Gender studies: confessions of a dangerous man
If I had been told twenty years ago that the victory of my side was going to be so decisive in the ideological battle over sex and gender, I would have jumped for joy. At the time, I spent many evenings debating gender and identity with other students - or with anyone who was unlucky enough
to be in my company. I kept saying, "Sex does not exist. I knew that, that's all. Because I was a historian of the genre.
In the North American history schools of the 1990s, it was also the ultimate. The history of gender - and, more generally, gender studies in the rest of the academic world - was a set of identity-based sub-disciplines then in full swing in liberal arts campuses. According to the 2007 and 2015 specialization surveys conducted by the Association of American Historians, the largest numbers were in the history of women and gender, closely followed by social history, cultural history and racial and sexual history. So many domains share with me the same vision of the world: that virtually all identities
are only a social construction and that identity is only a question of power.
At the time, a lot of people were not of my opinion. Anyone - almost everyone - who was not exposed to these theories at the university had a hard time believing that sex was a social construct overall, so much was it against common sense. But today, my big idea is everywhere. In debates on transgender rights and the policy to be adopted regarding trans athletes in sport. In laws threatening sanctions anyone would suggest that sex could be a biological reality. For many activists, such a statement amounts to hate speech. If you defend today the position of most of my opponents at the time - that gender is at least partially based on sex and that there are basically only two sexes (male and female), as biologists have known since the dawn of their science - the super-progressives will accuse you of denying the identity of trans people, and thus of wanting to cause ontological damage
to another human being. In this respect, in its breadth and speed, the cultural shift is staggering.
to be in my company. I kept saying, "Sex does not exist. I knew that, that's all. Because I was a historian of the genre.
In the North American history schools of the 1990s, it was also the ultimate. The history of gender - and, more generally, gender studies in the rest of the academic world - was a set of identity-based sub-disciplines then in full swing in liberal arts campuses. According to the 2007 and 2015 specialization surveys conducted by the Association of American Historians, the largest numbers were in the history of women and gender, closely followed by social history, cultural history and racial and sexual history. So many domains share with me the same vision of the world: that virtually all identities
are only a social construction and that identity is only a question of power.
At the time, a lot of people were not of my opinion. Anyone - almost everyone - who was not exposed to these theories at the university had a hard time believing that sex was a social construct overall, so much was it against common sense. But today, my big idea is everywhere. In debates on transgender rights and the policy to be adopted regarding trans athletes in sport. In laws threatening sanctions anyone would suggest that sex could be a biological reality. For many activists, such a statement amounts to hate speech. If you defend today the position of most of my opponents at the time - that gender is at least partially based on sex and that there are basically only two sexes (male and female), as biologists have known since the dawn of their science - the super-progressives will accuse you of denying the identity of trans people, and thus of wanting to cause ontological damage
to another human being. In this respect, in its breadth and speed, the cultural shift is staggering.
Thank you for your visit