Portrayals and Dehumanization of Intersex Bodies

Early treatment of intersex individuals was intrusive and dehumanizing, and they were treated as though their bodies were the result of some pathology. These conditions are extensively described in Elizabeth Reis’ Bodies in Doubt. Some of the most striking examples come from the very beginning of America’s history. In colonial times intersex individuals who were brought before the courts were subject to extensive inspection, and were made to expose their genitals to the scrutiny of several strangers (Reis 9-11). It is easy upon reading the descriptions of the abysmal treatment of these people to assume that it was simply the result of a less progressive era, that our understanding and treatment of intersex bodies today must be radically different. 

However, in the course of my research I ran across a startling article, Jarring Bodies: Thoughts on the Display of Unusual Anatomies (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pbm/summary/v043/43.2dreger.html). Upon reading it, I was startled to find that we have not come nearly as far as I had hoped or imagined. The medical community has progressed by leaps and bounds in many ways since the days of colonial America. However, their treatment of intersex individuals is in many ways stuck in the 18^th century.

In Dreger’s article she discusses the dehumanization that intersex individuals in the modern era experience when dealing with the medical community. People with unusual bodies are “repeatedly subjected to physical and visual examinations by medical students, residents, and attending physicians” (Dreger 162), which leaves them feeling “like insects tacked to a board for study” (Dreger 162). This is not exactly a far cry from the treatment of intersex individuals in the 1600s.

A point that is raised in both Reis and Dreger’s works is the difference between illustrations of intersex individuals in the 19^th century as compared to other eras. In the case shown in Reis’ book, the subject is portrayed, somewhat confusingly, as elegantly posed and having a physique similar to that of a Greek god or goddess, even though the actual subject was only known to the artist as a poverty-stricken corpse (Reis 43). In a case described by Dreger, the subject is depicted on stage, wearing a theatrical, turban-like hat (Dreger 165). However, despite the inaccuracies and dramatized nature of these illustrations, they appeared as distinct people, with faces and bodies included. Whether this is more or less respectful to the subjects themselves is up for debate, but it is clear that the depictions of intersex bodies at that time presented the subjects as full people, rather than just parts.

It is this portrayal and treatment of intersex individuals as people, rather than just genitals, that is lacking in the modern era. Dreger points out in her article, that intersex individuals are rarely provided with any sort of compensation for the distress they endure while being photographed, studied or otherwise have the most private parts of their body scrutinized (Dreger 169). Instead, it is assumed that the compensation for them is that they are contributing to the wealth of knowledge of intersex bodies. Not with the purpose of simply understanding them in general of course, but to better understand how to “fix” or “normalize” them. As Dreger puts it, they are told that “we get to see you, examine you, and display you at will, because we’re trying hard to fix and prevent people like you” (169). 

In order reverse the dehumanization of intersex bodies, we must move away from the idea that these people are no more than their parts. We need to move away from the idea that intersex bodies are pathological, and recognize that they are part of the normal spectrum of human morphology. One way that we can do this is to present intersex bodies as human bodies, rather than just limiting them to pictures of genitals on the pages of a medical textbook. Intersex people should be presented as they see themselves, as people, not just in the way that the medical field sees them.

As part of her introduction, Reis explains and, to an extent defends, her use of illustrations throughout her book (Reis xvii). She recognizes the harm and discomfort that has been associated with this reduction of individuals to their parts, and yet she includes them in order to teach and explain. I think that this is the type of consideration that needs to be applied broadly to the treatment of images of intersex individuals. It is not wrong to seek to learn more about these types of bodies, but we must consider how the images contribute to and reflect society’s attitude towards intersex individuals.

Dreger, A. (2000). Jarring bodies: Thoughts on the display of unusual anatomies. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 43(2), 161-172.

Reis, E. (2009). Bodies in doubt: An american history of intersex. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.