What seems to be missing in much of the debate surrounding Harvard President Larry Summers’s comments concerning biological differences between men and women is a recognition of two points long recognized by many feminists: The irrelevance of biological differences between the sexes, and the political significance of a continued emphasis of such differences.

Feminists have noted the pernicious effects that societal conclusions based on supposed biological differences, have had on women. Women have been excluded from sports, manual labor, and science and math careers, based on their biological differences from men, when in fact such differences do not tell us that women cannot perform effectively in these and other endeavors.

The French philosopher Simone deBeauvoir wrote in the 1950s that the tendency to attribute an inferiority of women to natural differences made those differences appear intransigent -- when in fact technological advances like computers or robotics make many of these so-called differences irrelevant.

So, the general consensus among feminists has been that biological differences have no meaning in themselves, and that it is the societal and cultural conclusions drawn from supposed biological differences which have led to differences we might later measure between the performance between girls and boys in areas like math and science. This is a conclusion that Dr. Summers apparently wants to question.

However, we cannot read Dr. Summers’s comments as neutral, or harmless, or even part of an enlightening debate. The tenor of his argument is that women’s intrinsic lack is a lack of rational ability. The objectivity of his argument is supposedly demonstrated by his call for evidence to contradict his position, but how can women provide the evidence to do that if they are deemed inferior in such reasoning capabilities?

The position that women lack specific rational abilities is one that marginalizes and silences them. Opponents to Dr. Summers’ position are objecting then to this effort to disqualify dissent. This is a political not an empirical objection.

When such an argument is cloaked in the garb of science, it fails even to take responsibility for itself as a political position. As such, it attempts to clear a space for the voices of some by silencing the voices of others.

Dr. Karen D. Csajko teaches political theory at Winona State University, Winona, Minnesota

###