the ch!cktionary

    28 Jun 2010

    One year ago in the West Village for New York City Pride. In keeping with this past weekend’s theme, here’s a selection of queer-related programming on The Chicktionary:

Who Does The Queer Agenda Represent?
Why I’m Against Gay Marriage (And Marriage In General)
Bruno: A Social Experiment Or A Queer Travesty?
An Open Letter To The Human Rights Campaign

Hope y’all enjoyed the festivities!

    One year ago in the West Village for New York City Pride. In keeping with this past weekend’s theme, here’s a selection of queer-related programming on The Chicktionary:

    Hope y’all enjoyed the festivities!

    18 Jun 2010

    ashleybethard asked: Lena, I've been a fan and follower of your blog for some time now, and in light of sickening news, I'd like to know: what do you think about the "sanctioned genital mutilation at Cornell"? I mean, how could something like this happen? I'm also interested in the backgrounds of the young girls who underwent this procedure — for example, their socio-economic backgrounds, family structure, where they live, etc. Any thoughts on any of this?

    I’ve been asked by several readers to address the accusations of female genital mutilation at Cornell University, where a pediatric urologist by the name of Dix Poppas conducted clitoroplasty (removing part of the clitoris) on patients with larger-than-average clitorises. Poppas was dealing with a very young subject group, unlikely mature enough to offer proper consent, especially considering the questionable post-op sensory testing that also took place (and could potentially prove traumatizing). The study, which involved 51 patients from 4 months to 24 years old, was made up of 32 subjects under 2 years old, five subjects 2 to 5 years old, and eleven subjects older than 5. In fairness, Poppas was attempting to perfect a “nerve-sparing” alternative to the sensation-destroying clitoridectomy procedures commonly used to treat these cases. But these operations were not medically necessary in the first place and carried the risk that sensation could be adversely affected, if not altogether eliminated.

    Yet after reading Dan Savage’s column and the original article by Alice Dreger and Ellen Feder that inspired his piece, I’m struck by the disproportionate amount of outrage directed at the doctor and the parents of the patients. I say “disproportionate” not because I don’t think this is a serious issue, but because stuff like this happens all the time, on a daily basis, and no one labels it “mutilation”. (I take issue in general with the label of “female genital mutilation”, but hang tight, I’ll address that later.) Savage writes that the doctor is “carving up” “what he judges to be oversized clitorises”, but this makes it seem like what was happening was based on Poppa’s subjective whims. In fact, most of these patients (46 out of the 51) suffered from congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition associated with ambiguous genitalia and clitoromeglamy, which can sometimes make clitorises resemble small phalluses. (Look it up on Google for illustrative examples). In other words, this was not some maniacal mad scientist carrying on experiments Human Centipede-style without any reason. Of course, this doesn’t excuse what happened and it doesn’t make it appropriate to operate on minors based on normative ideas of what constitutes proper-looking genitalia. But let’s not sensationalize the situation: in the eyes of the parents, this was presumably alarming enough for them to sign off on their children participating in the study.

    Frankly, the least interesting part of the whole thing, in my opinion, is the sensory testing that has captured so much controversy. In follow-up appointments with parents present, researchers applied a vibrating device resembling a Q-tip to patients’ clitorises in attempts to measure the sensations detected. As Lindsay Beyerstein noted on the WAM! list-serve discussion, news reports describing this instrument as a “vibrator” conjure up lurid images of phallic-like objects and Rabbit sex toys a la Sex and the City. Not only is this inaccurate and unnecessarily sensationalistic (similar devices are used post-operation in other medical procedures), but it completely detracts from a meaningful discussion of the situation at hand. It may be “developmentally inappropriate” to subject young patients to this procedure, but it doesn’t make one a pedophile, pervert, or child molester, as Poppas has been called. His behavior is, however, highly ethically problematic and reminiscent of our all-too-recent-medical-past when intersex people were trotted out before teams of med students who sought to treat them for their “abnormal” genitalia.

    And that’s what I find most problematic — not “What were the adults thinking?” or “Is the doctor a sex-crazed loon?”— but the idea that there is such a thing as “normalcy”, as in the “normal clitoris” or the “normal female body”, and that any deviation from that is something to be studied and corrected, even if the patient can’t adequately consent and even if it might be traumatizing. It is well-established within medical literature that invasive exams — really, more like inspections — have caused some intersex patients extreme psychological stress. (How an internal review board ever thought this treatment was appropriate, I have no idea.) And though the huge outcry over the study at Cornell seems to indicate that the public will not stand for forced “corrective surgery”, I wonder just how loud the outcry would be if it were made transparent that at least some of the patients exhibited ambiguous genitalia. In fact, there isn’t a single mention of the word “intersex” in either of the above linked articles. I suspect that if this story were publicized differently, if say, instead of describing patients as “little girls” (who were in the minority of the participants) but as “intersex infants”, there would be some critics who would be perfectly okay with putting children through these procedures. I don’t say this to be transphobic, but rather to point out that there are different cultural expectations when the “abnormality” being dealt with has to do with gender identity.

    This is all a really drawn out way of saying that it would be really easy for me to cry outrage at this incident and condemn all those involved (including the parents — who have been lambasted by some commenters as “sick bitches”), but I think people underestimate what it’s like to be in their position. It is incredibly difficult to be confronted with an “abnormality” in your child, and parents often defer to the advice of doctors and experts, not out of irresponsibility, but out of concern. Usually, these decisions are made with the belief that “normalizing” the body is in the child’s best interest. FGM, for example, is prevalently practiced in some places precisely because it’s, well, prevalent and because girls who aren’t circumcised are in the minority and later viewed as undesirable brides of lower social status. And because these girls grow up in cultures in which women are still beggars and not choosers when it comes to marriage arrangements, then being subjected to FGM could, in a really misguided sense, be considered in their “best interest”. That’s why Western activists confront so many barriers in trying to change FGM abroad; even calling it “mutilation” implies that parents are purposely abusing their children for the heck of it, but there are deep cultural roots to the phenomenon.  I’m not saying this is the right thing to do, and I’m certainly not excusing this behavior, but calling the doctors and parents involved “criminals” is really not going to solve anything.

    Nor does it make any sense to call this “female genital mutilation” simply because it’s the clitoris that’s being operated on. FGM is not just defined by a bodily organ but by the cultural and religious motivations behind the ritual. The Cornell study, though appalling in its own right, was not meant to purposely inhibit sexual function, and it was certainly not meant to prevent promiscuity or to promote cleanliness (common reasons for FGM in some African societies). Taking your kid to scientists for an experimental procedure because of a perceived abnormality is not the same as slicing off clitorises en masse because it’s what has always been done. If we’re going to draw FGM comparisons, let’s talk about the far more common practice of male circumcision, which affects sensitivity and arousal, yet occurs as a matter of routine in hospitals. Few people would likely call it “mutilation”, though there is no medical necessity for it. The typically cited benefits — hygiene and HIV prevention — are dubious at best, especially in the context of developed nations, where condoms and soap are readily available. I’ve been quite vocal in my criticism of circumcision in the past, but I wouldn’t call its modern practice comparable to FGM, which is very much about controlling sexuality. (Though the original reason circumcision became prevalent is because it was believed to reduce masturbation.) I make these qualifications because I don’t want to minimize the experiences of those who have undergone FGM and because there’s no need to resort to sensationalization to see that these operations are illogical. Now back to the patients at hand.

    I would go so far as to argue that any sort of cosmetic surgery done for the sake of an aesthetic preference is questionable since it exposes the patient to all the risks of the procedure without medical necessity. (And this applies as much to breast augmentation and Lasik as it does to clitoroplasty.) In this particular case and in the case of circumcision, most of the patients are not even at an age when they can offer their meaningful consent. When it comes to infants, any altering of sexual organs is completely premature and occurs before said individuals can form a gender identity or anatomical preference. It is also most definitely nonconsensual and decided for individuals under the paternalistic assumption that parents not only know best, but that they essentially own a minor’s body. (The same reasoning applies to age-of-consent laws that restrict everything from abortion to alcohol.)

    Having no say in medical decisions is a problem that intersex folks have been grappling with for pretty much all of medical history, and I’m glad this case is drawing some more attention to that. But like I said, I wish these articles could be explicit about the fact that this is about our society’s inhumane and inadequate knee-jerk response to gender ambiguity. It’s not about stifling female sexuality and it’s not about oppressing women. It’s not about “female genital mutilation”, as so many outlets, including Alternet, insist. Those are all problems in the world, but they do not apply to this situation. By mischaracterizing the Cornell case, those who are trying to draw attention to it are willfully ignoring the far more complex and difficult situation facing intersex people.

    More burning questions? Ask them here.

    12 Jun 2010

    Random factoid: despite having lived in the Boston area for FIVE years, I have never actually managed to make the annual Pride festivities.I’m so lame for missing this once again, but if you’re in Boston, the Parade is happening right about … NOW. So go! Here’s the schedule for the rest of the weekend.

    Some European cities schedule Pride for July, but alas, Berlin’s will be over by the time I arrive. Oh, well. I think there’s enough queerness in my day-to-day life ;)

    Previous editions of Pride: Boston Youth Pride 2008, London Pride 2008, New York City Pride 2009

    11 Jun 2010

    Who Does The Queer Agenda Represent?: A Mini-Rant

    As regulars on this blog might know, I often point out that feminism’s lack of inclusivity and its historical apathy toward marginalized women has hurt the movement and is something that this generation needs to actively work against. Over the past year, I began to feel the same way toward the Queer Establishment, whose emphasis on obtaining marriage equality and repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell seems really misplaced, since there are far more pressing issues that affect the queer community but which do not command the same lobbying or funding power.

    On one hand, it’s great that the Affluent Coast-Dwelling Gay Man is today the loud and proud cultural trope with which mainstream America is familiar — way more positive a stereotype than the historical portrayal of queer people as sexual deviants and perverts.  But on the other hand, there are countless others who do not pick out wardrobes for straight dudes for a living, who cannot safely come out in their community, and who struggle alone with internalized homophobia and its consequences (depression, substance abuse, etc.) Those are the people whose interests are not represented when the educated, upper-middle class, white, male-identified leaders of the queer movement fight for things like the right to ship queer people abroad to kill and die alongside their straight comrades. Queer people who are trans, immigrants, poor, etc. are drowned out by the Wills, Stanfords, and Carsons. While I do appreciate the significance of symbolic victories and visibility, those in the frontlines in the fight for equality clearly prioritize certain interests over others and often form these interests from a position of relative privilege.

    And yeah, I still think it’s ridiculous that sickening amounts of money are being poured into the marriage lobby. Honestly, what are y’all fighting for here? If I were queer (hell, I’m not queer and I still feel this way), I would rather be “separate but equal” rather than align myself with a failed institution whose primary historical purpose has been to police wombs and trade women like cattle.

    More thoughts on this later.

    11 Jun 2010

    I’d really like to attend this academic conference in Berlin, but it is 1) already closed for registration and in waiting list mode, and 2) taking place about a week before I actually arrive to Berlin.

    Boo.

    But! If any readers out there are interested (and in Berlin — where a surprisingly large number of you seem to live!), the three-day event looks like it will be entirely in English and will feature scholars from all over the world. There is a LOT of interesting work that will be discussed. Some of the paper titles include:

    • Unpacking the Toy Bag: Commodity and Power Exchange in BDSM Communities
    • Queer Babymaking and the Economy of New Reproductive Technologies
    • Can the subaltern desire? The Erotic as a Power and the Disempowerment of the Erotic
    • Out of the Colonial Closet and Stuck Inside the Liberal Box: Marketing Desire and the Legal Regulation of Sexual Subjectivity in Postcolonial India

    Hope someone gets to attend and report back!

    17 May 2010

    Anonymous asked: Hi Lena, I love your blog and respect your opinions so much. Recently I've been exploring my bicuriosity by messing around with some girls. I feel so bad about it, and I don't know why. I just feel like it's really immoral. I don't have weird psychological issues or a strange past or traumatic sexual experiences or anything like that. I'm not religious, and I'm practicing safe sex, so...why do you think this is happening? What should I do? I really like playing with girls, but I still love cock. I think I'm just one of those truly bi people. But I can't keep it up like this if I feel horrible about it every time I do it!! Help, Wise One!!!

    Hi! As much as I wish I had some sage wisdom to impart, I don’t really think I’m qualified to give advice on this subject. Yes, I’m a longtime queer ally and advocate, but since I haven’t questioned with my own sexual practices/orientation or engaged in counseling work, I will defer to others who are far better informed than I am.

    I realize that you aren’t religious, but a lot of the shame that people feel about what they do in the bedroom is influenced by norms that originated from religion. Heather Corinna of Scarleteen wrote a very thoughtful piece on religious guilt and sexuality that you may refer to. Robyn Ochs, a bisexual activist and educator who has been involved with queer advocacy at Harvard for over 20 years, has on her website a piece on biphobia and some of the prejudices that confront bisexual people. This might offer some insight into the societal expectations that your sexuality challenges. You might also want to check out this special edition of Nerve.com that’s devoted to bisexual viewpoints and experiences. Besides getting used to the idea that bisexuality/curiosity is totally normal and that a lot of other people are in the same shoes as you are, you could consider attending some queer-oriented meet-ups, through campus organizations if you are in college or through local groups if you’re not. Depending on where you live, there may be existing community resources that are aimed at helping those in the initial stages of coming out. (Harvard has peer counseling organizations for this purpose.) And if you live somewhere without a big LGBTQ population, there are plenty of online communities that will welcome you with open arms. (Readers: do you have additional advice/resources for Anonymous?)

    As a side note, I love getting reader-submitted questions, but I really can’t give advice about what one should do in their personal life. I’m not at all a medical professional, and as I’ve stated on Sex and the Ivy before, I’m pretty wary of those who profess to be “experts” when really their only qualification is a gimmick. So keep the questions rolling in, but please realize that I’m only 22 and still a week away from my first degree ;)

    More burning questions? Ask them here.

    26 Mar 2010

    “pfft it took you that long to come up with that argument against marriage? dude, i figured that out like two years ago.”
    — my 17-year-old sister, on my anti-marriage post which was, um, the crux of my thesis

    25 Mar 2010

    Why I’m Against Gay Marriage (And Marriage In General)

    We reject the idea that any relationship based on love should have to register with the state. Marriage is an institution used primarily to consolidate privilege, and we think real change will only come from getting rid of a system that continually doles out privilege to a few more … Believe it or not, we felt incredibly safe, happy, taken care of, and fulfilled with the many queer biological and chosen parents who raised us without the right to marry … In the ways that our families might resemble nuclear, straight families, it is accidental and coincidental, something that lies at the surface.  We do not believe that queer relationships are the mere derivatives of straight relationships. We can play house without wanting to be straight. Our families are tangled, messy and beautiful – just like so many straight families who don’t fit into the official version of family. We want to build communities of all kinds of families, families that can exist – that do exist – without the recognition of the state.
    Queer Kids Of Queer Parents Against Gay Marriage

    I’m a strong proponent of LGBT rights, but recently, I’ve begun to think the focus on marriage equality is terribly misguided. Marriage has never been about what people personally attribute to the institution (i.e. “love”); it’s about state recognition. I’ve blogged before about my disenchantment with the same-sex marriage movement and marriage in general. Nonetheless, I’ve been hesitant to voice my growing opposition to the movement’s single-minded pursuit of marriage rights, because I don’t want to be construed as 1) wallowing in heterosexual privilege or 2) straight-up homophobic. But you know what? I know I’m neither. I also know that I have no idea what it’s like to not have marriage as an option, so I won’t pretend to know what it feels like to have the state deem my relationship inferior. (Although I would tell those who are personally offended by this exclusion that the state is a pretty shitty judge of legitimacy.) What I do know is that not everyone wants or chooses marriage, that domestic partnerships are a real option elsewhere in the world, that I’m in the minority but I’m not alone.

    Over the past year, I literally read hundreds of articles — a lot of them boring, dry, and scholarly — about sexual norms related to premarital sex and virginity. The resulting thesis, which I turned in two weeks ago, argues that sexual stigmas originated from and are reinforced by the state-backed marriage institution, which itself is a site of regulation and oppression. What conservatives idealize as the basic building block of society is also conveniently one of the oldest and most effective ways for governments to control their population. Nowadays, that is less apparent, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. This is not my opinion. This is an accurate reflection of history. When you take out all the fluffy shit that bridal magazines and chick flicks associate with marriage, you realize that the institution, at its core, is not very romantic at all.

    When conservatives argue that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples because of its procreative purpose, LGBT advocates decry this view as narrow-minded. But you know what? The conservatives are actually right in this regard. Marriage, because it relies on recognition from the government, is inherently not based on love, but rather, based on the interests of the state, which in turn, is very much invested in the procreative potential of its citizens. If marriage were really about love, then it would not come with benefits and incentives that induce people to marry even in absence of love. If marriage were really about love, it would not be an agreement mediated by law. If it were about love, there would be no history of parental vetoes, anti-miscegenation legislation, or queer discrimination. Of course, that ugly past exists precisely because marriage, historically, is not about romance, but about money — how to create it and how to maintain it. For the majority of Western history, marriages were dictated by fathers and patriarchs, treated as property alliances between families, and restricted by the state, which took an active interest in limiting the ability of young adults to marry for love (and without parental permission). The concept of “companionate marriage” did not even exist until the eighteenth century and did not become widely practiced until less than a hundred years ago. Before then, marriage used to be an undeniably harmful institution for everyone. Today, we don’t need our parents to sign off on our engagements, but we do still seek validation through law, despite the fact that the state has historically not been on the side of its citizens’ romantic well-being.

    Coming to terms with these ideas hasn’t been easy for me. Back in October (less than six months ago), I was still discussing my fantasy of “don[ning] a floor-length gown” while reluctantly acknowledging that my somewhat infantile desire for a wedding (and the accompanying attention) was no justification for opting into this whole patriarchal, oppressive marriage business. Nowadays, I still get weak in the knees at the thought of perfectly printed Save The Date cards, crisp flower arrangements, and delicate place settings. But let’s face the facts: if I get married, it will not be an expression of love but of my somewhat unhinged desire to become the young, Asian, and slutty version of Martha Stewart. And the fact that I can get married anyway is just an example of how utterly ludicrous this institution has become. If it were really about love, then the state would take an interest in the fact that my respect for the sanctity of marriage ends where the table runner begins. The conservatives have it all wrong when they think marriage needs to be “saved” (it’s been doomed long before the LGBT movement), but marriage equality proponents are also deluded when they expend so much energy into gaining access to an institution without their interests in mind.

    I no longer have any intention of getting married for love. If I ever get married (which is still doubtful), it will be because I need the benefits associated with it. Should those benefits not be available to me anyway as a single person? If I marry my best friend for health insurance, what does that say about the sanctity of marriage? If marriage isn’t an appropriate affirmation of love, then what is? Perhaps we need to come up with more diverse and creative ways of expressing our commitment to our partners. (As divorce rates indicate, getting married is obviously insufficient for doing so.) Perhaps we should also question our reliance on marriage to affirm relationships in which we should already be secure. I find it disheartening that so many people — both straight and queer — do not challenge the societal norm that says our romantic relationships are only legitimate if approved by the government. We do not hold our friendships to this standard (and let’s face it: many friendships last longer then marriages), so why should we hold our romantic ones to it? I’m personally and politically invested in LGBT equality. I want gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples. But even more so, I want unmarried people to have the same rights as married ones. That kind of equality would truly recognize that love is in our hands, not in the hands of the state.

    10 Mar 2010

    In 2006, Harvard University modified its non-discrimination policy to include gender identity and expression (the latter protects EVERYONE on campus, not just those who identify as transgender). Four years later, the school is taking a must-needed step forward by covering top surgeries for transgender employees and students. Before this, trans members of the Harvard community were much like women under a Stupak-ized version of healthcare: equal payers, but not equal beneficiaries. Of course, there is still so much more work to be done, but this move is a great step forward.

    Shoutouts to the amazing Trans Task Force and UHS’ Sara Kimmel, who were the powerhouses behind this change!

    17 Feb 2010

    I’m still 1-2 years away from actually being able to leave my country of birth, but this is why I cannot wait to get out of America:

    A Cambridge University developmental psychologist testified at a federal trial in San Francisco today that broad research has documented that children of same-sex parents are just as likely as those of heterosexual parents to be well-adjusted.

    “Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent,” testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge’s Department of Social and Developmental Psychology…

    Under questioning by a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign, Lamb admitted he was a member of the ACLU, the National Organization of Women, the NAACP, Amnesty International and the Nature Conservancy.

    And you have even given money to PBS, isn’t that correct?” asked David H. Thompson, who is defending Proposition 8. Thompson suggested Lamb was “a committed liberal.”

    Right. Liking black people, freedom of speech, and a public broadcasting system = being a RAGING liberal. Just like how supporting universal healthcare = being a socialist.

    There’s no way the above quote was chosen by accident. Thank you, Maura Dolan (the Los Angeles Times writer who wrote this story) for covering this with a sense of humor.

    ss_blog_claim=2e43b69a85ddf3d9e1b2923415211607