“Gender-benders”: Sex and Law in the Constitution of Polluted Bodies

Abstract

This paper explores how law might conceive of the injury or harm of endocrine disruption as it applies to an aboriginal community experiencing chronic chemical pollution. The effect of the pollution in this case is not only gendered, but gendering: it seems to be causing the ‘production’ of two girl babies for every boy born on the reserve. This presents an opening to interrogate how law is implicated in the constitution of not just gender but sex. The analysis takes an embodied turn, attempting to validate the real and material consequences of synthetic chemicals acting on bodies—but uncovers that finding a harm in a declining sex ratio depends on a static conception of the human form, based on unfounded assumptions of ‘naturalness’ and ‘normalcy’. Elizabeth Grosz’s theory of ‘becoming’ offers a compelling challenge, essentially pointing to the conclusion that we should find harm where we find illness and suffering and not simply where we find difference. At the same time, we cannot discount the political economy of the pollution: the paper concludes by returning the focus to the role of power, colonialism and the state in the perpetuation of the pollution on the landscape.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ada Lockridge, Health and Environment Committee Chair, Aamjiwnaang First Nation, personal communication, 26 March 2008.

  2. 2.

    Community member comments to the Aaamjiwnaang Environmental Health Symposium, Sarnia, Ontario, 27 March 2008: notes on file with author.

  3. 3.

    The regulation in effect in Sarnia is Air Pollution—Local Air Quality O. Reg. 419/05 under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, RSO 1990, c E19 [hereafter OEPA].

  4. 4.

    In Ontario, it is the OEPA, ss 6(1) and 9(1).

  5. 5.

    Interestingly, Nelly Oudshoorn, in her work on the social and historical conditions under which scientists ‘discovered’ hormones, states that advances in biomedical science “made the invisible visible” with respect to the action of hormones in the body (1994, p. 4).

  6. 6.

    Ron Plain, ‘Exposing Canada’s toxic shame’ event, lecture delivered at the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, 12 March 2008: notes on file with author.

  7. 7.

    These strategies were shared with me by members of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation at the Aamjiwnaang Environmental Health Symposium, Sarnia, 26 March 2008: notes on file with author.

  8. 8.

    The term “hormone-mimics” was made popular through the very influential 1997 book by Coleborne et al., Our Stolen Future, which is said to have done for endocrine disruption what Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) did for pesticides, in terms of inspiring an environmental movement.

  9. 9.

    For a description of the mechanics of endocrine disruption from the perspective of contemporary science, see Solomon and Schettler (2000). For a compelling account of how hormones emerged out of the historically and socially specific conditions of endocrine research environments in the early twentieth century, see Oudshoorn (1994). I am grateful to Mariana Valverde for putting me onto the critical work of Nelly Oudshorrn.

  10. 10.

    Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 22 May 2001, 40 ILM 532 (entered into force 17 May 2004).

  11. 11.

    Langston (2008) also attributes rising “rates of intersexuality” to endocrine disruption.

  12. 12.

    For work on tort law’s treatment of injuries related to interference with a woman’s control over her own reproduction, it is useful to consider the ‘wrongful conception’ suits that have arisen in situations where women sue their doctors for negligent sterilisation or contraception procedures. The challenge for tort law in these cases is, of course, the assessment of damages: a healthy child is born, and yet, a woman is claiming she has been wronged, her right not have an unplanned child has been infringed. Can we assign a ‘harm’ to the birth of a child? (see, e.g., Sheth 2006).

  13. 13.

    Plain, supra n 6.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    See also the work of Dorothy Roberts that exposes how the material conditions of poverty and oppression have limited the reproductive options and choices for poor women of colour who have been “deemed not even worthy of the dignity of childbearing” (1991, p. 1458).

  16. 16.

    As Oudshoorn (1994) demonstrates, since the earliest writing on endocrinology in the early twentieth century, scientists labelled the hormones as ‘female’ or ‘male’. Today scientists recognise that hormones do not belong to one sex or the other, and yet the labels persist because they serve as a form of cultural shorthand. Our understandings of endocrine disruption, predictably, invoke these binary categories in popular representations.

  17. 17.

    In fact, both Grosz and Butler (1993) have endorsed a “corporeal” feminism.

  18. 18.

    As Anne Bottomley has noted, these assumptions have been fundamental: “knowledge of ourselves and of our world, has been predicated upon binary constructs of…male/female” (2002, p. 127).

  19. 19.

    These data were presented by Sharilyn Johnston and Ron Plain at the Aamjiwnaang Environmental Health Symposium, Sarnia, Ontario, 27 March 2008: notes on file with author.

  20. 20.

    This is also true of other feminist scholarship, e.g. Anne Bottomley has argued that with respect to its image, its use and its appearance, “there is an important sense in which the body morphs” (2002, p. 127).

  21. 21.

    In Butler’s words, “matter has a history (indeed, more than one)” (1993, p. 29).

  22. 22.

    As Conaghan’s work reveals, there is a parallel here to Catharine MacKinnon’s groundbreaking analysis of tort law’s impotence for remedying sexual harassment (1979).

  23. 23.

    “It is precisely because we are interested in the social, the cultural, the historical, and the political forces shaping subjectivity or identity that we need to turn again, with careful discernment, to those discourses, once rejected by feminists and political activists, that place the body in the larger cosmological and biological orders in which it always finds itself” (Grosz 2004, p. 3).

  24. 24.

    As Bottomley urges, “we have to be willing to engage more directly with the corporeal, sexed and therefore differentiated, body rather than remain within the seemingly safer region of cultural representation, construction and encoding of gender” (2002, p. 144).

  25. 25.

    For a fuller description of this dynamic within feminist legal scholarship, see Bottomley (2002, p. 129).

References

  1. Balsamo, Anne Marie. 1996. Technologies of the gendered body: Reading cyborg women. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barker, Elizabeth. 2008. A world without men. Whole Life Times, February. http://www.lime.com/magazines?uri=wholelifetimes.com/lime/2008/02/healthyliving0802.html. Accessed 18 Sept 2009.

  3. Bender, Leslie. 1990. Feminist (re)torts: Thoughts on the liability crisis, mass torts, power and responsibilities. Duke Law Journal 37: 848–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bender, Leslie. 1998. Tort law’s role as tool for social justice struggle. Washburn Law Journal 37: 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bloom, Anne. 2009. Sex, bodies, torts. Unpublished manuscript, on file with author.

  6. Bottomley, Anne. 2002. The many appearances of the body in feminist scholarship. In Body lore and laws, ed. Andrew Bainham, Shelley Day Sclater, and Martin Richards, 127–148. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, Paul. 2007. Man-made chemicals blamed as many more girls than boys are born in Arctic. The Guardian, 25, 12 September.

  8. Bullard, Robert D. 1993. Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bullard, Robert D. (ed.). 2005. The quest for environmental justice: Human rights and the politics of pollution. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: The discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chamallas, Martha, and Linda K. Kerber. 1990. Women, mothers and the law of fright: A history. Michigan Law Review 88: 814–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chilton, Janice, Rikuo Doi, Lovell Jones, Devra Davis Lee, Hillary Stainthorpe, and Pamela Webster. 2007. Declines in sex ratio at birth and fetal deaths in Japan, and in US Whites, but not African Americans. Environmental Health Perspectives 115: 941–946.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chunn, Dorothy E., and Dany Lacombe. 2000. Introduction. In Law as a gendering practice, ed. Dorothy E. Chunn, and Dany Lacombe, 2–18. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Colborne, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers. 1997. Our stolen future: Are we threatening our fertility, intelligence and survival? New York: Plume.

  16. Cole, Luke W., and Sheila R. Foster. 2001. From the ground up: Environmental racism and the rise of the environmental justice movement. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Colihan, Mary Ann. 2008. Chemical valley: Aamjiwnaang First Nation in Sarnia sounds alarm over toxins. CBC News In Depth. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/health.html. Accessed 18 Sept 2009.

  18. Conaghan, Joanne. 1996. Gendered harms and the law of tort: Remedying (sexual) harassment. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 16: 407–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Conaghan, Joanne. 2002. Law, harm and redress: A feminist perspective. Legal Studies 22: 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Conaghan, Joanne, and Wade Mansell. 1993. The wrongs of tort. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cranor, Carl. 2006. Toxic torts: Science, law and the possibility of justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Davis, Angela. 2008. Racism, birth control and reproductive rights. In The reproductive rights reader: Law, medicine, and the construction of motherhood, ed. Nancy Ehrenreich, 86–93. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Engels, David. 2000. Injury and identity: The damaged self in three cultures. In Between law and culture: Re-locating legal studies, ed. Lisa C. Bower, David Theo Goldberg, and Michael Musheno, 3–21. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Erikson, Kai. 1991. A new species of trouble. In Communities at risk: Collective responses to technological hazards, ed. Stephen R. Couch, and J.Stephen Kroll Smith, 11–30. Peter Lang: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Global Community Monitor. 2006. History of the bucket brigade. http://www.bucketbrigade.net/article.php?list=type&type=74. Accessed 18 Sept. 2009.

  26. Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile bodies: Towards a corporeal feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Grosz, Elizabeth. 2004. The nick of time: Politics, evolution and the untimely. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Grosz, Elizabeth. 2005. Time travels: Feminism, nature, power. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Howden, Daniel. 2007. Toxic chemicals blamed for the disappearance of Arctic boys. The Independent, 12 September. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/toxic-chemicals-blamed-for-the-disappearance-of-arctic-boys-402077.html.

  30. Howe, Adrian. 1991. The problem of privatized injuries: Feminist strategies for litigation. In At the boundaries of law: Feminism and legal theory, ed. Martha Albertson Fineman, and Nancy Sweet Thomadsen, 148–167. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hubbard, Ruth. 1997. Abortion and disability. In The disability studies reader, ed. Lennard J. Davis, 187–202. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jain, Sarah. 2006. Injury: The politics of product design and safety law in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jain, Sarah Lochlann. 2007. Cancer butch. Cultural Anthropology 22: 501–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Krupp, Staci Jeanne. 2000. Environmental hazards: Assessing the risk to women. Fordham Environmental Law Journal 12: 111–138.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kukla, Rebecca. 2005. Mass hysteria: Medicine, culture, and mothers’ bodies. Lantham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Langston, Nancy. 2008. The retreat from precaution: Regulating diethylstilbestrol (DES), endocrine disruptors, and environmental health. Environmental History 13(1): 41–65.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lazarus, Richard J. 1997. Fairness in environmental law. Environmental Law 27: 705–739.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Luke, Timothy W. 2000. Rethinking technoscience in risk society: Toxicity as textuality. In Reclaiming the environmental debate: The politics of health in a toxic culture, ed. Richard Hofrichter, 239–254. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. MacDonald, Elaine, and Sarah Rang. 2007. Exposing Canada’s chemical valley: An investigation of cumulative air pollution emissions in the Sarnia, Ontario area. http://www.ecojustice.ca/publications/reports/report-exposing-canadas-chemical-valley/attachment. Accessed 18 Sept. 2009.

  40. Mackenzie, Constance A., Ada Lockridge, and Margaret Keith. 2005. Declining sex ratio in a First Nation community. Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 1295–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1979. Sexual harassment of working women. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Martin, Aryn. 2009. “Your mother’s always with you”: Material feminism and fetomaternal microchimerism. Resources for Feminist Research forthcoming.

  43. Mellor, Mary. 1997. Feminism & ecology. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mitchell, Gary. 2004. Predominance of female babies on Niue Island—a sign of endocrine disruption? Journal of Rural and Remote Environmental Health 3: 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mittelstaedt, Martin. 2008. Humanity at risk: Are the males going first? Globe & Mail, F4, 20 September.

  46. Mostafa, Randa M., Z. Mirghani, K.M. Moustafa, Y.M. Moustafa, and M.H. El Hefnawi. 2007. New chapter in old story: Endocrine disruptors and male reproductive system. Journal of Medical Sciences Research 2: 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Nolan, Donal. 2007. New forms of damage in negligence. Modern Law Review 70: 59–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nye, Jennifer L. 1998. The gender box. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 13: 226–256.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Oudshoorn, Nelly. 1994. Beyond the natural body: An archeology of sex hormones. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Prialux, Nicky. 2004. That’s one heck of an “unruly horse”! Riding roughshod over autonomy in wrongful conception. Feminist Legal Studies 12: 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Roberts, Dorothy E. 1991. Punishing drug addicts who have babies: Women of color, equality and the right of privacy. Harvard Law Review. 104: 1419–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Scott, Dayna Nadine. 2008. Confronting chronic pollution: A socio-legal analysis of risk and precaution. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 46: 293–346.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sheth, Darpana M. 2006. Better off unborn? An analysis of wrongful birth and wrongful life claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tennessee Law Review 73: 641–666.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shildrick, Margrit. 1997. Leaky bodies and boundaries: Feminism, postmodernism and (bio)ethics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Solomon, Gina M., and Ted Schettler. 2000. Environment and health: Endocrine disruption and potential human health implications. Canadian Medical Association Journal 163: 1471–1476.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Steingraber, Sandra. 1991. We all live downwind. In 1 in 3: Women with cancer confront an epidemic, ed. Judy Brady, 36–48. Pittsburgh: Cleis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tremain, Shelley. 2002. Theoretical perspectives on the construction of the gendered body and disability. In Head, heart and hand: Partnerships for women’s health in Canadian environments, ed. Penny Van Esterik, 455–486. Toronto: National Network on Environments and Women’s Health.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Verchick, Robert R.M. 1996. In a greener voice: Feminist theory and environmental justice. Harvard Women’s Law Journal 19: 23–88.

    Google Scholar 

  60. West, Robin. 1988. Jurisprudence and gender. University of Chicago Law Review 55: 1–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. West, Robin. 1997. Caring for justice. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Witting, Christian. 2002. Physical damage in negligence. Cambridge Law Journal 61: 189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Witting, Christian. 2008. The house that Dr Beever built: Corrective justice, principle and the law of negligence. Modern Law Review 71: 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper has been in the works for a long time. I was inspired initially by an invitation from Mary Jane Mossman, Director of the Institute for Feminist Legal Studies at Osgoode Hall Law School, to present some of my empirical findings from my study of environmental health and the Aamjiwnaang First Nation at one of her trademark Feminist Fridays events in Fall 2007. Since then, too many people to name have contributed. I benefited tremendously from a workshop entitled Critical Perspectives on Environment and Women’s Health, held in Toronto on 29 January 2009 and sponsored by the National Network on Environments and Women’s Health. I would like to thank all participants, but this work has been influenced most through productive exchanges with Anne Bloom, Sarah Lochlann Jain and Stu Marvel. My friends and colleagues Roxanne Mykitiuk and Ruth Buchanan agreed to read Grosz with me, and despite the fact that life intervened and we didn’t actually get together on that patio over wine to discuss her work last summer, I am still indebted to them for agreeing. If they hadn’t, I would have continued to push these books to the side. My partner Adrian Smith, as always, was my most insightful and creative critic. Funding for the research has been provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dayna Nadine Scott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scott, D.N. “Gender-benders”: Sex and Law in the Constitution of Polluted Bodies. Fem Leg Stud 17, 241–265 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-009-9127-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Canadian First Nations community
  • Chemical pollution
  • Endocrine disruption
  • Feminist theory of the body
  • Gendered harm
  • Political economy of pollution
  • Tort law