Another Update

Friends!

What a busy week its been.

Special thanks to this weeks interviewees:

Dr. Melinda Myers

Dr. Loren Cannon

Aubree Babel

and Mary Bockover

I have jumped into the fun and amazing world of editing together these exciting interviews, and combining them with my own research and other footage. I wish that I could be able to post clips from all if these new interviews, but the time has come to focus in on the editing of the project as a whole. Ill post more updates as the process develops. 

Thanks for following my progress!

Progress Update!

First and foremost, I would like to thank everyone who has become involved in this project. Every day, as I talk with more individuals, gather interview footage and continue my research, my inspiration and energy grows stronger. 

Namely, I would like to thank: Karin, Dr. Cannon, Mary Bockover, Michelle, Aubree, Marie, Loren K, Nicole, John, Diana, Steve, and David!

With 3 interviews already completed, and 4 or 5 planned for the coming week, I will soon feel that the interview portion of the project will be complete.

My next step will be to finalize the narration structure for the film and then to record my voice for that narration.

Also in this coming week, I will create some charts, animations, and (more) titles for the project, as well as shoot some additional footage. 

My next measurable goal for this project will be the completion of a rough cut by the middle of May, to satisfy my independent study credits through the University. The fine editing of the project may take me through the summer and into the Fall.

Thank you for following my progress!

 

Clips from an interview with Loren Kester 04/15/2009

Thank you Loren for your contribution!

These clips represent just a small portion of our talk, and will not necessaraly be the clips used for the film itself. 

I am posting these clips to share my progress with others who may be interested in contributing, may be generally following the project, and also to share documents with people outside of the project completely.

DRAFT OF A PHILOSOPHY PAPER OF THE SAME SUBJECT. Used as a basic structural tool for the film:

Gender Variance and Autonomy

Introduction.

In this essay, I will use the examples of gender and sex in society to explore

questions of personal autonomy and its interplay with the cultural projection of variance

as an abnormality, and how variance is perpetuated by science, and modern psychology

as dysfunction. Integrated throughout, the overarching importance of this study of

autonomy will arise out of the application of autonomy and common social views of

gender variance to issues of human rights.

To begin, I will present an overview of the concept of autonomy, followed by an

exploration of variances in sex and gender and its connection to the social distinction of

abnormal and the pathological status of dysfunction. The concepts of this study will be

applied to the examples of transgender and intersexed experience, for context and direct

application.

Autonomy.

The concept of freedom is a common topic of passionate debate in many circles.

It is explicitly written in Federal and State law, and often seeps into individual family

politics. There is one specific kind of agency, termed “autonomy”, that is akin to our

common interpretation of “freedom”, and it perhaps holds an even stronger relevance to

debates of human rights regarding personal expression. Autonomy is a term and a

philosophical subject with many diverse definitions and interpretations. The definition

that has been chosen for inclusion in this paper is only one isolated version of the

concept. The definition has been drawn from various sources including Judith Butler’s

“Undiagnosing Gender”, Margaret Walker’s “Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study

in Ethics”, and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. For the chosen direction of this study,

the flowing definition for autonomy will be used: “the ability to act freely without the

presence of (unjustified) moral coercive entities”. Alternately stated, an autonomous

individual would be one who has moral independence.

While the concept of freedom requires the ability to act without physical restraint,

autonomy demands the ability to act without coercive moral influences. An obstruction

of freedom manifests itself physically, and an obstruction of autonomy manifests as a

social restraint of ones most basic internal thoughts or external expressions on a moral

level. An obstruction would influence ones ability to live by ones own moral laws and

beliefs. Community recognition is a necessary element to legitimize ones expression. Not

only must an autonomous agent be free from restrictive influence, in order for one to be

fully autonomous they must also be consistently recognized or accepted as such by their

community. In a specific instance when one might legally have the freedom to express

hirself in a particular manner, their actions or expressions however might become

socially coerced through the powers and influence of social groups, and the normative

rules that a group may enforce, which would effectively influence one’s agency for

autonomy. One critical attribute of autonomy is that it can be challenged or influenced by

cultural normative rules. In order for one to act as a fully autonomous agent, one must

feel that they can express their deepest and most inner-selves and beliefs, even when an

expression may differ from social constructions of normal. The problematic issue with

coercion here is not merely its presence, as coercion can have many important functions.

Some positive functions may be to insure that reasonable laws are upheld, or human

rights violations are discouraged. So basically you could say that a distinction can be

made between beneficial coercion and harmful coercion, the latter form being of focus in

this essay.

The Pathology of Variance.

Our scientific emphasis on categorization and simplification of the natural world

often leads us into binary views of concepts that are truly bigger than their categorical

measures can encompass. In regards to sex and gender for example, there are assumed to

exist a set of universal truths that roughly match our social realities. Studies in the

biology of human variation provide statistical evidence that genetic and social variance is

common and natural; yet the intimate interplay between social norms and the presentation

of scientific research can and does often act to distort the details and conclusions of

research which may expose natural variances of sex and gender. It is the social realities,

not the scientific ones, which create oversimplified systems that define and separate

normal behavior or biology from abnormal. These simplified schemas become second

nature in social settings. Simplified organizations of human possibility become

internalized. Social realities can become confused with biological truths, or the lack there

of. Natural variances that exist with sex and gender, for example, are subject to the

measures and boundaries of social dichotomies, even more so than scientific documents

or research. Sex and gender are measured in the binaries of male or female, and man or

woman. Individuals who fit well within their assigned or prescribed category will be

considered normal, while variant expressions will be attacked and labeled as

abnormalities.

The two specific examples of moral coercion that will be addressed in this essay

are of special concern because they are directed to suppress statistically rare, but

biologically expected human traits. Intersexed conditions, for example, are not directly

harmful to the individual or society, yet individuals find themselves being coerced to

conform into social norms which systematically disinclude them. In many ways, the oversimplified

binaries that separate normal as something opposite of abnormal, as well as the

concept of health as an opposite of dysfunction, produce an unaccommodating

environment for some basic human rights of access to individual autonomy.

Sex Variation.

Key Example: Intersexed Conditions.

It is a common assumption that scientific research has empirically led us into

clear measurable definitions for sex, but in fact this is not the case. The assumption that

there is an empirical way to measure whether one is biologically male or female is

unsubstantiated. Biology in fact tells us that, in every possible measure of sex, a spectrum

of traits exists. Various areas of measure can be used such as primary sex characteristics

(such as genitalia or internal sex organs), secondary sex characteristics (such as breasts or

facial hear), hormone levels, muscle or cognitive development and abilities, or

chromosome sets, among others. No matter the measure, any given individual will have a

unique set of characteristic that will apply to various points of the spectrum for each of

the given sex measurements. Most individuals will find themselves somewhere in

between the two extreme ideals of what might be considered completely male or

completely female. Sex is a social decision based on scientific research, rather than a

scientific or universal biological truth. To quote Anne Fausto-Sterling, prominent

genetics and gender studies researcher “labeling someone as 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”.

When an individual is measured as being a biological mix between the sexes, they

are diagnosed as intersexed. Intersexed conditions most often do not bare any negative

biological health concerns, and are statistically expected at approximately 1.4-2% (ISNA

2009). It is common for intersexed individuals to receive strong coercive pressures to

fully adopt one of the two most common sex categories. They are often socially asked to

repress or deny the parts of themselves that are unique, and adapt themselves into societal

norms. Although exceptions occur, intersexed individuals are often medically referred to

surgical specialists, which will suggest the physical adoption of only one sex, rather than

encourage or accept a biological combination of characteristics.

Sex Variation and Autonomy.

With specific reference to intersexed conditions, while recognizing that perhaps

similar arguments could be made for other sex-variant identities, I would like to argue

that the oversimplified and well-established social and medical views of sex can and do

obstruct access to autonomy. Social norms and medical definitions narrowly restrict sex

identity down to two options. With limited acceptance at times to biologically intersexed

individuals, many individuals with mixed biological sex characteristics are asked to adapt

their bodies and their identities to fit a social myth of health. Aside from the obvious

physical coercion of this example, psychological and moral coercion is also talking place.

Individuals are asked to adjust their sense of self to fit what others would prefer for them.

Coercion is clearly present from the medical angle, and is also experienced implicitly as

social pressures to assimilate into the established societal definition of sex. Societal

norms, in their current state, clearly deny intersexed experience.

Gender Variation.

Key Example: Gender Identity Disorder

Gender, in some ways similar to sex, is subject to social and scientific binary

oversimplifications. As an attribute that tends to be even more difficult to measure than

sex, gender identities and expressions also exist on a spectrum. And while these

spectrums exist, a polarized prescription for gender persists with social pressures, and

from the gender categorization methods of psychology, which pathologize variance.

Socially, individuals are asked to internalize one of the two options for gender identity,

and express themselves according to that gender. While a person may generally fit well

within their gender, social coercion suggests that extreme ends of the two polarized

genders are the ultimate ideals, thus requiring a never-ending effort to attain gender

purity.

There is an important circular interplay between our socialized conceptions of

gender, and the prescriptions of modern psychology. The Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual for the American Psychological Association outlines various criteria to measure

the health of ones gender identity and presentation. This criterion defines a diagnosis of

dysfunction for individuals who are gender variant and experience dysphoria about that

variance. At times when a patient may not feel dysphoric about their gender variant

behaviors, a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder may still be assigned (Karasic 2006).

Gender Variation and Autonomy

I would like to argue that the social and medical denial of the potential for one to

be both gender variant and in a state of health can be a harmful oversimplification. Social

realities clearly do not recognize variant forms of health. As defined earlier, autonomy

requires the ability to act or express oneself without the pressure of social coercion

against those expressions. While someone may feel relatively comfortable with their

gender, if pervasive objections to their particular form of gender are present, than that

individual’s autonomy is put into question. By obstructing ones ability to define one’s

own state of health in regards to their gender identity, a gender variant individual is

blocked from the gender autonomy that is granted to gender normative individuals.

Therefore, a pure experience of autonomy requires, at the very least, an exercise of selfdetermination

without coercive influences based on normative conceptions.

Conclusion:

Autonomy and Human Rights in Relation to Sex and Gender Variance

There is a clear relationship between autonomy and human rights that I would like

to explore, in relation to this study of sex and gender autonomy. A moral coercion to

conform to unjustified social norms of sex and gender violates the individual’s personal

autonomy. A human right is right that can be justifiably applied to all human beings. My

argument here is that an obstruction on ones autonomy is an obstruction of that persons

ultimate access to human rights. Simplifications in sex and gender categorization exist to

aid a social cohesion of language. While categorical understandings and measurements

do help bring people together into common understandings, they also inherently discount

variations to those categories; thus inherently discounting healthy, statistically expected

individual bodies and identities from the basic rights of recognition and acceptance. As

fellow humans, individuals of minority status should be given an equal access to personal

autonomy than is afforded to the majority.

WORKS CITED

Bornstein, K. “Who's on Top?" 1998. In My Gender Workbook: How to Become a Real

Man, a Real Woman, the Real You, or Something Else Entirely, pp. 34-71. New York,

NY: Routledge Press.

Butler, J. "Undiagnosing Gender." 2004. In Undoing Gender, pp. 75-101. New York,

NY: Routledge Press.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body. 2000.

Intersexed Society of North America (ISNA). 20 December 2008.

Karasic, Dan, Jack Drescher, editors. Sexual and gender Diagnoses of the Diagnostics

and Statistical Manual (DSM): A reevaluation. 2005

Lips, H. (2008). Sex & Gender: An introduction. New York: McGraw Hill.

Merriam-Webster Online. 14 April 2009

Spade, D. “Mutilating Gender”. Spring 2000.

Walker, Margaret. Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics. August 2007.

Clips from an interview with Karin Fresnel 04/14/2009

 

Thank you Karin for your time, your strength, your honesty and your openness to share with me such personal stories. You have made a valuable contribution to this project!

These clips represent just a small portion of our talk, and will not necessaraly be the clips used for the film itself. I am posting these clips to share my progress with others who may be interested in contributing, may be generally following the project, and also to share documents with people outside of the project completely.

Interview Clips: Michelle Cartier, Ph.D. of Philosophy

This interview is the first, of what I hope to be many, positive interview experiences for this film in progress.

I chose just a few clips to share with you on this site from the 1 hour long interview.

Interview #1: Michelle Cartier, Ph.D. of Philosophy

Updated Narration Draft

INTRO –

This film intends to unpeel some critical layers off of our common conceptions of gender and sex. Using philosophical tools, lets uncover layers of scientific myth and social reality; layers of projected and self-ascribed identity; layers of the cultural assignments of normal, and abnormal; layers of psychological assignments of health and dysfunction; and layers of human rights and personal autonomy.

I will use the examples of gender and sex in society, to explore questions of personal autonomy and its interplay with the cultural projection of variance as a dysfunction, and how it is perpetuated by science, and modern psychology.

For clarity’s sake ide like to share with you the two most important goals for this film…

The primary purpose is simply to stir up questions. The second goal of this film will be to provide you, the viewer, with some additional philosophical  perspectives on the concepts of gender and sex beyond your own personal experiences as a gendered individual. My hope is that you, the viewer, will feel empowered by the new questions. I hope the ides presented here will be both challenging and enlightening, while ultimately very serious and worthy of your own deep self-refection. I encourage you also to question my ideas and thought patterns, just as much as I hope that you question and consider your own.

First, I am going to start out with an overview of some key philosophical concepts and tools for analyzing the key idea of “variance as a dysfunction”, and then I will get into how these tools can be applied to two specific examples of variances in sex and gender.

#1 (Autonomy. Moral coercion as a human rights violation)

The concept of freedom is a common topic of passionate debate in many circles. It is explicitly written in Federal and State law, and often seeps into individual family politics. There is one specific kind of agency that, it seems to me, is akin to our common interpretation of “freedom”, and it perhaps holds an even stronger relevance to debates of human rights regarding personal expression.  Autonomy is the ability to act freely without the presence of (unjustified) moral coercive entities (EXAMPLES necessary here). Community recognition is a necessary element to legitimize ones expression. While the concept of freedom requires the ability to act without physical restraint, autonomy demands the ability to act without coercive moral influences. So while an obstruction of freedom is physical, an obstruction of autonomy is a social restraint of ones most basic internal thoughts or external expressions on a moral level. In a specific instance when we might legally have the freedom to express ourselves in a particular manner, our actions or expressions however might become socially coerced through the powers and influence of our social groups, and the normative rules that they enforce, which would effectively influence our agency for autonomy. An attribute of autonomy would be one that crosses cultural normative rules rather than legal ones. In order for us to act as fully autonomous agents, we must feel that we can express our deepest/ most inner-selves, even when those expressions may differ from social constructions of normal, given that those expressions will not harm or negatively effect other individuals. The problematic issue with coercion here is not merely its presence, as coercion can have many important functions. Some positive functions may be to insure that reasonable anti-violence laws are upheld, or human rights violations are discouraged. So basically you could say that a distinction can be made between beneficial coercion and harmful coercion. The latter being of focus in this essay.

            The two specific examples of moral coercion that will be addressed in this film are of special concern because they are directed to suppress statistically rare, but biologically expected human traits. Traits which are not directly harmful to the individual or society, yet individuals find themselves being coerced to conform into social norms which systematically disclude them. In many ways, our over-simplified binaries of normal as something opposite of abnormal, as well as the concept of health as an opposite of dysfunction, produce an unaccommodating environment for some basic human rights of individual autonomy.  (Variations in expressions as well as biological realities).  These are the spaces where social realities and biological realities collide.

#2 (Why We Pathologize Variance)

            Lets now take a moment to dig into our understandings of the development of our everyday sociological perspectives as well as our biological understandings of human variation. In order to do this we must first acknowledge the circular interplay between the two. Studies in the biology of human variation provide statistical evidence that genetic and social variance is common and natural. It is the social realities, not the scientific ones, which create oversimplified systems which separate normal behavior or biology from abnormal. Our scientific emphasis on categorization and simplification of the natural world often leads us into binary views of concepts that are truly infinitely complex.  These simplified schemas become second nature in social settings. Social realities can become confused with universal truths. We internalize the simplified organizations of human possibility. In regards to sex and gender for example, there are assumed to exist a set of universal truths which roughly match our social realities. Expressions that fit within the boundaries of a given dichotomy are considered normal and are encouraged, while variant expressions are attacked as abnormalities.

           

Lets jump into the meat of the film, lets explore 2 specific examples of variant gender and sex identities, as well as variant social expressions, that challenge society’s binary framework which has come to define our concepts of what is is to be a normal “man” or a normal “woman”.  And lets use the critical measure human rights measurement concept of autonomy to critique these systems.

AUTONOMY AND SEX. THE BIOLOGY VS. THE SOCIAL REALITY

EX: INTERSEXED CONDITIONS

It is a common assumption that scientific research has empirically led us into clear measurable definitions for sex, but in fact this is not the case. We assume that there is an empirical way to measure whether one is biologically male or female. But really, in every possible measure a spectrum of traits exist. It depends whether you are looking at primary sex characteristics such as genitalia or internal sex organs, secondary sex characteristics such as breasts or facial hear, you could look at hormone levels, muscle or cognitive development and abilities, or you could look at ones chromosomes, and within any given individual, a unique set of characteristic will exist on various points of the spectrum, for each of the given sex measurements.  Most of us fit somewhere in between the two extreme ideals of what might be considered completely male or completely female. Sex is a social decision based on scientific research, rather than a scientific or universal biological truth. To quote Anne Fausto-Sterling, prominent genetics and gender studies researcher “labeling someone as 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”. P3

 

One way to begin a deeper explanation of this concept might be by taking a closer look at chromosomes.  The two most discussed variations that we commonly hear about are the sex chromosome pairs XX and XY. These are what we learn about as kids in our biology classes, but very few of us find ourselves educated on the other possible sets, even if we do recall a vague recognition of their existence. Many of us have also learned that a certain sort of hormones come along with each of those two common chromosome sets. A basic public education in biology doesn’t tend to go into the many variations in hormone balances, nor do they go into the variances in secondary sex or primary sex characteristics that I listed a moment ago.

Possible interlude of classic chromosome lessons (found)/ intersexed inclusion

Now consider what it may be like for intersexed individuals who are left out of the seemingly simple binary of male or female, with their biology haven been given barely even a mention in the classroom, or by society at large. Most infants are categorized at birth by their doctors as either male or female based on their external genitalia. Historically, in the US, infants with mixed genitalia would be surgically altered to appear as one sex or the other. Through the efforts various intersexed advocacy groups, including the Intersexed Society of North America, doctors have slowly become less likely to make such surgical decisions ….

Although  intersexed conditions most often do not bare any negative biological health concerns, and are statistically expected (at approximately 1.4-2%), they receive strong coercive pressures to fully adopt one of the two most common sex categories. They are asked to repress or deny the parts of themselves which are unique, and adapt themselves into social norms. My question to you at this point here is in regards to these individuals’ access to personal autonomy. As defined earlier, autonomy requires the ability to act or express oneself without the pressure of social coercion against those expressions.  Our simplified social model of two sexes clearly does not leave room for the in-betweens; for those who do not fit inside the boxes.  Think about your own definition of human rights. Does it discount the right to live as ones unique biology directs them to? It there some greater social good that comes specifically out of a clear social separation between two theoretical sexes which do not even scientifically exist as clear opposites, or even as definable categories?

AUTONOMY AND GENDER (this area in progress)

- HEALTH VS. DYFUNCTION. SOCIETAL WELL-BEING OBOVE THE INDIVIDUAL.

EX: GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER

1.    Constraints of GID

a.    Diagnostic criteria.  Health vs dysfunction. Assumed delusion/ experienced personal dysphoria and projected social dysphoria.

b.    Social pressure through stigmas, internalized stigmas. Disorder + less human?

2.    How the diagnosis (and existence of the disorder) effect individual autonomy – 2 simplified views explained

3.    Summary- unnecessary pain for real societal disorder/ fictional individual disorder?

Option 1: If diagnosis is pathologized, one may then gain autonomy through following the prescribed path to conformity. – one form of autonomy. To do this one may also internalize the social stigma of having a disorder- which can be argued as an unnecessary pain for a natural condition. becoming recognized within an existing (conforming)  to a socially accepted identity which is not considered a pathological disorder- one without negative stigmas.

Option 2: outside of the GID- choosing ones own gender expression path, without accepting the label of the disorder. Realizing autonomy (by reaching it) in an individual (most likely non-conforming way)

 Ideal?: self-determination as an exercise of autonomy. With the GID- self-determining ones own gender is pathologized.

Judith Butler : the GID…”assumes the language of correction, adaptation, and normalization”…”assumes that certain gender norms have not been properly embodied and that an error and a failure have taken place… it pathologizes variance”

.  to name what is accepted, and what is unacceptable/ the norm and the abnormal.

“the diagnosis (GID) can be regarded as an instrument by which to further ones self-expression and self-determination (JB pg88)”

 

THE PUSH (AND SHOVE) FOR SOCIAL CONFORMITY. IS THE SYSTEM JUSTIFIED IF ONLY A FEW GET HURT?

For many of us, and perhaps even most of us, the gendered states of being a man or being a woman come fairly easy to us, and can even feel natural. Some individuals are fortunate, and find themselves to be comfortable in their prescribed gender roles, and find their biology to fit the social definitions for the corresponding sex. But does the fact that most people are comfortable with the current definitions for sex and gender outweigh the strong discomfort of individuals who do not? Is it right to pathologize the variant few for there presence in an arbitrary system? Is it right to define variant adults or children as psychologically unsound, and biologically variant infants in need of “corrective” genital or hormonal surgeries? The American Psychological Association does define individuals who fit outside the boxes of gender as having psychological disorders. And it is a common practice for doctors to suggest and carry our genital surgeries and hormone therapy on infants in effort to push them into socially acceptable sexual entities.

The well being of our society’s constructions of sex and gender here are given a higher importance than the rights of individuals to express the basic necessities for autonomy, for natural and statistically expected variations in the human form.

 

 

 

Draft of Philosophical Structure (akin to an intro paragraph)

This film/ essay will use the examples of gender and sex in society, to explore questions of personal autonomy and its interplay with the cultural projection of variance as a dysfunction.

The concept of freedom is a constant topic of passionate debate in many circles, from judiciary judgments of the law, to individual family politics. There is a specific kind of agency that, it seems to me, is akin to our common interpretation of “freedom”, and perhaps holds an even stronger relevance to debates of human rights to personal expression.  Autonomy is the ability to act freely without the presence of coercive entities. Community recognition is a necessary element to legitimize ones expression. While the concept of freedom demands the ability to act without physical restraint, autonomy demands the ability to act without coercive moral influences. In a specific instance when we might legally have the freedom to express ourselves in a particular manner, our actions or expressions however might become socially coerced through the powers of our social groups, and the normative rules that they enforce, which would effectively influence our agency for autonomy. But unlike freedom, autonomy can be discouraged (into oblivion) when/if the expression of an attribute crosses cultural normative rules rather than legal ones. In order for us to act as autonomous agents, which I see as a necessity of basic human rights, we must be given the ability to act without coercion. This essay/ film will explore various ways in which some of our most basic forms of expression can be compromised by acts of coercion that intend to suppress the natural presence of human variation (expressions as well as biological realities).  Our scientific emphasis on categorization and simplification of the natural world has led us into binary views of what I see as infinitely complex concepts.  These schemas become second nature in social settings. We internalize the simplified organizations of human possibility. Expressions that fit any given dichotomy will be encouraged, while variant expressions are attacked with active efforts of suppression. We enforce ideas as rules, and even internalize the rules within ourselves. This film/essay will focus on specific examples of divergent gender and sex identities and social expressions that challenge the normative binary framework which has defined our concepts of “man” and “woman”.  

Preliminary outline of key concepts

•Our infinite world is organized and simplified with schemas. This is necessary and useful for communication social structure, yet can be limiting. Schemas are necessary to lighten the intellectual/ emotional load of infinite possibilities. Inherent in this simplification, is the discount of many natural variances

• Social realities become confused with universal truths. In regards to sex/gender, there are assumed to exist a set of universal truths- which match our social truths/ realities

•Schemas limit the individual’s ability to express their autonomy because humans are more diverse than the systems that they live in.

•Pathologizing variance. Statistically expected (or “natural”) social and biological diversity is marginalized in order to uphold our schemas (ideologies).

= the loss of Individual Autonomy: the ability to be recognized by ones peers for their true self. In order to be an autonomous individual, the recognition of our peers is required. a matter of community recognition.

•Limitations lead to exclusions, the repression of genuine expression… harmful stigmas. They also function to uphold the power of the privileged class- who have the power to perpetuate systems of inequality.

•Example of APA. The mental health of our society is given priority above the health of the individual. Natural (statistically expected) variations in biological sex and gender identity are directed to towards assimilation into the dominant categories, sometimes at the expense (and exclusion) of the mental health of the unique individual. The model says: the individual will be healthy when they assimilate and are accepted. Critical critique: why pathologize and treat the individual rather than the system?

Diagnosis: Enabling vs. Restrictive. •Realizing autonomy (by reaching it) in an individual (most likely non-conforming way) OR            •becoming recognized within an existing (conforming)  to a socially accepted identity which is not considered a pathological disorder- one without negative stigmas.

•Social realities vs. scientific fact.

 •Expressions and biological makeup[s be rewarded with the many prizes of a high social status, and what expressions or biological facts will be punished with a low social status

•The binary two sex categorization is a social decision and not a scientific fact

• The GIDs defining features, the wide-spread of individuals (variance) who may not fit the models, and how variance is pathologized as with disorder.

• intersexed conditions. Statistics, social stigmas, “corrective” surgeries on newborns.

 

 

 

SCHEDULE

Week 1 (ending Jan 24, 2009): Meet with Nicole Hill. Create a  blog page for the project. 

Week 2 (ending Jan 31): Contact all 3 area advisors to schedule first meetings.   Work on Treatment, Synopsis and Outline. Complete rough draft of narration text. 

Week 3 (ending Feb 7): Meet with area advisors to confirm direction, project schedule, and our student and advisor expectations.

Week 4 (ending Feb 14): Post first draft of text. 

Week 5 (ending Feb 21): Post second draft of text. Begin to collect found footage and plan shoot schedule.

Week 6 (ending Feb 28): Post final narration text.  Explore, in more detail, the Treatment (look, feel, photographic tools, sources for found footage) of the film in response to feedback and new resource information.  

Week 7 (ending March 7): Check-in with advisors. Collect found footage. Organize interview schedules/ interview questions. Research video equipment availability/ room reservations. 

Week 8 (ending March 14, followed by Spring Break): Shoot film/ collect found footage. Record narration audio.

Week 9 (ending March 28): Shoot film/ collect found footage. Import media to computer and begin editing.

Week 10 (ending April 4): Final pick-up shoots. 

Week 11 (ending April 11): Work on rough edit.

Week 12 (ending April 18): Complete rough edit to share with advisors and other faculty. 

Week 13 (ending April 25): Editing

Week 14 (ending May 2): Editing

Week 15 (ending May 9): Complete Editing. Make copies for advisors.

Week 16 (ending May 16 – Finals Week): yet to be scheduled presentation of project to advisors. Open to friends and public?

Readings

A working list of Works Cited, current readings, and relevant recent readings. Suggestions are welcome!  (Alphabetical by author)

Bornstein, K. “Who's on Top?" 1998. In My Gender Workbook: How to Become a Real Man, a Real Woman, the Real You, or Something Else Entirely, pp. 34-71. New York, NY: Routledge Press.

Butler, J. "Undiagnosing Gender." 2004. In Undoing Gender, pp. 75-101. New York, NY: Routledge Press.

Chase C. (2002) What is the agenda of the intersex patient advocacy movement? The Endocrinologist. Retrieved February 10, 2008 from http://www.isna.org/about/

Coleman E. (1987) Assessment of sexual orientation. The Haworth press. PP. 9-24.

Currah, Juang, and Minter - Editors. (2006) Transgender Rights. University of Minnesota Press

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). The five sexes, revisited. The sciences, July/ August pp.18-23.

Fausto-Sterling A. “Reigning medical paradigm: Program # 248”. (March 6, 2000). Gender-talk. [Radio Program]. Retrieved March 12, 2008 from http://www.gendertalk.com/real/200/gt248.shtml.

Hyde, J S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American psychologist. Volume 60(6), September 2005, p 581–592.

Juang, Richard M

Karasic/ Drescher – Sexual and Gender Diagnosis of the Statistical Manual (DSM)

Lips, H. (2008). Sex & Gender: An introduction. New York: McGraw Hill.

Spade, D.  “Mutilating Gender”.  Spring 2000

Trinh T. Minh-ha