Sexing the Body

1. Sex is a Spectrum, Not a Binary

A body’s sex is simply too complex. There is no either/or. Rather, there are shades of difference.

Beyond Male and Female. The idea that there are only two sexes is a social construct, not a biological reality. Nature presents a continuum of sexual characteristics, with male and female at opposite ends and a wide range of variations in between.

• Intersex individuals, born with a mix of male and female traits, highlight the limitations of a binary system.
• The presence of both testes and ovaries in some individuals, or variations in chromosome composition, further demonstrates the complexity of sex.
• The rigid categories of male and female fail to capture the full spectrum of human biological diversity.

Challenging Dichotomies. The concept of a sexual continuum challenges the deeply ingrained notion that sex is a simple, either/or proposition. It forces us to reconsider the social and cultural meanings we attach to male and female bodies.

• The existence of intersex individuals reveals the artificiality of the two-sex system.
• The idea of a continuum allows for a more nuanced understanding of human variation.
• It encourages us to move beyond rigid categories and embrace the diversity of human bodies.

Implications for Gender. If sex is not a binary, then neither is gender. The social roles and expectations associated with masculinity and femininity are also cultural constructs, not natural outcomes of biological sex.

• The concept of a sexual continuum opens up possibilities for more fluid and diverse expressions of gender.
• It challenges the idea that there is a single, correct way to be a man or a woman.
• It encourages us to question the social norms that limit human potential.

2. Social Decisions Define Sex, Not Biology

Labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision. We may use scientific knowledge to help us make the decision, but only our beliefs about gender—not science—can define our sex.

Criteria for Sex Assignment. The criteria used to determine a person's sex are not purely scientific but are influenced by social and cultural beliefs about gender.

• Doctors focus on reproductive abilities (for potential girls) or penis size (for potential boys) when assigning sex to intersex infants.
• The International Olympic Committee uses chromosome or DNA tests to determine the sex of athletes, reflecting a social concern about fairness and gender boundaries.
• These criteria are not absolute and can vary depending on the context and the goals of the decision-makers.

The Role of Beliefs. Our beliefs about gender shape the kinds of knowledge scientists produce about sex in the first place.

• The desire to maintain a two-sex system influences the types of research questions scientists ask.
• It also affects how they interpret their data and the conclusions they draw.
• The very act of measuring and categorizing human bodies can change the social reality we are trying to understand.

Social Construction of Sex. The act of labeling someone as male or female is a social decision, not a purely biological one.

• We use scientific knowledge to help us make these decisions, but our beliefs about gender ultimately define our sex.
• The categories we use to define, measure, and analyze human sexual behavior change over time.
• The social organization and expression of human sexuality are neither timeless nor universal.

3. Medical Interventions Reinforce Gender Norms

By helping the normal take precedence over the natural, physicians have also contributed to populational biopolitics. We have become, Foucault writes, ‘‘a society of normalization.’’

The Medical Gaze. Medical professionals play a significant role in maintaining the two-sex system by intervening in the lives of intersex individuals.

• Doctors often perform surgery on intersex infants to "correct" their bodies and make them fit into either the male or female category.
• These interventions are often driven by a desire to maintain the "normal" and to prevent social stigma.
• The medical profession's focus on maintaining the normal often overshadows the natural variation in human bodies.

Surgical "Corrections." Surgical procedures on intersex infants are often cosmetic, designed to create genitalia that conform to social expectations.

• Clitoral reduction, vaginal construction, and penile reconstruction are all aimed at making bodies fit into the binary system.
• These surgeries can have negative physical and psychological consequences, including scarring, loss of sensation, and multiple operations.
• The lack of research into the normal distributions of genital anatomy highlights the social, not scientific, basis of these interventions.

The Power of Normalization. Medical interventions on intersex bodies contribute to a "society of normalization," where the normal takes precedence over the natural.

• Physicians often withhold information from intersex individuals and their parents to maintain the mythology of the normal.
• The goal is to make intersex bodies fit into one of two boxes, rather than acknowledging the diversity of human bodies.
• This process of normalization can be seen as a form of social control, rather than a purely medical intervention.

4. Intersexuality Challenges the Two-Sex System

Since intersexuals quite literally embody both sexes, they weaken claims about sexual difference.

Unruly Bodies. Intersex individuals, whose bodies do not fit neatly into the categories of male or female, challenge the very foundations of the two-sex system.

• They embody both sexes, blurring the borders and weakening claims about sexual difference.
• Their existence reveals the artificiality of the binary classification system.
• Intersex bodies are often seen as unruly or heretical because they do not conform to social norms.

The Politics of Invisibility. The medical management of intersexuality has historically aimed to make intersex bodies disappear from view.

• By "correcting" intersex infants through surgery and hormone treatments, doctors have contributed to the invisibility of intersexuality.
• This process of erasure has served to maintain the two-sex system and to silence those who challenge it.
• The lack of research into the normal distributions of genital anatomy further illustrates the social, not scientific, basis of these interventions.

A Shifting Politics. The emergence of intersex activism has begun to challenge the medical establishment's control over intersex bodies.

• Intersex individuals are demanding the right to define their own identities and to make their own decisions about medical treatment.
• They are pushing for increased openness to more fluid sexual identities and for an end to unnecessary infant genital surgery.
• This movement reflects a shifting politics of science and of the body, one that embraces diversity and challenges the rigid boundaries of the two-sex system.

5. The Brain is a Socially Constructed Organ

Our bodies are too complex to provide clear-cut answers about sexual difference. The more we look for a simple physical basis for ‘‘sex,’’ the more it becomes clear that ‘‘sex’’ is not a pure physical category.

Beyond Anatomy. The search for a simple physical basis for sex has led scientists to look beyond external genitalia and into the brain.

• Claims about sex differences in brain anatomy, such as the size of the corpus callosum, have been used to justify social inequalities.
• However, the more we look for a simple physical basis for "sex," the more it becomes clear that "sex" is not a pure physical category.
• What bodily signals and functions we define as male or female come already entangled in our ideas about gender.

The Corpus Callosum Debate. The debate over whether men and women have differently shaped corpus callosums illustrates how scientists construct arguments by choosing particular experimental approaches and tools.

• The entire shape of the debate is socially constrained, and the particular tools chosen to conduct the controversy have their own historical and technical limitations.
• The tools of science—in the form of a microscope and new methods of preparing tissue for microscopic examination—became essential.
• The very act of measuring, scientists can change the social reality they set out to quantify.

The Brain as a Social Construct. The brain, like the body, is not a neutral entity but is shaped by social and cultural forces.

• Our beliefs about gender affect what kinds of knowledge scientists produce about the brain.
• The brain is a plastic organ that responds to experience, and our experiences are shaped by our social environment.
• The brain is not a fixed entity but a dynamic system that is constantly being constructed and reconstructed.

6. Hormones are Growth Regulators, Not Just Sex Markers

By helping the normal take precedence over the natural, physicians have also contributed to populational biopolitics. We have become, Foucault writes, ‘‘a society of normalization.’’

Beyond Reproduction. The concept of "sex hormones" has been used to define and categorize human bodies, but these molecules have far-reaching effects beyond reproduction.

• Steroid hormones, such as testosterone and estrogen, affect organs throughout the body, including the brain, bones, and blood vessels.
• These hormones are not specific to either gender, and both men and women produce both androgens and estrogens.
• The label "sex hormone" has obscured the many nonsexual roles these molecules play in human development.

The Social Construction of Hormones. The division of steroid hormones into sex and nonsex categories is a social construct, not a biological necessity.

• Scientists could have chosen to categorize these molecules as growth hormones, affecting a wide range of tissues.
• The decision to label them as sex hormones reflects a cultural preoccupation with sexual difference.
• This labeling has had a profound impact on how we understand human bodies and behaviors.

The Power of Labels. The act of labeling a molecule as a "sex hormone" has had a powerful effect on how we understand the body.

• Once a hormone is labeled as a sex hormone, any tissue or function it affects becomes sexualized.
• This has led to a narrow focus on the reproductive aspects of these molecules, while ignoring their other important functions.
• It has also reinforced the idea that male and female bodies are fundamentally different, rather than simply variations on a common theme.

7. Rodent Studies Reflect Cultural Biases

Experiments and models depicting the role of hormones in the development of sexual behaviors on rodents formed an eerie parallel with cultural debates about the roles and abilities of men and women.

The Rodent as a Model. Rodent studies have been used to understand the biological basis of human sexual behavior, but these studies are not free from cultural biases.

• The categories used to define and measure rodent sexual behavior often reflect human ideas about masculinity and femininity.
• The interpretation of experimental results is often influenced by preexisting beliefs about gender roles and sexual orientation.
• The very act of measuring, scientists can change the social reality they set out to quantify.

The Problem of Interpretation. The interpretation of rodent behavior is often shaped by the social context in which the research is conducted.

• For example, the idea that a lesbian rat is one who mounts, while a gay male rat is one who responds to being mounted, reflects a cultural understanding of masculinity and femininity.
• The linear Kinsey scale, which is still widely used in scholarly work, reinforces a dichotomous view of human sexuality.
• The categories used to define, measure, and analyze human sexual behavior change with time.

The Limits of Animal Models. Animal models can provide valuable insights into the biological basis of behavior, but they cannot fully capture the complexity of human sexuality.

• Human sexual behavior is shaped by a complex interplay of biological, social, and cultural factors.
• Rodent studies, while useful, should not be used to justify social inequalities or to limit human potential.
• The categories used to define, measure, and analyze human sexual behavior change with time.

8. Beyond Dualisms: Embracing Complexity

Sexuality is a somatic fact created by a cultural effect.

The Limits of Dualistic Thinking. The use of dualisms, such as sex/gender, nature/nurture, and real/constructed, limits our understanding of human sexuality.

• These dualisms create artificial divisions and make invisible the interdependencies of each pair.
• They often map onto each other, reinforcing existing power structures and social inequalities.
• They prevent us from seeing the complex interplay of biological and social forces that shape human experience.

Embodied Experience. Our bodies are not simply biological entities but are shaped by our experiences in particular cultures and historical periods.

• We literally, not just discursively, construct our bodies, incorporating experience into our very flesh.
• Our bodies are too complex to provide clear-cut answers about sexual difference.
• The more we look for a simple physical basis for "sex," the more it becomes clear that "sex" is not a pure physical category.

A Systems Approach. A developmental systems approach offers a way to move beyond dualistic thinking and to understand the complex interplay of biological and social forces.

• It recognizes that there are not two kinds of processes, one guided by nature and the other by nurture, but rather a single, integrated system.
• It emphasizes the dynamic and interactive nature of development, in which genes, hormones, and environment all play a role.
• It allows us to see ourselves as simultaneously natural and unnatural, as both biological and cultural beings.

Last updated: January 29, 2025