Follow Up

When a child is born intersex there are an exponential number of questions that run through the minds of parents and doctors. However, they have a mere 24 hours to decide the sex of the child. You can either make the child a boy, or a girl. But, it is not that easy. Sterling writes, “If making a boy is hard, making a girl, the medical literature implies, is easy. Females don’t need anything built; they just need excess male subtracted. As one surgeon well known in this field quipped, 'You can make a hole but you can’t build a pole (59).'” You can get rid of a penis or a clitoris and create a hole, but it is much more difficult to build a penis.

When the sex of the child is determined it is very important that the parents are behind the decision and the sex of the child one hundred percent. “A child’s body parts had to match his or her assigned sex. While such anatomical clarity was important for the young child, Money, the Hampsons, and those who followed their lead argued, it was even more important for the child’s parents. As Peter Pan might have said, 'they had to believe' in their child’s gender identity to become real. Hampson and Hampson write: “in working with hermaphroditic children and their parents, it has become clear that the establishment of a child’s psychosexual orientation begins not so much with the child as with his parents (64).” Parents are a support system, and if they do not fully support their child’s gender then he or she will grow up unsure about who he or she is. Kids listen to their parents, they rely on them and if parents of an intersex child do not support their child’s gender then he or she will be faced with many issues throughout his or her life. If parents believe in the gender, then there is a good chance that the child will believe in his or her gender as well. The child needs to be raised as a single sex, not as both male and female. Sterling says, “Nurture matters a great deal more than nature (46).” If the child is raised as one sex, with no questioning, then there is a good chance that he or she will believe in his or her sex.

Most people are terribly concerned with their physical appearance, how others see them. So if a child is born intersex it is more important that the genitals look right rather than function correctly. “Can the surgery convince parents, caretakers, and peers—and, through them, the child him/herself—that the intersexual is really a male? Most intersexual males are infertile, so what counts especially is how the penis functions in social interactions—whether it 'looks right' to other boys, whether it can 'perform satisfactorily' in intercourse. It is not what the sex organ does for the body to which it is attached that defines the body as a male. It is what it does vis-à-vis other bodies (58).” If a boy were to go into a bathroom and not be able to use a urinal like other boys, then he would know that he was different and other people would surely recognize it. Also, if a girl were to go into a bathroom and use a urinal people would immediately know something wasn’t right, that the girl was different from other girls. In order for someone to feel male or female, he or she must have the correct parts even if they are not entirely functional. In the case of intersex people, appearance is more important than function.

It’s not fair for society to classify male or female. To put a person into a “cubbyhole” and define people by their gender isn’t right. Colleen says it perfectly: “There would be no need to classify sexual or gender identities, if not for tendency to marginalize those that deviate from the norm.” Simply because someone doesn’t fall into a gender category shouldn’t mean that he or she is not normal. We should be accepting of everyone no matter his or her gender.

22 Feb: Gonads, and Gender and Genitals! Oh my!

(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.

Follow Up

From the very second we are born we are declared either a girl or a boy. We are put into a pink onesie or a blue onesie. The baby’s crib and room will be decorated for a boy or for a girl, and presents from family and friends will be picked out based on the gender of the child. Boys will most likely receive toy trains, cars, footballs, baseballs, and trucks—things that are defined as masculine. On the other hand, girls will receive presents such as dolls, dress-up clothes, stuffed animals, jewelry, and play baby carriages—things that are regarded as feminine. As Meghan pointed out, in her post, there are only two boxes that one can check—male or female. And you can’t check both.

What happens when that line is blurry? What happens when a child is born neither a female nor a male? It puts both the doctors and the parents in a confusing place. Should the baby be labeled a male or female? What happens if they pick the wrong sex and the child grows up and feels like a female but has the parts of a male? Then what? Eugenides writes, “I was born twice: first, as a baby girl, on a remarkably smogless Detroit day in January of 1960; and then again, as a teenage boy, in an emergency room near Petoskey, Michigan, in August of 1974 (3).” The confusion that would come with this is immeasurable. To be born one gender and feel like another must be the scariest thing in the world. You don’t know what to do, your parents don’t know what to do, and you’re different than everyone else.

When I was in elementary school there was this girl in my grade who looked a lot like a boy. She had short hair, and a masculine-looking face. She often played sports with all the boys during recess and was constantly mistaken for a boy. As time went on and we all grew up this girl began to dress in a more feminine way, do more girly things, and play less with the boys and more with the girls. Society constructed her. While this girl clearly had a vagina, and wasn’t born a hermaphrodite, she still struggled when she was young. Teachers would constantly be unsure if she was a boy or girl. They were confused about which bathroom to take her to. So while the girl grew out of it, she still seemed to struggle with gender confusion when she was young. While this is nowhere near as extreme as being born with both female and male genitals it’s still a tough way to grow up.

The harassment that gender-confused children, as well as adults, go through is terrible. He or she all ready has enough to deal with; there is enough confusion in their life. They didn’t choose this for this to happen; they were born this way. We should be helping them, embracing them, not making them feel as if they’re not normal. There’s no such thing as normal, anyway.

Intersexuality and "Multiple Births"

Society has engrained in us that there are only two sexes: male and female. We can only check one of these boxes; we are one or the other. However, a greater continuum or spectrum of sexuality exists, which can be difficult for us to comprehend. What does it mean to be intersexed? Jeffrey Eugenides’ Middlesex tells the fictional tale of Calliope/Cal, whose individual narrative will help us to place the societal and personal ramifications of intersexuality into context. Cal, who currently identifies as a man but was born as a girl, introduces his condition: 5-alpha-reductase deficiency syndrome. He clarifies: “I’m not androgynous in the least. 5-alpha-reductase deficiency syndrome allows for normal biosynthesis and perhipheral action of testosterone, in utero, neonatally, and at puberty. In other words, I operate in society as a man” (Eugenides 41). However, even in his life as man, he must take precautions in order to protect himself from other people’s (likely negative) reactions: “I use the men’s room. Never the urinals, always the stalls. In the men’s locker room at my gym I even shower, albeit discreetly” (41). He also shares that are moments where he is plagued by his past: “Suddenly there she is again, doing a hair flip, or checking her nails. It’s a little like being possessed…” (41).

The disorder is autosomal recessive, so Cal traces his family history to explain inbreeding may have contributed to the presence of this genetic mutation . What will be particularly interesting to see unfold is what Cal refers to as his multiple births: his initial birth as a baby girl, a second as a teenage boy, and now possibly a third as a grown man. How can Cal navigate these transitions within a society that is so unwelcoming of difference?

Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Sexing the Body, offers a more academic approach to this issue of sex as a binary system and considers the manner in which different cultures throughout history have addressed intersexuality. She explains that European and American cultures have long been devoted to this idea because the state and legal systems demand such a divide: distinctions based on who is male versus female determine who can vote, own property, claim inheritances, etc. As a result, medical history shows that many intersexed individuals have been coerced into surgery to “fix the problem.” Fausto-Sterling explains: “the individual him/herself shared with medical and legal experts the right to decide which sex prevailed but, once having made a choice, was expected to stick with it. The penalty for reneging could be severe. At stake was the maintenance of the social order and the rights of man (meant literally)” (Fausto-Sterling 36). How do you choose what gender to be? How is Cal able to change his identity from female to male? What will the reactions of his family and peers be? What will it mean to his personal identity development?

After explaining the various definitions of “hermaphrodite” that have existed throughout history and the corresponding political and social underpinnings, Fausto-Sterling concludes on a slightly different note. She writes: “Deepening understandings of the physiological bases of intersexuality combined with improvements in surgical technology began to enable physicians to catch most intersexed individuals at the moment of birth. The motive for their conversion was genuinely humanitarian: a wish to enable individuals to fit in and to function both physically and psychologically as healthy human beings” (Fausto-Sterling 44). This crusade against intersexuality was waged with (some) good intentions: people have a strong desire to fit in and to be a part of the group. History has shown that these individuals who are ambiguous in terms of gender have been met with confusion and sometimes disgust; is it crazy to want to help people avoid such a lifestyle? However, Fausto-Sterling continues: “But behind the wish lay unexamined assumptions: first, that there should be only two sexes; second, that only heterosexuality was normal, and third, that particular gender roles defined the psychologically healthy man and woman” (44). We are still trapped by these ideas of norms. Instead of forcing people to fit into one of two narrowly defined boxes, why can’t we expand the options and being to accept people as they are?

News Flash!: 'Real' Bodies

Every day, women in the Western world are exposed to images of impossibly perfect female bodies. Pert breasts, taught stomachs, lean legs; they permeate our culture and guide our discussions about beauty and body appreciation. However, this ‘ideal’ body image shepherds women towards a narrow standard of beauty that is often impossible to achieve. No where is this more obvious than in print images, where women’s bodies are manipulated and distorted to achieve an ideal image. Thanks to the pervasive practice of extensive Photoshopping, the ‘ideal’ body is no longer be bound to the limits of how a real woman looks.

As a result of the impossible bodies that advertisers and magazines constantly flaunt, women are told to aspire to a standard of beauty that does not even exist in a flesh-and-blood form. Recently, however, French parliament member Valérie Boyer proposed legislature that would require all advertisers who use retouched photos to mark the images as such. According to a New York Times article , Boyer proposed the regulations after she considered how images of perfect, computer-sculpted bodies affect her teenage daughters. "Today, we are forced to imitate bodies that do not exist, and this affects people, especially women," she notes, adding that the ultimate goal of the legislation would be to make obvious the unrealistic nature of these images.

Through this law, Boyer hopes to soften the impact of these perfect images by revealing them to be essentially unattainable. They are fantasy, and as such are not legitimate goals for flesh-and-blood women who live in a decidedly real world. However, opposition to the proposed legislature argue that it is precisely this sense of fantasy that allows the image to transcend reality, to offer a kind of paradise that elevates it above the everyday. The ability to retouch a photo, they argue, is just one tool in the artist’s arsenal and to take it away would be to undermine the validity of that art form.

While this rhetoric is compelling—and I can certainly understand the use of artistic retouches in certain contexts—it ignores the fact that the photo retouching this legislation seeks to expose does not attempt to make an artistic statement, but rather attempts to sell a perfected facsimile of reality as reality itself. It is the retouching that is subtle enough to not undermine the realism of the photo that is most problematic because the image masquerades as reality. For example, this ad by Dove, entitled ‘Evolution’ shows the extensive transformative efforts put into a more or less realistic image of a an attractive woman. The final image is constructed in such a way that the hours of labor put into achieving it become invisible. As a viewer, we do not see the work by the hair and makeup crew or the Photoshop effects employed to make her eyes larger and her face slimmer. Instead, we simply see an attractive woman. When used in advertising, this image performs the role of an idealized self—what we could be if we were a little thinner or wore the right makeup or had the right hair products.

The use of excessively retouched photos in advertising reveals how impossible standards of beauty tie into a capitalist ideology. As Levy writes in Female Chauvinist Pigs, “hotness has become our cultural currency, and a lot of people spend a lot of time and a lot of regular, green currency trying to acquire it.” (p. 31) As such, it makes sense that advertisers would opt to use heavily re-touched photos to promote their product, especially in beauty or athletic industries, which capitalize on the public’s concern with obtaining a certain image. These industries advertise themselves as being able to provide women (and to a lesser extent men) a means to attain desirability as it is defined by mainstream culture. However, by defining the look of desirability with an image that is unattainable (i.e. retouched), they also ensure that that standard will never be met and thus perpetuate the need for their product.

Those opposed to the proposed legislation, however, are quick to reframe retouching in a softer light. In this CNN piece, Elle creative director Joe Zee argued that he “would never drastically alter someone's body, change their hair color, move a neck, or whatever it is. It's really about cleaning up skin tones and looking beautiful.” While French fashion photographer Dominique Issermann refuted claims about the dangers of retouching by pointing out that she actually added weight on to waifish Kiera Knightly for her Chanel photoshoot. (Erlanger, 2009) While both Zee and Isserman maintain that they do not retouch photos drastically or to achieve an overly slender look, they fail understand the issue with the principle of retouching. Whether it adds curves or removes blemishes, it still manipulates a real female body, only to turn around and sell that manipulation as reality, without any disclosure as to its falseness.

By increasing public awareness about the extent to which photos in print media are manipulated, it may be possible to reveal the fantasy of ideal beauty and thus ease anxieties about reaching that standard. However, I feel that Boyer’s proposed legislation is treating only one symptom of a greater problem. The fact remains that, whether or not they are retouched, the women we see in print media conform to a narrow definition of what it means to be physically attractive. By idealizing this particular brand of attractiveness, other styles and body types are marginalized. For example, many women—even in their peak physical condition—will never have the same body type as the tall, thin models that pervade most advertising. Whether these images are Photoshopped or not, they perpetuate an ideal of beauty that is unattainable for a good number of women.

Ironically, the very media outlets that reinforce these narrow standards also voice the rhetoric of inclusiveness and self-confidence. Pick up any women’s magazine and you’ll see headlines about being confident in your skin alongside articles about how to slenderize your stomach and tighten your jiggly thighs. The messages women recieve about their bodies today are a schizophrenic jumble of girl power confidence boosters and beauty manuals with an appalling subtext of body shaming. While Boyer’s proposed legislation is a step in the right direction, it remains only a small move towards a more inclusive view of beauty and sexual attractiveness.

References

Erlanger, Steve. “Point, Shoot, Retouch and Label?.” New York Times. 9 Dec 2009. < pagewanted="1&_r="1">

Evans, Tom. “Von Furstenberg: ‘Beauty is Health’.” CNN. 11 Feb 2010. <>

Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs. New York: Free Press, 2005.

Response

How far is too far? Is there such a thing as too much feminism? In my eyes, I entirely respect Jennifer Myhre, but I do think that her actions were a bit drastic. Myhre writes, “So to christen my rebirth, I quit shaving my legs. I threw away my high heels and my tight skirts, my makeup and my jewelry. I grew out my armpit hair, and I talked like a women with a mission (86).” While this act is absolutely fantastic and took a great deal of courage, it seems a bit extreme. I strongly believe that women should have the same rights as men, that gender should not play a role in how men and women live their lives. But, I do not find it necessary to grow out my leg hair and armpit hair. I can have the same beliefs and support women’s right while wearing makeup and jewelry and high heels. I do not need to look masculine to support gender equality. I love high heels and pretty dresses and getting my nails done, but I also love gender equality. Just because I like doing “girly” things does not mean that my beliefs are any less important than someone who does not enjoy doing “girly” things.

Our culture is filled with sex. In many ways, sex is our culture. A person’s sexual orientation defines them, and also has the power to define their life. Ariel Levy writes, “But in the scene, what you like and what you do and who you do it to are who you are (120).” The world that we live in is so focused on who were hooking up with or who we’re sleeping with that often times sex becomes the most important thing in one’s life. Here at Colgate, hooking up is casual, where people hook up with numerous people in one night. When I wake up Saturday morning, after going out Friday night, the first thing my friends ask one another is, “Who did you hook up with last night?” They don’t ask how their night was or what they did, just who they did. And you hook up with apparently tells a lot about who you are and what you’re standards are. We should not be so concerned with who we’re doing but rather what we’re doing. There are so many things that are more important than sex; that’s what our time and energy should be focused on. Makeup and hair and sex are little things-- gender equality is what’s important, it’s the most important.

Lead Post 2/16: The Many Shades Between Black and White

The readings for tomorrow’s class were very interesting, and showed how complex and confusing sex and gender can be. I have learned in many classes how sex is biological, and gender is socially constructed. Though gender is, without a doubt, socially constructed…these readings also indicated that sex isn’t always so black and white, male or female.

Specifically for lesbians, coming to terms with a certain type of identity is far more complicated than I ever realized. Ariel Levy introduces us to “bois” who, she says have “nothing to do with goddess or sisterhood or herbal tea, and everything to do with being young, hip, sex positive, a little masculine, and ready to rock” (121). Unlike those who are butch and seen as manly and responsible, being a Boi is seen as more of a “boy,” who hasn’t grown up yet and is instead ready to party and hook up. Bois are more similar to teenage boys who are toying with their identities…the label is far more flexible than other labels before it. While most people are used to either very femme lesbians or very butch, a producer for Dyke TV stated that “everything in our world is set up as a dichotomy and I just feel like that’s so limiting” (127).

In the article “One Bad Hair Day Too Many” by Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre, Myhre discusses the experience of shaving her head, which she says is a “constant slap in the face to those who believe that the boundaries between masculine and feminine are clear and rigid, inherent and right” (86). Myhre discusses how even some lesbians feel as though she gives them a bad name. In our society, dichotomies are truly everywhere. Myhre brings to light that there isn’t always straight/lesbian, butch/femme, or even male/female. There are so many levels of in-between that need to be accepted just as anyone else.

The first chapter of “Dueling Dualisms” takes a practical approach and reveals how even biology cannot even explain male and female differences. Sterling states, “The more we look for a simple physical basis for ‘sex,’ the more it becomes clear that ‘sex’ is not a pure physical category” (4).

Overall, these articles show just how difficult it is for many people to know their own identities because society is constantly trying to categorize everything and everyone. If a girl who is not yet “mother-age” cuts her hair short, she is immediately assumed to be a lesbian. If a college aged male chooses to carry a bag instead of a handbag, he must be gay. Labels are everywhere and we can’t help but assign them and try to find universal truths and patterns…but this is exactly what gets us in trouble. We need to learn to see people as individuals, not members of groups. If we are able to do this as a society, then differences won’t be differences anymore…they will just be characteristics that make up individuals…and perhaps things like sexism, racism and homophobia will cease to exist.