Blogs

As some of you may know (and some of you may not), I just posted a rather negative course evaluation.  I was nervous about posting it.  I talked to another classmate who felt it was "ballsy" that we had been asked to submit non-anonymous mid-semester evaluations.  We talked about how we still are getting graded, how we still are regularly interacting with professors and classmates, and how it feels a bit risky to post negative feedback.  So, anyway, my heart was racing a little bit while I was writing my evaluation, and posting it was rather scary.

But a song came on my iPod that really encouraged me, and helped me keep going.  Weirdly enough, it was the song "Roman's Revenge" by Nicki Minaj, which is an offensive song for a number of reasons.   I'm even a little ashamed that it is on my iPod in the first place.  You can read the lyrics here (http://www.directlyrics.com/nicki-minaj-romans-revenge-lyrics.html) or listen to the song here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9h_I90M8-M).

Usually when I listen to this song, it makes me uncomfortable.  But for some reason, listening to it tonight made me feel stronger.  How could this song, which is so offensive, empower me?  Make me feel like a stronger woman?  Is it the strong beat?  Is it the angry tone?  The words?  I have no idea.  I just thought it was interesting that a song that is so offensive, particularly regarding gender and sexuality, could light a fire under me about a gender and sexuality course.

"Most striking is McFadden's admission that his primary theory relies on evidence that is largely circumstantial" (2008, 309). Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz

     This reminded me a lot of the discussion we had in class about the Biology textbook chapters and the validity of the text based on the author's status at a University and the fact that Kaye had picked the text. Although we seem to have full-diclosure here I am left feeling unamused that such serious research would be conducted from a loose evidentiary base.

"After acknowledging the possibility that there may, in fact, be no common underlying cause for all the different observations, McFadden reminds the reader that until the answer is found "science dictates that one tries to find the simplest possible explanation for as many facts as possible, and the prenatal-androgen-exposure explanation appears to do the job' (2008, 318). Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz

Again, this is extremely unsettling to me, as an individual I prefer the rational and logic. However, this sounds like more of a wild goose chase to me. Is it really prudent to conduct research simply searchng for the simplest possible explanation? As we have learned, when is it ever simle when it comes to something as complex, individualized and intimate as someone's sexuality and gender?

    I'm still thinking about last class' medical/legislative activity, where, assuming a different professional role we were all supposed to give our advice about genital reassignment surgery. I was the legislator, in charge of making policy decisions regarding whether or not this surgery should be covered by healthcare. Although I am deeply uncomfortable that parents can choose this surgery for their children, it worries me more that this policy represents a limitation at the convergence of gender and class. The consequences of government policies are amplified for individuals with less money. People would still be getting gender reassignment surgery, but only people with money.  The poor are tied to their bodies in a way the wealthy are not. This is a simplified dichotomy, but a true one regardless.
    We briefly mentioned how much our discussion on genital modification reminded us of the discourse surrounding abortion (waiting periods, prescribed education,  counseling etc). The similarities extend to the legislative venue as well. When Legislators want to stop abortions, knowing full well they can't outlaw them, their solution is regulation. To make them as hard to get, for as many women. Women with means don't generally have difficulty getting around these regulations They can pay for the childcare, they can afford to travel the sometimes hundreds of miles for their procedure. The women who lack the means however, may be stuck in their pregnant bodies.

"Colorblind" - Counting Crows

One of the things I most enjoy about our class is the variance in perspective that comes from engaging with individuals who study in alternating areas. I, for example, am an English and Creative Writing student; other in our class may be studying Biology, History of Art, Psychology, or another area different than my own.  In Rebecca Jordan-Young’s selection Brain Storm, she describes the term network and how it is used to “describe groups of connected people, and in science studies especially to describe how personal and professional connections among scientists shape the scientific knowledge they produce” (Jordan-Young 8).  We may all be pursuing different areas of academia, but this class is our common link. By meeting each week to discuss Perspectives on Gender, we become a part of a network.

I was particularly intrigued by Jordan-Young’s perception of sex, gender, and sexuality as a three-ply yarn. They are all distinct strands and alone are functional; however, they may be wound together in the formation of a new entity that may be slightly “fuzzy around the edges.” This ties back into the idea of network, of individual people or thoughts that are connected through a commonality. But what do we call this newly formed three-strand yarn that is sex, gender, and sexuality? Do we even need to give it a name?

While not related to our current Act, I thought that this video was interesting and encompassed some of our ideas of being "at home" within one's body. It's a good reminder not to make preconceived judgements on others, as things may not be as they seem (I also just found it really amazing to watch and wanted to share). There's also a behind the scenes video which features some thoughts by Rico Genest, the gentleman featured in the video campaign. Enjoy!

Starting out reading the preface for “Brain Storm” I expected to find out what some common differences are between brain structuring is between people who identify as different genders. As we saw from our readings last week, some women have equal levels of testosterone as men or sometimes even higher levels, so if hormone levels currently present in the brain doesn’t account for gender differences, it makes sense to me that it would be some structural wiring in the brain. Instead I found myself reading about case after case, generalization after generalization, being torn apart. Good points were brought up in both “Brain Storm” (how we gather information, quasi experiments, professional and academic differences/similarities, socialization vs. biology, sex vs. gender) and the critique “Looking for Difference?” (group differences vs. individual differences, assuming universal behavior, heterosexism as the norm, decreased masculinity of gay men, the rigidity of some scientists, inability to reconsider a better explanation for results). However I found myself disappointed at the end of the readings because I just didn’t come away with what I expected to.

Something that particularly resounded with me was on page 271 of “Brain Storm” with the summary:

“The three key concepts are the inseparability of experience and heredity, the importance of random events, and the fact that development is a lifelong process. Outcomes in the cognitive domain, in particular, are always contingent, rather than ultimate.”

Note: S. Yaeger, I wrote this post before I read yours, but I think it relates in many ways to your question about the assertion that intersex people should not be used in the nature/nurture debate.

Both assigned readings for this week (Spanier and Horowitz and Jordan Young) reference the case of David Reimer, who lost his penis in a botched circumcision as an infant, later received sex reassignment surgery. His parents raised him as a girl, giving him estrogen injections and forcing him to imitate stereotypically female behaviors despite his resistance and unhappiness. The book written about this period of his life, “As Nature Made Him,” was one that I was thinking about on Tuesday night during our conversations about sex, gender and sexuality. (I highly recommend this book for everyone in this class! A review of it by Natalie Angier for the NYTimes written in 2000 can be found here). Despite the way he was raised, by late adolescence David identified as a heterosexual male, eventually undergoing a double mastectomy and marrying a woman (he sadly committed suicide in 2004).

This morning, I found the website for the Intersex Society of North America, which includes a chart outlining their recommended approach vs the traditionally use concealment approach.  I included the link below.  Most of the site seems to recomend  allowing the intersex person to decide if tey want surgery, but one thing that struck me is that the INSA points out that they believe that:

"Physicians, researchers, and gender theorists should stop using people with intersex conditions in                                                                                            'nature/nurture' experiments or debates."

I'm particularly thrown by the assertion that gender theorists should not use intersex peopled in debate.  

http://www.isna.org/compare

Our discussion of sex assignment surgery for intersex babies (and our roleplaying excercise) highlighted for me just how intricate an issue it is.  Often, when we discuss issues of sex and gender in class, I think it's easy for us to come to a consensus regarding the best way to deal with a variety of issues because we have the privilege of being in a safe space, with like minded individuals, but a parent of an intersexed child doesn't always have the ability to make a decision based solely on their own ethical judgement.  To that end, I have been wondering what would happen if parents of intersex children began to increasingly elect to not have a sex assigned to their children.  I think that this decision would be one that most suits my ideals, but then we face the question of education for the child and, perhaps more importantly, for the child's community.  Though I think that talking frankly and openly with the child would be a wonderful start, one might also have to consider how to address the child's difference with their teachers, their friends, and the adults who make up their community.  I'd like to think that just being in the pressence of a child who is typical in many ways, yet has atypical genitalia would be fine for most mature adults, I'm not sure.  I'm more likely to think that, while many adults would be open and understanding, some would not be, and that would be enough to make the road forward more difficult for the child.

couldn't resist posting nicholas kristof's op-ed, "occupy the classroom"....
w/ the notation that one of the most interesting signs, @
occupy philadelphia last week,  was one reading "occupy your mind."
meditate on that one...