---
title: "One-sex and two-sex theories"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sex_and_two-sex_theories"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:09.694090+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== Calls to move beyond the framework ===
Critics have noted that Making Sex achieved widespread influence partly because its binary framework offered a conveniently simple narrative for scholars across disciplines. As historiographical surveys have observed, the neatness of Laqueur's story—one era, one model, replaced by another era, another model—made it highly exportable, even as specialists in the history of medicine increasingly found it inadequate.
Monica H. Green's 2018 article in Eugesta titled "Let Go of Laqueur" called for scholars to move beyond the one-sex/two-sex framework entirely and develop more nuanced histories of how bodies have been understood as sexed across different times and cultures.

=== Laqueur's response ===
In a 2003 response to Stolberg, Laqueur argued that isolated pieces of evidence for sexual dimorphism in Renaissance anatomy do not undermine his thesis, since individual observations do not discredit prevailing worldviews. He maintained that the fundamental epistemological shift he described—from sex as reflecting metaphysical truths to sex as biological foundation for gender—remained valid regardless of when specific anatomical differences were first noted.

== Influence and legacy ==
Despite the scholarly criticisms described above, Making Sex has remained widely cited, particularly in gender studies, literary criticism, and cultural history. The book helped establish the broader argument that sex, like gender, has a history shaped by cultural and political contexts rather than being a timeless biological given. This broader insight has proven productive for scholars even when they reject Laqueur's specific historical claims.
The ongoing debate over Making Sex also illustrates broader methodological questions in the history of science: how to interpret historical texts without imposing modern categories, how to balance sweeping narratives against the complexity of historical evidence, and how disciplinary popularity can sustain a thesis despite sustained criticism from specialists.

== See also ==
History of biology
History of medicine
History of sexuality
Sex and gender distinction
Social construction of gender
Thomas Laqueur

== References ==

=== Citations ===

=== Works cited ===

== Further reading ==
Fletcher, Anthony (1995). Gender, Sex and Subordination in England 1500–1800. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-06531-2.
Harvey, Karen (2002). "The Century of Sex? Gender, Bodies, and Sexuality in the Long Eighteenth Century". The Historical Journal. 45 (4): 899–916. doi:10.1017/S0018246X02002728.
Schiebinger, Londa (1993). Nature's Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0813535319.