Last semester I attended a panel on the discussion of female infant genital reconstruction -- specifically Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. The panel specifically addressed female infants born with atypical genitalia that had no medical need for genital reconstruction. Instead, these surgeries are cosmetic in nature, ultimately acting as a means to "fix"; In essence, to reconstruct what is "abnormal" in order to fit into the normalized perception of female genitalia.
The panel was created as a reaction to specific cases of procedures by Dr. Dix Poppas, a doctor working at Cornell University. Dr. Poppas is a highly acclaimed doctor who is well-respected in his academic and local communities. However, his practices caused concern among some members of the Ithaca community, many wanting to address the issue of gender and children's rights.
The panel, consisting of representatives from the academic and medical community, also offered the opinion of a woman born with this kind of atypical genitalia. She explained that what is meant by atypical genitalia in the cases presented is an "abnormal" largeness of the clitoris, spanning from 1/2 inch to 1 1/2 inches in size. Furthermore, the panel explored the follow-up procedures, performed by Dr. Poppas after the surgeries. These infants undergo surgery then return for tests that aim to gage the success of the surgery. In the cases being discussed, with the supervision of her parents, Dr. Poppas, and his assistant, each patient's clitoris was to be tested for sensation response. These tests include stimulating the clitoris with a vibrating device, pressing down on the clitoris with a q-tip until turning white then releasing and timing how long it takes for the blood to become visible again. Another cause for concern in these procedures is that if the surgery isn't successful -- if sensation is not retained -- the patient can not simply get it fixed. Any nerves damaged by the surgery are forever gone, as if they were never there to begin with.
While listening to the speakers I found myself outraged at the thought of this happening in my community. The panelist born with atypical genitalia shared her feelings of inadequacy, of anger toward her parents for giving consent to change her body. Instead of the intended result of the surgery, the guarantee that she would be able to feel normal as a person if her genitalia was reconstructed, the opposite actually happened. Growing up she felt as if her true self was thrown away in favor of gaining the paradigm of "normal" female genitalia. At the same time, after hearing the testimony of some parents, I began to sympathize with their positions. There is no intentional malice in these parents when they volunteer their infants for these surgeries. Instead, it is a fear of societal reaction. They don't want their child to ever feel he or she is an outcast, is not good enough or that something is wrong with him or her.
The complexities then arise. Living in the West, there is a constant narrative of third-world desperation and savagery. We are made to believe that humanity as told through the lens of the West is all inclusive. Yet in practice we condemn those who fail to meet the Western standards of "civilization", "democracy" and "equality." bell hooks criticizes white privileged women's historic claim over feminism in the way they essentially said, we figured this whole gender equality thing out perfectly and now we're gonna tell every "uncivilized" country exactly how to do it too. Condemning historically rooted traditions as oppressive and unacceptable, these privileged women dispelled the secrets to gender equality through the lens of Western patriarchal capitalism.
The problem? While privileged feminists condemned the "savage" acts of oppression abroad, they actually further perpetuated the racism imbedded in sexism while simultaneously letting slide the oppressive practices at home that are hiding in the culture of patriarchal capitalism. Even when I began examining the issue brought about in this panel I was referring to the reconstructive surgeries as female genital mutilation (FGM) without realizing the implications of those words. The experience of forced surgery on an infant who is unable to give consent is obviously a serious cause for concern, but it is not the same as FGM in other countries -- I'm not trying to place higher importance on either of these situations here, I am instead trying to illustrate the way language can alienate and through that ambiguity, allow for the continued oppression to remain unseen.
As bell hooks says, a woman is not a feminist because she is born female, it takes education, recognition of self privilege, and true soul searching. But because I have been privileged enough to obtain an education, doesn't make me an expert able to pass judgement on those without that same access. It has taken me till now to see that the fact I am even able to freely examine these issues means I am more privileged than most women across the world. Because of this it is my responsibility to bring to light the oppression happening in the country I was born, but I now see that it is necessary to recognize that multitude of forces at play. Racism and class discrimination play crucial roles in perpetuating sexism, and vise versa. In seeing the ways these structures of oppression and domination exist, movement toward a truly inclusive humanity -- not simply a Western constructed humanity -- is possible. In my eyes, each step taken to reach this inclusive humanity is a step taken to strengthen truly feminist theory.
Links and more information regarding the panel and issues discussed are to be posted shortly for those interested in learning more.
No comments:
Post a Comment