Sex Reassignment and Feminism
Ovum
Read an interesting article today that wasn't in the Washington Post :-)
It was in Rolling Stone magazine, and it was about "John" Theissen,
who, because of a circumcision accident, was left without a penis
and was sex-reassigned by doctors and raised as a girl.
Theissen and other sex-reassigned children from the '60s and '70s
were used as proof that gender identity is dependent on socialization,
not biology. This was before it became known that Theissen's sex
reassignment failed.
Despite the removal of Theissen's testes as an infant, years of estrogen
treatment as an early teen, and persistant efforts by Theissen's parents
and doctors to raise him as a girl, he said he "knew" she was a boy and
refused to undergo vaginal canal constructive surgery in his mid-teens.
He was eventually allowed to get his breasts removed, undergo penile
constructive surgery, and build his life as a man -- eventually marrying
a woman who had three children. They have been married nine years.
John Theissen wanted his story told to assist activists' effort to stop
the practice of infant sex reassignment, something that is purportedly
done to thousands of children each year born with "ambiguous" genitalia.
(Ambiguous genitalia includes a baby with a larger-than-normal clitoris or
smaller-than-normal penis. Doctors have often just cut down the baby's
clitoris, rendering her inorgasmic for life.)
The article mentioned that the practice of sex reassignment had been
heralded by feminists in the '70s as supporting the "nuture, not nature"
argument of gender identity. Does the failure of sex reassignment
hurt or help the feminist cause? And how does someone "just know"
he or she is really another gender?
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Jym Dyer
> Theissen and other sex-reassigned children from the '60s and
> '70s were used as proof that gender identity is dependent on
> socialization, not biology. This was before it became known
> that Theissen's sex reassignment failed.
=o= The thing that these experiences prove is different than
stated here: what they show is that gender identity is not
*solely* dependent on biology. An apparent counterexample does
not disprove this, because there are plenty of examples where
socialization actually worked.
=o= Also bear in mind the existence of transsexuals. There are
people who with XX chromosomes who were socialized to be women
yet who, like Theissen, know that they're men (and there are of
course also XY-chromosoned folks socialized as men who know that
they're women).
> John Theissen wanted his story told to assist activists'
> effort to stop the practice of infant sex reassignment,
> something that is purportedly done to thousands of children
> each year born with "ambiguous" genitalia.
=o= (A small nit: "purportedly" has the connotation of untruth;
perhaps you mean "reportedly.")
=o= I'm no expert on the subject, but I think the practice with
ambiguous genitalia is (or has been) to identify the baby by the
sx that seems physiologically obvious from the genitalia rather
than the one that matches the sex chromosones.
=o= I have no idea whether this is the appropriate course of
action. Which presents more problem for a sexually-ambiguous
child in society? Is the success rate of this assignment higher
than the failure rate? How does this compare with the "success
rate" of those whose genitalia and chromosones and socialization
have all been in sync (bearing in mind the reported thousands of
transsexuals)?
> The article mentioned that the practice of sex reassignment
> had been heralded by feminists in the '70s as supporting the
> "nuture, not nature" argument of gender identity.
=o= Feminism is not monolithic on the nature/nurture (or more
appropriately, genetics/environment) argument. Indeed, the
1970s were they heyday of the "nature, not nurture" feminists!
The article would appear to be incorrect on this point.
=o= I've seen such case studies mentioned in the 1980s in due
support of a "not necessarily genetics" viewpoint. Again, the
existence of a counterexample like Theissen does not serve to
refute such a viewpoint. More important than such case studies
are the plentiful examples of women born with XX chromosones
and socialized with female gender roles who nonetheless decide
*not* to be restricted by those roles.
<_Jym_>
Cheyanne Nesgoda
On 7 Dec 1997, Ovum wrote:
>
> The article mentioned that the practice of sex reassignment had been
> heralded by feminists in the '70s as supporting the "nuture, not nature"
> argument of gender identity. Does the failure of sex reassignment
> hurt or help the feminist cause? And how does someone "just know"
> he or she is really another gender?
More than anything else, this just proves to me how "sex" - and not just
"gender" - is a social construction. If we were only "male" or "female",
how could a baby be born with "ambiguous" genitalia? And why, rather than
accepting this as a natural phenomena and dealing with its implications
(for instance, conceptualizing sex/gender as a range rather than as a set
of polar opposites), must we "reassign" the child a gender?
cheyanne
--
Kahuna Burger
Ovum (ov...@aol.com) wrote:
: Read an interesting article today that wasn't in the Washington Post :-)
: It was in Rolling Stone magazine, and it was about "John" Theissen,
: who, because of a circumcision accident, was left without a penis
: and was sex-reassigned by doctors and raised as a girl.
: Theissen and other sex-reassigned children from the '60s and '70s
: were used as proof that gender identity is dependent on socialization,
: not biology. This was before it became known that Theissen's sex
: reassignment failed.
eh hem, does this mean that natures "sex assignment" has also failed in
the cases of hundreds if not thousands of transvestites and transexuals?
: Despite the removal of Theissen's testes as an infant, years of estrogen
: treatment as an early teen, and persistant efforts by Theissen's parents
: and doctors to raise him as a girl, he said he "knew" she was a boy and
: refused to undergo vaginal canal constructive surgery in his mid-teens.
: He was eventually allowed to get his breasts removed, undergo penile
: constructive surgery, and build his life as a man -- eventually marrying
: a woman who had three children. They have been married nine years.
some notes on this case. he was hardly unaware of his "reassignment" he
had to have estrogen shots on a regular basis, after all. and the
persistent efforts of his parents backfired badly. after all, he had a
twin brother. so when they forced him to wear dresses, play with dolls
etc, he rebelled against this. and? would all the women on this group who
had brothers and rebelled against feminine things that seperated them
please raise your hands? I know I did. now does anyone really think that
males are genetically programmed to reject dresses? most women I knew
laughed at some of the things reporters were bringing up to prove that he
"knew" he was male.
now, that said...
: John Theissen wanted his story told to assist activists' effort to stop
: the practice of infant sex reassignment, something that is purportedly
: done to thousands of children each year born with "ambiguous" genitalia.
: (Ambiguous genitalia includes a baby with a larger-than-normal clitoris or
: smaller-than-normal penis. Doctors have often just cut down the baby's
: clitoris, rendering her inorgasmic for life.)
sex reassignment is not something I support. it has the stong chance of
causing greater problems than it solves, and it plays into the dangerous
idea that people _have_ to fit into one tight slot or another, and
ambigousness is inherently bad.
: The article mentioned that the practice of sex reassignment had been
: heralded by feminists in the '70s as supporting the "nuture, not nature"
: argument of gender identity. Does the failure of sex reassignment
: hurt or help the feminist cause? And how does someone "just know"
: he or she is really another gender?
*laugh* ask a transexual. or ask a tomboy. how come if someone "just
knows" their gender and it matches their DNA its proof that gender
constructs are inherhent? but if they "just know" and it doesn't match,
they're just abnormal.
I don't think gender reassignment hurts _or_ helps feminism. and frankly
these "failures" don't really mean anything to the nature vs nurture
debate either. its all too artificial. the parents know the "real" gender.
the socialization is forced, overcompensating, smothering, and always
overshadowed by the unspoken understanding that this behavior is requiered
but somehow wrong. the only way to check it would be to have a control
expereiment and that would be horribly creul and unethical. but what if
you could. what if a "normal" child was taken at regular intervals to get
shots that her parents were told were to make her a girl instead of a boy?
what if they were told "you have to raise him as a girl for him to have
any kind of normal life"? what if, at the most confusing time of that
childs life when her body felt strange and wronge every day, you told her
she had to have a surgery to "make" her a girl? what would the success
rate be for getting those children to "accept" their gender?
these cases are just sad. they don't say anything about gender except
people would be a lot healthier if we didn't try to shove them into little
boxes of acceptable behaviors. so in that way, I guess they're a selling
point for feminism.
--
The Big Kahuna Burger + "... if cats looked like frogs, we'd
Loving partner of Charles | understand what nasty, brutal little
and adoring protector of + creatures they really are."
Film Series : The Cat. | -Terry Pratchett
dani richard
Ovum wrote:
>
> Read an interesting article today that wasn't in the Washington Post :-)
> It was in Rolling Stone magazine, and it was about "John" Theissen,
> who, because of a circumcision accident, was left without a penis
> and was sex-reassigned by doctors and raised as a girl.
>
> Theissen and other sex-reassigned children from the '60s and '70s
> were used as proof that gender identity is dependent on socialization,
> not biology. This was before it became known that Theissen's sex
> reassignment failed.
>
> The article mentioned that the practice of sex reassignment had been
> heralded by feminists in the '70s as supporting the "nuture, not nature"
> argument of gender identity. Does the failure of sex reassignment
> hurt or help the feminist cause? And how does someone "just know"
> he or she is really another gender?
>
"One is not born a woman, One becomes a woman." (?!)
-- Bolvia (sp?)
Maybe I can illuminate some of this. I consider myself as a
"transsexual" woman. Though "assigned" male at birth and having lived as
a "man" for many years, I finally "transition" into living and working
"as a woman". I have had to consider "nature vers nurture" question for
my own sanity and well being.
I always "knew I was different". Both males and females that I have
interacted also knew I was different. On one of my first jobs a male
co-worker said to me "You think like a girl!" Women have always
recognized my as "He is one of us. We are going to make him an honary
woman!".
When my coping skills finally failed and I could no longer do a job any
more, did I get into therapy. I found that I could no longer "try to
live as a male". I realized I could no longer function in the "male
role". So I started make the steps towards living as a woman. Each step
give me more funtionality in my life. Each step gave me more peace.
Finally after living and working as woman in what is called "living full
time" a co-worker asked how I was doing. I replied, "Life is sweet." I
have found a level of peace I had never thought possiable in my life.
For me, life was finally worth living. I had finally come home.
I find my "identity" as a female has always been there. That is my "core
nature". I don't belive that can be changed. The therapist call this
"gender identity".
The portrale as "man" or "woman" seems to be a skill. Each of us has a
nature talent to masulinity and feminity. For each of this these skill
levels vary. This is like the altheletic skills as basball or swimming.
There is a natural ability. On top of that the skills can be developed
or suppressed. Our socity makes the mistake that "masulinity" is only
for males and "feminity" is only for females. The best leaders of our
society are those that could mix the two in proper perpotions for each
situation.
Essential feminist belive that being a woman is innate. As expounded on
in Raymond's book "The Transsexual Empire: Making of She-male" (And
"Horesex" by author?), the belief is that a "male" can never become a
"woman." Raymond belives that physical "biology is desity". Her subtext
is "biology is destiy for men but not women." She belives that "men" who
want to become women should change the system, not their bodies. Those
that do change their bodies are "cololizing the female body" and are
simpley "mulilated males invading woman's space". Raymond only sees the
body one was apprently born into. (A male doctor does the original sex
assigment!) She never saw the innner spirit of femaleness or maleness.
My contention is I was born with a "woman's spirit, heart and mind."
Unfortually the body didn't match. When women would first meet me they
would treat me as a "man". After talking with them I could see a change
in their eyes. I found out later this is when they recognized me not "as
a man" but a kindrid sprit, a female spirit. In a very literal sence I
was "a sheep in wolf's clothing."
I do I know I am female? I simply know. I get conformation in my
interactions with women, they recognize me as "one of their own." I am
have been welcomed, invited and have joined women's groups, both
stright and gay. I also get conformation in that "life is sweet" "as a
woman" and it never was "as a man." I know if I was forced to go back to
living "as a man." I would die.
On the mechinical level, a good gender therapist can tell without much
effort. When I was in a "hetrosexual cross dressers" group, I could tell
who was a "guy in a dress" having fun vers a "female spirit locked in a
male body" experiening a brief relief from their pain. The eyes would
tell you. The first group were wide eyed and typically sexually excited.
They were on a high. The second group were still in pain. But you could
see a sence of relief from that pain. Sometimes they would have a glimer
of hope in their eyes in that their servitude as a "male" could come to
an end. Their relase from pain would be by transistion or by death.
For me "sex reassigment" works. The forced socilzation did not work. Sex
reassigment does not change one's spirit. The boy who had his penis
removed always had a "male spirit." They could not change that! Sex
reassigment only changes the outward expression of the body. The real
"begining a woman" or "being a man" is what is unchangeable. It is
inside.
Does "sex reassignment" say about feminism?
1. It teaches us to look on one's spirit (or gender identity).
2. The binary of "man" or "woman" is too restricitive. (Ask someone that
is intersexed!)
3. To lable things as "man's only" or "woman's only" is wrong. There is
not "man's work" or "woman's work", there is simply "work".
4. It is wrong to have doctors lable people as "male" or "female". (My
intersexed friends have very strong words on this!)
5. Self idenity is self fulfilment.
The body is very temporary. It is very changeable. Biology is not
destiny.
One's spirit is one's destiny.
For suggested references:
"What You Can Change and What You Can't" By ?, see his section on sex.
"True Selves" by Milly Brown, best book every written on transsexualisum
"Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality" by Holly Devor,
best book on gender identiy. She is a feminist, lesbian therapist
talking about women that are mistaken as men.
There are many more books about all this but the above three are in my
opinion are the best.
"There are two types of people in the world.
Those that divide everything to two groups and those that don't."
See also:
"The Aprtide of Sex" by Rothblat, a political statment that dividing
society in to "men" or "women" is just as wrong as by race, national
orgian or the like.
Dallas Denney has an intresting quote:
"If you weren't a transsexual before sugery, you certainly will be
afterwards!"
My last thought is:
"Am I really a women?"
"I don't know. So I say 'I live as a woman.' But my women friends think
I am. I don't care what men think."
Dani Richard
Kira D. Triea
Jim Dyer writes:
+---
|=o= The thing that these experiences prove is different than
|stated here: what they show is that gender identity is not
|*solely* dependent on biology. An apparent counterexample does
|not disprove this, because there are plenty of examples where
|socialization actually worked.
+---
"John's" circumstances neither add to nor detract from any of
the current thinking re: sex and gender etiology. People, in-
cluding the Hopkins doctors handling his case, tend(ed) to view
his circumstances from within their own context, not from the
context of being a child or teenager enmeshed in the traumatic
environment of a large teaching hosp. like JHH. Also... the
Psychohormonal Research Unit was an especially stressful
place.
In actuality... what people are seeing in "John's" history has
almost *nothing* to do with "the etiology of sex and gender"
but everything to do with how one person was able to cope with,
and eventually create some meaning, from a highly idiosyncratic
sequence of events in his life. Decisions about "sex and gender"
at a place like the PRU are primarily "trauma coping strategies".
+---
|=o= I have no idea whether this is the appropriate course of
|action. Which presents more problem for a sexually-ambiguous
|child in society? Is the success rate of this assignment higher
|than the failure rate?
+---
It isn't possible to get a correct answer here because the wrong
question is being asked. Ambiguous children do not need traumatic
unconsented re-arranging of genital tissue and a dehumanizing
regime of shame inducing secrecy in order to feel good about them-
selves. For intersexed children, the question and solution is
not so much "Am I a boy or a girl?" but "Why wasn't I treated
better?"
What this means is that even children who were theoretically
"assigned correctly", such as myself, will still need to face
a lifetime of recovery from the level of trauma induced by the
sort of extreme medicalization present at the PRU and other
hospitals. The Current Treatment Methodology has the exact
opposite effect from the stated one... it is itself the cause
of lifelong sexual and social dysfunction.
Intersex activists, and their supporters (including such feminists as
Suzanne Kessler and Anne Fausto-Sterling) are strongly aware of
the feminist implications of this treatment methodology. Intersex
children are seen in terms of being "inadequate" (too small penis)
and "unacceptable" (too large clitoris)... not different. When
surgeons like John Gearhart state that "it's easier to make a hole
than a pole" they are actually expressing the androcentric
viewpoint that in this society it is acceptable to have a female
with non-functioning genitals (I know of no successful vaginoplasty
amongst female assigned IS people) than it is to have a male
with non-standard genitals. In consequence, 90% of all intersexed
people end up as "female" regardless of underlying biological
substrate.
Dr. Diamond has worked with us to formulate some extremely sensible
recommendations for helping intersexed children, unlike John Money,
who says that Mickey's approach would lead to "our locking ourselves
away in shame and working in freak shows". He has it all exactly
reversed... especially considering that of all the intersexed people,
or idiosyncratic cases like "John", he has come in contact with, only
one (myself) has ever spoken publicly of the experience.
BTW - It is misstated in the article that I had vaginoplasty at age
17... it was 14 after a period of 4 months in which I was tracked for
testosterone treatment and phalloplasty.
---
Kiira Triea
--
Richard Holmes
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) writes:
>Read an interesting article today that wasn't in the Washington Post :-)
>It was in Rolling Stone magazine, and it was about "John" Theissen,
>who, because of a circumcision accident, was left without a penis
>and was sex-reassigned by doctors and raised as a girl.
>John Theissen wanted his story told to assist activists' effort to stop
>the practice of infant sex reassignment, something that is purportedly
>done to thousands of children each year born with "ambiguous" genitalia.
>(Ambiguous genitalia includes a baby with a larger-than-normal clitoris or
>smaller-than-normal penis. Doctors have often just cut down the baby's
>clitoris, rendering her inorgasmic for life.)
>
>heralded by feminists in the '70s as supporting the "nuture, not nature"
>argument of gender identity. Does the failure of sex reassignment
>hurt or help the feminist cause? And how does someone "just know"
>he or she is really another gender?
Well, it doesn't (IMHO) have any real impact pro or con for "feminism",
but it may influence the "nature vs. nurture" argument (which I won't
'take sides' on here). Feminists are on both sides of this one...
What it does show is the (predominantly male-crafted) medical profession
is so afraid of ambiguity (which really is a reflection of society at
large) that they can't bear to deal with children of non-obvious male
or female physical characteristics. Granted our society isn't going to
be kind to ambiguously sexed people, but they aren't kind to many
people who are born differently, and the only way they they will become
aware and tolerant is through education and exposure.
-Richard.
@ \@/ Richard A. Holmes (rho...@cs.stanford.edu)
@ |
@ \|/ "If you could fill a veil with shells from Killarney's shore,
@ | And sweet talk in a tongue that is no more,
@ , , | , , If wishful thoughts could bridge / The Gulf of Araby between
@ ' ' ' ' What is, what is, what is, / And what can never be.
@ - Katell Keineg, "The Gulf of Araby"
@
@ Kiva / Kate Price \ Dar Williams / Renaissance \ Sheila Chandra / Laura Love
@ Susan McKeown \ Sarah McLachlan / Libana \ Danielle Dax \ Dog Faced Hermans
@ Loreena McKennitt / Kate Bush \ Tori Amos / Katell Keineg / Happy Rhodes
@ Ingrid Karklins \ Sinead O'Connor / Jane Siberry / Pauline Oliveros
steve_russell
dani richard wrote:
> The body is very temporary. It is very changeable. Biology is not
> destiny.
No, but it sure does help. Im my opinion nature and
nurture both make sizeable contributions to any
aspect of humanity. I don't know why so much argument
takes place where folks try to say it is one or the
other.., my guess is they are trying to sell something
and one side of the nature/nuture pair is getting
in the way.
That was a very nice post you wrote. I have a friend
who is transgendered. I don't know if it is true,
but she said she read somewhere how there is now a
tiny bit of burgeoning evidence that there might be
some genetic factors contributing toward transexualism,
which if proven true, would help to explain the conviction
of transexuals of always being a particular gender.
My friend had the same conviction you did.
Steve
Ovum
>
=o= (A small nit: "purportedly" has the connotation of untruth;
perhaps you
>mean "reportedly.")
I meant "purportedly." The Rolling Stones reporter made a point
of saying that none of the doctors he spoke to would give him
hard and fast figures for the number of sex reassignments
performed annually. Guesswork came up with a figure of
15,000 such operations having been performed since John
Theissen's case in 1967.
=o= I'm no expert on the subject, but I think the
>practice with
ambiguous genitalia is (or has been) to identify the baby by
>the
sx that seems physiologically obvious from the genitalia rather
than the
>one that matches the sex chromosones.
What the activists want is for the infant to be *socialized* as
whichever gender until the age of consent, and then *choose*
what surgery should be performed. They want to stop the
practice of doctors performing irrevocable surgery on an
infant that will affect its entire life. Such as cutting off the penis
and testes and forming rudimentary labia, and later on the person
decides they do want to live life as a man and father children,
--- ooops! ---- it's too late. Or vice versa.
--
Aaron Boyden
Kahuna Burger wrote:
> sex reassignment is not something I support. it has the stong chance of
> causing greater problems than it solves, and it plays into the dangerous
> idea that people _have_ to fit into one tight slot or another, and
> ambigousness is inherently bad.
> I don't think gender reassignment hurts _or_ helps feminism. and frankly
> these "failures" don't really mean anything to the nature vs nurture
> debate either. its all too artificial.
I see a tension between these two claims, and am inclined to go with the latter. I
have long wanted to post on this newsgroup in the vein which will follow, and think
I may now have an excuse to do so. Some alleged feminist arguments, including, it
has long seemed to me, certain Dworkin/McKinnon arguments, rely on the notion that
choices which are in any way influenced by society are unacceptable. This involves
a strong, and incoherent, notion of free will. If some of the ways in which
society influences us are objectionable, it cannot be, on pain of total nihilism,
because influence as such is bad; particular kinds of influence must have
distinguishing, bad-making features. I'm inclined to think that many kinds of
influence do have such distinguishing bad-making features, and that
Dworkin/McKinnon feminism probably does more to conceal than to reveal that fact.
In the context of gender reassignment, I am inclined to be suspicious of the
motives of the self-described trans-gendered. If the motives were pure, I would
have thought more women would want to be men than vice versa. However, the choice
is so personal that I think my own suspicions can hardly outweigh a prima facie
preference for letting people make deeply personal choices for themselves. One who
lacks that preference is a fascist, and one who selectively applies that preference
is almost certainly inconsistent.
--
---
Aaron Boyden
"It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence." W. K. Clifford
ms
Ovum writes:
> The article mentioned that the practice of sex reassignment had been
> heralded by feminists in the '70s as supporting the "nuture, not > nature" argument of gender identity. Does the failure of sex > reassignment hurt or help the feminist cause? And how does someone > "just know" he or she is really another gender?
In the case study of "john," I would agree that his attempted
reassignment was not successful becuase, like the study says, 'J' had a
core gender identity of male, and he couldn't fit into or fake the role
of female.
Gender identity is a largely a product of biology. Before we leap to
conclusions, it is important to understand that there are many factors
that might influence our biologocally induced gender identity(hormones
being the most prominent.)
Brain structure varies between the female and male sex. Or put another
way, there two common brain structures. Most males will have a brain
structure of certain characteristics, and the same can be said for
females. What is interesting is that it is possible for males to have
brain characteristics commonly found in 'female' brains. Likewise,
female brains can also develop characteristics commonly found in the
'male' brain.
It is entirely possible for males to have femimine gender identities and
females to have masculine gender identities. This phenomenon is
seemingly rare, but it does occur.
I don't think anybody has a real choice in what thier gender is. No
more than we have a choice over what color hair or skin we were born
with or what sex characteristics we were given durung prenatal
development. We just *know*, like John did, what gender role we are
comfortable with. If the gender doesn't match our physical
charachteristics we are in a precarious position. Males(or put
differently - those born with penis and no breast development) are
expected to act in a certain manner; males are not supposed to act like
females(and vice versa.) Times are changing, but society is far from
accepting other categories of sex/gender than male:masculine and
female:feminine. Too many people(male and female) are reaping the
sordid rewards of the old ways.
Is the rigid sex/gender dichotomy a reason for transsexualism and/or
transgenderism? Perhaps. I don't think the notion of gender is wrong,
just society's unacceptance of trans-gendered behavior.
How this relates to the feminist movement is another area altogether.
With the exception of a few hardliners I think the feminist movement
helped(and is helping) the transgendered movement tremendously. Still,
while women are taking more freedoms that were fromerly associated with
being male, this is just a reflection of the patriarch. Being that men
(were/are) in power for the last several hundred years, it is no suprise
that men in power would tolerate(but not wholly approve) masculine
behavior in women. Women emulating men in business, sports, fashion,
relationships, ect. are more accepted than men emulating women in the
same categories. Men are still walking a thin tightrope with reguards
to thier freedom of gender expression. Or is this even a concern for
the feminist movement?
Yours,
Michale