About the violent construction of sex as a binary */**
by Antke Engel
For quite a while, intersexed people whose sex cannot be clearly defined as either male or female, have been attempting to make their experiences with cultural taboos, forced normalization and violent medical practices public. Up until the 20th Century they have been classified as hermaphrodites. So-called medical progress has not only pathologized them but has additionally "medicalized" them out of existence.(1) Today they have coined the term "intersex" as a political category, often after having lived for years under a forced sex assignment.
The questioning of the rigid binary construct of sex and compulsory heterosexuality by lgbt- and feminist theory and practice has at least created a limited framework for perspectives and existences which do not fit the sex/gender norms. Nevertheless, there has not yet been any real understanding, knowledge or thoughtful attention been given to those who trouble the dominant reality suggested by the current model of perception.
Limits of perception
The rejection of voice and visibility by the media or book publishers exponentially increases the social ignorance that intersexed people experience in relation to their everyday realities. How can we account for the consistent rejection of the media concerning this subject? Is it so difficult to gain the public's attention because it is not about gaining acceptance for an alleged "difference", but rather because the intersexed cause us to question the "normalcy of the normal"? Even within a feminist context, the readiness to reflect one's own normative standards is limited and makes it difficult to recognize the possible participation of intersexed people within feminist politics and movements. In the meantime, the extensive power differences and heterogeneity among women is emphasized -- thereby denouncing a unified category such as "woman". However, it still seems clear who makes up the category "not-woman". Equivocating the boundaries is a provocation not only to those who are proposing political action in the name of women but also to those whose analyses and perspectives are based on sexual difference. Yet even within queer feminist contexts, where compulsory heterosexuality and normative constructs of sex and desire are a thorn in the side, there is not necessarily a forum for intersex concerns.
It is all too obvious that the feminist media are not interested in genital mutilation as a daily medical practice within modern western societies, whereas - frequently racist leaning - contributions about the "uncivilized" practice of clitoral circumcision and mutilation in some African countries are well entrenched in the feminist repertoire. If they did, feminist media’s calling attention to violent sex normalization which is part of the framework of Western medicine would shed a different light on this ethnocentric discourse and enlarge the whole discussion about a very important aspect of the sexual abuse of children at the same time.
Focusing on the forms of violence inherent within sex/gender relations does not seem to be a priority right now. Rather, the theories about the construction and historical variations of sex and gender are often interpreted coincidently as if there exists individual freedom concerning the power to define sex and gender. Gender is treated as a matter of taste and style, which is performed in variable productions on various social stages. Only the lack of financial or cultural resources is recognized as a factor that limits the individual, whereas the psychological and physical aspects of one's life story or social and/or material sanctions of existence are apparently overlooked. But the talk about individual choice and playful variations is very cynical, if one realizes the medical and social mechanisms of violence used to forcibly remove sexual ambiguity from intersex bodies within a binary frame of reference, Perhaps, the reason for the continuing ignorance about this subject is based on the fact that recognizing this social practice against the intersexed would make us question the liberating promise offered by a non-determinative view about sex/gender.(2)
A queer feminist perspective postulates that the binarity of sexes and genders are neither a natural given nor necessary. It is all the more absurd then, that those who have had sexual ambiguity removed from their body are still overlooked. Reflecting about intersexuality opens up the possibility of showing what an arduous task it is to maintain by means of social technologies the only apparently obvious view, that there are two, exactly two sexes and that it is "natural" to be either a "man" or a "woman". The fact that not many people meet the criteria of the rigid norm is not important since there is a panoply of treatments, beginning with selective examinations all the way to violent medical practices, used to ensure the basic cultural assumption of the binary sex classification. It becomes clear that sex is not merely the result of discursive or psychosocial factors, but is constituted also by means of direct regulation of bodies.
Imposed medical cures
The pathologization of intersex is the other side of the coin imposed by those who wallow in the illusion of being sexually unambiguous and meeting the ideals of the so called normality, the norm. The pathologization can be understood therefore as a rhetorical and practical mechanism, which serves to prevent the binary sex scheme from being questioned. By conceptualizing the phenomenon as an illness and deformity, normalcy is indirectly reaffirmed by means of coming up with alleged "cures." If we look closely at what immense exclusionary effects are kept firmly entrenched by describing it as an illness and requiring a cure, we might also wonder if it would not be an easier task if parents and children would learn to live with sexual ambiguity. In light of the fact that this is still not even considered a possibility, one is left with the firm impression that the regulations controlling sexual ambiguity are not at all in the interest of those affected, but rather in the interest of those who wish to keep the present hierarchy of sexual relations intact so as to prevent any uncertainty.
As intersexed people have organized politically to fight the rigid sex/gender norms, there emerges a different perspective, which explains the historically and culturally variable – though still coercive – functioning of sex and gender as social constructions. This implies that our models of interpreting how intersex is understood must change. Instead of an illness, a pathological deviation, which is a medical phenomenon, intersex can be seen as a social and political phenomenon: a way of being, which at the time is “created” as well as “forbidden” by the binary sex/gender norms.
A whole new way of thinking and living is made possible if one starts with the premise that the binary sex/gender system is a social "ideal" that only a few actually live up to and that the necessity of such an ideal is socially defined. What does this mean with regard to the possibilities and limits of changing the current relations between the sexes? What does it mean if we look for political strategies, not reduced to parody and masquerade but also not limited to a mere recognition based on tolerance towards “the other”?
Acceptance or destabilization?
As far as strategies of public representation are concerned, two approaches can be distinguished: those who make use of minority politics and demand recognition of the intersexed as a specific, socially oppressed group, and those who seek to destabilize the construction of an “ideal” by calling attention to the ambiguity, variability and contradictions inherent in gender and sexual "normality". Between these two strategies a tension exist if not an incompatibility, in that the first is once again producing another identity category – an effect, which is criticized by the second strategy as a problematic homogenization. Nevertheless, it still makes sense from my point of view, to have them placed side by side on the public stage rather than striving to decide between the two or to come up with a synthesis. At least, if one understands politics as a continual discussion rather than chasing the illusion of the one "political truth." Still it is appropriate to reflect on what different effects these two strategies have, what interests they serve, and which audience they are addressing – in order to turn tension into productivity.
The scientific medical division of what was formerly called hermaphroditism into various syndromes subverts the understanding of intersex as social or political phenomena. In keeping with the "divide and conquer" principle, this makes it almost impossible to perceive the oppression and force systematically imposed. To counter this process it might be useful to act under a common name and to create a social group, which allows for speaking subjects rather than medical objects. But once again, any political movement, which intends to define the intersexed as an identity group is creating a "special category" – even if it is justified by the imposed marginalization as “abnormal” within the dominant social structure. Still there is a difference depending on whether this is done through self-empowerment by demanding one's rights or by being classified in a special category. In the latter case those who are in positions of power make use of their privilege of denying or granting rights. If from a marginalized position there is a demand for social recognition, integrity and identity or, if you wish, a denunciation of injury and violent force, this does not mean that these demands are universal, ahistorical or without context, but rather that they answer concrete needs and experiences. They can be supported from a relatively dominant perspective without assuming that everyone must affirm these concepts of recognition, integrity and identity.
The privilege of normalcy
How does one focus critical attention to the ways so-called normalcy functions; how does one develop perspectives of change without confirming the hierarchical structure which maintains the laws and to whom demands are to be addressed? Society's ignorance about intersex refers to more than the embarrassment and uncertainty when confronted with the "Other", with the other to be thoroughly integrated as the "other", without upsetting the existing order in any serious manner. What if however it becomes clear, that the "certainty" of one's own identity is based on the marginalization of other identities? Hopefully, confronting intersexuality destabilizes one's own identity within the deep-rooted binary. It focuses on the power relations and forces used to ensure social uniformity and erasure of ambiguity as a means of maintaining the hierarchical structure of sex/gender relations. That is exactly where the threat lies for the dominant culture – but maybe also the promise of questioning the privilege of normalcy. Only then is there a chance of forming coalitions – and of negotiating differences of interests – among those who feel “comfortable” with the binary sex construct and those who are unable or unwilling to fit in. To understand intersexuality as a product of a rigid binary sex hierarchy, while recognizing it also as a concrete, individual experience and a historical way of existence, offers the opportunity to question and oppose the normative binary sex/gender system.
Notes:
* This article was originally published in: Hamburger FrauenZeitung No. 53, Fall 1997: pp. 26-28 under the title “ene mene meck und du bist weg. über die gewaltsame herstellung der zweigeschlechtlichkeit.“ Translation from German: Curtis Hinkle and Antke Engel; special thanks to Nina Schulz.
** I thank Birgit-Michel Reiter for the conversations we had by telephone and e-mail. Without these thought provoking and intellectual exchanges, I would not have written this article. Although I have been committed to the project of denaturalizing and destabilizing the rigid binary sex/gender hierarchy for quite a while, something had kept me from facing the forms of violence that intersexed people are subjected to. I am grateful for my change in perspective.
(1) Also if one looks at this question from a purely legal point of view, there are simply no hermaphrodites any longer. The law demands that a person is either a woman or a man - - there is absolutely no room for ambiguity.
(2) Which might also explain the current disinterest in rape, sexual abuse of children, pornography and the increasing violence against lesbians and gays whose significance in the construction of gender is rarely discussed.
______________________________________________________________________
Dr. Antke Engel
Gastprofessorin für Queer Theory
FB Sozialwissenschaften
c/o Institut für Soziologie
Universität Hamburg
Allende Platz 1
d - 20146 Hamburg
Tel: ++49 / 40 / 42838-4363
Fax: ++49 / 40 / 42838-4664
antke.engel@uni-hamburg.de
