Some interesting historical "sexology" fragments (SIHSF).
Reading old scientific papers about sex, sexuality, gender, and so on, in light of contemporary understandings and debates is fascinating to me. I'll share just a few of the quotes that I find quite interesting.
Content warning for the sorts of casual prejudice and insensitivity you might expect from cishet male doctors and scientists in the 1950s writing about these topics.
SIHSF.
Here's a section from a 1957 paper explaining the five different biological aspects of "sex", based on studies of intersex people.
Interesting because I often see people treat this as if it's recent knowledge, when it's not. In an earlier paper the author even treats it as well known to experts, but to my annoyance I cannot access that paper anymore.
MONEY, J. (1957). Imprinting and the Establishment of Gender Role. Archives of Neurology And Psychiatry.
SIHSF. cw: old term for "intersex", nb erasure.
Actually that's the same author who introduced to the world the idea of a distinction between "sex" and "gender". Well, here he is later explaining the reasoning behind this distinction. I suppose we have the "strain" on the "etymological stem" of "sex" to thank for it?
Money, J. (1973). Gender Role, Gender Identity, Core Gender Identity: Usage and Definition of Terms. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis.
SIHSF. cw: casual homophobia.
Here's a 1948 lecture describing a natural basis for homosexuality. Interesting especially for referencing the presence of homosexual behavior in other mammals.
BEACH, F. A. 1948a. Sexual behavior in animals and men. Harvey Lect. Ser.
Quoted in:
Diamond, M. (1965). A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology
OCR Output (chars: 1339)
@Thyme
... . laws are violated by the homosexual in-
dividual but to describe his behavior as
‘unnatural’ is to depart from strict accuracy.
The zoological evidence shows that female
mammals frequently display masculine coital
behavior when confronted with sexually re-
ceptive members of their own sex. This
has been observed in more than a dozen
species and undoubtedly occurs in many
others not yet studied. . . . The physiological
mechanisms for feminine sexual behavior are
found in all males and those for masculine
behavior exist in all females. The same stim-
uli that elicit feminine copulatory reactions
in the female will, under appropriate con-
ditions, produce similar reactions in many
males; and the stimulus configuration evok-
ing masculine responses in males is the one
which most effectively calls forth these same
responses on the part of the female. Human
homosexuality reflects the essential bisexual
character of our mammalian inheritance. The
extreme modifiability of man’s sex life makes
possible the conversion of this essential bi
sexuality into a form of unisexuality with the
result that a member of the same sex eventu-
ally becomes the only acceptable stimulus to
arousal... .
Human sexual life is not unique in its sus-
ceptibility to modification. . . . (Beach, 1948a
[emphasis added.] ).
SIHSF. cw: heteronormativity and intersex erasure.
This chart is fascinating to me. Note: A is Money's theory, while B is what the author favors. Note at least the following:
a) That this concept of "physchosexuality" (basically both gender and sexuality) is clearly shown as a spectrum, and
b) That social and cultural factors play a role in imposing limits on this spectrum.
Diamond, M. (1965). A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology