The world’s most populous country, and one of the most authoritarian, is fast becoming one of the most culturally avant-garde. From the ever-interesting cool-hunt website Science of the Times’ latest Top 15 trends:
An androgynous fashion style has begun to gain traction in China’s large cities. It’s classified as “Zhongxing Style” and is adopted by “tomboy” girls seeking to express both their coming of age and alternative lifestyle through their gender-blurring clothing and fashion sense. The style is typically associated with short and spiky hair, baggy clothing, and an overall “boy” like appearance.
Although Zhongxing style is not directly associated with homosexuality, the report suggests that the popularity of several gay-themed Tiawanese films with young people in China have fed into this style. Further, it is likely to accelerate the growth of gender-defying male behaviour too:
If Japan and Korea are anything to go by, the following trend could see a new wave of super effeminate men as well. The pretty boy has long since been in the cultural sphere in Asia, but has regained steam in Korea with popular dramas like Boys Over Flowers and idols such as Kim Hyun Joong. Also, Japan has seen the growth of a group known as “Grass Eaters” — men set on improving their looks rather than starting a family.
(I think the usual English translation of ‘Grass Eaters’ is ‘Herbivores’, but no matter.)
Whilst China’s growing cities seem to be rushing towards a brave new androgyny, some in America are trying to work out ways of stamping it out — along with homosexuality and bisexuality — by giving potentially dangerous experimental drugs to pregnant mothers.
An endocrinologist at Florida International University is reportedly trying to prevent the births of girls who display ‘an “abnormal” disinterest in babies, don’t want to play with girls’ toys or become mothers, and whose “career preferences” are deemed too “masculine.”
That’s the problem with nature — it’s never nearly natural enough. So let’s give it a helping hand by pathologising any and all gender non-conformity on the part of women! The drug used in utero to nix any dykey or tomboy or perhaps just uppity tendencies is called ‘Dex’ — though maybe it should be called ‘Don’ as in ‘Draper’. It must be a very remarkable drug indeed as it seems to promise a kind of time travel — back to 1952. But without any dykes. Or Doris Day, a feisty career woman. And definitely no Calamity Janes.
Though apparently in this drug-induced version of 1952 female endocrinologists are permitted. The doctor behind this controversial treatment is herself a woman.
Tip: Quiet Riot Girl
Update: since The Stranger first reported this story about the use of Dex to prevent lesbianism and general lack of conventional femininity a gap has opened up between what some feared Dex was being used for — or what it might be used for — and what it has actually been used for so far: preventing the birth of ‘intersexed’ babies. Thanks to QRG for this link to a Newsweek article. And also for this one: a rather entertaining but also alarming blog by P.Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, who argues that the people involved in using Dex to treat intersexed babies are just itching to use it to stamp out lesbianism and general female assertiveness. And warns that baby boys are next:
Before you less-than-hyper-macho men get all smug, though, let me warn you: prenatal hormone effects is a hot, hot topic in the heteronormative world of pediatrics. You’re going to be diagnosed as suffering from a prenatal androgen deficiency and shamed if you’re anything less than a man’s man with stereotypic masculine interests. Look for intrauterine testosterone treatments for women carrying boy children, just to make sure they grow up to like football (American, not that pansy soccer stuff) and follow macho careers!
By this standard probably most young men today would be deemed to be ‘suffering from a prenatal androgen deficiency’. Which I guess is good news for whoever has shares in the male version of Dex.
Twitter
Facebook
I continue to treat this page as the ‘women’s section’ of the blog. It needs a name I’m not calling it ‘vag’!
This policing of gender and sexuality we’ve talked about here, and the sometimes very aggressive responses I have had when I try to challenge it, have left me feeling much less reasonable and strong than I may appear. There is one woman in particular who has been a massive support and inspiration to me. Although I have never met her (she lives in Vietnam) there have been times when it’s felt like she could tell I was losing my strength, and she’d hold me up. I have a feeling she does it with loads of people who don’t feel they fit the norm when it comes to gender and sexuality. Her latest post may be the last for a while, so I thought I’d post it up. She writes some amazing pornography — fiction and poetry. But this piece is a little more philosophical. (Also, apparently she is married to a gay man! So you can see why she might be a woman after my own heart).
http://remittancegirl.com/shortstories/one-word-a-parable/
I wrote this about recent incidences of Facebook removing groups that focus on sexuality campaigns.
Some blogs/orgs have framed this as a ‘women’s issue’, as one of the groups that has been removed is concerned with women who enjoy porn. But I think the gender/sexuality/policing implications are much more complex.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/02/when-your-face-doesn%E2%80%99t-fit-facebook-censorship/#comments
P.s. Floyd A. I hope The Drugs Don’t Work!!
Floyd A:I think there is a drug that can cure you of that affliction.
QRG, I think I love you.
It is isn’t it? I will re-read it. The feminists reacted much more to the clitoral reduction intervention than the dex one. I guess it was easier for them to frame it as ‘female genital mutilation’ and an attack on women. Whereas the dex research had to be engaged with in terms of intersex, (if you reject the idea it was to ‘cure’ lesbians outright).
I noticed you created a ‘women’ category for this post. I am delighted. I am looking for some more ‘women’s issues’ to go in your ‘women’s section’. So far everything I can find is a bit vaggy though. There is a feminist conference coming up in the autumn and no men have been invited to speak at all. I bet it will be a blast.
Here is some more on intersex and the ‘normalising’ of sex and gender identities: http://shar.es/mNXIJ
QRG: Interesting piece.
QRG:
I feel the same way. It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around and make right (in my own thinking) culture vs. nature vs. ethics vs. pharmacological intervention. Where do we draw the lines?
In my humble opinion there really is no right or wrong. Everything just kinda is.… I have my reasons for thinking that one thing or another should or should not be happening, and I try to share my thoughts using fact based reasoning to change other people’s minds. I hope/desire people to do the same for me because I sure as hell don’t know everything, but that doesn’t mean I can’t try to know everything!
For those who are interested in the ways in which people express their gender identity, this relatively new website and project is excellent:
http://www.hackgender.org/
I think there are positive and radical ways in which people are challenging this biological determinism of sex and gender identity, that underpins interventions such as the one we are discussing here. I get depressed sometimes but there is resistance to the policing of our bodies and our sexualities that has always occurred at some level or other in society.
To Arctic:
“Because fetuses have no rights and no sexual orientation or gender expression is inherently better than the others and therefore choosing a specific one for your child is not harming them. I already explained that.”
I should have explained my point/question better. I agree that fetuses have no rights.
I agree that no sexual orientation or gender expression is inherently better than the others, which is why I agree that choosing a specific one for your child is not harming the child (or even the fetus if the fetus could be harmed (which it can’t).
I am not asking about harm to a fetus. I never said/typed that changing sexual orientation or gender expression is harmful to a fetus. I am asking about ethics (i.e. the beliefs about right and wrong… http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&q=ethical&hl=en).
Given that no sexual orientation or gender expression is inherently better than the other. How is it ethical to change or treat sexual orientation and/or gender expression?
Thank you for calling me out on the overuse of interrobang (a new word for me). The overuse of interrobang did necessitate your calling me on it. I feel kind of silly/childish now…
And another apology. I have no right to be disappointed in how you see reality or interpret studies around how women choose a mate for the purposes of having a child. My feeling disappointed was ridiculous.
I really don’t care to discuss women choosing mates (in spite of my difference in opinion) anymore. I am more interested in reading what you have to say about the drug being used to prevent inter-sexed births. I don’t agree with it.
I don’t think gals should be allowed to choose the secondary characteristics of what comes out of their vagina deciding to have something (an infant) come out of said vagina unless it is harmful to the vagina or its owner.
’ women also know that they can’t barter sex for commitment and support and will settle for flings and impregnation’ « some women seek out flings and impregnation and actively avoid commitment. Just as some men do. This is 2010. Not 1865!!
This girl actively avoids commitment.
“Sport has results? Go figure.”
Sports are one of the most useful human cultural inventions. Men will always have the instinct to compete and rank themselves. Left in uncivilized hands that will result in activities like bullying and gang wars. Sports add rules, manners, and objective criteria to masculine impulses. It also facilitates heterosexuality by providing a concrete way of determining who the alpha males are.
Floyd, I was calling the confusingly named “hello” a troll, not you.
“I am disappointed to hear that you feel women…”
Um, why would you be disappointed?
“Perhaps you could provide a reliable link/source with this data? It is my experience that women do not ‘frequently’ choose to have children with ‘unfaithful and uncaring scoundrels.’”
Here’s a link on the “cad vs. dad” strategy women employ: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kruger/KF_DC_CRISP.pdf
Here’s a link on how women prefer masculine features when ovulating: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112074436.htm
There are also surveys that show that the more masculine a man appears, the less women trust him to be faithful. So, putting it together, women seek out masculine men whom they know will pump and dump them during peak fertility.
To put female mating strategies in a nutshell, alpha males are desirable, but, by definition, rare. Since men constantly test one another to establish hierarchy, how they rank on the manliness spectrum becomes obvious in any social circle (think high school). Alphas know who they are and hang out with each other. They also know that they are the most sought after mate choice and women know this as well. Due to this, women also know that they can’t barter sex for commitment and support and will settle for flings and impregnation. Beta males, who can’t compete agains alpha on physical attraction alone compensate by being pussy whipped walking bank accounts. And that’s the sad story of human reproduction.
“The whining addition really was not necessary.”
Your overuse of the interrobang necessitated it
“Can you go into a little more detail about why you think this treatment is ethical…?”
Because fetuses have no rights and no sexual orientation or gender expression is inherently better than the others and therefore choosing a specific one for your child is not harming them. I already explained that.
I was still laughing about that sketch when I went to bed last night!
Why are there so many more American contributors/readers to this blog than Brits? Are British gay men shy? Or less politicised? Or less metrosexually aware?
Thanks for the intro, Mark. The “How very dare you” in response to QRG’s outing is a lot more humorous now!
I can’t stand Decca Aitkenhead. I am sure you didn’t deserve anything of the kind!
‘Vaggy’ is a funny word. I too was unable to finish any of his books I started. It’s a shame, and probably more a reflection on me than him, because he does seem to have been onto something about consumerism in 80s America. The film version of American Psycho is most, er, viscerally metrosexual movie ever.
And for our American readers — an introduction to Catherine Tate:
Oh I see…
Yes. It is redundant. I don’t know why I have found him interesting after being totally un-interested. I haven’t even read American Psycho. (I read Less Than Zero and got bored). It must have been his use of the term ‘vaggy’ — it made me laugh. I shall go back to ignoring him now.
Oh sorry Mark, is Brett a friend of yours? Here he charms Grazia and her readers, by admitting to being a misogynist:
http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/fashion/archive/2010/07/20/bret-easton-ellis-kicks-off-the-first-ever-grazia-book-club.htm
I like it when he says (a little too wistfully?) ‘it just seems like there are so many more women than there are gay people or black people in this country’.…
No, Brett isn’t a friend of mine. My Catherine Tate moment was referring to your outrageous cheek in outing us all on here.
His admitting he’s a misogynist is a tad redundant, n’est pas?
By the way, Ms Aitkenhead wrote a piece attacking me in the Graun some years ago. I’m sure I deserved it, but can’t remember what my offence was now. I do however recall thinking at the time that she should probably have actually read the book in question before doing so.
Sport has results? Go figure.
To Arctic:
I don’t know what evidence you have of my “bitterness” except for your being “pretty sure”. Truthfully, you know nothing about me. What is your definition of a drive-by troll? Just curious.… I would be happy to let you know if I really am, in fact, a drive-by troll. I have no reason to lie. This is a blog.
I have enjoyed the conversation in the posts going back a week and have decided to participate. One reason I enjoy these conversations is because there is a lack of name calling. I find name calling really silly and pointless. Please don’t call me names Arctic.
I am disappointed to hear that you feel women “frequently bear the children of men they know are unfaithful and uncaring scoundrels.” I say feel because it is a feeling based on your own experience, as far as I know. Perhaps you could provide a reliable link/source with this data? It is my experience that women do not “frequently” choose to have children with “unfaithful and uncaring scoundrels”
You went on to say, “Unless women are just masochistic, that’s evidence of women giving primacy to certain specific traits.” Again, what evidence?
Everything you mentioned other than the choosing to “breed” as you put it with “unfaithful and uncaring scoundrels” I agree with.
I inserted the inter-sexed comment because I felt it relates to the topic. I couldn’t agree with you more about the silly fetus… You said, “The point is that fetuses have no rights and changing their potential sexual orientation or gender expression is not harming them, so stop whining.”
The whining addition really was not necessary.
I feel that inter-sexed babies should remain inter-sexed unless it is going to cause physical harm. There are detailed suggestions at http://www.isna.org as to what parents should do with their inter-sexed infant. They are actually great suggestions that I never would have thought of. You should take a look at them. You might find it interesting also. In addition, I think there is a place in this world for both transgender and inter-sexed people. I feel they belong in our world and we should not prevent their birth. I feel this way, in particular, due to the frequency of inter-sexed births.
In reference to artificial insemination you say, “It’s so popular because women are able to choose desirable genes for their offspring without the hassle of romantic heartbreak.”
I don’t believe it is “so popular”. Can you show me some evidence of, or define “popularity”?
My Aunt tried artificial insemination. However, it was a last resort for her after never finding “Mr. Right” (she was a flight attendant which does not easily lend itself to finding a man who is not an unfaithful and uncaring scoundrel). She began trying to conceive after 40 and it never took.
Now that those misunderstandings are out of the way.…
Question for Arctic:
Can you go into a little more detail about why you think this treatment is ethical (other than your feelings that women are just naturally awful at picking partners)?
I understand the fetus not having rights. I agree with you there.
Is it that women are legally able to pick the sperm that they want, so they should also be able to pick the mannerisms of their future offspring? or maybe it is simply that we place a lot of weight on our perception of how women “frequently” behave and just want to make the world a better place?
I am not picking a fight or anything. I just want to understand your point of view. I learn from people who think differently than me.
QRG: How very dare you!
I never thought I’d learn so much about women by hanging round in cyberspace with what I believe (based on the evidence such as it is) to be a bunch of gay men!!
I was told recently about a ‘salon’ event where Brett Easton Ellis was interviewed, in London. A woman who was there asked him a question about his writing. She asked if he thought his work contributed to the culture whereby people like Mel Gibson and Roman Polanski are able to be violent and abusive to women without much comeback, or if he is an artist and doesn’t have a responsibility to society in that cause/effect way. He said her question was boring and ‘vaggy’. Which was quite funny. I agree with him the question was boring. How was he supposed to answer? But it made me think.
I think one of the reasons I like talking online to you lot is that you aren’t ‘vaggy’ in your conversation! And that sounds terrible. I love women but often especially in feminist discourse, the obsession with femininity, the feminine body, women’s oppression, violence against women, women as victims of ‘men’ or ‘patriarchy’ is incredibly dull indeed. But also you aren’t ‘cocky’ in that you aren’t reliant on retro or macho conversations about sports results or whatever those men talk about, or the really boring style of male ‘logic’ and ‘rationality’ that dominates a lot of the press, and political blogs, and science and academia to an extent.
So thank-you. I feel cheered up by these conversations however weird they get. When I met my ‘Fauxmos’ (www.fauxmos.wordpress.com) friends a few weeks ago I was disappointed because in real physical life, despite our great gender-non-conforming ethos online, we all got a bit more ‘cocky’ and ‘vaggy’ and split into gender and sexuality binaries/groupings. I was no doubt as bad as the rest of them. But I still think it is a start, to try and find ways of talking and analysing that cross that line.
I don’t think Brett Easton Ellis would last five minutes here. He is too much of a dick.
@qrg
So Butler’s dead and in my ass, eh? I guess my contention that she’s utter shit is more literal than I imagined : p
“I think it is such an important and under-examined issue. Because it disrupts our sense of male/female as a binary.”
Sex is a binary because human reproduction operates as a binary: pregnancy and inducing of pregnancy. We don’t reproduce through fission.
Intersex people do not defy the binary system or add to the gender pantheon. A third gender would be the result of a tripartite system of reproduction in which three participants with unique genitalia were all require in order to produce offspring.
hello, I’m pretty certain that drive-by trolls are the ones operating out of a sense of bitterness. I’m sure one day you’ll discover how to put your sputtering rage to good use. Good luck. *air kiss*
@Floyd
“It sounds as though you think that women choose a mate based on the offspring they will produce. If that is the case…. wow…. I REALLY don’t know anything about women.”
You clearly don’t. If you observe women’s mate choices with the understanding of their hypergamous instincts, then their behavior makes sense. If you observe them while assuming they just want a good companion who cares and understands them, then you’re let with explaining a lot of odd behavior.
“I could be wrong (I am a male), but doesn’t liking the guy come first?”
LOL, you are just utterly adorable!
“Am I wrong in assuming that if a woman chooses to ‘breed’ with the mate of her choice, doesn’t she already like most, if not all, of his characteristics?!?!?!?”
Yes. Women frequently bear the children of men they know are unfaithful and uncaring scoundrels. Unless women are just masochistic, that’s evidence of women giving primacy to certain specific traits.
“If one has a choice in sperm, of course they are going to pick the one they think best. Why wouldn’t they?”
That’s the point. It’s so popular because women are able to choose desirable genes for their offspring without the hassle of romantic heartbreak.
“It is NORMAL.”
Normal is an almost meaningless term used only for rhetorical purposes. The point is that fetuses have no rights and changing their potential sexual orientation or gender expression is not harming them, so stop whining.
Hi Floyd A Here is some more detailed data on frequency of intersex babies born and supporting evidence of what you say, that many intersex people do not show characteristics till later in life:
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
Obviously, stats are never presented in a neutral way. That link is from the intersex society of North America who have an interest in arguing intersex is relatively ‘common’ and definitely not ‘abnormal’.
I think it is such an important and under-examined issue. Because it disrupts our sense of male/female as a binary. The recent return to athletics by Caster Semenya is an interesting example of this disruption. If she wanted to live as an intersex person, her career would be over as she can only compete in either men or women’s races.
I think the reactive, negative responses to the challenge that gender-non-conforming people pose are coming from all directions, including feminism, transgender activists, scientists, educational institutions, gay and lesbian rights campaigners, the Christian Right, journalists… and they all argue as if they are standing up for what is ‘good’ and ‘right’ and ‘true’. It makes me angry. But if I stand back for a moment I can enjoy at least on one level, the utter chaos of the discourse they are trying and failing so marvellously to control.
This is hysterical…
I think “treating” the possibility of less feminine traits is ridiculous.
I even think “treating” the possibility of an inter-sexed infant in utero is disgusting.
Arctic says, “All mothers practice selective breeding through their choices of mate.”
Are you kidding me?!?!?!
It sounds as though you think that women choose a mate based on the offspring they will produce. If that is the case.… wow.… I REALLY don’t know anything about women. I could be wrong (I am a male), but doesn’t liking the guy come first? Or do women really say, “Wow, this guy is really what I’m looking for in the person I ultimately want to live the rest of my life with. BUT, I wouldn’t want to mix my chromosomes with his, so I am not going to “breed” with him.”
Am I wrong in assuming that if a woman chooses to “breed” with the mate of her choice, doesn’t she already like most, if not all, of his characteristics?!?!?!?
Artificial insemination has nothing to do with this topic. If one has a choice in sperm, of course they are going to pick the one they think best. Why wouldn’t they?
This treatment is a real slap in the face for human rights for those that are living TODAY as inter-sexed people, in particular. 1 in 2000 newborns have atypical genitalia at birth. That figure does not include those born with typical genitalia that find out they have some variation of inter-sexed characteristics until puberty. It is NORMAL. If inter-sexed characteristics are NORMAL. I think we can consider a woman who likes driving fork lifts or repairing refrigerators for a living normal also.
I think it was Judith Butler. A worrying experience for anybody.
What crawled up artic_jay’s arse and died? Such a bitter human being.
Just saw a shop advertising “Manicures”
I think of her more as someone who challenges some of the worst assumptions made by white middle class feminism. I agree re: patriarchy. I think it’s a silly concept. The thing about feminism is it seems to enjoy the idea of this oppressive monolith so much, it had to invent it. I think there was a time when society was ‘patriarchal’ in a more literal sense but that was a long time ago. I am only talking to you because no feminists will speak to me anymore btw!
God no. She’s written at least thirty books, and from my impression, she’s not nearly worth the effort. Although I’ve probably read more than most feminists.
She seems to be the one always trotted out to people skeptical of feminism as an example of a feminist who is sympathetic to men, but she’s hardly better. She still believes there’s patriarchy and that men as a whole benefit, which is, plain and simple, an anti-male position.
bell hooks wrote some good books. I wish some of the current crop of feminists bothered to read them or anything at all. I am sure you have read everything she wrote, Jay.
Yes, I’m actually a black ops feminist agitator. I have a dog name bell (lowercase pronounciation, remember) after bell hooks, notable feminist and melanin-fortified womon. In honor of St. Dworkin’s passing, I accused a hispanic janitor of rape. He tried to claim the fact that we’d never met made that impossible. Such patriarchal reasoning oppresses. But none of that detracts from my real work as a feminist: spoiling people’s fun.
If you keep on spoiling all our fun, Jay, I will start to think you are a feminist yourself.
Yes, Mark, your feminine side is quite legendary. I hear you can pull a cement truck five blocks on the tensile might of your labial folds alone. Pity, though, your masculine side’s a bit of a pansy.
The germ of feminism is a bitterness over male historical accomplishment. All feminist theories are motivated by the desire to convince everyone that prodigious male achievement is possible only through patriarchal oppression. Unrepentant chauvinism has the same effect on feminists that water has on spinster witches who live alone with their pet monkeys. That’s why men are starting to becoming increasingly sexist.
So when the shit hits the fan with the feminists, my masculine side can count on your feminine side to stand beside me and look intimidating? Excellent.
Yes — while my masculine side runs for the hills, screaming like a girl.
I suspect Mark and his well developed feminine side muddle through quite happily without worrying what I think about them! But it’s a nice image. I wonder if his feminine side owns a handbag? Or wears marigolds to do the dishes. I really hope that neither of them owns a cat. That would be going too far.
My feminine side works out very hard down the gym and has much bigger guns than my masculine side as a result. But both of us are allergic to cats. And possibly to lesbianism.
Um, so I did peg your beliefs perfectly, then? When I think of social constructivism as it relates to gender, the primary person I have in mind is Judith Butler. When I took Feminist Philosophy, we studied chapters from “Gender Trouble” and “Bodies that Matter.” I think she’s full of shit. Just because the short hair makes her look like a tan Richard Dawkins, doesn’t make her a living testament to gender fluidity.
And I love, love, love that you consider Mark a gender bender. I’m sure he and his well-developed feminine side much appreciate that.
My view of gender and a view of my favourite gender bender (after Mark S of course) : http://fuckyeahfemmes.tumblr.com/post/616245258
Which conclusions have I jumped that don’t represent your beliefs? Every thing you’ve written suggests you believe in the social constructivist model of gender.
I think you have seen some key words on my comments and jumped to conclusions about my perspectives that are not correct.
I am not a radical feminist or an ‘average queer’ whatever that is. I might be a radical queer and a very non-average feminist though!
I’m not just trying to win an comments section argument, though I enjoy debating. I’m just constantly amazed at your average queer’s persistence in clinging to feminist gender-studies bullshit. The short-sightedness of this strategy will ultimately backfire.
The traditional (pre-feminist) view of gender is underdeveloped and over-simplified and would benefit from marginalized perspectives. Nature always allows for a significant amount of variance and this needs to be part of our conception of sex and gender. However, the binary nature of sex is real and primary if not comprehensive. Despite the fact that the dogmatic 1950s remain the face of the intolerant past, many cultures at many points in history have been able to integrate intersexuality into their gender pantheon. Those cultures provide a much better model than feminist social constructivism. The wholesale rejection of inherent gender will never take in the long term and will only contribute to an impending culture war.
Also, the feminist approach to the discussion will end up further alienating men from women and from any discussions concerning the malleability of gender. The ridiculousness of a FTM transexual demanding the label of “Man” when feminism has no adequate definition for the term and the label is not easily given to people born male is offensive and counterproductive. Ironically, it’s because many men still perceive transmen as female that they let this presumption slide, but if pushed too far will result in backlash.
It’s this radical feminist approach to gender non-conformism that spurs treatments like the one discussed here. If the non-conformists are going to comprehensively push their agenda, then conservatives are going to take the battle to ground zero: the womb.
The original press about this case has been shown to be misleading. The treatment relates to intersex babies (as yet to be born) and to affecting their development so they are born with ‘normal’ genitalia. I am doing some more research into this. I am still deeply concerned about it.
It has made me feel like I am a little bit insane. I know that there are people e.g. Mark S and some others who are bothered about this. But it seems like very few people want to challenge the assumptions that underpin this research: i.e. that the gender binary between male and female./man and woman (gay and straight for that matter) represents ‘reality’. I studied this in the mid 1990s and felt bad for being a bit behind the times in my research. 15 years later it seems the world has gone backwards to a more essentialist, ‘natural’ position
‘Gay rights’ may have been mainstreamed, but so has Conservatism and reactionary ‘scientific’ theories of sexuality and gender it seems to me. But we have the tools to argue with that position now, why aren’t we using them? I can only conclude that there is no longer a ‘we’ who both want to, and are able to express the concepts clearly.
So yes, OMG arctic jay, I think it’s worth an occasional inarticulate exclamation. Life is not always a competition to see who can win at internetz arguments.
Yours, not as cool, calm and collected as she likes to think she is usually,
QRG
:-O pwned.
Your posts boil down to “OMG.” One of them even boils down to :-O.
I never say ‘OMG’ arctic jay. Whatever do you take me for?
“I have no desire to argue against abortion or against parental rights.”
This is why the opposition against this treatment, and treatments of this type, will remain unconvincing. Arguing against it requires acknowledging fetal rights which is in essence a challenge to abortion. Otherwise it just come across a hypocrisy and a desire to keep a certain percentage of the population homosexual.
“But I will challenge the ethics, morals and politics of medical interventions which attempt to normalise people’s sex and gender identities.”
But that’s the thing: you’re not challenging it, you’re just saying, “OMG, homophobia, transphobia!” On what fundamental principles are you standing on to oppose this treatment? And saying something is a right but also immoral is muddled thinking. Something can rely on a natural right and still be unsavory, distasteful, and offensive, but not immoral.
I don’t want arctic_jay to have the last word on this discussion, but I am not sure how to respond.
Sometimes just because people have the ‘right’ to do something, it doesn’t mean that we have to sit back and not challenge the motivations and potential damaging implications of them doing it. I have no desire to argue against abortion or against parental rights. But I will challenge the ethics, morals and politics of medical interventions which attempt to normalise people’s sex and gender identities. We have the ‘right’ to be homophobic and transphobic. But I will continue to challenge those mindsets and behaviours wherever I encounter them.
“As far as this dim-wit Dr. who believes that she can determine prefered objects of anyone’s affection before they have even encountered reality, at all, she has a lot to learn about experience and socialization 101.”
I don’t even buy that you believe what you’ve written here. If you don’t believe this Doctor can achieve her goals, why are you so alarmed? Is it simply because some children might be harmed in the experimentation process? I’d imagine there are many medical experiments being conducted that have a far greater risk of damage toward the larger population. To glom onto this one seems odd.
“It is a choice laden with massive political, ethical, moral and cultural implications.”
This isn’t even a counterargument. Choices that determine how people interact will of course have massive implications if occur on a wide scale; that doesn’t explain anything. Women already have the right to abort and parents have the right to make choices that steer their children’s physical and mental development. You have to explain how these rights don’t also protect the right of parents to medically alter their children’s sexual orientation.
“It reminds me of people who abort girl children.”
And what is your argument against this?
You really shouldn’t find feminist silence on this issue puzzling. They know that objecting to this kind of treatment brings up the question of fetal rights which shifts the abortion argument in a direction they do not want it to go.
This article focusses on how the CAH treatment is trying to reduce the likelihood of ‘intersex’ babies being born, rather than lesbians.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/021729.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Mark Walsh said: As far as this dim-wit Dr. who believes that she can determine prefered objects of anyone’s affection before they have even encountered reality, at all, she has a lot to learn about experience and socialization 101.
I agree Mark W, but I don’t think she is alone in her ‘dim-witted’ ness. I think we are living in an age where the ‘nature’ side of the ‘nature v nurture’ debate is regaining lost ground. I have been discussing this story online with some health researchers, and although they come from a social constructionist background, they seem unable to just stand up and say, ‘this is bollocks. Gender and sexuality are socially and culturally produced’. They haven’t exactly told me why they can’t but I think it is to do with the dominant discourses within science/health/medicine, which do not accept ‘experience and socialisation 101′ the way we do! It is depressing indeed. But to put it all on one individual doctor would be to miss the point and scale of the problem I am afraid to say.
It seems to me that , as has mostly been the habit in the west, that parents have to live with what they beget..
Drs. & pharmaceutical companies will make up and find cures for whatever makes money : certainly in America: Certainly a compendium of the new psychiatric “disorders” , leaves a great example of that.
As far as this dim-wit Dr. who believes that she can determine prefered objects of anyone’s affection before they have even encountered reality, at all, she has a lot to learn about experience and socialization 101. What a simpleton; most educated people would know that the scientific basis of that goal is ridiculous. People only have vague predilictions(i.e. re need for nourishment , sexual choice at most.)
My scrawled attempt to respond to the story. This might get deleted as its a bit rough!
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/the-world-wont-listen/
Here is a great list of the articles on the subject, found by my online friend and amazing international development worker in sexual health, Matt Greenall: http://post.ly/lXbW The previous scientific papers by the author of this current ‘medical’ study are very disturbing to me.
‘If parents want feminine, heterosexual female children, that’s their choice to make.’ It is a choice laden with massive political, ethical, moral and cultural implications. It reminds me of people who abort girl children.
By the way, Doctor ‘bad science’ Ben Goldacre has picked up on this story now, and is trying to defend the ‘science community’ against the nasty social critics who write ‘bad journalism’ about things like gender and sexuality, which we all know should be left in the hands of those who know what to do with it, the doctors in the white coats! I am finding this a bit hilarious, but I shouldn’t as people like Dr G hold a lot of sway with the media and some liberals who work on disseminating ‘messages’ about gender and sex.
Watch this space! Well we have been watching this space between ‘science’ and ‘culture’ for many years, so I guess we will just keep watching.
When doctors and scientists attempt social/cultural engineering of this kind they should expect to find themselves in a very messy, non peer-revivewed fight indeed.
Although any risks and potential side-effects associated with the treatment should give people pause, the purpose of the treatment is entirely ethical and I’m suspicious as to the reasons why people would oppose it. All mothers practice selective breeding through their choices of mate. Women who opt for artificial insemination make conscious efforts when perusing the dossiers of sperm donors to ensure certain traits for their offspring, and I guarantee you many if not most of them selecting conventionally masculine donors. If parents want feminine, heterosexual female children, that’s their choice to make. It only crosses ethical boundaries if parents make a choice that’s objectively harmful for their child.
The female doctor developing this treatment might be conservative feminist who believes that female power and entitlement comes from motherhood and who believes that liberal feminists who decry motherhood and seek to invade the male sphere are playing with fire.
The US already has its “grass eaters.” It just seems more like a big deal in asian countries like China and Japan because one, they’ve always had a very complicated relationship with non-conformity, and two, they seemed to be able to take trends to a level of dedication and seriousness that doesn’t exist in the modern west.
I see the push for androgyny in the west leading to a cultural war mainly because the kind the gender non-conformists are advocating is neither fair nor corrective. The butch woman people claim is so tough would easily be rendered a bloody pulp by most men, but that’s only because she’s allowed to retain her female privileges (“never hit a woman”) while indulging her masculine impulses. The fact that this dual privilege is allowed to go unnoticed and unanalyzed is what enables the non-conformist to claim that men are “threatened” by female androgyny rather than simply fighting back against an antagonistic force. Most men also gain nothing by becoming androgynous or by foregoing masculinity; I think it’s more a resignation than an expression of one’s true self. They can’t compete with the alpha males who garner female attention without effort and they don’t have a level playing field with modem women.
Those two pictured look like they have walked straight out of a Murakami novel.
I suppose this is part of the Backlash.
I am pleased you used the term ‘gender-non-conformity’ as these kind of interventions are not just about sexuality. And with the rise of visibility of transgender and gender-non-conforming people, I think the ‘gender wars’ may see more of this kind of reactionary approach, from all sorts of social institutions and individuals. But as your article demonstrates, the world is changing, and their attempts to stamp out ‘abnormality’ are unlikely to succeed. They might succeed in fucking some more people up and making some more people’s lives miserable, simply by trying, though.