Scientists Exist in the Cultural Atmosphere Too!

        While reading the chapter “Dueling Dualisms” from Anne Fausto-Sterling’s book Sexing the Body, I took note of one particularly thought-provoking comment she made just a few pages in: “Through their daily lives, experiments, and medical practices - scientists create truths about sexuality; how our bodies incorporate and confirm these truths; and how these truths, sculpted by the social milieu in which biologists practice their trade, in turn refashion our cultural environment” (Fausto-Sterling 5).  She is arguing that medical professionals create the truths about human bodies that they think they already see.  I think this topic is worth some serious investigation, considering (as Fausto-Sterling says) that the kind views and biases of medical professionals come through in the language they use and especially the way they interpret their findings.  

  This passage stood out to me because it made me question the very thing that our society always relies on to verify or refute theories - science.  I think sometimes we forget (I certainly had) that science requires scientists, that those scientists have their own biases, and that those biases can never be completely removed from the scientist’s work.  Science is not as objective as we assume; it still has a very strong human element, and that element is far more influential than we give it credit for.  This passage in Fausto-Sterling’s book reminded me of an article I read last year in Intro to Women’s Studies called The Egg and the Sperm by Emily Martin.  In her article, Martin discusses the way that medical professionals talk about the reproductive functions of male and female bodies differently.  She writes that the texts explaining these functions “have an almost dogged insistence on casting female processes in a negative light. The texts celebrate sperm production because it is continuous from puberty to senescence, while they portray egg production as inferior because it is finished at birth. This makes the female seem unproductive, but some texts will also insist that it is she who is wasteful” (Martin 488).  The example that Martin gives here shows how biology texts that seem merely informative can plant a bias in the minds of the readers by using language that carries certain connotations.  The issue Martin is commenting on is the propensity for people to view masculine traits and functions positively while feminine traits and functions are viewed negatively.  To her, this seems to suggest that this propensity extends beyond biology and into our culture.

  Fausto-Sterling is making a similar argument in the passage above, but with another perspective: not only are the biases of those in charge of identifying and classifying humans (both medically and politically) reflected in their work, but their work also shapes the way that the people being classified perceive themselves and others.  Fausto-Sterling’s phrase “sculpted by the social milieu” is a striking and thought-provoking one that sums this idea up well.  The way that scientists see the world influences how we see the world because they are the ones who do the grunt work to find out how everything works, then pass it along to us.  Unfortunately, many of them grow up believing in the dichotomous view of sex, the limited view of gender, and the traditional view of how the two ideas relate to one another because that is the atmosphere they were raised in.  As a result, the way we perceive the world (and ourselves!) relies on the way scientists present it to us. 

  While Martin is talking about bodily functions in a way that doesn’t question lines of sex or gender, Fausto-Sterling is taking the conversation one step further by asking what kind of damage is being done by the medical terminology used to classify people who aren’t definitely male or female.  The way that this kind of power goes unrecognized is what really caught my attention, especially because I think the people in question should have more of a say in what terms they are identified by in both medical and social settings. The power of a name is much stronger than we think.  In Feminist and Queer Theory, there was a discussion about the amount of backlash from implementing gender neutral bathrooms at Allegheny, but how no one complains about single-stall restrooms at places like bars that can be used by anyone.  The two restrooms are exactly the same, but something about the connotation of the term “gender neutral” makes people uncomfortable.  If we just called every single stall bathroom a restroom, I highly doubt there would be so much complaining.  The point, though, is that what we call something greatly affects the way we perceive it.  The discussion in Fausto-Sterling’s “Dueling Dualisms” is about what to call people who are not definitely male or female, but have body parts and qualities generally seen in both sexes. Perhaps even they would choose a name not exactly right, since their understanding of their own bodies is swayed by the way they are taught that the sex binary is black and white and gender classifications are hardly any better.

        How can we fix this problem? It seems like the only solution is to somehow reevaluate all the things we think we know about sex, gender, sexuality, and the body through enlightened eyes... But can we ever achieve that enlightened state when our culture is so ingrained in us and we in it?  I think it would be a good start to take a look at who has the power to decide what kind of language we use and how scientific findings are interpreted.  Maybe once we do that, or even through doing that, we will be able to adopt a more accurate view of our intricate bodies and desires.