Abstract

Despite the public conversation and the voluminous discussion of sex and gender in academia, there is little systematic analysis of precisely what those terms mean, or how we should understand what it is to be male or female, or men or women per se. The discussion is somewhat divided between those who would point to our chromosomes or gametes to settle the matter, and others who focus on culture and discourse which they claim are the proper starting point for understanding gender. Outside of studies in the history of philosophy and contemporary Thomistic circles, Aristotle very rarely comes up in this debate, except as a kind of whipping boy for anti-essentialists in their rejection of a neo-essentialism which Aristotle does not even represent. The reasons for this are clear enough: his outdated biology and misapplied metaphysics lead to a disastrous account of sexual difference with women viewed as a kind of natural failure. In spite of this, I propose that his developed conception of nature with its form-matter composition continues to provide a fruitful way to understand sexual difference and can, in fact, be integrated with a contemporary biological understanding of sexual development and the mechanisms that differentiate men and women. While a small number of Thomists have partially rehabilitated Aristotle through Aquinas in regard to the metaphysical classification of sexual difference, this thesis will expand upon the limited defence of a contemporary Aristotelian account of sexual differentiation, and, in particular, will highlight his hierarchical conception of living things as a means to understand sexual difference. This hierarchical conception of living things is an important aspect of Aristotle's philosophy of nature which remains almost entirely unexplored in its application to sexual difference. I contend that it permits us to recognise our animality and humanity in their fullness. Viewing sexual difference through this lens provides a firm grounding for gender difference in our sexually differentiated bodies without reducing us to animals but instead elevating that which we share with other living things. While this theoretical study does not aim to settle current disagreements over claims about sexual difference and still less does it provide any policy suggestions, a sound anthropology which recognises our dual nature as men and women can provide a more secure basis for further reflection and argument.