Which Feminist/Womanist thinkers talk about biology?

[IdaBWells]

OK with all the trans debate, at the heart of it, clearly, is the undeniable objective biological differences between women and men.

The feminist ideas that got widespread exposure in the past were those claiming that everything is socially constructed and playing down biological difference. Roles and stereotype are based around the biological differences between men and women which clearly separate us. As a result of playing down biology we now have some theorists trying to claim it doesn’t exist or is socially constructed.

Biology is surely central to everything in feminist/womanist ideas? Especially motherhood and the way it changes us biologically and the work, commitment and dedication in wanting to protect the next generation. The status of women is always strongly correlated to that of children in any society.

So I would be interested to know of thinkers that acknowledge biology and motherhood with constructive ways forward.

Yes, me too. I mean, I think feminist have always acknowledged biology but, as you say, the emphasis in the past was different. Like, the idea that you can choose not to be a mother is pretty awesome, actually, or even just choosing to limit the number of children. So I can see why feminist ran with it. Even just getting women up into leadership positions. It was worth playing down motherhood for a bit, I guess.

Sorry - I should have said I don't know the answer, but I hope that someone else can answer it.

Hi Ida

I think this is a really important topic and question, but one we find hard to talk about (as your biology of fatherhood thread shows).

I'd love to know what to read on this.

I think i might write something! .... this is what I've started with

The new battle between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ highlights the need for feminism to be reconciled with biology. Arguments for equality that rest on the foundational idea that everything we label ‘gender’ is a socialised, while ‘sex’ is purely a matter of physical anatomy are vulnerable both to the extremism of gender identity ideology, but also to the problem that it just isn’t true.

We now understand that there is no such clean split between biology and society. Human bodies, human behaviour and human societies evolved together. We are cultural by nature. Human beings are remarkably flexible animals, with men and women able to take many interchangeable roles, but this cognitive flexibility comes through human infants having long childhoods in which they are socialised and dependent on parental investment. The cost and risk of parental investment in is not the same for women and for men, and patterns of human morpology (such as hidden ovulation, and menopause) are clearly related to social roles and relations between parents. Small innate differences in behavioural tendencies between men and women (such as in risk taking, status seeking and parental commitment) are amplified through social structures into outcomes which are unequal and unjust (although not ‘unnatural’). Biology is not destiny, but it turns out biology is important.

People rightly fear that biology will be used as lazy justification for inequality and oppression. But trying to stick with the ‘blank slate’ idea that gender is all social conditioning leaves feminism with theories that are disconnected from the driving forces of biology. We should not fall for the naturalistic fallacy, that natural explanations can be used as moral justifications (‘natural is good’) any more than we should fall into the trap of believing that men in dresses are women

This is a really good listen

@candidpeel well written!

I do not think that any feminist has ever denied or minimised the basis of female oppression being rooted in their reproductive function [ie: their biology]!

The issue is that it is men who assume power and control [dominance] over us and assume entitlement to our bodies because of that reproductive function [biology].

I think all you do here is express your misunderstanding of the history of feminism.

Op I wonder if you mean that usually feminists focus on the gender role given to them rather that actual biology?

I agree that's well written candid! great stuff!

As I read it I remembered that there's quite a bit of actual biology and neurology/ neuroscience in Gina Rippon's book the gendered brain. It's premise is that yes there are clear biological sex neurological differences but also that the brain is so plastic that a gendered world creates a gendered brain. I also wonder if Cordelia Fine might cover any of this.

But as I type I'm not 100% sure this is what you mean or not?!

There's also this article which is a tough read:

https://reneejg.net/2017/02/a-call-to-feminists-to-remember-the-history-and-sex-based-nature-of-womens-oppression/

However, this article really backs up what she says, that feminists have always incorporated biology. I suppose the political and theory side of things becomes more dominant in most written theory.

I have degrees: BSc in Biochem; PhD in Clinical; Immunol and currently MSc in Bioinormatics. Transwomen are men.

Bioinformatics

SheWhoMustBeSilent the distinction i am trying to make is not just that women are oppressed because of their reproductive function (i.e. biology below the neck) but that both women and men evolved to undertake their reproductive function which includes finding a mate, attracting a mate, repelling unwanted mates, sexual intercourse etc... and putting in the effort and commanding the resources to keep their children (and grandchildren) alive .... and this involves behaviours (i.e. biology above the neck)

So its not just about the biology of ovulation, fertilisation pregnancy & lactation but sexual behaviours of men and women, relationship behaviours of men and women, resource seeking behaviours of men and women, parenting behaviours of men and women..... all of this is part of explanatory basis for the thing we call patriarchy..... and all of it is also linked to aspects of human biology like hidden ovulation, recreational sex, menopause which are unusual to humans, and things that are fairly universal to the male and female condition across nature.

We are all the descendants of a long line of both men and women who successfully reproduced. So if our female ancestors were oppressed then what we see as their oppression was also a successful evolutionary strategy for their genes. The genes that gave them the kinds of bodies and behaviours that could be oppressed in that way were successful in evolutionary terms, and the genes that gave our forefathers the kinds of bodies and behaviours that could oppress them were also successful. And we carry all those genes and we pass them on to our male and female children.

[NB: none of this justifies defending current oppression. We also come from a long line of nepotists, xenophobes and murderers]

This is the uncomfortable truth that I don't think feminism has got its head round. I'd love to read something though.

I would be quite interested to read any such material too, as I think it's an angle many feminists have avoided in the past.

Irrespective of what 'true feminism' espouses among academic thinkers, what carries more traction and weight is how feminism is interpreted and perceived by the general public and the common discourse around it.

The idea that women and men are identical in pretty much every single way except in a few areas is something that is almost always associated with feminism.

The idea that almost every single behaviour in male and females is socialised and that the removal or prevention of this socialisation will result in fairly identical or evenly distributed forms of behaviour among human beings irrespective of their sex is associated with feminism.

It is / was considered a bit taboo in many aspects to state that there are things that men can do physically that women cannot as this notion was considered outdated and sexist. When I was young I vaguely remember heated debates around whether women should be allowed to join the army, whether they could meet the physical criteria or whether requirements would be lowered etc. I've actually learned a lot about how different the male and female bodies are since looking more closely at the trans debates.

I would tend to agree with the idea that it isn't about biology being the root of oppression that is missing.

In a way, it's a little telling that the questions is being read as questioning that, because it's just about the only way feminism tends to talk about our biology - straight reproductive capacity, and by the way it's oppressive to us.

I think feminism, including academic feminism, has often been quite loathe to talk much about this, almost as if it's embarrassing or could undermine the idea of justice for women.

because it's just about the only way feminism tends to talk about our biology - straight reproductive capacity, and by the way it's oppressive to us.

It's not our biology in itself that is oppressive to us. It's that in the society we live in, it is used by men to oppress us. It doesn't have to be, it could be celebrated and supported as the wonderful and important thing it is.

OP has some interesting points - and it’s of course true that ultimately speaking, patriarchy was a part of a “successful” evolutionary strategy (in terms of or lineage surviving) I would like to add the following complications to this simple hypothesis however:

1. No one knows for sure how old patriarchy (the general violent oppression of human males over females) is. It may be ancient to humans (like pre verbal) or it might be relatively recent, with a more egalitarian society before. Or it may have flipped back and forth, being fairly weak biologically but culturally amplified sometimes.

2. while it’s true that there are likely biological differences between males and females in terms of behavior it’s likely a fools errand to identify anything specific. We can’t control for socialization, and so far what we’ve seen in general is as society changes, gendered behavior changes in ways science didn’t predict. So dwelling on nearly any behavior that seems “obviously” different between the sexes is half likely to end up wrong just like all the stuff we believed 100 years ago.

3. the clearest examples of important biological differences to consider would be the derived characters that OP mentions (menopause, hidden ovulation) plus more. Humans also are far more monogamous and have FAR more paternal care than any other great ape. Due in large part to our extremely slow development. The general (across all animals) correlary to a requirement for biparental care is reduced sexual dimorphism both in behavior and physicality. Think swans, penguins, etc. So what we have is best described as residual ancestral dimorphism, rather than the sexes evolving to become more different.

It's not our biology in itself that is oppressive to us. It's that in the society we live in, it is used by men to oppress us. It doesn't have to be, it could be celebrated and supported as the wonderful and important thing it is.

Oh, there are plenty of people who think it's biology that is repressive, and there is no possibility for justice with regards to sex unless we have ways to control biology - culminating, if we are lucky, one, day, with artificial wombs.

What's more insidious though is that any time there is a suggestion that some sex difference that is not directly tied to reproduction might not be socialisation, there are a flurry of attempts to just shut that conversation up, no matter how relevant it might be. And sometimes it is very relevant.

1) No one knows for sure how old patriarchy (the general violent oppression of human males over females) is. It may be ancient to humans (like pre verbal) or it might be relatively recent, with a more egalitarian society before. Or it may have flipped back and forth, being fairly weak biologically but culturally amplified sometimes.

I'm never convinced by the arguments that patriarchy started with agriculture which are often made. Things that are deeply embedded in human behaviour and morphology , like lust, love, sexual jealousy, anger, pride, honour, trust etc...clearly underpin and enable social structures and these emotions are universal and evolved ....they go deep.

And I think if there is one thing we've learnt from the sex Vs gender wars it's that sex goes deep. It goes way back. It's much more ancient than race, which is recent and fairly surface differences (post agriculture).

All our ancestors male and female competed sexually (in evolutionary terms). So there was no time "before", just incremental change. Clearly agriculture and then capitalism enables material inequality.

"Humans also are far more monogamous and have FAR more paternal care than any other great ape."

Not just paternal care but also care by the extended family and tribe. Sarah Hrdy has written a lot about this; she describes humans as "cooperative breeders", in childrearing practices we're more like tamarinds (who share childrearing responsibilities among the group) than gorillas (where the mother has sole responsibility).

I'm a big fan of Sarah Hrdy, Pirate.

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Greer yet - her work (Female Eunuch, Sex and Destiny, etc. etc.) is steeped in an understanding of, and discussion of the importance of biological sex.

I think where it went wrong was with certain third wave/po-mo feminists who somehow felt that to acknowledge biological sex as a material constraint in historical explanations of how oppression became so entrenched (this is how things happened to turn out the way they did, given a mismatch in physical strength plus a whole load of other contingent factors including the choices men made about how to set up and order society) was to succumb to biological determinism (therefore things had to turn out that way). Lazy thinking by the philosophically challenged.

I wonder if that's not about a kind of fear of following the argument. Which is to say, a type of situation where you know the outcome you want to argue for - whatever you think an equal society would mean - and so you are afraid to accept any truth or fact that seems like it might threaten that.

It's a common human tendency in any theoretical area of study that has to be guarded against, but I think in area studies like women's studies, gender studies, racialised studies programs, it can actually be encouraged.

It becomes about creating a certain type of narrative to support what you want rather than uncovering truth, as if your narrative can change reality. It would explain a lot about why whole areas that should seem to be of major concern would be ignored in these kinds of departments - it's because they might lead to difficult questions or problems.

Or to put it another way - what if there really is an element of biological determinism at work, that there will continue to be? Do we really want to avoid the information that reveals that just because it suggests a different outcome than we would like?

Goosefoot

Yes, it’s as important to avoid bias in that realm (assuming there MUST be a cultural explanation as the idea eg Rape is adaptive is too horrible to contemplate) as it is to avoid bias the other way (eg the circular argument that womens are underrepresentation in science/math must have a biological basis because they are underrepresented despite “equal rights”).

However It’s also important to acknowledge that there are limits to our ability to know more. It’s actually not possible to determine once and for all whether a given behavioral gender difference is due to early socialization or hormones in utero, or the Y chromosome itself, unless we were willing to do some extremely ethically dubious studies.

In fact although they are an abomination, it’s plausible that properly controlled studies of the existing children being transitioned could provide some evidence towards the importance of each sex hormone during the pubertal period.

But until we are willing to grow children in boxes we can’t really nail it down. We are left with correlational studies. These can show trends at a population level over time. For example, as stigma against women in science math has decreased over the last two centuries, women have achieved near parity in math achievement in school. They have not yet reached parity in employment in these areas. Why? We can’t know. Certainly people still have attitudes which aren’t inclusive to women. Places with less historical stigma against women in math/science specifically tend to have more parity in these areas. However since these places are also LESS egalitarian in general, the biology side will turn around and argue that it means women will naturally choose to avoid math science If able to choose freely.

Anyway my point being it’s important to remain skeptical of claims from either end. Not just what do we know, but what Can we know.

DreadPirateLuna

Right! Yes cooperative breeding indeed. Likely some time in our past we have been obligate cooperative or at least pair breeders. I haven’t read Sara hrdy - is there a specific book I should pick up?

"In fact although they are an abomination, it’s plausible that properly controlled studies of the existing children being transitioned could provide some evidence towards the importance of each sex hormone during the pubertal period."

Who would be the control group? The kids being transed aren't a random selection of kids, they're more likely to be gay or autistic for a start.

"I haven’t read Sara hrdy - is there a specific book I should pick up?"

Mothers and Others is very good.

The kids being transed aren't a random selection of kids, they're more likely to be gay or autistic for a start.

That’s true. And these Kids / their parents are likely to be extremely gender obsessed / hold regressive beliefs about gender essentialism compared to the general population.

the best we could do would be to design the study so that interested participants (those presenting to gender clinic) are assigned randomly to watchful waiting versus the hormonal intervention. Then keep track of as much info as possible wrt sexuality, co-morbid conditions, and gender attitudes. This won’t allow perfect ability to generalize but assuming the kids are homogenous within group would be better than nothing - which is what we currently have in this population.

As it is the only “studies” are based on giving everyone the hormonal intervention. Somehow this got past reviewers but makes the data less than useless.