Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
aaaaagh!
did i read enough? did i do enough? is this class already over? are some of us graduating in less than two weeks?!?!? i can't write an introduction or conclusion. its too late to fix it all, its too late.
The definitional intersections between sexuality and sex, sex and gender, and sexuality and gender, form conceptual maps between acts, identities, knowledges, expectations, and intimate or social relations. Gender, sex, and sexuality, although distinct as analytic axes, are continually complicated through their inter-definition and mutual construction (Sedgewick). Although I will be discussing the ways in which ‘gender’ has been policed within biomedical discourses, the categories of ‘sex’ and ‘sexuality’ are necessarily implicated in the discussion. As we will see, it is nearly impossible to speak of one of these categories without the others being implicated. Medical interventions are routinely implemented in order to achieve this congruence between the categories of what are dominantly understood as ‘sex’ and ‘gender.’ While I will refer to ‘sex’ and ‘biological gender’ interchangeably for the sake of cultural readability, I will later discuss the usefulness of deploying the term ‘biological gender,’ as opposed to ‘sex,’ in both medical and larger cultural discourses. Gender here will be discussed as a multiplicity of attributes, including ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression.’
In “Transsexualism: A Medical Perspective,” physician C.N. Armstrong argues for a distinction between what he deems “true sex” and gender, which he argues should be assigned by the medical establishment. His argument is an essentialist one – there is an objective truth that lies in the body, and medical experts are the cultural authorities on ascertaining that truth. He outlines four criteria for sex: external genitalia, gonads, chromosomes, and psychological perception. In “normally gendered” bodies these criteria for sex agree with one another, but some bodies constitute anomalies where they do not (Armstrong).
While essentialist understandings of gender identity conceptualize it as natural, it is often seen and understood as pathological, or as an anomaly of nature. This view thus enables a reinforcement of the social order that is built upon binary sex/gender and heterosexual relationships. In this case, one can uphold the social order built upon these heteronormative binaries, while attending to the needs of transsexual, transgendered, and intersex patients. It is this assumption of the binary of sex and gender, however, that gives rise to transgendered, transsexual, and intersex subjectivities, and simultaneously relegates them to the realms of pathology and abnormality.
These binary and normative alignments of sex/gender/sexuality manifest themselves in several ways within medical discourses. The definitions and standards of care for transsexualism, GID, and intersex births are informed by a heteronormative imperative, that is, the imperative to create congruence between what is understood as ‘biological sex,’ ‘gender identity/expression’ and desire. While this imperative veils itself behind pretenses of medical necessity, the necessity that it reinforces and perpetuates is in fact a cultural one; the sex and gender binary are in the service of heterosexual identity. The medical interventions that are implemented in each of these cases enable and sometimes enforce conformity to cultural norms of gendered embodiments and desires.
Adrianne Rich deems this practice “compulsory heterosexuality;” the marginalization of some identities and embodiments reinforces the ideological notions that normative/dominant identities are the natural order of things. The very visibility and existence of gender non-conforming bodies and identities butressess the system that works to marginalize them. The varied continuum of gendered embodiments and expressions push the boundaries of how we understand gender, and their visibility has the potential to call into question the regulative and compulsory alignments that seek to normalize and mediate their existence.
The definitional intersections between sexuality and sex, sex and gender, and sexuality and gender, form conceptual maps between acts, identities, knowledges, expectations, and intimate or social relations. Gender, sex, and sexuality, although distinct as analytic axes, are continually complicated through their inter-definition and mutual construction (Sedgewick). Although I will be discussing the ways in which ‘gender’ has been policed within biomedical discourses, the categories of ‘sex’ and ‘sexuality’ are necessarily implicated in the discussion. As we will see, it is nearly impossible to speak of one of these categories without the others being implicated. Medical interventions are routinely implemented in order to achieve this congruence between the categories of what are dominantly understood as ‘sex’ and ‘gender.’ While I will refer to ‘sex’ and ‘biological gender’ interchangeably for the sake of cultural readability, I will later discuss the usefulness of deploying the term ‘biological gender,’ as opposed to ‘sex,’ in both medical and larger cultural discourses. Gender here will be discussed as a multiplicity of attributes, including ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression.’
In “Transsexualism: A Medical Perspective,” physician C.N. Armstrong argues for a distinction between what he deems “true sex” and gender, which he argues should be assigned by the medical establishment. His argument is an essentialist one – there is an objective truth that lies in the body, and medical experts are the cultural authorities on ascertaining that truth. He outlines four criteria for sex: external genitalia, gonads, chromosomes, and psychological perception. In “normally gendered” bodies these criteria for sex agree with one another, but some bodies constitute anomalies where they do not (Armstrong).
While essentialist understandings of gender identity conceptualize it as natural, it is often seen and understood as pathological, or as an anomaly of nature. This view thus enables a reinforcement of the social order that is built upon binary sex/gender and heterosexual relationships. In this case, one can uphold the social order built upon these heteronormative binaries, while attending to the needs of transsexual, transgendered, and intersex patients. It is this assumption of the binary of sex and gender, however, that gives rise to transgendered, transsexual, and intersex subjectivities, and simultaneously relegates them to the realms of pathology and abnormality.
These binary and normative alignments of sex/gender/sexuality manifest themselves in several ways within medical discourses. The definitions and standards of care for transsexualism, GID, and intersex births are informed by a heteronormative imperative, that is, the imperative to create congruence between what is understood as ‘biological sex,’ ‘gender identity/expression’ and desire. While this imperative veils itself behind pretenses of medical necessity, the necessity that it reinforces and perpetuates is in fact a cultural one; the sex and gender binary are in the service of heterosexual identity. The medical interventions that are implemented in each of these cases enable and sometimes enforce conformity to cultural norms of gendered embodiments and desires.
Adrianne Rich deems this practice “compulsory heterosexuality;” the marginalization of some identities and embodiments reinforces the ideological notions that normative/dominant identities are the natural order of things. The very visibility and existence of gender non-conforming bodies and identities butressess the system that works to marginalize them. The varied continuum of gendered embodiments and expressions push the boundaries of how we understand gender, and their visibility has the potential to call into question the regulative and compulsory alignments that seek to normalize and mediate their existence.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
outline/notes for thesis
so...these are mostly notes/ an outline for my paper, although parts of this will be included in the paper. sorry it is all over the place and contains huge logical gaps. i will re-post something more coherent soon, as i sit down to write the narrative that connects each of these fragmented paragraphs and quotations....
This paper seeks to reveal the culturally constructed nature of gender within and through biomedical discourses. Because a binary of biological gender is assumed, bodies that transgress the boundaries of ‘male’ and ‘female’ are overlooked, and often left unaddressed when it comes to health care. Transphobia and other forms of discrimination create extreme difficulties for gender non-conforming individuals in accessing quality healthcare
This paper seeks to reveal the culturally constructed nature of gender within and through biomedical discourses. Because a binary of biological gender is assumed, bodies that transgress the boundaries of ‘male’ and ‘female’ are overlooked, and often left unaddressed when it comes to health care. Transphobia and other forms of discrimination create extreme difficulties for gender non-conforming individuals in accessing quality healthcare
Monday, October 18, 2010
another abstract attempt
The field of medicine acts not only to heal bodies and cure disease, it acts as a repository of power, defining bodies and constituting subjects through discourse. Medicine is a field of knowledge, and as such, can work to conceal its own role in the creation of the gendered subject. In postmodern theory, experience is always “mediated by organized discourses that amount to systems of representation” (Morris 8); in this paper I will examine how the experiences of transgender patients have been shaped by medical discourses. The modern biomedical model inadequately addresses issues of gender and gendered embodiments and offers reductive and mechanistic understandings of illness. I will contextualize the dialogue on postmodern ethics within a discussion of medical care for queer and transgender bodies in order to reconstruct the conceptual territory in which bioethics is presently situated. In order to provide a postmodern critique on gendered biomedical discourses, I will examine the historical conflation of sex and gender as well as heteronormative/gender-policing practices in biomedicine. The purpose of a responsible bioethics is to examine the practices and discourses that enforce gender normativity and consequently erase gender diversity. This critical self-awareness in biomedicine is necessary to unleash the libratory potential within transsituated discursive reiterations. This paper seeks to reveal the cultural contingency of biomedical narratives in order to reformulate a biomedical model which upholds the ethical principals it espouses.
Monday, October 4, 2010
research ethics
so... it's great that this week's assignment is to think about informed consent and research ethics, because it has only recently come to my attention that I would have to submit a proposal to our school's IRB before I could even begin to ask transgender folks (and perhaps use information provided on blogs, journals, etc) about friendly health-care providers and what criteria should be used to sort through trans-sensitive/friendly providers. Our school's IRB website states "Before human subjects are recruited or data is collected from human subjects, the IRB must review and approve all human subject research, regardless of funding, conducted by Appalachian State University faculty, staff or students." Until approved, I couldn't even begin the preliminary research to design the selection criteria for the providers. Then, because participation of healthcare providers might entail at least some legal risk, I would have to make sure all of the consent forms and securities were in place so that I could put participant's information on the resource website. I called our IRB, and my study seems to fall in uncertain territory...so now I am waiting to find out whether or not I need to have my application approved at all. If I have to be approved, the process can take 2-3 weeks. I've submitted the request for review, and am waiting to hear back from the IRB. fun!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Queer Film Series: Gen Silent
Monday 9/20, 7:30pm, Belk Library rm. 114
Gen Silent (2010, USA. 63 minutes.)
An award-winning film documenting elderly LGBT people who go back into the closet to survive in the healthcare system. Here we see meet six LGBT elders and a wide range of paid caregivers: From those who are specifically trained to make LGBT seniors feel safe, to the other end of the spectrum, where LGBT elders face discrimination, neglect or abuse. As we journey through the challenges that these men and women face, we also see reasons for hope as each subject crosses paths with a small but growing group of impassioned professionals trying to wake up the long-term and healthcare industries to their plight.
Gen Silent (2010, USA. 63 minutes.)
An award-winning film documenting elderly LGBT people who go back into the closet to survive in the healthcare system. Here we see meet six LGBT elders and a wide range of paid caregivers: From those who are specifically trained to make LGBT seniors feel safe, to the other end of the spectrum, where LGBT elders face discrimination, neglect or abuse. As we journey through the challenges that these men and women face, we also see reasons for hope as each subject crosses paths with a small but growing group of impassioned professionals trying to wake up the long-term and healthcare industries to their plight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)