In Fausto-Sterling's article, "That Sexe Which Prevaileth" she brings up a few topics that we have began discussing in class, particularly the Western culture's obsession with categorizing people as either "male" or "female" and converting anyone who falls in between to fit into one of these groups. As Fausto-Sterling points out, throughout history, different cultures have embraced and rejected different ideas and definitions of sex and gender. Some thinkers, such as Aristotle and Plato, have accepted hermaphrodites as a type of sex, whereas others including Hildegard held a strong disapproval for what she considered unusual, including hermaphrodites. However as history has progressed and medical research and science have developed, the need to categorize someone as either "male" or "female" has only become even more embedded in American and European society. As Fausto-Sterling points out, "the possession of a [single] sex is a necessity for our social order, for hermaphrodites as well as for normal subjects" (42). Thus people have been programmed to understand that while humans may differ in many different types of hair-color, or height and weight or facial attributes, a definitive commonality we share is that we are either male or female. But are these well-sculpted definitions of sex accurate? Are there really only two categories of sex that we fall into? According to Fausto-Sterling, nature offers more than just two sexes, so why do we chose to "correct nature's mistakes" by converting those with both male and female attributes to the "sexe which prevaileth" or the sex that dominates one's personality, instead of embrace the idea that there are more than just two categories?
Fausto-Sterling makes another interesting point in reference to the development of sciences and medical research. As scientists have discovered new ways to study the physiology of people, which includes hermaphrodites, males and females, they have been able to identify at birth whether or not someone has both masculine and feminine attributes and thus are able to "correct" or convert these mixed-sex people to male or female. This is another subject that came up in class and as we discussed its implications, I thought about what I would do as a mother if my child had been born with both male and female attributes. Would I remove the "male parts" if she was really supposed to be a girl in order to follow the rules of society and give my child the opportunity to fit in? Probably. But how would this decision impact the child later in life?
The need to identify someone as "male" or "female" is deeply ingrained in our culture, to the point where the inability to identify whether someone is a man or a woman brings about an uncomfortable and awkward atmosphere often resulting in judgments and sometimes jokes or insults. But what about those people who do not fit into either category? This ties into Jeffrey Eugenides's character Cal in "Middlesex" who was a girl at birth, but was then born again as a boy 14 years later. Why is there a need to define Cal as either a boy or girl if by nature that's not what he/she is? As we concluded in class, I think sex should be measured on a spectrum as opposed to two strictly-defined categories, "male" and "female". Yet again we face the conflict of breaking the norms of society in the attempt to allow for the differences that naturally exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As Jessi already pointed out, one of Fausto-Sterling’s main arguments throughout “That Sexe Which Prevaileth” is the constant need to categorize people as either “male” or “female.” I think one of the many reasons for this categorization is that generally people become uncomfortable with something they don’t know or don’t understand. One of my best friends back home is openly gay and chooses to dress in a more masculine way. She wears her hair in short buzz cut and I notice the attention she gets on a daily basis. The uncomfortable tension people feel towards her is easily noticeable and often times she is addressed by “sir.” When she corrects them, they quickly apologize, not quite sure knowing what to do next. When I asked her about it once, she just shrugged her shoulders and told me she doesn’t care much about what others think. As I was reading Myhre’s piece for last class, it reminded me of my friend. My friend told me whatever happens doesn’t matter because she is comfortable with herself and her sexuality and that is all that matters. There is still uneasiness with ambiguous sexuality. So, in order to understand and correct “nature’s mistakes,” guidelines are created to place people into a system that is known and understood.
ReplyDeleteI thought Klebs’ theories on gender were a little closed-minded, stating, “Gonads were the sole defining factor in biological sex. A body with those ovaries, no matter how many masculine features it might have, was female.” (p.38). Klebs’ theories showed a complete disregard for psychological testing and social influences, which we have started to discuss during last class. I think we’ll see the importance for psychological testing as we continue to read Middlesex. I’ve already read Eugenides’ novel and I think it demonstrates the complexities of trying to define people as either “male” or “female” because so many aspects of one’s life are tied together.
i choose not to blog today. that is all!
ReplyDeleteI think Maria is spot on in saying that people feel the need to be so narrow-minded and uptight in defining gender because they are uncomfortable about it. If someone doesn't meet the exact standards of what a boy should be, or what a girl should be, people around the "sexually ambiguous" automatically feel awkward. Should they acknowledge it? How should they act? What should they say? However, why should we care how the bystanders in this situation feel? Imagine being the person who has to answer the question "What sex are you?" a million times a day, or just think about how they feel inside. In situations like that, most people never really think about it from the other person's perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to read Fausto-Sterling's chapter and seeing how the view of hermaphrodites has evolved over time. I too think Klebstheory was close-minded, but mind you, it was 1876 and modern medicine has come a long way since then. But then again, I think for many people, the views are the same: the define characteristics in what makes a boy a boy, and a girl a girl are the primary sex characteristics. It's so embedded in our brains that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina that we can't think any other way. If someone had a penis, how could he NOT be a boy? Thinking otherwise would undermine the very foundation on which our society and our beliefs are built. However, sex and gender are not cut and dry issues. It's not just one or the other, girl or boy. We aren't just a box that you check MALE or FEMALE on forms that we have to fill out; our identities as human beings are more than just check marks in a box.
I was really interested in the Caster Semenya case this summer -- the girl runner from South Africa who actually had internal male sex organs. I remember reading this article a few months ago in the NY Times about how she might not be allowed to run anymore as a woman: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/sports/20runner.html.
So she can't run as a woman because she has male parts on the inside? But she looks like a girl. She was raised as a girl. She knows how to be a girl. So what is she? Does that mean she can run as a man? Where do we draw the line? What is the real definition of boy or girl? Are we really going to leave it up to the governing body of international track and field to tell us what sex and gender is, and who is what? This article really frustrated me because Semenya might not be able to run competitively anymore because of society's close-minded, strict definitions of male or female. It's unfair, and it's all too common.