The “science of sex” began from the premise that sexuality can be understood scientifically and objectively, without regard to political or moral implications.
Thank you so much for presenting your research to us. This historical record is so helpful in understanding where so much of the arrogance and misogyny of transactivism comes from: as male-oriented systemic bias that invites amplification by personal animosity.
Plus zero interest in or concern for actual women or children... of course. A pretty ugly combination, true to its founding fathers.
Thank you so much for reading my work—and supporting it as well!
An interesting point about sexology, which you note, is exactly the way in which systemic male bias effectively prejudices research methodology.
Subsequent posts on my Substack will include text and close analysis of early figures in sexology, like Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902) and Iwan Bloch (1872-1922). There are some interesting points in their work, some that are more worthwhile in retrospect. For instance, there was Krafft-Ebing’s view of transvestism as fetishism, understood more in terms of pathological behavior, in contrast to Hirschfeld’s more “identity”-based view of it. And Bloch had some interesting notes on misogyny, although, like Ellis et al., he located woman hating in more fringe examples, like the Marquis de Sade and Otto Weininger. It was easier to imagine the true misogynists were the most obviously misogynistic men, cases like Sade and Weininger, rather than be self-reflective.
Thank you so much for presenting your research to us. This historical record is so helpful in understanding where so much of the arrogance and misogyny of transactivism comes from: as male-oriented systemic bias that invites amplification by personal animosity.
Plus zero interest in or concern for actual women or children... of course. A pretty ugly combination, true to its founding fathers.
Thank you so much for reading my work—and supporting it as well!
An interesting point about sexology, which you note, is exactly the way in which systemic male bias effectively prejudices research methodology.
Subsequent posts on my Substack will include text and close analysis of early figures in sexology, like Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902) and Iwan Bloch (1872-1922). There are some interesting points in their work, some that are more worthwhile in retrospect. For instance, there was Krafft-Ebing’s view of transvestism as fetishism, understood more in terms of pathological behavior, in contrast to Hirschfeld’s more “identity”-based view of it. And Bloch had some interesting notes on misogyny, although, like Ellis et al., he located woman hating in more fringe examples, like the Marquis de Sade and Otto Weininger. It was easier to imagine the true misogynists were the most obviously misogynistic men, cases like Sade and Weininger, rather than be self-reflective.