Diverging from Questionable Corrective Surgeries

         

            For our readings over the past week, we have been primarily focusing on the topic of what it means to be male or female, and how intersexuality has developed socially and medically over the course of history.  While we had many interesting topics of discussion in class about said readings, I feel that there were two particular topics that stood out and interested me the most.  The first topicthat stood out to me was the discussion and reasoning for using the term “divergence of sex development”, and the second being the history and implications of doctors performing gender-corrective surgeries on intersex infants (children born with a varying degree of both male and female sexual organs).  Although both of these topics were covered in separate readings, they were both written by the same author Elizabeth Reis.  After finishing both readings and discussing them in class, I felt compelled to cross-examine them and relate the topics to one another. 

            The first topic comes from the reading called Impossible Hermaphrodites: Intersex in America; 1620-1960 by Elizabeth Reis explores how the views and definitions of hermaphroditism/intersexuality have changed over three centuries, in both the social world and the medical field.  In the beginning on page 411, Reis describes how medical practitioners did not believe in hermaphrodites in the 1600’s and insisted that any cases of ambiguous reproductive organs were cases of “mistaken genitalia” and not an actual medical occurrence.  She goes on to describe how that view changed, leading up to the most-current practice of doctors performing a “corrective” surgery to normalize infants’ genitalia.  Reis elaborates on these altering procedures on page 414, specifically about the work of psychologist John Money, who believed that very young infants could be molded physically and hormonally into a specific assigned gender and suffer no long-lasting negative effects.  Money was very wrong about these assumptions, as it turns out that many people who had these gender assignments as infants grew up either not feeling comfortable in their bodies, changing their genders, or feeling extremely ashamed by the forced secrecy and stigma about their different bodies.  The shame and secrecy that follows many intersex bodies is a large weight to bear, and it brings to mind the question asked by Alice Dreger, chair of the Board of Directors for the ISNA: “Why perform irreversible surgeries that risk sensation, fertility, continence, comfort, and life without a medical reason?” (page 414).  I believe the best-fitting answer to this question lies in the two-gender structure we have created in our society, and how in general we as humans are quick to regulate a sense of normalcy for our appearances.

            Going along with how our society perceives those with abnormal genitalia, I want to discuss the second topic I took interest in.  Divergence or Disorder? the politics of naming intersex is the other reading by Elizabeth Reis that we discussed in class.  In this reading, Reis focuses on the meanings and connotations assigned to different names given to the condition of intersexuality.  Intersex and Hermaphrodite, which have been terms used for longer periods of time, both contain a lot of negative connotations for the bearers of previously mentioned names, as well as the parents of said bearers.  For example, Reis writes that “Hermaphroditism, an older term that can still be found in many medical writings, is vague, demeaning, and sensationalistic, conjuring mythic images of monsters and freaks,” (page 535), which would be very offensive and upsetting for any intersex persons.  However, the label “intersex” itself can be considered harmful as well.  Reis explains that “…activists advocated intersex to describe discordance between the multiple components of sex anatomy, but that word alienated many parents of affected children, as it suggests a self-conscious alternative gender identity and sexuality,” (page 535).  She further explains this alienation by stating that “to them [the parents], intersex meant a third gender, something in-between male and female.  They wanted to see their newborn babies as girls or boys, not as intersex,” (page 537).  The most recently adopted name by the medical community is “disorders of sex development” (DSD), which many believe is a step in the right direction as it “deemphasizes the identity politics and sexual connotations associated with intersex and the degradation associated with hermaphrodite and instead draws attention to the underlying genetic or endocrine factors which cause prenatal sex development to take an unusual path,” (page 537-538). 

            While the phrase “disorders of sex development” may help doctors diagnose and treat patients, many intersex-identifying persons do not favor the term.  The main problem many intersexed people have with the phrase due to its use of the word “disorder”.  Due to the disability rights movement teaching people that being atypical shouldn’t be seen as disordered, many believe that disordered equals broken and in need of repair, consequently applying that definition they are not happy with the inference that intersex = seriously wrong and in need of help (page 538).  To remedy this, Elizabeth Reis offers up a slightly different phrase: “divergence of sex development”.  By swapping out “disorders” with “divergence”, Reis says that it “…would satisfy those who want to minimize the emphasis on genitals, gender identity, and sexual orientation that the intersex label may encourage. Using divergence, intersex people would not be labeled as being in a physical state absolutely in need of repair,” (page 541).  There are many other implications for using “divergence”, such as its usefulness in the political sphere as well as the medical community so that everyone can see the intersex condition in its full complexity.  I feel that “divergence of sex development” covers a wider scope of people and that it also allows for itself to be interpreted in different ways for different people.

            I feel like the new label “divergence of sex development” is important because of how it can be applied to those being born intersex today.  Elevating intersexuality above the idea of being a disorder can allow doctors and surgeons to not immediately jump to questionable corrective surgery just to fit a cultural norm.  I believe that this is important because it will save many intersex people from struggling to accept themselves in the bodies they were born in or dealing with the trauma the corrective surgeries can cause.

            What I thought was very interesting about these readings is how they changed and broadened my views on intersex-identifying people.  Although prior to the readings I was aware that intersexuality was a thing that existed, I never thought much of it.  These readings really opened my eyes to how long intersexuality has been a part of our social, political, and medical spheres, and just how much pressure and taboo are on intersex bodies from birth to death.  Coming away from these readings, I know I have learned a lot, however I also realize that I am just delving into the tip of the iceberg that is human gender and sexuality.  As a small closing example, I found an interesting blog article that touches on intersexuality and marriage equality, as well as how nature determines sex in different species.