Bye-nary: Repurposing and Redefining (Inter)sex

When I first read Reis’ articles, what struck me was the pattern (in history, but leaking into modern medical procedures) of denying the existence of intersex individuals – relegating them to a subject of mythology, literally, by naming them “hermaphrodites” and then asserting that real intersex individuals had to fit into the gender binary somehow, and there was no other option. In a different class, I read Fausto-Sterling’s “The Five Sexes,” which, though it described gender and sex on more of a continuum – the title itself gives it away – she used language like “male hermaphrodite” to describe the different variations that sex may exhibit. Though I took issue with her terminology – finding “hermaphrodite” outdated and somewhat of a slur – I understood and agreed with her basic principle: that, biologically, sex has more variation in nature than a male/female dichotomy. If we use Fausto-Sterling’s idea of sex, it would look more like this:

A: Entirely Male

B: Somewhat Male (She used “male pseudohermaphrodite” here)

C: Gender Neutral/Exhibiting both male and female traits perfectly (“true hermaphrodite” here)

D: Somewhat Female (“female pseudohermaphrodite” here)

E: Entirely Female

and it is more comprehensive than the historical conception of sex as an either/or. Though this definition of biological sex works within the idea of the binary as opposing ends of a spectrum, at least it acknowledges that the spectrum exists. It does rely on biology, but this conception – to me at least – seems to be more inclusive and less biased towards cultural or social norms. It also pushes against the idea that children should be raised as male or female – that they can exist in between and still be legitimate, whole, and possibly more true to themselves – which is something that I believe to be integral when considering the political and personal of being an intersex person. I also think that this, if we were to somehow instate it in a medical context (and I’m saying this purely ideally; I understand that stigmas and old beliefs may hinder this), we could possibly provide better education for the parents of intersex individuals, and end the pattern of “corrective” surgery performed on infants. I understand, however, that this seems far-fetched – I haven’t yet negotiated how to address the issue of “fixing” babies behind closed doors, without the consent of the parents (or the individual themselves!) and the lack of information passed between the medical community and the patients/parents.

            But I believe that there is a unique relationship between intersex individuals and the parents of those individuals because of the way that society has emphasized – as well as hidden – the way that gender and sex are policed, coded, and assigned to “ambiguous” bodies. There also seems to be a divide between the bodies and the individuals themselves – especially from what we’ve read up to this point.  There’s a divide between the emotional/mental identity of a person and their physical being – one that, in my opinion, cannot and should not be severed.

“Medical experts estimate that one of every two thousand people is born with questionable gender status... Our gendered world forces us to put all people into one of two categories when, in fact, as the Harvard University biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling has suggested, we need to consider the ‘less frequent middle spaces as natural, although statistically unusual.’

Sex is social and historical, in large part a construction whose contours and boundaries have been imposed rather than simply discovered” (Reis 413).

Regardless of the accuracy of the “one in two thousand” statistic (I’ve read elsewhere that the estimate is as low as 1 in 4,500), the fact that these people’s voices need to be heard (and historically have been silenced) still stands. Historically, it seems, doctors did their “best” to make the physical and mental “match” – or at least the physical and the expected role that body was to fit into in society. But from the records we’ve seen, the doctors often made mistakes (to put it very lightly) – ones that essentially stuffed people who existed in a grey area into a constricting and imperfect box that did not fit their self-identity, nor did it fit the body they exist in.  In an article I read titled “What If It’s (Sort of) a Boy and (Sort of) a Girl?”, an intersex person relates this practice of corrective assignment surgery to the Nuremberg Code (in reference to the “monster ethics” of Nazi doctors, who sterilized and experimented on their prisoners).  I found this statement incredibly compelling because of its implications: the subject/patient here does not get to consent (which is a violation of the first principle of that code), and does not have a valid reason (save for upholding the binary and ensuring a heteronormative society can continue).

From that same article I mentioned earlier, I found this quote: "intersex babies are not having difficulty with sexual identity or self-image. The parents are...” and it seemed, to me, to summarize my overall issue with assigning gender/sex to an infant -- as well as my issue with performing surgery that is not at all medically necessary on a human who cannot consent to what I'm hesitant to call something cosmetic. From that same article I mentioned earlier, I found this quote: "intersex babies are not having difficulty with sexual identity or self-image. The parents are...” and it seemed, to me, to summarize my overall issue with assigning gender/sex to an infant -- as well as my issue with performing surgery that is not at all medically necessary on a human who cannot consent to what I'm hesitant to call something cosmetic.