Browne 1 (this issue ) argues that what may appear to be a benevolent practice-disclosing the sex of a fetus to expecting parents who wish to know-is in fact an epistemically problematic and, as a result, ethically questionable medical practice. Browne worries that not only will the disclosure of fetal sex encourage sex-selective abortions (an issue we will not take up here), but also that it will convey a misleading and pernicious message about the relationship between sex and (...) class='Hi'>gender. More specifically, she contends that the practice of disclosure is problematic because (1) it purports to establish the gender of the developing baby based on information about the baby's sex, whereas this is not a warranted inference because while sex is determined by biological factors, gender is determined by social factors and (2) it conflates (biological) sex with (social) gender or encourages such conflation or reduction and thereby promotes 'essentialistic' thinking about gender that is closely linked to sexism and social injustice. If (1) is true, then disclosing fetal sex amounts to misinforming or misleading prospective parents-and since misinforming patients is wrong, the act of disclosing is also wrong. However, beyond the wrongs of misinforming patients, the practice also perpetuates the harms associated with a rigidly gendered society through endorsing the message in (2), thus lending the authority of the medical profession to the gender-essentialist ideas that have underpinned, and continue to drive, sexism and social injustice. This analysis leads Browne to recommend that clinicians be prohibited from informing parents about the sex of their developing fetus. -/- We agree with Browne that gender essentialism-the notion that 'femaleness' and 'maleness' carve out distinct natural classes with innate, immutable properties-is not only a false metaphysical thesis, but also a pernicious idea insofar as the sexist attitudes it fosters motivate policies that systematically violate the human rights of women, as well as those of the LGBTQ community. However, we do not think that the disclosure of fetal sex misinforms prospective parents about the gender of their baby, nor do we believe that such disclosure presupposes or promotes gender essentialism properly understood. (shrink)

Many philosophers believe that our ordinary English words man and woman are “gender terms,” and gender is distinct from biological sex. That is, they believe womanhood and manhood are not defined even partly by biological sex. This sex/gender distinction is one of the most influential ideas of the twentieth century on the broader culture, both popular and academic. Less well known are the reasons to think it’s true. My interest in this paper is to show (...) that, upon investigation, the arguments for the sex/gender distinction have feet of clay. In fact, they all fail. We will survey the literature and tour arguments in favor of the sex/gender distinction, and then we’ll critically evaluate those arguments. We’ll consider the argument from resisting biological determinism, the argument from biologically intersex people and vagueness, the argument from the normativity of gender, and some arguments from thought experiments. We’ll see that these arguments are not up to the task of supporting the sex/gender distinction; they simply don’t work. So, philosophers should either develop stronger arguments for the sex/gender distinction, or cultivate a variety of feminism that’s consistent with the traditional, biologically-based definitions of woman and man. (shrink)

This chapter surveys essentialist and anti-essentialist theories of sex and gender. It does so by engaging three approaches to sex and gender: externalism, internalism, and contextualism. The chapter also draws attention to two key debates about sex and gender in the feminist literature: the debate about the sex/gender distinction (the distinction debate) and the debate about whether sex and gender have essences (the essentialism/anti-essentialism debate). In addition, it describes three problems that theories of (...) sex and gender tend to face: the Inclusion Problem, the Definition Problem, and the Exclusion Problem. Lastly, the chapter highlights why the division between essentialist and anti-essentialist accounts of sex and gender is not clear. (shrink)

An academic division of labor resulted from the distinction between sex and gender. Sex remained a productive topic (excuse the pun) for biologists, who are interested in the genetic, developmental, and chemical pathways of male/female dimorphism. People in the social sciences and humanities, by contrast, made gender, not sex, the subject of their work. In gender studies, we learn about the ways that men and women “perform” their respective roles—people of male sex can perform as female (...) class='Hi'>gender, and vice versa, by adopting modes of speech, dress, behavior, and even values. There is no talk of innate instincts or brain differences in gender studies. The French philosopher Michel Foucault set the agenda when he lamented, as early as 1976, that “the notion of sex made it possible to group together, in an artificial unity, anatomical elements, biological functions, conducts, sensations, and pleasures, and it enabled one to make use of this fictitious unity as a causal principle.” Following this approach, more-recent theorists like Anne Fausto-Sterling and Judith Butler have argued that even the biological categories of sex are just artificial inventions, designed to keep women and intersexed peoples down. Society, they suggest, decides which of us are males and which are females—pushing everyone into rigid binary categories. -/- There are two main arguments that are usually offered in defense of this controversial thesis that sexual dimorphism is political rather than ontological. One is based on a general critique of knowledge (an epistemological argument), and the other on a specific picture of reality (a metaphysical argument). I will offer counterarguments to both. (shrink)

In the political discourse regarding gender identity, the concept of biological sex has been weaponised by gender critical commentators to oppose gender affirmation for trans people. Recently, these commentators have appealed to an essentialist model of sex based on anisogamy, or relative gamete size, to argue that one’s sex is an immutable characteristic. I argue that the gender critical argument is unsound. The diverse purposes of sex classification and the complex variability of people’s sexual characteristics (...) show that an essentialist model is untenable. I then consider how a more adequate theoretical framework from the philosophy of biology can accommodate this complexity and capture how sex is classified in relevant contexts. Further implications of the framework are explored which concern the vagueness, polysemy, and mutability of sex. These undercut the gender critical argument and show that the appeal to biological sex fails to undermine gender affirmation for trans people. (shrink)

The irony of the rejection of the sex/gender distinction is that it renders sociology per se an impossible enterprise. For it is my submission that, contra Hood-Williams (1996) and others, the biological and the social constitute distinct, irreducible levels of reality: to conflate (in a ‘downwards’ or ‘upwards’ direction) the two levels is immediately to render analysis of their relative interplay at best intractable. It is indeed arguable that Hood-Williams is not so much concerned with (rightly) rejecting the (...) so-called ‘additive’ approach to the biological and the social where the biological base is seen a priori as immutable, but more fundamentally with rejecting the necessary dualism of nature and culture (ie the biological and the social). In contradistinction, a realist defence of the sex/gender distinction will be made, involving critical reference to various major writers in the field and offering a brief but tentative discussion of the provenance of gender. (shrink)

We assess the state of thinking about gender identities in computer vision through an analysis of how research papers in gender and facial recognition are designed, what claims they make about trans and non-binary people, what values they espouse, and what they describe as ongoing challenges for the field. In our corpus of 50 research papers, the seven papers that consider trans and non-binary identities use questionable assumptions about medicalization as a measure of transness, about gender transition (...) as a linear and bounded process, and about the concept of gender deception. Otherwise, non-normative gender identities are absent and their consideration is in fact hindered by prevailing research values, particularly deeply embedded ones such as performance and accuracy. We point out how the use of shared datasets calcifies binary conceptions of gender. In the way that the field of computer vision conceives of ongoing challenges for its research, it does not yet face questions that trans and non-binary user experiences pose and often falls back on biologically essentialist notions of sex classification. We make two recommendations: that computer vision researchers undertake interdisciplinary work with researchers who study gender as a socio-cultural phenomenon, and that journal editors and conference organizers do the same in peer review and conference acceptance processes. (shrink)

Biological sex should be “acknowledged” and “accepted”—but which responses to gender dysphoria might this preclude? Trans-identified people may factually acknowledge their biological sex and regard transition as purely palliative. While generally some level of self-deception and even a high level of nonlying deception of others are sometimes justified, biological sex is important, and there is a nontrivial onus against even palliative, nonsexually motivated cross-dressing. The onus is higher against co-opting the body, even in a minor and/or (...) reversible way, to make a false communication concerning one’s sex. Hardest to defend is the destruction of sexual–reproductive functions and causally downstream functions such as lactation: due to the transcendent nature of sexual–reproductive functions, an appeal to the “principle of totality” here is misplaced. This is not to say that social, and milder medical, transition is absolutely excluded even for severe unmanageable dysphoria, nor that subsequent to any transition, detransition is necessarily required. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to call the attention, especially that of feminists, to the current progress in biology. It appears gender studies still confine themselves to outdated ideas of sex chromosomes like XX, XY (§10). However, science has been making progress. It no longer sticks to such matters as XX, XY. Its interest is now in Sry, a kind of gene (§11), and MIS, a kind of sex hormone (§14). Abnormalities of sex chromosomes are no longer evidence (...) to deny the biological approaches, for example. We shed light on this fact, putting gender studies in the context of chronologies of science as well (§§2-9). (shrink)

This perspective asserts the existence of only two sexes/genders, male and female, based on not only biological and reproductive processes but also from claims of non-binary or transgender identities as defined through negation which rely on the binary concept of sex/gender. Thus, individuals claiming identities on the "gender/sex spectrum" are again defining themselves through negation (definiens per negationem). This perspective suggests that the diversity of gender experiences, (the sex or gender spectrum) is defined by what (...) individuals are not rather than what they are. While the validity of non-binary and transgender identities definiens per negationem is noted, it is important to accept the reality of the binary nature of sex or gender as a scientific fact, and that all human beings are on a developmental pathway leading to either male or female. Without the reality of binary sex or gender, the gender identity spectrum does not exist as there is nothing to negate from. (shrink)

Policies that require male-female sex comparisons in all areas of biomedical research conflict with the goal of improving health outcomes through context-sensitive individualization of medical care. Sex, like race, requires a rigorous, contextual approach in precision medicine. A “sex contextualist” approach to gender-inclusive medicine better aligns with this aim.

The concept of biological sex guides research, clinical practice, science funding policy, and contemporary political discourse. Despite some substantive differences, all existing candidate philosophical accounts of sex assume its legitimacy as a biological concept. Here, we challenge this view. We argue against realism about biological sex, and that eliminating biological sex from large swaths of biological theory and practice may be preferable compared to conventionalist or fictionalist anti-realisms. There are serious social and epistemic costs to (...) using “biological sex” in place of more specific alternatives. Because of this, biologists and philosophers of science should consider eliminativism about the concept of biological sex. Biological sex eliminativism is worth taking seriously, and it can play important roles in philosophical debate and biological practice, even for those who remain skeptical. The methodological consequences of biological sex eliminativism are compatible with best practices for inquiry in the biological and biomedical sciences, with inclusive approaches to the study of sex and gender, and with feminist philosophical and methodological recommendations. Taking eliminativism seriously reveals important disagreement about the work that a concept of biological sex should do, and imposes a contrastive burden on would-be rivals. (shrink)

“I am only what I make myself to be”, Fichte tells us. In this paper, I outline Fichte’s views on sex, marriage and gender, with two aims. Firstly, to elucidate an aspect of his moral theory which has received little attention, and secondly to argue that Fichte’s distinctive stance on selfhood, freedom, and normativity lead to a revisionary account of gender expression and identity, where people can freely carve out their own identity, irrespective of “nature”. In this paper, (...) I therefore outline Fichte’s own views, highlighting what I see as a tension in the texts between essentialism and antiessentialism about gender, before reconstructing a neo-Fichtean view which foregrounds the anti-essentialist aspect. (shrink)

Education fundamentally focuses on 'individuals', whose human value is rooted in the expression of 'self-identity'. This process is influenced by their social rank and linguistic culture, and within varied discourses and ideological communities, different 'self-identity values' emerge. This applies to all individuals, whether they are citizens or women, and encompasses complex social metaphysical questions. For instance, how do we define social identities such as poverty, disability, privilege, or femininity? 'Intuition' and 'common sense' often fail in such definitions, especially in recognizing (...) exceptions like gender identification, which challenges the distinctions between biological sex and gender identity. The paper analyzes 'Social Historical Structuralism' and ' Performative Theory' to see if they address the challenges of 'Essentialism'. It assesses both pluralism and monism and the autonomy of the 'true self' in educational philosophy's core concepts, grounded in the philosophy of self-identity. This study starts from female community perspectives, addressing women's disadvantaged status in social and linguistic structures and the impact of individualism on gender mainstreaming. This paper concludes by re-evaluating monistic approaches and considering the equitable recognition of community members' autonomy, underscoring the importance of self-identity in educational philosophy amidst the growing influence of identity politics in Western education. -/- Keywords: Self-Identity and Educational Philosophy, Social Metaphysics, Class and Identity, Ideology and Autonomy . (shrink)

Asking whether the sexes are natural kinds amounts to asking whether the categories, female and male, identify real divisions in nature, like the distinctions between biological species, or whether they mark merely artificial or arbitrary distinctions. The distinction between females and males in the animal kingdom is based on the relative size of the gametes they produce, with females producing larger gametes (ova) and males producing smaller gametes (sperm). This chapter argues that the properties of producing relatively large and (...) small gametes are causally correlated with a range of other properties in a wide variety of organisms, and this is what makes females and males natural kinds in the animal kingdom. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the relationship between sex and gender: while the difference between the sexes is biologically grounded, the difference between genders is socially based. Since gender depends in part on the perception of sex, whether or not gender is real or not does not depend on whether sex is, since social reality is constituted in part by our perceptions. The claim that sexes are natural kinds in the animal kingdom does not imply that the biological differences among female and male humans do and should have social consequences. (shrink)

‘Gender disappointment’ is regularly reported by those whose child’s sex does not match the sex that they, the parent, desired. With symptoms ranging from mere fleeting sadness to documented cases of serious depression, alienation from one’s child, and emotional suffering, it is clear that so-called ‘gender disappointment’ is a serious issue, that has, as yet, seen little philosophical attention (though see Hendl and Browne 2020). In this chapter I explore gender disappointment, not from the perspective of a (...) parent who ended up with the child of the wrong sex at birth, but rather, from the perspective of a different kind of gender disappointment: the transgender person who grew up and only then disappointed their parents by turning out to be the ‘wrong’ gender. This perspective, I argue, reveals a great deal about the shared gender essentialism at the heart of patriarchal and cissexist ideology. Moreover, I will argue that it reveals the underlying propertarian relationship of parents to their children under contemporary capitalism – a troubling relationship that legitimates the treatment of children as objects to be designed and controlled as commodities at the whims of parents. In this way I disagree with Whyman when he writes that “a preference for having a child of one sex over the other should be considered one of those irrational things of which some sense can nevertheless be made – like aesthetic taste” (Whyman 2021, 113-114). I argue, to the contrary, that the desire for a child of one particular gender is not akin to a mere unproblematic aesthetic preference. Instead, and following the rich feminist tradition of thinking about the patriarchal origins of sexual desire, I argue that we must see these desires as troubling reflections of dominant patriarchal and cissexist ideology, underwritten by a particular neoliberal capitalist mode of production. Moreover, we can seek to change those desires. (shrink)

Education fundamentally focuses on 'individuals', whose human value is rooted in the expression of 'self-identity'. This process is influenced by their social rank and linguistic culture, and within varied discourses and ideological communities, different 'self-identity values' emerge. This applies to all individuals, whether they are citizens or women, and encompasses complex social metaphysical questions. For instance, how do we define social identities such as poverty, disability, privilege, or femininity? 'Intuition' and 'common sense' often fail in such definitions, especially in recognizing (...) exceptions like gender identification, which challenges the distinctions between biological sex and gender identity. The paper analyzes 'Social Historical Structuralism' and ' Performative Theory' to see if they address the challenges of 'Essentialism'. It assesses both pluralism and monism and the autonomy of the 'true self' in educational philosophy's core concepts, grounded in the philosophy of self-identity. This study starts from female community perspectives, addressing women's disadvantaged status in social and linguistic structures and the impact of individualism on gender mainstreaming. This paper concludes by re-evaluating monistic approaches and considering the equitable recognition of community members' autonomy, underscoring the importance of self-identity in educational philosophy amidst the growing influence of identity politics in Western education. -/- Keywords: Self-Identity and Educational Philosophy, Social Metaphysics, Class and Identity, Ideology and Autonomy . (shrink)

DIFERENCIAÇÃO SEXUAL -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco Embrapa Semiárido -/- • _____OBJETIVO -/- Os estudantes de Veterinária e de Zootecnia estão ligados à disciplina Reprodução Animal, um pelos mecanismos fisiológicos para evitar e tratar as possíveis patologias do trato reprodutivo dos animais domésticos, e outro para o entendimento dos processos fisiológicos visando o manejo reprodutivo e a procriação para a formação de um plantel geneticamente melhorado. Sendo assim, a finalidade do presente trabalho é apresentar os (...) mecanismos que regulam as diferenças sobre o desenvolvimento embrionário relativos à diferenciação e determinação sexual de machos e fêmeas, que também incluem o desenvolvimento dos órgãos envolvidos na reprodução e a origem das diferenças entre ambos os sexos. -/- •____INTRODUÇÃO -/- Os organismos que se reproduzem sexualmente são descendentes de organismos ao qual não existia a diferenciação sexual. Em algum momento da evolução surgiu a reprodução sexual como um mecanismo para incrementar a diversidade genética e facilitar a troca de informações genéticas mediante o material genético da fêmea com o do macho. Devido sua origem comum, na maioria das espécies, tanto os machos como as fêmeas possuem todos os genes necessários para desenvolverem-se em qualquer dos sexos. O que efetivamente faz diferença entre os sexos é a forma e a ordem ao qual se expressam os genes durante o processo de desenvolvimento. A diferenciação sexual é regulada principalmente por mecanismos epigenéticos, mais do que as diferenças genéticas de grande magnitude entre os sexos. Todo o controle epigenético de qualquer processo de desenvolvimento depende basicamente de uma série de expressões gênicas, através da qual a expressão de certa combinação de genes resulta na presença de determinadas proteínas, conhecidas como os fatores de transcrição, que induzem ou reprimem a expressão de outro(os) gene(es), a partir dos quais se produzem novas proteínas, que em certos casos também atuam como fatores de transcrição para outros genes, e assim sucessivamente. Logo, a expressão ou falta de expressão de um gene ao início da série pode resultar em um ladrão totalmente diferente da expressão de outros genes subsequentes, o que pode ocasionar profundas mudanças no processo de desenvolvimento e até a mutações indesejáveis. O padrão predeterminado de expressões gênica relativo a diferenciação sexual na maioria das espécies tanto domésticas quanto selvagens, leva ao desenvolvimento de um dos sexos (o padrão predeterminado dos mamíferos é o sexo feminino). Em consequência, a diferenciação faz com que um indivíduo do sexo oposto exija a expressão de um gene de determinação sexual que desvie a subsequente série de expressões gênica em direção ao dito sexo. Nos mamíferos, a expressão do gene SRY, localizado no cromossomo Y (e portanto ausente nas fêmeas), redige o padrão de diferenciação sexual de sua via pré-estabelecida feminina em direção ao padrão masculino. A existência de uma única diferença genética (presença do gene SRY nos machos e ausentes nas fêmeas), vai se amplificando e termina resultando no desenvolvimento de indivíduos diferentes entre si. Esse é um mecanismo de diferenciação sexual cromossômica. O primeiro passo de uma série de diferenciação sexual, em sentido estrito, não depende nem requer necessariamente a presença de um gene diferente em algum dos sexos. O gene “disparador” da diferenciação sexual pode estar presente em todos os embriões, porém pode expressar-se somente em algum deles, devido a fatores ambientais que formam parte da sua regulação epigenética, isto é, uma determinação sexual ambiental. Em algumas espécies de tartarugas ou de lagartos a expressão ou falta de expressão do gene “disparador”, por exemplo, depende da temperatura existente durante a incubação dos ovos, pelo qual alguns embriões desenvolvem-se como machos e outros como fêmeas, apesar de não existir diferença genética entre eles, simplesmente como consequência da temperatura: a determinação sexual depende da temperatura a que cada um deles foi submetido durante a incubação. Em certas espécies as temperaturas mais elevadas facilitam o desenvolvimento de fêmeas e outras de machos, enquanto que em outras espécies as temperaturas amenas (intermediárias) resultam em machos, e as inferiores como as superiores induzem o desenvolvimento de fêmeas. A existência dessa diversidade indica que a temperatura por si mesma não é a que induz ou a que provoca o desenvolvimento do macho e da fêmea, senão a que atua somente como um regulador inicial da diferenciação sexual. Em outras espécies o fator ambiental que regula a determinação sexual pode ser distinto. A densidade populacional, por exemplo, pode atuar como um regulador. Podemos concluir que a determinação sexual dependente da temperatura ou de outros fatores ambientais estabelece-se antes da determinação sexual cromossômica, a qual evoluiu depois como um método que oferece maior certeza e resultado, já que a proporção de machos e fêmeas não é afetada por mudanças ambientais ou de hábitat. -/- •___FORMAÇÃO INICIAL DA GÔNADA -/- Basicamente em todos os embriões, inicialmente se formam as chamadas gônadas indiferenciadas (com o potencial de desenvolver-se em ovários ou testículos) a partir da invasão das cristas genitais pelas células germinais primordiais, que migram desde seu local de origem no epiblasto, perto do lugar onde o saco vitelino se une com o intestino primitivo e que chegam até às cristas genitais que são engrossamentos de tecido situados na região mesonéfrica do embrião. A migração das células germinais primordiais ocorre muito cedo sobre o processo de desenvolvimento do embrião (dia 26 nos bovinos). Ao chegas as cristas genitais, as células germinativas proliferam-se e se organizam com as células somáticas já existentes nas cristas para ir formando a gônada (figura 1). Para regular essa remodelação e conformação adequada da gônada vários genes se expressam, como o OCT-4 (que aparentemente mantém a totipotencialidade da gônada), assim como o SF-1 (Fator esteroidogênico 1) e o WT-1 (gene associado ao tumor de Wilms). Esses dois últimos genes estimulam a proliferação celular e estabelecimento dos cordões sexuais. Nessa etapa inicial do desenvolvimento todos esses genes se expressam sem distinção de sexo, pelo que a gônada em formação mantém a capacidade de se diferenciar em testículo ou em ovário. -/- Figura 1: migração das células germinais primordiais em direção a crista gonodal. Diferenciação das gônadas femininas e masculinas. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- •___SEXO CROMOSSÔMICO -/- Têm-se observado que nos mamíferos a determinação sexual depende diretamente dos cromossomos. As fêmeas possuem dois cromossomos sexuais X (um contribuído do óvulo e o outro por um espermatozoide “X”). Os machos, por sua vez, possuem um cromossomo sexual X(proveniente do óvulo) e um cromossomo sexual Y, que provém de um espermatozoide “Y” (figura 2). A metade dos espermatozoides produzidos por um macho são X e a metade Y, isso porque durante a espermatogênese a divisão meiótica provoca que a partir de cada espermatócito primário, célula diploide que por pertencer a um indivíduo macho tem um cromossomo X e um Y, se originem das espermátides haploides a cada um das que eles tocam cromossomos X, e outras espermátides haploides as que eles tocam os cromossomos Y. Dessa forma, de acordo com o tipo do espermatozoide que fertilize o ovócito, se originará um indivíduo com cariótipo feminino “XX” ou um cariótipo masculino “XY” (figura 2). Esse processo é conhecido como sexo cromossômico, ao qual se determina o momento da fertilização. Figura 2: nos mamíferos todos os óvulos produzidos pelas fêmeas possuem um cromossomo sexual X. A metade dos espermatozoides produzidos pelos machos possuem um cromossomo X e a outra metade possui um cromossomo Y. Dependendo do cromossomo presente no espermatozoide que fertilize o óvulo pode-se gerar um indivíduo XX (fêmea) ou um XY (macho). Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- O cromossomo “Y” é uma “invenção” relativamente recente na história da evolução das espécies e do estudo da genética. Surgiu a partir de uma mutação de um cromossomo “X”, que resultou na perda de um de seus braços, que é por onde se originou a morfologia do cromossomo Y. A maioria dos genes presentes no cromossomo Y também existem no cromossomo X; assim mesmo somente alguns genes do cromossomo Y foram evoluídos até ser diferentes dos genes do cromossomo X. Embora os machos possuam um cromossomo que não está presente nas fêmeas, esse mesmo cromossomo não aporta toda a informação genética original. Todos os genes existentes nas fêmeas estão também presentes nos dos machos, já que eles também possuem um cromossomo X. Uma particularidade do cromossomo Y, ao existir somente uma cópia nos machos, é que ele sofre um entrecruzamento com um cromossomo análogo durante o processo de meiose, pelo que o cromossomo Y de um macho é idêntico ao de seu progenitor e ao de seus descendentes, exceto no caso em que ocorra uma mutação espontânea. Em contraste, os cromossomos X das fêmeas (um proveniente do pai e outro da mãe) se entrecruzam durante a meiose, por onde cada óvulo produzido pela fêmea terá uma combinação de alelos distinta em seu cromossomo X. Ao estudar as diferenças presentes na sequência de DNA do cromossomo Y, é possível identificar a distância filogenética entre os indivíduos (quanto mais diferenças existirem entre os cromossomos significa que seu ancestral comum está mais longe). Algo análogo ocorre com o DNA das mitocôndrias, que sempre são aportados pela mãe e nunca sofrem recombinação genética. Gene SRY -/- Um dos poucos genes do cromossomo Y que não possuem correspondência com o cromossomo X é o gene SRY (Sex-determining Region of the Y chromossome – região do cromossomo Y determinante do sexo). Esse gene se expressa somente na gônada em formação nos embriões machos, em particular em células precursoras das células de Sertoli; ele codifica uma proteína da família SOX (SRY-like Box) que é uma família formada por proteínas que possuem um domínio de união ao DNA e que atuam como fatores de transcrição. Ao produzir-se a proteína SRY nas células precursoras das células de Sertoli estimula-se a expressão (transcrição) de outro gene análogo, denominado SOX-9 que, por sua vez, atua como um fator de transcrição que ativa a expressão de outros genes, como o FGF-9 (Fibroblast Growth Factor-9), ou seja ele é o estimulante de ativação dos demais. Os produtos dos genes SOX-9 e FGF-9 iniciam uma cascata de expressões que provocam a diferenciação das células de suporte da gônada indiferenciada (crista genital) em células de Sertoli. Em seguida, essas células dirigem a diferenciação das células intersticiais da crista genital em células de Leydig, o que finalmente resulta na formação de um testículo. Outro dos efeitos da proteína codificada por SOX-9 é um estímulo maior da expressão de seu próprio gene, pelo qual é produzido um ciclo de retroalimentação positiva que favorece a continuidade do processo de formação testicular. Como nos embriões da fêmea não existe o gene SRY, a gônada indiferenciada não é estimulada para expressar os genes SOX-9 nem o FGF-9 nas células de suporte (que nesse caso serão precursoras de células da granulosa). A gônada, em mudança, expressa em forma constitutiva, isto é, sem a necessidade de estimulação, outra cascata de genes que incluem o WNT4 (Wingless-integration Factor 4) e o RAPO1 (Respondina-1), que por sua vez iniciam uma cascata de expressão gênica, a qual provoca a diferenciação das células somáticas da gônada indiferenciada para formação das células da granulosa e células da teca, esse feito conduz, por sua vez, a formação de um ovário. No embrião macho a proteína SOX-9 inibe a expressão dos genes WNT4 e RSPO-1, pelo que a presença do gene SRY, e portanto de SOX-9, inibem a formação de um ovário ao mesmo tempo que estimulam a formação do testículo (figura 3). Em suma, se o embrião possui genótipo XY (um embrião macho), o gene SRY começa a expressar-se sobre as células precursoras da gônada imediatamente depois da formação da mesma, quando os cordões sexuais primários estão se desenvolvendo na medula. A expressão do gene, assim como a presença subsequente das proteínas SOX-9 e FGF-9 estimula a distinção das células de Sertoli e que se organizem os tubos seminíferos a partir dos cordões sexuais primários. Em contrapartida, em um embrião com genótipo XX (fêmea) não existe o gene SRY, pelo qual é impossível que se elevem os níveis das proteínas SOX-9 e FGF-9 e as células precursoras não se diferenciam em células de Sertoli, e portanto os cordões sexuais primários sofrem regressão. Depois de alguns dias, começam a organizar-se os cordões sexuais secundários e as células precursoras iniciam a expressão do gene WNT4, o que leva as mesmas a diferenciar-se em células da granulosa, que serão a base para a conformação dos folículos ovarianos. Se em um embrião XY, macho, a expressão do gene SRY demora, é formada um ovo-testículo devido a que algumas das células somáticas das cristas gonodais começam a expressar o gene WNT4, e a diferenciar-se em células da granulosa, enquanto que em outras a proteína SRY chega a tempo para dirigir a diferenciação para formação das células de Sertoli. No ovário em formação é expressado um gene denominado DAX-1 (Dosage-sensitive Sex Reversal). Esse gene, localizado no cromossomo X, codifica uma proteína que é um membro da família dos receptores nucleares ao que lhe falta o domínio de união ao DNA, pelo que parece atuar no bloqueio de diversos fatores de transcrição, entre os que se encontra o SRY. Como a proteína DAX-1 impede a ação da proteína SRY, um excesso de expressão do gene DAX-1 pode provocar a feminilização gonodal de indivíduos XY, macho, embora tenham SRY. Em condições normais, a expressão adequada do gene DAX-1 não é capaz de evitar a masculinização gonodal de embriões com o gene SRY, daqui o nome de reversão sexual dependente da dose. Figura 3: série de expressão gênica para a determinação gonodal. SRY (Região do cromossomo Y determinante do sexo), SOX-9 (SRY-like Box-9), FGF-9 (Fator de crescimento de fibroblastos-9), WNT4 (Wingless-integration Factor-4), RSPO-1 (Respondina-1). Uma vez que o SRY induz a expressão de SOX-9 na gônada masculina, inicia-se um processo de feedback positivo mediante o qual os níveis de expressão de SOX-9 e FGF-9 vão aumentando, ao mesmo tempo que inibem a expressão de WNT-4 e RSPO-1. Na gônada feminina não se expressam SRY, SOX-9 e nem FGF-9, o que permite que se expressem os genes WNT-4 e RSPO-1, que iniciam uma cascata de sinalização que dirige a formação de um ovário. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- • ___DIFERENCIAÇÃO SEXUAL DOS GENITAIS -/- Uma vez que se formam os testículos, todo o desenvolvimento subsequente dos órgãos e as características “masculinas” em lugar das femininas é em consequência dos hormônios produzidos pelos testículos em formação, incluindo os andrógenos e o hormônio inibidor dos ductos de Müller. Mediante a ausência de testículos todo o desenvolvimento dos órgãos genitais internos e externos segue um padrão feminino, sem levar em conta se estão presentes os ovários; o que significa a ausência de hormônios gonodais determina que o embrião se desenvolva como fêmea, uma vez que não requerem hormônios ovarianos para desencadear o padrão feminino. Por sua vez, as gônadas masculinas (os testículos), produzem substâncias que desviam o desenvolvimento em direção ao padrão masculino. Sob etapas relativamente rápidas da diferenciação todos os embriões possuem dois pares de dutos sexuais, os dutos de Wolff ou mesonéfricos e os dutos de Müller ou paramesonéfricos (figura 4). A testosterona secretada pelos testículos do feto macho em desenvolvimento atua sobre os dutos de Wolff, o que induz a formação posterior dos dutos deferentes, do epidídimo e das glândulas seminais (figura 4). Figura 4: formação dos órgãos genitais internos a partir dos dutos de Wolff no macho e dos dutos de Müller na fêmea. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- Os testículos produzem ao mesmo tempo, uma glicoproteína chamada Hormônio Inibidor dos Dutos de Müller (Müllerian Inhibiting Hormone, MIH, também chamado de Anti-Müllerian Hormone, AMH); como o seu nome indica, inibe o desenvolvimento dos dutos de Müller ou paramesonéfricos, provocando sua regressão, que impede a formação dos órgãos genitais característicos da fêmea como os ovidutos, o útero, a cérvix e a porção cranial da vagina (figura 4). O MIH é uma glicoproteína da família dos fatores de crescimento transformativo β (TGFβ). O gene MIH possui locais de união para os produtos dos genes SOX-9 e SF-1, pelo que a presença simultânea de ambos fatores de transcrição é necessária para a secreção do MIH e leva a cabo sua função de iniciação dos dutos de Müller sobre o embrião macho (vale lembrar que nessa etapa tanto a gônada de embriões machos como de embriões fêmeas expressam o gene SF-1, mas somente o macho expressa o SOX-9, para que unicamente esse último produza MIH). O certo é que na gônada do embrião fêmea não se produzem quantidades importantes da proteína SOX-9, além de que se produz a proteína DAX-1, mesma que antagoniza tanto a SOX-9 como a SF-1, todo o qual impede a produção de MIH e resulta no desenvolvimento dos dutos de Müller até a formação dos ovidutos, útero, cérvix e a porção cranial da vagina (figura 4). Assim, na fêmea, ao não haver testículos não circulam concentrações elevadas de andrógenos, o que impedirá o desenvolvimento dos dutos de Wolff, enquanto que os dutos de Müller se desenvolvem já que não haverá a presença do MIH para impedi-lo. O desenvolvimento dos genitais internos e externos femininos não requerem a presença de nenhum hormônio ovariano o que levará a cabo de maneira predeterminada (ou pré-estabelecida) na ausência de testículos. Outra estrutura interna que também se desenvolve de forma distinta nos machos e nas fêmeas é o seio urogenital, que no embrião macho é estimulado pela testosterona para formação da próstata, das glândulas bulbouretrais e da uretra peniana, enquanto que na fêmea forma a porção caudal da vagina. A respeito dos órgãos genitais externos (figura 5), nos embriões de ambos os sexos existem estruturas precursoras chamadas de tubérculo genital e pregas vestibulares. Na fêmea o tubérculo genital da origem ao clitóris e as pregas vestibulares dão origem aos lábios vulvares sem a necessidade da atuação de hormônios ovarianos, já que o padrão “por via pré-estabelecida” é feminino. Em contrapartida, no macho, tanto o tubérculo genital quanto as pregas vestibulares respondem ao hormônio 5α-dehidro-testosterona (DHT), ao qual se formam as células da pele da zona genital a partir da testosterona que é secretada pelos testículos. Para isso existem nas células a enzima 5α-reductasa, que transforma a testosterona em DHT. Uma vez formada, a DHT atua sobre as pregas vestibulares do embrião macho para que se fusionem e formem o escroto (em lugar dos lábios vulvares), e sobre o tubérculo genital para formar o pênis (em lugar do clitóris). Figura 5: estruturas que se desenvolvem nos embriões de cada sexo a partir do seio urogenital, o tubérculo genital e as pregas vestibulares. A cor do né de cada estrutura final corresponde com a cor do nome da estrutura a partir da qual se originou. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- • ___DIFERENCIAÇÃO SEXUAL DO SISTEMA NERVOSO -/- Existem inúmeras diferenças funcionais entre o sistema nervoso da fêmeas e o do machos, em humanos podem incluir diferenças tão complexas como a maior capacidade de verbal da mulher ou a maior capacidade de orientação espacial do homem. Nessa parte será abordada aquelas diferenças que influenciam diretamente sobre a função reprodutiva, como as diferenças na regulação da secreção de gonadotropinas ou as diferenças na capacidade de comportamento sexual masculino ou feminino. É necessário lembrar que, apesar de que essas diferenças se originem durante um período crítico da vida fetal ou neonatal (dependendo da espécie), geralmente se fazem presentes até que o animal chegue a vida adulta e demonstre obter ou não a capacidade para se comportar como macho ou como fêmea uma vez que é exposto aos hormônios sexuais que são secretada depois da puberdade. Igualmente aos processos acima citados, podemos afirmar que nos mamíferos o padrão pré-estabelecido de comportamento sexual e de secreção de gonadotropinas é o feminino. Se durante os primeiros dias de vida neonatal uma rata fêmea não é exposta a nenhum hormônio gonodal, ao chegar a vida adulta ela terá a capacidade de se comportar como fêmea na presença de estrógenos, assim como de secretar um pico pré-ovulatório de GnRH/LH em resposta aos mesmos (figura 6). Essa rata, portanto, não poderá se comportar como macho embora que em sua vida adulta seja exposta a testosterona. O sistema nervoso do rato macho recém-nascido que é exposto aos andrógenos produzidos pelos testículos, em detrimento, faz com que adquiram o potencial para se comportar como machos em sua vida adulta e que perdem o potencial para ter conduta de fêmeas na presença e/ou administração de estrógenos (processo conhecido como desfeminização do SNC). Se por meios de experimentos injetamos testosterona em uma rata fêmea recém-nascida, essa rata não poderá se comportar como fêmea em sua vida adulta, e passará a se comportar como macho. A castração neonatal de um rato (visando evitar a exposição de seu SNC a andrógenos testiculares), assim mesmo, resultará em sua vida adulta um padrão feminino (SNC feminizado e não masculinizado). O hipotálamo das ratas adultas possui uma área em que o número, características e densidade dos corpos neurais difere em machos e fêmeas, essa área é denominada como “núcleo sexualmente dimórfico do hipotálamo”, e tem demonstrado que quando as ratas são tratadas com testosterona na vida neonatal, a morfologia de seu núcleo sexualmente dimórfico será masculinizado em sua vida adulta, enquanto que a castração neonatal de ratos resulta em um núcleo sexualmente dimórfico feminizado em sua vida adulta. Isso significa que a exposição ou não a testosterona na vida neonatal é o que determina que tipo de núcleo sexualmente dimórfico se desenvolverá, o que por sua vez está relacionado com o tipo de conduta que o animal poderá expressar em sua vida adulta. Não deixa de ser um paradoxo que ao injetar uma dose elevada de estrógenos nos primeiros dias de vida de uma rata, os núcleos sexualmente dimórficos da mesma se desenvolverão como macho e em sua vida adulta seu potencial de conduta estará masculinizado e desfeminizado. O hormônio “feminino” conhecido como estradiol, masculiniza o hipotálamo e a conduta do animal. Logo, se a rata neonatal for exposta a injeção de andrógeno não-aromatizado (que não pode ser transformado em estrógenos pelas células) ela não se masculiniza. A masculinização e desfeminização dos ratos ou das ratas tratados com testosterona, na realidade, não são provocados pela própria testosterona, senão pelos estrógenos que se formam dentro dos neurônios quando absorvem a testosterona do sangue e a aromatizam para transformá-la em estrógenos (figura 6). Figura 6: desfeminização e masculinização do sistema nervoso central por meio da testosterona, que quando não absorvida pela α-fetoproteína pode entrar nos neurônios, onde se aromatizam para serem transformados em estrógenos, hormônio que é responsável pela desfeminização. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. Por que as ratas, que possuem ovários funcionalmente produtores de estrógenos, não se masculinizam? A resposta está em uma proteína denominada α-fetoproteína que circula em altas concentrações nos fetos e nos recém-nascidos. Essa proteína possui a capacidade de unir-se aos estrógenos, ao qual impede seu entrada nas células. Os ratos, em desenvolvimento, produzem testosterona, no entanto não possui afinidade pela α-fetoproteína, o que permite com que ela circule livremente. Ao chegar ao SNC, a testosterona (que não foi absorvida) pode entrar nos neurônios e dentro deles se aromatizam e transformam-se em estrógenos, que finalmente masculinizam o SNC. A diferenciação sexual do hipotálamo depende, em síntese, da presença ou ausência dos testículos, o que permite que se produza ou não o hormônio testosterona que pode não ser absorvida por parte da α-fetoproteína, transformar-se em estrógenos e masculinizar o SNC. -/- •___CONCLUSÃO -/- Nos mamíferos todo o processo que se requerem para o desenvolvimento de um macho depende da existência de somente um gene do cromossomo Y, o gene SRY; a ausência desse gene resulta no desenvolvimento de uma fêmea. A presença ou ausência do gene SRY determina, então, a cadeia de eventos morfogênicos que ocorrerá em sua expressão ou não, para desenvolver todos os órgãos e características de um macho ou de uma fêmea. Por essa razão, os indivíduos com uma monossomia XOA (síndrome de Turner) são fêmeas (por não possuir o cromossomo Y nem o gene SRY), enquanto que os indivíduos triploides XXY (síndrome de Kleinefelter) são machos embora possuam dois cromossomos X. Em algumas espécies, no entanto, têm-se identificado machos que são cromossomicamente XX; nesses casos é determinado invariavelmente que por ser um erro durante a meiose a região do cromossomo Y em que reside o gene SRY tem sido transloucada ao cromossomo X. Da mesma forma, em alguns casos tem sido encontrado fêmeas com cariótipo XY; que nelas se identifica uma mutação inabilitante do gene SRY. Isso demonstra experimentalmente que por meio da engenharia genética é possível produzir machos com cariótipo XY mas com o gene SRY eliminado (knockout). Como é de se esperar, esses machos desenvolvem ovários e todos seus órgãos genitais, tanto internos quanto externos, e se desenvolvem como fêmeas. Os machos cromossomicamente XX transgênicos aos que se insertam uma cópia do gene SRY, desenvolvem testículos e um fenótipo masculino, embora sejam estéreis por causa da ausência de alguns genes do cromossomo Y que são necessários para a realização de uma espermatogênese normal. As falhas nos mecanismos de diferenciação sexual podem, diretamente, ocasionar anormalidades como as observadas nas bezerras Freemartin, que são bezerras originadas de uma gestação gemelar em que seu gêmeo era macho. O que sucede é que na espécie bovina, quando há uma gestação gemelar, é produzido um certo grau de anastomose entre as placentas dos fetos, o que permite a troca de sangue e de células entre ambos. Os produtos recebem, então, algumas células de seu gêmeos, que encontram seu lugar no órgão correspondente e se integram a ele. No caso particular das gônadas, quando o ovário primitivo de um embrião fêmea é colonizado por algumas células gonodais de seu gêmeo macho, essas células expressam o gene SRY, o que fará com que essa região da gônada se diferencie como testículo. Como resultado, se desenvolve um ovo-testículo (com maior ou menor proporção de tecido testicular dependendo do grau de colonização da gônada em formação por células provenientes do gêmeo macho). Ademais, ao haver certa quantidade de tecido testicular produtor de MIH, circularão sobre o feto fêmea níveis desse hormônio que, embora baixos, afetarão o desenvolvimento normal dos dutos de Müller, fazendo com que as bezerras Freemartin possuam genitálias internas ausentes ou pouco desenvolvidas. Os andrógenos produzidos pelas zonas de tecido testicular, por fim, são suficientes para causar um certo grau de masculinização, que se manifesta como um clitóris mais grande que o normal ou um desenvolvimento corporal masculinizado. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- ARNOLD, Arthur P.; CHEN, Xuqi; ITOH, Yuichiro. What a difference an X or Y makes: sex chromosomes, gene dose, and epigenetics in sexual differentiation. In: Sex and gender differences in pharmacology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. p. 67-88. CUNNINGHAM, James. Tratado de fisiologia veterinária. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011. DERIVAUX, Jules; BARNABÉ, Renato Campanarut. Reprodução dos animais domésticos. Zaragoza: Acribia, 1980. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Desenvolvimento Embrionário e Diferenciação Sexual nos Animais Domésticos. Disponível em:. Acesso em: Julho de 2020. HAFEZ, Elsayed Saad Eldin; HAFEZ, Bahaa. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. HIDALGO, C. Galina et al. Reproducción de animales domésticos. México: Limusa, 2008. MACLAUGHLIN, David T.; DONAHOE, Patricia K. Sex determination and differentiation. New England Journal of Medicine, v. 350, n. 4, p. 367-378, 2004. MCCARTHY, Margaret M.; ARNOLD, Arthur P. Reframing sexual differentiation of the brain. Nature neuroscience, v. 14, n. 6, p. 677, 2011. PLANT, Tony M.; ZELEZNIK, Anthony J. (Ed.). Knobil and Neill's physiology of reproduction. Academic Press, 2014. REY, Rodolfo. Diferenciación sexual embrio-fetal: De las moléculas a la anatomía. Revista chilena de anatomía, v. 19, n. 1, p. 75-82, 2001. SENGER, P. L. Embryogenesis of the pituitary gland and male or female reproductive system. In. Pathways to Pregnancy and Parturition. Current Conception Inc, v. 1, p. 8-76, 1997. ZARCO, L. Diferenciación sexual. In. PORTA, L. R.; MEDRANO, J. H. H. Fisiología reproductiva de los animales domésticos. Cidade do México: FMVZ-UNAM, 2018. -/- REALIZAÇÃO -/- . (shrink)

An examination of Sex and Gender under the most recent scientific discoveries in the areas of neuroscience, endocrinology, biology, psychology, medicine, and linguistics. Presented as part of the Conference "Gender: Ideology or Science?" at the "Accademia Tiberina," Rome, Italy, November 25, 2022.

Using Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness as an inspirational backdrop, a novel whose story unfolds on a genderless planet that nevertheless relies on reproductive sex for the sake of generativity, this paper tackles the sex/gender debate, its entanglements with procreation, and its consequences for transgender pregnancies. More specifically, I analyze three issues that pose barriers to thinking about a more inclusive reproductive ethics: state-sanctioned sterilization, non-reproductive futurism, and access to assisted reproductive technology.

Traditional debate on the metaphysics of gender has been a contrast of essentialist and social-constructionist positions. The standard reaction to this opposition is that neither position alone has the theoretical resources required to satisfy an equitable politics. This has caused a number of theorists to suggest ways in which gender is unified on the basis of social rather than biological characteristics but is “real” or “objective” nonetheless – a position I term social objectivism. This essay begins by (...) making explicit the motivations for, and central assumptions of, social objectivism. I then propose that gender is better understood as a real kind with a historical essence, analogous to the biologist’s claim that species are historical entities. I argue that this proposal achieves a better solution to the problems that motivate social objectivism. Moreover, the account is consistent with a post-positivist understanding of the classificatory practices employed within the natural and social sciences. (shrink)

We often talk and behave as if being a man required more than just being male, and being a woman required more than just being female. There are expectations that need to be met if someone wants to fully qualify as a man or a woman in their social environment, expectations regarding their behaviour as well as character. It is, however, not entirely obvious what ‘being a man’ or ‘being a woman’ actually means and in what way and to what (...) extent it defines our identity, making us who we are. Would I be a different person if I were a woman? And what would it take for me to be a woman? Could I conceivably be neither? Or both? If gender were nothing but sex, telling a man to ‘be a man’ would make little sense. We may have different ideas about what it means to be a man or woman and how we need to behave in order to secure or maintain our manhood or womanhood, but we are all likely to have some deeply ingrained understanding of what makes a man a man and a woman a woman that goes beyond mere biology. Does it, however, follow that gender can, if necessary or desired, be completely detached from sex, that I can be a woman despite having all the physical attributes of a male member of my species, or a man despite being biologically female? If so, on what grounds exactly would we decide who is what? (shrink)

Culture or Biology? The question can seem deep and important. Yet, I argue in this chapter, if you are enthralled by questions about our biological differences, then you are probably confused. My goal is to diagnose the confusion. In debates about the role of biology in the social world it is easy to ask the wrong questions, and it is easy to misinterpret the scientific research. We are intuitively attracted to what is called psychological essentialism, and therefore interpret (...) what is biological as what can be traced to “essences”. On this interpretation, it would be deep and important to know what about, say, the differences between the genders is biological: it would correspond to what is essential to being a man or being a woman, and be opposed to what is a mere accidental feature that some women or some men have. Yet, the psychological essentialist understanding of ‘biological differences’ is deeply mistaken about biology. It has the wrong conception of biological kinds, of biological heritability, and of how genes and hormones work. Those who argue for an important role of ‘biology’ in the explanation of human differences often see ‘the science’ on their side. But this is false – on the interpretation of ‘biological differences’ that is most intuitive and that makes the question appear to be most interesting. Defenders of ‘biology’ often have the science against them. What is often called ‘biology’ is a myth: a myth created by an intuitive tendency that grotesquely distorts real biological research. (shrink)

Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies. Postgenderists contend that dyadic gender roles and sexual (...) dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without "mothers" and "fathers," and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction. Greater biological fluidity and psychological androgyny will allow future persons to explore both masculine and feminine aspects of personality. Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice. Bodies and personalities in our postgender future will no longer be constrained and circumscribed by gendered traits, but enriched by their use in the palette of diverse self-expression. (shrink)

The notion of homosexuality in Sub-Saharan African countries has been demonized and rejected based on the assumption that it is both unnatural and alien to African customs and practices. As a result, LGBTQ individuals continue to face stigmatization and discrimination which often translates into verbal, physical and sexual violence. Nevertheless, gender progressive movements such as the Matrix Support Group, have made progress in demystifying misconceptions about LGBTQ community as an attempt to end homophobic attitudes and to negotiate the acceptance (...) of these sexual minorities in African societies. Despite such efforts and developments, heterosexual individuals in Lesotho continue to treat sexual minorities with hostility due to their ignorance about sex, sexuality and gender, thus fuelling hatred towards members of the LGBTQ community. Research has mainly focused on the negative effects of discrimination and stigmatization of homosexuals but overlooked the fundamental cause of homophobia in Lesotho. By employing the content analysis method, this paper provides a systematic analysis of Lesotho’s patriarchal system and its bearing on sexual minorities by exploring the intersectionality of homosexuality, patriarchy, and homophobia. It argues that the constant use of derogatory terms which instigate hate-crimes and discrimination of sexual minorities not only hinders a positive change of attitude but prevents a shift from misguided conceptions about homosexuality. This paper concludes that the revision of power relations and legal interventions aimed at prohibiting stigmatization and violence against homosexuals are imperative in ensuring the protection and recognition of LGBTQ people’s rights in Lesotho. (shrink)

Is there anything that members of each binary category of gender have in common? Even many non-essentialists find the lack of unity within a gender worrying as it undermines the basis for a common political agenda for women. One promising proposal for achieving unity is by means of a shared historical lineage of cultural reproduction with past binary models of gender. I demonstrate how such an account is likely to take on board different binary and also non-binary (...) systems of gender. This implies that all individuals construed as members of the category, “women” are in fact not members of the same historical kind after all! I then consider different possible means of modifying the account but conclude negatively: the problem runs deeper than has been appreciated thus far. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to show that for Kant, a combination of epigenesis and monogenesis is the condition of possibility of anthropology as he conceives of it and that moreover, this has crucial implications for the biological dimension of his account of human nature. More precisely, I begin by arguing that Kant’s conception of mankind as a natural species is based on two premises: firstly the biological unity of the human species (monogenesis of the human races); (...) and secondly the existence of ‘seeds’ which may or may not develop depending on the environment (epigenesis of human natural predispositions). I then turn to Kant’s account of man’s natural predispositions and show that far from being limited to the issue of races, it encompasses unexpected human features such as gender, temperaments and nations. These predispositions, I argue, are means to the realisation of Nature’s overall purpose for the human species. This allows me to conclude that man’s biological determinism leads to the species’ preservation, cultivation and civilisation. (shrink)

Are words like ‘woman’ or ‘man’ sex terms that we use to talk about biological features of individuals? Are they gender terms that we use to talk about non-biological features e.g. social roles? Contextualists answer both questions affirmatively, arguing that these terms concern biological or non-biological features depending on context. I argue that a recent version of contextualism from Jennifer Saul that Esa Diaz-Leon develops doesn't exhibit the right kind of flexibility to capture our theoretical (...) intuitions or moral and political practices concerning our uses of these words. I then float the view that terms like 'woman' or 'man' are polysemous, arguing that it makes better sense of the significance of some forms of criticisms of mainstream gender ideology. (shrink)

Understanding academic gender gaps is difficult because gender-imbalanced fields differ across many features, limiting researchers’ ability to systematically study candidate causes. In the present preregistered research, we isolate two potential explanations—brilliance beliefs and fixed versus growth intelligence mindsets—by comparing two fields that have inverse gender gaps and historic and topical overlap: philosophy and psychology. Many more men than women study philosophy and vice versa in psychology, with disparities emerging during undergraduate studies. No prior work has examined the (...) contributions of both self-perceptions of brilliance and fixed versus growth mindsets on choice of major among undergraduate students. We assessed field-specific brilliance beliefs, brilliance beliefs about self, and mindsets, cross-sectionally in 467 undergraduates enrolled in philosophy and psychology classes at universities in the United States and Canada via both in-person and online questionnaires. We found support for the brilliance beliefs about the self, but not mindset, explanation. Brilliance beliefs about oneself predicted women’s but not men’s choice of major. Women who believed they were less brilliant were more likely to study psychology (perceived to require low brilliance) over philosophy (perceived to require high brilliance). Findings further indicated that fixed versus growth mindsets did not differ by gender and were not associated with major. Together, these results suggest that internalized essentialist beliefs about the gendered nature of brilliance are uniquely important to understanding why men and women pursue training in different academic fields. (shrink)

Many feminists (e.g. T. Bettcher and B. R. George) argue for a principle of first person authority (FPA) about gender, i.e. that we should (at least) not disavow people's gender self-categorisations. However, there is a feminist tradition resistant to FPA about gender, which I call "radical feminism”. Feminists in this tradition define gender-categories via biological sex, thus denying non-binary and trans self-identifications. Using a taxonomy by B. R. George, I begin to demystify the concept of (...) gender. We are also able to use the taxonomy to model various feminist approaches. It becomes easier to see how conceptualisations ofgender which allow for FPA often do not allow for understanding female subjugation as being rooted in reproductive biology. I put forward a conceptual scheme: radical FPA feminism. If we accept FPA, but also radical feminist concerns, radical FPA feminism is an attractive way of conceptualising gender. (shrink)

In this paper I review how the notion of gender is understood in psychiatry, specifically in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). First, I examine the contraposition between sex and gender, and argue that it is still retained by DSM-5, even though with some caveats. Second, I claim that, even if genderqueer people are not pathologized and gender pluralism is the background assumption, some diagnostic criteria still conceal a residue of (...) gender dualism and essentialism. Third, I consider gender dysphoria, which is characterized by an incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and one’s assigned gender; since this condition pertains to distress and disability, not to the incongruence per se, it does not pathologize transgender people. Still, I contend that it should be removed from DSM-5 for theoretical reasons. (shrink)

In “Analyzing COVID-19 Sex Difference Claims: The Harvard GenderSci Lab,” Marion Boulicault and Sarah Richardson summarize some of the groundbreaking work that they’re doing at the Harvard GenderSci Lab. Since March 2020, their lab has been analyzing, interrogating, and critiquing sex essentialist explanations of COVID-19 outcome disparities that are fairly ubiquitous in news media. Using interdisciplinary tools from feminist philosophy, science studies, and critical public health, they work collaboratively with two goals: (i) to critically examine COVID-19 sex difference research and (...) (ii) to explore and elevate the role of social variables in driving biological disparities. They argue that in public health research, media, and messaging, data on sex disparities must be contextualized both to avoid reinforcing harmful sex essentialist assumptions and also to help the public understand the complex ways in which social factors influence these patterns. They argue that within the context of COVID-19, doing so can both clarify risks and save lives. Their contribution to this issue describes their methods and shares some of their findings. (shrink)

Feminist and trans theory challenges "the" binary sex/gender system, but can create a new binary opposition of subversive transgender versus conservative transsexual. This paper aims to shift debate concerning bodies as authentic/real versus constructed/mutable, arguing that such debate establishes a false dichotomy that may be overcome by reappraising scientific understandings of sex/gender. Much recent biology and neurology stresses nonlinearity, contingency, self-organization, and open-endedness. Engaging with this research offers ways around apparently interminable theoretical impasses.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:“An Equivocal Couple Overwhelmed by Life”A Phenomenological Analysis of PregnancySara HeinämaaTwo conceptions of human generativity prevail in contemporary feminist philosophy. First, several contributors argue that the experience of pregnancy, when analyzed by phenomenological tools, undermines several distinctions that are central to Western philosophy, most importantly the subject-object distinction and the self-other and own-alien distinctions. This line of argument was already outlined by Iris Marion Young in her influential essay (...) “Pregnant Embodiment: Subjectivity and Alienation” (1984). The other dominant argument is related to the first one, and it states that organic birth is the event that establishes the first experiential separation between the self and the other. On this understanding, the mother-fetus relation would not involve any relations between two corporeal selves; all such relations would be postnatal. This notion has been defended, for example, by Christine Schües (1997; 2000) and Johanna Oksala (2003).1On the other hand, classical phenomenology is dominated by the idea that the rigorous first-person methodology that is essential to phenomenology dictates that the sense of birth must be studied primarily by reflection on the structures of our own recollection or memory. Consequently, the primary sense of human birth would be that of an unattainable limit. This is argued on the basis of the existential fact that we all are born but cannot recall our own birth, or else on the basis of the transcendental fact that the structure [End Page 31] of retention ties each living present to an earlier one and implies that the transcendental ego cannot be subject to generation.2 From this perspective, all analyses and reflections of the experiences of labor, gestation, and pregnancy would be secondary since the sense of birth that these experiences involve is the nativity of another human being and not the nativity of the reflecting self.This paper challenges both the feminist and the classical phenomenological approach. I maintain that careful phenomenological analyses of the experience of pregnancy undermine both notions. Such analyses show, on the one hand, that pregnancy does not imply a nondistinction or self-other fusion but on the contrary involves a specific self-other divide. At the same time, they demonstrate that the sense of birth is more complex than the classical recollection-paradigm suggests and that it includes more components than the signification of an unattainable limit. A proper phenomenology of birth must take into account not only the universal fact that we all are born, but also the equally universal fact that each of us is born from another human being, that is, some other human subject.3 This other human being who “gave” us birth or “from whose flesh we were born” provides us with a unique perspective on our own past, beyond the limits of our own recollection. Her perspective is incomparable to any other external perspective; rather than simply giving us an additional third-person viewpoint on our own organic birth, this one person is able to open a second-person perspective on our pre- and postnatal life and the transition between them—all of which is beyond our own recollection.My argument proceeds by the following steps:First, I develop a fresh discourse on the experience of pregnancy, by studying a set of remarks to be found in Julia Kristeva’s postphenomenological discourse on maternity, on the one hand, and in Simone de Beauvoir’s existential-phenomenological discourse on feminine embodiment, on the other hand. I use these remarks as leading clues for a novel phenomenological study of the experience of pregnancy.4 Contra Young’s influential account mentioned above, I argue that gestation, as experienced by women who live it in the first person, includes a separation between two sensory-motor beings in a nesting relation: the pregnant self and the embryonic other. The alternative account that I provide hinges on my analysis of the experience of fetal movements and the role of touch-sensations and kinesthetic sensations in such experiences. Ultimately, I argue that pregnancy does not erode the self-other boundary or the own-alien boundary but reestablishes both divisions.Second, I compare my account of the experience of pregnancy to Merleau... (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the myriad ways that gender roles are interrogated within The Left Hand of Darkness and “When It Changed.” I first examine gender as science in §1, outlining the ways Le Guin and Russ consider and critique essentialist perspectives holding that gender roles are ‘natural’ phenomena driven by rigid biological differences between men and women. Then, in §2, I explore gender as fiction, analyzing how each text presents gender roles as (...) discursively constructed and malleable. In §3, I explicate these observations within a hybrid conceptualization of gender as science fiction and argue that this suitably describes the gender portrayals Le Guin and Russ make in their texts. (shrink)

L’article poursuit un double objectif. D’une part, il propose une revue de l’articulation des concepts de genre et de sexe au prisme de la biologie de l’évolution dans le champ des études féministes francophones (cette délimitation tenant à la fois à des raisons de place, de pertinence scientifique et d’accessibilité au public non spécialiste). A cette fin, il propose également une définition du concept de constructivisme qui soit compatible avec le naturalisme, s’inscrivant en cela dans l’état contemporain de la philosophie (...) générale des sciences. Une fois mis en place ces éléments de cartographie du débat, le second objectif de l’article consiste à prendre au sérieux la diversité actuelle des concepts de sexe en biologie. Il insiste sur la nécessité d’une clarification conceptuelle des différents niveaux impliqués, et propose pour cela d’en finir avec la terminologie unique du sexe : celle-ci, en favorisant des confusions entre différents concepts, constitue un coût cognitif qu’il faut dépasser. Ce coût cognitif s’articule à un coût social. En effet, un tel flou conceptuel favorise en même temps dans la sphère publique une naturalisation abusive – puisque scientifiquement douteuse – de comportements sociaux inégalitaires. L’approche constructiviste ne consiste donc pas à nier la contrainte empirique de la nature. Il s’agit plutôt, à partir de la mise en évidence de la circulation des représentations entre la société en général et la science en particulier, de se doter d’outils d’analyse réflexifs et scientifiquement maîtrisés pour aborder les problématiques éthiques, politiques et épistémiques impliquées par cette circulation. (shrink)

1. The most original discovery in Beauvoir’s book is one more Columbus’s egg, namely that it is far from evident that a woman is a woman. That is, she discovers that a woman is the result of a process that made so that she is like she is. The paper discusses two aspects of the so-to-say ‘ideology’ inspiring the work. The first is its ideology in the proper, Marxian sense. My claim is that the work still pays a heavy price (...) to the dominating ideology. It leaves still too much unquestionedof what was assumed at the time to be obvious, necessary, and unchanging. This ballast depends firstly on the inherited prevailing climate of opinion, corresponding to a situation of alienation, producing two distorted views of the male and female gender. On the other hand, it depends on an unquestioned legacy from the modern episteme (in Foucault’s sense of the word) carrying presupposed Cartesian dualism. The other side of the work’s ideology, that is, the positive program presented or better the utopia it formulates is less innovative than it could be, In a few passages, where she seems to make use of suggestions from Merleau-Ponty, she points at a view where the bodily and emotional dimension is rescued from its negation in the male-dominated Capitalist society. Still, these suggestions are forgotten in the bulk of the work. -/- 2. The making of a philosophical work does not depend just on the kind of philosophical influences behind it. A book is also the product of an author with a story living in one society at a given time of social history. In this case, the book was written in the afterwar time when women were pushed back home again from the wartime labor market and when several of the goals reached by the first phase of feminist movements had gone lost in several European countries under Fascist or semi-fascist regimes and were being eroded in America by the reactionary climate of McCarthyism. It was a book written by an intellectual young woman in almost total isolation. These circumstances account for some more naïve suggestions from work: for ex., the idea that the alternative to the strategy once adopted by nineteenth-century emancipationist movements should be an individual inner process of transformation confined within the boundaries of one woman’s consciousness, or also, the idea that the goal of women’s liberation should be to bring all women to a condition similar of Simone de Beauvoir herself who, as an educated woman, earning her life by her work, and living in an allegedly equal state with an enlightened man (Jean-Paul Sartre!) in a relationship free from constraints (an unmarried couple!), was already exemplifying what a liberated woman’s life would be. -/- 3. The reconstruction of the idea of femininity is still the most fruitful part of the work. It rejects the notion of femininity as an essence depending on biology or other factors and explores the making of this image as a result of a condition made of the social and economic state of affairs but as revived and actively mirrored through and by the consciousness of the very subjects suffering an oppressive situation. And the main novelty is the ‘discovery’ of asymmetry between the self-image of the male and the (self)-image of the woman, an asymmetry depending on the fact that the woman sees herself through the other’s eyes. -/- 4. Later feminist writers such as Shulamit Firestone remarked that 'The Second Sex' heavily depended on several key-ideas from Sartre existential ontology. One crucial aspect is accepting the mind-body dualistic framework without any suspicion that such dualism could have been itself a projection of the basic experience of the male-female duality. I suggest that the philosophical legacy inherited from Sartre is on occasion an asset for Beauvoir’s innovative existential analysis of the feminine ‘condition,’ but on several occasions, it creates unnecessary obstacles for her project of a new comprehension of the feminine ‘situation,’ aimed at rescuing women from an 'inauthentic' self-definition. -/- 5. The first among these poisoned gifts is Sartre’s idea of the individual as pure freedom and project. Merleau-Ponty’s criticism is well-known: Sartre draws a picture of the world as containing no more than ‘human beings and things,’ thus denying any substance to social relations, institutions, and culture. -/- 6. The second is Sartre’s reconstruction of dialectics, understood as dialectics without synthesis. This is an enlightening tool when used to describe conflicts, in so far as it accounts for the emergence of the ‘other’ as what is excluded. But it becomes a boomerang when used to interpret any kind of relationship, leading to equate inter-subjectivity with conflict. -/- 7. Suggestions coming from Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological approach of positive value of the bodily dimension as such, and hence of the feminine body, are evoked here and there but never fully spelled out. The most shocking consequence of acceptance of the Cartesian or Sartrean dualist view is an almost total de-evaluation of sexuality, understood as an activity involving just one tiny part of the human body, going with the idea that overcoming the oppression of women implies de-empathizing biological differences that are after all tiny and devoid of value. Besides, Beauvoir falls back into the trap of grounding claims of equality between men and women on the assumption that biological differences are of limited relevance. The eventual reason for such a step back is the distorting Cartesian mirror into which Beauvoir still looks in the vain hope of discovering a disembodied self as the (Cartesian) subject of an impossible kind of liberation.The first among these poisoned gifts is Sartre’s idea of the individual as pure freedom and project. Merleau-Ponty’s criticism is well-known: Sartre draws a picture of the world as containing no more than ‘human beings and things’, thus denying any substance to social relations, institutions and culture. The second is Sartre’s reconstruction of dialectics, understood as a dialectic without a synthesis. This view of dialectics is an enlightening tool when used to describe conflicts. It may account for the emergence of the ‘other’ as what is excluded. However, it becomes a boomerang when used to interpret any relationship, leading to equate inter-subjectivity with conflict. Suggestions coming from Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological approach would tend to admit that the bodily dimension as such has a positive value, and hence the feminine bodily dimension is not just indifferent, but instead gives women a point of view on the world different from the male point of view. These suggestions, yet, are evoked here and there but never fully spelt out. The most shocking consequence of acceptance of the Cartesian or Sartrean dualist view is an almost total de-evaluation of sexuality, understood as an activity involving just one tiny part of the human body, going with the idea that overcoming the oppression of women implies understressing biological differences that are after all tiny and devoid of value. Furthermore, Beauvoir falls back into the trap of grounding claims of equality between men and women on the assumption that physical differences are of limited relevance. The eventual reason for such step back is the distorting Cartesian mirror into which Beauvoir still looks in the vain hope of discovering a disembodied self as the (Cartesian) subject of an impossible kind of liberation. -/- . (shrink)

In this article, I explore the ethical dimensions of same-sex reproduction achieved through epigenome editing—an innovative and transformative technique. For the first time, I analyse the potential normativity of this disruptive approach for reproductive purposes, focusing on its implications for lesbian couples seeking genetically related offspring. Epigenome editing offers a compelling solution to the complex ethical challenges posed by traditional gene editing, as it sidesteps genome modifications and potential long-term genetic consequences. The focus of this article is to systematically analyse (...) the bioethical issues related to the use of epigenome editing for same-sex reproduction. I critically assess the ethical acceptability of epigenome editing with reproductive purposes from multiple angles, considering harm perspectives, the comparison of ethical issues related to gene and epigenome editing, and feminist theories. This analysis reveals that epigenome editing emerges as an ethically acceptable means for lesbian couples to have genetically related children. Moreover, the experiments of a reproductive use of epigenome editing discussed in this article transcend bioethics, shedding light on the broader societal implications of same-sex reproduction. It challenges established notions of biological reproduction and prompts a reevaluation of how we define the human embryo, while poses some issues in the context of gender self-identification and family structures. In a world that increasingly values inclusivity and diversity, this article aims to reveal a progressive pathway for reproductive medicine and bioethics, as well as underscores the need for further philosophical research in this emerging and fertile domain. (shrink)

The sex/gender distinction is a staple of feminist philosophy. In slogan form: sex is “natural,” while gender is the “social meaning” of sex. Considering the importance of the sex/gender distinction—which, here, I neither endorse nor reject—it’s interesting to ask if philosophers working on the metaphysics of sexuality might make use of an analogous distinction. In this paper, I argue that we ought to endorse the sexual orientation/identity distinction. In particular, I argue that the orientation/identity distinction is indispensable (...) to normative explanations regarding LGBTQIA+ oppression and resistance. As a case study, I consider the oppression involved in the gentrification of historic queer neighborhoods. (shrink)

Introductory courses dealing with sex, gender and sexuality often assign excerpts from Thomas Aquinas as an exemplar of the naturalist view. Given that most novice students tend to side against such naturalism uncritically, they need to be exposed to a more charitable account of the biological considerations motivating a stance like Aquinas.’ With that in mind, this article presents accessible arguments aimed at restoring deliberative balance in the classroom.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the level of gender bias in Aristotle’s Generation of Animals while exercising due care in the analysis of its arguments. I argue that while the GA theory is clearly sexist, the traditional interpretation fails to diagnose the problem correctly. The traditional interpretation focuses on three main sources of evidence: (1) Aristotle’s claim that the female is, as it were, a “disabled” (πεπηρωμένον) male; (2) the claim at GA IV.3, 767b6-8 that females (...) are a departure from the kind; and (3) Aristotle’s supposed claim at GA IV.3, 768a21-8 that the most ideal outcome of reproduction is a male offspring that perfectly resembles its father. I argue that each of these passages has either been misunderstood or misrepresented by commentators. In none of these places is Aristotle suggesting that females are imperfect members of the species or that they result from the failure to achieve some teleological goal. I defend the view that the GA does not see reproduction as occurring for the sake of producing males; rather, what sex an embryo happens to become is determined entirely by non-teleological forces operating through material necessity. This interpretation is consistent with Aristotle’s view in GA II.5 that females have the same soul as the male (741a7) as well as the argument in Metaphysics X.9 that sexual difference is not part of the species form but is an affection (πάθος) arising from the matter (1058b21-4). While the traditional interpretation has tended to exaggerate the level of sexism in Aristotle’s
developmental biology, the GA is by no means free of gender bias as some recent scholarship has claimed. In the final section of the paper I point to one passage where Aristotle clearly falls back on sexist assumptions in order to answer the difficult question, “Why are animals divided into sexes?”. I argue that this passage in particular poses a serious challenge
to anyone attempting to absolve Aristotle’s developmental biology of the charge of sexism. (shrink)

Are women (simply) adult human females? Dictionaries suggest that they are. However, philosophers who have explicitly considered the question invariably answer no. This paper argues that they are wrong. The orthodox view is that the category *woman* is a social category, like the categories *widow* and *police officer*, although exactly what this social category consists in is a matter of considerable disagreement. In any event, orthodoxy has it that *woman* is definitely not a biological category, like the categories *amphibian* (...) or *adult human female*. -/- In the first part, a number of arguments are given for the view that women are adult human females; the second part turns to rebutting the main objections. Finally, a couple of morals are briefly noted: one for activist sloganeering, and one for ameliorative projects that seek to change the meaning of ‘woman’. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:MatteringPheng Cheah (bio)Judith Butler. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge, 1993.Elizabeth Grosz. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1994.Any cursory survey of contemporary cultural-political theory and criticism will indicate that the related concepts of “nature” and “the given” are not highly valued terms. The reason for this disdain and even moral disapprobation of naturalistic accounts of human existence is supposed (...) to be self-evident: simply put, in a post-Newtonian age, nature refers to the totality of objects governed by immutable causal laws. If human existence was merely natural or given, then we would never be able to alter the conditions that bring about human oppression. Antinaturalism in contemporary theory, however, betrays a deep fear in its repetitive tirades against the natural. For if it is so obviously precritical to treat human existence as given, then why does antinaturalism need to be articulated again and again? This obsessive pushing away of nature may well constitute an acknowledgement-in-disavowal that humans may be natural creatures after all. Furthermore, as a theoretical position, antinaturalism itself is produced by the polemical energy that strives to keep nature at bay, in quarantine from the sphere of human life. Consequently, antinaturalism works with a conventional philosophical definition of nature which it may do well to question. We may therefore be justified in claiming that, far from being tired superstitions that savvy discourse analysts and cultural constructionists can leave behind, the concepts of “nature” and “the given” are, in fact, neuralgic points, the contested sites around which any theory of political transformation is organized.In its conventional usage, nature is opposed to a whole host of other terms: history, culture, law, production, and so forth. The slipperiness of nature, however, is seen in the fact that the relation between nature and its others defies characterization as a simple relation of exteriority between two ontologically distinct terms. For instance, the relation of nature to history can be posed not only in terms of the modification of nature by historical agency but also from within the realm of historical agency insofar as the constraints of structure or construction on transformative rational agency seem to replicate the limitations or weightiness of nature. Feminism is an exemplary site for rehearsing this fundamental questioning of the distinction between nature and its others because it must refute biologistic and naturalistic justifications for the oppression of women even as it must affirm women’s bodily specificity as the minimal consensual stuff which grounds feminist practice. As Zillah Eisenstein astutely observes in spite of her own intellectual allegiances, “if the body is already engendered in this way, how can we claim our bodies without reproducing the inequities of the gender-system?... [S]o we become involved in explicating patriarchal relations without knowing where patriarchy begins and ends in the definition of a woman’s or a mother’s body. What aspect of the body constitutes a woman’s potential capacities, and what part articulates her oppression?” [73, 75]. [End Page 108] Philosophically speaking, the giving of body or matter—what I propose to call “mattering”—may be the process where history and nature become uncannily indistinguishable in a manner that is both enabling and disabling for political transformation, its condition of (im)possibility.Thus far, the productive unease in feminist theory occasioned by the body as the ambivalent ground of both oppression and emancipatory transformation has resulted in debates over the sex/gender distinction and the question of essentialism/antiessentialism. 1 Discussion has, however, primarily centered on the strategic deployment of the body as a political resource. Two recent books—Judith Butler’s Bodies That Matter and Elizabeth Grosz’s Volatile Bodies—stand out because they promise to raise discussion to a level where political issues concerning the body can be reevaluated through a rigorous rethinking of the relation between nature and its others: culture, history, and society. The authors of these books share the distinctive aim of articulating a feminist theory that is centered on a philosophical exploration of the status of the body. Both Grosz and Butler are trained in Continental philosophy, where the secondary status of... (shrink)

**No longer the current version available on SEP; see revised version by Sharon Crasnow** -/- Feminists have a number of distinct interests in, and perspectives on, science. The tools of science have been a crucial resource for understanding the nature, impact, and prospects for changing gender-based forms of oppression; in this spirit, feminists actively draw on, and contribute to, the research programs of a wide range of sciences. At the same time, feminists have identified the sciences as a source (...) as well as a locus of gender inequalities: the institutions of science have a long tradition of excluding women as practitioners; feminist critics of science find that women and gender (or, more broadly, issues of concern to women and sex/gender minorities) are routinely marginalized as subjects of scientific inquiry, or are treated in ways that reproduce gender-normative stereotypes; and, closing the circle, scientific authority has frequently served to rationalize the kinds of social roles and institutions that feminists call into question. -/- Feminist perspectives on science therefore reflect a broad spectrum of epistemic attitudes toward and appraisals of science. Some urge the reform of gender inequities in the institutions of science and call for attention to neglected questions with the aim of improving the sciences in their own terms; they do not challenge the standards and practices of the sciences they engage. Others pursue jointly critical and constructive programs of research that, to varying degrees, aim at transforming the methodologies, substantive content, framework assumptions, and epistemic ideals that animate the sciences. The content of these perspectives, and the degree to which they generate transformative critique, depends not only on the types of philosophical and political commitments that inform them but also on the nature of the sciences and subject domains on which they bear. Feminist perspectives have had greatest impact on sciences that deal with inherently gendered subjects—the social and human sciences—and, secondarily, on sciences that study subjects characterized in gendered terms, metaphorically or by analogy (projectively gendered subjects), chiefly the biological and life sciences. Feminist perspectives are relevant to sciences that deal with non-gendered subject matters, but perspectives vary substantially in content and in critical import depending on the sciences and the particular research programs they engage. (shrink)

People often assume that everyone can be divided by sex/gender (that is, by physical and social characteristics having to do with maleness and femaleness) into two tidy categories: male and female. Careful thought, however, leads us to reject that simple ‘binary’ picture, since not all people fall precisely into one group or the other. But if we do not think of sex/gender in terms of those two categories, how else might we think of it? Here I consider four (...) distinct models; each model correctly captures some features of sex/gender, and so each is appropriate in some contexts. But the first three models are inadequate when tough questions arise, like whether trans women should be admitted as students at a women’s college or when it is appropriate for intersex athletes to compete in women’s athletic events. (‘Trans’ refers to the wide range of people who have an atypical gender identity for someone of their birth-assigned sex, and ‘intersex’ refers to people whose bodies naturally develop with markedly different physical sex characteristics than are paradigmatic of either men or women.) Such questions of inclusion and exclusion matter enormously to the people whose lives are affected by them, but ordinary notions of sex/gender offer few answers. The fourth model I describe is especially designed to make those hard decisions easier by providing a process to clarify what matters. (shrink)

According to a standard interpretation of the term, ‘gender’ denotes sets of social roles and expectations conventionally associated with the sexual physiology of human beings. Originally introduced in psychology, the term is now widely used in the social sciences and humanities, as well as in the biological sciences. In this article we introduce and discuss the central themes of contemporary philosophical debates on gender. Particular attention is paid to recent feminist arguments concerning the distinction between sex and (...) gender, and to how feminist debates today intersect with neuroscience research on sex-related differences between human brains. (shrink)

Disagreements about abortion are often assumed to reduce to disagreements about fetal personhood (and mindedness). If one believes a fetus is a person (or has a mind), then they are “pro-life.” If one believes a fetus is not a person (or is not minded), they are “pro-choice.” The issue, however, is much more complicated. Not only is it not dichotomous—most everyone believes that abortion is permissible in some circumstances (e.g. to save the mother’s life) and not others (e.g. at (...) nine months of a planned pregnancy)—but scholars on both sides of the issue (e.g. Don Marquis and Judith Thomson) have convincingly argued that fetal personhood (and mindedness) are irrelevant to the debate. To determine the extent to which they are right, this article will define “personhood,” its relationship to mindedness, and explore what science has revealed about the mind before exploring the relevance of both to questions of abortion’s morality and legality. In general, this article does not endorse a particular answer to these questions, but the article should enhance the reader’s ability to develop their own answers in a much more informed way. (shrink)

What does Martin Heidegger say about sex or gender? According to most accounts, including Derrida’s influential essay “Geschlecht: Sexual Difference, Ontological Difference,” Heidegger makes a marginal reference to sex in a 1928 Marburg lecture later translated as The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic (GA 26). However, an earlier allusion to sexual difference appears in a 1923 Freiburg lecture, translated as Ontology—the Hermeneutics of Facticity (GA 63) where he explains why he uses the term “Dasein” instead of “man” in his existential (...) analytic. “Man” carries his own historical baggage, representing a living being endowed with reason, as well as a pregiven understanding of what it means to be a person. This latter definition has its roots in a Judeo-Christian tradition where “man” is created in the image of God as the first born of many “brethren.” In a perplexing move, Heidegger then cites biblical passages to highlight the sexed emergence of man in Genesis as he poses the question, “Problem: What is woman?” (GA 63, 22/18). This chapter untangles what it means for Heidegger to ask such a question, particularly as he leaves it unanswered and seemingly negligible in his pursuit of a hermeneutics of facticity. Heidegger states, “Hermeneutics is itself not a philosophy. It wishes only to place an object which has hitherto fallen into forgetfulness before today’s philosophers for their ‘well-disposed consideration’” (GA 63, 20/16). I place the object of sex/gender facticity before today’s philosophers, situating the “Problem: What is woman?” within the context of Heidegger’s larger ontological project, namely to rediscover the question of being. Captured in the eponymous title Ontology—the Hermeneutics of Facticity is the insight that the study of being (ontology) can only be carried out as an interpretive non-objectifying process (hermeneutics) of our existence at a particular time in history (facticity). What does it mean to exist as a certain sex or gender during a particular time? How are sex and gender related to the question of being and the ontological difference? How are we defining sex and gender and to which term does Heidegger refer? Throughout this chapter, I will examine a few instances where Heidegger reckons with the sex/gender question. By posing the inquiry, “Problem: What is Woman?” within the parameters of Heidegger’s larger ontological project, I suggest that sex and gender must be fluid categories insofar as such properties describe the “whatness” of our existence rather than the “how” of our world-forming. That is, Dasein is neutral with respect to these categories as such attributes only show up after a time reckoning with an original position of care-lessness. I also suggest that Heidegger privileges sex/gender facticity in undergirding such neutrality as he contests Christian origin stories of the flesh (GA 63) and evolutionary theories associated with the Lebensphilosophie of his time (GA 26). Finally, I conclude by demonstrating how Heidegger’s distinction between Körper and Leib further upholds sex and gender fluidity. (shrink)