In this course, we have been carefully
considering the concept of gender, how it is culturally situated, and how it is
created through public acts of performing selves, themselves informed by
cultural ideologies of gender. Now, for your final post, reflect on what you
have learned about the relationship of gender and language—what knowledge have
you gained thus far?
After your reflection, consider the
relationship of the body to gender by reflecting on Laqueur’s idea that
sex and gender are both “staged” according to cultural understandings of them:
- How
does a discussion of the body complicate or enhance a discussion of
gender?
- How
does the film Is it a Boy or a
Girl enhance our understanding of this relationship? Be
sure and bring in examples.
- Where
would you put the body in a theoretical understanding of gender and
language?
The inclusion of biology in the discussion of gender
necessarily complicates and enhances
the context. Research efforts such as those we see in “Is it a boy or a girl”
and Laqueur’s works illustrate, increasingly, the nature of sex, gender and
sexuality as interconnected spectrums rather than dualities. So few things in
nature are dualistic; it should be no surprise that there is little about
humans that is dualistic. If forced to guess, I would hypothesize that the body
is the platform for these three things. In one sense the body might be the
necessary and hugely influential structural framework for gender and sexuality.
Simultaneously, the body might be just
the platform, from which any picture might emerge, depending on the other
components.
With as much time as I have spent in the genderqueer,
transgender, and intersex communities – either because of my identity or
through my work – it seems that the body must be an active component of gender
and sex (and sexuality). However, it’s equally apparent that the body does not
play the role it is assumed to play by our dominant cultural gender ideologies.
The role of the body is not cut-and-dry, nor is it dualistic in any sense. Even
intersex might not be best described
as ‘part boy, part girl,’ as sometimes happens in conversations. Rather, it
could possibly be said that we are nearly all
intersex to some degree, because nearly all of us fall short of the hegemonic
gender ideals – there are no real Barbies and Kens, in other words.
Is it a boy or a girl
highlighted the very interesting position that doctors are placed in when a
child is born which is visually intersex (not all intersex individuals have
external indications of being so – some are not discovered until the autopsy).
At 3:52 of part 3 (as viewed on youtube – links below), the narrator begins a
discussion of two people’s effort to instigate legislation against
sex-assignment surgeries done during infancy. At 4:12, the narrator begins a somewhat-paraphrased
quote of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ official position on the practice:
in full, that quote is, “research on children with ambiguous genitalia has
shown that a person’s sexual body image is largely a function of socialization,
and children whose genetic sexes are not clearly reflected in external
genitalia can be raised successfully as members of either sexes if the process
begins before 2 1/2 years.” The sentiment behind that quote seemed somewhat
dated (after all, “Doctor” Money’s work has long been known to be a travesty of
false pretenses at best). Some snooping around on the AAP website revealed that
they have actually updated their official position on the evaluation and
management of intersex ‘disorders.’ Their new policy does reflect the more
recent findings concerning the biological basis of gender, and subsequently
they no longer support the erroneous claim that “a person’s sexual body image
is largely a function of socialization.” (Links to the articles relevant to my
findings are listed below.) I was mollified by their updated policy statements;
it seems they are moving more toward an evidenced-based approach and away from
the previous hegemonic ideology-based approach.
Is it a boy or a girl?
– youtube version:
Intersex Society of North America – 1996 stance of American Academy
-
“Research on children with ambiguous genitalia has
shown that a person’s sexual body image is largely a function of socialization,
and children whose genetic sexes are not clearly reflected in external
genitalia can be raised successfully as members of either sexes if the process
begins before 2 1/2 years.”
-
At this time, the AAP made the potential fertility of
the infant their primary decisive factor in determining the gender of the
infant; surgery was performed to “correct” any aspect of the infant’s sex which
might cause them to appear other than the sex which was most likely, in that
individual, to prove fertile.
AAP revised policy (2000) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/2/e488
-
Still based on potential fertility; removes direct
language concerning malleability of gender to social constructs, but indirect
language remains and no counter statements are offered (this revision seems
more political than functional).
AAP revised policy (2006) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/2/e488.full.pdf
-
Acknowledges limitations sociocultural as well as
genetic influences on gender development of intersex people; seems to be a
functional step forward.
Also, for more information on John Money’s experiments with
gender, this is a decent starting point (after wikipedia): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01541983?LI=true
No comments:
Post a Comment