

^^^^^^^

I will respond to the rest at another time. (I’m outa time for now.)

Peace and power to you, Charles.

^^^^^^

CB: Yea, Black is beautiful.

I will travel on over to the “Shootist” discussion, per your suggestion, Elaina.

To Charles. I could address in volumes what’s wrong with thinking that rape somehow “follows” inevitably from human biology. Suffice it to say, it’s like arguing lynching of Blacks and the gassing of Jews follows from “biological” “realities”, which any white supremacist and/or Nazi will say is true.

According to Elaina’s response, you note genital “biology” as a determining factor of the naturalness/biological imperative of rape.

I agree with Elaina entirely.

There’s nothing but political-social culture to explain why women don’t systematically ass-rape small boys with fingers or other long blunt or sharp objects, who are smaller than them. Women have the physical and political means to do so. Some women do sexually and physically assault boy children, as well as girl children, btw. Is that, too, due to “biology”? I know of boys who were unrelentingly verbally and physically, and sometimes also sexually, assaulted by their moms. Is that biology, Charles?

You can’t have it both ways. Having a penis and larger muscle mass doesn’t explain anything substantial about the political phenomenon called rape. Please keep in mind, men rape one another too, however rampant homophobia and “naturalised” and normalised heterosexism keeps men’s political-psychological desire to rape or ignore non-consent cues aimed more often at women). And sexxxism industries–pornography and prostitution especially, teach men to sexually use, have controlled access to, and to rape women, primarily. (Other genres of rape/sexual violence porn exist, and other forms of rape and sexual violence exist because of it.)

Rgarding the physical stature of the attacker/assaulter: the physical stature of the raper guy and the raped guy isn’t the only factor in who gets raped.

Some small boys and men beat the shit out of larger boys and men and women, you know. Some teen boys who are smaller than their moms or dads, hurt them physically and brutally.

I know of a specific case in which a “pro-feminist” petite guy was battering his female feminist partner who was physically larger than him. And some large women beat small men. I know of women who have sexually assaulted men, too. Is that, too, “biology” based primarily on genital formation?

Please account for the whole reality of sexual violence in your theories, or they fall apart too easily.

I’ll go on over to “The Shootist” now.

Peace to all beings.

Good work, R.S.!

R.S.: I’m glad that everything went smoothly for the movie showings. And I also appreciate your commentary, over here and on the “Shootist” post.

C.B.: Hey. Hope all’s well with ‘ya.
You know, I think I’ve mentioned that I’m a bit of an “anthro-nerd” myself, and that I do posess a B.A. in said field of study. Probably my favorite class, though it was by no means the class I scored the highest in, was human osteology.

At the University of TN we have a really big, well-respected dead-body lab called the Body Farm. We’re technically not supposed to call it that, out of respect for the families of people who donate their bodies, we’re SUPPOSED to call it “The Facility.” For some reason that seems creepier to me than the Body Farm. But at any rate, if you’ve heard of the lab, that’s it’s popular name. But I’ll come back to this lab and all that in a minute, ’cause I need to address something you said while talking about sexual dimorphism.

CB: In paleontological fossil finds, females can be distinguished from males based on sexual dimorphism , including pelvis width, and a few other characteristics. They never have a problem categorizing a fossil as male or femele. This is a good way to demonstrate the acutality of sexual dimorphism, and the difference between the sexes.

Alright, y’all, I’m getting ready to wax osteological so, I’m just giving fair warning, this might be boring as all get-out.

Elaina: ‘K. Charles, there’s a good reason that folks use the phrase “never say never.” What you’re saying here about paleontological osteology just isn’t true. I know because I’ve had conversations, both with paleontologists and students who are studying to BE paleontologists about sexual dimorphism and indeed, at times it can be quite difficult to distinguish male and female human samples from one another.

There aren’t any concrete areas of skeletal biology that can guarantee that the skeleton in question is male or female. And the bones, themselves just as bones, are not the only guide; a person looks at markings on bones, i.e. at the grooves and dents in bones where the muscles attach, such as the nuchal lines in the skull and the deltoid tuberosity on the humerus. But what I’m saying here is that, when you are learning how to sex a skeleton something that you have to learn first is that the answer is usually not obvious, and these manifestations of dimorphism are only there most or some of the time, and you really shouldn’t rely on them individually to determine sex. They are cumulative. You take the measurements, from the pelvis and the skull and even from the long bones, and you punch them into a computer program (FORDdisc) and then budda-boom, budda-bing, the computer says it’s a boy! (I’m simplifying here. Sometimes when it’s difficult to sex the skeleton, frequently the case, and very frequently when the skeleton’s sutures are not fully fused and show evidence of being that of a subadult, osteologists and forensic anthropologists and all those “pro” folks have to rely not just on what the ‘puter tells them, but their own eyeballing, and a multitude of other factors to figure out what’s going on.)

See, this is why I think that attempting to base the struggle between the genders in biological science is shaky at best. Because SCIENCE is shaky at best. Scientists admit to this. The scientific method is designed to generate theory from hypothesis, not provide “exact” answers, especially not as it pertains to social problems. Gah.

And Charles. “Pelvis width” is a PART of “sexual dimorphism,” and the “few other factors” are actually several. When a forensic anthropologist is working on sexing a skeleton, they don’t just measure cross-ways the pelvis in millimeters and say, “this is wider than those of males, so it’s gotta be female.”
Small measurements have to be considered, such as the width of the pubic bone, the sub-pubic angle, the width of the greater sciatic notch (less reliable than pubic bone, but used in many cases due to the whole pelvis not being intact,) the auricular surface and the preauricular sulcus are all factored in. These measurements are always taken, it’s part of the “rules.” Even if a forensic anth. eyeballs the skeleton in question and it’s one of those really rare ones where all the primary and secondary sex characteristics are right there where they “ought” to be, they have to take all these things into consideration.

AND they have to jive completely with the findings in the long bones and the skull. Ain’t always the case.

And, in regards to what you’re saying about “sexual dimorphism” being the “exact” reason for male-dominance, and for horrible events such as rape and abuse, I’d like to ask, what part do you think culture plays in these events? On the other post, I mention that varying degrees of human sexual dimorphism in different cultures has not been studied (at least, not to MY limited knowledge) with an “eye out” for possible cultural factors being influential in shaping biology.

It’s also important to note, going back to the discussion of the human skeleton, that male and female skeletons are more difficult to sex, the younger they are. On a skeleton, “secondary sex” features do not show up until they would have in the soft tissue. Subadult skeletons are incredibly difficult to sex, to the point that it’s a fifty-fifty shot. Teenagers are easier. The pelvis is indeed the place where sexual dimorphism is most evident. But when you start throwing that tired “upper body strenght is the source of male power and the prime illustration of sexual dimorphism” around, well, it’s just not a correct statement, to be blunt, and it’s really taking science only to the place you want it to be and avoiding a lot of factors that are just as “there” as the width of our pelvi.

The thing that scientists have done that I disagree with is that they’ve said that this point of physical divergence is the REASON for cultural divergence– and I’m saying that the cultural divergence could very well be just as influential to the human (skeletal and otherwise) biological divergences of which you speak, when applied over long periods of time, as they have. I realize that when I say “long periods of time” that in relation to the entire fossil record maybe the period of time isn’t long, but humans get taller, bigger, and their biologies change, relatively quickly, with the changing winds of culture, or ways of knowing and doing and spreading knowing that are distinctly human.

And I’d like to raise the question, is it purely a biological coincidence that human sexual dimorphism in skeletons becomes more evident in those stages of life in which they are supposed to become, in adhesion to societal norms, “fully” male or “fully” female?

Back to the Body Farm, briefly: During bone lab, one day, my instructor came in to inform us that a new body had been brought in and that the scientists downstairs had been having a helluva time figuring out whether it was a male or female. The long bones appeared to be the normal lenght attributed to a petite female, but the markings on the bones indicated very heavy musculature. The skull’s overall size of the skull was consistent with that of a female but the features appeared very robust and again, the sites of muscle attachment were heavy. There was only a partial pelvis, if I’m remembering correctly, and the measurements therein just weren’t giving up enough information to tell-it could have gone either way. Looking at sutures indicated that the skeleton was an adult. I think the closest they came to an ID was that it was, possibly, a very physically strong female.

Now, I’ve talked to forensic experts, I’ve been in their classes and heard them lecture, and it seems that the general consensus is that there’s a degree of difficulty in establishing the “sex” of a skeleton, even among contemporary humans. Many factors have to be considered and averaged with one another.

When talking of paleontological samples of skeletal remains, the degree of difficulty increases, due to the fragmentary nature of the remains that we have, a lack of complete skeletons to compare to one another, and also a lack of completeness or an intersectional focus of study; that’s to say an insufficient degree of study, together, of biology and culture working together. I mean, there aren’t just piles and piles of complete skeletons of early hominids lying around to study the “bare bones” in such a way that would determine concretely what you’re saying they determine, Charles.

So, here’s my “pick apart your comment” answer to some of the other stuff you’ve said here re: sexual dimorphism and rape:

CB: It is uniquely a male crime exactly because of sexual dimorphism, the general physical differences between women and men. This has to do with strength,
Elaina: You are completely ignoring culture, and that culture teaches men to be domineering towards women at the same time it teaches women to fear men. This is key in Gringo Capitalism. It wouldn’t work without this cultural indoctrination. And the degree of dimorphism of which you speak doesn’t occur in extreme degrees the majority of the time. Men would have a hell of a harder time raping women if women weren’t taught to fear them, and if men weren’t taught that women existed only for them and as receptacles of their wants and needs and abuse. “Sexual dimorphism” is not the key determinant in the oppression of females by males. It might be part of it, but it ain’t a final answer.

C.B.:…but also the qualitative difference between the sexual organs of males and females. A woman can’t very well force a man get turgid, the necessary condition for the man to have sex with the woman.
Elaina: Well, I have to add here that a woman might not be able to “force a man to be turgid” but it’s very feasible that a woman could shove something hard and pointy into a man’s asshole. The forceful shoving of anything into an asshole is a form of rape. I’m just putting that out there. My time is limited, I’m looking at the clock and getting antsy, so I can’t afford right now to go into the exceptions to this “rule” you’re talking about.

I agree that rape is a masculine weapon against women. But taking it completely out of a cultural context and attempting to explain it using biology is shaky ground, at best. There is no “hard science” that explains in a way that isn’t questionable the “biological” differences in physical strength between men and women in a way sufficient to account for patriarchy.

As I said, this conversation here is crossing over into the discussion happening on the “Shootist” post, and I’d like to see y’alls views on what’s going on there.

In the meantime, I’ve gotta go to work!!

Peace.

“Brokeback Mountain” played in our theater through the weekend with ABSOLUTELY NO disturbances, not even nasty comments. Reviews were favorable in the vast majority, the only negative I’ve heard so far being “What the hell were two Wyoming cowboys doing herding sheep?!!”

We lost one employee over the show, but several of the others have since let their girlfriends talk them into going.

Overall, a successful Oscar-weekend film. Thanks for your input.

Thanks for that reply.

I think you are carrying lots of human made perceptions and assumptions, rooted in male supremacist reality, into what you say below, that I will do my best to expose and discuss further. Thanks for taking the time to write what you did. It sounds like you’re pretty frustrated, as perhaps we both have been with one another here on the land of the blog, but I am still holding out hope that we can write to and with one another, towards greater mutual understanding and empowerment.

CB: Sex is a biological concept. It is a form of reproduction of lifeforms. It originated about a billion years ago. Before that all lifeforms on earth reproduced by cloning. In cloning an individual member of the species. reproduces itself without any interaction with another individual member of the species. In sexual reproduction, there are two types of individuals. It takes one from each type copulating in order to reproduce a new member of the species. If you have two individuals of the same sexual type , they cannot reproduce. The two types are opposite sexes.

JR: Biology is a human enterprise, a field of study by subjective, worldview-shaped humans trying to pretend they can fully understand the world as if it is entirely outside of them, that is, objective. And sex is a human concept, greatly impacted by many political assumptions and values. Yes, the human animal tends to be, and generally is, sexually dimorphic.

I can imagine how frustrating it might be if you are sensing I am trying, through post-structuralist tricks of the trade, to avoid or deny that simple reality. The human species, like and unlike other mammals, requires a sperm from the male and an egg from the female to reproduce.

I say like and unlike, because, for example, the skeletal differences in humans, especially in certain regions of humans, is not that different, compared, say, to gorillas, where the male can be twice as large as the female. In the human animals species, the females can be larger than the males, the males and females can be approximately the same size, and these stature differences vary across regions of the world.

CB: They are _naturally_ opposite.

JR: Only if you choose a definition of opposite that means, simply, dimorphic. Dimorphic doesn’t mean “opposite”. But if that’s your definition, that’s your definition. I am not going to try to convince you of anything here about this, except to ask you to note that words are human constructions, designed to try and describe various realities: “external” ones, “internal” ones, magical ones, mythic ones, etc. You are using a language, English, as if it is somehow more than that, as if spoken or written words are somehow “true” and “actual” beyond the human community that speaks that language. You are aware, I’m sure, that different languages means the world is seen in different ways. Swedish doesn’t make use the term “gender” the way English does, for example. “Sex” is understood in English differently than the terms that approximate it in other languages and cultures understand it. I’m not just playing a post-modern shell game, here, Charles. I’m going somewhere meaningful with this, so just hang on for the ride, if you will.

CB: It is precisely the natural sense in which they are opposite.

“Natural sense”? What’s that? Your language, laden with an unowned perspective on the world, is tautological. For you “opposite” and “dimorphic” are synonymous. For me, and many feminists, they are not, either intellectually, linguistically, or experientially. When I speak with women, I do not, in any way, feel I am talking to “opposites” of myself. Nor when I speak with men. “Opposites” is something some minds experience when they comprehend the world, and there are some brain researchers which argue that partly this is a survival mechanism, one which can be overstimulated and overcharged in times of crisis, such that, for example, someone will say something to someone else, or cast a glance, or make a gesture, and that “survivally” part of the brain “sees” danger, sees “enemy”, sees “other than me”. There are whole cultures in the world, as you know, that hold there are not such oppositional divisions, except in our perception, and in the degree to which we construct and maintain them, socially/politically.

CB: Humans reproduce sexually

JR: And sometimes through medical means, such as with test tubes and the like. That is, many a baby are both with no dimorphic genital intercourse taking place.

CB: ( not by cloning)

JR: Yet! ; )

CB: and therefore the human species has sexes.

JR: To keep with your discourse, there are, in fact, more than two sexes. One in one hundred human births, according to some studies, produce what is called “intersex” babies, which are too often surgically altered not for medical reasons, but for social-aesthetic-political reasons. I knew a person with no sex. They had no genitals from birth, just a pee hole, but not vulva either. What sex was that person, Charles? I assume this person is still alive. What would you call that person, using pronouns? There are xxy and other genetic formations in the human species. What sex are they, and what sex are they the opposite of? If we’re going to make science a religion, which the Left does a lot, then what do we do with the evidence of “more” or “other” than two sexes? Answer: in patriarchal science-dominated cultures, we write that off as “aberrant” or “unnatural” or “a fluke”, because to validate this reality would be to mess with the whole “opposite sex” hypothesis, and would make many people have to rethink some basic assumptions about their worldviews and values.

CB: To have sexes means to have opposite sexes, by definition. Two opposite sexes is part of the definition of sex. You can’t have one sex.

JR: Then you are not aware that from the time of Aristotle, to the 18th century, I believe, the common-sense thinking was that there was “one sex”. I will quote from a book that describes this in detail. The sex was “man/male” and what we now call woman/female was believed, for a very, very long time, to be a lesser or aberrant man/male, but a man/male nonetheless. The science of the time had “reasonable” explanations for how this was the case, and why. So, my point, again, is that the discourse you are using, and what you are referring to is “a point of view” that is not transcultural or transhistorical.

If the Mbuti Pygmies have no terms for “boy” and “girl”, “woman” or “man”, and they share childcare and other social work, if physically they are the same size, in what sense is there an “opposite” sex in that society? There are some anatomical differences among the people, yes. There are many physical differences in Western European societies/cultures too. Blue eyes and brown eyes are real, right? But Hitler and his gang made “blondness, blue-eyedness, paleness, and certain other physical features, that really do “exist” to use your discourse, as a way to create races, and call them “natural”. It is no different with “sex”. Some physical differences are noted, some are given significant meaning, some are given mythic meaning, some political meaning, and once those meanings are “set” into the society, they are taken as “natural” and “universal”, when, really, really even in “biology” they are not “natural”. Race is not “natural”. It is a human construct, made real through force and other social means. Dark skin pigmentation, and pale skin, and different shaped eyelids, and various shaped noses and lips are all “real”, right? But to say they make up “races” is a huge leap away from “biology” into politics. The same with gender/sex. No difference, except in patriarchies, this observation is like saying “Jesus was a human being who was born to Mary, from her DNA, and a male’s DNA–Joseph’s or the man who possible raped her” to Christians. It’s called heresy, blasphemy, sacrilege. The Left has its own religions, usually unowned as such, with their attendant stories and myths, and the myth of “opposite sexes” is among them, in both Right and Left worldviews.

CB: The notion of one sex is nonsensical, because two opposite or complementary sexes is inherent to the definition of sex.

JR: Oh, just you wait till I quote the passages from a “history of sex” book I have read. You’ll be amazed, and will realize how the way you think of things is entirely particular to this time and location in which you live. (I’ll post that later today or Monday, hopefully.)

[JR wrote:] But these sexes have all the same hormones (in varying proportions), both have nipples, both have labia (male labia are fused), both have a highly sensitive nerve-packed organ with a shaft and head (clitoris, penis), both have pleasure zones beyond those fixated on in patriarchy, both “biological sexes” cry, both bleed, both hurt. Bot can excel in sport, in academic pursuits, in caring for young. What’s opposite, then, about women and men?

[CB responded:]
CB: Only one two members of the opposite sexes can have _fertile_ sex together.

JR: In philosophy, this is called tautology, isn’t it? You have set up the terms, their meanings, such that there is no way for you to comprehend anything outside what you have set up as “true” or “real”. This is why it’s so damned annoying, among other reactions, to speak to some white supremacists, or some fundamentalist Christians, who hold so tightly to “The way the world is” that to suggest any other possibilities is to be “ridiculous” “absurd” or “insane” (or evil). Leftist scientists would just as soon avoid dealing with the assumptions they carry into their perceptions and “objective findings”. I think you are doing this too–being rigid in this way, fundamentalist, as it were, with a Leftist accent.

CB: A man and man can’t impregnate each other. A woman and woman can’t impregnate each other. Only a woman can be pregnant by a man. Only a woman can be pregnant. Only a man can impregnate. This is a rigorous definition of the oppositeness of the sexes, their complementarity.

JR: Many women and men, too, cannot cause impregnation, when “together”. Does this make them something else? Only some females can be pregnant, and others of many ages cannot. Again, you take “blue eyes, pale skin, and blond hair” and turn it into a race. I do not. I don’t attribute the same significance to these “biological differences” that you do, nor do I think “difference” equals “opposite”. And now you are making synonyms out of “opposite” and “complimentary”. Check the dictionary: those aren’t synonyms.

I will respond to the rest at another time. (I’m outa time for now.)

Peace and power to you, Charles.

Thanks for your reply. The more I hear what you are saying the more I realise where we diverge in experience and theory.

First, you will have to explain to me what is “opposite” about women and men. This is like saying white people are the opposite of Black people, or rich people are the opposite of poor, or gay the opposite of heterosexual. What do you mean, exactly, by that word? That there are two does not connote “opposites” necessarily or even, usually.

^^^^
CB: Sex is a biological concept. It is a form of reproduction of lifeforms. It originated about a billion years ago. Before that all lifeforms on earth reproduced by cloning. In cloning an individual member of the species. reproduces itself without any interaction with another individual member of the species. In sexual reproduction, there are two types of individuals. It takes one from each type copulating in order to reproduce a new member of the species. If you have two individuals of the same sexual type , they cannot reproduce. The two types are opposite sexes.

Got it ?

^^^^^^
Male supremacy takes two human biological forms and sets them up into hierarchical, oppositional, binary relationship, as if they were, naturally, opposite.

^^^
CB: They are _naturally_ opposite. It is precisely the natural sense in which they are opposite. Humans reproduce sexually ( not by cloning) and therefore the human species has sexes. To have sexes means to have opposite sexes, by definition. Two opposite sexes is part of the definition of sex. You can’t have one sex. The notion of one sex is nonsensical, because two opposite or complementary sexes is inherent to the definition of sex.

^^^^^^
But these sexes have all the same hormones (in varying proportions), both have nipples, both have labia (male labia are fused), both have a highly sensitive nerve-packed organ with a shaft and head (clitoris, penis), both have pleasure zones beyond those fixated on in patriarchy, both “biological sexes” cry, both bleed, both hurt. Bot can excel in sport, in academic pursuits, in caring for young. What’s opposite, then, about women and men?

^^^^
CB: Only one two members of the opposite sexes can have _fertile_ sex together. A man and man can’t impregnate each other. A woman and woman can’t impregnate each other. Only a woman can be pregnant by a man. Only a woman can be pregnant. Only a man can impregnate. This is a rigorous definition of the oppositeness of the sexes, their complementarity.

Also, in humans there is sexual dimorphism. Contra your discussion above, biologists have discerned general physical differences between the sexes, beyond their basic oppositeness as described above in terms of fertile sex. For example, in general, using normal curves and all that, men are physically stronger than women. This basic difference is why domestic violence is not an even-steven thing between the sexes. The problem and feminist issue of men beating women is a big problem. The problem of women beating men is not. This is because of sexual dimorphism, generally men are stronger than women. If not for this general difference between the sexes, domestic violence wouldn’t be a feminist issue.

Similarly with rape. The sexual dimorphism of men and women makes it that men can rape women, but not vica versa. Rape is not a symetrical problem between the sexes. It is uniquely a male crime exactly because of sexual dimorphism, the general physical differences between women and men. This has to do with strength, but also the qualitative difference between the sexual organs of males and females. A woman can’t very well force a man get turgid, the necessary condition for the man to have sex with the woman.

Also, women have a broader pelvis. In paleontological fossil finds, females can be distinguished from males based on sexual dimorphism , including pelvis width, and a few other characteristics. They never have a problem categorizing a fossil as male or femele. This is a good way to demonstrate the acutality of sexual dimorphism, and the difference between the sexes.

^^^^^^

I have more questions, but that would be a good place for me to gain some understanding in where you are coming from.

^^^^^
CB: Should be crystal clear if you read the above. If not, I can’t help you.

^^^^^^

After that, I’ll get into what I mean when I say “heteronormative” and will also more fully explain why I don’t think human females are necessarily anti-patriarchal, any more than human males are necessarily pro-patriarchal (or male supremacist).

But help me with this matter of opposites. I don’t follow you there. If there are two kinds of rain, does that make them opposite to one another?

^^^^
CB: If one form of rain couldn’t fall without out the other falling first, or something like that, then there might be some oppositionality between them.

^^^^^^

Are female puppies “the opposite” of male puppies? (Aren’t they both basically the same, let alone opposite?)

^^^^^
CB: Yes, they are opposite sexes, in the same sense as human males and females are opposites. It’s like yin and yang. Interconnected opposites. Unity and struggle of opposites. They are different but necessary to each other.

^^^^

Earth is opposite to water, perhaps, if one looks at such things in certain ways. The night can be seen to be “the opposite” of day.

^^^^
CB: I don’t know about the earth and water. I guess there could be some context in which they are. Night and day sort of works as opposites yes.

Do you think there is such a thing as opposites of any kind ? Or is “opposite”just a word that has no actuality in the real world ?

^^^^

But these human named oppositions are distortions of the truth. For water and earth have gradations (mud, for one), as does night and day (dusk and dawn, to name but two of them), and “opposition” is, in my understanding and experience, a philosophical, political perspective on a non-oppositional nature. This unnatural, fully social-political distinction, a grossly distortive one, is made real by calling things “the opposite” of other things, that are, in fact, more similar in every way than opposite in any way.

^^^^^
CB: Well, yes in Hegelian dialectics things turn into their opposites. We do not hold opposites hard and fast in opposition to each other at every moment of our thinking about them.

^^^^^^^

Male supremacy works to ensure that biological features are turned into “opposites” just as white supremacy does this with race. Help me understand why you think it’s that different with male supremacy than white supremacy, re: black/white, woman/man. Black and white people aren’t opposite after all, even if some race supremacists want to believe that!

^^^^
CB: Male and female is biological, goes back to the origin of sex a billion years ago, goes back to the origin of the human species.

Race is an invalid biological category, a political and social category beginning with capitalism, established as a basis for slavery and colonialism by the Europeans as they conquered the world.

We aim to abolish the concept of race. We don’t aim to abolish sex.

^^^^^^^^

And, in support of something you wrote: one way CRAP has historically controlled birthrates has been by forcibly sterilising poor women of Colour in the U.S. (You would think that Amerikkka would approve abortion ONLY for women of Colour!)

I see both Christian patriarchal institutions and secular patriarchal institutions as working “under the same political roof”, so to speak. Rather precisely the way I see Democrats and Republicans basically being the same party, but claiming to have much that they disagree over. As Susan Griffin noted, pornography rests in the shadow of the Christian Church. Mary Daly has written extensively about Christianity and S/M are one and the same thing, basically. A female friend of mine had S/M fantasies when she was four. She hadn’t been exposed to any pornography or rape at that point, but she had been exposed to teachings from the Christian Church, about the suffering of Jesus who was nailed to a cross. Ecstatic suffering, is that what they call it?

^^^^^^
CB; Yes, that common trope between them has occurred to me. Interesting that your female friend had that fantasy.

^^^^^^

I think Christian sexual repression, and secular male supremacist oppression are non-oppositional phenomena, which like to pretend they are, much like Republicans and Democrats.

Christian patriarchs and secular patriarchs seek different methods of controlling women, but neither wants women to be free: as Dworkin notes in Right-Wing Women, the Right offers women the illusion of security in the home of one man, the Left offers women the illusion of freedom in the arms of many men. Neither Right nor Left has any interest in exposing how gender is made, politically.

^^^^^^
CB: The Left does. The Left has been the source of discovering gender. Engels’ , a bigtime lefty, gives a big thesis on the origin of gender in his book. It’s not a good idea to get away from the Communist analysis of gender. We need to expand it ( see my paper) , but not get away from the first advances in that area made by the Left.

^^^^^^^

Have you read the first three chapters (re: feminism and marxism), and chapter 6 (on sexuality) of “Toward A Feminist Theory Of The State” by MacKinnon? She does not “attack” Marx and Engels at all. She responsibly critiques them, quite respectfully, and uses their own analysis to critique liberal feminism. Let me know if you have read those chapters, as this discussion would benefit by both of us referencing the same mutually read material.

^^^^^
CB: No. I’m glad to hear this. I was going on Stan’s essays on the Left dropping Engels on gender. I’m against the Left dropping Engels on gender.

^^^^^^

And, pest that I am, what did Barbara Smith say to you about your critique of heterosexism? I’m really curious. I’m glad you had the opportunity to speak with her, and since you let me know that you had that fortuitous discussion, doesn’t it make sense to write more about that conversation here? This seems the perfect conversation thread for the details of that exchange.

^^^^
CB: She didn’t say anything much. I just handed her a short written note on my difference with the use of “heterosexism”.

Peace and power to you, Charles, as we move towards greater mutual understanding.

^^^^

Ditto

Thanks for your reply. The more I hear what you are saying the more I realise where we diverge in experience and theory.

First, you will have to explain to me what is “opposite” about women and men. This is like saying white people are the opposite of Black people, or rich people are the opposite of poor, or gay the opposite of heterosexual. What do you mean, exactly, by that word? That there are two does not connote “opposites” necessarily or even, usually.

^^^^
CB: Sex is a biological concept. It is a form of reproduction of lifeforms, species. It originated about a billion years ago. Before that all lifeforms on earth reproduced by cloning. In cloning an individual member of the species reproduces itself without any interaction with another individual member of the species. In _sexual_ reproduction, there are two types of individuals. It takes one from each type copulating in order to reproduce a new member of the species. If you have two individuals of the same sexual type , they cannot reproduce. The two types are _opposite_ sexes. It takes one from each of the opposite sexes to have fertile intercourse.

Got it ?