Sex In The Public Square - gender - Comments

The XY Games

Lou FCD — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:10:34 -0700

Jennifer Finney Boylan, who wrote a NYT OpEd this morning called The XY Games , was interviewed this afternoon on NPR's Talk of the Nation. The interview was brief, but covered some of the same ground and issues brought up here. Audio is due up sometime after 6PM Eastern.

From the OpEd:

"So what makes someone female then? If it's not chromosomes, or a uterus, or the ability to get pregnant, or femininity, or being attracted to men, then what is it, and how can you possibly test for it?

The only dependable test for gender is the truth of a person's life, the lives we live each day. Surely the best judge of a person's gender is not a degrading, questionable examination. The best judge of a person's gender is what lies within her, or his, heart.

How do we test for the gender of the heart, then? How do we avoid out-and-out frauds, like Hermann Ratjen, who said he was forced by the Nazis to compete as "Dora" in the 1936 high jump? (He lost, finishing fourth.)

A quick look at the reality of an athlete's life ought to settle the question. Ratjen was male not because of what was in his genes, but because of who he was. He returned to his life as Hermann after the Berlin Games. "For three years I lived the life of a girl," he said in 1957. "It was most dull."

Harrison Burgeron

Elizabeth — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:51:50 -0700

Michael, thank you so much for your comment. And of course if you can comment further on the medicine and ethics behind the story that would be most welcome.

Your comment puts me in mind of the Kurt Vonnegut story "Harrison Burgeron" where people of unequal abilities are forced to be equal by means of technology. It is a perversion of the idea of equal opportunity (an ideal consistent with the Olympic games), confusing it with equal outcomes (an ideal absolutely inconsistent with any competitive enterprise).

For what it's worth, until just now I was only familiar with the short story version of Harrison Burgeron, written by Vonnegut. I just now looked found info on the film version (mid 90s as opposed to early 60s). It contains this adaptation of the "typical" sex-work scenario:

In his last day with a fully functioning brain, he goes to a head house - a house where illegal device-free women are paid to play chess and conduct intelligent conversations with the clients. Unfortunately, there is a police bust while a "mind whore", Phillipa, and himself are having his first intelligent conversation ever. While being captive in the police station, he is approached by a special agent who offers him an alternative to the lobotomy - to join what turns out to be the secret elite that runs the government.

Discrimination and ethics

Michael — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:30:11 -0700

There are some profoundly disturbing messages in all this, which seem totally out of keeping with the Olympic spirit. The most egregious is that it is not only applied to women alone, but that some people should be excluded from sport because they are 'different'. What sort of message does this send to young women other than that if you are any good you will be investigated as some sort of freak due to an assumption that women are inherently inferior to men, and that only masculine characteristics allow for achievment. Presumably grit, determination, courage, skill and hard work count for very little in modern olympics.

The science is flawed in that is assumed that any 'abnormality' creates some sort of unfair advantage. And what exactly is an 'unfair advantage'? Presumably athletes that are taller than average should also be excluded. It is difficult not to see that this is fundamentally gendered discrimination.

Bad science is also bad ethics. Not just the exclusion of certain people based on physical charateristics, but the likely impact failing such a test is likely to have on an athlete. Nor is it just the humilation and shunning (Soundarajan eventually attempted suicide) as an athlete, but the public labelling in terms of one's medical history. A history which is quite likely to have been unknown to the athlete in question. The likely effect on a woman of having her gender publicly questioned cannot be overestimated.

While it is understandable that concerns about fraud fuelled the original introduction of such tests, in fact such fraud is almost unheard of, and as a result women were subjected to the humiliation of having to parade naked in front of officials, to be inspected. The current sex tests have absolutely nothing to do with fraud and much to do with preconceived ideas of gender and femininity. These attitudes are vestiges of the terrible discrimination that women faced in sport and particularly the Olympics, for so long. Many might argue that women are still not treated as equals in competitive sport, or their sports taken seriously.

Sport and the Olympics should be about inclusivity, not exclusion based on prejudice.

There are so many

Gracie — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:32:55 -0800

There are so many conversations going on this, that I may be mistaken, but I do think it was discussed somewhere that boys are more distracted by girls in classrooms. And I do believe there was not too long ago a study or report of an all boys school (and if I am recalling right, also black students?) which had results to say that such separation was benefitial to the boys... If I have time later I'll look it up.

There are also the matters of other educational components at work -- you'd have to compare equal quality schools and programs and isolate the separation issue to see if that's what is really at work.

My experiences in college make me think that there are times and places for separations, but that we do have to come together, work together, as we will eventually in the life outside of/after school.

PS Pls excuse typos etc., I'm typin on the fly!

Who benefits?

Elizabeth — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:00:32 -0800

It's interesting, Gracie: Rashima's essay (the one you link to) discusses separation of all sorts, not just gender separation. But where it does discuss separating students by gender the benefit is to the boys. I always think about single-gender classrooms as being set up for the benefit of girls and yet this reminds us to consider that boys benefit too. It's been ages since I've looked at any data on single-gender education but I wonder if boys actually benefit more?

The reason Rashima gives for the benefit she noted is the removal of social distractions. The boys stopped posing and posturing, she says. I have heard the same argued as a source of benefit for girls too. Rather than focusing on "victimization" or intimidation, the focus is put on the intensity of the erotic and social tensions between boys and girls and the attendant distractions from academic work.

My own students who have come out of single-gender schools have remarked on the same thing. They've also typically been schools with uniforms or fairly rigid dress codes and students report at least some reduction of what might be called fashion distractions. it's interesting to discuss the issue in classes. Often the students who went to co-ed schools (the vast majority) can't imagine ever wanting to be in a single-gender school and think the idea is a bad one because it prevents boys and girls from learning how to deal with each other. The students who attended single-gender education often report on the usefulness of it, and on the other places where they got to interact in mixed gender groups.

I'm teaching a Sociology of Gender course this semester. I should ask my students to comment on this, and I should also go back and check out studies of single-gender education to see if there is data on the relative benefits experienced by boys and by girls. Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out boys benefit more?

Ryan, I can't tell which way

Gracie — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:38:29 -0800

Ryan, I can't tell which way your passion is leaning.. sarcasm was my first thought, but on my second read the intensity made me wonder if you wanted such a world as you described.

So far, if I'm reading all the comments at a total of 3 sites correctly, most people are thinking separation at times is a good thing, as is the choice to pick a gender specific shcool ~ if all things are equal in terms of quality at each school.

Yes, exactly what women need!

Ryan Prior — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:17:11 -0800

Of course, what women need is to be closed off from the scary, abusive, stifling male portion of society and allowed to flourish without being subjected to any real or imagined threats. Surely this will lead to an era of light and equality, where men finally realize that women are just as able to cope in competitve academic environments; where women can stop believing that they are of a different breed and class, unable to fulfill those jobs which men presently dominate! Besides, this will put and end to those awkward situations in which women must confront those who don't process and think the same way that they do.

Make it so!

It does come off

JanieBelle — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:35:45 -0800

as dismissive of both of them, but then the topic being discussed is of direct relevance to the groups depicted.

That said, I've tentatively made my choice of presidential candidate (by process of elimination, unfortunately), and I think I can safely say that none of these types of (intentional or otherwise) subliminal messages has affected that decision. It's just not been a very close descision for me because of the blatant violation of my own particular deal-breakers that I already had in place.

I've already posted (at UDoJ) that every one of the Republicans is right out (and why - including my list of deal-breakers).

I'll be getting to the Democrats shortly.

Reminds me of boarding

Alex — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:07:16 -0800

Reminds me of boarding school, where we were wheeled out as a rent-a-crowd for any school occasion. I'll bet that the New York Time photographer has about 20 other shots that can't be used because some of the students in them are asleep.

Oprah is not to be dismissed....

Elizabeth — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:34:55 -0800

...and yet the NYT pairing of middle school boys and Sen. Obama, and high school cheerleaders with Sen. Clinton's husband seems dismissive of both. Is it clear which is more dismissive?

i'm out of the loop

tracya — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:47:25 -0800

reading this is a reality check for me...i am familiar with the candidates and recognize the nuance..

i think mrs clinton should be offended...why should attentive but non voting cheerleaders listening to her husband be a positive for her??

it's so early in the race, i can't imagine how many hairs will be split in the push to the white house

i can share a conversation....monologue, really by a british co worker...

"have you seen this? that black guy, runnning for president? he 'as oprah backing 'im now, ha, it'll bring 'im way up in the polls...you know how they worship oprah in america"

i had to bite my tongue...

looking forward to the next 12 months...

Tammy's Amendment

JanieBelle — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:06:45 -0800

I actually caught the very tail end of a report about this last evening, Elizabeth. They characterized the removal of her amendment as "Tammy Baldwin withdrew her amendment..."

ENDA update

Elizabeth — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:23:35 -0800

See my update on my original post. I was being overly optimistic at first. (Chalk it up to reading the HRC announcement at the end of a long day and not thinking "hey, this came from the HCR and seems way too optimistic to be true") The update includes info from GovTrack.US about the actual conditions of the debate. It does not sound to me, unless I'm misremembering Robert's Rules of order (which is a distinct possibility, so feel free to correct me), that Tammy Baldwin will be able to offer her amendment.

This is a shame because it is so important that our legislators go on record on these matters. By preventing them from voting on the most inclusive and most comprehensive bill they are able to skirt important issues (like gender identity) but also become likely to pass legislation that will not protect the most vulnerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenderd folks, and yes even straight people: those who just don't conform to visual or behavioral gender expectations.

Remember, under the ENDA that will be debated tomorrow, they may not be able to fire you because you're gay, but they'll be allowed to fire you because you're too butch.

At 50, I don't feel I have

Paul Sunstone — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:26:06 -0700

At 50, I don't feel I have time for homophobes or heterophobes. I don't mind stupid people, but when they combine stupidity with ill-will towards others, any interest or concern I might have for them evaporates faster than ice in an oven.

Categories be damned

Elizabeth — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:41:54 -0700

Lolita there are so many thoughts your post evokes for me!

What bothers me most, though, I suppose, is the way your lesbian acquaintance assumed that as long as you were a lesbian it was okay to be so biased and, as you say, heterophobic. It's as bad as when white people assume as long as they're around white people it's okay to tell racist jokes, or that it's okay for men to talk trash about women as long as there isn't a woman in the room.

I'm also struck by the anger I feel when I read your words about not being recognized as bisexual. I face the same assumptions and have generally shoved the anger down and avoided experiencing it, but there is, really, a terrible feeling about being made so invisible. And while I would hate to make the category seem more "categorical" than it really is, it pisses me off to be seen incorrectly so much of the time.

Now, I'd love to know how you came to choose that particular photo! It's wonderful.