We all regret the loss of Blue Collar Scientist to cancer a short while ago. Now we have an account of his last few days — he died dignified and living well to the last moment, on a visit to Down and Westminster Abbey.
MAJeff here.
LisaJ’s Danio’s (hangover error) posts about Usher Disease (I and II), as well as my own syllabus preparation for the upcoming semester, have gotten me thinking about issues of intersexuality. In particular, her noting of the geographic issues related to the prevalence of various forms of Usher disease reminded me of the concentration of five-alpha-reductase deficiency in parts of Turkey, Papua New Guinea and the Dominican Republic.
Some folks are probably asking, “What is this intersexuality thing?” Basically, it’s a range sexual development disorders in which people’s bodies develop in such a way as to place them in a “border region” of sex. Hermaphrodism is what people usually think of, but there is a wider range of conditions, including hypospadias and congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
If any of you have read the novel Middesex you already have an idea of what I’m talking about with five-alpha-reductase deficiency. People with this condition are genetically XY, but during fetal development something happens such that in many people the testicles may not descend, the scrotal sac may not fuse, and the penis can appear more like a clitoris (such an ambiguous thing is often called a microphallus). Because of these developmental issues, people with this condition are given a female gender designation at birth. Once puberty hits, though, the testicles descend, the penis may enlarge, the “labia” fuse to form a scrotum, and other male secondary sex characteristics appear. One of the things I find so interesting about this particular condition is the way that it has been routinized in the patterns of life and cultural systems in parts of the Dominican Republic. The people living in these areas have their own term for the condition, “guevedoce” (“eggs/balls at 12”).
In class, I often use a video produced by the Intersex Society of North America, an organization that shut its doors this years in favor of a different advocacy organization, the Accord Alliance. In particular, this segment of that video talks about, and interviews, someone who identifies as a guevedoce, as well as his family. (YouTube won’t allow it to be embedded.)
It’s this issue of how people with various conditions are integrated into social life that is my primary concerns. One of the things intersex activists have been challenging for the past decade or so is infant genital surgery. When children with some sexual development disorders are born with ambiguous genitals they are quite literally made to fit into one of the existing gender categories. “Fixing” them means surgery to make their genitalia more closely resemble “normal” genitals. If the phallus falls inside the middle range, where it’s “too long” for a clitoris or “too short” to be a penis, well, it’s snip-snip time. Many of the decisions to engage in surgery are based not on medical necessity, but social preference. Questions such as, “Will he be able to stand to urinate?” or “Will her partners be turned off by such a large clitoris?” or “How will the parents deal with looking at such a strange body while changing diapers?” can become more important issues when determining whether to operate than such things as “Will cutting part of the phallus off affect this child’s sexuality later in life?” (Ann Fausto-Sterling has an excellent discussion of these issues.)
Not surprisingly, surgeries do affect folks. Many report a loss of sensitivity from having such operations performed on them. (As one of my students once said to the other women in the class about the possibility of having half a clitoris and no sensitivity, “Wouldn’t it just make you tense all the time!”) It’s more than loss of sensitivity, though. There are often other complications that require more than one surgery. Ongoing pain or recurrent infections are not uncommon.
This is one of those spaces where I get all anti-normalization. These people’s bodies are being normalized–they are being reconstructed so they fit within normative assumptions about what genitalia must look like based on statistical averages. And, it’s done without their consent. Intersex activists have been successful in increasing awareness in the medical profession, but there are still issues. Many of these flow from the gender order we have in this society. The problem with such medically unnecessary genital surgeries isn’t these babies’ bodies, but social beliefs about what those bodies are supposed to look like.
MAJeff here, getting all gay and stuff. It’s been a pretty big year for LGBT folks in the U.S. A couple weeks ago, the state in which I live repealed a law enacted during the height of anti-miscegination activity, and is now allowing same-sex couples from anywhere to marry here. Prior to that, California joined us in offering full equality to same-sex couples. That victory may be short-lived, though. There is an effort underway to take away the right to marry. Folks here can help out by contributing to Equality California who are leading the NO ON 8 campaign.
I had to chuckle the other day when I came across this post at an LA Times blog about their meeting with the folks trying to make life worse for queer people:
The measure’s supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people…until the talk went deeper.
Wait, you mean they’re lying when they say they have no problems with gay people? I’m shocked! Shocked, I say!
The LA Times writer continues:
one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children’s rights, and it’s obvious that same-sex couples who married would “recruit” their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments
Ah, the recruitment line, code for “They’re coming to rape your children.”
The Times blogger is right: the anti-gay folks are careful to avoid showing their true colors; they work very hard to hide the anti-gay animus that drives them. But, lurking beneath the surface of their “We only want to protect marriage” lie is a deep and abiding hatred of queer folks and our communities. Their problem isn’t that we want equal access to the same rights our heterosexual counterparts have. No, their problem is that we exist at all.
That was brought home pretty clearly in a recentletter-to-the-editor in the Boston Globe:
ENOUGH ALREADY with the Globe’s gay agenda. How many front-page stories do we have to see to know that your agenda is to promote the gay/lesbian lifestyle? The July 21 article “Bloom’s off the brick row house: Buyers picking modern high-rise over classic style” could and should have been written from the heterosexual perspective. What you’re writing about is not a gay issue, it’s a human issue, and casting the story in a manner to feature gays is inappropriate. It’s time to straighten out, and I mean that in all senses of the word.
I have my own problems with such stories–namely that they continue to put forth an image of gay men as wealthier than the general public, when there’s actually a wage-penalty attached to those of us who aren’t hetero, and, regarding marriage issues, gay parents are getting by with fewer resources than their straight counterparts (that report is specifically for CA)–but that’s not the point. The bigoted letter writer isn’t concerned with accurate presentations, he’s concerned that there are gay presentations at all. Housing issues may be universal, but the universal is particular–and it’s straight.
I’m sure some folks will trot out the, “Just because I’m against gay marriage doesn’t mean I’m anti-gay” or “just because I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle doesn’t make me a bigot.” Well, it does. What they’re saying is that they want us gone. They want us to disappear. They want gay life to cease.
When folks come out and say they’re opposed to discrimination against people but actively foster such discrimination, they’re lying. They are pro-discrimination. That goes for John McCain, too, who recently said a pro-choice running mate would be acceptable, but not a pro-gay one. He has opposed every effort at including gay people in the institutions of American life. He may not be one of the crazy-ass-type fundies, but he’s also no social moderate. He’s just a “nicer” version of the “agents of intolerance” he “denounced” 8 years ago. His policy preferences on issues related to sexuality are very similar to those of Pat Robertson and John Hagee and Pope Nazinger.
McCain, Robertson, Hagge, Nazinger, McConnell…. These folks and the organizations they lead aren’t just opponents of gay rights, but enemies of gay people. They are all pushing for a return of the institutional closet. They want us neither seen nor heard. And, as ACT-UP so accurately put it, Silence=Death. They may not always want individual gay people to die, but they want our communities to do so.
I take that back, by attempting to push us back into the closet, they do want us to die. There is no life in that miserable space.
Sastra here.
I’m about halfway through, and really enjoying, Robert Price’s new book, Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today’s Pop Mysticisms.
Bob Price has an interesting background: he started out as a roaring Pentacostal Minister, gradually grew into a high-end Christian theologian, and eventually evolved to his present form as secular humanist. He’s currently teaching classes in comparative religion — and also happens to be an expert on HP Lovecraft and science fiction. I think this wide-ranging perspective gives him a particular advantage when dealing with religious topics. He’s been into almost everything, and can compare, contrast, and understand different mindsets with apparent ease. His analogies are often original, and spot on.
Even atheists are still influenced by the religious beliefs they once held. I was raised “freethinker.” Nobody at school knew what that meant, and I had a hard time explaining it, since I wasn’t sure what the alternative was. I wasn’t taught any particular religion, but it seemed to be a cultural prerequisite for having a “meaning,” so I would pick up bits and strands of things that seemed interesting to me, and try them on. I remember deciding in 5th grade to worship the Greek gods, since they would clearly be available, and very grateful for the attention. It seemed odd that they had so few current fans. But, by the time I was a teenager, I became enamored of the “psychic sciences,” and got into New Age.
Having since gotten myself OUT of New Age, I am particularly interested in books and articles that address and critique these self-proclaimed more enlightened, sophisticated, “holistic” forms of spirituality. My interest is not merely personal: such views are still held by many intelligent, well-educated, liberal-thinking people – and many of them take it all very seriously, and yield the power to have it taken seriously in secular arenas. These are not really marginal beliefs. As Price writes:
I regret to report that Blue Collar Scientist has lost his struggle with cancer and that he died last night.
An organization of the Catholic leadership has now condemned my actions. This is sad news: it’s clear that at least this tier of the Catholic hierarchy is as deranged as the wackaloons flooding my mailbox.
We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.
Hmmm. Who is the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy to decide the limits of freedom? Flagrant irreverence towards a cracker ought to be fair game, I should think…and that’s all this action was: irreverence. You cannot demand that all members of a pluralist society be reverent towards any random humdrum article that a guy in a dress declares holy.
The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation’s constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few.
Man, that is a tired old argument — usually you see that fine-grained parsing of the words of the bill of rights from right-wing sources, trying to distort the meaning. Do they really think a bunch of high-minded Enlightenment dudes dedicated to the principle of liberty were thinking, “We need a clause here that could be used to compel people to be a member of a church—we’ll just give them the freedom to choose which church they’ll be forced to join”? That’s insane. I am free of religion. I am free to make that choice, just as everyone is free to choose to be Catholic.
And my personal choice not to believe in the silliness of religion is not an infringement on the rights of any religion.
The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.
This is the funniest statement in the whole declaration.
Freedom of speech means I do have the right to malign and make fun of any religion I want. I can’t interfere with your right to practice your religion, but that hasn’t happened — all I’ve done is laugh at you.
That last clause, though…do they seriously believe that only Catholics are allowed to criticize Catholics, and that this restriction is enshrined in the constitution? That’s a fine catch, that catch-22. So only Catholics can malign the faith, but if they do, then they can be kicked out of the faith, which means they can’t criticize it anymore. That sounds like a ripe piece of theological logic to me.
The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor. One fails to see the relevance of the desecration of a Catholic sacrament to the science of Biology. Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom. Yet, for a scientist to ridicule and show utter contempt for the most sacred and precious article of a major world religion, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous.
Ummm, I don’t discuss religion in the classroom. I teach biology. My ‘desecration’ was performed at home, on my own time. There’s nothing ironic about the fact that I’m a biologist, nor did I claim my profession gave me special qualifications to see through the foolishness of faith. Go ahead, any of you can do it — you don’t need to be a theologian to see that it is just a cracker.
A biologist has no business ‘dissing’ any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach. Tolerating such behavior by university officials is equally repugnant as it lends credibility to the act of religious hatred. We also pray that Professor Myers contritely repent and apologize.
Wait, what? This is another attempt to shield a ridiculous religion, by declaring that members of certain professions are not allowed to criticize — that only Catholic theologians are permitted to rebuke the absurdities in their faith.
As for the idea that I’m supposed to be teaching biology 24-7…what, I can’t have a hobby? I can tell you that when I try to tell my wife late evening on Wednesday night that I can’t take out the trash because I’m too busy teaching biology, well, that excuse won’t fly very far.
I am not contrite, I will not repent, and I’m certainly not going to apologize for tossing a cracker in the garbage. All the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy will get from me is laughter.
The History Channel program, EVOLVE: Eyes that I mentioned before but then disappeared has reappeared — it was delayed, but is now scheduled for broadcast on 29 July.
I’m going to be tied up in work and meetings most of today, yet there are all these new people still flooding the site, begging for entertainment and objects to rage against. Since many of them can’t seem to get beyond the first article at the top of the page, and since, judging by my most recent email (come on, people…do you have to stoop to insulting my mother?) we’re getting down to the dregs, I think we need some more distractions for them. So here’s a little collection of past articles that will serve to infuriate and enlighten. Have fun!
The proper reverence due those who have gone before
What should a scientist think about religion?
A godless ramble against the ditherings of theologians
The Wall: A Sunday morning story
We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved
Theology is a deceitful strategy
Tune in to Atheists Talk radio this morning at 9am Central — the ever-entertaining Robert Price will be on to talk about pop mysticism. If you will it, it will be so.
In a great big ugly oops, the A/V geeks at TAM6 were not true geeks in that they screwed up and lost all the audio of an entire day’s worth of recordings at the meeting. This is bad, because it means all the clever slams and insults given to Phil Plait will not be passed down to posterity. If you’ve got recordings of the event, contact the skeptics and help them out.
(I suppose we could all just call in and make fresh new jokes at Phil’s expense, but they wouldn’t sync with our lip movements as well.)
