The History of Sexual Anatomy and Self-Referential Philosophy of Science

In this essay I provide a case study of the self-referential self-destruction that befalls a social constructionist historian of science who espouses a radical philosophy of science. I focus on one of Thomas Laqueur's eminent texts in the history of biology in arguing that a social constructionist approach to the history of science aligned with a Kuhnian-Duhemian-Quinean philosophy of science is incoherent. I make the point by probing in detail this one text. I then turn, more briefly, to the phenomenon as it occurs in the work of the well-known feminist historian and philosopher of science, Evelyn Fox Keller. The social constructionist of the history of science cannot have his or her historical cake and eat it philosophically as well. 1. Francis and Frances How many sexes are there in Homo sapiens? The obvious answer to this question, which every child knows before kindergarten, is "two. " The female has a vagina, ovaries, fatty breasts, and whatever else anatomically and biochemically accompanies them. (Her long hair and Barbie doll do not count.) The male has a penis, testes, and is, in general, larger. (The grime under his fingernails and toy guns do not count.) Of course, there are unclear or ambiguous cases: some humans are anatomically deficient or abundant, and so members of neither sex or of both. 1 Despite these congenital anatomical oddities, the biological categories "female " and "male " are fairly solid, unlike the more contentious categories "gender, " "sexual identity, " and "sexual orientation. " And even though the intellectual and moral similarities of the human male and female are greater than the differences between them, and the transvestite and transsexual confuse us, we usually have no difficulty recognizing two easily distinguishable sexes, the ordinary guys and gals that inhabit our everyday environment. Nor do we have much trouble, with a little coaching, picking out male and female hamsters and turtles