Intersextionality

A paper about the systems of oppression affecting sexed, intersexed, and gender-different persons in a hetero-normative, male/female binary-oriented-only society.

Martha Joy Rose – MALS
CUNY, The Graduate Center
Author Notes
This paper is being submitted on December 22, 2014, for Linda Martin Alcoff’s Feminist Texts and Theory Class

“Make arguments about what is wrong. Envision a way forward”
Ellen Feder

Abstract

The language of difference is real, distinct, and affects us all in one-way or another. Likewise, the subject of intersex could be just another conversation in a world of physically articulated bodies – of which no two are exactly the same. The subject of “intersex” and “intersextionality” raises many concerns within current constructions of dominant ideology. Mainstream medical science is informed by a hegemonic discourse focused on limiting narratives of idealized bodies, and families. Ellen Feder’s book Making Sense of Intersex and Cheshire Calhoun’s Feminism, The Family, and The Politics of the Closet monitor the hetero-normative binary construction of the male/female paradigm epitomized in the media and bourgeois notions of a dominant discourse. I aim to examine restrictive patriarchal and punitive influences using texts from Anne Fausto-Sterling, and Barbara Katz Rothman, while proposing ways that education coupled with Helen Longino’s call for “pluralistic” scientific theories and practices might prove liberating. Finally, I argue for systematic disruptions of hegemony through collective interventions on gendered consciousness through an introduction of more nuanced paradigms.

Introduction

A family shuffles into a waiting room. The heavily pregnant woman and her lesbian partner anxiously peruse the space for an empty spot. A lively woman inserts herself into the carefully situated circle of black plastic chairs and claps her hands. She welcomes the group. Everyone settles. The lively woman quickly identifies herself as the group facilitator and asks the participants to fill out nametags. The people in the room represent a diversity of races, classes, and genders. Everyone smiles and begins the process of describing why they are there. When everyone in the circle has spoken the leader calls the meeting to order. The subject of intersex is introduced. “There are so many kinds of bodies,” the leader explains. “Our goal is to move from fear to freedom. Intersex is just one of the many variations of atypical sex anatomy.”

The scene I just described is a utopian meeting. But, in reality it would not be particularly difficult to organize. Practically speaking, it is something many more parents should have access to. But this is something that is essentially missing from our American pre-birth landscape. The language of difference is real, distinct, and affects us all in one-way or another. Likewise, the subject of intersex could be just another conversation in a world of physically articulated bodies – of which no two are exactly the same. Yet, this is not the way contemporary Americans are viewed within the medical and scientific community.

Science is informed by a hegemonic discourse focused on limiting narratives of idealized human beings living within idealized families. These constructions are, and should be up for scrutiny. Ellen Feder’s book Making Sense of Intersex and Cheshire Calhoun’s Feminism, The Family, and The Politics of the Closet monitor the hetero-normative binary construction of the male/female paradigm epitomized in the media and bourgeois notions of a dominant discourse. These author’s texts suggest potentially nuanced possibilities for those willing to intellectually challenge the gender status quo. Both Feder and Calhoun identify how history has perpetuated “normalizing practices” that are destructive to those they are practiced on. They promote an agenda of activism for sex identity and political rights. The authors struggle with the critical and complex role parents play in children’s experiences of normalization (Feder Pg. 11), as well as the fact that society (and medicine) promote only two natural, non-pathological sex/gender categories (Calhoun Pg.18). Different obstacles are represented at each of these intersextions. The more complex and different, the more the aim becomes to limit, constrain, manage, or medically intervene in order to reduce the dissonance. I aim to examine dominant ideology’s restrictive patriarchal and punitive influences using texts from Anne Fausto-Sterling and Barbara Katz Rothman, while proposing ways that education coupled with Helen Longino’s call for “pluralistic” scientific theories and practices might prove liberating. Finally, I argue for systematic disruptions of hegemony through collective interventions on gendered consciousness through the introduction of more nuanced paradigms.

The Arguments Presented By The Authors

To illuminate the arguments presented in this paper I introduce the conditions described by Feder and Calhoun respectively in their books. The first condition (or state of being) is intersex. Feder’s book, Making Sense of Intersex begins with an imperative. She identifies the ethics of dealing with sexual difference as the problem of our time (Pg. 2). According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (2000) a child born with ambiguous genitalia is considered a social emergency. Undetermined sex, hermaphroditism, CAH, and other intersex conditions can express themselves in a multitude of ways, but in each case “typical” male/female genitalia are complicated by appearance, size, duplication, or deformity. Statistics vary but estimates offered by Feder include 1 in 2,000; 1 in 4,500, and 1.7 per 100 (Pg.211). Her book depicts the history of medical interventions performed on children who have been born with such conditions, or who have been harmed because of the ways in which their genitalia do not correspond to “norms” thus making them candidates for surgical interventions of gender “correction.” In many cases these corrections have been hurtful to the individuals they have been practiced on. In the chapter “In Their Best Interest” Feder relays the stories of children who underwent corrective surgeries on their genitalia in an attempt to normalize them into one sex or another; either male, or female. These surgeries were strongly advised by the doctors performing them, and sanctioned by the parents, who desperately wanted the best for their children (p. 48-62). The reported trauma, pain, concealment (of the condition), and feelings of being “raped” (Ruby’s Story) are tragic and leave lifelong scars, both literally and figuratively. However, despite the interventions, in most cases, there are no clear villains. Neither parents, nor the doctors are depicted as terrible people. It becomes difficult to assign blame to the medical practitioners individually therefore we must look to the bigger picture. The perspective that dominates the landscape of medical science for example in the section called “Ruby’s Story,” the mother describes, “[those] performing genital surgeries” as “not intend[ing] to harm. On the contrary, it was their firm belief that genital surgeries were essential to the healthy psycho-sexual development of a child born with atypical sex anatomy” (pg. 55). But, deeper explanations of our understanding of what Feder calls “the imperative of normality” (pg. 45), are that sexual difference, meaning two sexes, male and female (only), “provide order for our world, and our place in it” (p. 46). From this perspective we begin to see just how threatening anything beyond the “normal,” “usual,” and explainable might be.

Feder employs ethnographic methodology throughout her book demonstrating the destructive results of “normalizing practices” for those whom they are practiced on, but also the confusing terrain parents navigate when sexed identity is less than straightforward. Whether normalization reflects a cognitive resistance to difference, or a socialized construction of imposed regulation at the core of ethical interrogation, we must attempt to understand that resistance and regulation before we can employ solutions. Feder describes at length the experiments of John Money in the 1950s-60s who was involved with research and surgery on hundreds of intersex babies. These cases had mixed, and often devastating psychological results. One of the most public cases is the account of David Reimer who was assigned “female” after a botched circumcision. The theories employed by Money erroneously conceived of sex/gender as only socially constructed, which reflects an arrogance and rigidity that we now recognize as problematic for those with atypical sex (p.38). Oppression takes a different manifestation in Calhoun’s assertions. She cites hetero-hegemony as a source of oppression that is rooted in heterosexual marriage and its foundational place with the U.S. system among other things. In both cases subordination to rigid social constructions regarding sexed and gendered behavior leads to (arguably at its most extreme), suicide, or shame (Feder Pg. 66), and at the least, a feeling of subordination, oppression, and a lack of political agency (Calhoun. Pg. 47).

Calhoun situates lesbians and gays outside normative behavior. She argues they are forced into hetro-normative, hegemonic social-constructions that marginalize and displace them. This displacement from mainstream society is seen as punishment (Pg. 159). She cites the ways in which lesbians are: 1) excluded from the hetero-normatively constructed dominant feminist discourse, 2) envisioned as “outlaws to the family” (Pg. 131), and are politically disenfranchised with regard to marriage. In both Feder’s account, and Calhoun’s arguments the repression of authenticity, agency, and political rights are sanctioned and supported by the medical/political establishment. The medical community and Western culture itself are invested in maintaining what has been prescribed as the male/female ideal. There are many reasons for this, but for the purposes of this paper I will provide three examples. Anne Fausto-Sterling points to “inheritance, legitimacy, paternity, succession to title, and eligibility for certain professions to be determined,” as the reason “Anglo-Saxon legal systems require[ing] newborns to be registered as either male or female” (p. 4). Similarly, Feder cites the American medical community’s concern that a “doubtful sex [is] a threat to the social body” (p. 23). Barbara Katz Rothman contends that American society is rooted in three dominant ideologies: patriarchy, technology, and capitalism (1989, p.27). It is within these ideologies that babies, “become a part of the high-tech medical world” which sees them as perfect, or imperfect products. Imperfect products should be fixed to conform to the dominant ideologies of perfection, which corresponds to either the boyness or a girlness of a child, not both. While Fausto-Sterling refers to a legalistic reality, Feder cites the social threat. Rothman refers to a system in which we live and act and must conform so that the system will continue to function optimally. In every case psychological and social harm is done. Each author raises ethical questions regarding the treatment of non-normative states of sexed or gendered being within the context of Western culture and the systems, namely the medical community, that maintains it.

Next we must examine the critical and complex role parent’s play in children’s experiences of normalization (Feder Pg. 11). Feder and Calhoun struggle with, and focus on, the fact that there are only two natural, nonpathological sex/gender categories (Calhoun Pg.18). This presents limitations to the range of expectations a parent might envision for her new child. It might be posited that pre-birth discussions might offer some area for introspection that could accommodate difference as it applies to sex. For example, what if prospective parents were prompted with exploratory, gender-nuanced discussions that encouraged an environment of acceptance for not only a male or female baby, but also a gay, intersexed, disabled, or non-normatively presenting child? What would that look like? How could expectations and fear be disassembled from the ground up with support, encouragement, friendship, and acceptance? My utopian suggestions might seem far-fetched, but Anne Fausto-Sterling writes about “multiple sexualities” in a “world of shared powers” with a new “ethic of medical treatment” that would “permit ambiguity in a culture that had overcome sexual division” (p. 5). Therefore this utopia might be worth exploring in the context of this discourse. It occurs to this author that there is no existing environment where these kinds of potentialities can be shared, supported, and nourished. The natural pressure a parent feels to conform to hegemonic constructions of perfection materialize as almost unbearable and create a burden of unmanageable proportions. I am remembering my own pre-birth jitters and the panic I felt over not only manifesting a perfect birth, but a perfect child. While many texts attempt to wrangle the cause of “sexed conditions” as hormonally implicated, chromosomally influenced, and cellularly complex, what we are primarily concerned with at this juncture is the action taken with regard to the orientation of the child. This includes the actions parents, medical professionals, and society at large, with its rules, laws, policies, politics, and appropriations manifest. As Feder points out in Making Sense of Intersex, the way a sexual organ presents, or does not present itself can be a source of confusion and dismay for parents expecting simply the birth of either a boy, or a girl.

Understanding Sex and Gender

Sexed identity should be understood as the biological presentation of orientation, whereas gender should be understood as the behavioral representation of orientation. Rebecca Jordon Young summarized scientific appropriations according to brain science as a determinant of “gay brains” and “straight brains” although her book Brainstorm goes on to debunk many such generalizations by offering examples of poorly orchestrated experiments, without consistent metrics. However insights provided by her book suggest that behaviorally speaking “sex partnering” may provide clues to human sexuality, which she identifies as “the most strongly sex-typed of all human traits and behaviors” (Pg. 53). While this does more to complicate things than to clarify them, it does give reason to pause. Helen Longino writes about understanding the process of scientific inquiry itself and situates it as a social phenomenon. In this she and Jordon-Young are aligned. The account of “The Flaws of the Science of Sex Difference” simply put, states that perspective and positionality influence outcomes. The experiments scientists’ conduct as well as the content of many things we call “scientific” demonstrate as much about the people conducting experimentation as the people being experimented upon. From this perspective, and from Longino’s call for “feminist virtues of science,” which includes “favoring models that incorporate mutual rather than dominant-subordinate relationships” requires each of us to identify the ways in which doctors within a medical framework are influenced by each other (p. 44). We must also examine the institutions they work in, and the dominant societal ideology. It could be argued, that generally people should ask more questions of those whom we perceive to be in charge.

The subject of “intersex” raises many concerns within current constructions of dominant ideology. The notion of “intersextionality,” which is a reconfiguration of Kimberle` Crenshaw’s feminist sociological theory, is more than just a play on words. It is the suggestion that just as race, class, and gender must be explored at the intersection of oppression, those who do not conform physically to typical sexual orientation(s) present an entirely new and complicated category. Their biological representations must be accorded that complexity and be recognized as key to their problematic status within the medical establishment, and society in general. Just as Crenshaw insisted that “the intersection of racism and sexism factors into Black women’s lives in ways that cannot be captured by looking at the race or gender dimensions of the experiences separately” (p. 1244), the intersex person can be prone to violence of a different nature. The intersex person is born into a multi-sexed reality, biological ambiguity, mental-gender orientation, and sexual-gender orientation. In other words, these illustrate a minimum of three main “intersections” within intersextionality: the way one’s body is constructed, the way one’s mind is constructed, and the way one’s desires are constructed. Within these groupings are even more complex subsets. (See more from Anne Fausto-Sterling, 1993). To understand these intersextions, there must be a reckoning in the midst of socializing factors and medical procedures, which can be construed as violent with regard to the person they are being practiced on. The violence is determined according to the degree of non-normative qualities, since the goal is normalcy. In cases that involve cutting; obsessive attention to intimate parts of the self, and surgical decisions made on behalf of the person, with little or no input from the person who is being manipulated can equal aggression of the worst kind. It is often unwanted and experienced as a violation or even as a rape. (p. 49).

Challenges

In this section I explore how basic rights are transgressed when children/adults present in non-comformative ways. These “differences” pose challenges for the individuals and the people who care about them, as well as the establishment, which is trying to “fix” the problem. It is important to note that certain intersex medical conditions do require some kind of treatment, but Feder asks whether these need to be normalizing treatments, or just the kind of medical help that deals with the dangerous aspects of the condition? Feder points to CAH, “a condition that in some forms poses grave dangers to an individual’s health” (p.21). However, appearance and “normalcy” have often been emphasized over practical fixes that would support a person living with an undetermined sex. After presenting a number of ethically questionable stories of coercive-type behaviors that comprise the early history of medical interventions on intersex (Chapter 5) Feder turns to philosophizing. Citing Aristotelian epistemologies she conceptualizes how a parent’s desire to protect a child from pain may not always be in that child’s best interest. She shares the story of Sonia, Elias, and Shai. Shai was born with CAH (p. 165). Shai’s parent’s demonstrate how knowledge imparts power, and emphasize the importance of parent’s learning to resist standardizing medical practices. CAH is a condition in which children (mostly female) present with ambiguous genitalia, and adrenal issues, to greatly simplify a complex condition. In this section of the book Feder describes how this family consulted with multiple doctors and ultimately resisted surgery that would remove sexual arousal through clitorectomy. They seemed to realize that they needed to empower their daughter to become strong enough to claim her own future. In this case Feder describes the importance of assigning agency to families, or more accurately, a family’s insistence on claiming on agency for themselves and their offspring. This is what I was suggesting at the opening to this paper, and on page 9 when I stated that we may want to ask more questions of those whom we perceive to be in charge. This is also what Longino means when she speaks of “feminist virtues of science” (more about this soon). Claiming one’s authority over one’s actions is important. It is especially important to consider that the people making decisions about their bodies should be the people whose bodies are being decided upon.

In the case of Shai, we have potentially a positive example. In some cases this may present challenges. A few of those examples might be: 1) if families are unable or unwilling to embrace educated responses, 2) if families lack the resources financially or socially to support their decisions, 3) if the child has other issues complicating these kinds of decisions; for example a severe mental or psychological, or other additional physical condition. Feder presents multiple scenerios throughout her book Intersex, which is as much a medical account as an ethnographical one. Her genuine focus on “variables” as malleable conditions of our physical reality rather than ultimate deciders, offers much opportunity for ethical introspection. Likewise Cheshire Calhoun suggests numerous applications of gendered sexuality and performance.

Cheshire Calhoun’s focus is on a politics of feminism, lesbianism, gay rights, and gendered equality, and the way in which certain ideologies are enacted through legislation. Her book points to understanding “which liberties lesbians and gays really need most in order to be fully equal citizens” (p. 159). She is seeking to establish the “not-woman” as a fully legitimate other form of human who must be recognized as oppressed and unrepresented within the public/private sphere. Feder and Calhoun construct their arguments to represent different ages, and stages, in different arenas. Feder is concerned with very private discussions about “privates,” while Calhoun focuses largely on life in the public sphere. She promotes an agenda of activism for sex identity and political rights. She argues passionately for a third sex claiming, “Lesbian difference was originally made conceivable and representable through the image of the third sex” (Pg. 73). She relays depictions of lesbianism as a “woman with a touch of the hermaphrodite, the male soul trapped in a female body” (Pg. 68). We now know that such descriptions are only attributable to some individuals, not an entire grouping, however this medical assessment from 1868 demonstrates the ambiguity, confusion, and distinctly out of-bound-ness  of difference. Such descriptions at minimum facilitate Feder’s suggestion regarding the philosopher’s need “to make arguments about what is wrong, and why, and to envision a way forward” (Ellen Feder. Pg. 10), and support Calhoun’s call for deconstructing “definitional authority” for the purposes of moving a more inclusive agenda forward (Pg. 131). My focus has been to establish a few of the ways in which intersex, lesbianism, and other assertions of biological, sexed, and gendered differences challenge the hetero-normative assumptions as they are presented in Ellen Feder and Cheshire Calhoun’s books. In order to move the discussion forward I utilize Barbara Katz Rothman’s work to identify the ways in which patriarchy, technology, and consumer capitalism help to construct a dominant discourse that impacts birth, children, and sexual identity. I conclude with Helen Longino’s call for openness and feminist thinking that argues for disruptions of hegemony through collective interventions on the scientific and medical establishment. Each of the authors featured in this paper have invited us– the public, the citizens, the mothers, and the fathers, the students, and the doctors– to do so as well.

Solutions

Author Barbara Katz Rothman identifies patriarchy as a key construct within existing systems of medical intervention. Normalizing practices envision children as perfect/imperfect products within a capitalist construct. If this is true then science’s investment may not just be to expand its practices and save lives, but also to maintain the status quo. In this manner doctors who perform interventions on intersex children justify their actions. She argues that the “accumulation and investment of capital, by people who are in a position to control others” is the essential feature of capitalism (p. 65). She goes on to point out that, “Under capitalism, workers do not own or control the products of their labor.” In the case of parents birthing children, who may not conform to the established dominant sex-type, namely boy, or girl, this alone could be the doctor’s justification for reparative action. Feder argues in Foucauldian terms citing “normalization” as the “theoretical shorthand to signify the pervasive standards that structure and define social meaning” (p. 33). As enforcers of these standards doctors are empowered and encouraged to use “punitive” force to maintain dominance over the “non-conformists” (p. 35). Rothman is also particularly concerned with the technological aspects of modern society, especially as they manifest in the medical establishment. Within this establishment people are reduced to objects; broken or whole, who are intended to perform labor. In the case of our Western Society, this labor includes work, marriage, and conformity to hetero-normative identities. Anne Fausto-Sterling writes “Western culture is deeply committed to the idea that there are only two sexes (p. 1) and she goes on to describe great punishments for those who did not either behave in a single sexed way, or refused to conform. Feder, Fausto-Sterling, and Rothman have demonstrated how dominant ideologies constrain the individual, as well as mothers’ and fathers’ power. I have pointed these out through Ruby’s Story, David Reimer’s case, and through the general gist of their texts. Feder continually raises questions about sexed identities and society’s limiting perspectives about them. These limiting perspectives are not left uncontested by Feder alone. A great many authors struggle to posit other possibilities that might expand our definitions and conditions. Calhoun proposes a third sex in her book Feminism, the Family and Politics of the Closet. Anne Fausto-Sterling argues that “The Five Sexes” are not enough in her article “Why Male and Female Are Not Enough.” Rebecca M. Jordon-Young conducts rigorous examination of studies conducted on brain science, and sex-difference. She acknowledges that, “Human sexuality is particularly complex because it involves additional layers of intention, self-concept, and elaborate social constraints” (p. 53) all this is in addition to intersex biological manifestations. It should be noted however that the labeling of multiple identities has been successfully leveraged within the LGBQT community for the purposes of awareness, agency, and activism (Calhoun, p. 117). We could easily add “A” for androgynous, “I” for intersex, and “U” for undetermined, without too much of a stretch.

Although intersex conditions affect a proportionally small percentage of the population, the issues raised by those with intersex conditions allow us to examine the ways in which gender essentialism and the complexities of sexed identities express themselves. Jordon-Young asserts that it is difficult to identify clear constructions of sexed identity located within the brain, and it is also difficult to deconstruct how non-normative gendered identities might proliferate if individuals were liberated from sexed constraints. It is possible that thoughtful meditation, philosophical reasoning and increased education focused on these topics may lead to improvements. Helen Longino proposes that science, while privileging itself with “objective standards” is actually anything but objective. She argues that the practitioners of science set themselves up as being non-political, but that their thinking, theory, and praxis, all reflect a political point of view. The socio-political perspective is often layered in values like “order” and “economic competitiveness.” While a feminist theory might include values of “diversity” and “equality” which she argues are given “lip service” but not truly espoused (p.54). She advocates for a “pluralistic” approach to the theory and practice of the sciences, and even calls for a “tyranny of the majority” which is not meant to encourage the hegemony but diffuse it by reassigning power from the few to the many. Her interest in, “feminist practical virtues” are aimed at “favor[ing] theories and models that can be used to improve living conditions in a way that reduces inequalities of power” (p.54). Longino’s ideas would fit nicely alongside the articulations of the authors presented in this paper. In each case– the case of every book and idea discussed within this text on Intersextionality (and the systems oppressing, and affecting sexed, intersexed, and gendered persons within our hetero-normative, binary-only-oriented society)– conditions of varied, differing, nuanced, and complexifying persons are presented as an alternative to a constrained ideological discourse on sameness. These are used framing real life stories; current and past medically established procedures, theory, and introspection regarding alternative possibilities. The conclusions in the case of Feder, Calhoun, Jordan-Young, and Longino, all point in the direction of Katz-Rothman’s assessment in her final chapter of Recreating Motherhood, titled “Beyond Gender.” She writes, “In turn, we can treat our children as people in their own right, as individuals, and not as property or extensions of self” (p. 260).

I conclude this paper by arguing for ongoing systematic disruptions of hegemony, and collective interventions on gendered consciousness. The language of difference needs support and traction. We can introduce new concepts through education, online forums, and academic papers. Such treatment of the subject can open dialogues introducing more nuanced paradigms such as Calhoun’s call for a third sex, or Fausto-Sterling’s reminder that “sex and gender are best conceptualized as points in a multidimensional space” – and that they are changing and can change again. (p. 22). Ellen Feder makes the point that critics of “normalizing, corrective surgery have mounted campaigns” (p.70) with reports of incidents of more doctors questioning whether “prevailing standards of care for those of atypical sex anatomies [are] a violation of ethical principles” (Pg. 68). Similarly, with regard to same sex-marriage legislation, as championed by Calhoun, there is progress towards legitimizing responses in many states with legislature either up for debate, or laws enacted that support same sex marriage. Progress is sometimes possible. First we must understand the problem. Then we must examine the challenges. Lastly, we must envision and enact change. Longino acknowledges, as do I, that this may not be an easy, or neat way to go about creating change. She notes that “cognitive anarchy” may precede pluralistic knowing, but contends that there is little in science that is redemptive now with regards to diversity, so why not just go for it (p. 55)– A bold declaration. But, each of these authors, as well as the parents who have wrestled within the marginal spaces of a society that poses limiting constraints upon those who are “different” require new ethical treatments, infused with insightful generosity. We may seek the solidarity of community and the mantle of our tribe, but each of us is comprised of a set of circumstances and biological compositions that are unlike anyone else’s making us essentially unique. Therefore equal rights, as well as equal justice, should apply for all genders, sexes, and intersexes. Those who might attempt to constrain those differences on behalf of patriarchal dominance, ideological norms, or capitalist imperatives must be denied. I hope this paper has done something to encourage ongoing conversation by aligning the arguments that are supportive of many different sexes and sex differences. Intersextionality requires the dismantling of systems of oppression within a hetero-normative, male/female binary-oriented-only society. I applaud the formation of support systems, and call out for communities to cooperate. I encourage the avoidance of destructive medical interventions in cases where normalizing procedures dictate protocol.

Bibliography

Calhoun, C. Feminism, The Family, and The Politics of Gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1993). Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. Social Difference.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (March/April 1993). The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough. New York Academy of the Sciences.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (July/August 2000). The Five Sexes Revisited. New York Academy of the Sciences.

Feder, E. K. (2014). Making Sense of Intersex. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana Press.

Jordon-Young, R. (2010). Brainstorm; the Flaws in the Science of Sex Difference. Boston, NY: Harvard University Press.

Rothman, B. K. (1989). Recreating Motherhood; Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s