Last week’s issue of the Johnsonville Press had me both excited and disappointed with its discussion of intersexuality. In her article, He-Said-She-Said: A Defense of Current Protocol for Intersexual Infants, Grace Hong discusses an issue that seems rarely mentioned outside of psychology/sociology classrooms, though it could potentially affect any future parent. To reiterate the basic facts, intersexuals are those born with biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes[1], and the current protocol is to use cosmetic surgery to assign the baby a definitive sex. When approaching the issue of intersexuality, it’s also crucial to explicitly distinguish between sex and gender; with sex being the biological differences between males and females, and gender being the socially constructed ideas of what constitutes masculinity and femininity. This distinction becomes especially important since current protocol attempts to modify biological aspects of a person (supposed anatomical anomalies), rather than addressing the problem of our narrow social constructs of sex and gender.
In her article, Grace acknowledges that
- the surgery eliminates personal choice in the most personal of matters
- it can diminish future sexual function for the individual (statistics show that 20-30% of those put through the surgery experiences loss of sexual sensation), and
- she then rationalizes that this makes each case unique and the correct solution uncertain.
However, she still supports the current dependence on cosmetic genital surgery, mainly, from what I can grasp, because the ambiguity in sex is undesirable and the importance of normalcy. The article states that ambiguity is frowned upon and is an instantaneous social disadvantage. Following this sort of logic, every girl whose breasts are deemed too small by our society should undergo “corrective” plastic surgery to fit in and avoid criticism from her peers, regardless of whether or not she wants to. By eliminating personal choice, we are not treating each case as unique, but selfishly forcing them to all conform into being what we want them to be. I find this unfortunate as we no longer understand intersexuality due to the prevalence of this oppressive surgery.
Rather than embracing individuality in its various shapes and sizes, genital surgery implicitly heralds an idea that there is something wrong with being an intersexual. Not only that, but it supposes that this ambiguity can be easily solved with a slice of a knife. Even if intersexuality is a social disadvantage now, if we lived in a society where only blue eyes were socially acceptable, would it be okay to surgically replace all non-blue eyes with blue iris-ed eyes at birth, supposing that these new eyes only work about 75% of the time? Where is the public outcry for the cosmetic removal of third nipples and their offensively ambiguous mole/nipple appearance? How important is a superficial sense of normalcy? Despite our dislike for ambiguity, we do not also force bisexuals to pick gay or straight or make androgynous women to grow out their hair. In fact, androgynous individuals who are able to use both masculine and feminine qualities are found to be mentally healthier than those who are stuck with their gender specific roles.
This is not to say that the ambiguity is not an issue. Studies have shown that people automatically treat male and female babies in different ways, and due to the lack of awareness of the intersex possibility, parents who had first excitedly gone out to buy pink or blue wallpapers will have difficulty in knowing how to treat their child. At the core, ambiguity makes us uncomfortable because it reveals our own lack of knowledge. The solution should not be universally pretending an ambiguous object is one thing or another so we can avoid our own discomfort, but taking the time, in this case as a society, to learn about what we don’t understand. Eventually we should be able to accept intersexuals exactly the way they are. Gender-neutral colors will rejoice as we amend our current ideas of what is acceptable when it comes to sex and gender. The idea of five sexes, though said in a tongue in cheek manner, nevertheless illustrates that sex is not the simple male or female idea we’ve perpetrated. Estimates have been made that roughly 1-2 in every 1000 children are considered candidates for this sort of surgery, and 1 in every 100 births have some sort of ambiguity. Considering this, sex is not binary but a continuum, and the pervasiveness of gender roles should continue their decline, postmarked by hipster males in women’s dark denim jeans.
The first step we must take now is to recognize current protocol as a problem. Instead of being allowed to grow and develop as they are, intersexuals are still automatically assigned male or female at birth. Any infant with a penis that is “too small” will have it reconstructed into a vagina. This is the biological evidence current procedures use, but even when an infamous surgeon once proclaimed that it is easier to dig a hole than to build a mountain, the protests were confined to the classrooms and left there. Somehow, we still hide behind the unfounded idea that we are helping these people by choosing major parts of their lives for them. Or that not performing the surgery will increase the chances of gender confusion. For those without a psychology background, gender confusion occurs when the individual believes that there is a disparity between their sex and the gender they resonate with most. For example, someone who believes that they are a man stuck in a woman’s body. The disparity is so great that it often leads to distress and sex reassignment surgery because your personal idea of your gender cannot always be taught. I ask each reader whether you truly believe making infants with penises deemed too small into females will increase or decrease the likelihood of gender confusion.
Recent studies have found that women who underwent breast augmentation(s) are three times more likely to commit suicide than the general public, and the rates for those who have been forced to undergo this sort of mandatory sex assignment steadily increase because changing outward appearances cannot really help you develop a higher self esteem or ease your way to a better understanding of who you are. This is what should be kept in mind when supporters for current protocol claim that without the surgery, the individual will have a hard time creating a sexual identity.
Despite her conflicting opinions on the matter, I agree with Grace that the love and support of family and friends are invaluable concerning the development of a sexual identity as well as any other sort of development, and I’m glad that Grace’s article helps raise awareness about intersexuality. Ultimately, progress cannot be made on topics people do not spare the words for, and so, I hope you’ll all forgive me for my lengthy response.
[1] Thank you, wikipedia
May 4, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I think that the sticky nature of this issue lies in the fact that people cannot seem to separate a link between genitalia and the performative aspects of gender identity. Think here. What sort of medical reasons would cause ambiguous nether regions? Would these same reasons influence later aspects of gender identity? Helllll yes.
As a girly who only recently started to fantasize about having kids of my own, something that literally just happened in the Wawa like an hour ago kind of resonates with my own approaches to being a Ma. I was pouring myself a huge cup of joe when a very sweet looking “mentally challenged” (what’s PC these days?) child ran up to me to intently watch me mix my study brew. His impatient mother swooped in to chastise him for staring at me, and I laughed at her and told her it was OK, no harm done. I squatted down to his level to ask him if he liked coffee, to which he made a sour face and said that he really liked cherry Slurpees. I then asked, “Why don’t you help your mom pour one? I bet she likes them, too.” I thought to myself that I would have never impatiently yelled at my kid like that. I would have instead gently tugged my little one aside and explained why perhaps staring is impolite, then asked them how they would feel if someone was watching them.
Don’t tell me my tempered reaction is just because I don’t have a troubled child. My father was this way (even when I was in the throes of a horrible temper tantrum), I was this way with my little brother about things, and I was always this way with the little brats at the summer camps I worked at or babysat. I once got a really nice Thank you note from a mom to tell me that her incredibly timid daughter “got up each and every morning just to go be with a girl that made her feel comfortable enough to be herself.”
I can’t stop preaching that sentiment enough, “Beeee yourself.” Thats why if faced with the complications of an intersexed child of my own, I would realize that the genitalia is NOT the issue here. It’s about setting up the parameters of an identity that continuously develops. I’d leave my kids body alone and have to deal with trying to choose whether to call it a boy or a girl. Then as we go along, we have to accept that our boy might want to play with Barbie over trucks or that our little girl might rather military bunker fantasies over playing kitchen- intersexed or not. We (meaning me and my husband) just have to explain to our kids what the implications of enacting such cross gendered behaviors might entail. Then if he or she later down the line makes some sort of connection between gender and genitalia, well then, like my best friend in high school who got a nose job for her 17th birthday, aight.
But for goodness sake, I am staying out of my kids sexual identity. That’s all up to you, kids. I want no say in the matter.
I just want my children to have as many opportunities as possible to enunciate the dimensions of their character. I want them to be themselves no matter what.
In conclusion, I think your piece was well informed on such a tricky topic and I was just throwing my ideas about it out there. The problems of the intersexed never cease to interest me. Nicely done, Steph!
May 4, 2009 at 4:13 pm
It’s nice to see that someone felt compelled to tell the other side of the issue. If my “He said she said” article was of interest to you, i think you should also read my article “but think of the children.” http://johnsonvillepress.com/2009/02/but-think-of-the-children-by-grace-hong/ But to be fair, these articles are adopted from previously written essays, since which time my views (and writing abilities) have changed some.
Now to address your concerns based on my “he said..” article:
1) Because gender is a social construction, having a decided biological sex helps to maintain (for the parents and the individual) a solid foundation by which gender norms can be later applied. When dealing with the fact that at younger ages, gender is concept that is defined through socialization, having an inexplicable biological status would create difficulties in “proper” socialization. This is my main point. Unfortunately I tend to be wordy and indirect in writing.
2) When I suggest opting for surgery right away, I was trying to explain that the decision needs to be based on biological evidence (genotype over phenotype, the ability for the function of one (if of two) sexual organs, etc). For example, having a micropenis and XY chromosomes, doesn’t document ample biological evidence for sexual assignment as female. On the other hand, having testes and ovaries of which only one set is functional, would be an example of clear biological evidence for surgery in one direction. Granted there are going to be cases where it may be more difficult to determine overwhelming evidence for a decision in one way or another, so in that sense the cases do have to be examined individually.
3) I am in full agreement that gender is a continuum and something that is fluid and subject to change (your hipster males with their women’s jeans come into play here). I think that was what I was also ultimately trying to convey to the reader, but in the case of intersexuality and choosing sexes for the children, it’s a concept that one eventually comes to terms with, not something that can be explained very easily to children, in which case giving them a starting point based on biology is once again helpful, reiterating the importance of the solid foundation of biologically based gender/sex.
4) The logic by which I suggest surgery for infants cannot be applied to the idea of a woman getting breast augmentation— she is not faced with the question of biological sex, she is working in the realms of the socialized roles and characteristics of the female (gender).
5) In a sense, sexual ambiguity for an infant can actually be solved with a slice of the knife, because an infant has no perception of gender. This is solely a step taken to help provide a platform by which to socially construct the child’s world, which is again advantageous as it is the norm by which general society functions.
Glad my writing could move you to write for the Johnsonville.
May 4, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Maybe you might want to see what intersexed people might have to say on the subject. Of all the books I’ve read and films I’ve watched, this one seems to be the most influential in my studies. Pay close attention to Hida.
http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/oprahshow1_ss_20070921/1
There experiences have made me wonder, “If gender is indeed something we made up, just a ‘social construct,’ then why do we engage in it? What is its purpose?” Maybe social constructions of gender are just frameworks to express a facet of our true selves. What is being expressed by enacting gender?
The moment when I became engaged in this debate was when I was reading an article in People Magazine (the most elite of intellectual social commentary!) on this guy who wanted to be a woman. He wrote about this moment when he went to go to the mens room, and he paused in front of the men’s room and ladies room right next to each other and thought, “To which one do I belong? Why do I want to put on lipstick?” Like, there is no gene for lipstick. The fact that I have a vag doesn’t make me like chick flicks (gag) or wear lacy underwear or prefer nail polish to video games. What do you think does?
“An inexplicable biological status would create difficulties in “proper” socialization…In a sense, sexual ambiguity for an infant can actually be solved with a slice of the knife, because an infant has no perception of gender.”
I think the question is not about “Doing Gender,” (Thanks, Judy Buts.) but what is gender doing? If we can work through that, I think we’ll see that even if an infant can’t perceive of gender, that doesn’t mean its little penis is acting as a compass towards it. The only thing necessary for a normal experience is choosing a gender for an intersexed, to call it a him or a her, to give it a name, a baton to try and run with. But gender is not linked to sexuality and even less linked to genitalia. My vagina doesn’t make me wear lipstick. Something else is doing that.
May 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm
car,
i’ve had my fair share of experience watching, learning, reading, and understanding the interplay between gender and biological sex (never take sociology of gender with aaron gerson), and ultimately came to the conclusion that biological sex is (if one is allowed to generalize) the promoter of tendencies while socialization is the culmination of our bodily/chemical needs along with our own understandings of what it means to be anything. I’m not sure if we agree on this idea, but it’s definitely how i see it.
the fact that a biological male asks himself, “to which one do i belong?” when looking at bathrooms and asks himself “why do i want to put on lipstick” potentially could be because of some sort of biological force, but it may very well have to do with the kinds of people he’s always learned to associate himself with, and the positive experience that backs his understanding that lipstick use is desirable in some sort of way (social construction). saying that people are simply biologically created to act in certain ways (in terms of gender) makes as much sense as saying that our bodies, that our minds from birth, could presuppose the existence of objects and concepts that we’ve never experienced. i think the fact that i keep using the term “social construction” makes people believe somehow all of this is less real than if someone were to say that there was a biological basis for it, but this is not the case at all.
again, i want to impress upon the larger audience my firm belief in gender as a fluid, constantly changing aspect of our selves that has no inherent meaning until we socially construct it (same can be applied to sexuality and sexual orientation). this doesn’t have to negate biological tendencies and inclinations, but it most probably directs these propensities into manner that is perceived as logical to the individual.
May 4, 2009 at 11:40 pm
oh Carley, Oprah! she’s wonderful! i’m swooning.
and that’s exactly how i feel. affirm life in all its forms. whatever biological forces resulted in the ambiguous genital may still play a role in how the individual self identifies gender-wise. Hida saying she feels more masculine in some situations and more feminine in others seems completely healthy to me, compared to the abundance of psychological stresses stemming from being forced to just one side of the spectrum.
Grace, in a case like Hida, would you still support the surgery to trim down her clitoris, despite the fact that she was a healthy baby? without the surgery, she grew up into a healthy, well-adjusted adult, while the surgery would’ve only brought upon her unnecessary risks. again, this surgery seems to be solely cosmetic, and a way to maintain societal aesthetics for how bodies should look.
there is always a disparity between what we’ve deemed the ideal and how we actually look. that’s why i related it to breast augmentations. breasts are a sex characteristic, and i would argue, many people do insinuate a sex ambiguity when encountering girls with smaller bosoms. however, increasing the size of your breasts does not change your actual sex, and neither would trimming your clitoris. inside, we are still what we are. we, as a society, have decided that boys look this way and girls look another. should we always give in to the pressure to look the way society prescribes? if we don’t always give in for breasts, why do we give in to “fixing” genitals? simply to better apply gender norms? so parents will be more comfortable dressing an infant in one color or another, and know what sort of stuffed animal or toy to prime the child with for a normal life? (there are exceptions when removing testes or ovaries, in which sex hormones will no longer be released in the same manner)
perhaps i didn’t fully articulate that i think a major problem lies in the fact that our concept of sex as a dichotomy needs to be re-evaluated. as we see in nature, this isn’t the case. the issue i take is the stubbornness in forcing people into categories they aren’t a good fit for, without their consent. especially when concerning something as constricting as our gender roles, and especially when i believe that this practice is mainly for the ease of others. so other people can look at the infant and be like, okay, i can understand you, and now i know how to treat you. it’s a procedure that takes the individual completely out of the equation, solely looking for a way to more easily mold someone into a set gender role.
raised in this society, it’s true that most likely an individual will want to fit in and be one gender or another rather than staying somewhere in between, but like Carley said, once they make up their own minds to be one gender or the other, then i’m all for surgery, because that’s their decision for their body. being able to grow up as they are should be their right too. i’m only against the immediacy of current protocol.
you say the surgery will give the child a definitive starting point, but i think they were born. period. that’s start. from then on, it’s about strong parents and loved ones supporting the child in their development. no matter who you are, we all have our own set of issues and problems we work through. while some people may think that this genital ambiguity may be too difficult for someone to overcome, that is not something you need to decide for them. this surgery attempts to pave the way to an acceptable identity for the person, rather than letting them discover their own unique potential. we, as a society, should not be standing in their way, but helping them only when they come to us.
but instead, this surgery is masking the existence of intersexuals so the occurrences are even more distressing to the parent. now, unprepared for this possibility, and seeing that even the doctors just want to get fix the child, how is the parent supposed to feel? what sort of unconscious behavior will the parents then display to the child? if we really want to help intersexuals, we need to be more open to their side of the story, and from the dissatisfaction of those who have been operated on, and the lack of evidence of a benefit… if nothing else, we should pause to reconsider.
May 4, 2009 at 11:42 pm
these are the lengthiest of responses.
May 5, 2009 at 12:38 am
i think my first two lengthy comments answer most of the “disagreements” that both you and carley seem to have with my opinions on the matter. i certainly agree with you that the concept of gender as a dichotomy is questionable– this is what i mean by a fluid identity.
in terms of surgery being the starting point/taking away agency of the individual? well then, by that logic, we take away the agency of the children by deciding to perform surgery to “correct” webbed feet, remove foreskin on the penis, hairlips, and all other sorts of physical attributes that can be present at birth and are surgically altered. we also take away their agency by deciding to make our boy children wear blue all the time, making them play with GI JOE instead of Barbie, having little girls where cute little skirts and dresses with their adorable little sandals– these are probably even MORE influential than cosmetic genital surgery! All of these things are decisions that we enforce on our children that shape their understanding of gender; cosmetic surgery in and of itself has nothing to do with the child’s future understanding of his/her own gender identity. we just happen to think of it that way because sex and gender has always been so tied together. it’s true that we can allow our children to grow up and make the decision to change their bodies when they feel ready to, but as a parent, i feel like the idea is to always try and offer children the best and the happiest of experiences and to protect them from the unnecessary cruelty of the rest of society. i think this is pretty natural parenting behavior. but i guess this is also where it really comes down to personal decisions that are beyond rational reasoning.
i’m not sure why my arguments keep being misunderstood. if there is an understanding that gender is a social construct that is always in flux, we should realize that the intersexed identity (just like the female identity, AND the male identity, the heterosexual identity, the homosexual identity, etc) is also a social construct and therefore liable to change and alter itself through time– having nothing to do with the physical form. And to make that clear, I am suggesting that surgery, if needed, be done earlier rather than later.
i really hope my rationale came through this time. i’ve pretty much exhausted my interest in this subject after three years of gender/sexuality courses.
May 5, 2009 at 12:56 am
This is a tricky topic, mostly because I’m pretty sure none of us have any direct experience with the matter. Therefore, it’s really easy for Grace to suggest, for continuity’s sake, that surgery should be done as soon as possible. However, it also makes sense that Stephanie would oppose this option so adamantly, on the grounds that unnecessary surgery can only ever do more harm than good. I am partial to the line from S’s comment that the surgery takes individual agency out of the equation, but am also receptive to Grace’s comparison with compulsive gender corrective surgery to more acceptable forms such as circumcision.
In the end, I doubt if either of you can say definitively what should be done in cases like this until you are yourself presented with the situation of having given birth to an intersexed child. The degree of the anomaly will undoubtedly play a part in the eventual decision. I for one refuse to speculate on what decision I would ultimately make if confronted with the choice. I would only say that I certainly would not go into the delivery room thinking “Ok, make it a girl if it’s born with a micropenis, will ya Doc?” But at the same time, I also refuse to take an ideological stance against the current surgical policy–mostly because I personally don’t actually care about this one way or the other, but also because i feel as if in attempting to construct a post-gendered society, we wind up being forced to rely on the same flawed vocabulary (male/female, gender, sex, patriarchy, bitches, streets, etc) that got us into the gender-fuck morass in the first place. You can’t walk around talking about how great it is to live in a post-gendered society if you still have qualms about issues like this one way or another. America is all about individual choice anyway, and please, I never want to have to use the word “micropenis” in a comment again, so don’t force my hand.
May 5, 2009 at 1:04 am
yeah, i feel like it’s pretty easy to be idealistic and pro-choice in a tricky, sticky, murky waters like scenario such as this, but at the end of the day, we don’t know how we really feel about a situation unless we’re confronted by it.
May 5, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“in terms of surgery being the starting point/taking away agency of the individual? well then, by that logic, we take away the agency of the children by deciding to perform surgery to “correct” webbed feet, remove foreskin on the penis, hairlips, and all other sorts of physical attributes that can be present at birth and are surgically altered.”
in all the situations you presented, except webbed feet, there are studies that do show a marked benefit. surgery on webbed feet is not generally performed on infants, rather, many people have them and decide later in life whether or not they want them removed. circumcision has mixed reports for the benefit of personal hygiene, decreased risks for STDs, etc. cleft lips have been found to make babies more susceptible to infections, have difficulty eating, speech impediments, etc. this surgery has almost no statistically supported benefits, other than the idea that it’ll better ease the child into society.
“we also take away their agency by deciding to make our boy children wear blue all the time, making them play with GI JOE instead of Barbie, having little girls where cute little skirts and dresses with their adorable little sandals– these are probably even MORE influential than cosmetic genital surgery!”
exactly, which is why maybe the presence of an intersexed baby will lead to a less heavy handed application of these gender roles, allowing the child to simply pick and choose which gender they resonate most with, ie: the example of Hida.
of course we agree that as parents, we would want the best for our children, but i don’t think shielding them from problems is necessarily the best solution. i would rather my child learn to work through their issues themselves, with my help if they want it.
ditto michael’s bit on individual choice. it does come down to each parent’s decision when the time comes, and i understand you’ve taken the classes, learned the statistics and with all that information, have made your point of view. i do, however, think it’s a shame that many other parents wont have your background on the subject, and will simply be pushed into the conventional practice which has led to so much dissatisfaction. i just want the topic to be more visible so everyone can see both sides and make their own informed decision. that said, i think this sort of surgery should stop being the current protocol, and instead become an available option. people who want this surgery for their child can still have it available to them, but when something becomes the default option, the uninformed masses swerve in that direction too.
i do tend to be more idealistic and pro-choice with everything, and of course i wont know how i’ll feel until the time comes, but i like having an idealistic starting point. that is, until life experience potentially beats it out of me.
May 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm
post modernism, post-genderism, post-micropenisism…
May 5, 2009 at 5:31 pm
i think it’s funny how esssentially all of us seem to be in agreement with the ideas behind the promotion of non-normative ways of thinking, but there is a disagreement in how and when they should be applied.. ultimately, “pro-choice all the way” kind of idealistic thinking will be the goal i believe set further in the future, like maybe within the lifetimes of our grand children or great grand children. but for the rest of us.. i think we’ll be looking at norms and dichotomies for a long, long time. baby steps, you know?
to quote rutgers’ own renowned sociologist eviatar zerubavel: “ignoring the historical background of present situations is somewhat analogous to living in a two-dimensional Flatland.. the past is an integral part of present identities… and such quasi-amnesic dissociation of current events from their historical contexts is therefore tantamount ot chopping up a film into seemingly disconnected stills” — i hope we all see how this applies to the situation.
May 5, 2009 at 11:12 pm
there is a difference between ignoring historical backgrounds and simply finding issues with past/current practices and wishing to progress. if my ideas were ignoring historical backgrounds, i would assume that what i’m suggesting should be an easy solution. unfortunately. we’ve both exhausted the fact that that’s not the case.
pushing to bring the topic into the light is a baby step, and making this surgery an option rather than just what happens? that’s another baby step. i don’t doubt that things will be the way they are for quite a long time, but i do believe the dream should still be the ideal, whether or not that gets achieved in our lifetime. change doesn’t happen by thinking in baby steps. we act in baby steps, but i think we should always have the final picture in mind.
May 5, 2009 at 11:13 pm
and as for quotes, i think the one i’m thinking of goes more like, “the first step toward success is taken when you refuse to be a captive of the environment in which you first find yourself.”
May 6, 2009 at 2:45 am
Outcast Births
What if every child born
to a world of ridicule or horror
is a challenge to us all
to love,
to simply love?
Copyright © 2009 by C. P. Klapper
May 9, 2009 at 4:31 pm
This is a really interesting topic about which I don’t know that much, but I’ve thought about it and talked to friends about it a bit in the past, and I think it is really important to at least consider, even if you conclude that the status quo of surgery is the best way because it is not obviously acceptable and there are strong intuitive reasons to be appalled by this type of surgery and implicit gender prejudice. I am kind of sad that I join the conversation so late (i.e. after 2 articles and 15 prior comments), but here’s a bit of what I have to say for anyone who still has the patience to read more on this issue:
I actually am not worried about the issues raised by failing to respect the agency of the child, despite my natural inclination to respect all people’s sovereignty over their own bodies and lives. This is, quite simply, because I don’t think that the newborn is a person yet – not in any important respect, at least. Just like it isn’t ready to make important decisions regarding, oh say, which nursery to attend, it isn’t ready to make this important decision, which, presumably, has great influence on its future life. I also don’t think it is feasible to simply say, but it can decide in the future, so let’s leave it be until it is old enough to make these decisions (whatever age that may be) because if surgery is the right decision (which I will argue that it is not, though not all that strongly) then going 5, 10, or 15 years before the surgery is probably going to have long-lasting negative affects, and as the child’s parent, you it IS your responsibility to make these important decisions now. (Note that this doesn’t exclude the possibility of deciding to wait and let the child decide, but it needs to be a decision that waiting to do anything is ideal, not a cop out.)
So, in summary of a messy paragraph, where I try to get my thoughts in order: the child’s agency only matters if it isn’t best to give it the surgery now, and once it is a person, it can decide what is best for it. I am also not too worried about any individual case, for I think there are compelling reasons, given the nature of our society for preferring (for the child’s sake) a typically defined baby – that is for any given parent, child, and family and social situations, it might be best either to get surgery or not to. I think the bigger problem is that we shouldn’t be in the situation where the surgery is considered a solution to the problem. The real problem is exceedingly general, in that our society is FUCKED UP in how it views gender and sex and that we ought to realize that an “in-between” baby is not a problem, and we don’t need to find the best solution to it. The child is just a baby that will develop into a person that we shouldn’t stereotype or prejudice ourselves against because they don’t fit our fictional definitions of sex and gender.
Thus, I think that we really ought not to be giving the surgery unless the child is actually at risk of something or other bad for it. Nonetheless, what I would do if I were presented with this situation, I don’t know, and I wouldn’t be too embarrassed (though I might be a bit embarrassed) if I chose to get my child surgery. This is because, on an individual level, I might have good reason to think that this child, my child, who I love and want the best things for, will be served better without worrying about an atypical sexuality, given other things that I know about the world. I think that based on the person I am and the environment with which I try to surround myself (and so the child, too), my child would be best served being brought up in an open and understanding culture, and that includes avoiding the surgery. I also think that ideally everyone would be brought up in this environment, but obviously that isn’t the case.
Does this make sense?
May 10, 2009 at 4:53 pm
thanks for commenting ben. i think i’ve become increasingly concerned with the agency of the infant due to the increasing amount of intersexuals coming out and denouncing the surgery. additionally, yes, it’s possible that waiting will have long lasting negative effects (mainly psychological), but it’s also possible that acting immediately and going ahead with the surgery will have long lasting negative effects as well (decreased sexual function+psychological). i have a tendency to write long replies, but i think, this article says anything i’d like to say on the topic much better than i can: http://www.isna.org/books/chrysalis/kessler
it’s a bit long, but my focus was the part where she differentiates between the three types of genital surgeries (1. saves life, 2. improves quality of life, and 3. satisfies social needs) and talks about the confusion between the third type as being the first or second. and equally important is her analysis of the current stress on appearance over function.
June 4, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Although this discussion is over (for now), I thought this news story was interesting, and this was the only place to post it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/krxq-sacramento-radio-hos_b_210637.html