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

Sociobiology Study: Low voices more "trusting" and why the discipline is sexist, racist nonsense

For the last two nights now, listening to cbc radio one, I have found myself hearing of a ridiculous study conducted by a woman who has clarified her interest in discovering the "evolutionary basis of human behavior" aka sociobiology - you know, the train of thought that fascists hold of human behavior being fixed and unchangeable that lead to war, genocide and oppression.


But I digress.


This new study focuses solely on human voices and how lower voices are apparently more likely to show "dominance" and "leadership." According to this study, several people were asked to listen to the voices of men (yes, they failed to even include women in the study) and judge which voice is more "dominant" -- the findings showed that the lower voices were preferred for whether or not the person speaking could be trusted.


All of this was brought to my attention last night during the airing of my favourite radio programs, "As it Happens" and of course, the amazing Carol Off called her out on her clear sexism by asking why she did not include women. Whenever Carol would ask about what her study presented, especially about non-masculine voices and women in generally in political leadership positions, the woman kept responding with, "we didn't really think about that one..." or "well, that is a good point." She even went so far to highlight how Margaret Thatcher went through voice training to make her voice lower. Rather than critiquing WHY this might be, they simply seem to believe it is all "natural" and not something caused by a sexist society.


And so, tonight as I was listening to a separate program on CBC, the same study comes up as a way to say that a female politician in Canada may be at a "disadvantage" because of what this study has found. There is so much wrong here and no one is discussing this -- this problem is with the study itself. This study is biased in its biological deterministic, sexist, and restrictive approach to research. First of all, why would such research be conducted to begin with? Why would a woman be interested in such a study?


As someone who spends days of her year studying human evolution in Anthropology, I can confidently say that human behavior cannot be studied in the same way that other, non-human animal behavior are for the simple reason that we have culture. Our cultures and upbringings teach us behaviors, socialization skills and ways of being in our world  -- a voice, whether deep or low, is not a starting ground to discuss who makes a better or worse political leader, or who is more "dominant" -- it simply tells us that a group of people who were asked to listen to voices and happened to find the lower ones more "trustworthy." Why are we circulating the story around like it has made some groundbreaking scientific discovery? How can we draw such huge, sexist conclusions about ability to leadership from such a ridiculous "evolutionary trait." Dominance in human societies is something that has a social basis -- dominance in chimps is very different, for example, than dominance in humans and should not be studied using the same guidelines. The pathetic part of this study, too, is the realization that such ideas still exist -- ideas that human behaviors are fixed and unchangeable, relying solely on evolutionary processes that take place in a naturalist scenario. The people who have supported such ideas include eugenicists, racists, sexists, and fascists. These are the people who are "concerned" with trying to "prove" that human behavior has some intrinsic, biological cause. Why must we continue on with such harmful misinformation disguised as "scientific data."


Notions about people being "naturally" one wayor "naturally" another has lead our world into bloody wars, oppression, discrimination, and genocides. This is all in the name of "science" which is allegedly above all scrutiny. An example of this that I did an extensive research paper on regards one  J. Philippe Rushton, a evolutionary psychologist who continues to publish academic papers trying to show that cranium size dictates intelligence. With this, Rushton conducted "research" of measuring skull volume and skull size to support his fallacy that some "races" as he asserts, are of "superior intelligence" than others. Of course, all of his conculsions illustrate a deep racist bias as he constnatly places people of African descent on the lowest level of intelligence. And yet, his work continues to be published because some people still think that sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and the like, are legitmate schools of thought and have a basis in reality when they do not. Sociobiology attempts to create a "science" of segerating humans and pigeon-holing groups of people by attempting to say their learned behaviors and cultures are some how rooted in a "difference" in biology. It takes the "nature vs. nurture" debate and takes a steaming dump on the "nurture" and thus breeding a climate of ignorance and segregation based on "science." This published study is no different.




Here is an opinion piece regarding this topic

The Politics of Motherhood

As a live-out caregiver, or "nanny", I have been observing the realities of motherhood. Being a mother appears to be incredibly difficult. Plain and simple. As long as I can remember, having children has seemed incredibly unappealing. I never daydreamed about a large, heterosexual wedding followed by gaggles of crying and pooping newborns. Babies, until I became an aunt several times over, seemed strange and quite repulsive to me. Now, I tolerate babies - some of them are kind of cute and I certainly adore my 4 month old niece, but I could never house another human being inside my body let alone raise that human being for 18 years. The pregnancy, the birthing, the overhaul of one's lifestyle and the dedication, strength and selflessness that comes with motherhood sound foreign - unimaginable, actually, since after one does all of these physically and mentally demanding activities only to have them go unappreciated. 


Motherhood is horribly undervalued. Women are almost always responsible for the majority of child-rearing around the world. But, despite the fact that they raise little humans and oversee those human's safety at all times; they remain undervalued. As mentioned in my last post, women are socialized as caregivers, nurturers and mothers. Women are said to be biologically hardwired to want - even need, to have babies and take care of others. It's just our nature. 


Mothers on a global level are expected to dedicate themselves fully to their children and their families. Even more pathetic is the fact that millions of mothers and female caregivers can't feed themselves let alone their families. Millions of mothers around the world are expected to live in poverty while trying to maintain the lives of their children - yet motherhood remains, on a systematic and societal level, to be undervalued. 


To add to the struggles of motherhood, many women work more than one job. Internationally speaking, countless numbers of women work long hours on top of raising and caring for their children. Many of these women work in terrible conditions, sometimes alongside their children - making barely enough to eat and often these women are working to free themselves from debt bondage. Mothers work long these hours only to return to their families and work even more within the home. When speaking of global women's issues, one must remember that poverty has a woman's face and very often, a mother's face.


Even in the West, women often are disproportionately held responsible for child-care because it is viewed as a woman's "natural" role - women are to feel guilty and ashamed if they cannot fulfill all of their essential "duties." If a mom is privileged enough to do so, having a child in child-care in most places around the world is terribly expensive and possibly unsafe. With an exception to European countries, much of the available child-care is unregulated, privatized and costly. Furthermore, the price of raising a child in North America is absurd and many women cannot afford to lose an entire income because they are unable to find affordable and secure child-care.


To add to the stresses of everyday life mothers also become constant targets for intense criticism in our capitalist-culture that thrives off the struggles of others. This criticism is often publicized - whether in communities or on national television. This is because moms who fail to wake up each day with a smile are forced to feel guilty for not adequately portraying themselves as a "good mom" to a society that undervalues moms at large. Actually, think about how many "bad mothers" there are in relation to "bad fathers" in popular culture. This concept of "bad mother" is established when a mother is viewed by the dominant culture to have stepped out of her prescribed role of Nurturer. These mothers are immediately criticized while neglectful fathers are much more socially accepted and much less stigmatized. It is more socially-acceptable for fathers to be less-involved with their children - it is viewed as acceptable for men because the archaic gender roles that are still in place claim men are natural "providers." This is not to suggest that loving fathers do not exist - they do, but these dads are viciously outnumbered by women who do 98% of the child-rearing around the world.  Of course, many women choose to have children and enjoy being a parent, but what happens when motherhood is not desired, not a "choice" - how do we define choice in motherhood when many women are deprived of bodily autonomy, food, shelter and any form of contraception?


Choice. This is rarely considered as a mother is expected to raise any child, wanted or not, biologically related or not. If she chooses to end her pregnancy through an abortion, for example, she is called a a murderer. She is called a murderer because she has radically stepped out of her impending role of motherhood. When a woman is raped, even - many will tell her that she should keep the rapist's baby and house it for 9 months. A woman is expected to care for a rapist's child because it is seen as her duty and hers alone. A woman is not to complain or reach a breaking point - she is not to get angry or refuse care to others.  


Women are not to refuse motherhood.


A refusal of motherhood is a refusal of a very deeply embedded social role. The social role and the subsequent oppression is based on the same idea of the natural woman - it is what maintains this oppression of mothers world-wide and sustains sexism and misogyny in general. It does so by assuming a woman's worth is based on her fulfillment of her social roles - roles set up not by nature, but by patriarchy and capitalism.

"The Breast Milk Baby" A New Doll Toy Marketed to Girl-Children

Photo found here

A toy doll marketed to girl-children has been creeping up during my internet browsing. The doll is intended to allow little girls to "pretend" to breast feed their baby doll, despite you know, not having breasts of their own. 

This toy is disturbing for many reasons, not because it deals with breast-feeding, but because it intentionally and quite obviously socializes girls to take the role of Mother to the next level. The toy doll is intended to "teach" little girls how to breast-feed, since of course, a girl's purpose in life is to get with a dude and have as many babies as possible. How often do you see toys such as this marketed to boys? This toy is not only gendered - it is biologically deterministic - it assumes girl-children should conform to their future "womanly-roles" set up by the dominant culture. These toys, like all toy dolls, further perpetuate gender roles and norms that are forced onto girl-children at an early age. However, this particular "milking" doll really establishes problematic assumptions about girlhood and womanhood. These assumptions could lead to more and more girl-children feeling pressured into being passive and socially compliant based on the idea that girls and women are "biologically" inclined towards child-rearing and "nurturing" behaviors. Toy dolls have always done this, but this toy takes biological essentialism to a whole new level.

photo found here

I want to add that I believe breast-feeding should be a socially-accepted act and it should not be looked down upon like it currently is in the West. Breast-feeding is seen as "gross" or "impolite" because women's bodies are constantly viewed as sex-objects rather than healthy bodies with real functions by the majority of society. Women's breasts are viewed as sexual objects and thus are hidden away to keep the men from finding them "repulsive" because they are feeding another human being. This bothers people in the West, men and women alike, because women's breasts are considered a strictly sexual body-part - not one that has a vital function. The Western view of breasts are similar to the views of women's genitalia. Women's genitalia is viewed predominately as a hole that receives a man's junk and delivers a man's child. That sounds harsh, but look at a lad's mag and tell me different. How many men even know the term "vulva?" 

Women's genitalia are not viewed as organs with functions but rather as holes. This is why we never hear "vulva" but only "vagina" when discussing women's genitals. But, I digress. Despite my feelings on breast-feeding, I have to admit that there is something very, very disturbing about attempting to force girl-children into this activity before they even develop their own breasts or sense of bodily autonomy. 

I would like to hear from readers about this toy, what do you think this toy says about society, marketing and gender roles? 

Oh, and here's the advertisement for the doll