Talk:One-sex and two-sex theories

comment
This theory doesn't makes any sense, because it ignores the whole European History and Culture since the Classic Antiquity.

Before the 18 century, men where seen as men, and women where seen as women. And "feminine man" where seen as sodomite (a felony in many countries) and seen as inferior and unworthy. In a warlike society like Ancient Rome, a man 'living like a women' was seen as a man without 'gravitas' and honour. Several emperors, like Nero (I Century AD) or Heligabulus (III Century AD) were criticized by the public because they were allegedly "possessed" by other men. And during the Roman Republica, the accusation of sodomy (in a passive way) ruined the reputation and the career of several roman politicians. Above all, a feminine posture was seen as a wheek atitude. A citizen and a pater familias could not subject himself to other men.

This didn't changed during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

This text says that the french philosopher Montaigne (XVI century) wrote that he considered normal that a group of youg women dressed and lived like men did. But Montaigne was an excepcional man and, more important, he lived in excepcional times (the Renaissance and the french civil wars between catholics and huguenots).

Only 150 years before Joan of Arc was burned by the Inquisition accused, among other crimes and sins, of dressing men clothes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.121.226 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It actually doesn't matter if the theory "makes any sense" to you. If it is a WP:notable theory, it deserves to be included in WP. The WP:template currently at the beginning of the article should probably be removed. Be careful not to contribute WP:OR. David spector (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's notable (a point on which I reserve judgment), then sure, it can have an article even if it's plain nonsense. But the plain nonsense, like the claim that [p]rior to the eighteenth century, it was a common belief that women and men represented two different forms of one essential sex, should be presented as part of the theory, not as fact. --Trovatore (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The politics of sexuality highlight the instability of truth claims in this argument. Laqueur's ideas have been heavily disputed; however, the distinction between sexual dimorphism versus complementarity is useful in tracing the history of sexuality, especially as it is linked to gender hierarchies.Kt1960 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The article contains a warning that the factual accuracy of it is being disputed. That's not true. Nothing in the original post here disputes whether the theory has been correctly explicated, just whether the theory itself is correct, which is not a matter of factual accuracy. Alfred Rosenberg's racial theories make no sense to me, but if they are being correctly reported in the article on him, then the article is not inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.90.37.67 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two different "theories" at stake, though. Laqueur's theory is covered by the phrase "one-sex two-sex theory." But that's followed by a discussion of his concept of a "one-sex theory" and a "two-sex theory" as if those things (or the distinction between them) actually has a historical reality. Many scholars (and not only a few weird misogynists spouting off here) would dispute whether Laqeuer's description, in particular, of what he calls a one-sex model (or theory) has much basis in historical reality. It's really Laqueur's theory that a one-sex theory was prevalent before the 18th century that's being presented, yet the article presents "one-sex theory" and "two-sex theory" as both equally viable, essentially uncontested truth. I would argue that the historical existence of a "one-sex theory" has been drastically overstated by Laqueur's "one-sex two-sex theory." This article presents itself as not merely a description of Laqueur's idea, but also as a straightforward account of a historical reality (the historical prevalence of one-sex theory). I think it really is very slanted, very poorly written, and full of strange and sometimes misogynistic statements ("There were endless struggles for power and position occurring between and among women"??? Articulate men were the ones who brought about biological evidence to support the notion that women were "unfit for the chimerical spaces that the revolution had inadvertently opened"????) Ichnography (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream Scientific/Historical Views on this Theory?
I think it would greatly behoove the article to include a section on the mainstream views of the One Sex/Two Sex theory by the scientific and historical community. I think it is fairly common for articles on theories and hypotheses to have sections on responses and the general reception by the general scholarly community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Three cheers for sweet revenge (talk • contribs) 06:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. The one-sex/two-sex theory that Thomas Laqueur argued for was criticized by many writers such as Joan Cadden, Michael Stolberg, and Helen King. Helen King published a book in 2013 titled The One-sex Body on Trial: The Classical and Early Modern Evidence. King cites this Wikipedia article, see Introduction, footnote 54 on page 14, says Thomas Laqueur's Making Sex were summarized in this article but no criticisms were offered. That was 2013, and it's 2019 now and still no mention of criticisms. (I've got a dissertation to finish, so one of the watchers of this article should get writing.) So here's a quick list of the critics, there are others: Saqeram (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Helen King. 2013. The One-Sex Body on Trial: The Classical and Early Modern Evidence. Farnham: Ashgate. 978-1-4094-6335-1
 * Joan Cadden. 1993. Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture. Cambridge University Press.
 * Michael Stolberg. 2003. "A Woman Down to her Bones. The Anatomy of Sexual Difference in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries." Isis, 94: 274-299.

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I
— Assignment last updated by 24potatoes (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Section reorganization?
Currently, the article seems to be organized as if treating Laqueur’s one-sex and two-sex theories as a historical account rather than theories based on interpretation of historical sources. Starting with a history section, in particular, makes it seem like the one-sex/two-sex theories were recorded historical facts with a chronological timeline, when these models were retrospectively constructed by Laqueur from historical sources. The section organization currently present seems to follow the organization of Laqueur’s book, but it’s not clear within the overall structure of the article as a standalone text that this is the case. As a result, I’m thinking that the ambiguity about Laqueur’s theory as historical reality pointed out in previous threads could be resolved by restructuring the article more along the lines of something like a book summary, to make it clear that all the information presented here is Laqueur’s interpretation. Some rudimentary reorganization I’m thinking of might look like the following:


 * Combine sections 1 to 4 under one section titled something like Making Sex or Summary, i.e. something indicating that the information present is from Laqueur’s book
 * Make the existing section titles from 2 to 4 into subsections of the overarching Making Sex section, and remove the repetitive one-sex theory/two-sex theory divisions currently present
 * Any additional sections could be dedicated to other authors’ treatments of one-sex/two-sex theories whether they are responses to Laqueur or related discussions of the topic (if at some point the criticism section is expanded further, it could be broken up into these additional sections) 24potatoes (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)