It is a common misconception that a human being is born either a male or a female. Many people don’t realize that there are actually more than two sexes in the biological spectrum. In fact, geneticists believe that there are at least five sexes, with a possibility of more. Yet, our society, for the most part, is inclined to believe that when it comes to sex everything is black and white, male and female; with exception for the rare anomalies, who are usually tormented and shunned from mainstream society. In a society that is slowly moving away from black and white conventions, Katy Steinmetz's article,
sheds light on the progress that we have made to be more accepting of the LGTBQ community, as well as the hurdles that we must still face to fully embrace them into our society.
Before discussing Steinmetz’s article, I feel that it is important to clarify the current anatomical and physical categories that currently exist. As most people know, male and female constitutes the ‘correct’ chromosomes that match with their respective reproductive organs. Accordingly, the genetic make up for a male is XY and for a female it is XX. This in itself raises numerous quandaries as to why our society exists around a patriarchal society, however that is not the focus of this paper. The individuals who are born with a combination of organs, chromosomes, or genitalia are labeled intersexuals. They are in essence between sexes. Intersexuals also constitute those born with extremely small penises or enlarged clitoris’. Also included in this group are hermaphrodites, who possess one ovary and one testis, female pseudo- hermaphrodites, who possess ovaries and a portion of male genitalia, but no testes and finally male pseudo- hermaphrodites, who possess testes and a portion of female genitalia, but no ovaries. The huge dilemma with people who are born intersexual is that our society really has no place for them. As soon as they are born, doctors rush into emergency surgery to assign the new born a sex. Many times this surgery is unnecessarily and rashly performed on an enlarged clitoris or a small penis. However, the child usually does not feel as if they are a male or a female, because genetically they are not. In relation to the article, a transgender individual is one whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex.
Steinmetz’s piece discusses the discrepancies faced by transgender people in our society. Prior to June 9th, 2010 any and all transgender people in the United States were required to undergo sexual reassignment surgery in order to change the sex listed on their passport. This was a government issued mandate. In essence, if Mike was born a man, but now identifies as a woman in all aspects of his/her life, the government still required that he/she undergo surgery in order for his/her passport to read Female. This requirement stems from the notion that a person’s genitals define their gender, which we now know is far from true. This restriction disqualifies many people who cannot afford such procedures. Walter Bockting, a clinical psychologist for the University if Minnesota estimates that a male-to-female genital reconstruction costs between $12,000 and $25,000. A female-to-male procedure costs between $4,000 and $8,000. Now for the kicker, to construct a penis, which is rarely done, costs between $20,000 and $75,000 (1). Although that is a large price range, the point is clear, undergoing surgery is extremely costly.
Cost is not the only issue; many transgender people do not believe surgery is necessary for them to “assume the gender role they feel is right for them” (1). Bockting explains, “There are more and more transgender and transsexual people who live full-time in that role and travel as such and do not have the surgery. Surgery should be medically necessary for health and well being… not for proper documentation” (1). Bockting makes an extremely valid and important argument. It seems that America is moving in the direction of surgery to fix all of our problems. The rates of cesarean births are on the rise, as well as enhancement surgeries. Even more pressing though is the need that doctors feel to operate on children who are born intersexual. The government and medical institution as a whole are trying to enforce unnecessary and risky surgeries on people. The main reason for this is to reinforce our commitment to a two-sex society.
Despite this commitment, it appears that there are a few bright spots on the horizon. On June 9th, 2010 President Obama and The State Department eliminated the surgical requirement. Transgender individuals can now legally alter their passport with a note from their physician “stating that they have undergone clinical treatment for a ‘gender transition’.” (1) This new measure will definitely reduce the amount of transgender travelers who report being harassed upon the realization of their true identity. It will also spare many of these travelers the embarrassment of being subjected to invasive questioning and stares of disbelief. Proponents of the new measure defend the position on the basis that there is essentially no security risk. As long as they are abiding by the laws and regulations, there should really be no problem.
A current concern for these individuals will be the new controversial screening process that is being enforced by the Transportation Security Administration. Under these new guidelines, airport security and personnel are authorized to perform extremely intrusive and thorough pat downs. If this method is not performed, passengers can also be subject to enhanced full-body imaging machines. These machines provide images of passenger’s anatomy, allowing security personnel to see underneath the exterior layer of clothing. This could potentially cause a lot of problems for transgender passengers. TSA employees might look at a passport and see female, while the machine is showing a penis. Due to the current high level security threat, TSA members might be inclined to question the passenger to find out their true identity. TSA member’s disbelief in a transgender passenger’s identity stems from the larger issue at hand, which is the general misunderstanding of sexuality and gender in our society.
This misunderstanding and general lack of discussion helps to fuel those who are opposed to President Obama’s new measures. One of the main opponents is Paul Scott, a Michigan state representative. Scott and his cohorts rely mainly on ideological arguments, instead of practical and rational reasoning. Many of his arguments are blatantly rooted in prejudice and traditional values. In his upcoming election he will run on the platform that makes it “a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance” (1). Scott believes that this issue has to do with social values and in some sense it does. People like Mr. Scott do not exhibit the type of social values that foster an open and understanding community. In an interview with the Michigan Messanger, Scott stated that his proposed idea “would keep men ‘from dressing as a woman and going into female bathrooms’.” (1) His comments show the prevailing lack of understanding that plagues our society. Being transgender entails much more than dressing in the opposite sexes clothing. Furthermore, Scott is making light of a very serious transition that many transgender individuals face. It is a long and sometimes traumatic process for individuals to feel comfortable enough to express their true identity. In fact, some people face assault, harassment or death when revealing their true identity to their community. Thus, Scotts remarks are not only a stereotypical generalization, but also harmful and degrading.
Unfortunately, Mr. Scott’s crass remarks mirror how many American’s feel. While I think his statements are ignorant and misinformed, many people would agree with him. Ninety five percent of people are lucky to have their gender identity match their sex, but the other five percent are outcast for no fault of their own. What people fail to realize is that gender is a social construct, which restricts our clothing, styles, mannerisms and lifestyle. Gender is what we have come to make it, which we can see as both positive and negative. It is negative in the sense that we have made it such a restricting and sometimes detrimental concept. However, we can be positive and look to the future, because if we constructed gender than hopefully somewhere down the line we can re-construct it to be more inclusive. In closing, it is becoming ever more clear that our society lives in the gray zone, so maybe, just maybe it is time to stop governing in black and white.
(1) Katy Steinmetz. “New Passport Rules Ease Switch for Transgenders.” Times Magazine. 3 December, 2010.
< http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996302,00.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment