Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLinge, I
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-19T08:52:17Z
dc.date.issued2020-06-04
dc.description.abstractThis 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 Lymantria dispar, 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 Konstitution 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.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipWellcome Trusten_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 4 June 2020en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0952695119890545
dc.identifier.grantnumber106653/Z/14/Zen_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumber106654/Z/14/Zen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/121531
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2020. Open access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).en_GB
dc.subjectanimal studiesen_GB
dc.subjectgender studiesen_GB
dc.subjectGerman studiesen_GB
dc.subjecthistory of sexualityen_GB
dc.subjectsexologyen_GB
dc.titleThe potency of the butterfly: The reception of Richard B. Goldschmidt’s animal experiments in German sexology around 1920en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2020-06-19T08:52:17Z
dc.identifier.issn0952-6951
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from SAGE Publications via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalHistory of the Human Sciencesen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-07-30
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-07-30
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2020-06-19T08:20:47Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2020-06-19T08:52:22Z
refterms.panelDen_GB
refterms.depositExceptionpublishedGoldOA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s) 2020. Open access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © The Author(s) 2020. Open access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).