Deconstructing the Color of Bread
31 October 2008
Opinion and commentary by Sophia Siedlberg
It is often very difficult to figure out the intent behind what is being said when someone gives a talk or a lecture and someone else in the media reports on it. This is certainly true of a website called "The Brown and the White" where what appears to be an in-house reporter named Lara Kovant is covering a talk about "intersexuality" given by a psychology PhD student named Matt Malouf. The problem I have with this type of coverage is determining who is responsible for a given opinion expressed in the final article. As this is also an example of norm born discussion and victim silence. (Sorry, that is the way I see it.) Perhaps I need to address this article in the full.
Kovant starts with:
"The controversial practices of sexual assignment and re-assignment were addressed by Matt Malouf, a Lehigh doctoral student in Counseling Psychology, in a talk held Monday in the Multicultural Center.
The Intersex Society of North America defines intersex as a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male."
It is evident that Kovant has not been keeping up. ISNA was disbanded in mid 2008, they were "replaced" by Accord Alliance, who many intersex people regard as insignificant. The reasons for this are complex but ISNA had such a damaged reputation Cheryl Chase (alias of Bo Laurent) had to close ISNA's doors and start afresh with the Accord Alliance.
Kovant Continues:
"Malouf completed his undergraduate studies at Johns Hopkins University, where the groundwork for disorders of sex development was first developed.
He has since focused his studies on the quality of life and its relation to mental health.
Malouf, a Ph. D. student with a masters of Education in Counseling and Human Services, said it's important to know that it's not as simple of an issue as some make it out to be.
Disorders of sex development are still rare, which may explain why issues surrounding such disorders are unknown to many, he said. Malouf focused on the effects of advocacy on standards of sexual assignment practices. He said often people who aren't in touch with the larger issues of sexuality don't know too much about this topic."
Here we find it gets a bit confusing. Is Malouf a "DSD" activist or is Kovant a DSD activist, or are both of them DSD Activists? And perhaps more relevant, are either of them people with a "DSD"? Malouf is right that people who are not in touch with the larger issues of sexuality do not know much about this topic. DSD activists know nothing about this topic, because anyone affected with a "DSD" gets ignored by them.
I am an intersex activist and I do know the subject very well, unlike DSD activists.
Here is the first quote from Malouf:
"Other sexual identities, such as lesbian and gay, are incorporated into people's lives, but intersexuality may or may not be relevant to someone's identity,"
Meaning that intersex people are actually considered unimportant if they do not integrate into the LGBTQQXYZ ghetto. Then Kovant continues with perhaps the most blatant example of norm born claptrap in action I have ever read, but at least it is honest:
"He also discussed intersexuality as a socially constructed identity.
Confusion may arise between sexual assignments for children and sexual re-assignments for adults. Malouf said some research suggested 95 percent of adult patients who underwent surgery for sexual reassignment were happy with the end result. But other research suggests that the psychological functioning of these people had not improved.
This is what led to Hopkins' clinic ending the practice of sexual re-assignment.
Hopkins still performs sex assignment surgery for infants diagnosed with a disorder of sex development."
Let's now translate that into plain English, (for those who don't know what is being discussed). They ban sex surgery on consenting adults but they still inflict it on children who don't consent to it, and if the child grows up objecting to it, well there is nothing the individual can do about it because as adults, any surgery to undo the damage will be banned. The word sadistic springs to mind. You will also notice the very clever insertion of the phrase "Social Construct" that is used to de-legitimize the experience of someone who was a victim of such repugnant policies.
Kovant further quotes Malouf:
"Malouf said there's been a long history of politicizing the issues surrounding disorders of sex development, and some have taken advantage of those diagnosed."
Like a bunch of radical lesbians setting up ISNA for example? What has Radical Lesbianism go to do with being intesexed? Nothing!
Kovant quotingMalouf:
"According to Malouf, disorders characterized by sex development range from being unnoticeable, to sometimes life threatening if not properly treated.
The treatment for such disorders includes genital surgery, the removal of reproductive organs, medical treatment and/or hormonal treatment, but Malouf said that what's often missing is counseling for families, children and adults.
Since there are a limited number of cases, it's hard to conduct efficient experiments that provide clear answers regarding the practices of sex assignment. Part of the problem is that issues surrounding intersexuality are branded as shameful and often go unaddressed, said Malouf."
Well what is not mentioned is the fact that the shame and secrecy derives from policies where a child can be subjected to all manner of medical malpractice, but as an adult can do nothing about it.
Kovant quoting Malouf:
"He emphasized the importance of the role of counselors and said our society today is more open. Because of this, it's not necessary to conform to pressures of exploiting affected individuals."
It is the same type of “stitch-up reality” counselors who tend to make a lot more money when adults are denied access to medical treatments to undo the damage caused by previous medical "treatments". And counselors are made very rich by being paid to "listen to" victims of such malpractice but actually cause nothing to happen. Isn't that exploitation?
Perhaps Kovant and Malouf can explain this bit to me more clearly. I may have missed something because what I have just read can be summed up thus:
Society mutilates intersex kids while calling them a rare and freakish sex disorder. Then society makes sure that if the child grows up disagreeing with that surgery or the assigned "sex", they can do nothing about it, because surgery to undo it is banned. All they can do is pay huge sums of money to counselors and simply suffer the damage society has done to them, and the more distressed they are, the more money the counselors get. And this is not sadism and exploitation.
Right, I see! Well, as a victim of unwanted surgery as an infant,who had the damage undone surgically and who considers much of the mental health profession to be a money grasping joke, I think you will understand why I find that little publication by Lara Kovant irritating to put it mildly. What I was put through without consent was real, not a social construct as decreed by a bunch of misinformed lesbians running an organization that pretended to represent intersex people but turned out to represent "Radical Lesbians" and a bunch of psychologists with Mickey Mouse degrees at the CAMH and Northwestern University.
All they want to do is abuse and exploit intersex people.
Oh Well, at least they are being honest about it now.
