In the time I have spent reading Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex by Elizabeth Reis,
I have been forced to closely examine my conceptions of gender, sex, sexuality and
the relationship between the three. The dichotomous categorizations of male or
female (sex) and man or woman (gender) are so ingrained within American thought
and culture that they have become taboo. Clearly, someone who is male is a man
who is sexually attracted to women and obviously someone who is female is a
woman who is sexually attracted to men… right? Wrong.
In Bodies in Doubt,
Reis explores the long history of intersex in The United States of America. Contrary
to popular belief, individuals have existed and continue to exist outside of
the male/female binary system, calling into question the validity of such a noninclusive
set of categorizations. Although gender is increasingly recognized as a
construction rather than a “natural” characteristic, sex has not been viewed
with the same scrutiny (Germany's third-gender law has been getting quite a bit
of buzz!).
On a daily basis, individuals perform gender, seemingly expressing
stereotypically masculine and/or feminine traits through their actions, manner
of dressing, way of speaking, body language…etc. On the other hand, sex is
linked to biology, and by extension to science, proof, and truth. When a baby
is born, the doctor immediately announces either “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a
girl!” based on the appearance of the child’s genitals. How then can sex, a
biologically determined trait that seemingly manifests as a binary – either
female or male – be up for debate? Simply put: although in popular thinking
there exist only two sexes, in reality – in NATURE – there exist more. Although
in America the two-sex system is normal, it is hardly natural.
 |
| Non-binary bathrooms at the Purpose offices. "Friendly for ALL genders," not just for BOTH. |
As illustrated by Reis, throughout history individuals born
with ambiguous genitals have been treated as test subjects and medical
anomalies, characterized as monsters, freak shows, and hermaphrodites, and in
most cases forced to adhere to the pre-existing binary system and become either
male or female – physically and socially. In this way, the existence and
prevalence of intersex has been and continues to be erased. Dismissed as
mutations, nonconforming internal and external genitals have been and still are
surgically altered to resemble either a penis/testes or a vagina/ovaries. By
extension, intersex individuals assimilate to the dominant two-gender system
and “become” either a man or a woman. The medical practice of physically
modifying healthy, although “abnormal,” bodies in the name of patients’
happiness, socialization, and future marriageability perhaps suggests more
about the serious anxieties surrounding sex, gender, sexuality, and power in
American culture than about intersex individuals, themselves.
This in mind, what happens and what has happened when a doctor pulls a newborn child from its mother and is unable to exclaim “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” because of ambiguous genitalia? What are current attitudes toward divergence of sex development in the young and what have they been in the past? While reading Bodies in Doubt, I found myself drawn to one paragraph in particular regarding the mid-19th century perspective on topic. The section reads:
“According to Dr. T. Holmes, ‘When doubt exists as to the
sex of a child, it appears more prudent to bring it up as male than to expose
it to the disgusting and disappointing consequences of an attempted
marriage’…By the time a boy reached puberty, he would have learned ‘whether or
not he has marital capacity,’ and he could avoid marriage. Women, on the other
hand, remained largely ignorant about their bodies and ‘enter[ed] the married
state with but a very hazy notion of what its functions are,’ and so might
marry without realizing their potential incapacity for heterosexual sex” (Reis
48 – 49).
This passage exemplifies the arbitrary nature of the
decisions made by physicians to permanently alter the physical appearances of
their patients in the name of “marriage.” Although most intersex patients in 19th
century America seemed to have little or no say over their sex identification,
child patients appeared to have even less. Furthermore, the above excerpt
illustrates the ways in which the male sex and the masculine gender were (and
still are) not only differentiated from the female sex and the feminine gender,
but also heirarchized above them. Dr. T. Holmes clearly states being a male is
preferable to being a female, not just when choosing the sex of an intersex
child, but also in general.
To me, the reasons he gives for such a declaration were
surprising. In the 19th century males had obvious privileges not
afforded to female citizens, such as the right to vote, to own property, to act
autonomously, etc. However, these are not the reasons Dr. T. Holmes gives.
Rather he cites marriage and females’ general lack of awareness of their own
bodies. He states that females are so ignorant of their own anatomy that they
may not even know what its function is or even how to engage in heterosexual
sex. This statement is astonishing considering how unaware young girls still
are of their own bodies.
Reis, quoting a 19th century physician, notes
that by the time boys reach puberty they will have LEARNED “whether or not
[they] have marital capacit[ies]” (48). The wording of this statement suggests
that the degree to which children are and have been aware of their sexual
functions are directly contingent upon their gender and therefore their upbringing
and socialization. This passage inadvertently suggests that gender is learned
rather than inborn.
Simply reading between the lines of this passage can
undermine the fixed patriarchal binary that acts as the foundation of American
institutions, society, and culture. If an intersex child can so arbitrarily be
raised as either a male or female, the seemingly natural, inherent differences
between the sexes that are used to oppress one and privilege the other are
artificially constructed. One sex is not inherently better, stronger, or
smarter than another – only made to seem that way. This revelation makes me
wonder: if children are socialized as either girls or boys, how does rearing
(consciously or subconsciously) differ based on sex assignment? Why are boys
raised to be aware and comfortable with their bodies whereas girls are not? Where
does the issue of children’s agency come in? And most applicable to the topic
of intersex, why is preserving the binary, however arbitrarily, so important to
physicians, parents, and American society, in general?
Although difficult to wrap my head around and piece
together, I recognize that all these questions can be answered by more
carefully observing, questioning, and challenging the power structures around
me that necessitate the existence of such oppressive categorizations.
Reis, Elizabeth. Bodies
in Doubt. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2012. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment