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’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 “speaking being” (<em>parlêtre</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: “you know what I think I am a bit of both…and doesn’t already Freud refer to the primordial bisexuality of all subjects?”. 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…?</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>