(photo from PostSecret)
Fausto-Sterling’s chapter on how gender and sex are linked (or not) raised interesting issues about the ways in with intersexuality both undermines and upholds the two-sex system and the implications that system has had on the development of gender identities. Again, Fausto-Sterling points out the ways in which, although intersexuality suggests an alternative to a sex binary, its status as an abnormality that must be fixed only reaffirms the two-sex system. Its existence subverts the system while also galvanizing society’s desire to uphold it.
However, as Fausto-Sterling points out, one of the problems with ‘fixing’ intersexuality is arbitrary nature by which the ‘solution’ is chosen and the consequences inherent in the complexities of gender and sexuality. In particular, she takes issue with the use of sex-assignment surgery on infants in the name of social convenience, especially when those surgeries can have unintended complications once the child reaches puberty and attempts to construct his or her own gender identity. While such surgeries claim to be saving the patient from years of feelings of being freakish or like an outcast, it could also needlessly condemn them to a life in which their body does not match their gender identity.
Of course, the easy way out would be to unravel the social constructs that make intersexuality ‘freakish’ in the first place. However, such attempts bring up important questions about the nature of gender identity. Fausto-Sterling cites scientists who argue whether children are socialized into a given gender identity or whether that identity is essential to them. While the reality is probably some compromise between the two, that some intersexuals who are assigned and socialized as one gender, but continue to manifest traits that are stereotypically linked to the other seems to undermine the importance of nurture and instead acknowledges the existence of an innate sense of self.
We argue and accept that most gender norms are socially-born—that is, boys behave the way they do because they’re told that’s how boys behave, and girls behave the way girls are told that they’re supposed to. This assertion begs the question: how is it possible for a person of a given sex, who is socialized as the ‘correct’ corresponding gender, to identify with gender identity characteristics that belong to the opposite sex? Is it a matter of wanted to express oneself as the ‘other’? Because mainstream views of gender and sex are essentially binary, does a person who feels ill at ease with their body adopt and identity of the opposite gender because it is the only option they see open to them?
The more I think about this issue the more I realize that it is endlessly complex. However, it is further complicated by the existence of ‘feminine’ males and masculine ‘females’—be they heterosexual or homosexual—who have developed their identity without the ambiguities of intersexuality and against the grain of the norm. Again, gender identity seems to be essential to a person, despite the fact that gender norms as we understand them are definitely socially constructed, and unique to a given culture. Even when people are obviously transgressing gender boundaries, those transgressions are often limited to—and can only be defined in terms of—the gender norms that we understand.
And yet these gender norms have been created by labeling certain characteristics of either masculine or feminine. For example, a girl who plays aggressively or does not exhibit nurturing characteristics is said to be boyish, while a boy who enjoys playing with dolls or getting dressed up may be seen as girly. However, are any of these traits essentially, biologically masculine or feminine? Is it possible to see oneself as a women despite not displaying typically feminine characteristics? Does that make you boyish or less of a woman than those styled in a more classic definition of femininity?
Fausto-Sterling takes these questions a step further, by including the question of sexuality. Some of the studies she cites seem to suggest that intersexualism is only ‘cured’ when the patient is ultimately heterosexual and able to perform ‘normal’, heterosexual sexual acts. Indeed, the very basis of some sex-assignment surgeries is on whether or not a boy would be able to perform as expected in heterosexual intercourse because that is seen as the privileged form of sexual expression. However, is there anything inherently masculine about being attracted to women? Or inherently feminine about being attracted to men? All this categorization is hugely problematic because it is so marginalizing. It suggests that lesbians are not real women because they are sexually masculine and gay men are not real men because they are sexually feminine. Of course, this excludes all sorts of sexual and gender identities, such as classically feminine lesbians or masculine gay men, as well as straight women who are more masculine than feminine or any other combination of sexual and gender identities.
However, at the end of the day, all these classifcations would be essentially meaningless if not for the hierarchy in which they are embroiled. There would be no need to classify sexual or gender identities, if not for tendency to marginalize those that deviate from the norm.
The interplay between sex, gender, and sexual orientation is particularly complex, as we’ve already shown and Cal’s narrative helps illuminate. Cal says of his initial gender identity: “I was brought up as a girl and had no doubts about this” (Eugenides 226). During puberty, Cal experiences feelings for “The Object”, but is still is unaware of the genetic mutation passed along by the Stephanides family. Cal asks, “why should I have thought I was anything other than a girl? Because I was attracted to a girl? That happened all the time” (388). Despite the confusion that surrounds both of them, homosexuality and intersexuality are not the same, nor are they mutually exclusive. It is undoubtedly more complicated because it depends on how sex is defined (which, as we have seen, has shades of gray that are not appreciated by our language), but it only becomes an issue when we are attempting to attach a label to a person. Fausto-Sterling writes: “If intersexuality blurred the distinction between male and female, then it followed that it blurred the line diving hetero- from homosexual. Might one, in the course of treating an intersexual, end up creating a homosexual?” Throughout the course of history, people have had the desire to “fix” both intersexuality and homosexuality, although neither merits nor necessitates such “fixing.” In these cases though, one’s categorization is dependent on unclear definitions.
ReplyDeleteThe question I continue to ponder is more practical. Theoretically speaking, we all agree that we are limited by our binary system, our language, our beliefs about what is the norm, etc. We say that intersexed babies should no longer be “fixed,” but perhaps should be raised in a gender neutral fashion until they can decide a gender for themselves (or do they even have to decide upon one?). Maybe I am pessimistic, but I find this unrealistic. What would you do if this baby were your child, sibling, friend, etc.? The temptation to make the problem “go away” is certainly a strong one, and one that is aimed not only at alleviating our own discomfort, but that of the intersexed individual as well. Of course, all of this pressure and uneasiness could be alleviated by restructuring our society, but history has shown that we are a society that is very often resistant to change. Related to this is Fausto-Sterling’s discussion of resources for parents of intersexed children: there are none. There is no one there to help them make the decision or understand the possible ramifications for their child. Why not? Because our society has silenced those who are intersexed. Fausto-Sterling estimates that approximately 1.7% of all births are intersexed. While small, this is still a substantial enough portion of the population that we ought to be aware of its existence! Perhaps if we began to choose a path other than the one of least resistance and instead begin to speak out, we could raise awareness, and in doing so, lessen unfamiliarity. The unknown is what is scary-- we label out of fear and out of the need to know our place. Perhaps the first step then is to break the silence, in the hopes that acceptance will follow shortly thereafter.
You bring up a good point here...a point that I somewhat addressed in my post.
ReplyDeleteWhy is our society so fixated on categories? The ultimate solution could be to get rid of sex, gender, and sexuality all together. Then these problems wouldn't really exist. But would society ever become so radical to erase all forms of catagorization? I like identifying as a woman both biologically and socially...I wonder if I, along with the rest of humanity, would be able to embrace a new world where no categories exist. It's difficult to imagine...
I agree that the combination of understanding Cal's gender, sex, and sexual orientation is very confusing but also very enlightening. Not only does this character have to deal with the feeling that s/he was not born the right sex, but also as though s/he is not attracted to the appropriate sex. Although this is confusing because it is often difficult to separate the two, I think it is smart that the author acknowledges both struggles: the struggle to fit into a gender category as well as a category of heterosexual or homosexual. In a society where labelling is so important, people feel the need to fit into categories in both areas, which often leads to insecurity and unhappiness because in reality, those categories do not always apply.
ReplyDeleteI still find myself often thinking about the parents of these children who are born without a certain sex. Sterling discusses how this is a lot more common that people are willing to admit. Parents have a very small window to decide which gender they want their child to be. As if this isn't already an extremely stressful situation, doctors do not seem to help parents; most people don't know just how common this situation is, and they aren't put in touch with any other parents who have experienced this because the situation is "fixed" so quickly that it is hard to keep track. Making these parents feel as though they are alone and dealing with a rare situation isn't helpful...if we want people who are born without a specific gender to be accepted in society we have to stop making it seem as though it only happens once in a blue moon and acknowledge how common it actually is.
This got me thinking about nature vs. nurture. Some people argue that if a child is born intersexed and the parents "choose" to raise them a girl, they will become a girl. What if the opposite occurs? Some parents choose to raise their children gender neutral...does this mean that those children have innate characteristics that will adapt them to the sex they were born with without parental influence? It's hard to say.