Advertisement

Surgically Shaping Sex: A Gender Structure Analysis of the Violation of Intersex People’s Human Rights

  • Georgiann DavisEmail author
  • Maddie Jo Evans
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

We begin this chapter distinguishing sex from gender, while also showing that neither phenomenon is a simple two-category characteristic. We then offer a gender structure analysis (Risman in Gend Soc 18(4):429–450, 2004) of intersex in contemporary U.S. society to show how these binary ideologies about sex and gender problematically shape the lives of intersex people. At the institutional level of gender structure, we focus on how doctors routinely subject intersex people to medically unnecessary and irreversible interventions in an attempt to force them into the sex binary—a process that begins with doctors assessing the person’s gender identity, or attempting to predict it, if the diagnosis occurs at birth. At the interactional level of gender structure, we show how doctors present intersex as a medical emergency to the parents of intersex children. We explain that this style of diagnosis delivery puts parents in a panic and leads them to hastily consent to medical recommendations in order to “normalize” their child’s body so that they fit more neatly into sex and gender expectations. At the individual level of gender structure, we describe how doctors treat intersex in ways that disregards intersex people’s bodily autonomy while violating their human rights. However, as we explain in the conclusion, when intersex people age and learn the truth about how they were treated, they often fight back and crack the gender structure by joining the intersex rights movement in an attempt to challenge the institutional level of gender structure and, more specifically, how doctors harmfully approach intersex. We end with questions regarding intersex advocacy and a call for sociocultural scholars to center race in future intersex studies.

Keywords

Intersex Disorders of sex development (DSD) Intersex activism Medical authority 

References

  1. Carpenter, M. (2016). The human rights of intersex people: Addressing harmful practices and rhetoric change. Reproductive Health Matters, 24(47), 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chase, C. (1993). Letters from Readers. The Sciences (July/August), 3.Google Scholar
  3. Chase, C. (1998). Hermaphrodites with attitude: Mapping the emergence of intersex political activism. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 4(2), 189–211.Google Scholar
  4. Colapinto, J. (1997, December 11). The true story of John/Joan. Rolling Stone, 54–73, 92–97.Google Scholar
  5. Colapinto, J. (2000). As nature made him: The boy who was raised as a girl. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  6. Committee on Bioethics. (1995). Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 95, 314–317.Google Scholar
  7. Committee on Genetics: Section on Endocrinology and Section on Urology. (2000). Evaluation of the newborn with developmental anomalies of the external genitalia. Pediatrics, 106(1), 138–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, G. (2011). ‘DSD is a perfectly fine term’: Reasserting medical authority through a shift in intersex terminology. In P. J. McGann & D. J. Hutson (Eds.), Sociology of diagnosis (155–182). Wagon Lane, Bingley UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, G. (2014). The power in a name: Diagnostic terminology and diverse experiences. Psychology & Sexuality, 5(1), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, G. (2015a). Contesting intersex: The dubious diagnosis. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, G. (2015b). Parents as pawns: Intersex, medical experts, and questionable consent. In Families as they really are (2nd ed., pp. 441–455). W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, G., & Murphy, E. L. (2013). Intersex bodies as states of exception: An empirical explanation for unnecessary surgical modification. Feminist Formations, 25(2), 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreger, A. D. (1998). Hermaphrodites and the medical invention of sex. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dreger, A. D. & Herndon, A. M. (2009). Progress and politics in the intersex rights movement: Feminist theory in action. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies,15(2), 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993, March/April). The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough. The Sciences, 20–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000, July/August). The five sexes, revisited. The Sciences, 18–23.Google Scholar
  18. Feder, E. K. & Dreger, A. (2016, June 4). Still ignoring human rights in intersex care. Journal of Pediatric Urology. Available online http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.05.017.
  19. Foucault, M. (1963). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. New York: Pantheon Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gearhart, J. P. (1996, February 4). Interviewed in Natalie Angier’s “Intersexual Healing: An Anomaly Finds a Group.” New York Times.Google Scholar
  21. Holmes, M. (2008). Intersex: A perilous difference. Selinsgrove, PA.: Susquehanna University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Karkazis, K. (2008). Fixing sex: Intersex, medical authority, and lived experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kessler, S. (1990). The medical construction of gender: Case management of intersexed infants. Signs., 16(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kessler, S. (1998). Lessons from the intersexed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, P. A., Houk, C. P., Ahmed, S. F., & Hughes, I. A. (2006). Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Pediatrics, 118(2), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Looijenga, L. H. J., Hersmus, R., Oosterhuis, J. W., Cools, M., Drop, S. L., & Wolffenbuttel, K. P. (2007). Tumor risk in disorder of sex development (DSD). Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 21(3), 480–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mak, G. (2012). Doubting sex: Inscriptions, bodies and selves in nineteenth-century hermaphrodite case histories. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Money, J., Hampson, J. G., & Hampson, J. L. (1957). Imprinting and the establishment of gender role. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 77, 333–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nakhal, R. S., Hall-Craggs, M., Freeman, A., Kirkham, A., Conway, G. S., Arora, R., et al. (2013). Evaluation of retained testes in adolescent girls and women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Radiology, 268(1), 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Preves, S. E. (2003). Intersex and identity: The contested self. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Preves, S. E. (2005). Out of the O.R. and into the streets: Exploring the impact of intersex media activism. Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender, 12(1), 247–288. (Reprinted from Research in Political Sociology.).Google Scholar
  32. Reis, E. (2009). Bodies in doubt: An american history of intersex. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Warren, C. A. B. (2014). Gender reassignment surgery in the 18th century: A case study. Sexualities, 17(7), 872–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NevadaLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations