While I certainly admire Anne Fausto-Sterling's idealist beliefs regarding the inclusion of hermaphrodites into modern society, I have doubts that her suggestions would ever work in practice. Her statement "But if the state and the legal system have an interest in maintaining a two-party sexual system, they are in defiance of nature" is completely true: obviously people exist who do not fall under one of the two specific gender distinctions. I agree with her belief that Dehwhurst and Gordon's description of intersexuals is appalling: to say that a newborn is "doomed to live as a sexual freak" or a "hopeless psychological misfit" is beyond cruel. And yes, in a utopian society, there would be no need for concern about intersexuals functioning socially in society as well as any other person. I do, however, disagree with the lack of emphasis Fausto-Sterling places on the legal reasons why intersexuality is not more widely accepted. While she does breifly note some legal concerns, for the most part it seems that Fausto-Sterling believes the answer to all the "why" questions regarding gender classification lies in "a cultural need to maintain clear distinctions between the sexes." I would argue that this need is not so much a cultural one as it is a legal one. In the laws that we so desperately need to keep order in our society, there is no room for gray area. Fausto-Sterling, herself, brings this point into question. Should a "ferm" living as a woman be, in the eyes of the law, any less a woman than one who is born completely female? What about a "merm" living as a woman; is s/he any less a woman than one born "ferm" or female? And if we are willing to stretch the boundaries that far, then doesn't the question have to extend to cover transexuals? There can be no blanket answer to these questions; these cases must be dealt with individually. As Fausto-Sterling points out, the differences in state laws determining how one's sex is determined examplify the lack of clarity regarding how gender can be classified.
Ultimately, Fausto-Sterling arrives at the same idealist society that I visualize, one where gender classifications are no longer necessary at all. I would completely support the realization of such a state, however, I do not think that simply ridding ourselves of "cultural" stigmas against hermaphrodites will get us there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that the points you make about the legal issues completely true. It would be extremely difficult to find some kind of uniform set of laws to encompass all the genders. With all controversy connected with gay marriage, it’s hard to imagine some happy common ground in the legal department. I think the author even mentions that homosexuality seems “normal” in comparison to the issues that would amount if more genders were brought into the picture. But I do think that the first step to creating a world or a society that is open and accepting of these different classifications of gender is to remove the social stigma that’s associated with them. Merms, ferms, and herms need to be socially recognized and accepted before there can any hope of legal action taken to incorporate the added genders. This in itself will no doubt take years; as made clear by the vast stigmas that are still attached to homosexuality. I did find it very interesting how Fausto-Sterling made reference to the existence of these other genders throughout history and how these societies had made laws that incorporated more than two genders. While it would not be a short or easy task, I would like to think that our society has the capacity to open-minded enough to accept more than two genders at some point.
But can't laws be changed? Why is there no room for gray areas in the law? I think that historical and contemporary examples from other societies might help us in imagining something else?
Post a Comment