Linge Ina
University of Exeter, UK.
Hist Human Sci. 2021 Feb;34(1):40-70. doi: 10.1177/0952695119890545. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
This article considers the sexual politics of animal evidence in the context of German sexology around 1920. In the 1910s, the German-Jewish geneticist Richard B. Goldschmidt conducted experiments on the moth , and discovered individuals that were no longer clearly identifiable as male or female. When he published an article tentatively arguing that his research on 'intersex butterflies' could be used to inform concurrent debates about human homosexuality, he triggered a flurry of responses from Berlin-based sexologists. In this article, I examine how a number of well-known sexologists affiliated with Magnus Hirschfeld, his Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, and later his Institute of Sexology attempted to incorporate Goldschmidt's experiments into their sexological work between 1917 and 1923. Intersex butterflies were used to discuss issues at the heart of German sexology: the legal debate about the criminalisation of homosexuality under paragraph 175; the scientific methodology of sexology, caught between psychiatric, biological, and sociological approaches to the study of sexual and gender diversity; and the status of sexology as natural science, able to contribute knowledge about the sexual of the organism. This article thus shows that butterfly experiments function as important and politically charged evidence for a discussion at the heart of the sexological project of those involved in the founding of the Institute of Sexology: the question of the nature and naturalness of homosexuality (and sexual intermediacy more broadly) and its political consequences. In doing so, this article makes a case for paying attention to non-human actors in the history of sexology.
本文探讨了1920年左右德国性学背景下动物证据的性政治。在20世纪10年代,德裔犹太遗传学家理查德·B·戈德施密特对蛾类进行了实验,发现了一些不再能明确界定为雄性或雌性的个体。当他发表一篇文章,初步认为他对“雌雄同体蝴蝶”的研究可用于为当时关于人类同性恋的辩论提供参考时,引发了柏林性学家们的一系列回应。在本文中,我研究了一些与马格努斯·赫希菲尔德、他的科学人道主义委员会以及后来的性学研究所相关的知名性学家,在1917年至1923年间是如何试图将戈德施密特的实验纳入他们的性学研究工作的。雌雄同体蝴蝶被用于讨论德国性学核心的问题:关于刑法第175条将同性恋定罪的法律辩论;性学的科学方法,该方法在研究性与性别多样性时在精神病学、生物学和社会学方法之间摇摆不定;以及性学作为一门自然科学的地位,它能够提供关于生物体性特征的知识。因此,本文表明蝴蝶实验对于性学研究所创立者们性学项目核心讨论而言,是重要且带有政治意味的证据:即同性恋(以及更广泛的性中间状态)的本质与自然性问题及其政治后果。在此过程中,本文主张在性学历史中关注非人类参与者。