Children and Sex-Reassignment: Feminist Concerns

Recently the feminist radio station, The F-Word, based out of Vancouver aired a two-part show on transgenderism and feminism followed by a blog post. The program features interviews with Susan Stryker, Sheila Jeffreys, Lee Lakeman, and Barb Besharat.

The interviews can be accessed on the F-Word blog here (there are various links on this page) 

This post is concerned with the first interview in which Susan Stryker is interviewed.

I want to clarify, first and foremost, because it is always assumed; this is not a post for questioning "whether or not a trans-woman is a REAL woman" or as a debate on trans-identity – not at all, this post is to critique particular surrounding issues and opinions put forth by Susan Stryker, specifically on the topic of children and teens undergoing procedures to make their bodies more "feminine" or "masculine."

Stryker is an Associate Professor of Gender and Women's Studies, as well as the director of the Institute for LGBT Studies. 


This post has no intent to portray Susan Stryker as the spokesperson for the entire trans-community. Furthermore, I know that no one individual can speak for an entire diverse group of people.

As most feminists now know, the relationship between parts of the trans-community and parts of the feminist community has become highly inflammatory recently, and so I was pleased to see all sides being involved the F-word's open, respectful and frank dialogue about the core issues and positions.

I listened to the show because I was intent on understanding all perspectives and experiences. Several elements in the first interview, however, were troublesome, particularly issues relating to "childhood transitioning."

When the question of children and adolescents receiving hormones and surgical procedures to make a body have "feminine" or "masculine" secondary sex characteristics, Styrker responded with a bit of annoyance and then began to give an account of her childhood. Stryker then stated that "kids have a pretty good idea of who they are."

This statement is what troubled me the most.

As a recovering psychology student, I feel confident in debating issues surrounding the human brain and its complex development. My knowledge on child development, which I am quite confident in, has led me to believe that Stryker’s reference to a stabilized self-awareness and self-identity in childhood to be very problematic.

The human brain develops in a generally predictable manner throughout the lifespan, making the cognitive abilities of a five year old vastly different than the level of cognition experienced by a 15 year old. A 15 year olds’ sense of self and cognitive abilities (heavily impacted by the relation to their upbringing, social group and culture) would be vastly different from the cognitive abilities of someone in their early to mid-twenties.* Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but this is relevant to the majority of the population.

*early twenties is the age range that the frontal lobe, which deals with problem-solving and reasoning, completes development.

Human brain development and it's impact on cognitive capacity is what the age of consent exists around. 

A child at the age of four, the age Stryker used in her own hypothetical example of childhood transitioning, would have only just grasped complex grammar, let alone a fixed identity. Words for sex difference as well as the culturally and socially constructed roles and expectations would not be understood by a four year old child. Any words or conceptions, however, are culturally-specific in most cases as not all speakers include Anglophone words for the purposes of gendering.

 Children are incapable of abstract thought. Abstract thinking would be required for a child to develop multifaceted notions of self through culturally-specific gender expectations.  In fact, the ability for abstract thought develops between 12-15 years of age, typically. Additionally, theory of mind is only available to adults and involves using one’s knowledge of the world to construct theories to explain their behaviour and the behaviour of others based on internal mental states. Children do not have access to this mental facility which has an essential role in providing informed consent (Lefton et al., 2008, p. 400).

To suggest that children develop a sense of self that is somehow "separate" from a child's social and physical environments and cultures is also debatable. This infers that a child has the  social, physical, cognitive, and neurological capacities of someone in their twenties, who has completed, more or less, physically developing and can take part in abstract thought. If a child is unable to conceptualize difficult theories and culturally-specific notions of “self,” how can that child be expected to exercise informed consent regarding potentially dangerous bodily modifications?

Children learn ways to behave and interact through socialization and learning based on their cultural norms, they form identities based on their surroundings and experiences. This does not mean children are less-able, or naive; it merely means that humans develop throughout time and are not fixed "selves." Human sense of self, which in and of itself, varies greatly among cultures as not all cultures and social groups favour the idea of "the individual" is not fixed.

The individual human being–throughout the lifespan– is constantly being re-shaped, re-figured and re-conceptualized in relation to that human’s social, cultural, and physical environment. There is no such thing as a fixed "self" that originates in childhood and transcends throughout the lifespan. If this were factual, human evolution would have failed long ago as it relies on adaptation. Nothing organic in this world is fixed–everything is malleable, particularly the incredibly plasticized brains of humans (particularly children).


Children are rapidly gaining new experiences in particular cultures and environments that are shaping their cognition, relation to and interaction with others, as well as their sense of place in the world. It is simply irresponsible to suggest that children should be trusted with deciding whether or not their parents should put them on hormonal drugs or through life-altering surgical procedures.

The common arguments in favour of childhood tranisitoning do not address the Western medical communities’ insistence on paying so much attention to the outward appearance of one’s genitals in relation to defining female and male bodies. There are only these two options given by the medical community, a very essentialist approach that disregards the extensive anthropological evidence for gender fluidity across cultures (Sharp, 2001, p. 308).  Also, there is a lot of money to be made in these biomedical industries, particularly industries concerned with body alteration. The industry is extremely profitable, and as Stone (1991) points out, there has been a propagation of a very lucrative international clinical trade in sex reassignment that extends from Palo Alto, CA, to Casablanca, Morocco (as cited in Sharp, 2001, p. 308).

But I digress…

In the interview, Stryker points out that Sheila Jeffreys (another featured interview) has a  “new thing” for discussing early transition-surgeries or hormone replacements in children as a “genocide” and a type of “eugenics” of children.

As far as I have read, Jeffreys has used these words in regards to childhood transitioning because they are children are unable to give informed consent. When children are involved, the debate transforms from one about informed consent and adult decision-making to one that assumes children can make these types of permanent decisions about their bodies, too–regardless of their feelings of identity or gender. Nevertheless, Stryker's placement of the critique of the medicalization of bodies (particularly of children's bodies) as being akin to verbal attacks and hateful behaviour towards the trans-community is unfair. They are not the same and framing them as such merely shuts down all discussion.

Furthermore, the chemical and physical alterations to children's bodies would include the sterilization of girl-children. Jeffreys, like many other feminists, do not have to look far into the past to see the extensive sterilization abuse of countless numbers of women and girls. This is a legitimate feminist concern, in my humble opinion. The chemicals that given to children include puberty-blockers, which are incredibly expensive and have long term consequences if used over time, including cancer and blood clotting. However, the impacts of these drugs are reversible, unfortunately surgery is not…

One report cited by CTV news clarifies the use of puberty blockers:

“97 girls and boys treated between 1998 and 2010; the youngest was 4 years old. Kids that young and their families get psychological counselling and are monitored until the first signs of puberty emerge, usually around age 11 or 12. Then children are given puberty-blocking drugs, in monthly $1,000 injections or implants imbedded in the arm”

Any chemical or bodily alteration given to a child, in my opinion, is ethically questionable. As someone who was given pharmaceutical drugs during childhood, I have harsh feelings surrounding the issue of medicating kids. I believe children should not become medical guinea pigs and should not be given chemicals and surgeries that can have lasting impacts on their bodies and minds. Children should be given the chance to explore themselves and their surroundings in a way that is not based around strict expectations of gender. This is clearly an important issue for feminists everywhere as one of feminism's goals is to expose and oppose abuses against the bodies of women and girls all over the world and throughout history. 


Feminist principles also reject the growing medicalization of human bodies. Most feminists are appalled when stories circulate about girls being put into tanning beds, paraded on stage in hair-extensions and fake eyelashes or posed like a porn star in high-end fashion magazines. The majority of feminists express concern over a society that is obsessed with “perfecting” bodies in the cosmetic surgery industry. Why, then, would feminists just sit back on the topic of giving a 8 year old girl-child hormone replacement drugs that block puberty and or have her undergo permanently life-altering surgeries?  I realize the debate is a contentious, emotional and often offensive one, but simply shutting down discussion because it is controversial serves no purpose and ignores many genuine concerns. 


I hope all of my readers get a chance to listen to the interview with Susan Stryker as well as the remaining two interviews -- I found the broadcast to be fair and responsible, informative and intriguing. I guarantee that you will learn plenty from both sides of the debate.

Notes:

Lefton, Brannon, Boyes, Ogden. (2008). Psychology. Child Development. p. 395.

Sharp, L.A. (2001). Commodification of the Body and its Parts.

CTV News (2012). Transgender kids get puberty-blocking drugs, hormones. Retrieved from  http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20120220/transgender-puberty-treatment-children-20120220/#ixzz1ufv5GiML
Art: “Untitled (your body is a battleground)” by Barbara Kruger, 1989