After reading The Next Level: Boys with Birkins, an article referenced in one of Professor Dalke’s comments, I got to thinking: how has the fashion industry been blurring the line between male and female? Of course with the likes of Bobby Trendy, tv personality, interior decorator, and designer; and Miss J Alexander, runway coach, model, and judge on America’s Next Top Model, we can see that androgyny is fairly prevalent in fashion. What I didn’t expect after reading the article was my realization of another level of meaning for the term unisex. What Bryan Boy, Yu Masui, and Jean-Paul Paula do is, what I think, atypical of the transvestite persona. They integrate feminine clothes and accessories with men’s clothing for an eclectic androgynous ensemble–not to look like women. The article stresses that these are “men dressing mostly like men but with accessories and the odd (Prada lace) halter from the women’s department”. But what does it mean for a man to dress with feminine accessories yet still appear to be man? It seems like it’s finally time men take a cue from our wardrobes instead of the other way around. With the social acceptance of women wearing pants, the clothing options for women suddenly became limitless. But what about men? When asked why he chooses to wearing women’s clothing Yu Masui responds: “Clothes are getting more and more borderless, like the new YSL unisex collection. Women’s wear always takes ideas from men’s wear, so why can’t men’s get influence from women’s? Anyway, the biggest reason is men’s wear is more boring than women’s wear!!”. He’s right. With shirts, pants, suits, and maybe a few sweaters, many men’s collections are pretty predictable and less likely to be as experimental as women’s collections. Since women have long integrated menswear into their wardrobes, can men take some inspiration from the woman and still be “manly”? Take Jean Paul Gaultier’s makeup for men, Monsieur. The man in the ad is not at all a transvestite yet he uses makeup throughout the day.
This week’s reading reminded me of a story my English teacher in 7th grade told us about. It was about a boy that went to my middle school a couple years before my class did and since kindergarden he would always wear dresses to school, every single day. I remember the kids in my class (me included) went wide-eyed, and some of us laughed, but my teacher continued, and explained to us that when he finally met the child in 7th grade, he was shocked to realize that no one in the class minded that this boy wore dresses because they had all grown up with him. They thought it was perfectly fine. In fact when one girl from the class explained to him that this is what the boy wore, she also included that she wore dresses as well, implying that there was no big deal.
I remembered that after hearing the story, my 12 year old self was thinking “But who wants to wear a DRESS? Boys don’t even HAVE to wear one, and they STILL want to?” And I think apart of me agreed (and apart of me possibily even now still agrees) with cultural feminists who sugested that transsexual behavior “buys into society’s gender norms” because not ALL women wear make up and skirts. Maybe it’s because I was such a tomboy when I was younger, “femininity” didn’t seem like such a big whoop, and I remember thinking just last semester, when reading for sociology that transexuals DID seem to bring out the core sterotypes of their desired gender.
However, I think the other part of me likes that gender identity is so fluid, that it doesn’t have have to be attatched with our sex at all. Cultural femminists criticize male-to-female transexuals as “buying into society’s gender norms instead of rebelling against them,” but i think that society believes “normal” is either the X or the Y that we are born with with and I think transexuals ARE indeed rebelling by saying that they feel different, that they SHOULD have been born differently and that they WILL take control over their won bodies in obtaining the change they want in order to feel comofrtable in their own skin. I belive that is extreamly powerful.
I read the Sandy Stone article, and I too felt frustrated over some of the quotes mentioned. The parts that were standing out while I was reading the article were when the authors of the autobiographies were talking about the vast difference they felt the moment they got sex change surgery.
“I feel small, and neat. I am not small in fact, and not terribly neat either, but femininity conspires to make me feel so.”
“My shoes make my feet look more delicate than they are, besides giving me… a suggestion of vulnerability that I rather like.”
“I wanted to brighten my face with cosmetics. I wanted a strong man to protect me.”
“Now there was a perfectly humble woman, who was ready to obey, who was happy to submit herself to the will of another… her master, her creator, her Professor.”
“It is now Lili who is writing to you. I am sitting up in my bed in a silk nightdress with lace trimming, curled, powdered, with bangles, necklace, and rings…”
Gender seems to have very stereotypical roles here. As Stone mentions, “If there is any intervening space in the continuum of sexuality, it is invisible.” The other part that really stood out was how Sparre felt a complete change in his writing after the surgery – the script looked female and not male anymore, even though handwriting is something that is acquired.
While reading Sandy Stone’s “The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto,” I was struck by the easy and academic way in which Stone considered a charge levied against not only herself but transsexual people in general by Janice Raymond, who charged that “All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves…Rape, although it is usually done by force, can also be accomplished by deception.” Raymond goes on to criticize the way in which Stone herself occupied a position of power within a lesbian-feminist music collective, charging that after benefiting from male privilege “he” (Raymond only refers to Stone as he) had inserted himself into a situation which was dominating and divisive for women and was going to (she quotes another woman) “cash in on lesbian feminist culture.”
Stone must be used to this sort of thing, because if someone accused me of something as hurtful as raping women merely by inhabiting the body which I feel most comfortable inhabiting and living my life as the person I want to be, I don’t think I could’ve responded in such a measured way. I got stuck on this passage. I cannot imagine how it is a useful or constructive argument for understanding gender in any meaningful way, and (much worse) the use of rape in a theoretical context trivializes an experience which is incredibly traumatic for many people. The argument also makes feminism into something exclusive, which is in no way helpful to anyone working for equality.
I am interested in the possibility of coalition building, which was why I very much liked the actual Manifesto piece of Stone’s writing, which seemed to mostly boil down to 1) no more “wrong body” discourse, and 2) no more “passing,” and which put forth the possibility of solidarity between “gays, lesbians, and people of color” and other people who have “chosen invisibility as an imperfect solution to personal dissonance,” or who have felt themselves forced to do so my oppressive societal structures. Stone constructs this as a new kind of “transformation,” towards a more inclusive (to quote Angela Davis) Freedom Movement and society.
After discussing cosmetic surgery over the past week, my head was jumbled with many thoughts.
The picture we saw in class of the “perfect face” made me think of the TV show called True Beauty on ABC. The one episode I caught of it was ridiculous. Basically, the contestants are judged on “inner beauty” and “outer beauty.” During that specific episode, the contestants went to a plastic surgeon who used some sort of technology to measure the symmetry in their faces and based on how symmetrical their faces were, the contestants were judged on their outer beauty. The dramatic part of the episode was when one of the men caused a scene because his score was relatively low and he shouted at the judges, saying, “How can you use this to measure beauty? What do you know?” and eventually he was eliminated… I find it kind of disturbing that plastic surgeons are given the responsibility and authority to decide what is more beautiful. Also, it seems like the show emphasizes the importance of inner beauty as well, however, the way they measured inner beauty was more, seeing whether the contestants had any common sense/morals. They were judged on behavior that should be expected of any person. This makes me question how the definition of beauty has changed. I agree with the man who was eliminated- how can someone be judged for their inner and outer beauty? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Another thing that came to my mind was the normalizing of the double-eyelid surgery among women in Asian cultures. Before this semester, I’ve always felt very strongly against it and I was almost angry at my friend for letting her mom pressure her into getting it done. It didn’t even occur to me that the double-eyelid is characteristically Caucasian and that makes me feel even more uncomfortable with it. I was fortunate enough to be born with natural double-eyelids, and my mom always told me that it was a sign of luck. So should I feel lucky to be born looking more Caucasian than other Asians?
On the other hand, my mother has a friend who was born in China with a cleft-lip. Because of her disfigurement, she was abandoned by her parents at birth because a cleft-lip was a sign of bad luck and she would never find a husband to marry her. This really made me think about how people are treated differently based on their appearance. I understand why, but it just seems ridiculous when you think about how the way we look when we’re born is out of our control and completely dependent on our natural biological genes. As technology develops, it seems like humans are increasingly trying to gain control over nature.
Even fruits are genetically engineered to look more appealing, but they don’t necessarily taste better…
Just some food for thought 
On a different note, a question (which might be too personal) that I’d like to ask our guests on Monday is how they feel their sexuality changes as their biological gender and gender identity is changing. Also, how do you think your transition plays a role in the social constructs of gender roles? Do you think it perpetuates society’s narrow definition of being a man or a woman?
Instead of writing about this week’s readings, I found I still had a lot of unresolved questions about our discussion of cosmetic surgery and using technology to alter your appearance. Before this class, I held some unexamined belief that it was better to accept yourself for your “natural” beauty than to alter it to fit a different standard. I had a vague notion that whatever was natural was automatically prefereable to artifice.
Last week’s reading made me reconsider a lot of my life experiences. My braces are an obvious example; I’m so glad I could have them, since I actually had two rows of canine teeth for a while (ew), but they definitely weren’t “natural.” Also, my brother, who is now around 5′ 8″, received growth hormone for several years because his pituitary gland shut down after receiving radiation treatment. He didn’t grow for four years before going on growth hormone- in this case, it took something artificial to get him to where he would have been “naturally” without cancer treatment.
Definitely, some aspects of technology are damagining to the body, like tanning booths. But I think I need to question what I mean when I think of “natural.” It seems to come from an idea of how we lived in a state of nature. Central heating, vitamins and exercize machines definitely aren’t natural in that sense, but they are still beneficial. Also, the fact remains that we have a longer life expectancy now than before. I’m curious: what do you all think of when you think of “natural?” How do you designate something as natural or not?
I read Sandy Stone’s article and the posts about Michelle Obama and her clothing choices. After reading these, I have begun to wonder about transvestites or cross-dressers. I was a bit confused as to the differences between transsexuals and transvestites so I looked up the definitions. According to Wikipedia and Webster, cross-dressers are usually heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, or asexuals, who identify as male or female, but like to dress in the opposite gender’s clothing. We have not talked about this in class, so I wanted to bring it up. I am a little confused as to why they dress in clothing of the opposite gender. Do cross-dressers feel that there is something missing? They are in the “right” body, but perhaps, just enjoy fashion? I wish Stone had included more on transvestites in her article. Today, are styles still divided among genders? I feel that a woman could wear anything a man wears and not be labeled as a cross-dresser, but it seems that it is not the same for men. I realize that there are feminine ensembles, but are there male outfits? The first thing that I think of is a tux, but look at Diane Keaton. Has anyone called her a cross-dresser? But if a man wore a dress to an awards show, he would be labeled a cross-dresser (or everyone would think it was a joke).
In the Stone article she uses Lord Cornbury, as an example of a transsexual, but wasn’t he a cross-dresser? Stone states, “The first colonial governor of New York, Lord Cornbury, came from England fully attired as a woman and remained so during his time in office,” (323). Stone seems to be equating wearing the opposite gender’s clothing with the desire to be the opposite sex. This is contradictory to the definitions of transsexual and transvestite. Although I found the reading interesting, I also found a lot of problems with it. This was just one. I think Stone could have clarified her article more, creating a stronger argument. For example, when she discusses that “most transsexuals choose reassignment,” they are usually thirty or forty years old (334). She however, does not talk about the cost of this choice, or the technology that has come about in recent years. Perhaps, most of the individuals did not have enough money until they were in their thirties or forties. Also, how long have hormones, steroids, and reassignment surgery been around? I would really like to know, because aren’t we dealing with this issue today, because of the progress in technology?
Image: Google images
I also have some reservations and frustrations with the Sandy Stone article and her deffinitons that she uses and quotes. That made me realize that I have some issues with labels. Well not people giving themselves labels, but other people needing labels when someone doesn’t provide them or don’t easily fit into the person’s labels. I like having a label for myself, but i know that the label I choose doesn’t work for everyone that is “like” me. I realize that I get very frustrated and sometimes angry when people are closeminded about what is out there. You don’t have to understand why people are the way that they are but I feel like people need to be open to and accept the idea that they won’t fully understand everyone they meet. I have many friends with many different “labels” for themselves and I love and accept them all for whoever they are. I didn’t always understand at first, but I knew that eventualy I might, and that I would never understand until I accepted them. Everyone is guilty of steriotyping people we see every day (myself deffinetly included), I think the mark of the progress of a society or comunity is our ablity to acknowledge that this happens and them move on to acceptence. Queer Eye did an episode for a trans-guy in NYC, and they way they ended the episode always made me very happy. In the section at the very end of the show they usually reserve for tips they talk about tolerance vs. acceptance. Jai: “You tolerate Mondays, but people should be accepted”.
After finishing the reading by Sandy Stone I felt quite irked by the large number of sweeping statements about transsexual individuals that she reports. While I was reading through, it appeared to me that the definitions of transsexual and transsexuality that is used, both in the quotations that she addresses and sometimes in her own writing, seem a little narrow at times. What about the people who don’t want the genital surgery, the people who want the genital surgery but can’t get it, the people who don’t try to pass all of the time but who might still identify as transsexual? Curious about the extent of the possible differences in definitions I did a quick search online.
From a Google search with the key words “define:transsexual” (the underlining are mine)
Definitions of transsexual on the Web:
- a person who has undergone a sex change operation
- a person whose sexual identification is entirely with the opposite sex
- transsexual(a): overwhelmingly desirous of being, or completely identifying with, the opposite sex
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Transsexualism is a condition in which a person identifies with a physical sex different from the one that they were born with or assigned in cases where ambiguity of the child’s sex organs led to assigning them a physical sex. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexual - transsexualism – condition in which a person assumes the identity and permanently acts the part of the gender opposite to his or her biological sex
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - transsexuality – The state, condition, or properties of being transsexual; The psychological diagnosis of gender identity disorder
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transsexuality - An individual who is committed to altering his or her physical appearance—through cosmetics, hormones and, in some cases, surgery—to resemble the opposite sex.
www.viagracures.com/sex_glossary/t_terms.html - An individual whose gender identity does not match the sex that was assigned to them at birth. Many transsexual people will seek hormonal and/or …
www.ftmguide.org/terminology.html - A person who believes that he or she is psychologically akin to the opposite gender and feels trapped in one’s biological sex. …
www.ifsha.org/glossary.htm - Someone who feels he or she is the opposite of his or her biological sex. They may or may not want to change their body to correspond to how they …
www.wdghu.org/page.cfm - A condition where a person strongly feels a belonging to the opposite biological sex sometimes described as being trapped in a wrong body from birth. Want to correct their body into the desired sex and want to “change sex” in a social, medical and legal sense. …
www.alexandra.st/ - transsexuality – is a profound form of gender dysphoria where there is a conviction of being “trapped in the wrong body” and the need to express oneself …
www.northernconcord.org.uk/definiti.htm - transsexualism – A term used to describe a male or female that feels a strong identification with the opposite sex and experiences considerable distress because of …
www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3447200256.html
While the genre of all of the definitions appears very similar, each definition has some little quirk that not all of the other definitions necessarily addressed or agreed with. Sometimes the definition necessitates a sex change operation, other times it is simply the desire to be the opposite sex. This brings up a question about children who have been assigned a sex at birth through surgery for one reason or another. If they are not cognizant of it and can’t consciously desire it are they transsexuals? If, later in life, they disagree with the assignment and wish to return to their “original” sex (whichever way that is measured) are they then transsexuals? Although I do feel that identities should only come from the personal labeling of the individual, it is no secret that the larger world labels others with or without their permission as well. One example of this is the need for the surgeons to develop some sort of criteria and diagnosis for the individuals who came to them for sex reassignment surgery.
Thinking in this vein, my thoughts moved on to my Abnormal Psychology class. I wondered what the DSM-IV-TR (the manual for psychologists that lists all of the criteria for diagnosable behaviors, etc.) had to say on all of this. To avoid making this an even longer post I’ll just link to the DSM entry for Gender Identity Disorder that includes transsexualism that I found online. Click here. The criteria seem to have advanced since the surgeons’ first attempts in Stone’s piece, but I still think that something doesn’t quite feel right about it, especially the use of so much stereotyping.
Reading Anne’s post on Michelle Obama reminded me of another appearance altering process that is so ubiquitous I doubt many notice it: the relaxer. The process of “relaxing” is a way of chemically straightening Afro-American hair so that it is transformed from naturally soft yet dense curls to a more European style. Michelle swears that she does not use a relaxer and I believe her because it is possible to achieve the same style with heat treatments (ex. blow-drying, flat irons). But for those of us with denser hair, the chemical straightener is our only option for straighter hair.
Since its debut and subsequent switches from lye to more gentle chemicals, the debate has not been whether or not this treatment is necessary or not. Rather, one wonders if the purpose is to make African-American hair more manageable or to emulate their European counterparts. Personally, I have had my hair relaxed since eighth grade in order to avoid the memories of afternoons spent in the kitchen with my mother washing, raking, and braiding my tangled hair in an attempt to impose some order on it. The phrase “Go get a comb” is still associated with tears in my mind. Relaxing my hair was a way to escape these painful hours and gain some independence as I was able to style my hair however I wanted.
The relaxer has its downsides. While it provides one with more manageable hair, it is still comprised of harsh chemicals which may damage one’s hair over time. It can cause hair to become brittle and fall out, depending on how often it is applied (which is usually every 4-6 weeks). If left on for too long, it can burn the skin on your scalp, but if it is not left on for long enough, the relaxer will not fully straighten the hair. One has to find a relaxer that is gentle on the skin and will thoroughly straighten the hair.
But I am not naive. It is almost akin to the rhinoplasty in the Banales article, in that straightened hair is considered more professional. It is rare to see woman of African descent with her natural hair in a professional setting. Employers are more likely to hire a woman of color with more European features. Natural hair in the form of an afro or braids is seen as unkempt, giving the wearer the appearance of being disorganized and less employable. I know that when I enter a professional setting, my hair will be judged, whether it is straight or curly. African-American women in the media usually have straight hair and are viewed as being more attractive and desireable. Yet either way, I will probably keep relaxing my hair. For me.
The Mainstream Media and Transgender Issues
Going back to Anne’s post about a boy living on Bryn Mawr’s campus…
I have personal experience with this; James lives on my floor. What I found interesting about this article is that it fails to mention that there is another male living on the floor, and I am fairly certain that the reason the other male is not mentioned is that he is transgendered. The only reference to the possibility that this may have come up in the conversation is the parenthetical remark that the article’s author throws in there to acknowledge the presence of transgenders on our campus, in general.
I am not at all surprised that the other male living on my floor wasn’t mentioned in the article. I don’t think that transgendered issues are talked about enough in the mainstream media, and when these issues are brought up, I don’t think they handle the issue in a very constructive way. Before coming to Bryn Mawr, I had almost no exposure to transgender, intersex, and other non-“normal” conditions, aside from the occasional joke in a movie or on TV about someone picking up a prostitute who “was actually a dude”. Transgender issues jus weren’t something I was ever in contact with. Now that I live on the same floor as a transgendered individual and am reading about gender issues in this course, I am gaining a whole new perspective on what it means to be male or female that I had never even been in contact with before. These issues don’t seem to be things that mainstream America is ready to confront in a mature way. Because of this, we get articles like this one about a boy living on our campus that fail to mention that there have been males living on our campus for quite some time before James made his choice to live here.
(as a side note, we have this article posted up on the door of our tea pantry on the floor, and there have been numerous post-it note responses tacked up next to it. one of my favorites says something along the lines of “females produce testosterone too!” I thought that was cute!)
Transsexuality among some musings.
I want to preface this post by stating that I am aware that I can not fully understand someone’s need to transition from one sex to another. I also know that every person has different reasons for making a decision this life changing. I am not trying to judge anyone, I am trying to understand.
Last week I wrote a post about plastic surgery. This is how I concluded my thoughts on that topic: “I guess it all comes down to my feeling that these women shouldn’t think anything is wrong with them, rather they should learn to recognize that there is something wrong with the culture they are a part of.”
My feelings about transsexualism fall along the same lines. The act of changing one’s physical sex worries me. To me gender is a spectrum and it is acceptable to fall anywhere on that spectrum regardless of your biological sex. When someone decides to transition to the opposite sex, it feels as if they might be perpetuating the notion that gender is not a spectrum and that it is not okay for a women to be “masculine” or for a man to be “feminine,” that you must physically be the sex that is associated with your chosen gender.
Now I should also say that I do acknowledge that there are differences between the two sexes. But a lot of these physical differences, for example, being able to conceive and carry a child, are not possible for those seeking sex reassignment.
I’ve been working on this post for a few days now because I want it to effectively get across my general confusion. I just finished reading Introduction: Transsexualism, Technology, and the Idea of Gender. Before reading this article, I was so focused on gender being the major force behind a sex change, I never thought about the technology necessary for that change. This is problematic. In the past I have made the argument that technology should be seen as an extension of humanity. I stand by this argument. As someone who has been adverse to permanent physical change my entire life this seems very contradictory. However, one still has to consider that the permanent physical changes that were offered to me that I chose not to participate in have always been of a cosmetic nature.
In some ways, I understand what it’s like to want to be the opposite sex. To want to be the grandson my grandfather will never have, to want to be a man so that I can be stronger, make more money, and have more opportunities available to me. But I know these feelings are more about the inequality of women than they are about feeling like my body was never meant to be my body. I would never want to have to make that choice, but I would never try to take the choice from someone else.
That’s the beauty of technology: it gives the individual the ability to realize what once was impossible. While we may not all agree about how technology should be used, we can’t ignore the fact that the ability to change one’s sex is a technological advancement. It is, in some sense, one of the first ways in which consciousness was able to win over the constrains of the physical world.
Hi,
My name is Kalyn and I’m a sophomore. I enjoy music, video games, reading, computers and all sorts of movies. I also have a sound appreciation for magic tricks and anything funny. I’m considering a possible major in psychology but I haven’t declared yet.
I decided to take this class in order to broaden my horizons of what gender means. Since I have strong interests in computers I naturally gravitated towards ideas that a gender and technology course could develop. I’m hoping this class will give me a different take on gender within the twenty first century. I’m specifically interested in how the media manipulates gender today and what technological innovations await in the future with cyborg robots.
I want to consider what makes people gravitate toward a specific gender? Little girls can and do act like boys and vice a versa. As they grow older societies norms push boys in a masculine direction and girl’s in a feminine. Why do some people go along with this and other’s do not?
I also what to know, to what extend does gender get associated with “non-gendered” items and why? For example, men are often associated with giving their automobiles and ships female names. Why is this? Is there any point in giving an obviously female name to an inanimate object? What does this mean about gender for both the person who gave the name and the object that carries the name?
Say hello to "Lola"
The Parens article titled ‘Surgically Shaping Children’ reminded me of a little girl named Shiloh Pepin who is frequently called the “Mermaid Girl.” She was given a television show on Discovery Health. This show captured her daily life struggles showing how she was biologically born with her feet fused together because of a condition known as “sirenomelia.” This deformity is very rare and often ends in death. Born in Maine of 1999 with her lower extremities fused, a missing bladder, uterus, colon, vagina, one partial kidney and one ovary. The doctor’s didn’t think Shiloh would survive and told the parent’s she only had weeks to live at the most. Right now Shiloh is eight years old and going strong thanks to the multiple surgeries she’s had.
There are so many people in the world that suffer from some sort of unknown medical aliment or another. I find it uplifting to know that some of these deformities can be cured. I understand that not everyone needs a cure because for some there is nothing wrong with them. For instance dwarfs can live perfectly ordinary lives by themselves with almost no medical intervention. The Roloff family for instance is proof of that with their four healthy children.
The Roloff Family
But I think it is important to progress in science and offer medical treatment for those who want it. People like Shiloh Pepin would not be alive today without medical practices. In her case the decision was made by the parent’s in the early stages to keep their daughter alive by taking the risk of surgery. The recent world wide notice of her condition helps to make people aware that the definition of normal is changing and can take many shapes.
To learn more about Shiloh please visit:
Shiloh
Since this is the weekend of The Vagina Monologues, @ BMC and around the country, it might interest y’all to know that one of the theorists whose work we are reading this week, Sandy Stone, wrote a performance piece called The Neovagina Monologues, which (well, you can read more about it on her “projects’ page….)
