Intersex Initiative: News - Emi Responds to Bourdieuan Analysis of Intersex Treatment

Emi Responds to Bourdieuan Analysis of Intersex Treatment

ipdxWIRE Intersex News
Nov 15, 2003

Carrie Paechter from Goldsmiths University in London published a paper in the October 2003 issue of Women's Studies International Forum which explores medical attitudes toward intersexuality and gender assignment on intersex children to illustrate societal investment in regulating the "participation in communities of masculinity and femininity practice" (if you don't understand what this means, don't worry; the paper is theoretically based on Pierre Bourdieu's theory of pratique). Paechter cited a document written by Intersex Initiative director Emi, but mis-identified her last name... Anyway, below is the email sent to Dr. Paechter:

November 14, 2003

Hello Dr. Paechter,

My name is Emi Koyama and I have just come across your paper, "Learning masculinities and femininities: power/knowledge and legitimate peripheral participation." I'm glad to see that you took notice of the "writing guidelines" on intersex that I wrote, which addresses the ethical issue of scholars using intersex merrely as a theoretical device to support their point, rather than using their theories to support people who live that experiences. I do hope that you would identify my name correctly next time.

A comment about the content. In page 547, you wrote:

<< Three things seem to be involved here. The first seems to be a sense that part of establishing a shared history within the local community of practice of masculinity or femininity is physical conformity to some kind of norm. [...] Second, and in the context of these reified markers being seen as all important, is the issue of shared history and continuity of memory. [...] Third, community boundaries are being reinforced through a constructed illusion of clear anatomical differences between men and women; the considerable variations in genital appearance and chromosomal configuration are masked through surgery that makes as many people as possible conform to a standard model.>>

While all of these are true when you only consider the *gendered* aspect of how medical community deals with intersex conditions, they are incomplete as the answer to the question you raised, which was "why such invasive and risky surgery is thought, by doctors working in the field, and some parents, to be necessary for these very young babies who have nothing surgically wrong with them."

The treatment of intersex children under the current medical protocol needs to be understood in the context of other ways in which natural human variations are diagnosed as "abnormal" in need of "correction," whether they have to do with gender or sexuality at all. Here, I'm talking about surgeries intended to lengthen naturally short limbs, separation surgery on otherwise healthy conjoined twins, the "rehabilitation" program that prohibits children whose hands are impaired and cannot use spoon or fork easily from using their hands to eat, the use of human growth hormone on children who are healthy but short, pathologization of homosexuality until 1973 and of "gender identity disorder" since, and many other ways in which natural human variations are pathologized and irrationally targeted for eradication.

There are certain things that are unique about intersex, such as the devastating secrecy and shame that are imposed on children born with intersex conditions. But for the most part, the experiences of children with intersex conditions (and others' reactions to them) are remarkably similar to the experiences of children born with other socially stigmatized disabilities and deformities. Of course, gender affects the treatment of other conditions too (e.g. the established guidelines for prescribing human growth hormone sets the standard for boys' height higher than the girls'), but I am certain that even in the absence of the society's preoccupation with enforcing gender boundaries, intersex bodies would continue to be pathologized and treated with invasive and harmful procedures. In fact, in most cases, doctors do not consciously see a "gender" problem when they see an intersex child; they see a girl (or a boy) who is "abnormal."

I can also add that I've traveled across the country to present about intersex everywhere, and even the most religious or conservative audience who have never questioned the existing binary and hierarchy of genders "get" that whatever is being done to intersex children today is morally, ethically wrong, even though they might disagree with me about everything else. The only audience in which this does not happen is the medical community. Does that mean that the medical community is more invested in maintaining the current gender system than, say, conservative Christians in the Midwest? I don't think so. But they are more invested than anyone else in maintaining the current biomedical paradigm that gives them the authority to define what is normal or abnormal--which explains their reluctance to question the existing treatment protocol.

Thanks for your work and I hope this feedback is useful.

Emi K.
Director, Intersex Initiative
http://www.ipdx.org/

Posted by Emi on Nov 15, 2003