Gender Malleability and its Ethics

            Elizabeth Reis on Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex, discusses the implications of the early convictions about gender from the beginning of America’s history. This history of intersex, (someone who has both male and female genitalia), is often a taboo topic in our culture. Reis does a fantastic job of providing a concise picture of this history. The history of intersex begins with depictions of early Americans who were discovered to have ambiguous genitalia, and therefore were labeled “monsters.”  Fear of deception and homosexuality reinforced that the gender system was naturally a binary. Surgeries were conducted to the deviant people who had genitalia that did not specifically fit into the definition of what was said to be female or male. From analyzing the case studies of those who had unclassifiable reproductive parts, doctors seemed to believe that they were “curing” the monsters that were living among them. What I was the most fascinated with, however, was Reis’ chapter titled “Psychology, John Money, and the Gender of Rearing in the 1940’s, 1950,s and 1960’s.” The 40’s was a turning point for the history of intersex. Rather than surgically altering someone’s body to the doctor’s conviction of if the person should identify as male or female, doctors began to listen to their patients. Psychology began to play an important factor; “as psychology became more integrated in the medical canon, doctors evaluated patients’ attitudes, expectations, and conduct and then molded their bodies to match their patients’ sense of themselves as male or female, regardless of gonads.” (116) Even though patients now had more of a say in their gender identity, what are the ethics behind parents making the decision for their babies, considering the obvious fact that babies cannot give their consent to any surgical procedures done to them? Even if intersex children do not have a surgery done, shouldn’t they be able to access their medical records so that they can understand the make up of their bodies better?

Psychologist John Money conducted multiple studies and concluded that gender was “malleable” and did not depend on chromosomes. In the infamous nature verses nurture debate, Money believed that nurture was in direct correlation to the gender of someone. According to Money, “gender identity was malleable until about eighteen months of age.” (135) He also concluded from his studies that at this young age, “once their bodies were surgically formed to approximate male or female models, the children would develop personalities that matched their assigned gender, providing the assignments were supported by proper rearing via parental commitment to the chosen gender.”(136) This meant that when parents gave birth to a baby in which the doctors could not easily describe the gender as either male or female, the parents only had a short window of opportunity to choose if they should have surgery so that their bodies confirm to one gender. Once they chose a specific gender, they could therefore raise their child according to gender norms and in turn, they would be further perpetuating a society that strictly adheres to a binary.

Money assumed that the child would end up living a happy life if the parents were successful in enforcing gender roles. Ethics comes into play when Money said that, “children would want their genitals to match the gender in which they were being raised.” (136) Surgery was his idea that he was looking out for the needs of the child. If parents decided not to have their child surgically corrected then, “the children might have to endure years of teasing and would develop insecurities about their bodies.” (136). A fear that parents generally have is whether or not their children will have friends and be considered “socially acceptable” by their peers. Money thought that the advice he was giving to the parents would protect the child later in life. Why did Money assume that children would want be bound to a specific gender with specific genitalia to match so that they would be considered “normal”? Better yet, why did he enforce the notion that parents should keep the “condition” of their child’s body a secret? Even though it is typical that children want to fit in with their friends, what happens when they find out that they are “different” from them?

Parents were told to tell their child that they were just “unfinished” and then were convinced to even change residencies so that neighbors and friends would not realize that their child was actually a different gender then what they had originally thought (146). Keeping all of this information under wraps is another question of the ethicality of procedures done to these infants. Sometimes parents did not even discuss with their child the surgeries that were done to transform their ambiguous genitalia. Parents did not know when the time was “right” to discuss such issues so their children would begin to believe that something was wrong with them because “of all of the trips to the hospital, not to mention the scars, told them that much.” (146) This past summer, I read a novel titled Golden Boy by Abigal Tarttelin. The protagonist, Max was born with a penis as well as ovaries and a uterus. Even though he never had surgery to remove the parts of his body that made him “feminine,” he was socialized into the identity of a boy. His parents did tell him about his condition, but their friends and family had no idea that Max was intersex. However, Max’s best friend (a male) knew and decided to take advantage of him in his curious drunken stupor. He was raped and ended up becoming pregnant. Even though max knew he was different, he did not know that he had the ability to get pregnant and soon began to resent his parents. His medical records were kept hidden from him. His childhood memory consisted of all different types of doctors examining his body and injecting him with hormones. Not having easy access to these records was problematic for him, and he felt as if he had been lied to because he did not know that his body was capable of reproduction. Max became confused about his gender identity. John Money’s idea that parents should enforce a gender on their children so that they will lead a happy life, in my opinion, is very unethical. Max resented his parents for not being more open with him from a young age. He was very upset that his parents were the ones that decided that gender he should identify as. Problems of gender identity arise when parents socialize their children to abide by the binary. It is very problematic and unethical that John Money and colleagues encouraged discussion about intersex children to be kept under wraps. There are so many consequences of parents making decisions about how they should raise their kids; such as confusion about identity and unhappiness with the gender that was forced upon them. I am providing a link to a book review of “Golden Boy”. Even though the story takes place in England rather than America, I think that the book does a great job at depicting the consequences of our cultures belief that there are only two ways to describe gender. I highly recommend reading it.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/books/2013-05-21/book-review-golden-boy/