MEGATHREAD:

BOSTOCK, SEX, GENDER, AND LEGAL ANTHROPOLOGY: QUESTIONS FOR THE PERPLEXED
My illegible notes on Bostock v. Clayton County, sex, gender, and legal anthropology are currently in the process of morphing into a legible essay of somewhere around 2,000 words. Hopefully, the end result will soon find a loving home on a website near you.
In the meantime, here are the questions I think people ought to be asking if we are to come anywhere close to understanding why legal regimes around the world are turning their back on the body and embracing something going by the ubiquitous name 'gender.'
There are many leading questions, for which I make no apology.
KNOWLEDGE

FIRST QUESTION: is it possible to know anything? (They get easier!)

If you know X is true, how do you know you know? Said differently: if it is possible to know, what is your knowledge dependent upon?
PERSONHOOD

To get pretty specific, how do you know you are a person? Is your personhood a fact or an opinion? If an opinion, whose opinion counts—yours, somebody else's, or everybody's?
Could you stop being a person? Could another person prevent you from being a person? Could you prevent another person from being a person?
THE BODY

Moving on, ever so slightly. What is the relationship between personhood and embodiment? Is it possible to be somebody human who is not a person? Alternatively, is there such a thing as some human person who is not somebody?
Pointedly, are persons a kind of human, or is it that humans are a kind of person? Neither? Something else? Could you stop being somebody? (You know the drill.)
LANGUAGE

These three beauties help us strip things down to the bare bones:

Which came first: bodies or words?

Which came first: bodies or laws?

Which came first: words or laws?
What is a definition, what is a name, and how do the two relate to one another?
Here's another good 'un: what do we mean when we talk of 'redefining' something? To help crystalize the question, put it this way: what does the word 'sex' mean when it appears in the question, "How do you define sex?"? If it helps, I will be honest and say it's a trick question.
MAN-MADE LAW

Here's a question we don't hear often while queuing at the local supermarket: why does law exist?

Lions know only the law of the jungle. That is true of all earthly creatures bar one. Us humans know parliaments and courtrooms, etc. What makes us so special?
Are we special because we decided to be? Or does our specialness exist independent of both the mind and law? Can we know as a matter of fact that we, of all the animals, are special and deserving of protection in the form of laws?
I might lose some followers here haha

Lawyers may be a sensible first port of call when we want to understand legal developments, but is lawyering the best profession to turn to when we want to know the meaning of the concept called 'law'? If not a lawyer, who you gonna call?
What are the fundamental differences between a physical fact (the existence of a river, say) and a legal statement about the existence of said physical fact? What gives rise to those differences?
Relatedly, is it possible for a government to pass a law that is incorrect? Incorrect according to what standard? Or is it the case that every law is valid simply in virtue of it having been passed by flesh-and-bone lawmakers?
How do lies express themselves in reality? How would a legal lie express itself within law? Would it bleed out into society? Why?
Can law govern you without governing you as somebody? Can law's reason for existence be explained independent of human identity, or is law at the service of humans precisely because the human creature is the kind of thing that deserves to be wrapped in a blanket made of laws?
Can changing one law affect another? Are there laws that can be changed without having any legal knock-on effect? Is there any law that alters all other laws when changed? Why do some legal changes affect no other law, some affect some other laws, and some affect all other laws?
When two concepts belong together, what happens when we separate them in law? (Think: Matthew 19:6: "What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.")
For instance, what would it mean to say there is no connection between the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution?

If language is naturally bound to reality, what would be the effect of disconnecting legal language from everyday language?
COMBINING PERSONHOOD, THE BODY, LANGUAGE, AND LAW

Are personhood and embodiment important to the meaning and nature of man-made law? If yes, why? If no, why not?
What *should* the word 'sex' mean in law, and what *does* it mean? What happens if/when the legal use diverges from the everyday social use? (We might also want to ask what could cause such a divergence.)
Furthermore, do the sexes have names in law? If so, what are those names? Does anything else in law share those names? What would it mean for two things to share one name, and what would it mean for one thing to have two names?
Is it healthy or a hindrance for two concepts to share one set of terminology? When is it healthy, and when is it a hindrance?
What is gender? Does it exist independent of law? For how long has that thing gone by that name, and why is that thing signified by that name in particular https://twitter.com/DNLMDY/status/1256169102818914306?s=20
Can a legal system house within itself two versions of human identity? Why/why not? What are the implications of saying, for example, that this person is legally female in virtue of her body while that person is legally female in virtue of his mind?
When, if ever, is exclusion necessary? Why? How does this rule apply to instances in which X and Y are defined in terms of one another? (EG: what would it mean to include 'dead' within the concept 'living'?)
Applied to human identity, what happens when 'male' is deemed a kind of 'female'?
What is discrimination? Is it always unjust? Do we secure justice through equality by treating like things alike and different things differently, or is treating things differently just not the done thing? Or: is 'equal' the same as 'same,' or is 'equal' equal to 'same'?
What is discrimination? Is it always unjust? Do we secure justice through equality by treating like things alike and different things differently, or is treating things differently just not the done thing? Or: is 'equal' the same as 'same,' or is 'equal' equal to 'same'?
What is discrimination? Is it always unjust? Do we secure justice through equality by treating like things alike and different things differently, or is treating things differently just not the done thing? Or: is 'equal' the same as 'same,' or is 'equal' equal to 'same'?
I've left it late but now a single tweet on abortion, surprisingly:

Is abortion a physical act, a legal Act, or both? What effect does each have, and why?

Which came first: legal abortion or legal recognition of something (what?!) called 'gender'? Is the chronology significant?
FINAL QUESTION, and everybody ought to get this one right: have you retweeted the first tweet in this thread?

Thank you for your patience. You've been a great audience and I've been Daniel Moody END
You can follow @DNLMDY.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.