“How convincing is Lacquer’s one-sex model as an explanation for early modern understandings of sexual difference?”
‘Sexual difference’ in early modern Europe is a blurred concept. Controversially in 1990, Lacquer’s theory contended the development of understanding of sexual difference could be simplified in a one-sex model. Lacquer argues preceding the 18th Century early modern society believed in a common sex according to their genital homology, the only perceived difference was position of the genitalia. Lacquer proclaims such understanding was hegemonic up until 1750, when biological dimorphism was discovered emerging his two-sex model. The crux of the question debates whether it is possible to compact early modern understandings into a model and if theory of ‘homology’ can convincingly explain an understanding of sexual ‘difference’. One must analyse the ability of Lacquer’s first model to explain how sexual difference was understood prior to the 18th century, according to definitions associated with medical theory, visual appearance and reproductive roles. In debating the model’s reliability it is recognised that the authority of his argument rests on the shoulders of giants in medical history namely Galen, Hippocrates and Aristotle. Yet Lacquer’s model is criticised as chronologically inaccurate and too reliant on ancient theories, which had lost their stronghold on popular understanding of sexual difference. Stolberg reasserts sexual dimorphism existed long before the date attributed by Lacquer’s first model. Cadden adds perceptions of sexual difference in the Middle Ages were much more diverse than Lacquer’s narrow account argues. Understandings of sexual difference overlapped and cannot be attributed to two clear phases as Lacquer proposes. Induced by recent discourse over the validity of the one-sex model, one must contest Lacquer’s argument which thrusts a linear schema upon early modern Europe to explain the understanding of sexual...