The Fluidity of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender

PAGE 5 OF 5

Alice Adams wrote

<<Can anyone explain why the sexual orientation, finger
length ratios, and cochleae--but not the genitals--of lesbians and
bisexual
women would be affected by exposure to prenatal androgens?>>

To comment first on Sue McPherson's remarks, all these studies are
difficult to assess for the reasons you cite involving how one
identifies and defines lesbian, bi, etc.  In addition, there are several
anatomical studies conducted on cadaver that cite brain changes in human
males, females and gays.  These are even more problematical, but as
technologies like MRI and even sonography continue to be refined,
chances are that answers regarding sexual dimorphism in the brain will
be more forthcoming.

Regarding sex linked traits (your question above), extensive studies
with species analogous to humans with respect to the presence of sex
chromosomes have illustrated physical and behavioral sex linked traits.
The Brain:  His and Hers by Pamela Weintraub summarizes some of these
classical studies. (Reprinted in The Gender Reader (2000) Ashton-Jones
et al. Allyn and Bacon)

Development of these traits differs from genital development as
follows:

Genital development is determined in the 6th-7th week when the SRY gene
on the Y chromosome is activated.  The protein product of this gene
activates genes on other chromosomes to make proteins that cause the
neutral pregenital cells to differentiate into testes.  If the SRY
protein is never made, other proteins produced at this time in
development (not on the Y chromosome, but involving the X chromosomes)
cause the same cells to develop into ovaries.  This symphony of
development is controlled by proteins called developmental transcription
factors.

>From here the story of sex-linked development is the same in principle
for males and females.  The newly developed genitals produce sex
hormones:   ovaries produce primarily estrogens and the testes produce
primarily androgens.    The key step here is that the hormones can leave
the newly developed genitals and control development of other tissues.
Neither sex has only estrogens or androgens, so it is really the ratio
of these two that set the pattern of development in tissues that can
respond (have receptors) for the hormones.  The hormone plus the
receptor protein is a transcription factor, that is, it activated
previously silent genes in target tissues.  These tissues include the
obvious like hair follicles, breast, larynx as well as less obvious like
muscle, bone and (likely) brain.  If the ratio of estrogen and androgen
is changed by exogenous hormones (like exogenous androgens), the
developmental pattern can be altered.  In some cases, changes that occur
in development are "cast in stone".  Certain developmental factors and
events are biochemically irreversible once they occur in utero.  (This
is one of the challenges of stem cell research:  how to identify these
developmental growth factors that are expressed for only few days during
development.)  In other cases, physiological changes that are hormone
dependent involve genes that are expressed throughout life and therefore
the hormones can change those tissues after birth.  An example is that
muscle mass can be increased by one of the androgens and uterine muscle
and endrometrial cell maintenance requires estrogen.  Androgens appear
to promote  bone growth (your example) although there is a large
developmental component to this also.  Another example of this is breast
size.  The breast size of a mature woman experiencing menstrual cycles
is an inherited trait - the potential for growth being "cast in stone"
during development.)  However, weight gain (fat), exercise (muscle) and
hormones (glands) can cause increased breast size.  But this is entirely
reversible - back to the genetically set size if weight is lost,
exercise discontinued or hormones stopped.

There is an intuitive understanding that limits of growth and function
are set in development.  The heart has a set size, the brain fits nicely
into the skull and doesn't overgrow out your nose, and feet just don't
go on forever.  Please don't take offense:  this is supposed to be
humorous, not derogatory.

Ruthann Masaracchia
Director, Women's Studies
Professor, Biological Sciences
University of North Texas
Denton, TX 76203
940-565-2532
ruthann  AT  unt.edu

> feminism
> claims to honor experience . . . when, at least  it is women's experience of
> oppression.  Perhaps that is socially constructed too?

Though as usual Professor Patai is on the attack here, this hardly seems
a worthwhile direction for her to pursue. Of course feminism is socially
constructed.  Notions of equality and fairness are human inventions
linked to specific historical and social contexts.  Feminism is no more
"natural" or "real" than any other philosophy.   This fact doesn't
discredit its appropriateness in any way.  Nor should we constantly have
to hear our work belittled by someone married to a different social
construction on a list dedicated to Women's Studies.  But oh well.  It's
a free country.  (Which is of course itself is a social construction.)

Diana

Diana York Blaine
dblaine  AT  usc.edu

Diana wrote:

"Nor should we constantly have to hear our work belittled by someone married
to a different social construction on a list dedicated to Women's Studies.
But oh well.  It's a free country.  (Which is of course itself is a social
construction.)"

I assume Diana doesn't really mean to suggest that she (or "we") should be
spared from "having to hear" her (or "our") views/ideas criticized.

The rest of Diana's comment  is another example of the emptying of the term
"social construction" of any useful meaning.  By the time we say that any
and everything is a social construction, because any concept is invented by
humans, etc., etc., we've said something insignificant and (as I annoyed
Judith Lorber by saying in an earlier message) trivial.

The real implication of my comment, of course, was that if feminists want to
claim - as Diana has just implied  - that everything is a social
construction, then why not simply decide that we should rename some of our
troublesome categories (e.g., violence against women, oppression,
inequality) and declare by the magic of renaming and categorizing  that
women's lives are in fact much better/happier/whatever than hitherto stated
or represented?

 If we refer to something outside our concepts and language, well, we are
indeed referring to something outside those concepts and language -
something like "reality," or bodily experience (say, of pain), or some other
signified that exists regardless of what we call the signifier that refers
to it.  And trying to get to that reality was precisely what I was
after--since in fact I think feminism is very much dependent upon some such
sense.

  For my part, I have no trouble knowing what I value about feminism - and
it is certainly derived ultimately from  awareness of the human capacity to
experience pain and suffering as real mental/physical/emotional phenomena,
not simply a product of how we name things.  That  these phenomena are real
doesn't mean (any more than sexual dimorphism does) that they're not
amenable to  human intervention, enacting a desire to diminish that
pain/suffering/unhappiness   [whatever one chooses to call it]  as much as
possible wherever they appear.  The fact that those are notions or
characteristics and can be named does not make them less real.  My point was
actually a serious one, despite Diana's ridicule of it.

DP

---------------------------------
daphne.patai  AT  spanport.umass.edu

The argument about social construction and "reality" comes up often in
terms of critiques of postmodernism.  Many times my students get stuck in
this same binary.

Of course when a woman is raped, she is "really" raped.  However, it is
also true that "we" can only understand someone's experience of rape
through representation -- i.e., how the woman, or the news media, or a
psychologist, tells us about it  -- AND we understand THAT representation
within our own individual web of meanings -- our own beliefs about
violence, women's bodies, women's right to autonomy, women's roles in
society, etc. -- all of which are socially constructed.

This does not have to be polarized as a dichotomy between "real" and
"socially constructed."  As Wendy Hesford and Wendy Kozol argue in the
recent _Haunting Violations_ and as Lisa Hogeland argued a few years ago in
_Feminism and Its Fictions_ -- how we "know" or how we understand what is
"real" is impacted by many other factors -- a society full of power
imbalances, our own intellectual and philosophical traditions, our own life
experiences, etc.  That is not AT ALL to say that women (and some men) are
not raped and do not have bodily experiences of violence.

To argue that theories of social construction ignore "real" experience is
to ignore the value in recognizing problems as socially constructed, and
not "natural" or "inherent," and thus amenable to change.

Donna M. Bickford, Ph.D.
dbi6066u  AT  postoffice.uri.edu
University of Rhode Island
Women's Studies Program
Roosevelt Hall, #315
Kingston, RI 02881

>>emptying of the term "social construction" of any
>>useful meaning.  By the time we say that any
>>and everything is a social construction, because any >>concept is invented
by humans, etc., etc., we've said
>>something insignificant

I don't think so, and I'm surprised that someone with the experience of
living in more than one culture (as it is my understanding is your
situation, Daphne -- please correct me if I'm wrong) can think that.

Of course, every human institution and complex of ideas and experience *is*
socially constructed.  This does not mean that there is no not-constructed
underlying phenomenon -- but we really only understand what that phenomenon
is by way of our social constructions around it.  Now if I didn't believe
that we could get closer to understanding the underlying phenomena, and that
translations between systems of social construction are possible, I probably
wouldn't be a cultural anthropologist.  Still, most people do not go around
thinking about their social and cultural world this way.  They accept the
socially constructed meanings they have learned as "natural categories," and
are surprised to learn that other constructions are possible.

Last week I tried to get at this using the example of spirit possession.
Maybe that was too weird.  Let's try paternity.  I guarantee to you that
although the Nandi can understand the European point of view about
paternity, they do not automatically think about it in the same way we do.
People said to me absolutely without ironic intent that the woman who was
the female husband of their mother was their father.  It is a meaningless
question to them to say, "Yes, but who is your *real* father" -- people just
don't see what a European is getting at.  Merely providing sperm that
impregnates a woman does not make a man a "father" in any meaningful sense
in their way of reckoning.

Now that is the kind of simple example where I think you will probably say,
"Well, obviously, the meanings of words differ between cultures and
languages.  Duh."  However, I think the significance for how people think
and act can be profound.

I don't think than anyone who says some idea or institution is "socially
constructed" is therefore saying that it isn't real, or that it could be
changed just by applying our collective will.  I'm having trouble, Daphne,
believing that you really think that that's what people are saying.  I
really think that there must just be a misunderstanding here, but I'm having
trouble seeing what it is.

>>The real implication of my comment, of course, was
>>that if feminists want to claim - as Diana has just
>>implied  - that everything is a social construction,
>>then why not simply decide that we should rename some
>>of our troublesome categories (e.g., violence against
>>women, oppression, inequality) and declare by the
>>magic of renaming and categorizing  that women's lives
>>are in fact much better/happier/whatever than hitherto
>>stated or represented?

See, here I honestly believe that you know what the answer is, so why raise
the question?  The answer is that a social construction is much more than a
name.  It is a whole system of meanings affecting various areas of life that
all tie together -- it is also deeply held beliefs and convictions
surrounding the constructed item, and feelings about it at the gut level.
It also exists in part because of the day-to-day social interaction that
keeps it in place, which requires some degree of cultural consensus.
Obviously, social constructions do change over the course of history, but it
is an extremely complex process where the outcome can't really be predicted
or engineered.  And I am sure that you really do know that.  It seems that
you are trying to imply that others here are using the idea of "social
construction" in a much more simplistic way.  But I think you're getting
that wrong.

Cheers!

  -- Gina

I agree with Donna's comments (and am happy to know her students don't
feel inhibited about raising common-sense explanations), though I do think
her seeing this as "stuck in the same binary" is not helpful.  Not all
binaries have been dreamed up by malicious patriarchs.

My only problem is that Donna seems to be addressing her comments to *me*
and my comments about the importance of material reality, biological facts
(yes, facts), etc. -- as if the social constructionist side of this debate
is not in need of warning about not overstating their position.  As I said
earlier, when social constructionist arguments began to be widely heard
(decades ago), they provided an important analytical and conceptual tool.
But when they deteriorate into challenges (such as those made on this list)
to some of us to "prove" that sexual dimorphism is a biological reality for
our species (and most others), then something has gone awry and what was a
powerful explanatory tool has turned into dogma used to attack anything one
doesn't like and therefore wants to see redone by humans.  So far, in very
significant ways, we are constrained by biology -- including illness and
death.  How we *think* about it, of course, and what we are (are able to do)
in the face of it are different stories.

Judith Lorber wrote, last April, 'it is false thinking to extrapolate from
the "sex differences" research, important as it is for biology, to gendered
social patterns, social expectations, social behavior, and social
institutions.'

 Now who's assuming the "binary"--biology vs. society??  Are we really to
believe that biology does not influence "social behavior and social
institutions"??  Has anyone been to a zoo lately?  Or read Jane Goodall?  Or
is it only humans who are thought, by some folks today, to be entirely cut
off from the natural world?

I'd love to know how common it is for professors of women's studies, when
teaching about sexuality,  to actually include any biology (other than Anne
Fausto-Sterling), any genetics, any cognitive work on sex differences,
except to denounce these as retrograde and superseded by "social
constructionism."

Daphne

---------------------------------
daphne.patai  AT  spanport.umass.edu

In light of the recent discussion on biology and women's studies, I'd like
to recommend a recent publication called _Feminist Science Studies: A New
Generation_, ed. by Maralee Mayberry, Banu Subramaniam, and Lisa H. Weasel
(NY: Routledge, 2001). Contributors such as Caitilyn Allen, who holds a
dual appointment in women's studies and natural sciences (plant
pathology), poignantly articulate the challenges of negotiating
radically different disciplinary cultures. In "What Do You Do
Over There, Anyway? Tales of an Academic Dual Citizen," Allen says:
"My job asks me to be simultaneously a working bench scientist and a
feminist critic of science. ... In short, the narrow focus and intense
effort that is traditionally a part of scientific training actively
mitigates against development of an objective, critical analysis of the
scientific process" (24).

This is a great collection, and as I read it, I thought it should be
required reading for anyone in women's studies and anyone in the sciences
interested in analyses of gender... or even anyone who deals with crossing
disciplines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandra D. Shattuck
shattuck  AT  umbc.edu
research.umbc.edu/~shattuck

In sociology, there is a classic theorem
  "If [people] define situations as real, they are real in their
consequences."
-- W.I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas (1927. The Child in America. New
York: Knopf, p.27)

The "ground" of our lives is certainly material and physiological reality,
but the "surround" of our lives is social reality, and that is constructed
of values, ideology, beliefs, representations, and meanings -- powerful
pressures indeed.

Some standard examples of the power of culture versus physiology are that
people will go hungry rather than eat what is tabooed, that people
undertake lengthy fasts and sometimes die for a cause, that people undergo
all kinds of surgeries in the name of beauty, that people take dangerous
drugs to increase their athletic ability to compete for glory and gold
medals ....

As my vet said, "No cat ever committed suicide by starvation."
Judith Lorber
(social constructionist since I first read Mead and Goffman in intro sociology)


Good statement --
>"Donna M. Bickford" <dbi6066u  AT  POSTOFFICE.URI.EDU>
>
>To argue that theories of social construction ignore "real" experience is
>to ignore the value in recognizing problems as socially constructed, and
>not "natural" or "inherent," and thus amenable to change.

****************************************************************
Judith Lorber, Ph.D.            Ph/Fax -- 212-689-2155
319 East 24 Street              judith.lorber  AT  verizon.net
Apt 27E
New York, NY 10010
Facts are theory laden; theories are value laden;
values are history laden.   -- Donna J. Haraway
****************************************************************

Judith Lorber wrote (quoting someone, I guess):

>To argue that theories of social construction ignore "real" experience is
>to ignore the value in recognizing problems as socially constructed, and
>not "natural" or "inherent," and thus amenable to change.

I'm not sure who she's talking about since the above sentence has no agent,
but I want one last time to clarify  that my statements about how social
constructionism is treated in much feminist literature is not a general
statement about the value of social constructionism period. The above
comment says nothing about which problems are indeed socially constructed
and which not.  It invites a certain confusion and a leap to the view that
"problems" of an unspecified sort simply are *not* inherent or natural.  Of
course, it all depends on which problems we talk about.  In addition, just
because something is 'natural' does not mean it isn't "amenable to change."
Again, it depends on what we're talking about.

 My statements throughout these various discussions are quite specifically a
response to dismissals of biology, hostility to science, overextrapolation
of the perspectives made available from social constructionism, and many
other like attitudes abundantly represented within feminism (and clearly by
people on this list who have responded often with extremely injudicious
comments that truly make one hope this is not what they teach their
students).

Even David Barash, known for his work in sociobiology, has also written many
books about peace and against biological determinism.  But he also wrote,
in a letter to the editor of the NY Times,  January 8, 2001, an appropriate
comment about the misuse of "intermediate cases"  or anomolies [which is
what has precipitated my messages to this list on several occasions].
Responding to an inteview with Fausto-Sterling which once again overstated
the consequence of recognizing anomalies, Barash first acknowledged  (as do
I) the interest in studying "intermediate cases" of all natural phenomena,
including sexuality, and then went on to say:

'Nonetheless, scientists and laypeople alike would be seriously misled if
they were to respond to the existence of rare in-between cases by
questioning the legitimacy, or even the existence, of the baseline
situations from which  these cases depart. Imagine a meteorologist who was
so intrigued with dawn and dusk that she insisted that we abandon the
categories day and night, or that we consider them to be "socially
constructed." '

[Note: Please don't tell me 'day' and 'night'  etc. are indeed socially
constructed because the words are arbitrary creations of humans. l know
that, and so does Barash. That's not what's at issue.]

This discussion began because of apparent attacks on the notion that male
and female are natural, biological facts of our species, notwithstanding
exceptions.  it began with people's enthusiasm for challenges to this fact,
clearly because those challenges are perceived as serving some feminist
agenda.

Since I'm just repeating myself by now, I'll stop.

Until the next round....

Daphne

---------------------------------
daphne.patai  AT  spanport.umass.edu

"Social reality" as described by Judith Lorber, is the other side of
the issue raised by Daphne who said,  "If we refer to something
outside our concepts and language, well, we are indeed referring
to something outside those concepts and language - something
like "reality," or bodily experience (say, of pain), or some other
signified that exists regardless of what we call the signifier that
refers to it.  And trying to get to that reality was precisely what I
was after--since in fact I think feminism is very much dependent
upon some such sense".

Betty Friedan seems to be the most obvious example of this idea
put into practice.  She attempted to deal with something actually
called "the problem that has no name" in The Feminine Mystique
(1963), "the problem" being that a woman was only defined as a
man's wife, etc but not as a person, acting in the public sphere,
and the solution, in short, was for women to go out to work.
Women needed something to account for their feelings of
discontent, and this interpretation of social reality seemed to fit
(for some, at least).

The "social reality" of the world we live in is powerful indeed, whether
it is the reality of traditional norms and values, or of feminist ones
that have replaced them.

Sue McPherson
sue  AT  mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/homepage.html


Judith wrote:
> The "ground" of our lives is certainly material and physiological reality,
> but the "surround" of our lives is social reality, and that is constructed
> of values, ideology, beliefs, representations, and meanings -- powerful
> pressures indeed.

Unfortunately, the traditional norms and values still have the upper hand,
as can be seen from any newspaper, and from the daily lives of many women.
Judith

CASE IN POINT --

Toughness Has Risks for Women Executives

By NEELA BANERJEE

An executive coaching program called Bully Broads tells women that
to succeed, they must become ladies first

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/10/business/10BULL.html?ex=998552669&ei=1&en=8261
 83f3f759cb3d


At 04:46 PM 8/12/01 +0100, Sue McPherson wrote:
>The "social reality" of the world we live in is powerful indeed, whether
> > it is the reality of traditional norms and values, or of feminist ones
> > that have replaced them.


****************************************************************
Judith Lorber, Ph.D.            Ph/Fax -- 212-689-2155
319 East 24 Street Apt
27E      judith.lorber  AT  verizon.net
New York, NY 10010

"If [people] define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."
W.I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas (1927. The Child in America. New
York: Knopf, p.27)
****************************************************************

Donna M. Bickford stated (and was subsequently quoted by Lorber and
others):

> To argue that theories of social construction ignore "real" experience is
> to ignore the value in recognizing problems as socially constructed, and
> not "natural" or "inherent," and thus amenable to change.


I am having trouble with some of the implications of this statement. It
seems to imply that "problems" that can be seen as socially constructed
are not "natural," whereas "problems" or phenomena that are seen as
inherent or innate are "natural" and therefore not amenable to change.
Perhaps I should pick an example of a "problem" that might be on the
minds of many feminists: male dominance in most human societies in most
time periods. Many see this phenomenon as socially constructed. But if
one takes that view is male dominance therefore not "natural"? Well,
what do we mean by natural? Surely it exists and therefore is a
phenomenon arising from nature, right? Does the fact that it derives
from nature (exists) mean that it is not amenable to change? No, in my
view. Many thinkers, such as anthropologist Barbara Smuts for example,
have looked at male dominance and aggression in species close to ours
and concluded that it is all too evident in most times, places and
species, but that nevertheless it is not inevitable in nature, and is
indeed amenable to change. For example, Smuts finds that in some
non human primate groups a greater incidence of female solidarity and
bonding keeps male aggression against females in check. And then there
are the famous bonobo chimps, thought to be closer to humans than any
other species. Their "culture" is female dominated and virtually
non-violent. They may more closely resemble our common ancestor than we
ourselves do, say experts. So that could call into serious question the
notion of male dominance and aggression as inevitable and not subject to
change. But I would argue beyond this that there is also a component of
male aggression that is biologically and chemically based, making males
in our species (and many others) inherently more aggressive **on
average** than females. The fact that I believe this does not make me
like the phenomenon, or accept it as right or inevitable. But I do
believe that it arises from nature. It would be "natural" in that sense,
but not "natural" in the sense of "innately felt to be right." I believe
that the better we understand such phenomena as resulting from a very
complex mixture of biological and cultural influences, the better we
will
be able to change them.

Betsy Keller
elkeller  AT  erols.com

>Elizabeth Keller asks::
>
>Well, what do we mean by natural?

This has been a central question for many, from Wollstonecraft to de
Beauvoir and others. I've found it useful to look to John Stuart
Mill's three essays "On Religion." In "On Nature" he grapples with
that same question. He has noticed that people tend to use the terms
"nature" and "natural" quite freely, and to justify all kinds of
things, from women not having the right to vote,Best to colonization
in India. He concludes that there are three common uses of the terms:

A) all things that exist, which would include plants, animals,
buildings, ghosts and humans;
b) all things that exist without human intervention, which would
include plants, animals, and ghosts, but leave out buildings and
humans;
c) cultural custom, which is by far the most common usage.

This is very similar to the conclusion that de Beauvoir draws at the
end of the first chapter of _The Second Sex_ when she argues that
human beings "are never never abandoned to the dictates of their
nature; they are subject rather to that second nature which is
custom" (36).

Best,

Dr. Ritch Calvin
Instructor of Women's Studies
SUNY Stony Brook
&
Associate Editor, FEMSPEC
mailto:rcalvink  AT  ic.sunysb.edu

[Editor's Note:  The following two messages relate to the "drag queen"
discussion that gave rise to the above discussion.]

I'm showing a video on drag kings in my intro class.  Does anyone
have recommendations for readings on drag performance that would be
accessible to intro students.  I have Female Masculinity by Judith
Halberstam, When Romeo Was A Woman by Lisa Merrill, and The Drag King
Book by Del Lagrace Volcano & Judith Halberstam.

Sharon Snow

Thanks to everyone who responded with suggestions for readings on
drag kings and gender performance.  Several people asked me to share
the responses with the list, so here they are.  For anyone who is
interested, the video I'm showing is XYDrag by Robin Deisher.  You
can order it from Reel Keen Production, P.O. Box  82367, Colombus,
OH. or by contacting Robin at:  jonah22222  AT  cs.com.  We're also
showing it to the university community in conjunction with National
Coming Out Week.

Sharon

"The Multiple Genders of the Court:  Issues of Identity and
Performance in a Drag Setting" by Steve Schacht.  In Feminism and
Men: Reconstructing Gender Relations, ed. by Steve Schacht & Doris
Ewing.

Paris is Burning: How Society's Stratification Systems Make Drag
Queens of Us All."  Steve Schacht.  In Race, Gender & Class, volume
7, #1, 2000 (147-166).

And two other articles and one paper that Steve was kind enough to
overnight to me - thanks again Steve.

And these suggestions from drag king extraordinaire, Dred:
The Drag King Book
by Judith Halberstam and Del LaGrace Volcano
1999 - Serpent's tail ; ISBN:1852426071

Queer Transexions of Race, Nation, and Gender (Social Text, 52-53)
by Phillip Brian Harper, Jose Esteban Munoz, Anne McClintock, Trish Rosen
December 1997 - Duke Univ Pr (Txt); ISBN: 0822364522

Butch/Femme : Inside Lesbian Gender
by Sally R. Munt and Cherry Smith
Cassell Academic; ISBN: 0304339598

Female Masculinity
by Judith Halberstam
October 1998 - Duke Univ Pr (Trd); ISBN: 0822322439

 From Ilene Kalish :  Jyl Lynn Felman's new book, Never A Dull
Moment: Teaching and the Art of Performance. The second chapter, Long Day's
Journey Into the Classroom deals with the issues raised in the classroom when
showing such challenging videos. The essay deals with issues of gender,
transgender, race and more. It might not be exactly what you're
looking for, but
it's highly accessible for students.

And an article by Donna Troka that appeared in Bitch about being a
drag king but Donna wasn't sure which issue.  You can check out back
issues at http://www.bitchmagazine.com.

[Editor's Note: Here are more messages that relate to the
threads in this file]

This is a bit off the path of the burnout thread....though I'm sure burnout
factors in here somewhere for me.  Does anyone have any suggestions about
how to teach gender performativity and gender parody/drag to intro level
students?

Here's a bit of my context:  In my humanities-based intro to Women's
Studies class,  I expose students to texts all semester which exemplify the
differences among women, and right now the focus is on texts which
explicitly theorize, or focus in on, gender performativity, drag, and
multiple sexualities that trouble the hetero-homo binary: Kate Bornstein,
Alison Baker's fiction, Marilyn Hacker's poetry (thanks to Lynn Keller who
introduced me to teaching Hacker).  With Hacker's poetry, students read a
few pages from a Butler essay that replays her argument about gender
performativity in _Gender Trouble_.  I have always used Marilyn Hacker's
poetry to demonstrate gender performance, and since students in the past
wanted a actual text that laid out the concept, rather than just discussing
it, I added this reading to the syllabus.  They get that identity can be
seen as constructed through a series of performances, and that there isn't
an inside essence that our practices then externalize for the world as a
natural expression of gender.  Madonna's video "Express Yourself" was
helpful in class in this regard since identity is constructed there through
a series of performances, in which identity isn't pinned down by any
particular expression.  However, they're really having difficulty with the
role that parody plays--as a kind of parody in which there is no original
source.  That's the sticky point.

I've heard people talk about Susan Bordo as a more accessible source for
gender performativity.  Can someone direct me to a particular essay?  And
more importantly, can someone share classroom activities (popular culture
texts, outside materials) that help bring these concepts home?

Thanks very much--reply either to me or to the list if you think it would
help others.

Rebecca

Rebecca Walsh
Department of English
and
Women's Studies Program
UW-Madison
rawalsh  AT  facstaff.wisc.edu

Rebecca,

This is a dilemma I confronted this semester.  I couldn't find
anything that really addressed what I was trying to get across to my
intro students except Butler and I knew these students weren't ready
to read significant portions of Butler.  Thanks for the info on
things you used.  I do have a suggestion for a supplement to the
texts you are using.

What I used that worked better than I could have hoped was a short
documentary on drag kings called XY:Drag.  The discussion afterwards
was wonderful - it got at all the issues I wanted to address.  You
can get ordering info from reelkeenfilm  AT  cs.com.  We've shown the film
several times on campus and other instructors have used it - always
to great acclaim.

Sharon

****************************************
Sharon Snow
Director
Women's Center
University of Vermont
34 S. Williams
Burlington, VT 05401

sharon.snow  AT  uvm.edu
802-656-7892
802-656-4556 (fax)
****************************************

"Resistance is the secret of joy."      Alice Walker

Hi y'all--

Can anyone direct me to articles, anthologies, books on transgender issues
suitable for an intro WS course? also if anyone is doing research on women,
race, class, and sports (boxing particularly), I am looking for articles to
teach with the film  'girlfight'.

thanks,

Doreen

Impropriety is the soul of wit--Oscar Wilde

-------------------------------------
Doreen Piano
English Dept
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
email: dpiano  AT  ev1.net

I am teaching Leslie Feinberg's Transgendered Warriors in my intro class and
the students love it.  There are also several web sites that I use as
supplemental material, including the International Journal of Transgenderism
(http://www.symposion.com/ijt/index.htm). I especially recommend volume 4,
no. 3, the special issue "What is Transgender" which has essays by several
important researchers, including Anne Fausto-Sterling, Susan Kessler and
Wendy McKenna, and Vern Bullough, as well as Deirdre McCloskey.

Laurie Finke
finkel  AT  kenyon.edu

I think this is a first for them:
The 12/17/01 issue of The Nation has an article by E.J. Graff called "The
M/F Boxes: Transgender Activists May Force Us To Rethink Basic Assumptions
About Sex."

Jane Rothstein,
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of History and
Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University
jr231  AT  nyu.edu
jane_rothstein  AT  mindspring.com

"Racing between mysticism and revolution..."
                     -- Phil Ochs

Doreen,

Some of the material contained within the following may be of help:-
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/TG-OzNZ/files/
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/TG-OzNZ/links
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/trans-theory (List for theoretical
discussion of gender. Archives contained within the files section).
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/trans-academic.html (Trans Academic list
UK based announcement list for tg/transsexual academic topic areas)

Kate Mytanwy
bicycle  AT  nobbys.net.au

At 8:38 AM -0800 12/6/01, Doreen Piano wrote:
> Can anyone direct me to articles, anthologies, books on transgender
> issues suitable for an intro WS course?

Hmmm, the book I'm editing right now (intersex and trans feminisms
anthology) should be ideal for such use, but it hasn't been completed
just yet (I am having trouble selling the project to a publisher
because of its multi-genre, multi-style nature). You can see some
articles and resources on transfeminism at my web site,
http://www.transfeminism.org/ and http://eminism.org/ though...
I also know that many teachers have used articles from my transfeminist
'zine (_Transfeminism: A Collection_) in their classes - the 'zine can
be downloaded as PDF or ordered online at: http://eminism.org/zines/


Emi K. <emi  AT  eminism.org>
(hopes to teach "'zine-making for the academics" workshop)
--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.

[first paragraph deleted]

Also, since there seemed to be a good deal of interest in the topic
of drag, sexual complexity, etc. (you can find that lengthy
discussion archived in the file collection under the title "The
Fluidity of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender"), I thought I'd mention that
the Washington Post had a fairly lengthy article yesterday (Jan. 9,
2002) dealing with drag kings.  It's called "Grrrls II Men" and is
online at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17052-2002Jan8.html .

[rest deleted]

        Joan

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Korenman                  korenman  AT  GL.umbc.edu
U. of Md. Baltimore County     http://www.umbc.edu/cwit/
Baltimore, MD 21250  USA       http://www.umbc.edu/wmst/

The only person to have everything done by Friday is Robinson Crusoe
--------------------------------------------------------------------

              African-American Gender-Bending

I wanted to share an interesting article on the growth of female masculinity
and gender-bending, particularly in the African-American Community....Drag
Kings...

http://www.dredking.com/clippings/VenusAug2002.html


DrTd Gerestant
e-mail: dredking  AT  hotmail.com
web site: http://www.dredking.com/

See me and fellow fabulous gender bending artists in The Hot New Film Venus
Boyz http://www.venusboyz.com/ . Venus Boyz is A FILM JOURNEY THROUGH A
UNIVERSE OF FEMALE MASCULINITY. Women become men- some for a night, others
for their whole lives.
Masculinity and transformance as performance, subversion and existential
necessity. An intimate film about people who create intermediate sexual
identities.

DrTd says : "Always remember to LOVE yourself..."

Listmembers:
I have a student researching a paper on feminist analyses (both
critical and supportive) of drag kings.  While there is a
significant literature on drag queens, drag kings appear to be a
much newer area of study.  I would appreciate any suggestions of
books, articles, MA/PhD dissertations, etc... on this topic.  I will
submit a master list of all resources to the listserve for anyone
else who is interested.

Thank you for your assistance.
Please respond privately to:
LeeRay Costa
lcosta  AT  hollins.edu

///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///
Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Women's Studies
Hollins University
PO Box 9575
Roanoke, VA 24020-1575
p: 540-362-6254
f: 540-362-6286
e: lcosta  AT  hollins.edu
http://www.hollins.edu

Thank you to all the list members who sent me resources on drag
kings and related issues. For those interested, a cumulative
bibliography of suggestions is pasted in below. No doubt it is
incomplete, but still a nice beginning.

cheers, LeeRay Costa, lcosta  AT  hollins.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Resources on Drag:

Drag Kings:

Lily Burana, Roxxie, and Linnea Due, eds.  Dagger: On Butch Women. 
Pittsburgh: Cleis Press, 1994.

Chinn, Sarah and Kris Franklin.  'King of the Hill: Changing the
Face of Drag--Interview with Dred." In Sally Munt, ed.  Butch-Femme:
Inside Lesbian Gender.  London: Cassell, 1998.

Halberstam, Judith and Del LaGrace Volcano.  The Drag King Book.
Serpent's Tail Publishing Ltd., August 1999

Halberstam, Judith.  Female Masculinity.  Durham: Duke University
Press, 1998.

Halberstam, Judith.  "Mackdaddy, Superfly, Rapper: Gender, Race and
Masculinity in the Drag King Scene." Social Text (Fall 1997), pp.
104-31.

Halberstam, Judith. Speaking of Sexuality and Subcultures: A
Conversation with Judith Halberstam. 
International-Feminist-Journal-of-Politics; 2001, 3, 3, Dec,
424-434.

Kroker, Arthur and Marilouise. 1993. "Finding the Male Within and
Taking Him Cruising: Drag King for a Day," Pp. 91-97 in The Last
Sex: Feminism and Outlaw Bodies, eds. A. Kroker, M. Kroker. New
York: St. Martin's Press.

McQuitty, Karmen. MA Thesis, Minneapolis, St.Paul.

Munoz, Jose Esteban. Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the
Performance of Politics.

Senelick, Laurence. The Changing Room: Sex, Drag & Theatre.

Troka, Donna Jean, Kathleen LeBesco & Bobby Noble. The Drag King
Anthology. Haworth Press (at press).

Volcano, del La Grace, and Judith Halberstam. 1999. The Drag King
Book. London: Serpent's Tail.

Robertson, Jennifer. 1998. Takarazuka: Sexual Politics and Popular
Culture in Modern Japan. Los Angeles: University of California
Press.

Drag Queens:

Newton, Esther.  Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Schacht, Steven. "The Multiple Genders of the Court: Issues of
Identity and Performance in a Drag Setting." 1998. Pp. 202-224 in
Feminism and Men: Reconstructing Gender Relations, edited by Schacht
and Ewing. New York University Press.

Schacht, Steven. "Gay Masculinities in a Drag Community: Female
Impersonators and the Social Construction of G¦ Other'." 2000. Pp.
247-268 in Gay Masculinities, edited by Peter Nardi. Sage
Publications, Inc.

Schacht, Steven. "Paris is Burning: How Society's Stratification
Systems Makes Drag Queens of Us All." 2000. Race, Gender & Class. 
7(1): 147-166.

Schacht, Steven. "Turnabout: Gay Drag Queens and the Masculine
Embodiment of the Feminine." Revealing Male Bodies, edited by Nancy
Tuana et al.  Indiana University Press.  In press.

Schacht, Steven. "Lesbian Drag Kings and the Feminine Embodiment of
the Masculine." Forthcoming in the Drag King Anthology, Kathleen
LeBesco, et al (eds.). South End Press.

Schacht, Steven. "Four Renditions of Doing Female Drag: Feminine
Appearing Conceptual Variations of a Masculine Theme." Forthcoming
in Advances in Gender Research (Vol. 6), Patricia Gagne and Richard
Tewksbury (eds.).  Elsevier.

Schacht, Steven. "Beyond the Boundaries of the Classroom: Teaching
About Gender and Sexuality at a Drag Show." Presented at the recent
NWSA Conference.

Related:

Ackroyd, Peter. Dressing Up.

Alderson, David (ed). Territories of Desire in Queer Culture:
Reconfiguring Contemporary Boundaries.

Bullough, Vern L.  Cross Dressing, Sex and Gender.

Butler, Judith.  1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion
of Identity.

Butler, Judith. "Imitation and Gender Insubordination." Inside/Out:
Lesbian Theories/Gay Theories, ed. Diana Fuss.

Butler, Judith. "Against Proper Objects." differences 6.2 +3 (1994).

Butler, Judith. 1993.  Bodies That Matter.

Case, Sue Ellen (ed). Split Britches: Lesbian Practice/Feminist
Performance.

Dickens, Homer. What a Drag: Men as Women and Women as Men in the
Movies.

Ekins Richard and Dave King, eds. 1996. Blending Genders: Social
Aspects of Cross-Dressing and Sex-Changing. New York and London:
Routledge.

Ferris, Lesley ed. 1993. Crossing the Stage: Controversies on
Cross-Dressing. New York and London: Routledge.

Garber, Marjorie. 1992. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and
Cultural Anxiety. Durham: Duke University Press.

Jeffreys, Sheila. Forthcoming Dec. 2002. Unpacking Queer Politics. 
US: Rain and Thunder.

Kuhn, Annette. The Power of the Image: Essays on Representation and
Sexuality.

Lorber, Judith 2001.  "It's the 21st Century -- Do You Know What
Gender You Are?" In An International Feminist Challenge to Theory,
edited by Marcia Texler Segal and Vasilikie Demos, Advances in
Gender Research, V.5, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Lorber, Judith. chapter 4 of my Paradoxes of Gender, "Men as Women,
Women as Men" (Yale, 1994).

MacKenzie, Gordene Olga. Transgender Nation.

Meyer, Moe. 1994. "Fe/Male Impersonation: The Discourse of Camp,"
Pp. 130-148 in The Politics and Poetics of Camp, ed M. Meyer. New
York: Routledge.

Middlebrook, Diane Wood. Suits Me: The Double Life of Billy Tipton.

Rubin, Gayle. 1992. "Of Catamites and Kings: Reflections on Butch,
Gender and Boundaries," Pp. 466-483 in The Persistent Desire: A
Femme-Butch Reader, ed. G. Rubin. Boston: Alyson Publications.

Websites:

Website for Club Casanova, New York City (home of Mo B. Dick and
others)

http://www2.plattsburgh.edu/sociology/ (Steven Schacht's website)

http://www.dredking.com/ (Dred King's website)

www.idke.com (International drag king extravaganza website)

Videos:
"Framing Lesbian Fashion," directed and produced by Karen
Everett


///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///^^^\\\///
Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Women's Studies
Hollins University
PO Box 9575
Roanoke, VA 24020-1575
p: 540-362-6254
f: 540-362-6286
e: lcosta  AT  hollins.edu
http://www.hollins.edu

for a new book on drag kings, go to:

http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=4795&AuthType=2

thanks
donna