J.K. Rowling and the White Supremacist History of “Biological Sex”

submitted by Chunkeeguy from radicalhistoryreview.org

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Shinjin_Nana 26 insightful - 8 fun26 insightful - 7 fun27 insightful - 8 fun -  (5 children)

White people invented biological sex. I just can't XD

[–]Realwoman 12 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

Yep, reproduction happened in a mysterious way prior to white colonization. New humans just emerged from somewhere.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 7 insightful - 7 fun7 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

They used to innocently spring out of the ground like Tolkien Dwarfs into a pre-colonialist disease free utopia.

Then the White Nation attacked.

[–]JoeDzhugashvili 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So white people are why the birds and the bees?

[–]Jizera 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Reproduction didn't happen at all, new humans were fully socially constructed, reconstructed and finally deconstructed. The society actually precedes existance of individuals. In the beginning there was only society but it was empty.

[–]Realwoman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, basically intelligent design is the truth and evolution is a lie and a white supremacist idea

[–]usernamezerozero 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

WTAF is this garbage and how did it get published?

[–]fuckingsealions 18 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sexologists believed that if one examined a white lesbian’s labia or clitoris, one would find the atavistic traits of the “Hottentot.”

This whole paper is a bingo of CITATION NEEDED.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm actually becoming concerned about sending my kid to college now.

[–]sisterinsomnia 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I get a report for a dangerous website at that link.

[–]Spikygrasspod 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, I actually read this. It sounds like some racist white scientists said that white people were more differentiated in their secondary sex characteristics, which they were so desperate to prove that they measured people's arses. So when the article is talking about 'biological sex' they're not even talking about reproductive roles & organs, they're talking about body shape. No wonder they're confused.

[–]anfd 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It looks like the author is using the Combahee River Collective Statement (1977) out of context when he says:

"The Combahee River Collective, a prominent group of Black lesbian feminists active in Boston from 1974 to 1980, strongly opposed political, moral, and medical discourses about “biological maleness” or “biological femaleness” [...] The Collective states, “We know that there is such a thing as racial-sexual oppression which is neither solely racial nor solely sexual.” Combahee further stresses, “we do not have the misguided notion that it is their maleness per se—i.e., their biological maleness—that makes [men] what they are. As Black women we find any type of biological determinism a particularly dangerous and reactionary basis upon which to build a politic.”"

While the part about "racial-sexual oppression which is neither solely racial nor solely sexual" seems hardly relevant to the case he tries to make (to me it sounds just like a straightforward statement about the ABC of the intersectionalist approach), the part about biological maleness in the Statement is in the context of criticising lesbian separatist views, and to me it seems biological determinism is rejected in that context, i.e. against lesbian separatist views and for cooperation with men (at least black men) to dismantle oppression. Here's the relevant paragraph in full:

"As we have already stated, we reject the stance of Lesbian separatism because it is not a viable political analysis or strategy for us. It leaves out far too much and far too many people, particularly Black men, women, and children. We have a great deal of criticism and loathing for what men have been socialized to be in this society: what they support, how they act, and how they oppress. But we do not have the misguided notion that it is their maleness, per se — i.e., their biological maleness — that makes them what they are. As BIack women we find any type of biological determinism a particularly dangerous and reactionary basis upon which to build a politic. We must also question whether Lesbian separatism is an adequate and progressive political analysis and strategy, even for those who practice it, since it so completely denies any but the sexual sources of women's oppression, negating the facts of class and race."

[–]Sebell 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, thanks for finding the full quote. Something that is so clearly "gender identity is not innate, it is taught through socialization" - and they try to twist it to be supportive of innate gender identity...

[–]fuckingsealions 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A decent committee should bring the potential misinterpretation up but, not to be glib, it sounds like universities prioritize making sure no one's feelings are hurt now.

[–]Greykittymomma 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A dude wrote this piss poor article, figures. He goes on and on about totally unrelated crap for paragraphs yet can't tell us why her tweets were transphobic. He just wanted more eyeballs with that shit title. JK Rowling is pissing off the morons and I'm laughing at how hard they try to have a point.

[–]Sun_bear 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

They have written this about the Combahee River Collective:

The Combahee River Collective, a prominent group of Black lesbian feminists active in Boston from 1974 to 1980, strongly opposed political, moral, and medical discourses about “biological maleness” or “biological femaleness” due to these discourses’ simultaneously racist, sexist, homophobic, and classist implications and histories. In 1978, the collective wrote the famed Combahee River Collective Statement to clarify and define their political views and to offer a broad, inclusive vision for the feminist movement. In the statement, biological sex is clear target of analysis and conceptual un-doing. The Collective states, “We know that there is such a thing as racial-sexual oppression which is neither solely racial nor solely sexual.” Combahee further stresses, “we do not have the misguided notion that it is their maleness per se—i.e., their biological maleness—that makes [men] what they are. As Black women we find any type of biological determinism a particularly dangerous and reactionary basis upon which to build a politic.”

I would interpret this quote as being first about intersectionality - there are multiple interlocking oppressions. Women of colour are constrained by both sexism and racism. How does the author of this piece think sexism works if there is no biological sex hmmn?

Then there's the second bit which seems to me to be along the same likes as Simone de Beauvoir's "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." I am unsure if TRAs deliberately misinterpret these critiques of socialisation or if legitimately they just don't understand.

I also found this on the Wikipedia page for the collective:

" We are particularly committed to working on those struggles in which race, sex, and class are simultaneous factors in oppression."

Looks like the Combahee River collective actually did believe in biological sex, in fact it was their mission to dismantle the oppression they faced, partly because of the existence of biological sex...

[–]anonymale 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Then there's the second bit which seems to me to be along the same likes as Simone de Beauvoir's "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." I am unsure if TRAs deliberately misinterpret these critiques of socialisation or if legitimately they just don't understand.

With apologies to Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get a TIM/TRA to understand something when his glittery gender specialness, lady-penis access rights and career depend on his not understanding it. Also many of them are as thick as pigshit.

[–]JoeDzhugashvili 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Don’t you realize that it was European colonialist white supremacists that warped human reproduction to require a male and female?

I see

[–]7of99 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because none of our evolutionary ancestors going back two billion years before modern humans had biological sex. It's not as if organisms that diverged from our path on the tree of life LONG ago, such as plants, have biological sex. No. It was the white Europeans who invented it, and no other population on the planet saw the utility in classifying people by reproductive sex, or they couldn't figure out how to sort people into these mysterious classes. Apparently.

Human beings go to astounding lengths to overcomplicate the simple and oversimplify the complicated.