In her "Sexing the body : Dueling Dualisms," Anne Fausto-Sterling suggests an interesting example on sexual dichotomy. Discussing the case of an athlete Maria Patino, who had female physique but also possessed Y chromosome, the author asks "why should these (genetic materials, looks and strength) should be the deciding factors?" According to Fausto-Sterling, When a child is born with two X chromosomes along with both male and female organs, doctors tend to decide the baby to be a girl, "because of her potential to give birth." (5). She argues that deciding one's sex is role of the society not science. As I hope to pursue my career in clinical medicine, the author's argument poses a challenge. Is the determination of sex really a social matter? If so, how is our biological indicators of sex relevant to gender?
One of the Grey's Anatomy episodes deals with a "girl" who is born with both ovaries and testis. She came to the hospital to remove tumor on her ovaries. However, the tumor turns out to be on her testis instead and the girl and her parents face a dilemma. The parents tell the surgeon to remove testis during the operation without telling their daughter, but the doctor refuses to do so, saying that it is unethical to lie and it is the girl's decision not the doctors. When this hermaphroditic features are found at birth, if not the doctor, who makes the decision of determining the sex of the baby? Certainly, the baby is too young to make decision at that point. Then is it better to leave the decision making until the baby grows enough to make decisions? Fausto-Sterling seems to suggest that labeling a person as either male/female is wrong, and we need to allow more terms to describe one's sex or gender. At this point, I don't have a clear answer. I want to ask the rest of the class, what should you do if you if you are a doctor or a parent of the child born with both male and female sexual organs, how do you make the decision??
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Feminism and Science--- I Would Have Never Guessed
As I read through the two articles, "Body Matters: Cultural Inscriptions" by Lynne Segal and "The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology" I began to realize I had failed to recognize an important concept that was always in front of me. The concept of feminism has always been essential to my being, mainly due to the reason I am a woman, but I never imagined there could be a trace of feminism in the world of science. The articles provided an insight to this intriguing combination, which left me questioning the facts I consumed in the beginning of my science education. "The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology" discusses the interaction between the egg and sperm, which clearly demonstrates the biases found in science. It justifies that a scientist's personal beliefs are reflected in his or her's scientific thought. These type of influences dismiss science's factuality, because people's thoughts are constantly being shaped by the society around them. In addition, Segal points out some very engaging topics throughout her article. Her discussion about the clitoris and vagina with their distinct characteristics defined a very compelling argument against the penis. I'm sure most people do not daunt on the fact that a male can engage in reproduction and pleasure in one step, while women are stuck with two.
It was interesting to see the contrast between the two commercials. The Viagra commercial displayed a joyous sense of erectile dysfunction, which shaped the problem into a "fun guys out." The commercial shadowed the problem by approaching the conflict with confidence and happiness. In addition, the commercial never directly addressed the problem. As for the Lyriana commercial, it was dull and depressing. The woman in despair reflected a message of shame and remorse. These type of commercials contribute to the sexist stereotypes of society, which affect the way people think. After viewing these commercials, I recalled my high school days as a pharmacy technician, where I dispensed these drugs. I remember when women would bring their prescriptions for sexually-related medications, they would be embarrassed. On the other hand, when men would bring their Viagra or Cialis prescriptions, their faces would be lit with excitement or masculine confidence.
It is eye opening for me to realize that not even science can be objective. Yet, I believe it is imperative to have feminist critiques to create a balance of scientific thought and to eliminate the biases in science, because science is crucial to our academic society.
It was interesting to see the contrast between the two commercials. The Viagra commercial displayed a joyous sense of erectile dysfunction, which shaped the problem into a "fun guys out." The commercial shadowed the problem by approaching the conflict with confidence and happiness. In addition, the commercial never directly addressed the problem. As for the Lyriana commercial, it was dull and depressing. The woman in despair reflected a message of shame and remorse. These type of commercials contribute to the sexist stereotypes of society, which affect the way people think. After viewing these commercials, I recalled my high school days as a pharmacy technician, where I dispensed these drugs. I remember when women would bring their prescriptions for sexually-related medications, they would be embarrassed. On the other hand, when men would bring their Viagra or Cialis prescriptions, their faces would be lit with excitement or masculine confidence.
It is eye opening for me to realize that not even science can be objective. Yet, I believe it is imperative to have feminist critiques to create a balance of scientific thought and to eliminate the biases in science, because science is crucial to our academic society.
Sexuality and Science
The two readings, “Body Matters: Cultural Inscriptions” and “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology” both pose interesting insights into society’s bias regarding sexuality and science. In the article “Body Matters,” Segal illuminates female sexuality which is often confused with reproduction. Although many times the birth canal or vagina become the defining characteristic of females, Segal points out that women also have a clitoris whose function is only to create sexual pleasure. This distinction is not made in a commercial for FSD. This commercial focuses on relief for problems with the vagina, no mention is given to the clitoris. Thus, the commercial does not emphasize the improvement of female enjoyment during sex rather the health of the female reproductive organ. On the other hand, Segal also explores the representation of the male penis as both the reproductive and sexual-enjoyment organ that is always erect and ready for sex. This issue is well illustrated in a Viagra commercial in which a group of men celebrate their future as sexual beings with the aid of Viagra. Thus, Segal’s message that sexuality is influenced by societal assumptions is well supported by real-world applications such as commercials.
Similarly, the report, “The Importance of Feminist Critique” exposes societal biases in the field of science. This group gives several illustrations that are clearly influenced by the societal stereotypes of the roles of men and women. For example, one textbook describes cytoplasm (representing the female) as passive and helpless, waiting to be fertilized by the active and aggressive nucleus (representing the male). Additionally, the group gives several examples of how scientists’ relationship with wives or lovers affects their interpretation of the ovum and sperm relationship. One scientist who was a dominant husband again described the sperm as the active and dominant partner compared to the lazy and inactive ovum. Clearly, the group exposes bias in the scientific community. Both articles leave the reader with the message to be aware of biases everywhere.
Similarly, the report, “The Importance of Feminist Critique” exposes societal biases in the field of science. This group gives several illustrations that are clearly influenced by the societal stereotypes of the roles of men and women. For example, one textbook describes cytoplasm (representing the female) as passive and helpless, waiting to be fertilized by the active and aggressive nucleus (representing the male). Additionally, the group gives several examples of how scientists’ relationship with wives or lovers affects their interpretation of the ovum and sperm relationship. One scientist who was a dominant husband again described the sperm as the active and dominant partner compared to the lazy and inactive ovum. Clearly, the group exposes bias in the scientific community. Both articles leave the reader with the message to be aware of biases everywhere.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Intersexuality
In ""Cultural Practice" or "Reconstructive Surgery"?", Cheryl Chase combined both political, social, personal, and ethical issues to create such an interesting piece. Chase, at first, described a bit about the social and medical views of normative bodies and intersexuality in America, but compared it to practices that take place in other places of the world. In her description of hermaphrodites she clearly redefines what many Americans see as being normal in terms of sexuality. Many times people simplify sexuality into two categories, male and female, and Chase clearly states that this binary of physical sex can no longer be distinguished as easily. The idea of sex and sexuality, along with gender, it certainly changing, and Chase does a good job in describing the sentiment behind the reality of intersex children and adults.
I was most interested by Chase's discussion of medical doctors and professionals who share a very unique, and often prestigious, opinion of themselves, their work, and status in society. While Chase seems almost offended by the ease with which they make determinations and recommend surgeries, many of these doctors view themselves as saviors for both the intersexual child and its parent(s). Chase largely places blame on the doctors since they are the ones continually reinforcing the inclinations for these surgeries and policing the boundaries that determine what exactly makes a male and/or a female. Additionally, I was compelled by Chase's discussion concerning female genital mutilation versus intersexual genital mutilation, and her way of trying to recognize the lack of feminist critique. I had never really realized that doctors choose to surgically redefine intersexual children as females, as opposed to males. Once I made this realization I, too, was simply surprised that IGM has not received more attention in the US. I almost felt as though Chase was pointing out to the victimization of females and, although, we have only been in the class for a short time, we have clearly already seen this. We saw how females were almost victimized in the Lyriana commercial for their sexual problems and most definitely victimized in Schiebinger's discussion of the evolution of ideas concerning the sperm, egg, and respective roles.
I would be interested in learning more about the ISNA towards the end of the semester to see what kind of progress they are making in trying to change the treatment of intersex infants and the evolution of this new culture of support.
I was most interested by Chase's discussion of medical doctors and professionals who share a very unique, and often prestigious, opinion of themselves, their work, and status in society. While Chase seems almost offended by the ease with which they make determinations and recommend surgeries, many of these doctors view themselves as saviors for both the intersexual child and its parent(s). Chase largely places blame on the doctors since they are the ones continually reinforcing the inclinations for these surgeries and policing the boundaries that determine what exactly makes a male and/or a female. Additionally, I was compelled by Chase's discussion concerning female genital mutilation versus intersexual genital mutilation, and her way of trying to recognize the lack of feminist critique. I had never really realized that doctors choose to surgically redefine intersexual children as females, as opposed to males. Once I made this realization I, too, was simply surprised that IGM has not received more attention in the US. I almost felt as though Chase was pointing out to the victimization of females and, although, we have only been in the class for a short time, we have clearly already seen this. We saw how females were almost victimized in the Lyriana commercial for their sexual problems and most definitely victimized in Schiebinger's discussion of the evolution of ideas concerning the sperm, egg, and respective roles.
I would be interested in learning more about the ISNA towards the end of the semester to see what kind of progress they are making in trying to change the treatment of intersex infants and the evolution of this new culture of support.
Male Dominated Biology (take 2--sorry)
After taking biology both semesters of my freshman year, I never would have thought that what was written in my textbook would have any sort of bias towards male dominance. You could say that I was naive and believed that what was written was the truth. As suggested by the second reading, I never considered biology as the oppressor of women and the victim of male social assumption. Although I understand that personal lives as well as socio/cultural factors influence the scientists (as suggested by the Standpoint Theory), it did not occur to me that this would blind them from the truth of their findings or disregard other suggestions of what the truth could be. After working in different labs I have never found this to be the case, or maybe subconsciously I just avoided it or didn't notice (who knows). I now understand through our class discussion that science is not as objective as I thought it was. Through feminist critique, I think that it is important to show where these assumptions take place concerning gender bias, especially in terms of fertilization.
The process of fertilization is incredibly romanticized when previous science suggests that the egg awaits the aggressive/heroic sperm, similar to the journey in the Odyssey and the Aeneid. As theories became more modernized and the egg was characterized as energetic as opposed to passive, scientists showed that the male and female are equally responsible in contributing to the union. These two gametes are equally essential in allowing fertilization to occur since the sperm acts as the activation agent, while the egg supplies the form and structure. Even acknowledging that this is the case, scientists were able to continue showing male dominance saying that the sperm provides the nucleus (the most important part, holding the master molecule: DNA) while the egg donates to the cytoplasm of the cell. As stated in the second article, it is ridiculous that the cell is sexualized as different parts of the cell are "genderized." I am definitely looking forward to see how feminist critique attacks these sort of problems in biomedicine throughout the rest of the class.
Reaction Week 1
After reading both of the articles, I was surprised that I had never noticed the influence of sexuality and gender on how scientific findings are presented to the world. Although I understood the basic concepts of fertilization (the joining of sperm and egg), I never took notice of the wording in which the subject matter was taught. After reading Segal's Body Matters: Cultural Inscriptions, it was much easier to see how the perspective of a male may affect the manner in which this topic is presented. In my opinion, it is somewhat surprising that science, a topic that we hope to be seen in an objective view, is not. It makes me wonder what else is said to be "fact" when in reality, is just a representation of a phenomena that has been skewed from social and cultural influences as well as from personal experiences.
I also found the commercials we viewed in class to be eye-opening. The stark difference between the two emphasizes how society today separates the male from the female. Whereas the commercial for Lyriana targeted how female sexual problems is more of a personal issue that should not be disclosed, the advertisement for Viagra highlighted male sexual problems in a more glorious manner. For the women, the commercial focused on the problem, and for the men, it focused on achieving the end result. Perhaps this different approach stems from the fact that Viagra is more of an advertised product than Lyriana? Either way, I feel that this variation demonstrates how differently both genders are viewed in society.
I also found the commercials we viewed in class to be eye-opening. The stark difference between the two emphasizes how society today separates the male from the female. Whereas the commercial for Lyriana targeted how female sexual problems is more of a personal issue that should not be disclosed, the advertisement for Viagra highlighted male sexual problems in a more glorious manner. For the women, the commercial focused on the problem, and for the men, it focused on achieving the end result. Perhaps this different approach stems from the fact that Viagra is more of an advertised product than Lyriana? Either way, I feel that this variation demonstrates how differently both genders are viewed in society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)