Inventing Sex: Medical Science as Discourse

I’m going to begin my blog post this week by reminding you of what the syllabus says this course on feminist and queer theories of sex, gender and the body is all about:

This 3-credit course examines the diverse and historically varying relationships forged between biological sex, culturally formulated discourses of “masculinity” and “femininity,” and the gendered body (which is never only gendered). Through our course materials, class discussions, activities, and projects during the semester, we will (1) explore the development and consequences of the sex/gender binary that so heavily informs modern Canadian society and, indeed, the world, and (2) learn about the various arguments made by feminist and queer theorists against the sex/gender binary with the goal of expanding contemporary human rights discourse to include all bodies (3345 syllabus, p. 1).

And on p. 2, I list the broad questions that have guided our inquiry all semester:

• By what means are bodies, inherently influenced by race/skin color, economic and class issues, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation, socially constructed into “masculine” and “feminine” bodies, and what are the consequences?
• In what ways do gendered body practices perpetuate and reinforce extant social hierarchies of power and privilege?
• How, why, and under what circumstances do gendered bodies tend to be shaped, used, and abused?

As is evident every day on the news, from stories of gay bashing to the continued use of men’s violent sexual assault of women as weapons of war, to the masculinist “bigger, better, faster, longer” mentality of neoliberal economics and the global arms race, the consequences of the SEX/GENDER SYSTEM are overwhelmingly negative, most obviously for those bodies that, for whatever reason, do not conform to it. As Pascoe’s concept of the “specter of the fag” demonstrates, the binary TWO-SEX MODEL and the GENDER/IDENTITY/POWER SYSTEM (Bornstein, p. 42-45) means that “deviant” bodies pay a great, sometimes fatal, price for their noncompliance.

Where we’ve been

As you know, in Parts 2 and 3 of our course, we focused on the means by which NORMATIVE FEMININITY and HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY are constructed and maintained to create the SEX/GENDER SYSTEM. We based our analysis of these processes on feminist theorist Sandra Bartky’s theory of DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES to make sense of all the socio-cultural forces that work individually and in conjunction with each other to discipline bodies into either “acting like a lady” or “being a man,” with very little room in between. And we’ve discussed the largely negative consequences of transgressing these gender norms.

As we’ve read about and discussed all semester, the SEX/GENDER SYSTEM is a hierarchical binary that allows only two choices: You can be either a masculine man or a feminine woman. There are no other options. In the SEX/GENDER SYSTEM, sex = gender, and the normative characteristics of one gender (masculinity) are significantly valued over those of the other (femininity).

Of course, we know that this equation is wrong—and not only because I keep telling you it is! You know from your own experiences of trying to conform to the gender that’s “appropriate” for your biological sex that FEMININITY and MASCULINITY are always performances (whether intentional or not) that exist on a spectrum of fluidity and multiplicity; gender, to quote Pascoe, is a “constellation of behaviors” (166) that are not necessarily linked to biological sex.

Sex is socially constructed, too?!

So, we understand that GENDER is largely a SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION via (1) a myriad of social institutions (such as religion, school, families, popular culture, and so forth) and (2) three basic types of DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES (see Bartky’s article).

And, up to this point in the course, I have encouraged you to understand SEX as biological/physiological and, thus, “natural.” This is how beginning Women’s Studies students are taught to conceptualize these two terms:

SEX = biological, physiological, natural

GENDER = socially constructed

But, as I’ve alluded to all semester, it’s not quite as simple as that. SEX, which everyone believes is immutable and unchangeable and based on scientific “fact,” is also a social construction! This is based largely on the notion that science, itself, has been socially constructed; science is a DISCOURSE (to use POSTMODERN THEORIST Michel Foucault’s term) that has changed and evolved over the centuries. We’ve seen this, for example, in The Waiting Room: Victoria is diagnosed with a medical condition (“hysteria”) that no longer exists and is treated for that condition using 19^th century “cures” that are considered “outdated” by contemporary medical science. And we see it again this week in the way that medical science has long participated in the construction of SEX through its use of both language (i.e., the terms “male” and “female”) as well as surgical technologies that, quite literally, allow (mostly white, male) doctors and medical researchers to create “boys” and “girls” from babies that are born INTERSEXED (intersex activists call this Intersex Genital Mutilation (IGM)) and, most recently, to create “men” and “women” through sexual reassignment surgeries.

We end of semester-long exploration of gender as a social construction with the realization that so, too, is sex!

Medical science as discourse

DISCOURSE is a dialogue, a conversation, sometimes a debate, a way of talking, thinking and writing about something. It is created by LANGUAGE; it is, quite literally, created by the individual words we use to describe things. DISCOURSE can include popular media, images, textbooks, scholarly articles, and a conversation you have with friends at the bar on a Saturday night. 

DISCOURSES are meaning-making practices that tend to appear to be unified and coherent formations of knowledge and “truth.” However, POSTMODERN theorists argue that DISCOURSES are never unified or coherent and that they are meant to seem that way in order to proscribe hierarchical social relations. In other words, there’s always a politics behind the creation and apparent stability of any DISCOURSE. And our task in this class has been to disrupt the apparent stability of the DISCOURSE of the SEX/GENDER SYSTEM, of the false binary that’s been created between masculinity and of femininity and between male and female. 

So, we start this week from the foundational tenet that Western medical science, particularly the story it tells about SEX and GENDER and male and female bodies, is a DISCOURSE.

Science is one of the most powerful and ubiquitous discourses currently in existence, because it is so often assumed to be “true” and “objective” and “fact-based.” But science – and scientists – are rooted in the context of their time and place, which cannot help but inform the kinds of questions that get asked, what sorts of research gets funded, and what “counts” as scientific “knowledge.” And as a result, the discourse of science is often used to support particular social and political agendas. Who benefits from the existence of only two sexes and two genders? Why? What’s at stake?

Encountering postmodernism

Although we’ve been using it all semester without naming it as such, this week marks our first official encounter with POSTMODERNISM, which has been essential to the development of feminist and queer theories. Remember: the prefix “post-“means “after,” so POSTMODERNISM comes after MODERNISM and is, thus, a response to it.

Let me say a bit more about that and why it matters:

In basic terms, MODERNISM relies first on the notion that truth and objectivity exist and that there are immutable, uncontested “facts” to be learned. MODERNISM relies also on the notion of “progress,” the story we all tell ourselves as a culture that knowledge equals progress and that things are always improving.

MODERNISM as a school of thought reached its hey-day in Western Europe, the U.S. and Canada in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, largely because of the success (at least for some) of the Industrial Revolution and colonial projects throughout Africa and Southeast Asia. What better proof of “progress” than the invention of a steam engine that allows faster travel to faraway lands that you can then conquer and mine for their natural resources?

There’s a great line from the movie Titanic (1997) that always grounds my understanding of MODERNISM: The rich people have just finished dinner, and the conversation all evening has been about the size and speed of RMS Titanic, which at the time of its sinking in April 1912, was the largest and fastest passenger steamship in the world.  Already annoyed in this conversation by what she brashly proclaims to all in attendance as the “male preoccupation with size,” Rose whispers sarcastically to third class passenger Jack as the wealthy men get up from their seats, “Now they'll retreat into a cloud of smoke and congratulate themselves on being masters of the universe.”

For me, in an ironically postmodern way, this line, and the movie generally, are fantastic POSTMODERN critiques of MODERNISM’s unwavering faith in “truth,” “progress,” and the ability of (rich, white) men to, as Rose says, “master” the known universe via technological innovation and military conquest. In the end, for all its size and speed, the RMS Titanic sank precisely because it was too big and traveling too fast. And thousands of people (mostly third class passengers) died because the (white, male) designers and engineers had such confidence in their technological innovation that they didn’t bother to put enough lifeboats on board. So much for the “male preoccupation with size.”

POSTMODERNISM, as a response and reaction to MODERNISM, started to take shape after the violent carnage of two World Wars (1914-1918 and 1937-1945), during which it became glaringly obvious that “progress” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Academics and intellectuals throughout Europe, Canada and the U.S. began taking a long, hard look at the high death tolls caused by “new” mechanized warfare and started asking questions about how it became possible in a “modern,” “civilized” world for genocide on the scale of the Holocaust to occur. Was that “progress?” In the wake of such carnage, nothing was “true” anymore. And thus we get POSTMODERNISM.

POSTMODERNISM questions language (literally, the words we use and how/why we use them), the politics of meaning, and MODERNISM’s reliance on binaries (like the SEX/GENDER SYSTEM) and notions of “reality,” “objectivity” and “truth.” POSTMODERN theoretical approaches have made possible the development of feminist, critical race, and queer theories and have, consequently, heavily informed courses like this one. We’ve been using POSTMODERNISM all semester, but we haven’t called it that until now.

With all that historical context in mind, one of the things to keep in mind this week is how, for all its fabulousness as a theoretical perspective, POSTMODERNISM, “justifiably skeptical of the idea of a prepolitical individual, […] rejects the collectivist alternative and the idea of a ‘foundation’ for politics” (Connell 229), and can thus often get in the way of organizing for and achieving social justice. 

What if nothing really is everything?; or, playing with gender to achieve social justice

And here we come to the end of our course, and the big question of how to take all the theoretical stuff we've been reading and talking about all semester and apply it to our everyday lives. This is where the question on Worksheet #7 comes into our conversation. This is also why I asked you to watch Southern Comfort last week in preparation for this week's class. And I'll restate Q#6 from the in-class handout from last time: 

• In “Just Say Yes,” Bornstein encourages us to consider the value of no gender, of NOTHING, and in “Zen and the Art of Gender Maintenance,” she wants us to think of gender as a journey without a fixed destination. Unpack her arguments in both these chapters: How do each of these strategies work, and how do they fit together?

 This is where we'll start this afternoon, so be ready to move beyond playing with gender and brainstorm some practical strategies for

Competing (and complicit) masculinities

This week we’re wrapping up our section on constructing masculinity while simultaneously thinking ahead to the last part of our course, “Rethinking Sex and Gender: Something Else Entirely.” Fun times--and some pretty complex theorizing about sex, gender and the body—still await us!

But first, some administrative stuff:

• Don't forget to complete and submit your "Glee" worksheets from last week in class on Thursday.
• In addition to that which is listed in the syllabus for this week, please also read Wilson and Daly’s chapter “Till Death Us Do Part” in Weitz, pp. 329-343.
• Also, please watch Tough Guise at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np2PP76_PxQ (approx. 80 mins.). I don’t want to take up valuable class time by showing this on Thursday, but it will constitute a chunk of our discussion. And taking a look at the comments on the YouTube site is certainly enlightening.
• Don’t forget to use Worksheet #6 (via Bb) to help you pinpoint the salient concepts in this week’s reading.
• And, as always, please feel free to come by during my office hours if ever you’d like to chat, brainstorm or have questions!

Now, on to business:

In chapter 3, which we read three weeks ago, Connell introduces a conceptual framework for thinking about and making sense of masculinity/ies that takes into account POWER RELATIONS, PRODUCTION RELATIONS and CATHEXIS (pp. 73-75). This framework incorporates the notion that there are multiple masculinities that exist in relation to each other and are informed by simultaneous, intersecting identities. The framework also takes into account that violence, as a result of CRISIS TENDENCIES, is constitutive of masculinity/ies; violence is used to maintain dominance and is crucial in gender politics among and between men (p. 83). The four chapters that we’ll discuss in class on Thursday utilize this framework, so be sure to review chapter 3 (including the appropriate questions on Worksheet #4) before launching into this week’s readings. 

Connell’s work this week uses life histories of several groups of men whose masculinity is under pressure (i.e., experiencing CRISIS TENDENCIES in POWER RELATIONS) to demonstrate the myriad ways in which masculinities are constructed as fluid and multiple—even among groups of men who appear to have much in common. Chapter 4 focuses on the construction of working class masculinities in the wake of under-/unemployment in the capitalist labour market. In chapter 5, Connell explores what happens when masculinities formed within the context of the “progressive” environmentalist movement come into contact with feminism, while chapter 6 features the experiences of men whose masculinities were formed within the context of local gay and bisexual networks. And chapter 7 focuses on masculinities among educated, middle-class men employed in the technology sector. Again, use Worksheet #6 as a guide.

In addition to the role of CRISIS TENDENCIES, another major contributor to masculinity/ies is violence—or at least the threat of violence and/or the ability to be violent (review chapter 3 for some background info on this as well). As we’ve seen in our reading this semester, women’s bodies have throughout history been conceptualized to varying degrees as men’s property in law and culture. (Think, for example, of fathers “giving away” their daughters at Anglo-Canadian weddings or women assuming their husband’s family name upon marriage!) This link between conceptualizing women as property and social permission to commit violence against them has long been critiqued by feminists and has just recently been taking up by critical masculinity studies scholars. In their article, Wilson and Daly take a look at the simultaneity of the social construction of women’s bodies as property with that of masculinity as violent. 

And then, in Bornstein, we get a taste of what the final weeks of this course will look like: What does it mean to go beyond gender? What if nothing really is everything?

Happy reading, and I’ll see you in class on Thursday.

Back to Critical Masculinity Studies

Although we took a slight detour last week down the road of queer theories as applied to trans issues in order to accommodate our visiting lecturer, DC-based feminist and queer activist Shannon Wyss, we’re going to get back onto our current topic of constructing masculinity/ies for Thursday’s class. But don’t worry: As you know from your syllabus, we’ll get back to queer theories in a few weeks, so just be patient!
 

For this week, though, we’re reading a fantastic book by feminist sociologist CJ Pascoe. Entitled Dude, You’re a Fag, the book examines the construction of masculinity/ies among students at a public high school in northern California. And because we all know that you can’t construct masculinity/ies without also constructing femininity/ies (and vice versa), Pascoe looks at that, too! 

In addition to using the Weekly Worksheet, which is posted on Blackboard, I suggest that you also think about how to use Gould, Martin and the chapter we’ve already read in Connell as theoretical tools to help you make sense of Pascoe. Remember, formal education (i.e., schools) are a significant component of the GENDER POLICE. For example: 

• Gould’s “X: A Fabulous Child’s Story” (from Week 2) demonstrates some of the difficulties and challenges of raising a child without gender. Where do those difficulties and challenges show up at River High?

• Martin argues in the chapter from two weeks ago that, in addition to the overt focus on men in the content of school curricula (i.e., books, courses, etc.), there are HIDDEN CURRICULA at work, as well. In what specific ways does the HIDDEN CURRICULUM manifest at River High?

• Connell discusses the need to think about masculinities (plural) and demonstrates the existence of a PATRIARCHAL DIVIDEND. How can you use these concepts to sort out what’s going on in Pascoe’s study?

As a little teaser, here’s Pascoe talking about her book and why it matters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_nqYnjfe_8&feature=youtu.be

And just in case you might get lulled into thinking that all this is just common sense and there's no homophobia or sexism anymore and that the two aren't inherently connected, scroll down on the YouTube page and take a look at the posted comments while remembering all the potential consequences for transgressing "normative" femininity or "hegemonic" masculinity.

Please remember that the best part of my job is getting to know my students, so please don’t hesitate to come on by during my office hours if ever you have any questions or just want to chat! If you can’t make my office hours, then just e-mail me, and we can arrange an alternative meeting time.

Happy reading, and I’ll see you in class.

A Detour: Trans 101

As you know from the syllabus, although we just began our unit on constructing masculinity/ies, we're taking a slight detour this week to welcome a guest speaker all the way from Washington, DC, feminist and queer activist Shannon Wyss! I invited hir to write a guest blog post, and I've posted that below.

First, though, a few administrative things:

1. Don't forget that your 'Zine Project proposals (one per group) are due on Thursday at the start of class.
2. Also don't forget that you have some reading to do in preparation for Thursday's class.
3. As part of that reading, please complete the exercises on pp. 74-76 of Bornstein. You'll hand these in to me for credit toward your class participation mark, but we'll also be discussing your answers/experiences in class.
4. Remember that class will meet in Y224 on Thursday.
5. Please join us for the reception directly after class in The Knuckle (EA3001) for some free food and a cool discussion/strategy session about how to be an LGBTQ advocate.
6. My office hours are cancelled on Thursday so that I can do some stuff to get ready for all the exciting stuff that's happening on Thursday!
7. And lastly, Shannon's guest blog is below, and the link to hir website is just above, on the right-hand side menu. I encourage you to check it out!

And now, without further ado, Shannon's guest blog:

Hello, Sex, Gender, and the Body students!

I’m looking very forward to meeting all of you next Thursday! Kim speaks very highly of you as a smart, insightful class. So i’m sure we’re going to have a great dialogue with each other.

She suggested that i write a blog post introducing myself. So here i am, wondering what the heck to say to you since i’m going to be there in person. What could you possibly want or need to know about me in advance?

I suppose that telling you a little about me is a good way to start. And while there are many ways that i can describe myself (ain’t that true for all of us?), here are some of the most important:

·         White;

·         Queer (in sexual orientation and gender identity);

·         A strong trans ally for fifteen years or more;

·         US-born;

·         Native English-speaking;

·         Upper-middle class;

·         Able-bodied;

·         Well-educated;

·         An anti-racist ally;

·         Assigned female at birth;

·         A completely-recovered Catholic;

·         Partnered;

·         Monogamous;

·         Introverted;

·         Mentor to four gay/bi/queer/trans young men;

·         Politically radical;

·         Proud pet co-parent of an adopted beagle and three adopted cats;

·         Dedicated to coalitional and intersectional politics at all levels;

·         Social justice-focused;

·         The oldest of four children in my nuclear family;

·         Feminist-identified since about eleven years old;

·         Middle-aged (barely, since i just turned 40 in October);

·         Short;

·         Employed full-time in a job with great benefits;

·         Not very concise; and

·         Doing laundry right now for my trip to Calgary, for which i’ll be leaving at 3:30am Saturday.

·         (Also, i am not a morning person.)

Is all of that relevant? Not really. But at least it might be a little interesting.

I’ve been involved in queer-related activities and activism since college, when my best friend came out to me as bisexual in 1993 and blasted the lock off my closet door. (Previously, i was so far in the closet that even *i* couldn’t find myself with a flashlight!) I was fortunate to have had a relatively easy coming out experience since my politics were already in the right place and my parents, while not necessarily happy to have a non-straight child, were overall very supportive. In fact, my mom remains a dedicated PFLAG parent.

I’ve gone through a variety of labels since i first started coming out: bisexual, dyke, lesbian, queer, and genderqueer – and that’s only in the first twenty years after my coming out! Discovering transgender-related writings was critical not only to exploring my own gender identity but also to examining deeply the structure and function of binary sex and gender in Western culture.  Really listening to what others have to say about their lives and experiences has both challenged me and enriched my life academically, politically, socially, and emotionally in ways that i can’t really articulate.

What started with reading Leslie Feinberg’s Stone Butch Blues, on the recommendation of multiple bookstore coworkers in 1995, has lead me down a path that now finds me coming to Calgary for the first time in my life to talk about transgender and activism at MRU. I can’t wait!

Finally, i should let you know that some of the material in my Trans 101 might seem pretty basic: you can probably all define the difference between “sex” and “gender” in your sleep by this point. The elementary stuff will be only a small portion of what i’m going to talk about, though. And, regardless, we have a chunk of time after the main presentation is over when we can have a more in-depth conversation just among us.

Just one request: can you all order up some warmer weather for me, please?

I’ll meet you all next week!

--Shannon E. Wyss

  Hyattsville, Maryland, USA (right outside of Washington, DC)

  Friday, March 1, 2013