Gender and Intersexuality

John Colapinto's book AS NATURE MADE HIM is the story of David Reimer, known for decades in medical literature as Joan/John, victim of a circumscion accident in 1967 that left him without a penis. Reimer's case was referred to gender identity specialist John Money, of the Gender Identity Clinic at John Hopkins, where Money urged the Reimers to raise their son (at the time known as Bruce) as a girl. She was to begin estrogen therapy immediately, and visit Money once yearly in Baltimore for evaluations as to how her socialization and reassignment were working. . .

For Money, the Reimers presented an unprecedented scientific opportunity in which to test his hypothesis that gender was indeed the product of social construction, and was in fact so mutable that as long as a child was re-assigned before the age of 3, gender could be changed at will and the individual could function "normally" in their reassigned gender. David Reimer's case was a scientific dream simply because the baby Bruce had an identical twin named David--a built in control group for Money's theories of gender re-assignment.

The outcome of Money's famous experiment has been largely covered up in medical literature, largely because Brenda's reassignment, for all intents and purposes, failed. Upon learning about the circumcision accident at the age of 14, Brenda was relieved. She had never felt like a girl, and despite Money's very public statements to the countrary, she was far from a happily acclimated female. After learning the story of her birth, Brenda decided to assert what she felt was her true gender, changed her name to David, and began living as a male. . .

Discussing this book and the recent work of the Intersex Society of North America, founded by activist Cheryl Chase with my class of 20-some students, the following points of discussion came up for me, and I'd welcome any sort of commentary or opinions on them;

--Money argues in favor of social constructionism but uses unethical research and reporting techniques to come to his conclusions. . .David's case can be viewed as a strong arguement for the essentialist nature of gender-that gender is inherent in our nature, and that we are "naturally" one gender or the other and nothing that we can do will change that. However, I'd argue that gender is a social construct influenced by biology, and that the cultural meanings attatched to one's gender identity are so deeply imbedded in our society that we are forced into static, immutable gender expression.

This does not seem like a good way to live.

as transgender theorist and activist kate Bornstein writes in her book GENDER OUTLAW, "what makes you a real man? Or a real woman? How do you know?"

But what are the solutions for those of us that blur the lines of geder? We need to be categorized so as not to be societal outcasts. . .This need to assimilate into mainstream culture leads to feeling as though one is living a lie while simultaneously enforcing the oppressive nature of binary categories of gender. Yet, because the movement for gender outlaw liberation is in its infancy, many people are afraid to talk about their experience, to discuss the taboo of "not being one or the other"

But, how do we know that we're men or women or both or not and why does our society place such value on these terms?

Why is gender linked with genitalia?

And why is sexuality inextricably linked to gender, which is in turn linked to sexuality in a context where hetereosexuality is constructed as normative.

It is in this context as well that "corrective surgery" is performed on intersex children to place them into neat categories of "boy" or "girl." A successful surgery is one that constructs "normal genitalia"--whatever that looks like. Normal genitalia is generally defined as that in which one can have penetrative heterosexual sex. . .It is intersting that in Colapinto's account of David Reimer's operation, were David to be considered a male, he needed to have a penis out of which he could urinate, which would become erect, and which could properly function in penile-vaginal intercourse. However, in order to be considered a girl, he simply needed a hole between his legs in which a male partner could assert his maleness over her in a sexually dominating way. What does this say about the value of both male and female reproductive organs in our society. Is it easier, as the saying goes, to create a hole rather than a pole because its easier to create someone who will be socialized to consider themselves a second-class citizen? Nothing like maintaining the patriarchy from birth. . .

The current intersex movment, headed by Cheryl Chase and the Intersex Society of North America is urging doctors to stop performing unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children who are unable to give consent at birth. In other countries, this practice is considered genital mutilation, yet here it's considered by the American Pediatrics Association as something that "our culture demands." Is it really?

Please, express your views about this to your Congressfolks and visit the website of ISNA and show them your support. . .People should have the right to determine their own gender, and not to have it determined for them against their will. . .


I just needed to vent. . .