HUXTABLE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Kathryn Huxtable) (11/10/89)
In article <1989Nov9.180233.10272@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>, geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: > In article <16709@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> HUXTABLE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Kathryn Huxtable) writes: >>They have results from some studies which indicate that people >>identify others as "female" in the absence of "male" cues. They also > Did they say what cues were sufficient to cause male identification? > I saw an interesting computer graphics simulation of a rotating head a > while back. The head was bald, yet most people identified the head > (as I did) as female or juvenile rather than male. It was difficult > to say why. No features were shown other than in profile. They did overlays on an "androgynous" figure. They showed the figure and I personally thought that in the absence of any cues the face looked masculine. I am not sure why. The cues they added were: genetalia (both kinds), breasts and/or chest hair, long and short hair, wide hips or narrow hips, and an androgynous shirt or pants. The presence of a penis caused unambiguous male identification. Strangely, though, after attributing a gender, they were asked what they would change to change the figure's gender. At least one person said of a figure wearing pants (which had been attributed male) to "remove the penis". They could not see a penis. They attributed a penis once they attributed the gender. Genital primacy in our culture is very strong. >>underlying biological reality. On the other hand, there are people >>born with no genetalia, so what *is* the underlying biological reality > > Chromosomal analysis can give one answer. If there is a Y chromosome > present, the individual is genetically male. However, in the case of > testicular feminization (lack of androgen from the fetal testes in the > womb) the individual will appear to be phenotypically female. It is > only when the individual fails to develop menses that the truth is ^^^^^ > found out. These individuals have almost always been raised as > females, and consider themselves females. It is a real thorny problem > for the doctor as to what to tell the poor adolescent girl when the > diagnosis is made. Obviously she will never be able to have children, > and has to be told, but it probably is harmful to say "you're really a ^^^^^^ > guy". The above arrows indicate the bias in our society for biological determinism of gender. More below. It's not clear that you can even use chromosomes to give an answer to a person who is a genetic mosaic, i.e. has varied XX and XY sets throughout the body. That Russian olympic contestant (name forgotten, sorry) who was disqualified from women's events a few years ago was one such. Phenotypically female, she had never had any doubt of her gender until someone looked and found a few Y chromosomes floating around. I submit that true gender is attributed gender and that's all there is to it. If you meet me on the street and attribute female to me then that's what I am. If I meet you and attribute male to you then that's what you are. If my attribution rubs your gender identity wrong, then you either need to work on your presentation (learn to say "Yo!" more often, e.g.) or you will spend a lot of your time fighting society. I would rather live in a society which did not polarize gender as much as ours does. But I *do* live in our society and I can only do so much to change it. I have a life to live. I will therefore conform as much as I have to to keep people's attribution of my gender as "female" and no more. -- Kathryn Huxtable huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu