Sexual Topology

Galen’s theory that the sexual organs were related by analogy, converted into a mnemonic for medical students (as reproduced in Siddhartha Mukherjee’s The Gene). It will confirm everyone’s worst suspicions, but that can’t be helped.

Though they of different sexes be
Yet on the whole, they’re the same as we
For those that have the strictest searchers been
Find women are just men turned outside in.

Mukherjee adds the question: … what force was responsible for turning men “inside out,” or women “outside in,” like socks?

April 1, 2017admin 15 Comments »
FILED UNDER :History

TAGGED WITH : , ,

15 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Femininity turns masculinity outside-in because while masculinity is goal-oriented, femininity is context-oriented. Thus what seems obvious to a male is missing, and what a male will never notice gets addressed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 1st, 2017 at 12:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • smg Says:

    April Fools.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 1st, 2017 at 1:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Admin is definitely trolling ol Jimbo with this one. Or agreeing with him, who knows. The reference to socks couldn’t be a coincidence.

    Anyway, if the sexes arouse whoops I mean arose in simultaneity then the inversion metaphor isn’t applicable–or rather, it’s merely a metaphor.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 1st, 2017 at 2:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • AMK Says:

    Did you read my article? lol
    http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2017/01/outside-in-testicle-hole.html

    [Reply]

    Garr Reply:

    Unable to comment on your latest, and have unsubscribed, due to your gratuitous reference to “‘Israel-first’ type conservatism” — I thought you were better than that, but I guess it’s hard to resist the “accept me, boys!” impulse. Good luck in the Muslim world you welcome.

    [Reply]

    AMK Reply:

    Sorry for the butthurt. And ‘Israel-first’ type conservatism is most assuredly a type of cucking when practiced by non-Jews. And no, this is not a plea for acceptance.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 1st, 2017 at 6:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • cyborg_nomade Says:

    feminism = capitalism after all

    [Reply]

    AMK Reply:

    No

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 1st, 2017 at 9:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Is this a pink sock joke?

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    I had that thought too. I imagined Foucault and Deleuze at a “naked party” and Foucault’s innards suddenly slinky out of his anus. Deleuze, pointing to the glint of metal encased between two purple veins exclaims, “Hey! My car keys!”

    [Reply]

    Saturday Reply:

    Just the Topological Inversion Principle.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 2nd, 2017 at 1:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    Mukherjee is a hack. Before his book on genetics was released, a lengthy excerpt was published in the New Yorker. This is a very normal sort of Big Publishing publicity stunt, and would be completely unremarkable were the excerpt not loaded with epigenetic nonsense — explicitly false, misleading, “progressive science.” Serious scientists had quite a lot of fun ridiculing the excerpt. Jerry Coyne and Mark Ptashne, in particular, took Mukherjee to task. The backlash eventually forced the publisher to edit and clarify the sections on epigenetics.
    …But the fact remains that Mukherjee writes about things that he does not understand, and we can be absolutely certain that he does not understand them, so the book is sure to be loaded with subtly false and misleading information. No question about it. Caveat lector.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s not without problems, but it also has a lot of strengths. (That’s probably without having reached the epigenetics section yet.) Having seen a lot of extremely dismal neo-Lysenkoist BS in my time, this book definitely isn’t to be included among it (at least, 400 pages in). I’d recommend it, with only very minimal caution.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    I enjoyed it. One needs only spend a day with the sorts of research tweeted by NewPeerReview to find Mukherjee strangely refreshing, if not quite up to Quilette-levels of publicly acceptable crimethink.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 2nd, 2017 at 6:30 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    “… what force was responsible for turning men ‘inside out,’ or women ‘outside in,’ like socks?”

    The force that through the green fuse drives the flower –

    http://fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~tanatar/theforce.htm

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 2nd, 2017 at 10:42 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment