Sexual division is neither symbolic nor biological: some notes on Lacan seminar 20

<p>One of the first things that should strike us about Lacan&rsquo;s sexual division is that this difference is not a differential opposition. This is in general the misreading done by poststructuralist or gender theorist today. It seems like Lacan is saying that there exist male or a female position and that the &ldquo;speaking being&rdquo; (<em>parl&ecirc;tre</em>) has simply to situate itself in one. Surely, this is incredibly reductive? I have met many people, even sympathetic to Lacan who then claim: &ldquo;you know what I think I am a bit of both&hellip;and doesn&rsquo;t already Freud refer to the primordial bisexuality of all subjects?&rdquo;. So, to talk, as Lacan does, of two positions, how can this not be a binary? A violent heterosexist normativisations on the primordial polymorphous plurality&hellip;?</p> <p><a href="https://medium.com/@akineo/sexual-division-is-not-symbolic-nor-biological-some-notes-on-lacan-seminar-20-e0539e014fb2"><strong>Read More</strong></a></p>