Sex-Determination and Difference in the One-Sex Model
In many respects, the idea of a one-sex model embraces the concept of similarity and equality. If the only differences between men and women are the directions in which their reproductive organs are turned it seems harder to draw lines between them. This current paper on sex determination by Eugene S. McCartney, however, shows that a one-sex perspective can also be divisive and produce inequality. McCartney focuses on medical practices thought to bring about the birth of the desired sex, which seems to suggest that understanding sex to be more malleable and continuous allows for the creation of inequality between the sexes.
According to a modern understanding of mammalian sex determination, biological sex is left up to chance. Chromosomal divisions are random, and the distribution of an X or Y chromosome from father to baby leaves little up to the parents’ wishes. This model of sex determination is not the same according to ancient interpretations of a one-sex bodies. According to the one-sex model, male and female are differentiated by the amount of heat present in utero, and the side of the body that is used: a battle between mother and father for the correct balance. These differences leave more potential for the parents to take charge of the future sex of their child.
In this article, McCartney explains many of the reasons that male children were preferred in the ancient world. Among other reasons, male children were a more secure source of help in old age, and a direct line to future generations in the practice of honoring ancestors. This summary is followed by explanations of a variety of medical teachings and tests assured to guarantee the conception of the desired sex, including plant based concoctions and the eating of roasted veal, rooster or chicken testicles to ensure the birth of a son. All of these practices are qualified with explanations of the potential medical reasons why a woman might not always be capable of gestating a boy. On the contrary, McCartney also presents the opposite superstitions that are of use when it comes to raising livestock. In this scenario, female animals are the most profitable as they are the ones that will later contribute to increasing the farmer’s stock.
While these medical practices teach us plenty about one-sex conceptualizations of the body and the perceived differences between the sexes, I think that they raise even more important questions about the need to differentiate between groups of people. In essence, maleness becomes a position that must be earned. The focus on diet and treatment bears striking similarity to Cato and other ancient physicians, implying that being female is something requiring medical intervention. McCartney introduces ideas that suggest that perceptions of difference were furthered by the creation of detailed theories on manipulating sex determination. In order to maintain social constructions of gender roles, new divisions and practices were needed to confirm social distinctions where physical ones weren’t believed to exist.
Work Cited:
McCartney, Eugene S. “Sex Determination and Sex Control in Antiquity.” The American Journal of Philology, vol. 43, no. 1, 1922, pp. 62–70., www.jstor.org/stable/289330.
