Defining ‘Normal’

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/define-normal-1.jpg

How do you tell if you're in the box or out of it?

Most of us spend some portion of our lives pondering if we’re “normal”. Is being “normal” in the box or out of it? The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates that more than 1 in 4 Americans have a mental disorder. Most people consider someone with a mental disorder to have behaviors, feelings, and thoughts that deviate from the norm. Someone who is not considered “normal” does not “fit in” with what is socially and medically deemed “standard”. When we contemplate what it really means to be “normal”, we often associate what is “normal” with whether the way we think or act is the same or similar to the majority of other people and society. When we evaluate our own behaviors, we decide how to act based on the established parameters of what is considered acceptable, or normal, social behavior. To many, normal means average or standard. In addition, social standards strongly influence the idea of what is “normal”. By examining society’s laws of what is culturally considered “normal”, we are left with many questions on how these perceptions came about. Who defines what is “normal” and what is not? How do we construct what is in the box and what is out? As seen through the eye of the beholder, what is considered “normal” is filtered through the lens of society.

Here is a link to a video:

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/tlc/28826-understanding-genes-and-human-behavior-video.htm

Understanding: Genes and Human Behavior

“On the Learning Channel series "Understanding: The Power of Genes", researchers try to find the link between genes and human behavior”.

This video succinctly discusses the complex relationship between genes and human behavior. The video claims that “genes may predispose us to act certain ways, even when it comes to such things as taking risks”. The actions of jumping off the high-dive into the pool and/or deciding to walk back down the stairs and stay on ground are, according to the video, the “character traits in genes we inherit”. The video addresses two contrasting behaviors that are correlated with the “novelty seeking gene” and the “anxiety gene”. The “novelty seeking gene makes his (or her) brain respond to dopamine” and it is “released in a positive way”. The “anxiety gene controls serotonin” and “makes his (or her) brain feel bad, anxious, worried”. As seen in the video, individuals who possess either of these genes tend to behave in two very different ways. What is felt as novel, or exciting, for one person, may make another person feel anxious or terrified. Are both behaviors considered to be “normal”? Or is one to be considered a more acceptable social behavior?

The articles by Rose, Talbot, and Elliott, speak to the issue of over-medicalization of behaviors that are not considered “normal”. In the book, “Better Than Well”, by Carl Elliott, the chapter, “The Face Behind the Mask”, refers to America’s love-hate relationship with what Elliot calls ‘enhancement technologies’ that is present in our society. The author claims that before the 20th century, Americans classified people by their character, and in the early 20th century, people were classified by their personality. Elliott states that character was “about the depths beneath the surface, about what is on the inside as well as what other people see”, and personality was about “the idea of self presentation” (60). In turn, “Americans started to take on the idea that we all put on a mask for the world. Everyone is a performer” (Elliot, 60). The goal was to be “socially successful”, in which “not only do we have to behave in certain ways, we have to be certain ways as well” (Elliot, 60). In addition, the author addresses the medicalization of the personality trait of shyness. The medicalization of shyness lead to it’s diagnosis in the DSM as a mental disorder, first categorized as a “social phobia”, and then the term “social anxiety disorder” was created. To help “cure” these disorders, Paxil was advertised as the drug of choice. Within the last century, there has been an explosive response to these disorders and prescribing drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Cymbalta. Those who benefit most from the diagnosis of “mental disorders” are the pharmaceutical companies. These companies are gaining profit by giving out the “magical pill” that will cure your “disorder”. The pharmaceutical companies begin to overtake scientific studies and results and become dependent to mental disorders by selling these “illnesses” through advertisement and persuade society to purchase these pills as a result of self and misdiagnosis.

Has this become the “norm” of our society?



http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jun2008/PillMan.jpg

The above image represents society’s current obsession with treating behaviors that are not considered “normal” with pills. Pills are constantly being created and taken for everything. Has our society become dependent on pills that claim to “cure all”? Pharmaceutical companies have created various assortments of drugs to treat different conditions that science, and we as a culture, have come to medicalize. In addition, pharmaceutical companies spend millions each year on the advertisement of these drugs to be represented in the media. These constant reminders surround our everyday lives and send the message that you could possibly be suffering from one of these disorders and need a certain pill to “fix it”.

Nikolas Rose’s article, “Neurochemical Selves”, refers to the relationship between drugs and behaviors by arguing that “drugs do not so much seek to normalize a deviant but to correct anomalies, to adjust the individual and restore his or her capacity to enter the circuits of everyday life” (210). In addition, Rose states, “While our desires, moods, and discontents might previously have been mapped onto a psychological space, they are now mapped upon the body itself, or one particular organ of the body—the brain. And this brain is itself understood in a particular register. In significant ways, I suggest, we have become “neurochemical selves” (188). The phenomenon of neurochemical selves is deeply embedded in the process of modifying the abilities in our life’s work to become “active” citizens, devoid of “anomalies”. Rose states, “In the eugenic age, mental disorders were pathologies, a drain on a national economy. Today, they are vital opportunities for the creation of private profit and national economic growth” (209). This suggests that people and their mental disorders can be considered as a means for “profit” and “economic growth”, which reiterates the obsession with diagnosing mental disorders and the creation of drugs as treatment for these disorders.

Doctors have begun to over-prescribe drugs and over-diagnose disorders, which has lead to the problem of prescription drug abuse. The article, “Brain Gain”, by Margaret Talbot, discusses the over-medicalization of “disorders” and over-prescription of drugs to treat them. This pushes peoples desire to “perform” even better, to be considered “normal” and a pill is needed in order to compete in this vicious cycle. The article describes students’ desires to boost cognitive functions, in which, “People in her position could strive to get regular exercise and plenty of intellectual stimulation, both of which have been shown to help maintain cognitive function. But maybe they’re already doing so and want a bigger mental rev-up, or maybe they want something easier than sweaty workouts and Russian novels: a pill”(4). This represents our society’s desire towards improving ourselves and “taking the easy way out”. In western society, we have created a society based on the norms of getting things done fast and right, in order to get ahead in life. Talbot states, “Every era, it seems, has its own defining drug. Neuroenhancers are perfectly suited for the anxiety of white-collar competition in a floundering economy” (11). Many of us have become dependent on these neuroenhancing drugs to help us get ahead and succeed in life; these drugs have become “normal” to our society. These drugs are enabled by pharmaceutical companies and doctors who prescribe them. Should our society sit back and let drugs overrule our lives? Why can’t we be happy with who we really are? What really is “normal”?

Sources:

Elliot, Carl. 2003. “The Face Behind the Mask” and “Amputees by Choice.” In Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Pp. 54-76, 208-236.

Rose, Nikolas. 2007. “Neurochemical Selves.” In The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pp. 187-223.

Talbot, Margaret, “Brain Gain: The Underground World of ‘Neuroenhancing’ Drugs.” The New Yorker, April 27, 2009.

Modern Health and Disease

Dieting has become deeply integrated into the American culture. Many people in the U.S. are on a diet in one way or another, whether it is counting calories or checking waistlines. Diet names such as “Weight Watchers”, “Atkins Diet”, and “South Beach Diet” become familiar to our every day language and are recognized because we begin to hear them all the time. One modern approach to an ancient way of eating is the “Paleo Diet”.



http://www.crossfittheclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/paleo_diet_caveman_poster-p228497097265485886t5ta_400.jpg

The “Paleo Diet” is considered to be a way of eating, rather than dieting, and dates back to ancient times, before many of us existed. This diet is based upon the types and quantities of foods that hunter-gatherers once ate. This diet consists of lean meat, seafood, fruits and vegetables. The “Paleo Diet”, which has been adapted through evolution and natural selection, imitates the diet of our hunter-gatherer ancestors—a diet high in protein, fruit, and vegetables, with moderate amounts of fat and high quantities of omega-3 and monounsaturated fats. By modifying our modern ways of dieting to be adjacent with our ancestors’ ways of eating seems to provide health benefits.

In the article “Globalizing the Chronicities of Modernity”, Dennis Wiedman reflects on the responses to the chronicities of modernity. Wiedman portrays the major changes in health by stating, “For most of human history as hunters, gatherers, and agriculturalists, humans maintained an active physical lifestyle that varied with seasonal resources and promoted cardiovascular and metabolic fitness. But for the past five hundred years, since early European imperialism, there have been major changes in everyday life and, in consequence, in health” (38). The author addresses the concept of chronicity, an idea used to explain individual and local ways of life, question public health discourse, and consider the relationship between health and the globalizing forces that influence and/or shape it. Wiedman’s main argument is the “theory of chronicity”, which is developed to “reconceptualize and explain the global pandemic of MetS, by arguing that its underlying cause is the dramatic shift from ‘seasonality’ of hunters, gatherers, and agriculturalists to the ‘chronicities of modernity’” (38). With modernity, we see more results of chronic conditions. Wiedman discusses the association of diabetes with the metabolic syndrome (MetS), and how these chronic conditions have become increasingly prevalent in developed and developing nations. The article documents the effects of modernity by “reflecting the rapidity of the demographic and cultural transition” and how it “portrays the critical juncture of modernity as populations transition from subsistence agriculture to a cash economy, from self-produced foods to store-bought foods, from vigorous household chores to the comforts of household appliances, and from actively walking to riding in cars and trucks” (Wiedman, 42). Contemporary examples of modern lifestyles display the connection between the chronicities of modernity and the increased prevalence of chronic diseases such as diabetes and MetS. Wiedman’s article also discusses the health consequences in relation to globalization. Wiedman describes globalization as the “intensification of worldwide social relations”, in which “production, distribution, transportation, communication, and financial systems link the local to the global” (45). The “aspects of globalization”, in which individuals interactions and social structures become “more uniform”, are said to “jeopardize health” (Wiedman, 45-46). This article explores the unequal impact of chronic illness and disability on individuals, families, and communities in diverse local and global settings.

Here is a link to a video by Dr. Oz on “The Healthiest Diets”:

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/sharecare-videos.htm

This video looks at diets from around the world, why they work, and how to bring them to your own lives and home. Dr. Oz was featured as the “health expert” on the “Oprah Winfrey Show”. In this video, Dr. Oz proposes that certain countries, which diets consist mainly of whole-grain and legumes like beans and rice, in addition to fruits and vegetables, have the best health. The combination of whole, natural foods found among other countries diets, are suggested to provide better nutrition and lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

Food practices vary from country to country. There are obvious social, cultural, political, and economic factors that influence our perspectives on health and disease. The article “Chronic Conditions, Health, and Well-Being in Global Contexts” , claims that approaches to health should provide “a more powerful appreciation of context—that is, how environments are shaped by physical, geographical, social, cultural, political, ethno-racial, gender, economic, and class-based systems of enablement and oppression” (238). If we take a critical standpoint and look at these multidimensional factors of social, economic, and political conditions that influence and affect health, we are able to understand these conditions and improve the lives of people with chronic conditions. The ideologies of health and disease have affected the relationship between food and our bodies. Nutritionism has become a nationally accepted paradigm as to how we view food and what we should eat. Scrinis argues that the “focus on nutrients has come to dominate, to undermine, and to replace other ways of engaging with food and of contextualizing the relationship between food and the body” (39). Scrinis states, “Over the years categories and subcategories of nutrients and biomarkers—such as different types of fats and types of blood cholesterol—have proliferated, promising ever more precise and targeted knowledge and dietary advice” (41). We turn to “functionally marketed foods” that “can be defined as foods that are directly marketed with health claims. These include any marketing claims that refer to the relation between a food or nutrient on the one hand, and a bodily process, disease, biomarker, or state of physical or mental health on the other” (Scrinis, 45). Nutritional reductionism becomes a “kind of nutritional determinism, in which nutrients are considered to be the irreducible units that determine bodily health” (Scrinis, 41). This contextualizes the problem of nutritional reductionism and the limitation of peoples social, spiritual, and gender identities in relation to food.

We need to take a critical standpoint in our views of health, well-being, and disease. There needs to be a shift away from medical approaches and public health morals of blaming and victimizing individuals for their “choices” or actions taken, to an approach that examines the larger social, cultural, and global factors that influence health. Wiedman claims that “efforts at multiple levels should empower communities and leadership” with knowledge of health and disease that is “presented in understandable and culturally appropriate ways to (a) influence accessibility to affordable and healthy choices of foods in local communities; (b) enhance activity levels with designs of transportation systems, work, exercise and recreational facilities; and (c) promote the redevelopment of local food production lifestyles in communities that want to farm, garden, ranch, hunt or fish” (Wiedman 53). This would promote “healthy communities” and address “the necessary structural changes”, in order to “reduce the pandemic of chronic diseases associated with industrial lifestyle” (Wiedman, 53).


Works Cited:

Dennis Wiedman, 2010. “Globalizing the Chronicities of Modernity: Diabetes and the New Metabolic Syndrome.” In Chronic Conditions, Fluid States: Chronicity and the Anthropology of Illness. Lenore Manderson and Carolyn Smith-Morris, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Pp. 38-53.

Gelya Frank, Carolyn Baum, and Mary Law. 2010. “Chronic Conditions, Health, and Well-Being in Global Contexts: Occupational Therapy in Conversation with Critical Medical Anthropology.” In Chronic Conditions, Fluid States: Chronicity and the Anthropology of Illness. Lenore Manderson and Carolyn Smith-Morris, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers university Press. Pp. 230-246.

Gyorgy Scrinis, 2008. “The Ideology of Nutritionism.” Gastronomica 8(1): 39-48.

Sexual Desire

http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/vatican-opposes-un-resolution-on-universal-decriminalisation-of-homosexuality/

The above religious painting was taken from a site titled “Gays Without Borders”, which is “an informal network of international GLBT grassroots activists working to make the world a safer place for GLBT people, and for full GLBT equality in all aspects of legal and social life”. The painting was added to this site as “a declaration against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity”.

Homosexuality has been a controversial topic researched and discussed for hundreds of years. Jennifer Terry’s article, “Medicalizing Homosexuality”, explores how theories through time were developed as to how and why certain individuals become homosexual. Offense towards the homosexual community dates back to the Judeo-Christian times, as Terry’s article states, “For several centuries, official disapproval of homosexual acts stemmed primarily from Judeo-Christian religious doctrine upon which secular laws proscribing ‘offenses against nature’ were based” (Terry 40). In earlier times, homosexuals were punished for the ways in which they behaved; they were put in jail, psychiatric hospitals, or executed. As seen in the religious painting above, the act of homosexuality is something that is not accepted or presented freely, rather, it is represented as something that is evil or demonic, and looked down upon. Judeo-Christian religions view homosexuality as a sin and disapprove of homosexuals, which in some cases, these considerations still hold true and exist today.

Many thought homosexuality was a problem in society that needed to be removed, in order to protect and sustain societal and cultural values. Fear of the unknown was prompted from lack of knowledge on the concept of homosexuality. In turn, this lead to the medicalization of homosexuality, where people, not only suppressed their concerns regarding homosexuality, but also, turned to doctors for help in how to deal with their sexual desires. Terry affirms these ideas by stating, “But faith in the healing power of medicine was certainly not limited to this group. Many who opposed homosexuality thought modern medicine would yield the most reliable knowledge, and in so doing, be useful in riding modern society of the problem. The growing trust in medicine, held by a wide range of people, was tied to the belief that its practitioners were rational, truthful, and objective, while also caring and compassionate”(Terry 42). In this case, homosexuality was thought to be a sickness and a disease.

Due to these concerns presented by society, medical interpretations were developed to describe homosexuality. The first, “interpreted homosexuality in a naturalistic manner. The naturalists perceived homosexuality to be a benign but inborn anomaly, linked to organic congenital predisposition or to other evolutionary factors. Homosexuality, to them, was a condition of inborn sexual inversion, which caused homosexuals to be neither truly male nor truly female but to have characteristics of the opposite sex” (Terry, 43). The second, “consisted of degenerationists” who “considered homosexuals to suffer from an inborn constitutional defect that manifested itself in sex inverted characteristics and in overall degeneracy” (Terry, 43). Both naturalists and degenerationists “believed one’s constitution was comprised of what we would distinguish as biological and psychological attributes, including moral and intellectual qualities” (Terry, 43). Later, naturalists and degenerationists were contrasted by Sigmund Freud and his psychogenists, who were “regarding homosexuality as a psychogenically caused outcome of early childhood experiences. They considered homosexuality to be a perversion of the sex drive away from the normal object of desire” (Terry, 43).

From the beginning of the 19th century to contemporary times, the acceptance of homosexuality has changed. Scientists and researchers have examined the causes and formed theories regarding homosexuality. In present time, homosexuality appears to be more accepted among cultures and society. In addition, our cultural and societal views and discussions of sex have shifted over the years. Shows such as “Sex and The City” have displayed women speaking freely of their sexual experiences and desires. Set in New York City, the show focused on four white American women and social issues such as sexually transmitted diseases, safe sex, and promiscuity. It specifically examined the lives of women and how they are affected by changing roles and expectations for women.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_WHLTK3qI

Here is a description by the author of the above video:

“The FIRST chapter in the QueerCarrie remix narrative.

This is the first of THREE remixes in the Sex and the Remix series. Each season of the original SATC will be remixed to build upon the story established in the previous work. The queering of on-screen relationships are especially important for LGBTQ fans and allies who have so few options of characters to identify with in popular culture.

Due to their constant dissatisfaction with the opposite sex, the women of Sex and the City question their desire, will and strength to continue following the expectations of conventional heterosexuality. They're here. They're queer.

The original show appropriated the language of radical feminist politics only to retell old patriarchal fairy tales.

Why are these women, in all their sexual candor and sexual frankness, abandoning their post-feminist thinking? Or, why is it so easy to use the language of radical feminism but so hard to give up on those patriarchal fantasies?

By editing out existing heterosexual innuendo and male characters, I seamlessly create an alternative narrative not typically associated with the original source material”.

Our society today has become more open to talking about taboo subjects, such as sexuality. In this era of “Sex in The City”, sex scandals, and new sexual enhancement technologies, the critique of sexology is important. Janice M. Irvine’s article, “Regulated Passions”, examines the diagnosis of “sex addiction” and the invention of “inhibited sexual desire” and its social and political implications. The article provides a comprehensive understanding on the construction of these two conditions, as Terry traces the history of our cultural discourses on sex and gender and the hidden power within them. Terry states: "The power of medical ideology in the construction of sexual desire derives from its expansion, its authoritative voice. There must be cultural recognition that desire problems are diseases, with a subsequent adoption of the language and concepts of dysfunction" (327). The medicalization of desire reflects cultural values, which "In our culture, both disease and desire are medical events, individual experiences, and social signifiers. There is no linear relationship between medical ideology and individual behavior" (Irvine, 326). Furthermore, Irvine states, “the existence of inhibited sexual desire and sexual addiction as medical diagnoses ensures that proposed solutions will be individual and structural and cultural.” (Irvine 328) While it is apparent that there are biological causes of disease, it is also important to examine cultural causes and other influences when viewing disease. This is addressed in the article as Irvine states, "The content of medical diagnoses is shaped by social, economic, and political factors" (326).

Overall, I think it is important to recognize these approaches to and regulations on sexual desire. Both of these articles discuss the regulation of desire; Terry’s article discusses homosexuality as it moves through the medical lens, and Irvine’s article presents the construction of ‘hyper’ and ‘hypo’ sexuality in contemporary times. Both articles consider the social production and regulation of desire and analyze the ideologies of desire and how they are constructed. I think it is important to analyze desire in how it is shaped by social, economic, and political factors. The regulation of desire often includes viewing deviant forms of desire as wrong and different from what is constructed as the cultural “norm”. If we are to analyze desire by looking at many influential factors, we would be able to see how desires are culturally constructed and socially produced. Our views need to shift from viewing these desires as disease or deviant from the cultural “norm”, and instead, consider the construction of these ideologies of desire.

Works Cited:

“Regulated Passions: The Invention of Inhibited Sexual Desire and Sexual Addiction”. Janice M. Irvine. In Terry, Jennifer, and Jacqueline Urla. Deviant Bodies: Critical Perspectives on Difference in Science and Popular Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. Print.

“Medicalizing Homosexuality”. Terry. In American Obessesion: Science, Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Sociecty. 1999. University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London.

Seeing is Believing

Image found at: http://www.isna.org/files/images/pornodoc-754.preview.gif

The drawing above is by Charles Rodrigues. Mr. Rodrigues is a creative artist whose cartoons have appeared many times in Playboy, Stereo Review, and the defunct National Lampoon. I found this cartoon image from The Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) website. ISNA is “devoted to systemic change to end shame, secrecy, and unwanted genital surgeries for people born with an anatomy that someone decided is not standard for male or female” (ISNA). ISNA was founded in 1993 as an effort to support those patients and families who felt harmed by their experiences with the health care system. ISNA evolved into an important resource for these affected individuals, their families, and clinicians who are involved with disorders of sex development (DSDs), in order to improve the health care system and overall well-being for those who suffer with DSDs. Later, ISNA collaborated and supported a new organization, Accord Alliance, to promote a more comprehensive approach to care for those with DSDs. This new nonprofit organization established new ideas on appropriate care for DSD-related health and outcomes to be implemented across the nation. With this new organization in order, ISNA closed it doors, in knowing that its efforts and knowledge will be continued. The cartoon image above represents many of the challenges that ISNA has faced, along with, the arguments discussed in Thomas Laquer’s article “Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud”.

First, I would like to discuss what the term intersex means and its implications. Intersex is the general term used for a variety of conditions under which a person is born with something other than standard male or standard female anatomy. In 1998, the standard treatment for intersex was composed of three components, “First, textbooks and journal articles instructed practitioners to lie to their intersex patients and to withhold information from them about their conditions. Second, otherwise healthy children were being subjected to procedures that risked sexual sensation, fertility, continence, health, and life simply because those children didn’t fit social norms. The third problem was the total lack of evidence—indeed, the total lack of interest in evidence—that the system of treatment was producing the good results intended” (ISNA). This standard of care for intersex patients remains unchanged. Most health care centers still treat intersex patients with this concealment-centered model that recommends misrepresenting critical information and surgically altering healthy genitals. ISNA believes that intersex medicine has not changed because the treatment and the core components are a lot like other realms of modern medicine. It is seen as an issue to change otherwise healthy patients to fix social norms, which comes as hardly unusual in the realm of medicine. In this way, the patient can be pushed to become normalized and reconstructed. The same issues of intersex are presented in Laquer’s article on the body and gender.

The article by Thomas Laqeur claims that ancient representations, in the Renaissance period, characterized sexual differences unlike today’s scientists. The scientists of the Renaissance era continued to progress the field of anatomy, in which “the new anatomy displayed, at many levels and which unprecedented vigor, the ‘fact’ that the vagina really is a penis, and the uterus a scrotum” (Laquer, 79). Thus, the vagina was identified as penis and the uterus as testes. This new model states that, “Seeing is believing the one-sex body. Or conversely. Believing is seeing” (Laquer, 79). Laquer argues that the female sexual organs are homologous to male sexual organs, only inside out; “seeing the female genital anatomy as an interior version of the male’s” (Laquer, 86). In the drawings made during dissections, scientists from Aristotle to Galen identified female genitalia as male genitalia, in which “women’s organs are represented as versions of man’s” (Laquer, 81). This model creates the belief that women and men are represented as two different forms of one essential sex; that women have the same reproductive structure as men. Seeing really was believing for these scientists and they relied on their observations of the body to structure the language and order of the body. This new approach to anatomy and ideology of the body is depicted in the cartoon image above. The doctors rely on the normalization and perfection of the body that is produced by social and cultural constructs (or in this case, Playboy). The image further implies that “truth and progress lay not in texts, but in the opened and properly displayed body” (Laquer, 70). Perhaps the doctors in the image, who represent the modern realm of medicine, are adjusting the socially-challenging anomalies of an intersex patient to fix social norms and reconstruct the body.

Laquer does not think scientists from the Renaissance era were mistaken; however, they performed dissections and recorded what they saw, and believed what they saw. Their drawings, in this way, were correct. Since, at the time, their world view did not allow for a two-sex body, the parts of the body of a male versus a female were identified differently. Through time, it has become politically necessary to create a distinction between men and women. Laquer’s argument destabilizes our modern concept of the sexed body as a static, non-historical entity. Social, political, and cultural beliefs and values have influenced and constructed the ways in which we view our bodies, gender, and reproductive systems. Intersex and ideologies of one-sex bodies are constructed as socially-challenging anatomies in the realm of medicine. It is my hope that we can begin to actively recognize and confront the oppressive nature of social anatomical norms and question the use of medicine. This will help us to construct a conscious dialogue of the meaning of anatomy and the implications of these normalizing procedures.


Sources:

Thomas Laqueur, New Science, One Flesh. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Pp. 63-113.

http://www.isna.org/