Uninformed Consent and the Idealized Myth of the Four-Person-Family

Throughout the 20th century, American medical procedures and experimentation were forced upon the economically poor and "unfit." There are multiple examples of such exploitation in communities widely considered inferior to Americans, but the medical mistreatment of Alaska Natives in the 1930s and Puerto Ricans in the 1960s were emphasized in this week's agenda.

The use of these communities as guinea pigs stems directly from the lack of information provided by the medical practictioners. The idea of informed consent is briefly mentioned in both Andrea Smith's "Natural Laboratories" Medical Experimentation in Native Communities and Ana Maria Garcia's film La Operacion, but in both instances the way such consent was protrayed left me awestruck. In the film, I thought it was interesting that in most cases the husband was the one signing the consent forms for his wife's sterilization (though it seems that the majority of the males would not consent to the male sterilization equivalent). Furthermore, one particular line struck me as particularly odd. In discussion about the consent forms for the sterilization procedure, one individual said "when they sign the consent form" (emphasis added) making it sound as if everyone does consent to the operation whether their consent requires force or not. The scene with the clinic representative walking from house to house asking women why they have yet to get sterilized furthers the implication that the procedure was (too) heavily encouraged. The circumstances in this case are slightly different from those in Alaska, however. In Puerto Rico the operation was not so much an individual right, but a civil obligation in the fight against over-population. In Alaska, the experimentation was much more widescale and even less information was disclosed to the "patients." Claims were made stating that no hazards existed for the patients and that most patients could not accurately remember if they had given their informed consent months later. So, because of this common inability of patients to remember, the practitioners erroneously figured that their consent was not really necessary. They tended to forget granting it anyway. In reality, the fact that patients were not sure whether they were really truly "informed" in their consent does not speak of the apathy of the patients but rather the lack of information provided.

Returning to the film, I drew an interesting parallel between the idealized myth of the four-person-family and other myths we have addressed in class including that of the perpetual male sex drive and the necessity of individuals to fit within our own classifications of "normal."
Puerto Ricans were bombarded with this institutionalized ideal of the well-off family with one boy and one girl and they began to buy into the myth and felt that they needed to emulate this family formula. To me this seemed to be one of the primary reasons why the Puerto Rican women were so open to the idea of sterilization. It was a way that they could escape poverty and live like the white women depicted in the media.

First of all, I want to thank all of you for contributing in my discussion yesterday. I liked that you were all receptive to how I geared the class more towards a discussion of race. You raised great points, and as always, you were all very respectable and insightful.

Next, I want to explain a little bit more about why I decided to focus on race rather than gender. I said in class that Londa Schiebinger’s point was a “duh” point. She ends the piece with, “In eighteenth-century Europe, the male body remained the touchstone of human anatomy.” Times were different then; this is to be expected. She gave a great deal of examples of this, but very little explanation of the reasons or ramifications of this fact. In my presentation, I aimed to take her point, give more examples, and expand on how this notion affected and currently affects science, specifically with race. I was going to explore race and gender, as I mentioned, through hip hop videos, but I felt that the history of race in science, anthropology in particular, was important to share with you.

Lastly, I want to talk about how “White Privilege” fits into the history of racism in science that I presented. Anthropology is a discipline based on comparisons. In biological anthropology, scientists make distinctions between species, evolutionary branches, etc. based on comparisons. My 201 lab mostly worked on the notion of “if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a duck” type of thinking. Meaning, if a bone looked like a bone from some species, and not like any other, it probably belonged to that species. Throughout anthropology’s history, both cultural and biological, comparisons are legitimate. Naturally then, even white ethnic groups have been subject to comparisons, sometimes for subjugating reasons. But the “white privilege” here is that hardly has this happened whereas Africans were only studied to assert whites as dominant. As we saw in the article and in the presentation, scientists set out just to prove that Africans were subordinate, whereas white was the norm. Whites have/had the privilege of being the norm. Yes, there are many exceptions as we brought up in class, one of these being Jews during the Holocaust who were seen as the inferior race, giving scientific legitimacy to Nazi hatred. African Americans, however, even today as we see in the Bidil case, do not even have access to the white privilege that is not being targeted for one medication just so pharmaceutical companies can make more money.

Marginalized Groups

I'm extremely happy to learn that women's studies, contrary to what some may think, does not always pertain to the study of women in one way or another. After attending a discussion on "Racism without Racists" and wondering why the event was posted on our class calendar, I questioned in class how the topic would pertain to Women's Studies. I learned through a quick two minute class discussion that women's studies is more or less about marginalized groups and how they are treated by society.

I cannot think of a better time for White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack to have fit into our syllabus. I feel that the article reaches out toward acknowledging that racism exists and that we all (including those privileged) must work together to end it. As another blogger discussed the current issue of the Jena 6, I won't get into the background details about the incident. However, please understand that racism exists everywhere, even where authority figures will have us believe that it doesn't. As an Alexandria, Louisiana, native, I feel the necessity to speak out. Alexandria was where the truck with nooses hanging out of it was seen. After the incident, "Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy said those involved were 'from around Jena' and not from the same parish as his city." He continued saying that "the matter is 'not indicative' of Alexandria and that local authorities will look into it."

There's something inherently wrong about what he said...."'not indicative' of Alexandria? Ask a local and you'll get a different story. Ask the mayor about what he's doing about the Alexandria N****r Haters (ANH) Association that is so prominent among the local high schools. Alexandria, this small town with a population just under 50K (according to a 2000 census), has its own version of the KKK. How can the mayor dismiss the existence of racism in our town? Even without knowledge of the ANH, the truck with the nooses was traveling through Alexandria. If this scene had the potential to start a riot (which according to the general media, it did have the capacity), racism exists within the town. No town is sheltered from racism. I am extremely disappointed that my mayor does not have the mental capacity to see and admit to the racism that occurs in our town.

When I go home again, I fully intend to distribute copies of the article (if copyright permits ;)) posted on our BlackBoard conference about how to end racism to my students in my high school. If we can't work our way from top administrators down to the general public that racism exists everywhere and there is still much to be done to eradicate it, we will work our way from normal citizens to top administrators. One way or another, we still need a change. MLK Jr. and others have accomplished plenty in the area of civil rights. However, there is still much to be done, and we don't need a leader to tell us what is still wrong with society and how to fix it. It is such a blatant problem that we ourselves can see it and move to fix it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/car.nooses/index.html

Patient-Doctor Relationships

Regardless of the social constructs about race and gender present at any given point in time, a physician carries a lot of clout. Even outside the arena dominated by Western medicine, any type of healer is in a highly reguarded position in his or her community. People put their health in doctors' hands every single day, or at least allow them to guide their decisions in some way or another. It's absolutely terrifying to read something like Diana Axelsen's article about J. Marion Sims and have to come to terms with the fact that doctors make mistakes too, sometimes big ones. Axelsen portrays "the father of American gynecology" as motivated by his own ambitions rather than his patients' well-being and, given his apparent decision not to even attempt to anesthetize a woman who went through thirty excrutiatingly painful surgeries, that may have very well been the case. But what if Sims was wary of anesthesia despite its gaining popularity and believed his surgeries to be safer without it?

I can't think of a situation in which experimental medicine would not be extremely risky. Surgery is always full of risks. That's what makes communication between patients and doctors so important. People need to know what they are getting into, which was definitely not the case with Sims' experiments - no matter how noble his intentions may have been. Tragically, exploiting slave women was acceptable in the time and place that he was practicing medicine. I'm still convinced that Sims believed that he was somehow helping those women. I don't care how preoccupied you are with making a breakthrough or how prevalent racism and/or sexism is in your society, no doctor wants to be held responsible for someone's suffereing - if for no other reason than it's bad for business, although I like to think that physicians are more personally invested in their patients' lives than that. When anyone has to go through a serious medical procedure, doctor and patient alike have to tell themselves that it's for the best. But what if it isn't? And how are you supposed to find out without experimentation? And what kind of sacrifices are we willing to make for the sake of such experiments? Not the well-being of a unconsenting or misinformed patient solely because he or she is underrepresented in his or her society, at least not anymore.

This subject matter reminded me of the discussions we've had about the surgical procedures performed on babies born intersex. Here again we have patients being operated on that are not in the position to speak for themselves. Are these children victims or recipients of the most cutting edge technology medicine has to offer? The pros and cons of the surgical "corrections" they're receiving long before they can talk are still being hotly debated. I wonder who, if anyone, is going to end up looking as cruel as Sims in another 150 years.

Anthropological Criteria for Race

After reading Londa Schiebinger's "Theories of Gender and Race," I was reminded of an article I read from my African Studies class a few weeks ago. While these classes tend to overlap quite often, I found a particular connection this week to Wyatt MacGaffey's "Who Owns Ancient Egypt?" I don't know if this link will work since it's on EReserve, but here it is: http://www.jstor.org/view/00218537/ap010111/01a00090/0. In the article, MacGaffey describes the work of Cheikh Anta Djop, a Senegalese professor who attempted to "prove" that the ancient Egyptians were more similar to sub-Saharan Africans than European or Middle Eastern peoples. MacGaffey criticizes Djop's work because he used the same racist methods outlined in Schiebinger's essay. Djop and his colleagues "fully recogniz[ed] the worthlessness of racial classifications based on such criteria as skull measurements...hair form, presence or absence of cattle-keeping...[but] they nevertheless quote conclusions based on such criteria when they can draw support from them..."

I found it interesting and rather relieving that MacGuffey dismisses the techniques fully described by Schiebinger as antiquated and racist. However, Djop's paper occurred in the 1970s, and it is startling that he used such methods to try and prove the race of a people, even if his thesis was reversed from the norm. I believe that such racial classifications should never be used, not even if they attempt to side with the traditionally oppressed minority. MacGuffey does not say that the ancient Egyptians were not African; the simple fact that they lived on the African continent leads me to believe that they were African. Rather, he criticizes bad science, no matter what the result. As someone interested in science and striving towards its objectivity, I would have to agree.

The Invisible Knapsack and Theories of Gender and Race

Mcintosh's article, "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack," delivers an interesting perspective. The article examines racism as a parallel to gender and left me with the feeling that the dichotomies between genders exist for the same reason privileged race does. Much of the things that Mcintosh said about racism seemed to be able to be applied to any type of categorical privileges/prejudices as well. Many of the points that Mcintosh brings up illustrates how qualities that society uses to judge others by, like gender and race, are actually quite related.

Mcintosh brings up an interesting point in that racism, in putting others at a disadvantage must place others into an advantageous position. The author portrays white privilege in a very provocative manner that is so simplistic but is a concept that I had never really given much thought to. It makes sense that to be in a advantaged position, someone must always be in a disadvantaged position and that the privileged individual is, in some way or another, dominant over the "unprivileged." Mcintosh makes a compelling point that in order to truly be rid of white and male privileges, acknowledging their existence is not enough and that the systems in place must be changed. In my eyes, the only way for a disadvantaged individual to level the playing field is if the individuals with the advantages give up their privileges. The article overall makes many points that made me rethink how to handle racism and sexism.

I also found the issue regarding bandage color to be quite interesting since I never even thought of bandages in that way. It is interesting to see how something like this is so easily overlooked until it is pointed out. It is just another example of how we have become accustomed to so many aspects of society and just the significance of perspective.

Londa Schiebinger's article, "Theories of Gender and Race" gives some insight into how scientists of the nineteenth century treated the differences in race and gender. Many examples of the idea of males being superior to females were exposed in the article. For example, Buffon assumed that all subjects he was studying were male unless they were specifically labeled as female. European males were what was considered "normal" at the time and what European females and every one else was compared to.

In addition, the article consistently points out how scientists took scientific data and were able to misrepresent this data to justify the social status of different races and genders. The bone structure of pelvis of African women was seen as "beastial" compared to the European female, and shockingly was used as justification for letting them do hard labor. I was surprised by this since it seemed so widely accepted by scientists at the time, or else the ideas would have never become popularized. Of course, science today still grapples with bias as we've seen in the past classes. Schiebinger's article gives a glimpse out how atrocious some of the "scientist" were 2oo years ago. Fortunately, as pointed out in class, new individuals must have brought about new views. Both Schiebinger's and Mcintosh's articles suggest that racism and sexism are both societal dilemmas created in the same vein as the other.

Gender, Race, and Privilege

The first article, "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack", as well as our second article this week, "Theories of Gender and Race" really have opened my eyes up to many things. Firstly, reading through the list of privileges that was provided by Peggy McIntosh I began to understand the ways in which I enjoy unearned skin privilege, which is something that I always just overlooked. This first article make an interesting point in stating that, "white are taught to think of their lives as morally, neutral, normative, and average, ad also ideal, so that when we work to benefit other, this is seen as work which will allow "them" to be more like "us". After reading that statement I began to think about its validity. I think of myself as "normal", but I don't think of myself as "normal" because of the color of my skin and still I have defining exactly what "normal" means, which is something I feel that we are continually trying to accomplish in the classroom. Also, this statement makes me think about so many events that have occurred in the history of human nature, where other races have been persecuted to make them more "white", or "normal" as this argument says. I do not believe that the color of ones skin makes them "normal". The second aspect of the quote states that white people work to benefit others, which means to make them more like us, "white people". I do believe that many people think that their situation may be better, but I do not believe that skin color makes anyone better than anyone else. Why then would I always feel scared or just unsure of myself when I volunteer in a soup kitchen in downtown Philadelphia? I would always be one of the few white people in the building, but thinking about it now, I was never timid because of the race of the people I was serving, but rather because of the whole situation I was in. On a lesser note, the quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles is Donovan McNabb. I was recently watching an interview of him on sports center where he was saying that he is criticized harsher than other quarterback because of this race. Again, I just don't get what race has to do with physical ability on a sports field? Why can't elements of race and other aspects of life just remain separate? I think by reading the second article I developed a greater understanding about the fixation that many people have about race and the need that they have to prove superiority over another race to better they. The levels that they have stooped to over the centuries still amaze me.

The second article, "Theories of Gender and Race", by Londa Schiebinger first begins by discussing differences between genders prior to her theories on race. She states that scientific communities regarded women, and non-European men as deviations from the European male norm. This statement refers back to the idea of white privilege, which in many instances should be better defined as white male privilege. One way of dividing up race and gender was the great chain being and the question of women's position on the chain was never actually made clear. White males of course were placed at the top of the chain. How then were the positions decided? This is where anthropology came into play, and scientists devoted their studies to examining the relationships between apes, Africans, and Europeans. Within in these studies performed, females were rarely if at all used unless they were just studying a specific aspect of females. Scientists went to far as measure the degree angles of skulls to determine that Africans must have evolved by whites pro-creating with apes. Such a statement is absolutely absurd. Also, when women were compared, they were not compared based on bone structure, or anything involving the skull or cranium, which was used in male research to demonstrate intelligence, but rather women were studied by how red their lips were or by the shapes of their pelvises. Neither of which relate to any level of intelligence because their intelligence was simply not recognized. Such ideas of measuring skulls or pelvises or the color of lips to establish a location on the greater chain of being just seems ridiculous to me. I just don't get why it all so important? Why does the male body remain the touchstone of human anatomy? Why is it so important to understand the differences between races, because after all we are all one race of human?

Studying Race in Women's Studies

The extent to which race and gender are intertwined becomes more and more evident as we progress through this course. The intent within the syllabus to extensively cover issues of race seemed odd and out of place within a women's studies course. After reading McIntosh's White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack and Schiebinger's Theories of Gender and Race, I have come to recognize the similarities between male privilege over females and white/European privilege over other races. The fact that white women and black men were considered the biggest threat to the European male elite and studied most extensively is fascinating. Its as if to study both females and Africans at the same time would be to study an individual so far from the "norm" that she is not even comparable or worth the time. Consequently, scientific scrutiny of the gender divide focused extensively on the familiar European female whereas inspections of race focused entirely on the males from Africa.

In the cases where black females were studied, they were not treated merely as inferior beings but more as "objects" of experimentation. Axelsen's Women as Victims of Medical Experimentation: J Marion Sims' Surgery on Slave Women, 1845-1850 conveys this terrible treatment. Sims, noted for being "the father of American gynecology," performed medical procedures on slave women without the use of ethers or other early anesthetic substitutes. Investigating the existence of anesthesia or other chemicals to make his procedures more tolerable does not appear to have been a priority for Sims.
The fact that Sims only entered (reluctantly) into the field of "women's diseases" to gain recognition within the male medical world as well as the existence of memorials that exalt his expertise is off-putting. Within the Schiebinger article, there is a evidence for similar oppression when it remarks on one anatomist's observation of one of his African females, implying either that the individual was a servant or an object of his study.

Shiebinger returns to her idea that man is connected to reason (Homo sapiens) whereas women are almost bestial. She remarks on the complex comparative study of male skulls between races. The female equivalent in this case is the pelvis (focus on procreation like the focus on breasts and lactation). I found it particularly interesting that anatomists of the late 18th century had to alter their conclusions when their findings confirmed that Europeans actually have larger pelvises than Africans (contrary to belief in the opposite due to the ease of African birth). The idea that the enlarged buttocks of Africans (specifically Hottentot) is a natural adaptation to mimick the larger European pelvis is astounding.

My Experiences with White Privilege

Peggy McIntosh's article "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" really got me thinking about the many benefits I have experienced in life due to my skin color. First, like McIntosh mentioned, "flesh" toned band aids. Sadly, it wasn't until I saw an aid in a magazine, roughly two years ago, that I realized band aids are made specifically for "white" customers. In addition, I have never struggled with finding a concealer that matches my skin tone.

Second, growing up in Cleveland, I have witnessed and heard of numerous acts of racism. "Driving While Black", commonly referred to as DWB, was and is a common occurrence in Cleveland. I have had several friends stoped by police for no reason at all except that they were black and therefore, suspicious. In addition, groups of African American teenagers were often times questioned by police and asked to leave certain areas while a group of white students nearby was completely ignored by police.

One incident, that clearly depicts "White Privilege" and that strongly stands out in my mind, occurred during my senior year in high school. My friend once told me about an encounter he had with a police officer while walking home from football practice. A police officer pulled up next to my friend and told him to stop walking. The officer questioned my friend as to why he was out and not at home to which my friend replied, "I am walking home from practice." The officer obviously didn't care for this statement and asked my friend for his drivers license and school ID. Not until further questioning did the officer allow my friend to continue home. Apparently, there was search out for a criminal who was described as an African American male. Upon finishing his story, my friend told me that this has happened to him and friends on several other occasions. I was completely shocked to say the least. I, nor any of my white friends, have ever been asked by police for identification while casually walking down the street. To know that my friend was considered suspicious because of the color of his skin greatly appalled me. The idea of "White Privilege" is still very apparent in today's society.

The Race Game

I thought that Peggy McIntosh’s article “White Privilege” brought up some really interesting dialogue in class today, most particularly towards the end of the class. When we brought up so many of the racial issues (and possible solutions,) it made me think of an activity I did on the Freshman Crossroads Retreat at Emory in August 2006. The retreat was about multiculturalism and learning to make new friends regardless of race at the beginning of college.

One particular activity called the “Race Game” that we did at the Crossroads Retreat single-handedly changed the way I think about race and affirmative action. The activity involved around thirty students and Office of Multicultural Programs and Services staff members and took place in a basketball court in a gymnasium (at Georgia’s Future Farmers of America retreat site in Jackson, if anyone’s wondering.) All thirty of us stood in a line on the half court line all facing one direction. An OMPS staff member stood on the sidelines and instructed us to listen to his questions and take a step forward if our answer to the question was “yes” and take a step backward if our answer was “no.” Some of the questions included: “Did your parents attend college? Did your grandparents attend college?” “Can you say you have never been a victim of discrimination based on your skin color?” “Are the policemen in your town the same race as you?” Many of the other questions were similar to the propositions in McIntosh’s “White Privilege” article. At the end of the game (after about ten to fifteen questions,) we were told to stop and stand in place. Most of the white students (and some Asian students) were standing at the front, while many people of color stood at the back, including the then-Director of the OMPS office.

The leader of the activity explained that the “game” was about to change. We were told to race to the boundary line in the front of the room, which was just inches from many of the white people standing in the front. As I reached the front fairly quickly, I turned around and saw many people that had been in the back still running down the basketball court. As everyone finally reached the finish line, the leader of the activity summed the meaning up fairly well, telling us “now you see how hard it is for some people to try to win the race.”

I think that this activity could have been played using all of McIntosh’s questions and that it gave a really powerful physical representation of why some affirmative action measures are needed due to society’s obstacles that are placed in the paths of many minority groups.

"White Privilege" and "Theories of Gender and Rac

McIntosh's article on white privilege was really interesting because some of the things she mentioned I have noticed and some I have not. The point on flesh-colored bandages and make-up really only applying to fair skinned people was something I have experienced. But something I have never really thought about was her point number 7. In all the history classes that I had throughout high school, the majority of the text revolved around the white male. Of course blacks were discussed, but only during the topic of slave trade. Main discussion always revolved around what the white race did. I was hardly ever taught anything about Asia, or Oceania. It was white Europeans and White Americans. Only when I was writing my senior paper on a topic of my choice was my knowledge of history expanded to include different regions of the world. This was something I had never really thought about. It just seemed like the norm; this was what everyone else I knew (who didn't even go to my school) was being taught.

This whole article reminded me of one of my favorite commercials, on fair housing practices. A white journalist is sitting at his desk and he finds an ad for an apartment on Park Street. He calls the lister several times, portraying different people each time (a Jewish man, an Indian man, a Black man, etc.). The last call he makes he assumes the name of Graham Wellington (obviously portraying a wealthy white man). In all of his previous guises he was told that the apartment was no longer available, but as Mr. Wellington, the agent says the apartment is available. This commercial is funny, but at the same time very sad because the discrimination displayed is so obvious and so appalling. It shows the inherent privilege white males have. Any of the other men could have been great people, but the agent only wanted to rent to the white man. (There is link to the commercial at the bottom of this post)

In Schiebinger's article, she elaborates more on the quick comment McIntosh made concerning male superiority. When discussing the European male anatomists, she says they were very obsessed with black men (because they were superior among an inferior group) and white women (because they were inferior among a superior group). I think this is a great example of the dominance white men feel they have over not only people of other races, but also people of the other sex.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CQzze-9iqAw

Peggy McIntosh’s article “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” was definitely an eye opener. My education on racism is in line with McIntosh’s in that I would define racism as visible acts of violence or suppression instead of the dominance acquired by invisible privileges. I think that white people in general do get to enjoy most of the advantages obtained from invisible privileges that McIntosh has listed. For example, I would agree with McIntosh’s second condition about how it is easier for a white person to move and find a new home than a black person, especially when I have heard comments such as “there goes the neighborhood” when a black person moves into a white neighborhood. This hostile comment comes with the understood meaning that the blacks will cause a decrease in property value and an increase in crime. Some of the conditions listed I had not even considered to be an advantage. For example, in number 26 McIntosh points out the fact that most bandages come in light skin tone colors rather than dark skin tone colors.

I think a prime example of the advantages obtained by the invisible privileges of whites in recent news is the Jena 6 incident, which coincides with 24 of McIntosh’s list. I will give a summary of the Jena 6 incident for those of you who haven’t heard (I just found out myself this past Friday). The whole thing started in December when some black students from Jena High School sat under a tree where white students usually hang out. Afterwards some white students hung nooses from a branch of the tree. Supposedly the white students who did this only received suspension. This of course caused a lot of racial tension which led to some fights, but there were never any reports of anyone being seriously injured. However, that same month, a group of 6 black male students beat a white boy with their shoes until he was unconscious. The white boy had to go to the hospital, but later that day he went to a party. The 6 teenage black students were expelled from school and were charged as adults with felony offenses including attempted murder. The charges, though, have been lowered to battery.

As we can see the white students have the unfair advantage of the law helping them and not working against them as stated in condition 24 of McIntosh’s list. It is especially unfortunate that it turns out that justice in our country is not blind, but instead views the accused with biased eyes when determining innocence or guilt.

If girls can play with cars...

...then why shouldn't boys play with dolls?

During our class discussion of Ma Vie en Rose, someone mentioned that it is generally considered more acceptable for girls to engage in “boyish” activities, such as playing with trucks, than it is for boys to engage in “girlish” activities, such as playing with dolls. This trend continues through adulthood in our society—for instance, pants and suits are now appropriate for everyone, but it’s still pretty hard to find a man dressed in his best skirt for an important business meeting since he would probably not be taken seriously.

I enjoyed being able to choose between a dress and pants or whether to play with cars or with clothes. But I have always wondered why society in general never approved such a freedom for boys. The first two explanations that popped into my mind were:

a) males are not worthy of participating in/performing such “female” activities

b) “female” activities are not worthy of being participated in by males.

The distinction between “male” and “female” roles and traits is getting blurrier—paternity leave and stay at home dads are a little more common than they used to be—yet it is still true that today a man assuming certain “female” habits or roles is likely to be ridiculed, more so than a woman trying to do the same with “male” roles. Why is that? The two explanations above both lead back to the idea that not only are there distinct gender roles in our society but that the roles played by one gender are more respected than those of the other. It's perhaps not a groundbreaking point, but for me it is a way, perhaps a little more unnoticed than others, in which gender inequalities can be manifested. As important as it is for females to be able to participate in traditionally male roles, it is also important that males not be dissuaded from participating in traditionally female roles.

Reaction to "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack"

I thought that Peggy McIntosh did a good job presenting the idea of white privilege. I especially thought that the list of examples was not only interesting but informative. A lot of times in articles like this, the author will make all the arguments and give insight, but leave the reader with no examples they can relate to in their daily lives. White privilege (or any unearned privilege for that matter) is something that a lot of people might be aware exists, but they may not know where or how. I really appreciated that McIntosh left the readers with the opportunity to think about her list and also use those as a starting point to find more examples in their life. As she stated, a person can be against racism, want to lower white privilege, but if they don't see how it's connected with them it's harder to make any steps.
I, however, don't feel as though I was unaware of examples of that were mentioned or unaware white privilege existed. In this case it's hard for me to tell whether the article is just outdated, or if it's something else. I grew up in a very liberal, very diverse community. Therefore a lot of things that seem normal to me, or that everyone is aware of, I've found since I've come to college have been not the case. Because of this, I'm extremely interested to hear from other students in the class about their reaction and thoughts after reading the article. I'm by no means implying that where I grew up was perfect and had no racial issues-sadly I think that that would be near impossible; or that I already know everything there is to know about racism and white privilege. I'm simply interested to see what people's experiences were growing up someone else and what their background expose to the issue is.

The Child's Choice

The last couple of bloggers discussed their personal lives with relation to Ludo in Ma Vie En Rose. I wish to do the same and reaffirm that neither Ludo’s nor blogger QE323’s lives deviate much from the truth about what a boy experiences growing up.

As I was growing up, I lived with my mom, sister, and grandmother. As a child, I imitated to the best of my abilities what I thought humans did. I think I knew that my sister was doing the same thing, just a few months ahead of me. Therefore, when we visited toy stores and she got a doll, I cried until I got a doll. When my mother put a ponytail in her hair, I whined until she put a ponytail in my hair too. I had no concept or understanding of sex or gender. I simply had the sociological need to interact with other humans, which I achieved by imitating. Similar to Ludo, the dolls and hair style were forced off of me. Just as Ludo was forced to have his hair cut, so was I. Just as Ludo’s parents tried to direct him away from cross dressing as a female, my family hid my dolls and gave me more gender neutral toys such as stuffed animals.

However, the major difference between my life story and Ludo’s is that the changes forced on me didn’t affect me much. I cried for days after I “lost” my dolls, but I reverted to an overjoyed child when I received new toys, whether they were toy cars or stuffed animals. I complained about having my hair cut, but it didn’t bother me. After watching Ma Vie En Rose, I wonder exactly what would have happened had someone not intervened with my dolls and hair. Would I be any different with regards to my identity today? Was I confused at that specific point in my life? Was I exploring or was I choosing to associate with the feminine gender? If my current feelings dictate anything about my past, I can state that I was simply exploring; however, I cannot possibly know what I was thinking as I grew up and explored my identity. I’m sure Ludo encountered confusion at first when his family was forcing him to change. However, I don’t think he had as much satisfaction with masculine ideas such as short hair and toy guns. Had I wanted to revert back to dolls and ponytails, would I have been allowed to do so? I wish to bring up the idea that the environment in which a child grows up does not seem to have much of an affect on his gender choice. For example, while Ludo grew up around three other males, I grew up around no other males, yet I identify through sex and gender as a male, contrary to Ludo.

I believe that the issue of young boys cross dressing is an overly discussed topic today. In fact, a quick Google search for the terms child, cross, and dressing yielded two million results. Ideally, the articles linked in these would say that parents should let the child explore gender in his own way, allowing him to cross-dress and continue cross-dressing for as long as he wants. However, two of the first three results yield the terms therapist or counsel in the text. Parents should understand that children will do what feels best and right to them and that involving counselors and therapists seems to cause more problems than solutions (for lack of a better word because forcing a transsexual to dress out of his/her preference is hardly a solution).

What would you do?

I felt that our conversation in class about Ma Vie En Rose was one of the best yet. In class, we raised every issue I had thought of while watching the movie. Some great questions were raised, not to mention even better answers. We covered everything from French suburbia, to marriage politics, and obviously transexualism vs. homosexuality and a child’s experience with gender identity.

Rarely, though, did we make any personal connections with the film. Maybe everyone was a little afraid to admit to similar sexual identity confusions, though one blogger shared a similar experience of crossdressing. In other discussions in class, one person always poses the question of what we would do if confronted with the same situation or if we’ve ever experienced something similar, but here we opted for close analysis of the film rather than personal narratives. Maybe we just had so much to say about the film. But in any case, I thought I’d post that question here:

1. Does anyone remember childhood memories that mirror Ludo?
2. What would you do your child experienced a similar crisis? Would you opt for the psychologist? Would you encourage him/her to be themselves? How would you explain the situation to the child? Would it just be a phase?

These are all questions we talked about, but only in relation to the characters in the film. Like our discussion about sex change operations, I thought I would take the time here to answer some of mine personally. In talking about a intersex utopia, most of us admitted that we would take the “easier route” and choose surgery for ourselves or our children. (Please correct me if I’m wrong with this generalization.) We even said that while a utopia of no gender/sex distinctions would be great, it probably would not be realized. I know these statements seem close minded on the surface, but it’s the truth. Our society places so much pressure on black and white definitions that I would want my child to lead the “easiest” life they could while still allowing them to be themselves. With the intersex issue that would mean whatever sex they physically resemble the most. With homosexuality/ transexuality, it’s a little tougher to choose what would be “easier” in society and still allow them to be who they are, especially at a young age. If Ludo was my son, I feel ashamed to say I would do a lot of the same things the parents in the film did. I would probably go through a stage of “it’s just a phase” ignorance, then a psychologist, and then maybe even anger and also guilt. I only hope I would reach the same end point Ludo’s mother reached: the point of acceptance.

I think this was what the film was getting at. We will never be sure from the ending of the movie whether or not Ludo was accepted in this new community or even later in his life, but we do know that his mother realized something important; she realized she would love him no matter what. That’s what the film maker wanted us to take from it, and that’s what I would try to attain with my own child. Even if society may not understand, I would want to eventually. Perhaps only after this type of difficult period would I understand, accept, and re-love my child. But I would want to reach that point, and not despite their sexuality, but because that makes up such an important part of my child.

"Ma Vie En Rose" and Cheryl Chases's Genital Mutilation Article

While viewing the movie "Ma Vie En Rose," I couldn't help but recollect my thoughts about my childhood. My father, due to his job, barely spent time during the day with me. Instead, I spent most of my time with my older sister and my mom. Up until around the age of 5, I often would play with my mom's clip-on earrings and wear them around the house. My older sister would often paint my fingernails with nail polish and I even once remember refusing to let her remove it even though I had to go to pre-school that day. I even wore a dress once at a family gathering (akin to Ludo doing so in the opening scenes of the movie). All of these things sound very much like things that Ludo did. It is interesting to reflect on my childhood and think about at that age how naive I was. I never thought twice about imitating the things my sisters and my mother were doing. Unlike Ludo though, I did not want to become a girl. Since I was not in school yet, my only friends were basically my older sister and my mother. I looked up to them, so it is easy to see why it did not feel strange to me that I was copying the things that they were doing. This could actually be seen as the case for Ludo as well, since as was brought up in class, he initially seems the most close to his grandmother and mother.

Interestingly, all of this stopped once I started going to school. To me, it seems clear that once I began interacting with other boys my age, indirectly I was beginning to emulate them and all the societal constraints of the behaviors that constituted being a "male." I no longer wanted to paint my nails with my older sister or wear my mother's earrings. I instead wanted to play basketball with my friends or video games. These new activities were activities that society has unfortunately, for many years, viewed as male-oriented.

The movie made me realize the impact of societal constraints on my life and how early they began to influence me. Before pre-school I was accepting of the idea of doing "girly" things with my sister and mother. As a naive child with not very much life experience, I felt there was nothing wrong with a boy doing "girly" things. That was no longer the case after I started pre-school and became older. Clearly, the prevailing societal viewpoints regarding the dichotomy of male and female were becoming engrained within me.

In addition, the movie helped raise several issues not only dealing with identity of a certain individual, but also the social consequences for being "different" and the affects it has on other individuals around the person struggling with society to accept them. These issues were already addressed in class, but it made me wonder what my parents thought about my "girly" tendencies and if they ever felt it was an issue that they needed to address.

With regards to Cheryl Chase's article, I just found it extremely interesting how a clear double standard exists with the issue of intersex genital surgeries. It is ironic that in response to stories about African genital mutilation, Congress passed the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act and excluded exempting surgeries done for intersex individuals. Chase quotes the act as saying that surgeries to " 'correct' " intersexed individuals were excluded. This double standard is quite obvious since the only reasons clitoridectomies are done for intersex individuals are due to purely cosmetic reasons, pressured by societal values, much like the African genital mutilations. In addition, male circumcision, a practice that is commonly done, is tolerated as well because it is done for religious and societal values. There really is not much difference, in my mind, between the clitoridectomies in Africa or ones done in the United States for intersexed individuals or the practice of male circumcision for that matter. If one of those is not tolerated than all of them should not be tolerated since the underlying reasons and motivations are the same in all of the above practices. Chase does a good job at revealing this double standard within our culture and society with regards to these "surgeries."

Transsexualism and Religion

Many religious hierarchs claim that transsexualism "does not exist" (The Vatican said this in 2000) or that transsexuals are going against God's true path for them. Contrarily to this belief, Ludo in Ma Vie En Rose believes that God intended him to be a girl. He tells an innocent story to his friend, explaining that God intended for him to have an XX chromosome pair and that it was a "scientific error" that made him a boy. If anything, Ludo expresses a distrust for science, not for God. He hopes that God will "fix it." This childlike optimism is a trait I think the adult world could adopt: acknowledging differences or problems, but having faith that they can someday be "fixed" or even celebrated.

I am a Greek Orthodox Christian, and after seeing the movie, I did some online research to see the official stance of the Orthodox Church on transsexualism. I expected to find something negative about transsexuals, but I surprisingly found absolutely nothing. The Church does not even recognize transsexualism as an issue. I found this more disturbing than the bitterest diatribe against transgendered people. When I was a child, I felt that the presence of transsexuals implied that God had made a mistake, and since God doesn't make mistakes, transsexuals must only be very confused people. Now, I tend to side with Ludo: being born of a gender that is not yours is no different than being born with another difference from the norm. Everyone has their biological and emotional variances, and their mere existence does not automatically mean that God doesn't exist. Therefore, I believe the religious argument "against" the existence of transsexualism is based in prejudice and fear, not in biology or theology.

The Approach of Ma Vie en Rose

After watching Ma Vie en Rose, I couldn't help but wonder how the overall effect of the movie would have differed if the issue of transgender were presented within a documentary format as opposed to a movie (which as far as I could tell was not based on a true story). I enjoyed the movie, but I firmly believe that issues such as this, that are not widely accepted and understood, would be better presented within a more factual storyline based on true events. As has already been noted, movies such as Mrs. Doubtfire and countless others in which individuals crossdress are meant purely to entertain. The documentary, on the other hand, is by its very nature a medium that portrays raw emotions and events. There is no need for additional material of mere entertainment value.
I felt that certain parts of the movie were so bizarre that they took away form the overall impact that the movie had on me (i.e. the fantasmal scenes with Pam and Ben, the notion of Ludo's other X chromosome landing in the trash).
I watched a similar movie in Health last year called Normal (I think), in which a grown and married man believes himself to truly be a woman. While this movie, like Ma Vie en Rose, confronts the important issue of trangender and transexuality, it was not done very well. I saw it in a huge lecture hall and, though I am sure some people got a lot out of it, most of the audience just thought it was really funny. This is why I think it is important to present transgender in such a way that it cannot be merely laughed off or taken as a joke (as Ludo is when he makes his grand entrance).
I have seen a couple documentaries about this issue that have impacted my views on transgender and corrected some of my misconceptions. And I strongly advocate this medium to pave the path within a society that has not yet come to terms with this issue.

I also found the title, translated My Life in Pink, to be interesting. Pink here is "obviously" associated with girls, whereas blue would be the male equivalent. These color stereotypes for female and male are ingrained within our culture from birth (pink balloons for a girl, blue for a boy), and they are perpetually enforced. The gender-specific connotations of these discrete color categories has always confounded me (especially pink, which is stereotypically linked to homosexuality in males). Its a funny coincidence that both color and gender exist on spectrums yet we categorize them into discrete units. In this case binary units that are deeply intertwined.

transgender in "Ma Vie En Rose" and pop culture

I really enjoyed the movie "Ma Vie En Rose." I thought it was very entertaining but also informative. I think that the plot was one that the viewer would be more sympathetic to, and therefore more sympathetic to the actual issue. To have a little boy going through an identity crisis is tough to watch, especially when he is so set on what he thinks he is or what he thinks he is going to be and his parents altogether do not understand. At first his mom is comforting thinking it's just a phase and the father is the one that is angry. And then the tables turn once the father looses his job; he learns to accept Ludo for whatever he feels comfortable in and the mother places blame, eventually coming to terms. I liked the evolution of the parents' characters. I also liked the aspect of the plot involving the therapist. The parents take Ludo to the doctor thinking that she will be able to provide a quick fix. Once they realize that that is not the case they change their minds and discontinue therapy. Fausto-Sterling and Chase both said that therapy is one means of coping with an intersex child and I think this movie shows (in a much more played down way) that it may in fact be a way of dealing with the issue it is by no means an easy solution and takes dedication on everyone's part.

Our discussion on transgender in pop culture in class today got me thinking about it. We were talking about how people tend to joke about situations when they feel uncomfortable or just don't know how to deal with them. I found an article that talks about how transgender characters are few and far between, much less than homosexuals and bisexuals. And that when shows and movies do portray transgender people they are not necessarily portrayed in the best of light. It is usually to fool other people for their own benefit. An example from the article was "Mrs. Doubtfire." I think we can all agree that it's a funny movie, but Robin Williams only assumes the character for his own interest, to be closer to his children. He is sneaky and disregards the court and his ex-wife. In the end everything works out and his character becomes a lovable television host. I think it will be interesting to see how transgender characters continue to be portrayed in media outlets and if that will have an affect on their appearance in society.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/3466.htm

My Life in Blue

The main attraction of this week’s discussion has been the movie Ma Vie en Rose. I thought that this was a fairly fitting title seeing as Ludo was criticized for everything he did, including his choice of clothing and hair style and was brutally rebuffed for repeatedly trying to wear pink dresses. This film brought up many different topics in class, some that I had noted while watching and some that had not even occurred to me.
Something that I did notice throughout the movie was the continual reference to how the father has changed. The family members said that he worked too much and was getting “as mean as Albert.” With this in mind, I found it difficult to be quick to judge the father, hoping that the man he used to be before moving to this neighborhood and receiving such pressure at his job. This is not something that was considered among many other classmates. In the end, my hope was fulfilled and it was the father, not the originally supportive mother, who wanted Ludo to be comfortable and would love him either way.
Another topic that we didn’t get a chance to talk about in class was the outcome in the change in Ludo’s mother. After someone wrote nasty comments about being ‘bent” on the garage door, his mother transformed. She no longer wanted to wait for Ludo to find his identity, for the psychologist to talk him out of it, for everyone in the neighborhood to loosen up. The transformation quickly went beyond just an exhaustion of patience, however, as she began to openly scream at Ludo, telling him that everything was his fault. I think that his young age made him not fully resent his mother for this and almost not even understand the gravity of what she was saying, however, because when he had the choice to stay with his grandma or move away with his family, he woke up crying for his mother. Even in the new town, at the end of the movie, his mother told him he was the cause for this, the cause for their unhappiness. Lastly, she results to physical violence when she thinks he has put on a dress by choice. I think the important thing to note here is the psychological effects of her actions and how Ludo will deal with them in the future.
This is something that I think oftentimes gets overlooked when talking about intersex children is that every decision family members make, every word that they speak, will have an impact on the child. Though Ludo was only seven and may have not understood everything that was happening to him and why people refused to understand his logic, he will grow up. He will never forget the abandonment by his older brother in the locker room, his father’s clenched fists and his mother’s blame. These events will surely influence the person that Ludo grows to be and what types of things he deals with mentally later on. I think that this is something that should always be remembered, whether your child is intersex, transsexual, heterosexual or the like…the way we treat our children shapes who they will be and how they perceive things and deal with them in the future.

Two posts in one...

Today’s discussion about “Ma Vie En Rose” in class brought up several interesting points. One of the most profound aspects of the film came when Zoe, Ludo’s sister, told him that he was a boy because he had XY chromosomes. I thought Zoe’s explanation of what was a “boy” directly related to an example in Anne Fausto-Sterling’s “Dueling Dualisms” in the story of Maria Patiño. A member of the Spanish Olympic team, Patiño was tested for her chromosomal sex for the 1988 Olympics. Instead of two X chromosomes, Patiño´s test resulted in XY chromosomes. According to the standards of the Olympic committee, Patiño was a male, even though she had lived her entire life as a female.

Patiño’s story and “Ma Vie en Rose” prove that there is more to sex and gender than tests—or strict societal expectations—can show. This week, we have discussed how sex and gender are two different things, although there exists great variety within each category. Our social understandings of what makes someone a “man” or a “woman” are changing also and I think that “Ma Vie en Rose” had a good portrayal of one family’s struggle to understand how to find one’s sexual identity. I am still perplexed by the nature vs. nurture aspect of how a child is raised affecting their sexuality and sexual identity. Such questions of sexual identity and sexuality are still difficult to answer even with recent studies on the topics.

Concerning another topic that we brought up last week, female genital mutilation, I read an article on the front homepage of the New York Times website about female genital mutilation in Egypt. The Egyptian government “officially” outlawed the practice; however, the law included loopholes that allow the practice to continue. The article states that “a nationwide campaign to stop the practice has become one of the most powerful social movements in Egypt in decades, uniting an unlikely alliance of government forces, official religious leaders and street-level activists.” I think it will be interesting to follow this situation in Egypt and see if any more permanent answer is resolved and if that resolution is effective, how it could be applied to other areas of the world where this is practiced. The article raises questions of maintaining one’s cultural identity and portrays an issue that I never knew was a problem in Egypt.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/world/middleeast/20girls.html?ex=1347940800&en=f8bd9b6fbf5cf6eb&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Response to Blackwood's article

Before Evelyn Blackwood’s article “Sexuality and Gender in Certain Native American Tribes: The Case of Cross-Gender Females” I never would have thought that for different Native American tribes it was socially acceptable to have a same sex relationship, since our own society is so intolerant of them. I had previously believed that most tribes had the same social hierarchy as western culture in that men were in charge and that women were passive and only had domestic roles. So it was of great interest to learn that of the several tribes mentioned in the article many had an egalitarian society that was flexible with gender roles and sexuality. In our previous discussions of intersex people, specifically Ann Fausto-Sterling’s paper “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough” with her proposal of additional gender terms to fit different conditions of intersex, I expected that the tribes would also have developed a different gender assignment for these women. However, I was surprised to learn that they instead allowed them to assume a man’s role and activities, thus preserving the male/female dichotomy.

It is unfortunate that influence from western culture turned these once egalitarian societies into patriarchal societies. I figured that the balance would be tipped mostly by Western culture’s ideology of gender and sex, but I had not considered economics as a factor too. The tribes’ collectivist society that depended on the contribution of all for survival, valued all jobs done either by man or woman as the same. However, as we discussed in class, the capitalistic society of western culture shifted the value placed on work in the tribes. For example, as the demand for hides increased, the value of hunting, typically a man’s job, also increased and thus disrupted the balance of all jobs contributing equally to the survival of the community.

The Berdache

I found Evelyn Blackwood's article "Sexuality and Gender in Certain Native American Tribes" extremely interesting. Our previous readings have referred to intersexuals as abnormal and outcasts. In addition, we have been learning about the medical fields role in surgically chancing intersexual infants to better help them "fit into society." On the other hand, Blackwood described the Native American community as very accepting of cross-gender individuals. Commonly referred to as "berdache", these two-spirited people were highly respected and even thought to be more balanced than the average male or female. Cross-gender women were permitted to marry other women and even publicly acknowledged in a special ceremony upon becoming men. These new men were given male names, male haircuts and clothing, considered to be non reproductive, and became hunters and warriors. Unfortunately, Blackwood did not discuss the idea of cross-gender males who became women. I would have liked to see how well they were accepted in society and whether or not they commonly married men.

Not only were cross-gender people accepted by many Native American tribes, they were also sought out. For instance, a family with all girls would often times select one child to raise as a boy. This child would be allowed to play and hunt with other boys in order to become acclimated with the different role in society. Families might have chosen this alternate route for one of their daughters because "A daughter's marriage was not essential for maintenance of family rank...a woman's family did not lose wealth if she abandoned her role as a daughter." (p. 5) Instead, if a daughter was raised a boy and eventually married off to a woman, as a new male the individual could establish his own household and prosper.

However, with the introduction of Western white culture, Native American groups began to frown upon cross-gender individuals. Blackwood referred to an instance in which "the last cross-gender female among the Mohave, Sahaykwisa" (p. 8) was harassed and eventually raped by men in her community. Sahaykwisa's wife was often taunted for not being married to a "real man". I find it very interesting how one culture's, the West, beliefs and traditions can be forced upon and ultimately change another groups, the Native Americans, outlook.

I was also very surprised by the fact that men and women were treated as equal in many Native American tribes. Interestingly enough both gender's roles in society were viewed as important. Women recognized the importance of the men hunting for food and fighting in battles while men understood the role women played in rearing the children, cleaning the meat, and weaving. I wonder if this equality between genders still exists today among Native American groups.

Who truly is more civilized?

I found the article, "Sexuality and Gender in Certain Native American Tribes: The Case of Cross-Gender Females" to be full of new and very intriguing information. Much of the information we have discussed in classed presents individuals who are inter-sex as outcasts and not perceived as being "normal"; however, this article went so far as to research tribes that embrace the idea of a bisexual lifestyle. The cross-gender individuals in these tribes acted, sat, dressed, talked like, and did the work of the other sex and were referred to as the berdache, or half male and half female. In many instances, these berdache in fact assumed the complete social role of the other sex. For example, if a family produced only four daughters and was in need a male, one of the daughters was selected to become a male. She acted as a male in a society and developed a relationship with a female; however, acted a husband, but no children were produced within their relationship. She was now accepted in the society as a he and special ceremonies were held to signify this change of gender within the community.

One unique aspect of these tribes that has not been present on previous class readings or discussions, which I found incredibly interesting was the idea of gender equality. I believe that it is this basis that enabled bisexual relationship and inter-sex individuals to be embraced throughout the community. Because there was no system of hierarchy between the work expected from men and women and tribal women owned and distributed the articles they produced and had an equal voice in matters affecting kin and the community, there was not a stronger desire to be male in the community. Also, certain tasks were allotted to males as certain tasks were allotted to females, but because neither set of tasks was valued more highly that the other, neither sex was predominated. Another unique feature of these tribes was that both women and men could obtain divorce, which again made them equals on a relationship level and made sexuality not restricted by the institution of marriage.

One question that was brought up in class that I found really striking was are these Native American tribes in fact more civilized than western society. In our society today we are unable to accept inter-sex as being normal and the relationship between a man and woman and not seen as being equal in all instances. Also, the idea of a bisexual relationship in not considered the norm. These Native Americans made have lived on the plains and in the wilderness, but in terms of openness and society were they in fact more civilized and advanced than we are today? Did they truly have a grasp on understanding what it means to be "normal" and accepting and embracing a much broader range of "normalcy"? They may have been a more primitive society, but were they in fact a more open and advanced society all the while?

The article “Sexuality and Gender in Certain Native American Tribes: The Case of Cross-Gender Females” by Evelyn Blackwood begins by challenging the idea “it is in the nature of sex and gender systems to create asymmetry in the form of male dominance and female subservience.” I was immediately intrigued by the opening of this article because it made such a clear assertion that the traditional models of sex and gender should be reconsidered. The article goes on to discuss the historic relevance of female berdache within different Native American tribes. My previous exposure with the definition of the berdache has been that the berdache represented a third gender, somewhere between male and female. However, Blackwood claims early on in the article that this notion is inaccurate and that individuals would take on the gender of the opposite sex, not of both.

I found it very interesting how easily cross-gender individuals were incorporating into the opposite sex without any stigma from the rest of the community. I believe that much of the acceptance of cross-gender activity in Native American tribes is due to the gender equality that Blackwood discusses. It is interesting to contrast western society gender equality with Native American gender equality. Through much of the conquest of native tribes, western used the defense that “barbarians needed to be civilized.” However, on the subject of gender, it appears that the Native Americans were leaps ahead of western culture towards achieving equality.

To connect this article with our previous discussions in class, I would like to point out the difference between intersexuality and cross-gender. This article did not focus on potentially ambiguous genitalia causing a need for cross-gender. Instead, Blackwood stressed that females with female genitalia were able to transfer easily to the male gender. It appears within these Native American tribes that gender was not determined by biological sex or genitalia, an idea that I support strongly. I wonder what will be the class’ reaction to the existence of berdache. Will people feel as strongly about trans-gender as they did about intersexuality? I know that I personally have less difficulty recognizing individuals who chose to change their gender from their biological sex then I do from understanding the possibility of a continuum of biological sexes.

Two-Spirit Terminology

I started reading Evelyn Blackwood's article and got sidetracked by the entry I found on Wikipedia for "berdache". My search was redirected to "two-spirit" which, as it turns out, is the less offensive term for the Native American concept of cross-gender indivuals. The "perjorative etymology" of a word widely accepted by anthropologists, at least at the time that the assigned article was written, has introduced the negative connotations of male prostitution and imprisonment to an inherently sacred idea about both masculine and feminine energies existing in a single body. This struck me as a great example of how biases can inadvertently slip into scientific inquiries. Blackwood is not intentionally insulting Native American traditions by referring to these people as "berdaches". On the contrary, she is obviously trying to shed some less subjective light on practices that had previously been condemned or ignored by Western observers. Unfortunatley, a single word can sometimes perpetuate the same misconceptions that were prevalent in earlier writings into the current investigations which attempt to correct them.

The language of anthropology, like the language of biology, often carries much more weight than we realize. I would have never questioned the process by which Linneaus literally chose words such as "mammal" if it had not been brought to my attention. I think that, in the scientific arena especially, we take words at face value as descriptive tools without considering who originally named what, and why. In any field of research, people are constantly assigning new names to things. But most words have long histories. It makes perfect sense that people are going use terminology that may be inappropriate, whether they are aware of it or not . Keeping word choice in check is just one more way that critiques can make scientific arguments stronger. I wonder if "berdache" is still used today.

Middlesex

Coincidentally, I have recently begun reading Middlesex, by Jeffrey Eugenides. The book is a sort of modern epic, a story about many generations of one family, told by a member of the family, an intersex person who is forty-one years old.
The story swtiches in and out of his life in the present (the time when he's narrating the story) and the past- he follows his grandparents as they travel to America from Turkey and relates their entire story and history to the mutations in their genes which remained silent until his (or, her, since he was born a "female") birth.
I am only about halfway done with the book and at this point the narrator, Calliope, is just about to hit puberty. She has lived her whole life as a girl and because her childhood was in the 50's when the medical community still knew very little about intersexuality, neither she nor her family nor her doctors have ever suspected her as being anything other than a completely normal XX female. The narrator obviously knows otherwise; he knows about his condition and explains that he is a 5-Alpha-Reductase Pseudohermaphrodite.
This is the first novel I've ever heard of with an intersex prtotagonist, and while I'm sure there are others, this is certainly the first novel to go mainstream (it won the Pulitzer a few years back). It seems odd that it takes a novel to characterize and humanize a hermaphrodite, but I imagine for many of the book's readers, this is certainly the case. I think, ultimately, the book is about asking questions about ourselves. Who are we? What are we? These are the questions that the narrator seeks to answer about himself. But I think the important part about his concern for the answers to these questions is that his sexuality really doesn't play as huge of a part as we'd expect it to. So, yes, his questions might be a little more difficult to answer than if non-intersex people were to ask them, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask them. His struggle to find himself seems no harder than that of any teenager growing up.
Granted, this is a fictional novel, but I thought it was somewhat relevant to our class. Some of the videos seem to point out that maybe if we stop putting so much emphasis on gender identification, finding ourselves would be easier. The book seems to convey the other side of the argument. Adolescence is hard. Figuing out who you are is hard. But maybe we're reading too much into the importance of gender identification. Maybe classifying ourselves as one sex or the other plays no role in the task of finding ourselves and there is no way to gauge how difficult or easy it might be.

Reflection on Video in Class/ What is "Normal"

I really find this topic of inter-sex something that is very difficult for me to understand. Over the past few days in class we have been asked the questions, what does “normal” mean, how do we determine what is “normal” and how does our standpoint theory play a role in making such decisions. I have never really thought about what “normal” means, but after watching that video I have learned people who are inter-sex are not treated like “normal” people. I was incredibly horrified at watching the story about the little boy Patrick. He was born inter-sex and the doctor was persistent in removing his penis and one testis because he didn’t believe he would be able to function as a normal male. I remember sitting there during the video thinking to myself who is this doctor to violate his Hippocratic oath and perform a life altering procedure on an infant without parental consent.
My opinions towards the overall film began to change from anger to more of a sense of a lack of a representation of the whole picture during the latter part of the film. During the second selection viewed in class all people interviewed were unhappy with either the surgery that they had received because it had left them with genitals that were numb, scarred, and did not function properly, or had been lied to by family about being born inter-sex. I am a firm believer in integrity, but I believe that this film was very biased in only presenting a pro-inter-sex view that is anti-surgery to correct genital deformities. I know that there are people are there who were born inter-sex and had this surgery and are probably grateful that their parents made that very difficult decision for them. A decision to be a boy or a girl is I think the most difficult decision anyone can ever be asked to make because it is so crucial to ones identity and I can just not see how a child can grow up living a “normal” life inter-sex.

After reading all of these articles, I've found myself really fascinated with the topic and trying to find more information on the issues and people mentioned in the articles. One of my friends is taking another intro to women's studies course that is doing some similar readings right now and I've found it so interesting to talk to her about it and what she thinks and gets from the readings. In the most recent readings I was taken aback to hear the description of the genital surgery performed. Although I know that the author picks such powerful words for the description to make a point, there's no nice way to describe cutting off testicles and shaving back or cutting parts of an over-sized clitoris. The idea of performing a medically unnecessary life-altering surgery without the consent of the individual seems ludicrous. While sex-reassignment surgery might become a desired path later in life for those individuals born with ambiguous genitalia, it's shouldn't be up to the doctor to make the decision of which sex the child should become. While they say that they can find the "true sex" in one of the articles it mentions that something like 90% of all infant sex-reassignment are to "turn" the children into girls. There is no way that only 10% of children are more male or would grow up to have more male characteristics. Yet, to quote from Dealing Dualism it's easier to "dig a hole than build a pole." It's apparent in the story of Cheryl Chase, who was by one set of doctors labeled a boy and by another set a girl, that it's not as clear cut as it seems doctors would like the parents to believe.
The idea that Money introduced, that it doesn't matter which sex is picked, and children can be "successfully" brought up as either a boy or a girl has been shown time and time again to not be true. I read an additional article that told the whole story about the twin boys Bruce and Brian. During the circumcision Bruce's penis was completely mutilated. It was decided by the doctor that instead of living with a deformed penis, it would be better for all to turn Bruce into a girl and rename him Brenda. While Money, who continued to see him for years, reported that he had grown into a normal and happy girl, this was far from the truth. By the age of 13, he had become very depressed and threatened to commit suicide if he had to return to Money. Later, another re-assignment surgery was done in order to turn Brenda into a man, David. He went on to get married; but unfortunately, the trauma and damage was to profound, David committed suicide at the age of 38. After I read this whole story I couldn't imagine how a doctor could argue that it doesn't matter how the child is born, only how they are raised and what sex they remember.
Sex, gender and sexuality are so much more than simply what the genitalia look like. It's something that can't be fully realized when the individual is an infant, and shouldn't have to be. Not performing surgery doesn't mean that the child is going to be raised as a different third gender as opposed to choosing the raise them as either a girl or a boy. It simply means that an irreversible and life changing surgery won't be performed without consent of the individual. Moving away from the idea that these children need to be "fixed" because they're sick and any record must be hidden is one of the first ideas that needs to change before there can be any hopes of further change.

Intersex and Television

In her presentation a few days ago, Mary Alexander mentioned an episode of House in which the title character lets loose a barrage of sexist and insensitive remarks toward a woman with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. I have seen that episode before, and while I agree that House's remarks were completely inappropriate, the rest of the characters in the show reacted in a sensitive manner and were horrified as well at House's comments. This presentation got me thinking, as an amateur TV aficionado who reads and writes about television, of shows which feature intersex characters in a positive and insightful manner. I came up with two completely different shows (one crime drama, one teenage dramedy) set in completely different time periods.

As soon as I mentioned our discussion of intersex to a friend, her first response was, "You mean like that Law and Order: SVU episode?" She meant an episode entitled "Identity," in which a botched circumcision leads to the transformation of a genotypic and phenotypic boy into a girl, while his identical twin brother remains the same since birth. The "girl" ends up a victim of sexual assault, and DNA tests reveal "her" true male genotype. Later on, their doctor (a thinly veiled version of John Money) is found dead, and DNA evidence proves that one of the twins killed him, but the police have no way of proving which boy is guilty. Intersex Initiative describes the final scene as "pan[ning] out as [the twins], now wearing similar clothes and hairstyles, feel each other's presence through the holding cell wall." This episode was by no means a completely inoffensive portrayal of intersex. The two twins, for instance, are played by the same actor who merely wears a wig when portraying the girl in an almost comical oversimplification. Also, one might assume after viewing this episode that intersex people often turn to violence, which is simply not the case. Still, I (and the Intersex Initiative) believe this episode did an excellent job of portraying the betrayal, remorse, and rage that intersex individuals might feel after discovering their true identity. To read the Intersex Initiative's recap and review of this episode, go here: http://www.intersexinitiative.org/news/000172.html. To watch the whole episode, go here: http://www.fanpop.com/spots/law-and-order-svu/videos/29000

Another sensitive portrayal of intersex comes from one of my favorite shows, the now-cancelled Freaks and Geeks (the title refers not to the intersex population, but to two unpopular cliques in a 1980s high school). In the penultimate episode, underachiever Ken finds out that his tuba-playing girlfriend, Amy, was born with ambiguous genitalia. At first, he questions his own sexuality, and some immature jokes are mentioned between him and his friends. Later, however, he realizes how illogical and insensitive he was being, marches onto the football field where Amy's marching band is giving a performance, and proclaims, "I'm sorry, and I don't care, and I'm sorry." This episode got nominated for GLAAD's "Outstanding TV Episode" Media Award in 2001. I find it interesting that Amy's family followed the concealment paradigm, but this show is set in 1980, making Amy born in the 1960s. This period would have been the heyday of Money's "nurture" theories. Additionally, Amy, despite this confession, had been on the show all season and introduced as a typical well-adjusted girl. When I first watched this episode in middle school, I distinctly remember thinking, "Wow. I never would've guessed." I think this is common of most of the intersexual community: genitals are a private matter, so why should anyone attempt to medically change someone into something they're not?

While much of television displays negative images of anything varying from traditional gender dichotomy, I feel that these two shows, while not perfect, did a good job of portraying intersex individuals as human, not freaks.

Choosing gender

So just to once again bring up the debate from class about when/if surgery or hormone therapy should be done on an intersex baby… first, I do feel that there is no one-size-fits all answer. Some may be happy, others unhappy that the decision was made for them early on.

But it does seem that our current knowledge of the factors that can lead an intersex person to gravitate toward one gender or another is still rather limited. The success of decisions made at birth may be due often in part to luck rather than a true understanding of what’s going on biologically or what will happen psychologically and hormonally as the individual grows up. The links between body, mind and emotions are very complex and we have still only uncovered a little bit of this complexity; gender and sexual identity definitely bridge all three. Some of the individuals in the video we watched were uncomfortable with the gender originally assigned to them—if their original gender had been “forced” on them by surgery or hormone therapy, their lives could have turned out very differently. It’s this possibility that one could be wrong, that there may not be sufficient understanding to justify a decision, that seemed to be an important point of these videos.

I think it would be interesting to see what a medical guide/handbook would say about how it is decided whether a procedure is done and how a gender is chosen. While ultimately the decision does rest on the parents—will they pick the gender of their child, or will they let things run the course and see what the child decides?— it does become irresponsible to decide “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl” and remove a testes or ovary without awareness that the wrong decision could easily be made.

On a slightly different note, here’s an article that I stumbled on in a LL conference yesterday:

“Man-made chemicals blamed as many more girls than boys are born in Arctic.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,2167005,00.html

To be honest, I’m not sure how accurate the article is, but it is interesting that they don’t mention how that if their theory is true, then it would mean that rates of intersex births pretty high and rising in these regions. There are other possible explanations not mentioned in the paper—for example, the chemical could reduce the survival of male babies compared to females.

The Blessings of Being Intersexed

Through our last couple of class discussions and today's videos, I think it is quite apparent that "Western culture is deeply committed to the idea that there are only two sexes" (Fausto-Sterling, Five Sexes). However, I approach this topic from a historical, medical, and sociological standpoint as I explore why "Western culture" is obsessed with this two-sex system. To begin this discussion, I delve into the results of a Google search on a few of our key terms. I end up with the CNN article, A Eunuch's Tale from the Slums (URL source at the end of this post). In this article, the journalist explores the "'third gender'" in Mumbai, India. In this city, "eunuchs are known as hijras, or a 'third gender,' neither a he nor a she." However, contrary to the idea that a eunuch is castrated, "[h]ardly 8 percent of hijras...are castrated." The article continues to discuss that the hijras "were once worshiped in the Hindu world," but are now seen as both a blessing and a curse. They are said to be important because they can "take the ill luck and misfortune" away from people. In a sense, they are supreme bodies of bad luck and misfortune, as they are already born mutated and take misfortune from others. However, contact with a hijra is not necessarily good. While a blessing for a hijra can take away bad luck and misfortune, a curse from a hijra can do the exact opposite, bringing bad luck and misfortune.

The reason I bring this article into play is because it shows the stark contrast between the Western view on intersexuals and the Indian (possibly extended to Eastern) view on intersexuals. In the West, being intersexed is seen as a sociological problem that must be corrected as soon as possible, even in not medically necessary (as we saw on the TLC video). In other words, this sociologically based problem is seen as being correctable if medicalized (which it is). In India, being intersexed is not necessarily seen as a medical problem, but is seen with more of a good luck/bad luck perspective. Being intersexed in India constitutes power (do I want to curse that man staring at me or do I want to bless him?). Afterall, anyone who catches a glimpse of a hijra is scared about what s/he might say or do.

Perhaps this reasoning stems from the idea that something can actually be done about intersexulaity in the West. While medicine is advancing in India (and the East), perhaps there is no cure for intersexulaity or perhaps, also very likely, it is taboo to even consider discussing the sex of a child if it’s not definitely male or female. The reason I hint at this is because I wish to express that much of the West is based on medicalization. If there’s a social problem, we can use medicine to fix it (as another example, being fat is socially unacceptable and we have created ways of fixing this through stomach stapling and diet pills). Therefore, I believe that the sociological problem of the acceptance of only two sexes seems to be only a Western problem.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/09/07/india.eye.eunuch/index.html

The Five Sexes and Total Patient Care Video♦

"The Five Sexes," by Ann Fausto-Sterling, brings to light the complexity of how to deal with intersex individuals. Nearly all of these issues arise from the result of social constructs like the existence of only two very different and recognizable sexes. Ann Fausto-Sterling recognizes this, but her idea of a utopia is (at least for now) too idealistic. Even in today's society, the idea of homosexuality is not universally accepted and the fight for gay rights and such has been occurring for longer than intersex awareness. In addition, the idea of creating a spectrum of sexes would create many difficult issues since for so many years, society has revolved around the idea of only 2 sexes existing. How would bathrooms be created? How will college dormitories be divided? Of course, creating a separate "intersex bathroom may seem to solve this problem, but, is it fair to lump all intersex individuals into a group? Or should there be five different bathrooms created? Although this issue is complicated and opens up a new world of delicate topics that must be addressed, that is not an excuse to not afford rights for intersexed individuals. Still, I'm unsure of the best way to approach this issue.

The video that we watched in class provided some thought-provoking testimonials from intersexed individuals. The first segment was quite shocking. The doctors were portrayed as having a mysterious agenda was so determined to perform the "reconstructive" surgery on the child. This example seems like an isolated incident, but I cannot say that with any certainty.

In contrast with Ann Fausto-Sterling's article, the second segment of the video provided much more current life-experiences from real intersexed individuals. Although it seemed very biased, the video's purpose (at least the second segment) was to raise awareness around the potential harm "reconstructive" surgeries may have on intersexed individuals, not particularly an objective documentary. After viewing the video though, like others, I wonder how many intersexed individuals (that are aware of it) appreciate the surgeries done on them? The effects of being an intersexed individual seems like an area that should be studied and documented much more. This would be a difficult task, though, since many intersexed people, seemingly forced by society, are reluctant to reveal that they are intersexed or are not aware that they are. Even then, some individuals in the second segment expressed anger over the lies their parents told them, raising another issue of the complexities of how a parent should handle an intersexed child. It is nearly impossible to wait until the child is an adult to tell them since they tend to know that they are different and will ask questions. On the opposing end, how are parents going to explain to their children that they are an ambiguous sex?

It seems that the only way for society to be aware of and address the issues regarding intersexed individuals are for more of these individuals to go through life declared as intersexed. This is difficult due to policies like the concealment-centered model and parents whom are forced to lie due to the constraining views of society as a whole. This seems to only perpetuate the lack of awareness regarding intersexed individuals.