News Flash #3: My Parents’ Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality

Today, identifying oneself as female, male, or other, is determined by an array of factors, which primarily fall under the categories of sex and gender. Historically, looking at the baby’s genitalia, or sex, made this determination. As time went on, another category, gender, entered the equation. The differences between sex and gender are thought to be fairly clear. Sex is thought of as “nature”: something innate we are born with that biology controls. Gender is thought of as “nurture”: something that is socially constructed and learned. The concept of gender fit into the first wave of feminism belief that women and men are created equal, and so, the reason that girls like pink frilly dresses is because feminine preferences have been socially constructed. The concept of sex as nature and gender as nurture has molded the way that society talks about issues of male and female identification. Yet recent literature such as Anne Fausto-Sterling’s book, Sexing the Body, and Jesse Ellison’s article, “My Parents’ Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality” call the nature/nature paradigm of sex and gender into question. Therefore, sex and gender cannot be placed under separate nature and nurture distinctions. Fausto-Sterling’s research finds sex can be constructed and as Ellison’s childhood shows, gender can be innate.

Jesse Ellison (pictured at the left in overalls) was born in 1978 during the time of immense social change. In 1972, sexologists John Money and Anke Ehrhardt asserted “sex refers to physical attributes and is anatomically and physiologically determined. Gender… is a psychological transformation of the self- the internal conviction that one is either male or female (gender identity) and the behavioral expressions of that conviction” (Fausto-Sterling 3). This theory had a lot of influence on society, including Jesse’s parents. Her mother, a first wave feminist, “embraced the notion that gender roles were entirely rooted in the way you were raised” (Newsweek 1). The first fringe of first-wave feminists in the early 1970s fought for legal equality and women in the latter half of the 1970s, like Jesse’s mother, focused on personal equality. Personal equality meant believing that “it was nurture, not nature, that made women and men different” and in order to break free from gender oppression, one must “assert that there was absolutely nothing different about our biological makeup” (Newsweek 1). Girls acted like “girls” because of how they were raised, not because that is how they were born.

When Jesse was born, her parents decided to put this feminist belief into practice and raise Jesse without any type of gender construction. They named her “Jesse”, a name that could signal either a boy or a girl. Because the family lived in rural Maine, her parents thought they would be able to shelter Jesse from societal messages of how to be a girl. Her parents sported matching long braids one year and short haircuts the next. When she was a toddler, her parents dressed her in overalls and cut her hair into an androgynous haircut. Instead of playing with Barbies, Jesse played with wooden blocks.

Yet as time went on, Jesse’s parents discovered that their gender-neutral parenting method was not producing the expected results. Jesse mother recalls an experience when Jesse was two. Her parents were in the process of building a new house, and when the big trucks came to dig out the foundation, all of the neighborhood boys lined up to watch the commotion. Jesse’s mother tried to get Jesse to watch the trucks, but Jesse took a glance out the window and returned to play with her toys. Later, as Jesse grew up, she demanded that her parents replaced her overalls with a dress. Instead of being gender-neutral, Jesse was definitely a “girl”. As her mother recalls, “It was really a wake-up for me” (Newsweek 1). Jesse’s identity as a “girl”, despite her parent’s attempt to raise her in a gender neutral setting, caused her mother to rethink the first wave’s views on gender: “We all thought that the differences had to do with how you were brought up in a sexist culture, and if you gave children the same chances, it would equalize. It took a while to think, 'Maybe men and women really are different from each other, and they're both equally valuable.'” (Newsweek 1).

Jesse’s story brings up two interesting issues: the nature/nurture debate regarding gender and sex and the differences between first-wave feminism and third wave feminism. First, just as Fausto-Sterling found that sex can be physically constructed, Jesse’s story illustrates one can be born with gender. It is interesting to think about what implications this finding may bring. Fausto-Sterling’s book discussed the common belief towards sexual anatomy corrective surgery was if a sex-ambiguous child was physically turned into a boy, then he would be treated like a boy, and then identify as a boy. However, if gender is innate (to an extent) then this practice can be faulty because when a child is born, there is a possibility that the child is truly a “boy” or a “girl”. Of course, discussion about whether gender nurtured will affect more than just the intersex community. Namely, the finding that gender can be innate gives women more freedom to choose how to express their femininity.

Jesse’s upbringing, while unique, is somewhat symbolic of the current ideology of third wave feminism. Specifically, if gender is not nurtured, there can be a new acceptance of embracing femininity and acknowledging that one can still be a feminist even if she likes to wear frilly dresses and paint her nails. As Jesse states, “By the time my generation came of age, women could call themselves feminists and also embrace the standard trappings of femininity. We could wear pink, spend money on fancy shoes, and simultaneously expect—no, demand—the same success as men. Femininity and feminism were no longer a contradiction.” (Newsweek 1). This sentiment relates to the current “girlie” feminist theory that Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner discuss in their book Manifesta. They state, “Girlie says we’re not broken, and our desires aren’t simply booby traps set by the patriarchy. Girlie encompasses the tabooed symbols of women’s feminine enculturation- Barbie dolls, makeup, fashion magazines, high heels- and says using them isn’t shorthand for ‘we’ve been duped’” (Manifesta 136). Girlie culture is not about regressing back to the 1950’s, but rather having the freedom to make a choice.

Today, in the third wave, there are women who identity with feminine culture and call themselves feminists. And while it may seem like a girl running around in a short skirt and heels calling herself a feminist is a far cry from the vision of the first wave feminists, the difference is choice. As Jesse states. “My generation is different from my mother's, in countless ways. But just because we chose high heels over Birkenstocks, it doesn't mean our commitment to equality should be any less than ardent… Ultimately, the whole point was to ensure that I had the freedom, and choice, to be whoever I wanted—which is, after all, what feminism is all about.” (Newsweek 1). The ever-changing concept of gender is inextricably linked to the ever-changing concept of feminism. Jesse’s story illustrates two important points: first, gender is not always a choice, and secondly, the ability of third wave feminists to choose, or not choose, to express femininity is a right earned by first wave feminists.

Sources:

"My Parents' Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality" by Jesse Ellison.

Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling.

Manifesta by Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner.

Late post about welfare

(I realized I had this typed up but forgot to post it before class).

In her article criticizing the enactment of the Personal Responsibility Act, Gwendolyn Mink provides a strong argument about the injustice against poor mothers who have been overlooked by privileged white feminists and undervalued by larger society. Poor single mothers are, according to Mink, pushed into a new caste and punished by the government through being forced to work outside the home.

I agree that the unpaid work of mothers should be given more value and recognition than it currently receives. This is true regardless of socio-economic status, because mothers of all classes and races carry burdens that are not only unrecognized and definitely unpaid. Mink argues that poor women are entitled to welfare as a basic right. While it’s easy to agree that women’s work is worth money, it’s hard to move from that abstract idea and value to enacting legislation to support that theory with tax dollars extracted from voters. While lawmakers and the public might agree that “what (some) domestic others do is not to pass time but work” the problem is the challenge of “policymakers to give poor mothers’ care giving work the dignity it is due by providing it an income”. (Mink 62). Is it the state’s obligation to provide financial support for women? The problem is that in a capitalist society, moral values are not always given fiscal reward. Such a universal welfare policy would be incredibly contentious and difficult to enact. Given the disagreement over the recent health care reform and the polarization between liberals and conservatives, I don’t think a welfare policy like what Mink suggests has much hope.

One way I think the government can address the economic disenfranchisement of caregivers is to make family planning and birth control available. Many poor women and men lack knowledge of birth control methods and the financial resources to acquire them. I think the birth control pill should be available over the counter, which would reduce the cost and difficulty of acquiring it because it would not require a visit to a doctor. If women had the knowledge and resources to make motherhood a choice in the first place, they would be able to enter into parenthood when they are financially stable and desire raising children.

Newsflash #3: Nebraska Law Sets Limits on Abortion

New Nebraska Law: A Dangerous Development in the Abortion Debate
Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signs the bill:


On Tuesday the state of Nebraska passed a piece of legislature that banned abortions after 20 weeks on the basis that the fetus is able to feel pain at that stage of development. While there are still provisions which allow exceptions in cases for medical emergencies and threat to the mother’s life, this bill represents a fundamental shift in the abortion debate, from limiting abortion to when the fetus is viable outside the uterus to considering the pain of the fetus. This legal development is an indicator to how the issue has become over-politicized to the detriment of women, limiting their ability to make individual decisions for what is the appropriate choice for them and their baby. It sets a dangerous precedent for future abortion restrictions based on unproven medical findings. Anti-abortion groups can couple the idea of fetal pain with the concept of “post-abortion syndrome” to provide a convincing, emotional argument for the pro-life side. Additionally, restricting later term abortions places more of a burden on teenage mothers.

The law changes the cutoff point for abortions to make it earlier based on fetal pain stead of viability outside the uterus. Abortion is currently allowed until 22-24 weeks, this would ban them at 20 weeks. It marks a huge shift in abortion legislation because it infers that the state can protect the fetus before it is viable outside of the womb. Proponents of the law argue that new scientific information has become available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is one of the most polarizing, hot button issues in the United States and its over-politicization ends up overlooking individual women who are affected by the laws. In this case, one of the goals of the law is to prevent Dr. LeRoy H. Carhart from performing later-term abortions. Carhart worked with Dr. George R. Tiller, who also performed late term abortions but was murdered by a pro-life individual. Carhart is continuing in Tiller’s legacy, which concerns Nebraskan voters and legislators who worry that their state will become the “late-term abortion capital of the Midwest” (Davey 1). Instead of genuine concern for the welfare of women or their unborn children, this law reflects how politicians, concerned for their voter popularity, create laws for their own political gain instead of sincerely trying to protect reproductive health. The scientific evidence for fetal pain is unclear and scientifically unproven, which could mean that the fetal pain argument is simply a manipulative method for the pro-life movement to advance their cause. The Journal of American Medical Association concluded in 2005 that evidence “regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited” and that it is unlikely to occur before the third trimester. Blinded by pushing forward their side of the cause, politicians have resorted to medical information which is scientifically unproven.

Restricting abortion based on fetal pain sets a dangerous precedent because there is no clear cutoff point. It could mean a slippery slope as “pain” becomes “harm” and then abortion is banned completely. There is no clear scientific data for the time in which a fetus can feel pain and which a fetus does not have the physiological development. The pro-life argument for fetal pain is a poignant strategy, because it evokes a visceral, emotional reaction. It parallels their campaigns which show bloody fetuses with their limbs cut off, which are extremely effective at evoking an intense anti-abortion reaction. The pro-life side has the advantage of touching rhetoric which is heartfelt and emotional. Arguing that fetuses feel pain is not a new argument. 1984 President Ronald Reagan said in a speech, “When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing”. They have also used strategies such as The Silent Scream video, which is an ultrasound of a suction abortion, displaying a fetus dodging the instrument and being dismembered. Its mouth opens, as if in a silent scream. While many have debunked the video as inaccurate, regardless of its scientific truth it evokes an intense emotional reaction. They illustrate the procedure graphically and gruesomely, even in medical journals such as the British Medical Journal in 1980 which wrote: “It cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache." (Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels”)

The pro-life side has a strong argument when it couples the idea of fetal pain with the concept of post-abortion syndrome. While both are scientifically questionable, together they combine to paint abortion as a physically and morally horrible process for both the fetus and the mother. They depict it as a painful death for the fetus and a procedure which can cause in the woman “recurrent dreams of the abortion experience, avoidance of emotional attachment, relationship problems, sleep disturbances, guilt about surviving, memory impairment, hostile outbursts, suicidal thoughts or actions, depression, and substance abuse” (AbortionFacts.com). The pro-choice side can respond by arguing that many of these claims are factually untrue, and additionally, even if there is an emotional cost to abortion, a woman should be able to choose which life path would bring her the least emotional pain: having a child at point in life in which she is unprepared and did not intent to have a child, or the pain of an abortion.

Neither feminists nor the pro-choice movement ignore the pain that an abortion can cause. Igna Muscio is an example of this in her essay in Listen Up, in which she describes both the physical pain and emotional sorrow of the abortion process. However, portraying “post-abortion syndrome” and the idea of fetal pain when they are both scientifically unproven contributes to women being misled about what is actually occurring in their bodies. Instead of blind, aggressive attempts to advance one political side, the abortion debate needs to be grounded in sound, proven, peer-reviewed medical information. Coupled with science, women’s voices need to be heard, like Muscio’s. Then women can decide what the appropriate decision for them is, and the state can make legislature that accurately reflects the needs of the people and protects the unborn where necessary.

The Nebraska law places a greater burden on teenage mothers. While 88% of abortions in the United States are within the first 12-13 weeks of pregnancy, nearly 1/3 of abortions after the 12 week point are by teenagers, who face many obstacles in dealing with pregnancy. (ProChoice.org). For teenage women, it is difficult to initially recognize the signs of pregnancy because they are less familiar with their bodies and have irregular menstrual periods. They lack knowledge and information about birth control, and face difficulty with medical care. Often, they must keep it a secret from their parents or cannot afford medical care, which results in waiting until later in the pregnancy. Because of these factors, late term abortion is often needed for pregnant teens. Banning abortions after 20 weeks places another weight on these young women’s shoulders, who already face numerous obstacles.

The Nebraska law will definitely be challenged in the courts. Even if it is struck down as unconstitutional, it represents a new development in anti-abortion legislature which sets a dangerous precedent of limiting abortions based on fetal pain. More scientific research and awareness is needed to the law can accurately reflect both the biological aspect of the abortion procedure and the true emotional impact on women.

The movie poster for the Silent Scream Video:


Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/us/14abortion.html

http://www.abortionfacts.com/

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/index.html

http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/post-abortion-syndrome.htm

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=rosen+MA+2005&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Findlen, Barbara. Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation. Seattle, Wash.: Seal Press, 1995.

The Lady and the Tramp

Before discussing the issues brought up in Gwendolyn Mink’s article, “The Lady and the Tramp: Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice”, I think some background information on the Personal Responsibility Act might be helpful. I read a book the welfare reform in one of my other classes, so I can shed a little light on the specific policies in the act. The Personal Responsibility Act was passed in 1996 after growing concern about the presence of “welfare queens”- lazy women who sat around all day and used the government’s money on unnecessary items. Although this wasn’t an accurate depiction of a person receiving welfare, the widespread belief that welfare made people dependent on the government led to the Personal Responsibility Act, which sought to restore America’s work ethic. Under this new welfare reform, one can only receive benefits for two years before working, and one can only receive benefits for five years total. To receive benefits, one must comply with rigid rules and regulations. There are many penalties for not adhering to all of the rules, and the strict guidelines of the program cause many women to become frustrated, drop out and disappear. When one enters the program, one must be looking for a job every single day, and if one is offered a job, he or she must take it, no matter what job it is. After the Personal Responsibility Act was passed, the amount of people receiving welfare benefits sharply declined. Some took this to mean the program was a success, while others took this to be a sign that the rules were too rigid and women were giving up and dropping out.

I agree with Mink that when looking at the welfare reform through a feminist lens, it is clear that this in another example of minority, lower-class women losing out, while upper-class women are not affected: “The war against poor women was just that: a war against poor women. And it was a war in which many middle-class women participated on the antiwelfare side” (56). I also agree that this act does have a lot of implied messages about the right and wrong types of families. That being said, I think welfare is a more complicated issue than Mink makes it out to be. First, the problem is exacerbated by low-paying jobs. Even before the welfare reform, women had jobs that didn’t come close to supporting their families. When a women found a job, this meant extra transportation and childcare costs. Even when a woman wanted a job, it was less expensive for a woman to stay home and take care of her children and receive welfare benefits. Secondly, where are the responsible men in this situation? Thirdly, Mink argues that we should start recognizing motherhood as a payable job, but I wasn’t sure if she meant that all mothers should be paid, or just mothers in extreme poverty. If it is the latter, this line would be a hard one to draw. Lastly, Mink seems to argue that regardless of situation, anyone has the right to be a mother. While I agree with this to an extent, I also think that when one has as child, one needs to be able to provide the child with basic necessities. If the pregnancy is unplanned, then it should be expected that one will have to put in the extra time and effort to provide diapers and food. So, while I believe that “responsibility” is the correct end goal, I think the problem is a lot bigger than the Personal Responsibility Act.

News Flash #3: Rape on College Campuses: Who’s to Blame?

News Flash #3: Rape on College Campuses: Who’s to Blame?

Rape and other forms of sexual violence have been one of the latest topics of conversation and thought in class. Along these same lines, the Campus Climate Survey at Colgate has raised questions and concerns and shed new light on the prevalence of sexual violence here at our very small, interconnected, predominately homogenous, straight, white, upper middle class student body on campus. A recent article on ABC News takes a closer look at date rape on college campuses, specifically at American University, and how intoxication may or may not make the act of sexual violence excusable. Drinking is a Friday and Saturday night ritual for most college students, and while intoxication is no excuse for sexual misconduct, crying rape the morning after a regretful decision is equally problematic, and in cases of drunken date rapes, which this article refers to, it becomes both parties’ responsibility to act like adults.

http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/ (Link to full column)

According to an April 1 article from ABC News, American University (AU) in Washington DC, is dealing with date rape on campus. The Eagle, which is the American University student newspaper, wrote a column titled “Dealing With AU’s Anti-Sex Brigade.” The column asserted that “some women who survive date rape invited it” (ABC News Article). This controversial comment was met with 300 online comments and significant rage from feminists and others on campus. Alex Knepper, the author of the column, states “Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI (fraternity) party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, ok?” (ABC News Article). The article refers to date rape on the college campus specifically with drinking involved at fraternity parties by the boy and or girl. Knepper continues to assert that “To cry 'date rape' after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone's head and then later claiming that you didn't ever actually intend to pull the trigger” (ABC News Article). Many students at other colleges hold this view. For example, Princeton University ran a similar story in their student newspaper (ABC News Article). A 20 year old female at Texas A&M was reported saying "Rape is always a touchy subject, but in this case, where you are drinking and letting your guard down, you cannot say you were taken advantage of unless someone drugged your drinks” (ABC News Article). However, these views are starkly contrasted by Katherine Hull’s perspective. (Hull is the spokesman for Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN)). Hull was reported in the article saying “It's not your fault. Even if you drink and wear short skirts -- that is not consent. If someone doesn't have the capacity to consent, they can't” (ABC News Article).

According to Department of Justice, “in more than three-quarters of all college rapes, the offender, the victim or both had been drinking, which impairs good judgment” (ABC News Article). If both parties are intoxicated, this lack of good judgment can be attributed to both victim and offender and creates for a gray area because information about the incident could be missing and no one else is there to fact check. “Though laws vary from state to state, a person's consent can be compromised because of age, mental disability and lack of consciousness (under drugs or alcohol) or even a state of duress, according to Katherine Hull.

Alex Knepper from American University did clarify that "While it's not a woman's fault, it's incredibly stupid behavior to go to that party, knowing what you are getting yourself into is what being an adult is, knowing the risks and the signals beforehand."

So the question is cast: are girls partially responsible? Part of being an adult is making responsible decisions and being smart about the decisions you make and not drinking from a punch bowl where you don’t know the ingredients. While intoxication is never an excuse for any sort of violence, physical or sexual, when both parties have been drinking and to an unknown degree, it creates a gray area for blame to be laid and for consequences to be given. While it is probably a very small percentage, it is possible that some girls could cry rape because they regret their decision the next morning, which would not actually be rape. Similarly, it is possible that if the girl is drunk to the point that she cannot clearly remember all aspects of the previous night but in the morning thinks that she would never have had sex with that boy and calls rape, that is not in fact rape either. It then becomes very difficult to have enough evidence to assign a consequence to the offender. At that point it is one person’s word against another’s. Furthermore, consensual but unwanted sex which Levy describes in her “Pigs in Training” chapter is not the same as rape. The fact that there is such a sentiment on college campuses about girls crying rape after a regretted decision is incredibly problematic on a broader level. Is the prevalence of girls crying rape after a regretted decision so great that it has generated this kind of sentiment? If so, this kind of “crying wolf” undermines the seriousness of the crime and most likely contributes to women not reporting a real case of rape. It also can make the woman feel that she is responsible when she is not. That isn’t to say that she should run around in a bra and underwear and not expect to get unwanted attention from men, which Levy would criticize, but that type of behavior does not explicitly mean she is giving consent for sex. Steinem argues in “Supremacy Crimes” that everyone is implicated in this. It is not just the offender’s problem. It is not just the victim’s problem. It is not just both of their problems. Everyone is playing into this system by letting issues such as rape and other forms of sexual violence and the motives behind those crimes fester. This can be very much applied to these cases of date rape when both parties have been intoxicated. It is not just the offender’s problem or the victim’s problem. It is the problem of those who ignore it, those who falsely cry rape, those who don’t report rape cases, those who demean the severity of the crime, and those of us who just read about it and write our responses to it.

The line seems to be blurred in cases of drunken college rape cases because of the unreliability of both sources. Colgate’s campus has seen a large enough presence of sexual violence on campus to warrant mandatory sexual misconduct meetings and an update to the sexual misconduct policy, and an administration crackdown. The girls who stumble downtown in 30 degree weather with skirts that barely cover their butts and make other irresponsible decisions are not asking for rape and certainly do not deserve it. However, both parties involved need to be making more responsible decisions and learning to behave like adults. It is hard to take one person’s word over another in the case of a drunken rape because there is the potential that someone innocent gets punished and the risk that you are not punishing someone who deserves to be punished. A more open sex culture where the topic is not so touchy and suppressed would help people to understand this from an earlier age and be more informed about rape. With this, there would be a more serious understanding of rape and a reduced sentiment that women cry rape after regretted decisions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/date-rape-firestorm-erupts-american-university-student-newspaper/story?id=10254150&page=1

http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/

Gloria Steinem, “Supremacy Crimes”

Ariel Levy, “Female Chauvinist Pigs”

"Mommy Tax" and "Maid to Order"

The main issue that I take with the “mommy tax” article is that it address the issue that these women choose to leave the workplace. I don’t think that you can look at this issue from an entirely economic standpoint. I think that these women also gain other aspects of their life that cannot be measured by their potential earning wages. These women who leave the workplace are no longer working there, but that does not mean that they are no longer working. I think it’s more important for women to have the freedom to choose at the junction in their life what they want to do. For the women who do choose to leave the work place, their work is not invaluable. Maybe it cannot be measured in money gained, but I think there is a valid point in saying that these women do save a great deal of money for their family overall in costs such as childcare, laundry, cleaning, or food that would otherwise be more expensive because it could not be done by themselves. I really think this point relates to the point made in the manifesta lecture, where one of the woman’s mother would go on strike from her responsibilties in order to show her family that the work she did was really valuable to the function of the overall family. I think the “maid to order” article really discounts how valuable housework really is, and I think that it is necessary for men, and society in general, to recognize it’s overall function.

Women with children generally cant work the same as women without children- it’s not exactly something they are giving up but I think that its something that is added to their life that prevents them from working at the same pace or for the same hours as younger, single women without children. I don’t think the argument should be that they should just be paid the same, but I think that we should focus more on why they CAN’T work the same. I don’t think their pay should be equal, but I think that they should have the opportunity to work just as hard.

Also, if a mother does work, it also puts a strain on the father’s work situation so that could put a toll on his income and ability to work. If a child gets sick, the stay at home mother can easily fufill the role of taking care of the child, but if both parents work, accommodations have to be made. I know that I have personally seen this in my corporate experience. Those with children had to make accommodations for those children and were unable to make the sacrifices. It’s true that their lives aren’t as free as those that are single, but I think its important to not neglect the fact that this can affect the father as well as the mother, especially if the mother is working.

Ellen and Portia Wedding photos

Homosexuals and Marriage 4/6

For today's readings the Paula Ettelbrick article discusses the institution of marriage and how gaining rights is not the same as gaining justice. I want to focus on one of the several problems I found with this article. She says “Justice will be achieved only when we are accepted and supported in this spcoety despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choices we make regarding our relationships" (Ettelbrick). You can’t force people to support you. You don’t have to support the institution of marriage and those who participate in that institution don’t have to support you and agree with your choices, but you do deserve the same entitlements and privileges of marriage that heterosexual married people enjoy. This quote of hers and my reaction to it then made me think that I am playing into working “within the system” as opposed to outside the system, and while I don’t know which one is correct, it was a thought that crossed my mind, making the problem even more complicated.

In the Naples Article "Queer Parenting in the New Millenium," I thought it is telling that these women partners did not receive more opposition from the Catholic Hospital where they are going to give birth to twins. Catholics have very strongly rooted anti same sex marriage views and for them to have encountered the least amount of problems at this hospital is indicative of slowly changing views and a growing acceptance of same sex parenting. Similarly, I’m shocked that in Norway, which is essentially a welfare state and incredibly tolerant of homosexuality gave a questioning look to this couple.

On a related note, I couldn't help but think back to Yoshino's lecture and whether marriage for homosexuals is covering or passing. I suppose it could be both, but I would like to think that homosexuals, like heterosexuals are marrying for the same reason, love.

Personally, I think it would be hard at this point in time with the socially constructed views that we have and with the minority of homosexual parents, to have that child have to explain at school to their friends that they have same sex parents. Sadly, I think that if the media and Hollywood, such as Ellen and Portia, had children, it could be come trendy which would make it appear "more normal and acceptable." And along that thought, I think that is sadly where the power lies, with those who are celebrities or incredibly wealthy or powerful. People like Ellen and Portia have a great deal of influence in America. That being said, I don't think same sex couples should be forced to wait for that to happen because that is silly. So while I would think it would be very hard for that child at this point in time, same sex couples should definitely by no means be denied that right, and they aren't which I was pleased to see. My question is who are we looking out for in that situation? The hypothetical unborn child? Or the same sex parents?

Women in the Military: Just because they have cups to pee in doesn't mean there is gender equality

The article by Steven Myers “Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting in” presented the challenges that women face as mostly logistical and biological. His definition of “fitting in” seemed to be very literal, for example when he cites the fact that now there are women’s bathrooms and showers, alongside the men’s, and that there are gynecological treatment facilities, complete with an ultrasound machine. While this article acknowledges that sexual assault and harassment are issues, it mentions right after that the solution to these issues is precautions like advising women to travel in pairs, instead of addressing the root causes or advising something like addressing the men, who are the perpetrators of the assault.

The article then focuses on the complex issue of peeing. Women, biologically handicapped in their inability to discretely pee outside, have wondrously transcended gender differences by peeing in bottles. Triumph! After extensively discussing bladder relief, it is mentioned that while common, sex has “not generally proved disruptive”. When women become pregnant, that problem is easily solved by flying them home. Even though Patricia Bradford said that women are viewed “derisively” and she deflects this by being a “bitch”, the article generalizes that “women in today’s military say they do not feel the same pressure to prove themselves. They preserve their femininity without making much of it”. (Myers 5) While I’m sure this is valid for some women, I can’t imagine that this holds true for the majority of women in the military.

The author of this article seems to think that the problems that women face can be solved by female bathrooms and strange devices to help women pee like men. The problem is a patriarchal military system which results in women having to act like men in order to get respect. They are still being treated less than equals and sexually assaulted and harassed, as Myers describes in the article “A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s”.

Neither article addresses the issue of the military’s “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy, which has huge impacts on LGBT women (and of course men). LGBT women in the military face an extraordinary amount of discrimination and mistreatment which the article fails to mention. It does address that men are less likely to come forward and report assault because they are afraid of the repercussions if they are thought to be gay.

Separate bathrooms and pee devices are the least of the problems. The biological differences between men and women can and will be compensated for. Women are capable and should be involved more in the military, as it would benefit everyone. (Including improving the rights of women on the other side of the battle. For example, since male soldiers are not allowed to pat down Iraqi women, they often force the woman’s husband to pat her down while the soldiers watch. This humiliating procedure could be avoided if more women were in combat.) The U.S. military is completely capable of making infrastructural compensation for women, the question is how to address the deeply rooted patriarchal system deeply embedded in the military social structure.

Response to Emma's Post, 3/30 (Had to do a new post because it got too long)

I think Emma’s last point, “that it is crucial to be educated about the portrait of an average rapist, and to dispel many of the myths about rape” is of incredible importance. I was going to write this blog post about the merits of taking individual action to both fight against rape and deconstruct the raunch culture, but now I’m not sure how I feel about it. To a certain extent, I want to say that rape is an unfortunate reality of our society and while it should be fought on a macro-level, the individual should do everything they can to fight against it, but I realized as an individual, I don’t do that in my own life.

As Emilie Morgan described in her heartbreaking story, rape and sexual assault are part of our society. While sexual assault is a horrific crime that hopefully will be reduced in the future as it is more addressed, it is currently an unfortunate reality of our world that both women and men are not always safe. Women especially face attacks on all fronts, by strangers, friends, and even loved ones. The flaws in our society need to be addressed on a macro level but as individuals, there are actions that we can take to prevent rape.

While I believe this abstractly by supporting a “we can fight this” attitude, I feel incredibly hypocritical when I emphasize personal responsibility because there are a lot of things I do personally which probably put me in risky situations. I haven’t taken karate, I don’t even carry mace. I walk home alone at night, frequently from campus to home on weeknights but every now and then on a Friday or Saturday night. I always feel guilty when I do, that it would be my fault for not using the “buddy system”. I know that I could call campus safety and request a ride from them or ask one of my friends to pick me up, but I’d rather just walk and be independent than burden my friends or inconvenience campus safety. I’m not as mindful of open drinks on the weekends as I should be. I don’t always lock my door. I walk while listening to music. So whenever I do walk or don’t lock my door, I feel guilty, like I’m not protecting myself and making myself vulnerable. If I were to be attacked, I would be at fault.

Reviewing all these things in my mind, I’m angry. I’m angry that as a woman I am physically vulnerable to attack at any moment. I am angry that I can be overpowered because I am physically weaker than a huge segment of the population and I am susceptible to attack at any moment, and that to a certain extent, it would be my fault for not defending myself. I’m angry that I was born into a culture where I am on the defensive, and even though no one would blame me 100% for an assault, it would still be a degree my fault for not protecting myself fully. I’m angry that what I “should” be doing is taking karate. I don’t want to take karate. I “should” be concerned on a Friday night for my safety - instead of having fun with my friends, that I should be actively defending the drink in my hand against date rape drugs. I’m angry that I can’t listen to my iPod when I’m walking alone because that makes me more vulnerable. I’m angry that when I walk through a parking lot at night, I have to grip my car keys between my knuckles and prepare to jab someone in the eyes.

And I’m angry that I can’t be angry without being labeled a psycho feminist. I feel like I should try to be a “nice feminist” to prove the bitter-man-hating feminist stereotype wrong. But women face rape and sexual assault as a daily burden, which I don’t believe is true for the majority of men.

So ultimately, I don’t know where I stand. I am angry at men because I’ve heard firsthand from a male (who told me this sentiment fully knowing that I am a feminist) at Colgate who told me he thinks that women often “put themselves in that situation” for sexual assault. The fact is that the majority of the rapes that occur are men raping women, and yet the burden is placed on women to act constantly on the defense.

Readings for 3/30

Susan Brownmiller’s article, “Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape” brought up a lot of valid points about rape, but I think one of the better points she brings up is about the misconception of a typical rapist profile. Since rape is a controversial and stigmatized subject in our society, it isn’t talked about, and this leads to many false assumptions about both victims and perpetrators. Rape, along with many other criminalized acts, is often thought of as something that only ugly, poorly groomed men in dark alleys at night do. In reality, as Brownmiller states, “the typical American rapist is no weirdo, psycho schizophrenic beset by timidity, sexual deprivation, and a domineering wife or mother” (274). Yet when people think of rape as something that only deviant, mentally ill people do, it gives women a false sense of security and makes it more difficult to deal with a rape by a date or a friend. On a somewhat related tangent, I believe that many anti-criminal agendas, such as anti-drug programs, make the same mistake of portraying a criminals as a deviant, unstable individual. I remember in elementary school watching an anti-drug film, which featured a scary looking bunny with red eyes in a dark alley as the drug dealer. The message that films such as these send is that as long as you stay away from dark alleys, you will be fine. This isn’t effective message years later when it isn’t a scary person in an alley offering students drugs, but most likely their friends or acquaintances. Similarly, I think that the commonly held assumption that rape is just something strangers do is a very detrimental belief, because a variety of people commit rape. As in Emilie Morgan’s story, “Don’t Call Me a Survivor” she is raped first by a complete stranger, then by her date, and then by a group of friends.

The Susan Brownmiller article made me think about the danger of rape on college campuses. I think that when it comes to small, segregated schools (like Colgate) that are cut off from the larger population, students feel a sense of security because chances are that you are friends with or know of everyone. Many believe that rape isn’t something that happens too often, because there aren’t a lot of scary old people hanging around. I think a good example of this misguided thought is the situation last semester when a person pretending to be a Colgate student broke into some apartments, and according to a rumor going around campus, also sexually assaulted a girl. I wasn’t here last semester, so I am unsure of the exact details and I understand that there is still question if whether or not a sexual assault actually occurred, but regardless, the panic and paranoia that I heard from my friends at Colgate was very high. It is interesting that an (alleged) sexual assault by a non-Colgate person was so talked about and publicized, but rape by Colgate students to other Colgate students is hardly ever talked about, although I’m sure that it happens. I am unsure of why this is. Perhaps because rape by an average looking boy in one’s psychology class is harder to come to grips with than rape by a complete stranger. What I learned from Brownmiller’s article is that it is crucial to be educated about the portrait of an average rapist, and to dispel many of the myths about rape.

3/25: How Child Birth Went Industrial: Gawande and Goer

The New Yorker article by Gawande was really shocking to me, not because of the explanations of the multiple ways that childbirth can go wrong, but the cultural implications of childbirth. I was most shocked by the priorities established during early childbirth, where it seems like the life of the mother was put as a higher priority than the life of the child. The mother always putting her life second to her children defines childbirth and motherhood in our western culture. You always hear stories about mother’s, or fathers for that matter, risking their lives to save their children. I know that my own mother almost died giving birth to me, but she always said that that she would have chosen my life over hers. I thought the idea of crushing a baby’s skull in order to save the mother was absolutely horrible, but is that just because we’ve been socialized to believe that once a baby is born that their life is more important?

I was also really interested in the medicinal aspect of the article. I just did a presentation in another class about western medicine practices vs eastern medical practices. When Elizabeth Rourke’s doctor arrived in her room and started administering one medicine it seemed to cause a domino effect where only more chemicals would help cure the problem. I think that we’ve taken childbirth to be this situation where only one way is the correct way for it to be done and every other way is incorrect. It seems to me that western medicine, and this article, has made childbirth seem much more precarious and dangerous than it actually is.

In the deconstruction article, Goer suggest that planning caesarian sections for women may be the answer. I think that both of these articles are dramatizing childbirth. Is it something that I actively want to go through as a female? No. But I think that most women who do choose to have a baby understand the risk involved and the actual process that they are going to go through. I know that if I were giving birth I would want every drug under the sun to make it not hurt, and I may choose to have a caesarian section, but I don’t think that standardizing it is the answer because not everyone is the “worst case scenario” as these articles make it seem.

News Flash: Shiloh's Tomboy Haircut Controversy

Three-year-old Shiloh Jolie-Pitt, daughter of celebrities Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, made headlines this past month when she was photographed sporting a new, short haircut. Tabloids went wild with the news, and within a week many major celebrity magazines published entire articles devoted to Shiloh’s new haircut. Yet the media frenzy did not come simply from the haircut, but rather what the short haircut might imply about the gender identity of Shiloh. Shiloh had previously been photographed in outfits that caused the media to label her a tomboy, and her new haircut just added fuel to the fire. Life & Style magazine ran a front page story about the drama with the headline “Why is Angelina Turning Shiloh Into A Boy?” and US Weekly ran an article titled “Stylists Rate Shiloh’s Princess Charming Haircut” (Lifeandstylemag.com and UsMagazine.com).

While it may seem easy to dismiss the fact that a magazine would devote an entire article to stylist comments about a three-year-old’s haircut as silly, the reason behind this media frenzy is not so laughable. What is really behind this current media obsession with Shiloh is the fact that she does not fit the expected mold given to her when she was born. Because of her immensely famous and gorgeous parents, Shiloh’s birth was possibly one of the most anticipated births to date. She was predicted to be one of the most beautiful baby girls in the world. Yet, as she grew from a baby to a toddler, Shiloh didn’t take on her expected role of pampered Hollywood princess, dressing in girly pink clothing. As Irin Carmon of the feminist gossip website, Jezebel, sarcastically writes: “Doesn’t she realize she’s the crown princess in the fairy tale? She’s ruining it with that whole ‘wanting to be a boy’ thing!” (Jezebel.com). Even at three years old, Shiloh (or her parents) is breaking the gender stereotype of what it means to be a girl. Although the attention given towards her short haircut and tomboy clothing is exaggerated because of her famous parents, at the root of this attention is the fact that Shiloh does not easily fit into our constructed gender standards of girl or boy. Hence, this media attention about Shiloh’s haircut is an example of our society’s compulsion to put people into defining categories, and our society’s discomfort when one does not fit easily into said category.

In Sexing the Body Anne Fausto-Sterling traces the progression of how we think about gender and sex. She states that we see these as two distinct categories, and usually associate sex with nature, and gender with nurture. In other words, gender is something that can be learned or taught. She traces the spread of this belief to 1972 with the works of sexologists John Money and Anke Ehrhardt (Fausto-Sterling 3). Money and Ehrhardt argued that “sex refers to physical attributes and is anatomically and physiologically determined. Gender… is a psychological transformation of the self- the internal conviction that one is either male or female (gender identity) and the behavioral expressions of that conviction” (Fausto-Sterling 3). Because of this belief, it is now commonly held that our sex is something we are born with, but our gender is something that we acquire. The concept of gender is where the trouble with Shiloh is found. It is clear that her sex is female, but it is her gender that is in question.

The question arises of whether or not parents can, or should, teach their children how to adhere to gender norms. It is clear in the title of the Life&Style article, “Why is Angelina Turning Shiloh Into a Boy?” that the blame is put on Angelina for not teaching Shiloh the proper way to be a girl. Further blame is also placed on Brad Pitt as the result of what he said in an Oprah interview a year ago. While on Oprah, Brad Pitt talked about how Shiloh loved the movie Peter Pan and how she liked to be called by the names of the male characters: ‘“We've got to call her John," he told Oprah Winfrey, noting that when he started to ask, "Shi, do you want..." she would interrupt with "John. I'm John." Then, Brad continued, "I'll say, 'John, would you like some orange juice?' And she goes, 'No!'" (Life and Style Online). While this exchange seems pretty typical of a three-year-old, some critics believe that her parents shouldn’t be indulging Shiloh’s desire to be called John.

The question of whether Shiloh’s parents should indulge behavior like wanting to dress in boy’s clothes or wanting to be called boy’s names has experts split. Some, like parenting coach Karen Deerwester, believe that is very healthy and normal for a child to want to express him or herself in various ways, and the parents should support these choices: “Giving preschool-age children the freedom and flexibility to experiment with how they want to be seen in the world is a wonderful gift” (Life and Style online). Yet others, such as Glenn Stanton, director of Family Formation Studies at the conservative organization Focus on the Family, believe that Shiloh’s parents need to encourage and foster her to adhere to the female gender: ‘“Little girls have never been women before. They need help, they need guidance of what that looks like. It's important to teach our children that gender distinction is very healthy”’ (Life and Style Online). Using the theories found in Sexing the Body, it appears that Deerwester would be in agreement to seeing gender on a spectrum, whereas Stanton would be in agreement with the doctors who feel it is necessary to do intersex corrective surgeries as soon as possible because gender is learned and developed from a very young age (Fausto-Sterling).

The majority of the people in the Internet world criticized the magazine’s focus on Shiloh, with comments ranging from “Practical suggestion- my mom made me wear my hair short because I had seriously fine hair that would not stay in any barrette or ponytail. Sometimes it's not about your personality and all about how irritated your Mom is because you have tangled hair every night” to “The tabloids need to back off and let Shiloh be a child. It is sickens me to see the amount of gender bias in the US media. Children should not be singled out or ridiculed for refusing to adhere to gender norms” (Jezebel.com). The comments from people on the other side of the debate were equally, if not more, strongly worded. Some reactions to the Shiloh debate not only questioned her gender, but her sexuality. Alana Kelen, fashion stylist for VH1, was quoted as saying: “Shiloh is pushing the boundaries of a tomboy look and crossing over to cross-dresser territory” (Life and Style online). As seen in Sexing the Body, there is an underlying belief that if gender is not clearly defined, people assume that this also means a step towards deviant sexuality. Again, there is an emphasis on properly learning gender: “The development of masculinity, femininity, and inclination toward homo- or hetero- sexuality, nurture matters a great deal more than nature” (Fausto-Sterling 46). Thus, the concern about Shiloh is not only rooted in current presence of her short haircut, but also the long-term effect that the short haircut could have on her sexuality.

When society believes that a person should fall into distinct female and male gender categories, it is implied that there is a correct and incorrect way to be a girl. In Touch magazine featured a spread that epitomizes this exact belief. In the article, Shiloh is contrasted with Suri Cruise, daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, in a variety of categories, including hair styles, dress, and accessories. The article is titled, “Shiloh & Suri have such different styles” (In Touch online). And while it is not explicitly stated, there is an implicit message that Suri, with her purses and high heels, is a prime example of how to be a girl, while Shiloh, with her camouflage pants and sword, is an example of the wrong way to be a girl. Even though Shiloh and Suri are still quite young, the attention paid to their dress at such a young age shows society’s belief that gender must be developed from birth.

While it is unsettling and almost shocking that tabloids today can make a story out of a three-year-old’s hairstyle, the underlying implied messages about gender and sexuality are not a product of the 21^st century. As Fausto-Sterling writes, the construct of gender as nurtured is a belief that stems from theorists in the past. It is thought that gender must be developed, and if it is not done so properly, there can be long-term consequences for the child. The recent attention on Shiloh is the epitome of this belief. When Shiloh did not turn out to be the blonde hair, blue-eyed princess that was expected of her and instead preferred stereotypically boy attire, the inability to place her in a category felt confusing and uncomfortable. The media felt they needed to address this confusion by devoting articles to the issue that speculated about possible explanations, and contrasted her to a prime example of a very feminine girl her age. The attention about Shiloh shows that even in 2010, there is still a right and wrong way to be a girl.

Sources:

Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling.

"Shiloh and Suri have such different styles" In Touch Magazine online. http://jezebel.com/5484790/this-week-in-tabloids-angelinas-rough-sex-with- ralph-fiennes--shilohs-harmful-haircut/gallery/

"Stylists rate Shiloh's 'Princess Charming' Haircut" US Weekly. http://www.usmagazine.com/momsbabies/news/stylists-rate-shilohs- princess-charming-haircut-2010252

"Why is Angelina Turning Shiloh into a boy?" Life and Style Magazine Online. http://www.lifeandstylemag.com/2010/03/large-1011-cover.html

"Why The Gossips Find Shiloh's 'Tomboy' Attire So Odious" Jezebel Online. http://jezebel.com/5480503/why-the-gossips-find-shilohs-tomboy-attire-so- odious

Abortion-3/23

For this post, I am going to focus on the topic of abortion. In the readings for today's class, after getting some background on abortion from the Roe v. Wade case, we read articles and chapters both on pro-life and pro-choice. Personally, as a Catholic, I side with pro-life with the exception of rape, but both Crews and Muscio brought up points that I agree with and I thought both had some weaknesses.

Muscio, although I agree with her position on pro-life, the fact that she claimed to be against abortions even though she had 3 seemed very hypocritical and I had a really hard time admiring her for being against abortions given her past. I don't want to justify any of her abortions, but had it been one abortion and then she realized how painful and emotionally traumatizing and would learn her lesson about unprotected sex, I would have had a little more sympathy for her, but 3 times in my mind seemed stupid. It is people like her who give credit to the claim that if abortions are legal, they will become a method of birth control. I personally think it is the rare woman who will use abortions as birth control because of the emotional and physical pain involved, but she is a prime example of that claim. If I were pro-choice, I would have had a real problem with Muscio because I would think that she is one of those women whose actions, which contribute to the abortion as birth control concern, is jeopardizing safe abortions for other women.

I thought Crews made an interesting and legitimate point about not making abortions so political and more of an individual situation. "It seemed as if everyone I encountered felt they had a right to force their opinion on me regarding the best choice for my child's future- and this choice was almost exclusively to give him up for adoption" (Crews, 146). I definitely agree that those who make this a political thing contribute to that and if society can't tell you how to raise your child etc, then why should they tell you to have the baby or not to have it? It seems to be a valid point. That being said, I think it speaks volumes that she chose to have the baby and cancelled all her abortion appointments. What I liked most about this article is that her being pro-choice, didn't mean she wanted to make abortions legal, but that every woman had the right to be uninfluenced and uninhibited by outsiders in terms of their reproductive abilities.

Newsflash #2: Australia Grants Recognition of “Not Specified” Gender, then Retracts

Australia’s government last week officially recognized the category of “not-specified” as an alternative to either female or male in legal documents. The act which marked a shift in the binary gender system was the issuing of a ‘Sex Not Specified’ Recognized Details Certificate, in place of a birth certificate to an individual named Norrie. Norrie, now 48, was born an officially designated a male. After going through gender-reassignment hormone therapy and surgery, Zorrie was issued a gender recognition certificate and officially legally recognized as a female. However, the transition to female still left Zorrie unsatisfied with zir gender identity. Ze began to view sex and gender through the Eastern idea of yin and yang, that the two halves make up a greater whole. Working with a group called Sex and Gender Education, Zorrie began to be politically active in fighting against the idea that the two genders are mutually exclusive. If this stereotype was ended, Zorrie hypothezied that “in Western culture [we] would have more options for happiness if we too had permission not simply to be of one gender or the other, but also to be of both genders, if such was our nature." Zorrie’s new legal status in Australia appropriately represents zir identity and allows for correct legal representation.

This development reflects the harsh reality that in most countries, including the United States, every single person is cataloged as either male or female. In addition to falsely representing individuals’ identities who do not consider themselves either male or female, there can be severe legal implications as well. Zorrie blogs about this issue, saying that having to choose one gender on a document like a passport “makes the statement false, which is not acceptable for legal identity documentation, and puts me in danger of detention and assault.” It seems only logical that the legal code would embrace intersex to give them basic rights, considering intersex individuals have naturally existed for a long as humans have. Our society’s rigid binary of male-female reflects how much gender is socially constructed. Basic rights are denied to non-heterosexual groups in general, with the most glaring example being the lack of legal recognition for gay marriage.

The rigid binary system does not reflect medical reality, where there is much more of a continuum between the two genders than a harsh polarization between the masculine and the feminine. Although a fictional character, Cal from Jeffrey Eugenides’ novel Middlesex represents this well, as s/he does not completely identify with either gender. Cal did not feel particularly out of place growing up as a female, and not completely “at home” in the body of a man. The doctors involved in the treatment were ignorantly of the possibility of both genders co-existing in a single body. Initially, the presence of another set of genitalia was simply ignored and Calliope was considered 100% female. The next doctor wanted to remove all vestiges of masculine genitals present in Cal’s body and give hormone therapy to “fix the problem”. For Cal, having the identity of “not-specified gender” would have had the potential to make her life much better. Giving it a name is the first step in making intersex more accepted and embraced by society.
An interesting part of this article was that it uses the gender neutral pronoun “zie” to refer to Norrie. (Conjugated: Ze laughed, I called hir, hir eyes gleam, that is hirs, ze likes hirself, Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun). Both the decision made by the Australian government and the rhetoric of the article reflect expansion from the binary system of gender as polarized between male or female. They allow for a third category, which is a prerequisite for further social progress. A change in legal code and a change in language are both necessary in our society.
The shift in legal classification reflects the growing need to expand from the binary system of only including the two polarized options of male and female. It represents an opportunity for doctors presented with an intersex baby at birth to not have to follow rigid scientific protocol or make an arbitrary decision to assign a gender which could have potentially huge repercussions for the individual later in life. Instead of using inch measurements of the penis or chromosomal analysis, the child can be registered as “Sex not specified”. It reduces the urgency of the situation, which would ideally allow for more time to arrive at the appropriate decision, if a decision need be made. Parents, therapists, doctors, and the child can all discuss the matter without a pressing need to check the box either male or female, an issue that Anne-Fausto Sterling raises in Sexing the Body. Sterling aptly criticizes the system in which the deciding factor of a baby’s gender is the doctor’s subjective opinion.

What change does this truly bring about or represent? While this development is a huge
marker of progress for the intersex community, one way to view it is that it indicates only legal advancement and not radical social change. It can be analogized to the American Psychological Association removing homosexuality from its classification as a mental disorder. This was a huge step forward for the gay community, but did not end the discrimination and prejudices that plague those of non-heterosexual orientation to this day. However, in this case, small legal change can signify momentous progress for the individuals who are intersex. It may be a small change for those who have already had to choose between the two sexes, but for future births it can mean a promise of a more true identity. It will not alleviate prejudice, stereotypes, or discrimination, but it can help families and babies who are born intersex to have a more nuanced approach instead of jumping to give the child a “normal” life as either a male or female. Tracie O’Keefe describes this radical step forward as “an enormous legal breakthrough for the rights of intersex children whose doctors and parents are confused about their sex at births and that they could be registered as ‘Sex Not Specified’ until they decide what sex would be right for them”, which would avoid intersex children being “forced into male and female identities, when not medically necessary, which they later felt were incorrect, including unnecessary brutal surgery to give them stereotypical looking genitalia, often leaving them without sensation or function.”

The change in legal code to adopt a more progressive approach to gender reflects Kenji Yoshino’s conception of current discrimination taking the form of forced covering. While it may be legally acceptable for someone to have “non-specified” gender, the reality of society, especially regarding employment, is that while legal terms and abstract notions might indicate equality, the actual treatment of intersex individuals is far from equal. Society maintains the categorization of its people as male or female because it such a convention makes things easier. It is hard for people to wrap their heads around intersex people being comfortable being neither solely male nor solely female. “Covering” for intersex involves outwardly choosing one sex as their public or outward identity. Zorrie writes that ze received a lot of discrimination for being androgynous, which was one of the reasons for the initial surgical transition to becoming a woman.

In a rather depressing sequence events since I began writing this, the document that granted Zorrie gender-neutral status was revoked. Attorney-General John Hatzistergos issued a statement that the registrar acted wrongly and it “may only issue a recognised detail certificate or a new birth certificate following a change of sex in either male or female gender”. Zorrie reported that the registry had responded to her by saying they were unable to enter gender unspecified into their computers, but would work with computer programmers, adding “It is the job of the system to fit the people it serves, not the job of the people to fit the system”. This issue reflects the difficulty and potential ineffectiveness of working within the system to effect change. Adding a third category for gender can still make the third category be just “the other” in relation to retained heteronormativity. Working outside of the system and creating entirely new ideas of what is male, female, neither, or both, could be the only effective way for the intersex community to be represented legally and given civil rights and recognition by mainstream society.

Regardless of the status of this legal situation, Zorrie is an individual who is neither male nor female. Eventually, the law must catch up with the status of individuals. Unfortunately, by requiring classification as either male or female, it remains representative of an antiquated system of binary gender polarization.


Sources:

http://www.awid.org/eng/Women-s-Rights-in-the-News/Women-s-Rights-in-the-News/Australia-is-first-to-recognise-non-specified-gender

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1217232/Sex-'non-specified'-certificate-invalid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun

News Flash 2: Gender Neutral Bathrooms

Say goodbye to designated female and male bathrooms, or should I say, say hello to gender-neutral bathrooms. According to an article from Fox News, the University of Vermont has recently added “gender neutral” bathrooms to the new Dudley H. Davis Center. Included in these bathrooms are four single bathrooms and each includes a toilet, sink, shower, and lockable door. Behind this radical addition, according to the Vice President for Student and Campus Life, is the desire for “inclusivity and accessibility and the importance of meeting all people’s needs, not just a few.” The University of Vermont is not alone. In fact, it is one of seventeen other colleges and universities who have added gender neutral bathrooms to their campuses. This change seems to reflect a recognition in the limitations of the two sex system and the fluidity of gender and a move toward acceptance for those who don’t fit into that socially constructed system. As understandable and progressive as these additions may be, there are serious concerns and problems associated with them.

The installation of gender-neutral bathrooms has brought mixed opinions on the topic. According to Kelly, a 19 year old transgendered student at the University of Vermont, in gender segregated bathrooms she has felt uncomfortable and thinks that the introduction of gender neutral bathrooms is “a really important thing to have…Just because there can be tense situations in gendered bathrooms, especially for trans-identified people, you need a space to use the rest room and feel safe and comfortable” (CNN Article). Similarly, the university’s Director of the school’s Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Ally Services felt “a multi-use bathroom doesn’t necessarily feel safe to transgendered students, because they have concerns about how their gender would be read by others” (CNN Article). However, Stephen Cable, the founder of Vermont Renewal, a group dedicated to “promoting traditional moral values” says “I always have concerns when institutions or the government legitimized behaviors or practices that could be discovered in the future to be harmful to those individuals” (CNN Article).

These views represent opposite ends of the spectrum. There are several authors from class who would have comments regarding the introduction of gender- neutral bathrooms. Anne Fausto-Sterling, who points out that gender is not as fixed as we think and suggests that the two sex system and the pressure we put on intersex people to fit into our two sex system is all a product of social constructions would be pleased to see this change (Fausto-Sterling, 16). She would argue that this is a progressive move away from our rigid socially constructed lines of gender and a step towards including those who don’t fit into the two-sex system (Fausto-Sterling, 30). The University of Vermont’s installation of gender-neutral bathrooms certainly shows a progressive change and openness to those outside the two-sex system. While it is admirable, it lacks practicality. This change, while occurring, is occurring at some of the most liberal institutions in the country, colleges and universities. There are few places outside of college where these transgender students will have public gender-neutral bathrooms. Should they live in a false reality for their four years of college? Should they find ways to individually “be” and work within the two-sex system? Their fear of judgement is understandable, but if the majority of work environments, restaurants, etc do not have gender neutral bathrooms, they are in for yet another wake up call and challenge to face in the world as a transgender. Without these bathrooms, they could use this time in college, a time of self-exploration, to find out what works for them as individual transgenders in our society.

Similarly, while Cal from Middlesex doesn’t ever convey problems in public bathrooms, he spends most of the book feeling very uncomfortable in his skin, especially around Julie, who he should trust and with whom he should be comfortable (Middlesex, 167). Consequently, would identify with the 19-year-old transgendered student from Vermont and understand her feelings and fear of being judged in gendered restrooms. We can try to imagine the level of discomfort and fear that runs through transgendered people’s minds but as mentioned earlier, college is a time of self-exploration and using that time to self explore and become comfortable in your own skin is crucial. There are obviously more hurdles in that process for transgendered people than heterosexuals, but regardless, as individuals in this world growing comfortable enough in one’s skin is important in all aspects of life and perhaps learning to become comfortable in one’s own skin can start in the bathroom.

The idea of gender-neutral bathrooms is an interesting idea. Certainly the desire to be inclusive and accepting should be reflected in decisions and there should not be discrimination against intersex individuals. In an ideal world they would feel comfortable enough in their own skin to share a gendered bathroom, but we don’t live in that kind of world. Aside from the fact that it costs “$2500 per private bathroom” (CNN Article), which in difficult economic times could be problematic for those who cannot use those bathrooms but are still seeing an increase in their tuition. What makes us different and unique is special, but catering to everyone feeling “comfortable” is an impossible battle. There are so many different religions, sexes, genders, cultures, ethnicities, etc that it is impossible to please everyone. Intersex people face so many problems in society and have so many uphill battles to fight and problems to face, so a bathroom seems like a small innocent step to help them out. Their feeling of discomfort and fear of judgement is completely understandable, but with all the issues in the world that intersex people face, is the bathroom the proverbial battle they want to pick? There are larger issues at hand for them that deserve priority and attention before gender-neutral bathrooms.

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294633,00.html

Ariel Levy: Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.

Allan Johnson: “Patriarchy as a System”.

Anne Fausto-Sterling: Sexing the Body

Jeffrey Eugenides: Middlesex