Originally posted at some of this must be true by Catherine Orian
There are plenty of good ideological reasons why feminists should work on the assumption that biology plays no role in male violence, such as the fact that it gives men an excuse for bad behaviour, unfairly restricts the opportunities of those exceptional individuals who might “transcend their biology”, and opens up all sorts of other issues to biological explanations, and then we’re back to “poor people are poor because they’re stupid” and “black people are morally inferior” and “get back in the kitchen, woman!” (for the record, I CAN read maps, with no difficulty at all, and I wouldn’t know an emotion if it punched me in the face), and also new things, like “transgenderism”. Or whatever else – it’s a slippery slope. Biological essentialism along these line has traditionally been used to justify the status quo, and it is still being used for this purpose today (just read Cordelia Fine already!): this alone is a good reason to be highly suspicious, especially when there is no proof. And feminists should know this, as much as anyone else. Personally I stand by all these ideological reasons and I think they’re good enough on their own, but just in case they’re not, see above. And if you don’t trust my take on the science, read Delusions of Gender.