The medieval / ancient 'one sex' model

[HeirloomTomato]

I just read an article about the medieval / ancient approach to sex and gender. The writer termed it the 'one sex' model, with 'male' being the normal definitive sex and 'female' being a deficient, broken male. I remember encountering that attitude to women in Catholic theology but hadn't heard it referred to as the 'one sex' model before.

In any case, it occurred to me that TRAs are essentially taking us back to the middle ages by promoting the idea that gender exists on a spectrum and there is no such thing as 'female' biology. It erases the female experience and ignores the biological burden borne by women in reproduction. It silences women from speaking about the specific experience of living in a female body.

It's really no different to how women were treated in the middle ages or by the Catholic church: ignore the specific biology women have, assume 'male' is the default but - the TRA twist - allow said 'males' to define and express themselves in any way they want.

Yet we're supposed to be the ones on the wrong side of history...

problem is the resurgence of a mindset that the male biological experience is based in fact and unproblematic while female bodies are a biological construct or fiction.

But it’s not a “resurgence” because this mindset never existed before. You are drawing parallels that are not there. You need to research history a bit more I think. The female body was never before viewed as a construct or fiction. It was viewed as a biological reality that made us inferior to men in every way.

@ChoosandChipsandSealingWax

“Trans activism denies women the right to speak about our own bodies, just as Catholic theology used to. It problematizes female biology and turns it back into a taboo.”

This.

The catholics inherited their viewpoint it from the Romans who appropriated it from the Ancient Greeks chain of being. And it’s not about denying women the right to speak about their bodies, it was about denying women all rights and viewing them as inferior to men, on par with a child in intelligence, no soul, further from God, and always subordinate to a male.

Yes I don't think the female body was ever generally seen as a "construct or fiction" but often as a lesser, "non-male" version of the default. However in a lot of cultures the female body has also been worshipped, and clearly represented, for its fertility and creative powers, with female gods of fertility, motherhood, childbirth etc and detailed representations of female biology. I'm not saying that precludes sexism, misogyny etc, it doesn't at all but it does suggest people have generally recognised physical femaleness and what it entails as a thing.

It's really no different to how women were treated in the middle ages or by the Catholic church

Again, it is actually very different. The only similarity is that both are bad for women’s rights. Although I would argue the Middle Ages were much much worse than now because women were literally property then.

As evidenced by the panicked and muddled approach of various sporting bodies in deciding that women are just men with a bit less testosterone ie Laurel Hubbard.

What was the article OP? Was it an academic one, or explained for a general audience?

When people say things like 'the sex binary is a western patriarchal construction' (usually on social media in support of trans rights) they are picking up on this theory, and the idea that there was a subsequent development (invention?) of a two sex model, and that our way of comprehending sex is a result if that. This is shy Prof hines said on twitter that there was no such thing as a female skeleton before the enlightenment.

It's an interesting area of research but the theory is much more contested & controversial in history than it seems to be in other humanities disciplines.

Agree, to many activist tack on buzz words without understanding what they mean. The “sex binary is a western patriarchal construction” is a perfect example if this because it is just plain wrong. It’s not a construct. It’s not western. And it’s not inherently patriarchal to recognise that there are two sexes (a binary).

The catholics inherited their viewpoint it from the Romans who appropriated it from the Ancient Greeks chain of being. And it’s not about denying women the right to speak about their bodies, it was about denying women all rights and viewing them as inferior to men, on par with a child in intelligence, no soul, further from God, and always subordinate to a male.

And expected access to use of female bodies was an acceptable essential for males. See: gatekeeping vagina, selfishly prioritising own orgasms instead of providing sexual services to male people who need them, and the whole homosexual females must learn to cope with disliked and unwanted sexual experiences which is a social duty for them to provide. Plus all the incel rhetoric, and the pretty much decriminalisation of rape alongside the sentencing in court that often prioritises a desire not to spoil a male's life and prospects regardless of the destruction his actions and choices caused the female person's.

Oh and all the heresy stuff. I often think how reminiscent all that is of the Cromwell years in Tudor England.

@Artichokeleaves
And expected access to use of female bodies was an acceptable essential for males

Yes it was and still is to a lesser extent today. Of course, back then in Ancient and medieval times they had female slaves readily available and of course, wives they also owned. Sex with a slave or wife could not ever be considered rape. There has always been a crime of rape, but in the past, it was not considered a crime against the woman, but a crime against her male guardian. Which is why the texts invariably involve the rapist paying a fine to the father or husband for having “used” his property.

Interestingly though the Greek chain of being held that love between men was more sacred and holy than love between man and woman. Of course love between women was considered to be not sacred at all.

Though ancient Greek thought did not deny the reality of woman as a sex class, they viewed the material reality of women as more like animals; so the hirichy would go; God, Angels/Saints/whatever, Man (and that means Men only), and then the natural world (which includes women and girls and all animals and plants, and Geology (astronomy went with god?)). Nature was very much seen as lesser and base for the Ancient Greeks.
The anomily was really boy children, and there is a lot in Ancient Greek literature about the relationship between Fathers and sons. Ancient Greek men seem to have has a bit of an obsession with their sons overpowering them.
So technically there is a major difference as Genderism in its purest form denyies material reality and vigirously maintains there is NO difference between men and women physically.
But I think there is a paralell between these two philosophies in reality.
The application of Gnederism would/is making it impossible to establish or fight for the advancement of womans rights and though most Genderists would very loudly disagree, there is little to suggest they are not aware of this (the endless threads on here where certain poeple tie themselvs in knots trying to pretend they dont understand issues, issues that are very straightforward, is only one example), these people are generally highly educated ffs.
I am proffoundly sceptical of the claims that Genderism seeks equality between the sexes. There is nothing in its application that would suggest equality is the goal despite what proponents might say. For a start how can you help one catogory if its indistinguishible from the other. The fact there is no pressure on men to 'broaden the bandwidth', there are literally endless examples that show Genderists know very well who is a man and who is not.
Basically what I'm saying is that its a con, though technically aspects of the philosophy are very different, the outcome is the same; the oppression of women, and everyone knows it.
So I think this would have been the same, we dont know how many Ancient Greeks truely believed in their world view, in the same way almost no Genderists truely believe that men are women, its just a way to a means, a method or con that will maintain male supremacy.
In a world where men and woman live, work and love together you need some kind of philosophy that justifies massive inequality.

It does not need to make sense, it just needs to exist, the state sanctioned belief system, there backing up every male bully or man who needs to dominate for whatever reason.

These are just my random thoughts atm.

Linguistics is not the vehicle, it is the driver.

'Woman' and 'Wife' both come from the Anglo-Saxon wifeman, a man's wife.

Though ancient Greek thought did not deny the reality of woman as a sex class, they viewed the material reality of women as more like animals; so the hirichy would go; God, Angels/Saints/whatever, Man (and that means Men only), and then the natural world (which includes women and girls and all animals and plants, and Geology

Very true....
Ancient Greeks chain of being
Zeus, Gods,, Man, Woman, then animals. Boy children were above all women and girl children. They definitely saw women as (only just) above animals, but as you say also much closer to animals than men/boys were.

Romans appropriated this, and when Christianity was a Roman cult, the Roman Catholic Church also inherited it but adjusted it for a monotheistic religion. So that’s where the chain of being changed to
God, angels, men, women, animals. The church expanded the chain of being saying that as men obeyed God, so too should women obey men. And that because men were closer to God, they had souls, were more spiritual and superior to women. Because women were closer to animals than to God, we were ruled by instinct and emotion, had no souls and no intellect. Our purpose was mostly to bring boy children into the world...beings superior to ourselves. And thus women’s status revolved around bearing an heir/boy child even if the boy child is only heir to a modest family bakery.

Ancient Greeks chain of being Zeus, Gods,, Man, Woman, then animals.

Surely it went Zeus, Gods, Greek Men, Greek Women, Barbarians, then animals...

Some interesting thinking OP!

Aristotle (arguably) saw women as inferior men - women were colder blooded and less capable of rationality (as were slaves).

But he still believed in the binary and women still had a distinct biology - just an inferior one!

His thought was at the basis of a lot of medieval thought.

@Jaysmith71

Linguistics is not the vehicle, it is the driver.

'Woman' and 'Wife' both come from the Anglo-Saxon wifeman, a man's wife.

Linguistics isn’t a driver, it’s merely a reflection.

Because there are other languages than English? In which the word woman isn’t a variation on man. And yet the society is still patriarchal

Chinese for example woman is nu-shi and man is nan-ren
French woman is femme and man is homme

Completely different

@Jaysmith71

Ancient Greeks chain of being Zeus, Gods,, Man, Woman, then animals.

Surely it went Zeus, Gods, Greek Men, Greek Women, Barbarians, then animals...

No, don’t think so. Male barbarians outranked Greek women. Because they still married their daughters off to them. Helena and Sandroticus comes to mind which was also inter-racial marriage. Nationality and race didn’t trump the chain of being. You have a penis, you’re part of the club.

...OK, but what about centaurs? Couldn't keep their hooves off Greek women. Were there lady-centaurs?

I hadn't thought about the Genesis account like this before (well, one of those in genesis). But with Adam as the created human and Eve as an afterthought, not her own creation but created from him. Was pregnancy possible in Eden, or was that only after the expulsion? But definitely male as only real human, and female as appendage. The greeks had the male as the one true parent in the trial of Orestes for murdering his mother. How can you have a binary when you have the one true human (male), and a derivative, debased incubator.

Genesis has two competing and mutually contradictory narratives. In G1, God creates humans, "Man and Woman created he them."

But then in G2, God creates Man, singular, and when he starts playing up, God takes a rib and makes him a playmate. And then MAN says, "I shall call you Woman, made of Man..."

@Jaysmith71

Linguistics is not the vehicle, it is the driver.

'Woman' and 'Wife' both come from the Anglo-Saxon wifeman, a man's wife.

rename a wall that means you can walk through it?

or, show me a male giving birth?

How can you have a binary when you have the one true human (male), and a derivative, debased incubator.

It’s still a binary. Both were viewed as human. Think of it like the binary of good and evil. Both completely different from each other. One superior to the other and possessing truth. The other inferior and possessing lies.

That’s why early feminism was about showing men that women are NOT completely different, inferior types of humans. That in many ways we are the same and thus should be equal.

Thoughts:

Ancient Greece was not a monolithic society - there were differences between the city-states and also between different thinkers.

Male slaves in Athens were not part of the 'ruling dick' club.

But with Adam as the created human and Eve as an afterthought, not her own creation but created from him. Was pregnancy possible in Eden, or was that only after the expulsion?

Good Omens definitely has Eve pregnant as she leaves Eden - that's why Azariaphale gave Adam the flaming sword.

Also, don't forget Lilith!

How can you have a binary when you have the one true human (male), and a derivative, debased incubator

Greater and lesser is a binary - so is matter (woman) and form (man).

@Jaysmith71

Genesis has two competing and mutually contradictory narratives. In G1, God creates humans, "Man and Woman created he them."

But then in G2, God creates Man, singular, and when he starts playing up, God takes a rib and makes him a playmate. And then MAN says, "I shall call you Woman, made of Man..."

Yes, lots has been written on this. Rib is known to be a mistranslation, as is the help meet. It was Adams entire side in the original story, he was literally split in two. Which is why other parts of the bible talk about man and wife being two halves of one flesh. Helpmeet waters down the original Hebrew which said “help” in terms of significant, equal, can’t have done without it type help.

G2 has also be extensively embellished over the years to justify subjugation of women.

I feel binary jars with the hierarchy model. And then of course, we have surgery/alteration of the male done by god or by man, so fits perfectly with the single sex hierarchical model.

Plus (mathematical quibble :-) ), how can greater or lesser than be a binary when it excludes equality?

I never thought my half a greek civilisation o-level would be so useful (imposed on us a-level science students by a classics teacher why thought it irresponsible that anyone could leave my school without some classical education!)