Reply to comment

After presentation/discussion in Critical Feminist Studies class, what struck me, for my own thinking and anyone else's uses ...

Two general parallel points seemed particularly important. There is no opposition between biology and culture; culture emerges from biology and the two reciprocally influence each other Similarly, there is not opposition between mind and body: mind, as a part of brain, emerges from body and the two reciprocally influence one another.

This together with some more specific biological observations (multiple genotypes, semi-independent development of different relevant phenotypic characteristics including the brain, ability of the brain to conceive alternatives to what is and to implement them by, among other things, altering the body) seriously challenges both the traditional two sexes story and the more contemporary sex/gender dichotomy.

The talk was intended to offer an alternative story: that sex/gender is more fluid than implied by either the more traditional or the more contemporary story, and that this is a good thing: it contributes to a productive diversity. Under time pressures, I'm not sure the latter got across to the extent I intended.

Its worth talking much more about the use value of this story, both in the context of feminist evolution and more generally. It also needs to be related more clearly to the clear two sexes feature of biological reproduction.

Additional important points from student comments:

• That culture derives from biology and mind from body doesn't mean that there are no distinctions between biology and culture or mind and body. It means only that one needs different terms for making those distinctions. In particular, there clearly do arise conflicts between individual and collective stories, as well as between one's conscious understandings/experiences and the inclinations of the rest of the nervous system/body. The value of those conflicts and ways of dealing with them needs further elaboration.