Contesting Intersex (Essay Sample)

Contesting Intersex, written by Georgiann Davis Korri Thomas Georgian College Gender & Women’s Studies: Foundations and Frameworks (INTS2004/2005) 200344131 Oct 28, 2019 Liane Cheshire Contesting Intersex, written by Georgiann Davis Intersex, formerly known as hermaphrodite (now considered derogatory) are individuals born with “ambiguous or atypical genitalia” (Mandell & Johnson, 2017). Individuals who have traditionally identified as intersex often encounter discrimination and stigmatization due to their perceived abnormalities. In 2015, Georgiann Davis published a book titled “Contesting Intersex” with the aim of highlighting the enduring stigma that continues to envelope the intersex community, as well as providing seven actions to progression and liberation. The book identifies Georgiann Davis as a member of the intersex community, an advocate for intersex youth and an assistant professor in sociology. The book strives to characterize the continued shame and secrecy associated with intersex even with recent vicissitudes in opinion amongst both the medical community and general public. She also discusses how the medical field has categorized intersex as a “disorder of sex development” which in itself has caused a rift amongst intersex individuals due to the use of the term “disorder”. In summation, Georgiann Davis proposes seven actions for “liberation that intersex activists and allies can take to decrease intersex stigma” (Davis, 2015). Conclusively, Georgiann Davis demonstrates a clear and first-hand understanding of the issues afflicting the intersex community. Not only are the issues effecting the intersex individuals highlighted, but a comprehensive action plan is proposed to improve the life of the entire intersex community. Disorder of Sexual Development In the book, Georgiann Davis questions how intersex became categorized as a disorder of sexual development. She explains that the lexicon was officially introduced by the medical profession in the “Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders” (Lee, Houk, Ahmed, Hughes, &, 2006). It was formerly introduced in response to the growing public awareness of frequent unnecessary medical surgeries on intersex individuals. It is a set of terms that allows for the medical profession to define intersex from their prevue within their “essentialist understandings of sex, gender and sexuality” as they commonly perceive “all three as biologically prescribed and, in many cases, neatly correlated” (Davis, 2015). Although this introduction of terminology ultimately benefited the intersex community, it became a matter of conflict amongst intersex individuals. Three main components exist that lend to this conflict: the terminology was determined and introduced by medical professionals without input from the intersex community, the stigmatization associated with being a disorder, and that intersex individuals typically reject the concept that sex, gender and sexuality are prescribed biologically. Respecting the reasoning for the conflict, Georgiann Davis added that the intersex community should take advantage of the improvement of provided medical services and social services. She indicated that inter-group conflict based on the introduced lexicon is detrimental to over-arching goal of ending the humiliation associated with being born intersex. Additionally, she recommended that intersex individuals, should be comfortable using whatever term they feel is suitable. Georgiann Davis remains unbiased while identifying the reasoning for the categorization of the intersex as a disorder of sexual development. She effectively identifies the reasoning and concerns on both ends of the spectrum, as well as tactically recommends that the intersex community work past its divergence of opinions and take advantage of the access to higher-quality medical care. Although Georgiann Davis effectively identifies the root of the introduction of the lexicon "disorders of sexual introduction”, she does not consider its validity as an effective descriptive medical term. The aforementioned Consensus Statement provided two key perceived reasons as to the need for change in terminology. First, the term “intersex” is controversial. Secondly, that “it is essential to use precision when applying definitions and diagnostic labels” (Lee et al, 2006). Although the intent is to better define specific intersex medical anomalies, “they both seem to diagnostically work as umbrella terms for a list of more specific diagnoses” (Clune-Taylor, 2010). Based on this understanding, the intersex community that contests this new term has a valid reason to maintain animosity towards the medical community. Actions for Liberation Georgiann Davis reiterates that even with the spotlight placed on the intersex community as of late, a negative stigma persists. She offered an action plan that would positively impact the intersex community derived from her research on a personal, professional and ethical spectrum. The intent of her action plan is see the suppression of shame and secrecy for intersex individuals and to see them simply considered equals amongst the rest of the world. She indicates that the first step is to hold medical professionals accountable for violations of medical standards and practices when managing cases of intersexuality. Georgiann Davis indicates that there has been an increase in understanding and awareness surrounding unnecessary surgical procedures of newborns born intersex; however, that such surgeries persist disguised as protecting newborns from potential health risks. The major concern, Davis notes, is that scholars have long reported the physical and mental scarring that continues to afflict patients of these surgeries. Additionally, Davis mentioned the requirement to accept the inequality is perpetuated by social constructions such as medical institutions as they do not fit within the realm of what is socially acceptable. Georgiann Davis effectively demonstrates the negative outcomes affiliated with unnecessary surgeries at birth. She provides reference to discussions with medical professionals and studies published by scholars who support that these surgeries persist and often are unnecessary. This is a matter of medical professionals being narrow-minded and only acceptant of the concept of somatic dimorphism, “the idea of two and only two sexes” (Mandell & Johnson, 2017). It demonstrates opinions based on what is socially acceptable versus’ what is a biological certainty. Georgiann Davis identifies the requirement for a collaborative approach by both medical professionals and the intersex community. She details that medical professionals address intersexuality based on textbooks they’ve studied, when their most valuable source of knowledge is the intersex community. Additionally, she recognizes the requirement for expanding peer support, to include more collaboration and relationships built with not only medical professionals, but other individuals from the intersex community. She makes a valid point as to where the medical community should focus on gaining an first-hand understanding of the impact living as intersex has as well as being subjected to “normalization” surgeries at birth. Unfortunately, the intersex community including many activists and organizations are weary of working with medical professionals often due to their past experiences. It is a step that both sides of the spectrum must take and work amicably for a better future. She alludes to the requirement for intersex individuals to embrace the liberatory ideas and insights of feminists. Furthermore, she states that the intersex community needs to end feelings of inferiority due to not fitting into generic heterosexual binary groups. By identifying with the plight of many feminist groups, many individuals have ...