note: press F11 to maximize browser window

note: press ⇧⌘F to maximize browser window

previous | | **2.1.6** (101) | contents

*fig.6—both classes juxtaposed across both axes*

Having attempted to situate the crucial subset of sex and/or gender terms according to *either* biological *or* cultural constraints, the resulting schemas appear simplistic. However, if we *vertically* twist the corners of the* fig.4* grid into *fig.6*, we juxtapose both types of differentiation. By departing from Aristotle’s unilateral hierarchy of vertical subalternation, the potential picture becomes more dynamic and complex. The result marks out a dissymmetrical (mirrored) matrix of strong contraries stated in uniformly *positive* terms, without the Greimasian (formal, morphological) contradictions stated in *negative* terms. Next, to test both theoretical integrity and practical utility of all three *Squares*, we seek out the metaterms. Whether or not they all produce matching pairwise oppositions, we may draw meaningful inferences from the three attempts. Each pair of neighboring corner *terms* should suggest a metaterm that merges each pair of *concepts*; if a *Square* is well-formed, the results will then oppose *each other* in two pairs along the X and Y axes.

index | ** 2.1.7** (102) | | next

*fig.7—sex-and-gender ambiguities as ‘double-positives’*

In *fig.7 *we return to the *fig.4 *grid: at either end of the X-axis, gendered columns *self-affirm*, as each particular affirms its universal: a masculine male is a ‘manly man’; a feminine female is a ‘womanly woman.’ At the apex, the universals conform a doubly positive term that *affirms* *its own otherness*: A person with both male and female *biomorphy* is hermaphroditic (or lexical commutations gynandromorphic or even ‘intersexed’). At the nadir, the particulars also affirm by superposition: one who displays culturally defined masculine and feminine traits is androgynous. Thus, the X-axis marks the contradiction of manly and womanly, as each superposition self-affirms; the Y-axis stresses the disjoint of ‘culture’ from ‘nature’ by *opposing* terms which are often mistaken for *equivalent*. The result highlights the complex differentials within *positively-constituted* *ambiguities*: hermaphroditic traits are biologically predetermined—yet they may remain covert, while androgynous traits are culturally (post-)determined—thus are by definition overt.

previous | | **2.1.6** (101) | contents | index | next

*fig.6—both classes juxtaposed across both axes*

Having attempted to situate the crucial subset of sex and/or gender terms according to *either* biological *or* cultural constraints, the resulting schemas appear simplistic. However, if we *vertically* twist the corners of the* fig.4* grid into *fig.6*, we juxtapose both types of differentiation. By departing from Aristotle’s unilateral hierarchy of vertical subalternation, the potential picture becomes more dynamic and complex. The result marks out a dissymmetrical (mirrored) matrix of strong contraries stated in uniformly *positive* terms, without the Greimasian (formal, morphological) contradictions stated in *negative* terms. Next, to test both theoretical integrity and practical utility of all three *Squares*, we seek out the metaterms. Whether or not they all produce matching pairwise oppositions, we may draw meaningful inferences from the three attempts. Each pair of neighboring corner *terms* should suggest a metaterm that merges each pair of *concepts*; if a *Square* is well-formed, the results will then oppose *each other* in two pairs along the X and Y axes.

previous | | **2.1.7** (102) | contents | index | next

*fig.7—sex-and-gender ambiguities as ‘double-positives’*

In *fig.7 *we return to the *fig.4 *grid: at either end of the X-axis, gendered columns *self-affirm*, as each particular affirms its universal: a masculine male is a ‘manly man’; a feminine female is a ‘womanly woman.’ At the apex, the universals conform a doubly positive term that *affirms* *its own otherness*: A person with both male and female *biomorphy* is hermaphroditic (or lexical commutations gynandromorphic or even ‘intersexed’). At the nadir, the particulars also affirm by superposition: one who displays culturally defined masculine and feminine traits is androgynous. Thus, the X-axis marks the contradiction of manly and womanly, as each superposition self-affirms; the Y-axis stresses the disjoint of ‘culture’ from ‘nature’ by *opposing* terms which are often mistaken for *equivalent*. The result highlights the complex differentials within *positively-constituted* *ambiguities*: hermaphroditic traits are biologically predetermined—yet they may remain covert, while androgynous traits are culturally (post-)determined—thus are by definition overt.