Did Alice write that? What?
By Sophia Siedlberg.
25 January 2009
It seems that our deeply beloved Alice Dreger, in between making huge necklaces with pictures of the U.S. president on them, and polishing her large teeth, is now debating the approaches to be taken towards transsexual kids. Believe it or not, this one article of hers, "Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood: Inconclusive advice to parents" seems remarkably unbiased. OK, she does mention her usual cronies. But she does seem to equally present the notion that there are two competing models and approaches, the "Really a homosexual" model we find from Zucker and Bailey et al, and the "Feminine essence narrative" which is supported by the work of Swaab and Zhou etc.
This is not the Alice Dreger I have come to read with both disgust and amusement. This is a strange Alice Dreger from a parallel universe. There is a key reason for my extreme confusion; it is the sight of Alice Dreger, the Alice Dreger, yes the Guggenheim Alice Dreger, the self same one and only Alice Dreger writing what appears to be an equal representation of two competing models of transsexualism. So far all I have heard from Alice Dreger is that all transsexual folks are either autogynephiles or homosexual transsexuals (The BBL model). In fact she has to date defended this particular "Truth" to the point of jumping into bed with the main advocates of this model. Now we find her talking to parents and not really veering one way or the other. Perhaps she is about to admit that Gender Identity, whatever it actually is, is something that cannot be easily predicted, in which case she cannot make proclamations about the gender identity one should expect from certain intersex variations.
Ah yes! Here is the rub. If she admits that infant transsexualism is difficult to define, that is you simply cannot predict how a child will end up, she cannot by any standards hope to predict the outcomes of children with certain intersex conditions. So perhaps she can drop the "All 5 alpha children identify as male" and "All with CAH end up as female" arguments now. Perhaps in situations like that the "accomodative model" (as she puts it) would help, where the child with something like 5 alpha should be left alone and allowed to decide for themselves what they are, let them decide what surgery may or may not be needed.
Has Alice finally got to realize what we at OII are really saying? That ultimately a child will grow and settle upon a sense of self. It may be male or female; it may be contrary to the initially assigned or birth sex. But there is no way one can predict the end result.
If Alice Dreger takes the time to read beyond the sheer rage that she has herself been involved in causing, she will notice that much of her commentary in that last article does tally with what we have been saying all along.
The problem has been her "Change minds not bodies" line of reasoning that in intersex children resulted in expecting intersex children with specific conditions to end up as a specific sex. With 5 alpha she often insisted on a male outcome while with CAH she insisted on a female outcome. I have 5 alpha and am female, Curtis has CAH and is male. Meaning that two public faces of OII are living examples of this unpredictability in terms of intersex. The problem with identity politics has always been that everyone expects a specific outcome in the life of the individual. OII is "trans friendly" and that means we do accommodate transsexual people, because we are NOT mired in identity politics. An important point when you consider that the human condition is essentially unpredictable.
I am inclined to believe that Alice Dreger has simply not got our core message until now, or she has, but is trying to distance herself from the Clarke Northwestern. She openly admits that the "Therapeutic model" (espoused by Zucker et al) causes harm. And she also admits, even-handedly that while there are many children who have what appears to be G.I.D., they may grow up gay. At the same time she does say there are those in whom this will persist, and they will end up as transsexual men or women. The children in this latter group are those who the Clarke Northwestern have basically denied existing.
In OII we have always been aware of this, and have fought hard to defend autonomy. This is perhaps the core issue here. It is not about chromosomes or hormones; it is not about identity politics either, but autonomy.
For the first time Alice Dreger has essentially seen what we are about. We disagree with the arbitrary ideal of the therapeutic model. We also worry about the accommodation model going too far. As she correctly points out Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, despite my own criticisms of her, has illustrated that it is possible to be both therapeutic and accommodating at the same time, provided that the autonomy of the child is always respected. I say this because the child is the one who will have to live with the final outcome. This has consistently been the issue with me. I always felt that during my childhood it was never about gender roles, toy guns or dolls. I never had a female essence narrative. If I did, it never formed the basis of my arguments and certainly not my anger.
But more importantly I have never sought to deny it. I was after all born in between the two sexes, and would have probably veered toward female anyway, and yes I accept that may have been biological in origin. This is why I do not go bashing transsexual folks, or opposing the ideas of Swaab and so on.
What did cause me intense grief, as Alice will be fully aware by now, was the over compensated "male" upbringing which was in my opinion to prop up a social delusion and rob me of my autonomy. What would be so wrong with a kid with 5 alpha ending up as a woman? Chromosomes? What? The truth is people don't do Buccal smear tests on everyone else on every social interaction.
As a result of all this I have always said that the best approach with intersex kids is to avoid surgery and let the child grow and decide who and what they are. It may not be as disconcerting to society as many think. With transsexual kids I think the same probably applies, the idea of using puberty delaying drugs later on (with the child's consent) is a good one. There are some complications which I am painfully aware regarding some of these drugs, but why not research that more fully?
If Alice Dreger understands what I have just said, perhaps she may see OII differently, in which case my invitation is still there, even now after all the rows. Feel free to talk. Also, I will say I will be listening if this is genuine and not some ploy to distance herself from the antics of the Clarke Northwestern. I don't want to talk if she is just jumping from a sinking ship. There is much more at stake than her saving her reputation after one of the most acrimonious controversies in gender political history. And yes if you look at all I have written Alice, I have always left the door open to talk. If you are finally seeing reason, then feel free to talk to us.
For a list of articles by Sophia Siedlberg: Click here
