{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021341463414634148, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007113821138211382, 'mean_word_length': 4.726744186046512, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 6, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The sword and the bridge The anatomical and the political in conceptions of sexual difference

R a d i c a l P h i l o s o p h y 1 0 6 ( M a r c h / A p r i l 2 0 0 1 ) Although texts dating from antiquity, particularly those of Aristotle, see the issue of sexual difference as one of a set of themes relating to sovereignty – domination of the other or self-control – it is generally recognized today that these domains are relatively separate. Questions concerning the differences between men and women have been left, in the main, to the anthropological disciplines: sociology, ethnography, psychoanalysis or medicine. A question arises, however, in relation to psychoanalysis in particular: in retranscribing what it has learnt from scientific disciplines, is psychoanalysis entirely free of all philosophical prejudice or ideological choice? Has the question of sovereignty been surreptitiously reintroduced in the presumptions of psychoanalysis in relation to sexual difference?