The definition of what makes a person human, that is, the characteristics
that make someone real enough to be valued as significant, are laid out for us in
Bodies in Doubt. It tells us a story of sex and sexuality, one
that on a more profound level represents one of gender and one of oppression. Bodies in Doubt is a history of the
struggle of the non-gendered; of “the other” when it comes to the sexual binary
of male and female, the genital binary of penis and vagina, as well as the division
of the penetrator and the penetrative. What American medical professionals of
the 18th, 19th, and 20th century view as the
requirements of being considered human goes far beyond features of the
anatomical body; it has to be the absolute trust and knowledge of the “essence”
one is born into, dictated by medical professionals at birth and in one’s development
so that one can avoid “perversity”, “immorality”, and even suffering.
Essentialisms are the pre-destined fate concerning what personality you must
take on; it assumes the rules of the gender binary (what it means to be defined
either as “woman” or “man” in American society) as well as the sexual binary
(who you are supposed to have sexual relations with based on gender expression
and more importantly, genital appearance). In American society, we are defined
by our genitalia in this view; it must be clear and unambiguous to one of two
sexes so that our essentialisms can be read by other people and known by us. It
allows others to guess at who we really
are and come up with the methods for how our social position should affect
us.
 |
| A Medical Anatomical Chart of Intersex Individuals -- 19th Century |
The separate categories of “hermaphrodite” and “pseudo-hermaphrodite”
created by 19th century doctors allows for the denial of
essentialisms that involve anything other than one attribution of male or
female. Hermaphrodite, an archaic term that has been replaced by the more modern
intersex, is defined in the present day as being born with sexual anatomies
that a society considers non-standard (Rubin); it seeks to take the notion of
medical illness out of a quality of being. The two categories of the 19th
century definition classify persons with “ambiguous” genitalia (genitalia that
did not represent to medical professionals one clearly defined gender) with the
expressed purpose of trying to show hermaphroditism as more of a pathology; a treatable condition that is forced to rely
on a body’s “essential” gender. True hermaphrodites are those identified by medical
professionals to be able to beget and conceive; a perfect fusing of the
distinctly male and the distinctly female when sex is purely observed from the
function of child-bearing. These persons, which doctors made clear are at best
dubious in existence, is the only argument these professionals give for why
they chose to classify persons based on a group that have not been encountered
and “the others”. Pseudo-hermaphrodites, which medical professionals frequently
apply to the patients that they encounter, were “truly males who resembled
females or truly females who resembled males” (Bodies 59).Unlike the true
hermaphrodites, the pseudo-hermaphrodites did not have a legitimate reason to
stay hermaphrodites; their “condition” was easier to justify as a disorder and
their essence to one sex was something that existed. Medical professionals in
this context did not fear the cases of the pseudo-hermaphrodites, it would be
the existence of the true hermaphrodite that a major need for the separation of
genders, for the separation of sex in reference to child-bearing could be put
into question. With true hermaphrodites
the whole essentialist argument goes up into flames; medical reason could not
dictate the sex a person is “meant to be” due to the fact that clearly defined
sexes no longer have biological functions that are seen as necessary or for
that matter, full of the purpose that the definite separation of sexes
guaranteed.
 |
| The Virgin Mary and her son |
In the present, these same notions of essentialism that
demarcate sex as well as gender are as mundane as our current American culture.
It is something kept alive by institutions that have been founded on such
essentialisms, one of the most pervasive being the Catholic Church, whose
influence on American culture is unquestionable in the education they provide
for youth as well as through the services they hold for the vulnerable and the
powerful alike. I have been educated as a student within the Catholic faith, and
I see the emphasis on personal essentialisms gifted by a God as something that
is enacted out of insecurity within the church’s foundation; the fact of the
matter is that the negation of these essentialisms destroys the church’s
history and thus its legitimacy. In a speech given by the Catholic Church’s previous
Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, there was a need to emphasize the fact that “transgender
people were destroying their very essence”, that is they were “destroying their
God-given gender to suit their sexual choices”(Ratzinger). The language
Benedict uses here is key; the fact that he says the words “God-given gender”
assumes that all people are born with a gender (which, by the way, is not
changed to suit sexual preference) and that they keep it for the rest of their
lives because it is a part of their “essence”. This essentialist theology is
the only thing we can hope to know about the Catholic Church’s position on
intersex people, as still today intersex people are not recognized as extant by
the church; meaning there are no documents/resources that could possibly try to
guide an intersex person within Catholicism. The reason why intersex people don’t
exist within the church relates to the reason why the existence of the “true
hermaphrodite” by medical professionals is often denied; the Catholic Church
operates this avoidance out of fear of losing its legitimacy. If the church did
in fact affirm intersex people’s existence, there is one central figure within
the Church’s theology that would be called into question: the Virgin Mary,
whose claim to giving birth to the only baby while still remaining a virgin
could be called into question. If a true hermaphrodite has existed at some
point throughout history, wouldn’t this contradict the church’s claim? Or even
better, is the fact that the Virgin Mary gave birth without sex evidence of her
intersexuality, her existence as a “true hermaphrodite” that has been worshiped
for ages?
These were two links I found interesting:
Bibliography
Histoire Naturelle Hermaphrodites. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 04
Feb. 2014.
Ratzinger,
Joseph. "Address by the Holy Father on the Occasion of Christmas Greetings
to the Roman Curia." Speech. Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia.
Clementine Hall, Rome. 3 Feb. 2014. Address by the Holy Father on the Occasion
of Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia. Web. 04 Feb. 2014.
Reis,
Elizabeth. Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins UP, 2009. Print.
Rubin,
David. "Intersex: Before and After Gender." Diss. Emory University,
2010. Emory ETDs :. Web. 04 Feb. 2014.
Virgin Mary.
Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment