Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 15:51:09 +1000 (EST)
From: Gwen.Nettlefold-AT-phil.utas.edu.au (Gwen.Nettlefold)
Subject: Re: genetics and gender


On 7/9/96 Stephen Slap wrote:

>What does everyone think about the implications of this study?  I am very
>interested in continuing the thread about bodies, and the extent to which
>our access to them (including our own) is determined by the dissemination
>of discourse.
>
>"Harvard University researchers have uncovered a chunk of the genetic
>code necessary for a mother to nurture her young. The scientists found
>that when they bred mice with a defect in the gene known as fosB, the
>mice did not properly nurture their babies. This is the latest study
>to demonstrate a chemical basis for important brain activities. For
>the full story see
>http://hawaii.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=208.ns.55913"

I believe that this study - and others like it - only tends to reinforce
such essentialist deterministic notions of sex female and it's association
with gender female. Women give birth, breastfeed and therefore femininity,
which is always mutually exclusive from masculinity, implies nurturing.
And now it is substantiated by genetic (scientific - dualistic - research)!


What happened to the male rats subjected to the same experiments?  And how
does a rat (never introduced to 'culture') differ from a human (who cannot
escape 'culture' which is bound up with discourse)?

So I think you're on the right track when you question the discursive
construction of bodies.  How else can we understand bodies, conceptualise
bodies, except through discourse.  Do bodies exist without concepts?

Hmm dunno,

gwen