The Fluidity of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender

PAGE 2 OF 5

Getting back to the original question...

I am a PhD student in Santa Barbara, but I also perform with a drag
troupe, the Disposable Boy Toys.  (You can check us out at
www.disposableboytoys.com!)  Anyway, we are primarily drag kings, but
have a few female members who do high femme drag.  We use the term
"BIOQUEENS" for those members.  The term is related to the trans
community and their differentiation between "trannie boys" and "bio boys,"
for example.

This discussion on gender is quite fascinating.  In terms of work on drag
kings, Del LaGrace Volcano's books have been mentioned, but there is also
Judith Halberstam's _Female Masculinities_.  A lot of exciting work,
thought, and performance is also coming together every year at the
International Drag King Extravanganza hosted by H.I.S. Kings of Columbus,
Ohio.

As far as the Disposable Boy Toys, the lived and performed masculinities
(and femininities) of our troupe vary quite a bit.  Our members are all
queer, but some identify their lived gender as butch, femme, trans, none
of the above, etc.  And their performances do not match their lived
genders necessarily at all.

Thanks for the discussion!
Melanie

 --
Melanie Corn
mec3  AT  umail.ucsb.edu
Dept. of Art History, UCSB

Greetings,

I have been listening to the e-mails re: Using Drag performances for
teaching gender and I, Dred, have been performing as a drag
King/gender-illusionist for 5 and a half years now and have had some pretty
incredible experiences... for me, my darg king shows are not just about
imitating the "opposite sex", it is about crossing  boundaries and freedom
of expression,  Using theatre, dance, cultural  history and humor I have
been playing with gender roles and  social/racial  stereotypes to  hopefully
inspire my audience to think about the complexities or race, gender,
identity, etc...Gender illusioning has become, for me, a path of  being
able, having the courage, and feeling free to express myslef in whatever way
I feel or choose and inspiring others to do the same.

I have been doing drag king makeover workshops at universities, and high
schools, and I have had good responses, especially with the youth,  people
have been open to exploring and talking about gender roles, and how they see
themselves in society...

I have been performing in all venues, but I especially like to perform in
places where people are not used to, or have much experience, with drag...
and by playing  with characters and using music that everyone loves, and
maing people laugh I have gotten people to be open to my drag performances
and workshops....and that is why I will  continue to this work...

Peace,

Dred Gerestant
e-mail:  dredking  AT  hotmail.com
web site:  http://www.dredking.com/
voicemail/hotline:  1-212-946-4475

"Always remember to LOVE yourself..."

I was away for the whole weekend and missed this discussion, but just wanted
to add a point.  Does anybody know about a book I read some years back by
Martin/Martine Rothblatt (an Attorney for the ACLU) called THE APARTHEID OF
SEX?  Rothblatt calls him/herself (which pronoun would be preferred is not
clear) a "person with a penis" currently living as a woman, but also makes
clear that a change back to living as a man may occur in the future.  The
whole book advocates for the idea that people should be free to gender-cast
themselves at will.

  -- Gina

Dear listserv members, I understand that my position on drag , and
transgendered identity is not fashionable currently.  That has never
stopped me, since my feminist positions in the sixties were not
fashionable.  As a sociologist
I view this emphasis is completely  individualist which characterizes Amer.
culture, and unstructural.  I have been pregnant , labored to have two
children, breast fed, was discriminated against for years because i was a
woman in the academic world, undergone an abortion, been raped, am in the
category Judith Herman in her Father Daughter Incest  book calls women with
seductive fathers (I call them  intrusiveo) etc etc.  In short I have lived
the life  most women live in
the US.  Women who suffer female genital mutilation in Sub Saharan Africa,
do not choose their gender, or their sex.  Women who are discriminated in
the labor force because they are women  are not simply performing gender.
In fact the presence of this list demonstrates the viability of the term
women as a group with common interests as women who are involved with
women's studies.  The title "The Women's Movement" is not an aberration.
I may be wrong but it seems to me that those folks who play with being the
opposite sex or gender are childless women who, for some reason, do not
have the experiences most women have.  Remember I am a sociologist and
therefor  do not believe in biological determinism, but rather the
importance of one's location the social structure.  And it is painful for
me to observe the phenomenon of drag kings, given the damage that most men
wreak on the lives of most women, as an examination of the work I have
produced for the past thirty five years shows.  We can not choose our
destiy-we can modify it, but we are not men.  I should say that I am aware
that  butch lesbians dress like men, frequently a vestige of working class
fifties butch femme culture, but one of my friends who was heavy into that
admitted that she was mail identified and was shocked every time she was
discrimated  against on gender grounds.  She didn't want to be helpless ,
incompetent and passive, the way she perceived her mother to be.She said
she would rather be killed than raped, so she knew that was a
possibility.  I aI am also aware that that some women passed as men for
various reasons years ago, primarily economic. it wasn't usually play.

  I agree with Catharine macKinnon who said "It is the unexceptionality of
the victimization of women that is the hallmark of feminist  theory.  My
current research and my life and that of many of my friends show that one
can change  one's sexual orientation.  This is not changing one's gender.
Best, Pauline pbart  AT  ucla.edu

A rising tide lifts all yachts.
            Professor Lani Guanier
            NWSA Meeting, 2000

pbart  AT  ucla.edu  310-841-2657

Pauline Bart wrote:  "In short I have lived the life  most women live in
the US."  While it is true that "most" women in the U.S. (of a certain age)
have had children, it is patently not true that "most" have been raped.  I
continue to believe that these sorts of misrepresentations of women's lot
are a disservice to feminism, which should not have to depend upon gross
exaggeration or plain lies to be viable.

In other respects, I agree entirely with Bart's comments.  The postmodernist
view of gender may be fun intellectually but it seems to me to be an
untenable perspective for a feminist to hold-- it drains the very term
"feminist" of meaning,  not to mention its utter lack of relevance to the
real problems of life here and around the world.

Daphne

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

It is certainly true that being born with a vagina instead of a penis marks
a person for life experiences -- discrimination in the workforce, secondary
status in personal relationships, being on the receiving end of domination
and violence, rape, single-parenthood, etc. -- that constitute a system of
stratification.

At the same time, all the nuanced ways of acting that people imagine
characterize those with vaginas vs. those with penises are culturally
constructed and vary by time and place.  There is no conflict between these
points -- both are clearly true.

Drag is at the intersection of social systemic and personal identity
factors.  For some it is play, and for others it is a working out of very
serious personal identity issues.

Let us not forget that there are many cultures in which more gender
categories than two are very clearly culturally constructed.  Gender isn't
just about vaginas and penises.  It is possible that gender as cultural
construct is becoming more complex in our own culture currently.

My own ethnographic research in part focused on the institution of
woman-woman marriage among the Nandi people of East Africa (though in
variations this custom occurs all over Africa).  Older women who have no
male heirs for their share of family property may make a bridewealth payment
to take as wives younger women of child-bearing age.  The children of the
younger woman inherit the property, and consider the older woman their
father.  The older woman is the "female husband," and Nandi insist that
female husbands become men.  In actuality, people clearly experience
ambivalence about this, but female husbands do gain access to important (as
well as unimportant) areas of social action that are denied to most women --
particularly the unchallenged right to manage their own property.  And with
this goes a shift in personal gender performance.

Gender *is* culturally complex, and how people represent gender is
definitely performative (parts of the Nandi performance are that female
husbands don't shiver, take their beer from the men's pot, and refuse to
carry things on their heads).  At the same time, because Euro-American
culture has historically acknowledged only two genders, in this culture
people with vaginas have never been able to free themselves from the social
consequences of being "women."

I don't think there is a contradiction between these positions; both are
true.

  -- Gina

Regina Oboler's posting reaffirms the old second-wave (and, actually,
earlier) distinction between sex and gender.  How strange that at this late
date that should appear as a clarification.  It seems that contemporary
feminism has gotten very muddled.

Daphne

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

>>Regina Oboler's posting reaffirms the old second-wave (and, actually,
earlier) distinction between sex and gender. <<

I don't agree, and it's my post that is alleged to reaffirm the distinction!
Because we are cultural creatures, our lived experience is entirely about
gender -- there are biological differences between people that are used to
construct gender, but there are far more of them than possession of a penis
or vagina.  They have to do with chromosomal typing of cells, levels of
hormones, a wide range of secondary characteristics besides the most obvious
external ganitalia, one's sense of self, etc.  If it were all about penises
and vaginas, how would it be possible for people with penises to be women
(or a third category of not-men) among Plains Indian groups?  How would it
be possible for the Nandi to assert that female husbands are men?

The point of my post was that *in this culture* historically, the cultural
construction has been people with vaginas = women/people with penises =
men/people with something in between = no category, but we should try to
make them fit one of the two. The Euro-American system asserts 1) there can
be only two genders; and 2) external genitalia are the only criterion for
assigning people to one or the other.  But this is a system of cultural
categories, and other cultures have constructed  other systems.

I hope my post was clear about trying to demonstrate that there is a lot
greater complexity in all this than a simple dichotomy between sex and
gender.

  -- Gina

Regina Oboler wrote:
"The point of my post was that *in this culture* historically, the cultural
construction has been people with vaginas = women/people with penises =
men/people with something in between = no category, but we should try to
make them fit one of the two."

Why all this effort to pretend that only *in this culture* have male and
female been recognized as the main types of humans?  This is in fact true in
all cultures that we know about, and the existence of some anomalies, such
as *among* the Nandi whom  Oboler has studied, just like the existence of
the neonates who present with sexual anomalies about whom Fausto-Sterling
writes (and whose existence, of course, I am not denying), in no way
challenges or undermines that reality.

 I know we've been here before.... but it still amazes me that in the name
of feminism one is supposed to pretend that the vast majority of people in
all societies are not male or female as a fact of biology (as are other
mammals).  One critic commented ironically that the same feminists who argue
that sexual assignment in humans is a social construction have no problems
whatsoever going to a pet shop and asking for a female or male dog.

I continue to believe that this sort of pretense plays a part in the
disinclination of many women (I guess I should say "women") *in this
culture* to identify with feminism.

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

Daphne, with all due respect, you are missing the point.  Yes, Daphne,
people *do* have vaginas and penises -- and so do dogs.  Yes, it is true
that (for the most part) the people and dogs with vaginas bear the offspring
after impregnation by (at least some of) the ones with penises.  I may be
wrong, but I don't think anyone here has said that there are no biological
sexual differences, no male and female humans.  This does not mean that
"sexual assignment in humans is (not) a construction."  Please reread with
an open mind what I and others actually *did* say.  I grow weary of trying
to say the same things repeatedly with different words.

  -- Gina

When people say that sex is a social construction, part
of what they are talking about is the word itself, which is
a signifier for something, and what is included in that
is determined by "society" and the people who make up
dictionaries. (And that's why, if people don't fit, they have
to be made to fit).

I think what one of the problems is, that is causing the
misunderstanding, is that people are coming at these
issues from different points of view and there doesn't
seem to be an acceptable perspective that would take
into account both (or all) ways of looking at it. It makes
sense to me to say "There may be only two sexes, but
that doesnt mean that there aren't some individuals who
don't fall clearly into one or the other" but others might
not think so.

And if we start off from different positions - from the point
of view of our own subjectivity - doesn't it make sense that
we would interpret these things differently?  I think that's
what bothers me with all this talk about drag.  It's often
talked about as though it is the only* way of looking at
gender, instead of being one of many ways.  Other people,
myself included, have given many examples of the
ambiguity of gender without* using the concept drag.

The word sex is only a word, and the meaning of a word or
the way it is used can change over time. That's fine to look
at sex or gender as part of a continuum, but there are
people who self-identify clearly as women, or as men, and
that's fine too. What I think is odd is that many people who
are so determined to have sex and/or gender recognized
as ambiguous or multidimensional are reluctant to do the
same with "sexuality", and still use the rigified terms of
straight, lesbian, gay or bisexual to define themselves.

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

The Sexes: New Insights into the X and Y Chromosomes


>Judith Lorber has recommended that you read an article from The Scientist,
>the News Journal for the Life Scientist.
>
>Please read the article from The Scientist at:
>http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2001/jul/research1_010723.html.
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>The Scientist web site at http://www.the-scientist.com
>is free to all readers. It contains a complete archive
>of articles from The Scientist, including news, reviews,
>opinions, research, and profession news for life scientists
>and all those interested in the life sciences.
>
>The Scientist web site is free, but requires a simple
>one-time registration before you can read individual
>articles.

****************************************************************
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
****************************************************************

Sue wrote:
> When people say that sex is a social construction, part
> of what they are talking about is the word itself, which is
> a signifier for something, and what is included in that
> is determined by "society" and the people who make up
> dictionaries. (And that's why, if people don't fit, they have
> to be made to fit).

> What I think is odd is that many people who
> are so determined to have sex and/or gender recognized
> as ambiguous or multidimensional are reluctant to do the
> same with "sexuality", and still use the rigified terms of
> straight, lesbian, gay or bisexual to define themselves.

I don't think it's odd at all, and your final paragraph is partly explained
by your first.  If I say I'm a lesbian, people will have some kind of
associations with the word--it's a signifier that works, to some extent.
But if I say I'm a woman who currently lives with another woman, is
attracted sexually and emotionally to other women, but who was happily
married to a man for 10 years and occasionally finds herself attracted to
men, but who chooses not to do anything about those attractions for various
reasons....well, you'd have nodded off before I finished my sentence.

Part of the problem stems from people's tendency to assume that fluidity,
performance, and/or construction of identities _also_ imply choice.  Nobody
will assume that I chose to be a woman, but many (in all the important
social and political institutions) still assume that I chose to be a
lesbian.  As a woman, I can get married, have a job, and live in whatever
neighborhood I like.  As a lesbian, I _can't_ get married.  I can be fired
from most jobs if my supervisor simply doesn't want to work with a lesbian
or gay person.  A realtor can legally refuse to sell me a house because she
doesn't want gay people in her neighborhood--and not just in theory or on
some listserv.  I've BEEN kept out of neighborhoods, and I CAN'T marry the
person who is more to me--intellectually, physically, emotionally, and
spiritually--than my legal husband ever was.

The distinctions are politically necessary.  Nobody in North America has
suggested putting people in concentration camps because they're female.
They HAVE suggested this for people who are gay.  Nobody suggests that we
need a genetic "fix" for femaleness, but if they could find one for same-sex
attraction, parents would be lining up for it and churches would help to
finance it (of course, they'd still claim sexuality--mine, not theirs--is a
choice).  Clinging to the rigidity of this part of identity is nothing more
or less than a survival mechanism in a country whose laws _only_ ban
discrimination based on characteristics that a person can't change (except
for religion, of course).

(And as an irritated aside to a different writer: I don't CARE if my
experience is the experience of "most" women.  It's still my experience and
it's still every bit as _real_, and the discrimination against me is still
every bit as offensive as discrimination against any other group of people.
The idea that someone could say that feminists should circle the wagons
against us freaks who don't have children and who want to bring up other
issues besides rape and battering is flat out astonishing to me.  I'm with
you when rape, job discrimination, child custody issues, reproductive choice
and battering are on the table, but I guess you aren't with me when the
issues no longer affect you personally, or if they embarrass you, eh?).

--
Sheryl LeSage
English Department
U of Oklahoma
sjlesage  AT  ou.edu

Thank you, Judith, for calling attention to the article in The
Scientist.  When I read this, I considered posting it on WMST-L, but
then decided against it for two reasons.  First, The Scientist is not a
reviewed journal.  It is pop science, usually pop science for scientists
and usually pop life science.  The writers (many free lance) pick up key
words from the literature - pop topics - and then interview the authors
of the articles.  The results are advertising of selected ideas that
sometimes are important new concepts and insights and sometimes are
merely pop culture.  In the case of this report, facts are not
misrepresented but the opinions about those facts are quite a stretch.
References 2, 3, and 5 are legitimate reports, but none of them would
support statements like, "The differences between females and males
appear like a blurred rainbow of confusion."  The second reason that I
was worried about how WMST-L might respond to this article is that there
are several incautious statements that taken out of context could be
used to support agreements, many of which occur on this listserv, that I
think would concern even the people quoted in this report.

A really important scientifically sound point in the article is:
instead of sex chromosome Y, we should talk about sex gene SRY.  In the
vast majority of humans (please disregard the hyperbole in the
penultimate paragraph of the article), this gene is located only on the
Y chromosome.  In the 4 cases studied in France, there was an ABNORMAL
(there, I said it) chromosomal rearrangement during meiosis that
resulted in the gene segregating to the X chromosome.  Even the author
of this article notes this is not the usual event:  "The differentiation
process in the womb can be affected, however, by genetic problems,
infections, or exposure to toxins, drugs, or maternal hormones"  With
respect to the 4 cases cited, the author was not concise in his remarks
because the genetic problems could not have occurred not in the womb,
rather they occurred when the sperm of the father were being
synthesized.  So sex comes down to one gene that causes testes
development.  Other genes that contribute to testes development,
testosterone production, and eventually sperm production are located on
several other chromosomes, even the X, but those gene and the proteins
they encode are useless unless SRY is present to start testes
development.

So Major Point 1 is that in the vast majority of human cases, males
develop because the SRY gene on the Y chromosome initiates testes
development in the 7th week of gestation.  No Y chromosome, no testes,
no activation of the program of genes that cause penis development, male
phenotype, etc.  In the usual case, if the gene is absent because the
embryo is XX, the program of development initiated in the 7th week leads
to ovaries, estrogen production and the female phenotypes.

Now the amounts of testosterone and estrogen (it is actually the ratio
that is important) produced vary from individual to individual and this
coupled with social processes results in what we probably all agree is
gender.  If we look at the mean estrogen/testosterone values and the
typical Western socialization process, we end up with "women" and "men"
- peaks in a very broad bell shaped curve.  Major point 2:  gender
doesn't construct sex:  the biochemical and social events don't change
the gene content of the individual, which is what is required to change
sex.  An ovary cannot become a testes and a testes cannot become an
ovary unless there are genetic abnormalities.  The biological impact on
gender development is one of degree - not difference.  Like hair is hair
whether it is curly or straight.  All hair requires functioning keratin
genes - variation within those genes causes curly or straight.  With sex
it comes down to ovaries or testes, but the characteristic of gender
that are imparted by these tissues varies widely and is influenced by
socialization processes in an equation that is weighted differently for
every individual.

Regarding the comment, "The default state is merely a sexless one, a
case of dual potential."  This is correct UNTIL THE 7TH WEEK OF
GESTATION.  At that time, irreversible biochemical events take place
that commit the default or sexless cells to a path of ovaries or testes
in the usual case and in the case of genetic abnormalities, no germ
tissues or (extremely rarely) both (hermaphrodites, which in humans are
exceedingly rare).

I have to agree with both what I think Daphne and Sue are saying.
First, sex is just a word but it seems that it would make communication
so much easier if we said sex is the word we use to define whether the
SRY gene is present and functional.  In the usual case this would be an
XY individual since SRY is on the Y chromosome only and sex become male.
 How well other genes that express male-ness function and how
socialization impacts development then becomes the enormously broad
continuum of gender.

Daphne's point (I think) is not to deny that this broad spectrum
occurs; rather I think she argues that to take the cases in which
mutation of SRY or supporting genes - sex abnormalities, in my
definition of sex - and extrapolate to the normal gene pool is not sound
thinking.

Apologies for the length of this and I hope that I have communicated a
desire clarify and not criticize, but as a feminist I think we lose
focus on important issues, not to mention credibility, if we deny some
of these facts.

Ruthann Masaracchia
Director, Women's Studies
Professor, Biological Sciences
University of North Texas
Box 305189
Denton, TX 76203
940-565-2532
ruthann  AT  unt.edu

A friend of mine, a science fiction writer, wrote to me with the following
comment about yesterday's discussion of exceptions to gender norms:

"This notion of cultures creating a "third" sex is very interesting (as
with the female-female marriages);  but it strikes me that this has less
to do with gender than with allowing exceptions to a social structure
within the terms of that structure, when the exceptions are made
economically or otherwise necessary by some special circumstance.  A
sort of social euphemism, a changing of the terminology so that it's
possible to overlook the breaking of normal rules.  I think it says more
about the human ability to cleverly re-define categories in service of
some perceived necessity--and as such is very similar to what these
feminists are doing with re-defining gender.  I.e., it's not proof of
their position, but a manifestation of the same behavior."
--------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Strauss
THE GARDEN OF THE STONE (HarperCollins Eos)
Homepage:  http://www.victoriastrauss.com
Writer Beware:  http://www.sfwa.org/beware


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

I have looked over your response and I am concerned that
you are taking bits out of context from my message and
using them to support your views, and that you have gone
further and attemptd to interpret my experience for me.

"Lesbian" works for you, just as "woman" works for other
people. That's what I was talking about in the paragraphs I
wrote that you ignored.  You have come at this from your
own subjective point of view.  The term lesbian or woman
tells people about you, but it is "lesbian" that tells more,
is what you seem to be saying (ie the sexuality word over
the sex/gender word). That's exactly what I was saying in
the 4th paragraph.

For your information, I am a woman, but I can NOT easily
get married or get a job, or live in whatever neighborhood I
like.  I am as discriminated against as you would possibly
be in a heterosexual environment.  But at least if you are a
lesbian you can get support from the gay community, in the
form of jobs and accommodation.

I agree that the Nazis didn't put people in concentration
camps because they were female, but they did send them
to the gas chambers if they were past a certain age.  They
were automatically judged as being past their prime and
not given a chance.

I have offered a theoretical explanation for the different views
on these issues to do with sex, gender and sexuality.  You
have come back at me with an interpretation that reflects only
your self-interest and political bias.

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

>  As a woman, I can get married, have a job, and live in whatever
> neighborhood I like.  As a lesbian, I _can't_ get married.  I can be fired
> from most jobs if my supervisor simply doesn't want to work with a lesbian
> or gay person.
(snip)
>
> The distinctions are politically necessary.  Nobody in North America has
> suggested putting people in concentration camps because they're female.
> They HAVE suggested this for people who are gay.
(snip)
> Clinging to the rigidity of this part of identity is nothing more
> or less than a survival mechanism in a country whose laws _only_ ban
> discrimination based on characteristics that a person can't change (except
> for religion, of course).

> Sheryl LeSage

Daphne Patai wrote:

> Why all this effort to pretend that only *in this culture* have male and
> female been recognized as the main types of humans?  This is in fact true in

I think "pretend" assumes a sinister agenda that is not present.  Rather,
the question might be, "Why all this effort to look at exceptions to the
rule, rather than at the rule itself?"  "Why spend so much time talking
about people for whom gender or sex is ambiguous and instead of talking
about the majority of people who clearly identify as male or female and
are clearly identified as such by society?"

I think that's a legitimate question, personally.

The first answer is that everything deserves study and curiosity.  Just
because something is small, doesn't mean it's not interesting.  The second
answer is that many of us believe, perhaps wrongly, that by looking at
experiences that are NOT common, you learn important things about more
common experiences.  Of course, one can argue about how much time should
be spent on common vs. uncommon experiences, but that is a question of
pedagogy.  If you are interested in the question of balance, that's one
thing.  If you assert that only the common deserves our attention, that is
quite another.

How could feminists of 18th century Europe have proven that women were
intellectual beings, capable of rational thought, deserving of education?
They argued through exceptions to the rule.  Most social and political
institutions offered essentially the same reply you offer above.  "Those
are exceptions.  Why take those seriously?  We all know that most women
are weak and feeble -- morally, physically and intellectually."
Fortunately for all of us in academia, the daphne patai's of the 18th
century did not ultimately win the historical war.

Because we know from our examination of history that much of what has been
taken for granted about women and men is socially constructed, feminists
tend to be suspicious of commonly held assumptions.  We have a political
and intellectual interest in exceptions to the rule, particularly around
gender.  We did not win what we have won so far by learning about sex and
gender from the "common sense" of our day.  We got here through critical
thought, through taking seriously people who were not taken seriously by
the societies they lived in.  Note that here I am defending a feminist
suspicion of common assumptions about gender; I'm not saying that this
will lead us to truth.  It is possible to suspect that there are more than
two sexes, or that any woman can become a lesbian, or any number of other
things, and to be completely wrong.

But it seems to me that you argue that the question is stupid.  But the
question is not stupid.  It may reveal a frightening lack of serious
science education in the U.S. educational system, but it also reveals
creative and critical thought.

>  I know we've been here before.... but it still amazes me that in the name
> of feminism one is supposed to pretend that the vast majority of people in
> all societies are not male or female as a fact of biology (as are other
> mammals).  One critic commented ironically that the same feminists who argue

I think that given our earlier heated conversation on this very topic, it
is safe to say that this issue is up for grabs, and that there are serious
and committed feminists on both sides of that debate.

However, it's still reasonable for those of us who DO suffer from high
school biology in the US to see this argument won on its merits.  I've
seen a number of great arguments for two sexes based on biological
science.  All you're saying here, however, is that it's a stupid question.
It's stupid because EVERYONE KNOWS that there are only two sexes.  It's
just COMMON SENSE.  Surely you must see the weakness in this line of
reasoning.  It would be intellectual suicide for me to believe that
something is true simply because it is commonly held to be so.  I might as
well stop thinking altogether.  Why bother?  Everything is already known!

> I continue to believe that this sort of pretense plays a part in the
> disinclination of many women (I guess I should say "women") *in this
> culture* to identify with feminism.

That may very well be true.  And if Women Studies were a marketing
campaign instead of an academic discipline, we would probably keep the
drag kinds and the 5-sexes in the closet, eh?  Bad for recruitment.
Opens us up to all kinds of ridicule, especially from former Women Studies
professors.  Unfortunately, we're ask these kinds of questions because
they are actually interesting to us.  Sometimes, they make us look stupid.
Sometimes, we come up with brilliant ideas that will change the course
of history.  A little stupidity is a small price to pay for the joy of
free inquiry and critical thought.


Susan Kane
Reference/WS Librarian
University of Washington, Seattle

I can understand it when you say you like to study these
things - these exceptions to the rule and these ambiguities
 -  and it is thus a sign of your devotion to what academia
is all about.  One question I have, and it is not the first
time I have raised it, is why these "open-minded concerns"
consistently refer only to "drag kinds and the 5-sexes" type
of individuals.  In this discussion, the topics of drag and
sexual ambiguity are emphasized - as being the main
issue - and other examples of gender ambiguity and
exceptions to the rule are ignored.

I think it must have something to do with drag being exciting
and extraordinary, (which it often is) and the fact that drag
puts the issue right out front where it can be noticed, while
the study of other lives (ordinary lives with a gender twist)
might somehow be seen as just a bit boring (and I know
there ican be just a bit of truth to that, too).

The question you ask is not the right question.  Drag is
overtly conspicuous as demonstrating gender ambiguity,
but even men and women who self-identify as male or female,
or as men or women, often experience ambiguity in their
sense of themselves.  My grandmother, who seemed to
attempt to pass as a male author and artist, was one such
person (I have written about her on my website).  Or, people
may not see it in themselves but others, eg researchers, can.
The article "Beer and Tea . . ." that I wrote tells about one
example - the Women's Institute women, who describe
their calendar as "tongue-in-cheek", but an analysis takes the
issues farther.

There is just one other thing: Gender and sex identity (or
roles) can change over the life cycle, in relation to personal
life change as well as through social/historical change. So,
we can talk about "people - what they are", but we can also
talk about peoples' lives, which can include their sex/gender
identity, but within the context of their life.

Any of these ways  - and more - can be helpful in enabling
us to understand ourselves and other people better.

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

> I think "pretend" assumes a sinister agenda that is not present.  Rather,
> the question might be, "Why all this effort to look at exceptions to the
> rule, rather than at the rule itself?"  "Why spend so much time talking
> about people for whom gender or sex is ambiguous and instead of talking
> about the majority of people who clearly identify as male or female and
> are clearly identified as such by society?"
(snip)
> That may very well be true.  And if Women Studies were a marketing
> campaign instead of an academic discipline, we would probably keep the
> drag kinds and the 5-sexes in the closet, eh?  Bad for recruitment.
> Opens us up to all kinds of ridicule, especially from former Women Studies
> professors.  Unfortunately, we're ask these kinds of questions because
> they are actually interesting to us.  Sometimes, they make us look stupid.
> Sometimes, we come up with brilliant ideas that will change the course
> of history.  A little stupidity is a small price to pay for the joy of
> free inquiry and critical thought.
> Susan Kane