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

Prescribing Patriarchy: Dr. Oz

                     found here

With the recent upsurge of television doctors and shrinks (targeting mainly women) it should come as no surprise that patriarchal propaganda is alive and well in the West. Television aficionado's spend hours every day in trances, listening to these so-called “professional” doctors spew advice on everything from what a healthy turd look like to how to maintain a boner. As someone who knows many people who tune into gawk at these star-struck docs, I feel obligated to discuss the trend. Since this post will likely be lengthy, the others may be discussed separately. Nevertheless, these “experts” include:

Dr. Drew Pinsky (addictions specialist)

Dr. Mehmet Oz (heart/lung surgeon)

Dr. Phil McGraw (psychologist)

Dr. Laura Berman (sexual health educator, relationship therapist)

Dr. Laura  Schlessinger (right wing commentator, private marriage/relationship counseller, radio host)

I want to focus on Dr. Oz as he has a strong hold over the "medical-entertainment" market and spouts the most "advice" regarding women's bodies, sexual activity, and food consumption. 

Oz's cuddly promo!!

The infamous Dr. Oz is actually a cardiothoracic surgeon with a net-worth of 7 million dollars. Before nabbing his own day time show, he was a habitual "expert guest" on the Oprah Winfrey show. With her help, The Dr. Oz Show was on the air and continues to be a popular choice for televised health enthusiasts. On the show,  Oz conducts interactive demonstrations that seem to have been inspired by kindergarten classes in order to explain bodily processes. He often has guests from the audience take part in these demonstrations. His range of expertise, apparently, extends from heart surgery to mental health, sexuality, weight-loss and something he refers to as "Anti-Aging." 


Preventing  aging  is a hot topic on the Dr Oz Show,  he has a "superfood" to make you stop "looking old",  because old people are not beautiful nor are they valuable (he openly uses the term "anti-aging" and has created an entire section for it on his website!) In this section, Oz asks, "Are your bones making you fat?"  Clearly, our very bodily structure - our skeleton, is really to blame for our wrinkled woes! Dr. Oz's  anti-aging agenda is closely linked to his obsession with the size of women's bodies.The surgeon in scrubs measures guests' waist sizes and weighs them on novelty scales. He has all kinds of diets and suggestions that are aimed at making everyone's body's the same - slim/fit
He manages to cram his weight-loss advice into other markets such as magazines and books. But his obsession with women's body size also ties in with his obsession with women's sexual activity. In his 100 weight loss tips, he suggests "Healthy sex may help control the amount of food you eat and it's great exercise." 


Healthy sex? As opposed to unhealthy sex? Does the type and healthiness of the sex act change the number of calories burned? 

This "you" expert has also stirred up controversy in the last few years. He featured a debatable topic referred to by his show as the "Arsenic Apple Juice Crisis!" This Crazy-McCrazerson episode has been referred to by some as nothing more than a  "ratings ploy"  but hey, Fox News thinks its all legit because a consumer report told them so!


With so much expertise and loyal viewership, the Dr Oz show has a lot of "buzz-creating" advice on sex and sexuality. 

"Shocking Ways Your Hormones Are Affecting your Marriage!" 

Oz makes his millions by giving his  millions of viewers “doctor-approved” 
sex advice, or should I say, intercourse advice. This advice is easily marketable and likely ups Oz's ratings. 


He even offers sex advice on his website. Here, users can take the quiz, "How healthy is your libido?" Such a quiz does nothing more than perpetuate (hetero)normative ideas about sex-drives and sexual activity, the notion that high-libido is the standard and "normal." This is considered "normal" for men have high-libidos, it is "normal" for men, but a woman with a high-libido would likely be perceived much differently. However, low-libido in women is much more medicalized than a high-libido, this is because men are perceived to be hyper-sexual at all times and women are expected to be sexually available at all times. In fact, one of Oz's  key-to-a-healthy-life tips is to have as much heterosexual intercourse as possible. Indeed, he claims up to 3+ times a week is adequate to maintain health. This degree of intercourse, he claims, will actually make you live longer!

Such advice fails to really discuss how "normal" sexuality has been socially constructed within a society that has a history of male dominance, colonialism, racism, and heteronormativity. Dr. Oz spouts out the same old, same old - he offers the same regurgitated, limited view of sexuality. His view is clear in this statement:

“It means, number one, that the penis works and for the male, the penis is a dipstick for your health. If it's working, everything else is probably working, too. When it's not, it could be a bunch of things, but something's not right. So it's a good litmus test if things are shaping up the way they're supposed to. For women, it's not about amount of sex. It's about quality of sex. They need loving, nurturing, sexual relationships in their lives.” 

His incredibly phallocentric and sexist perspective is obvious from this quote. He proposes that men and women are so incredibly different, that is why they need different sex. For men, it is all about getting laid as much as possible, but for women, being as passive and sensitive as we are, require “quality” sex, which essentially means that our assumingly male partners must be able to “nurture” us while they penetrate us four times a week. This will gratify our apparently universal sexual needs as women! Our silly woman-brains are to blame! But, his advice is patronizing and downright silly. It is ridiculous to suggest that women require “different” sex simply because we are women, as if all women are heterosexual and that ALL heterosexual women desire to have intercourse. Of course, Oz points to a study that dates back to the 1960s to prove that men require intercourse. I have an inkling that Oz is alluding to Kinsey's sex research. To understand why such studies are not the best sources, one only needs to read Andrea Dworkin, who took to deconstructing Kinsey's work and his biases. Also, couldn't Oz pull up some recent studies? Possibly studies not conducted by a man...

Self-Explanatory 

Like many doctors, though, Oz claims that this need is complicated and is due to the extensive “biological differences”  in men and women’s brains (he even insists women's brains shrink during pregnancy!) Also, like many other doctors operating from a male-centric perspective, Oz believes in the seemingly new problem of “sex addiction." This "diagnosis" informs men that they actually cannot control using and buying women's bodies or consuming pornography. But men have different brains!
With this sexual equivalent of a “get out of jail free” card, it is easier for men to see themselves as victims and “powerless” over their decisions and actions that affect women, women's status in the world and society as a whole. Why don't we ask ourselves: what does such a diagnoses say about our society and what does it say about how we construct our social realities?

Patriarchy has a way of normalizing itself and the media assists in that normalization by providing men with reassurance that they indeed are not in control of themselves. Not only do men need to maintain sufficient erections, but they need to place that erection into a woman’s body or "deal with" their erection through using pornography. Women are then held responsible. Women are told to facilitate this apparently "inevitable" need that men have, this apparent healthy-life requirement. Women are to do this by providing constant access to their bodies -- through physical access, the male gaze and consuming self-criticism. How dare any woman (assuming, as Oz does, that she is heterosexual) try and shorten her husband’s life and negatively impact HIS health by not having intercourse with him?

Such televised medicalizing and public devaluing of women’s bodies, health, and sexuality, which is masked as“liberation” furthers sexual inequality and oppression. When rich people with lots of power spout out restrictive advice as "scientific truth" they truly allow propaganda to flow freely; propaganda that is intended to maintain the patriarchal status quo and keep women in a subordinate social position.