Women Gender Study Writing Intensive Essay

Gender’s nature Intersexuality, transsexualism and the ‘sex’/’gender’ binary

Abstract Th e d istin ction betw een ‘sex’ an d ‘gen d er’ is ch allen ged by argu m en ts th at ‘sex’ is equ ally a social con stru ction , in itiatin g a self- reflexive effort to retu rn fem in ism to its fou n d ation al grou n d in g. Th is article con cern s in tersexu ality an d tran ssexu alism as tw o bod ily form s th at fu rth er su ggest ‘sex’ as socially in scribed . I argu e th at fem in ist th eory n eed s to ascertain w h eth er th e artificial em p h asis on sexu al d ifferen ce, con tra n atu re, is better able to effect social ch an ge th an con join ed efforts to exp ose ‘sex’ as a con stru ction in ten d ed to grou n d d ivision s. Recen t su p p ort for ‘m u ltip le gen d ers’ often rem ain d ep en d en t on a m orp h ological n otion of ‘sex’, an d , as su ch , m ay n ot con stitu te a rad ical ch allen ge to ou r cu rren t ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ system .

Keywords m u tip le gen d ers, n atu re, qu eer, sex u al d ifferen ce, tran sgen d erism

Th e d evelop m en t of th e tran s m ovem en t h as raised a vital qu estion th at’s bein g d is- cu ssed in w om en ’s com m u n ities all over th e cou n try. Th e d iscu ssion revolves arou n d on e p ivotal qu estion : h ow is w om an d efin ed ? Th e an sw er w e give m ay d eter- m in e th e cou rse of w om en ’s liberation for d ecad es to com e. (Fein berg, 1996: 109)

Fem in ists d o n eed to m ake n orm ative ju d gem en ts an d to offer em an cip atory altern atives. We are n ot for ‘an yth in g goes’. (Fraser, 1995: 71)

Introduction Th e jou rn al Differen ces recen tly d evoted an issu e to qu estion in g th e con - tin u ed viability of w om en ’s stu d ies as a d iscip lin e, ad join in g a grow in g ‘id en tity’ d ebate in fem in ist th eory. Notw ith stan d in g a gen erally su p p ort- ive attitu d e, th e con tribu tors ackn ow led ged a gen eral m ovem en t aw ay from w om en ’s stu d ies tow ard s gen d er, gay, lesbian an d sexu ality stu d ies:

. . . w om en ’s stu d ies h as som etim es greeted u n com fortably (an d even w ith h os- tility) th e rise of fem in ist literary stu d ies an d th eory ou tsid e its p u rview, Critical Race Th eory, p ostcolon ial th eory, qu eer th eory, an d cu ltu ral stu d ies. Th eory th at d estabilises th e category of w om en , racial form ation s th at d isru p t th e u n ity or

347

TF

Myra J. Hird Queen’s University of Belfast

Feminist Theory Copyright ©2000

SAGE Publications (London,

Thousand Oaks,CA and New Delhi)

vol. 1(3): 347-364. [1464-7001

(200012)1:3; 347-364; 015102]

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 347

p rim acy of th e category, an d sexu alities th at sim ilarly blu r th e solid arity of th e category – each of th ese m u st be resisted , restricted , or w orse, colon ised , to p re- serve th e realm . (Brow n , 1997: 83)

Th at fem in ist th eory d w ells on issu es of id en tity is u n d erstan d able. I n eed n ot revisit th e n ow w ell-trod d en h istory of th eory’s ‘en d of in n ocen ce’ (Flax, 1990).

Cu rren t con cern w ith th e fragm en tation of id en tities ad join s th e d ebate su rrou n d in g th e con tin u ed viability of d ifferen tiatin g betw een ‘sex’ an d ‘gen d er’. Th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary h as circu lated th rou gh ou t th e social sci- en ces, p rovid in g a p ow erfu l fou n d ation for a m aterial accou n t of w om en ’s op p ression . ‘Sex’ referred to biological d ifferen ces betw een w om en an d m en , w h ereas ‘gen d er’ sign ified th e p ractices of fem in in ity or m ascu lin ity in social relation s. Th is bifu rcation served a n u m ber of fu n ction s, of w h ich th e m ost im m ed iate w as to p rovid e a con ven ien t, tan gible m ean s to con - stitu te id en tity an d p roceed w ith th e im m ed iate con cern of ch allen gin g th e h ierarch ical relation sh ip s th at su bord in ate w om en to m en .

Con fid en ce in th is d istin ction is erod in g, or h as alread y d egen erated to su ch an exten t th at Hood -William s (1996) is able to offer its ‘p ost-m ortem ’. Man y fem in ist sch olars h ave con tribu ted to th is ‘p ost-m ortem ’ by cri- tiqu in g th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ d istin ction .1 For in stan ce, Delp h y argu es th at, rath er th an seein g sex as th e baselin e from w h ich gen d er em erges th rou gh sociality, ‘gen d er . . . create(s) an atom ical sex’ (1984: 144). By con flatin g th e biological w ith th e n atu ral, ‘sex’ becom es th e n atu ral th at in itiates th e social. Moreover, ‘n atu ral’ d ifferen ce is based alm ost en tirely on on e p ar- ticu lar asp ect of biology: sexu al rep rod u ction .2 Un d er th e d iscu rsive sign of sexu al rep rod u ction , an en tire orch estra of ‘biological facts’ is brou gh t in to p lay to fix th e n otion of biological ‘sex’ d ifferen ces. Th u s, ch rom o- som es, h orm on es an d gen italia h ave been variou sly ‘con stitu ted as em bod yin g th e essen ce of sex’ (Hard in g, 1996: 99; em p h asis in origin al).

Also critiqu in g th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ d istin ction , Hood -William s (1996) focu ses on th ree in terrelated assu m p tion s th at u n d erlie th is (often ) taken - for-gran ted bin ary. First, th e biological d istin ction betw een w om en an d m en assu m es th at a d istin ction can be m ad e betw een biology (‘sex’) on th e on e h an d , an d cu ltu re (‘gen d er’) on th e oth er; an d , fu rth erm ore, th at w h ereas ‘gen d er’ is ch an geable, ‘sex’ is im m u table. Fin ally, an d m ost im p ortan tly for th is article, th is bin ary d ep en d s on th e id ea th at biology itself con sisten tly d istin gu ish es betw een fem ales an d m ales. Natu re, as I h op e to argu e, offers sh ad es of d ifferen ce an d sim ilarity m u ch m ore th an clear op p osites, an d it is rath er a m od ern id eology th at im p oses th e cu rren t tem p late of sexu al d ifferen ce.3

Desp ite fem in ist critiqu es, th e overall fem in ist p roject h as largely d ep en d ed on a ‘real’, corp oreal base on to w h ich ‘gen d er op erates as an act of cu ltu ral in scrip tion ’ (Bu tler, 1990: 146; em p h asis in origin al). Wittig’s (1993) th eory of lesbian id en tity illu strates Bu tler’s p oin t. Wittig argu es th at lesbian s’ p osition in th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary is am bivalen t: lesbian s are con tem p oran eou sly ‘w om en ’ (as d efin ed m orp h ologically) an d ‘n ot w om en ’ (as d efin ed by h eteron orm ativity). Th e p olitical p roject d eterm in ed

348 Feminist Theory 1(3)

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 348

to ch allen ge th e h eteron orm ative d efin ition of ‘w om an ’ m akes Wittig’s an alysis valu able. How ever, th e an alysis relies on an im m u table n otion of ‘sex’ to argu e th e social con stru ction of ‘gen d er’ (Fu ss, 1995). Alth ou gh Wittig goes to som e len gth to d iscu ss lesbian social id en tity, sh e also qu ite clearly con sid ers lesbian m em bersh ip in itially on th e basis of m orp h ology . Now h ere d oes Wittig d iscu ss th e p ossibility of lesbian s w ith p en ises. So, im p licitly, lesbian s are w om en an d w om en are fem ales an d fem ales are h u m an bein gs w ith a p articu lar m orp h ological bod y.

Even som e p ostm od ern fem in ists often seem u n w illin g, in th e fin al in stan ce, to give u p a corp oreal n otion of th e fem in in e. At th e sam e tim e th at Sh ild rick, for in stan ce, is able to w rite of ‘p osth u m an ism ’ an d ‘id en - tity as p rocess’, sh e states: ‘I . . . h ave n o w ish to fu lly aban d on th e con cep t of th e fem in in e’ an d th at alth ou gh ‘bou n d aries are flu id an d p er- m eable, th ey [d o n ot] cease altogeth er’ (1996: 9–10).4 Postfem in ist an d cyberfem in ist an alyses m ay focu s on th e bod y as ‘fragm en ted ’ an d ‘ch im erical’, bu t for m ost fem in ists th ese d iscu ssion s rem ain con cep tu al an d rem ote from th e everyd ay m aterial relation s of ‘gen d er’, w h ere ‘sex’ is fu lly grou n d ed .

Tw o lived bod ily id en tities cu rren tly ch allen gin g th e m od ern ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary are in tersexu ality an d tran ssexu ality. In tersexu als rad ically con fron t th e m od ern tw o-sex m od el of sexu al d ifferen ce, an d m ed ical accou n ts of th eir sex ‘reassign m en t’ tell a d istu rbin g story of th e literal rein scrip tion of sex on to ‘u n ru ly’ bod ies.5 An d if in tersexu als ch al- len ge th e reification of th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary, th en m ale-to-fem ale (MTF – w h eth er p reop erative, p ostop erative or n on -su rgical) tran ssexu als p ar- ticu larly focu s th e assu m p tion th at you n eed a p articu lar m orp h ological con figu ration to ‘kn ow ’ you rself as fem ale. Beau voir ’s sign atu re statem en t th at ‘on e is n ot born , bu t becom es a w om an ’ seem s to an ticip ate tran s - sexu al claim s (d e Beau voir, 1953). How ever, as I w ill su ggest, th is social con stru ction ist accou n t m ore often p rovid es th e ju stification to exclu d e in d ivid u als w h o h ave n ot sh ared th e su p p osed ly com m on exp erien ces of grow in g u p as w om en u n d er p atriarch y. In ou r cu rren t d iscu rsive field , to exist at all m ean s bein g a w om an or a m an , or, in Bu tlerian term s, ‘sex is th e n orm by w h ich th e “on e” becom es viable at all’ (1993: 2). Th u s, fem in - ist th eory con tin u es to labou r d efin ition al con cern s based on th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ tem p late.

In d eed , on a p ractical level, m u ch fem in ist th eory con tin u es to op erate from a largely u n d istu rbed tw o-sex m od el, as it seem s to facilitate an alyses of w om en ’s exp erien ces.6 Raym on d ’s T h e Tran ssex u al Em p ire (1994) rem ain s th e ‘d efin itive statem en t on tran ssexu alism by a gen etic fem ale acad em ic’ op p osed to sex-reassign m en t su rgery, an d it clearly voices a sh ared fem in ist con cern (Ston e, 1991: 3). Raym on d u ses a fam iliar m od ern recip e of biology an d socialization to d ifferen tiate betw een ‘au th en tic’ an d ‘in au th en tic’ w om en :

We kn ow w h o w e are. We kn ow th at w e are w om en w h o are born w ith fem ale ch rom osom es an d an atom y, an d th at w h eth er or n ot w e w ere socialised to be so- called n orm al w om en , p atriarch y h as treated an d w ill treat u s like w om en . Tran s- sexu als h ave n ot h ad th is sam e h istory. (1994: 114)

Hird: Gender’s nature 349

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 349

Precisely by in vokin g th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary, Raym on d is able to argu e th at ‘tran ssexu als are n ot w om en . Th ey are d evian t m ales’ (1994: 183).

With an aim to qu estion in g th e fem in ist d ep loym en t of th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary, I w an t to exp lore th e w ays in w h ich in tersexu als an d tran ssexu als, on d ifferen t grou n d s, refu se th e op p osition of sexu al d ifferen ce. I h op e to raise d efin ition al con cern s abou t th e con tin u ed u se of th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary th at h as m ajor im p lication s for qu estion s of in clu sion an d exclu sion . Let m e be clear th at m y objective is n ot to h igh ligh t th e d ifficu lties of ‘in clu d in g’ in tersexu als an d tran ssexu als as w om en , bu t rath er to qu estion h ow an y on e claim s th is m em bersh ip based on th e cu rren t ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary. Given th e ten u ou s d efin ition al statu s of both ‘gen d er’ an d ‘sex’, I exp lore th e viability of recen t p rop osals to ‘en d ’ gen d er. My aim is n ot to en tertain a red u ction ist argu m en t ‘for’ sex an d gen d er p lu rality an d ‘again st’ sex an d gen d er restriction .7 Rath er, I am in terested in n am in g th e con sequ en ces of p articu lar in stan ces of red u ction ism th at th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary effects.

The variability of sex8

In tersexu als p rovid e a valu able op p ortu n ity to exp lore th e relation sh ip betw een ‘sex’ an d ‘gen d er’, as w ell as th e d esign ation of m ean in gfu l cat- egories of d ifferen ce. In th is section I h op e to argu e th at th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary is p articu larly red u ctive for in tersexu als, w ith very real p olitical, social an d p erson al im p lication s. Ch ase (1998) estim ates th at on e in every 100 birth s sh ow s som e m orp h ological ‘an om aly’, w h ich is observable en ou gh in on e in every 1000 birth s to in itiate qu estion s abou t a ch ild ’s sex.9 Th e sexologist Joh n Mon ey fou n d ed su rgical sex ‘reassign m en t’ of in ter- sexu al in fan ts in th e Un ited States, an d h is p rotocols rem ain stan d ard p rac- tice tod ay. Mon ey’s exten sive p u blish ed w ork testifies to both th e d iscu rsive gym n astics requ ired to su stain a tw o-sex m od el, an d th e p ro- fou n d im p act th is red u ction ist m od el h as h ad on th e lives of in tersexu als.10 Mon ey d evelop ed a vocabu lary th at com bin ed biology an d sociality, allow - in g th e m ed ical com m u n ity to su stain th e belief th at ‘sex’ con sists of tw o exclu sive typ es d esp ite th e m ed ical com m u n ity ’s ow n ev id en ce th at th is is n ot th e case.

Accord in g to Mon ey, core gen d er id en tity resu lts from th e ch ild ’s in ter- action s w ith p aren ts as w ell as th e ch ild ’s p ercep tion of th eir ow n gen itals (1985: 282). We m igh t exp ect th at th e em p h asis on gen d er id en tity as socially acqu ired m igh t lead Mon ey to con clu d e th at an atom y is n ot d estin y, esp ecially sin ce h e is stu d yin g ch ild ren w ith v ariable gen italia w h o n everth eless id en tify as eith er girls or boys. Bu t Mon ey reclaim s th e im p ortan ce of align m en t betw een ‘sex’ an d ‘gen d er’ by d efin in g a ‘critical p eriod ’ of p aren t–ch ild in teraction w h ich cem en ts an earlier in -u tero p eriod , w h ere h orm on al activation of th e brain sets th e d irection of n eu ral p ath w ays in p rep aration for th e recep tion of ‘p ost-n atal social gen d er id en - tity sign als’ (Raym on d , 1994: 47). Th u s, Mon ey argu es for su rgical in ter- ven tion as soon after birth as p ossible, for th e ch ild ’s p sy ch o-social w ell-bein g (Hird an d Germ on , 2001). In oth er w ord s, su rgeon s believe th at

350 Feminist Theory 1(3)

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 350

th ey ‘m erely p rovid e th e righ t gen itals to go alon g w ith socialisation ’ (Kessler, 1990: 17).

Wh eth er gen itals, h orm on es or ch rom osom es are p referen ced in ‘d eter- m in in g’ an in fan t’s ‘sex’ is d ebated .11 Given th e salien ce of visu al cu es, th e ‘abn orm al’ ap p earan ce of a n ew born ’s gen itals m ost often in itiates m ed ical in terven tion . In th e first in stan ce, th en , gen ital ap p earan ce is p rivileged over h orm on es, ch rom osom es, gon ad s an d in tern al rep rod u ctive stru ctu res (Hau sm an , 1995). Garfin kel an d Stoller argu e th at th e ‘n atu ral, n orm ally sexed p erson [as] cu ltu ral object’, m u st p ossess eith er a vagin a or a p en is an d w h ere n atu re ‘errs’, h u m an -m ad e vagin as an d p en ises m u st serve (1967: 122). A n ew born w ith am bigu ou s gen italia is th u s con sid ered a ‘m ed ical em ergen cy’ (Pagon , 1987) an d su rgeon s are rou sed from sleep to d ecid e th e ch ild ’s ‘best sex’ (Fein berg, 1996).

Ch rom osom e tests d eterm in e th e gen etic m ake-u p of th e ch ild : if th ey reveal an XX con figu ration , gen ital su rgery is u su ally p erform ed w ith ou t d elay (Kessler, 1990). Wh ere tests in d icate th e p resen ce of a Y ch rom osom e, su rgery m ay be d elayed w h ile fu rth er tests d eterm in e th e resp on siven ess of p h allic tissu e to an d rogen treatm en t. Su ch treatm en t serves to en large th e p en ile stru ctu re to th e p oin t w h ere it can p ass as a real p en is:

Sin ce . . . rep rod u ction m ay be d isregard ed , th e m ost im p ortan t sin gle con sid er- ation is th e ch ild ’s su bsequ en t [h etero] sexu al life. . . . If th ere is little or n o p en ile grow th th e m ale sex w ill be ou t of th e qu estion an d th e fem ale sex sh ou ld be ch osen ; w ith good p en ile d evelop m en t th e m ale sex m ay be ap p rop riate. (Dew h u rst an d Gord on , 1969: 45)

Th e old trop e p roves tru e as p en is size u ltim ately d ictates w h eth er th e ch ild is recon stru cted as m ale or fem ale (Griffin an d Wilson , 1992; Pagon , 1987). Su rgeon s con sid er th e con d ition of a m icro-p en is so d etrim en tal to a m ale’s m orale th at reassign m en t as fem ale is ju stifi ed on th is basis alon e. Th e im p lication h ere is th at m ale ‘sex’ is n ot on ly, or m ost im p ortan tly, d efin ed by ch rom osom es or by th e ability to p rod u ce sp erm . Rath er, m ascu - lin ity is d eterm in ed by th e aesth etics of an ap p rop riately siz ed p en is:

If th e su bject h as an in ad equ ate p h allu s, th e in d ivid u al sh ou ld be reared as fem ale, regard less of th e resu lts of d iagn ostic tests. In th e p atien t w ith an ad equ ate p h allu s, h ow ever, as m u ch in form ation as p ossible sh ou ld be obtain ed before a d ecision is m ad e. (Griffin an d Wilson , 1992: 1536)

Con sequ en tly, it is com m on for in fan ts w ith an XY ch rom osom e con figu - ration to be assign ed an d raised as fem ale.

Fu rth er illu stratin g th at n atu re d oes n ot itself p rovid e su fficien t m aterial from w h ich ‘sex’ can be read , th e m ed ical literatu re an d th e treatm en t p ro- tocols exp licitly p rivilege m alen ess an d d evalu e fem alen ess. Delays in ‘corrective’ su rgery to red u ce (or rem ove) p h allic tissu e of an XY in fan t beyon d th e n eon atal p eriod is to in vite ‘trau m atic m em ories of h avin g been castrated ’ (Kessler, 1990: 8). Clitorop lasty, on th e oth er h an d , is u n d ertaken w h en th e ch ild is an yw h ere betw een seven m on th s an d fou r years of age, an d som etim es as late as ad olescen ce.12 Fu rth er, little atten - tion is p aid to aesth etics in th e creation of a vagin a. Th e sole requ irem en t is th at th e vagin a be able to accom m od ate a p en is.13 Scar tissu e is often

Hird: Gender’s nature 351

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 351

h yp er-sen sitive, resu ltin g in extrem e p ain d u rin g in tercou rse. Becau se of th e lack of elasticity in scar tissu e, a d aily r egim e of d ilatin g th e vagin a is requ ired to p reven t th e vagin a from closin g. Th e vagin a is often con - stru cted u sin g bow el tissu e, w h ich lu bricates in resp on se to d igestion rath er th an arou sal (Lau ren t, in Bu rke, 1996).

Th e h igh -p rofile Joh n / Joan case th rou gh w h ich Mon ey first argu ed for th e n ecessity of su rgical in terven tion illu strates m an y of th e con trad iction s in th e m od ern tw o-sex m od el of sexu al d ifferen ce. After a bu n gled circu m ci- sion d u rin g in fan cy, Joh n even tu ally fou n d h im self in th e h an d s of Mon ey’s su rgical team , w h o reassign ed h im as fem ale. Joh n ’s case w as p articu larly im p ortan t becau se h e h ap p en ed to h ave an id en tical tw in broth er. Mon ey argu ed th at if Joh n ‘lived ’ th e exp erien ce of ‘fem alen ess’, th en sociality, n ot ch rom osom es, d eterm in es ‘gen d er’ id en tity. Wh ereas Mon ey rep eated ly d etailed th e su ccess of Joan ’s livin g as w om an , in terview s w ith Joh n sin ce h e becam e an ad u lt reveal th is su ccess to h ave been greatly exaggerated (Colap in to, 1997). Desp ite Mon ey’s assu ran ces th at Joan w ou ld live com - fortably as a w om an , Joh n n ow lives w ith h is w ife, th ree ad op ted ch ild ren an d a recon stru cted p en is, ad am an t th at h e is a m an . Wh ile Joh n an d Mon ey w ou ld seem to d isagree on ju st abou t every ‘fact’ of th is case, th ey con cu r as to th e con stitu tion of fem in in ity an d m ascu lin ity. Mon ey argu ed th at th e id en tical tw in broth er w as ‘m ale’ becau se h e p referred p layin g w ith ‘cars an d gas p u m p s an d tools’ w h ereas Joh n w as ‘fem ale’ becau se of h is p referen ce for ‘d olls, a d oll h ou se an d d oll carriage’. Joh n h im self says th at h e ‘kn ew ’ h e w as n ot a girl becau se, am on g oth er sign s, h e d id n ot like to p lay w ith d olls, p referred stan d in g w h ile u rin atin g, an d d ayd ream ed abou t bein g a ‘21-year-old m ale w ith a m ou stach e an d a sp orts car, su rrou n d ed by ad m irin g fem ales’ (Colap in to, 1997: 69). Th e variou s p sych iatrists w h o even tu ally exam in ed Joh n also u sed sim ilar m arkers to d efin e h is ‘u n d er- lyin g’ m ascu lin ity. On e p sych iatrist, for in stan ce, d escribed seein g Joh n ‘sittin g th ere in a skirt w ith h er legs ap art, on e h an d p lan ted firm ly on on e kn ee. Th ere w as n oth in g fem in in e abou t h er’ (1997: 70). Parad oxically, at th e sam e tim e th at th e m ed ical com m u n ity stron gly requ ires a biological d efin ition of an in tersexu al’s ‘sex’, th e su rgeon s, en d ocrin ologists an d p sy- ch iatrists th em selves clearly u se a social d efin ition .14

A grow in g p olitical in tersexu al com m u n ity id en tifies m an y of th ese p roblem s: th e variability of sexu al id en tification , th e a p riori assu m p tion of ‘fem in in e’ an d ‘m ascu lin e’ beh aviou r, th e p h allocen tric bias in sex-reas- sign m en t, an d th e p roblem in tersexu als often exp erien ce in ‘belon gin g’ to sexu ally id en tified com m u n ities. Th e In tersexu al Society of North Am erica (ISNA) p resen tly lobbies to abolish all u n n ecessary su rgery an d en su re th at w h at su rgery is still p erform ed is w ith th e fu ll u n d erstan d in g an d con sen t of th e in tersexu al in d ivid u al in volved . In m akin g th ese claim s, th e ISNA n ecessarily keys in to th e w id er d ebate abou t th e ‘n atu re’ of ‘sex’.

Th e m od ern m ed ico-p sych iatric resp on se to in tersexu ality op erates a self-referen tial p rocess of creatin g, reflectin g an d rein scribin g ‘sex’ on to th e bod y (Hird an d Germ on , 2001). Th is socio-p olitical belief ‘is m ain - tain ed an d p erp etu ated by th e m ed ical com m u n ity in th e face of over- w h elm in g p h ysical evid en ce th at th is taxon om y is n ot m an d ated by

352 Feminist Theory 1(3)

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 352

biology’ (Hau sm an , 1995: 25). Th u s, Mon ey d iscu rsively refigu res th e n atu ral p rovision of m ore th an tw o sexes as a ‘h an d icap ’ an d ‘birth d efect of th e sex organ s’ th at su rgery w ill ‘rep air’ (1985: 280). Wh at in cites th e m ed ical com m u n ity to favou r extrem ely in tru sive su rgery for an atom ical con d ition s th at d octors th em selves ad m it p resen t n o fu n ction al or m ed ical d an gers? Th e au th en ticity of ‘sex’ resid es n ot on , n or in , th e bod y, bu t rath er resu lts from a p articu lar n exu s of p ow er, kn ow led ge an d tru th . As Garfin kel an d Stoller argu e, su rgeon s can su bstitu te for n atu re w h en th ey ‘p rovid e w h at n atu re m ean t to be th ere’ (1967: 127). Th at som eth in g as ‘n atu ral’ as ‘sex’ can be, or in d eed n eed s to be, p rod u ced artificially is a p arad ox th at seem s to h ave escap ed th e m ed ical fratern ity (Hird an d Germ on , 2001; Kessler, 1990).

In tersexu als’ exp erien ces of ‘sex’ ch allen ge both th e m ed ical com m u n ity an d fem in ist th eory, to th e exten t th at both are p red icated on th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary to op erate. To effect th e in corp oration of an in tersex- u al su rgically assign ed as ‘fem ale’ in volves a d eterm in ation as to th e con - stitu tion of fem alen ess. An y d efin ition of ‘w om an ’ th at retain s an y corp oreality m u st be able to d efin e th at corp oreality, an d th is is exactly w h ere th e p roblem begin s in d efin ition s based on ‘sex’ (Hird an d Germ on , 1998). An in tersexu al w ill h ave an y com bin ation of p artially or totally su r- gically created vagin a, labia an d breasts. Sh e m ay or m ay n ot be able to sexu ally rep rod u ce. If bein g fem ale d oes n ot en tail th e p ossession of p ar- ticu lar an atom ical p arts, th en th e artificial creation of th ese bod y p arts is in con sequ en tial. Bu t ou r cu rren t assu m p tion s abou t th e con stitu tion of ‘sex’ stru ggle w ith su ch a reality. Accord in g to Raym on d ’s criteria for w om an h ood (qu oted p reviou sly), on e criterion is th e p resen ce of ‘fem ale’ ch rom osom es. I d o n ot agree th at ‘w e’ kn ow w e are born w ith ‘fem ale’ ch rom osom es. Most p eop le d o n ot both er to h ave th eir ch rom osom e con - figu ration ch ecked for au th en ticity, so th ere are likely to be m an y m ore in d ivid u als w ith ‘am bigu ou s’ ch rom osom e con figu ration s th an w e cu r- ren tly id en tify.15 Th e ad u lt(s) p resen t d u rin g ou r birth s took a cu rsory glan ce at ou r gen itals an d d efin ed ou r ‘sex’.

Th is ‘m aterialist’ recou rse to ‘th e bod y’ based on ch rom osom es, rep ro- d u ctive fu n ction , gen om al m akeu p an d gen ital ap p earan ce tu rn s ou t to be, after all of ou r efforts, qu ite su p erficial. Ben eath th e su rface of ou r skin exists an en tire w orld of n etw orks of bacteria, m icrobes, m olecu les an d in organ ic life. Th ese n etw orks take little accou n t of ‘sexu al’ d ifferen ce an d in d eed exist an d rep rod u ce w ith ou t an y recou rse to w h at w e th in k of as rep rod u ction . To th is life ben eath th e su rface, ou r fixation on th e ‘bod y’ is im m aterial:

Not th at it really m atters w h eth er or n ot h e [sic] ever kn ow s abou t th e vast p op u - lation s of in organ ic life, th e ‘th ou san d tin y sexes’ w h ich are cou rsin g th rou gh h is vein s w ith a p rom iscu ity of w h ich h e can n ot con ceive. He’s th e on e w h o m isses ou t. Fails to ad ap t. Can ’t see th e p oin t of h is sexu ality. Th ose w h o believe in th eir ow n organ ic in tegrity are all too h u m an for th e fu tu re [to com e]. (Plan t, 1997: 205)

Th is ‘bod y’ is n ot im m u table in an y biological sen se. Th e skin on w h ich w e d efin e th e bod y’s bord er is m u ch m ore like a p orou s m em bran e, a

Hird: Gender’s nature 353

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 353

n etw ork of h oles h eld togeth er by a system of th read s. Th rou gh th ese p er- foration s all sorts of th in gs flow. More th an 50 syn th etic ch em icals from p rod u cts w e u se d aily (in clu d in g tin n ed vegetables, cigarettes, ch em ical d etergen ts, m akeu p , DDT) flow in to ou r bod ies an d alter ou r en d ocrin e system s (Colborn et al., 1996).

Th e ‘sex’ on w h ich w e base ou r d iscu ssion s of ‘sexu al d ifferen ce’ is n o less im m u table. Th ere are m an y variation s of ‘sex’: XXY, XXXY, XXXXY, XXYY, XXXYY to n am e on ly a few. All foetu ses sp en d th eir first six w eeks in an XX w om b an d h er am n iotic flu id , u n d ergoin g th e sam e d evelop m en t u n til th e release of testosteron e for m ost XY foetu ses.16 Yet w h ile th e gen om e (ch rom osom al m akeu p ) of n o tw o p eop le is id en tical (excep t for id en tical tw in s), th e gen om ic m akeu p of all p eop le is id en tical to w ith in 1 p ercen t (Roth blatt, 1995). Th e d ifferen ces w h ich w e h old so d ear (h air colou r, skin ton e an d so on ) an d on w h ich so m u ch of ou r social organ iz- ation is based (‘sex’-segregated sp orts is an obviou s exam p le) are m in u s- cu le in com p arison w ith ou r biological sim ilarities.17 Th e on ly th in g th at d oes n ot exist is a p u re (Y or YY) m ale. Th ere h as been a case of a boy born w ith an XX con figu ration , h ow ever. Th is boy’s ovu m sp lit several tim es before bein g fertilized by sp erm , p rovid in g fu rth er evid en ce th at p arth en ogen ic rep rod u ction exten d s to h u m an s. Hu m an im agin ation m ay be lim ited to a n arrow u n d erstan d in g of ‘sexu al’ rep rod u ction , bu t n atu re p ersists in offerin g a variety of rep rod u ctive m ean s (Coh en , 1995; Margu lis an d Sagan , 1997). So h u m an rep rod u ction m ay yet resem ble th e kin d of ‘rep rod u ction ’ m ost p op u lar on th is p lan et, w h ich requ ires n o sen se of ‘sex’ at all.

I am n ot argu in g th at bod ies are u n im p ortan t, im m aterial, m ere ch im eras or th at all is ‘su rface’ (in d eed , th e su rface of th e bod y is least im p ortan t, biologically sp eakin g). Bod ies are im p ortan t an d certain ly ‘m aterial’, bu t n ot n ecessarily in w ays th at ju stify con tin u ed em p h asis on sexu al d iffer- en ce. Rath er th an tu rn in g aw ay from th e ‘m ateriality’ of th e bod y, I su ggest th at w e step u p to th e bod y an d look below its su rface to its m atter.18

‘Knowing’ our socially inscribed gender If in tersexu als raise sticky qu estion s abou t ‘sexed ’ bod ily m ateriality, at least th ey h ave n ot ch osen th eir bod ies in th e w ay th at p ostop erative tran s- sexu als are often claim ed to h ave d on e.19 An d if in tersexu als ch allen ge fem in ist th eory’s in vocation of th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary, th en MTF tran s- sexu als p articu larly h igh ligh t th e assu m p tion (recall Raym on d ’s secon d cri- terion qu oted above) th at on e n eed s a p articu lar relation to p atriarch y to ‘kn ow ’ on eself as a w om an . Fem in ist th eory p articu larly valu es th e ex p eri- en ce of livin g in th e w orld as a fem ale. MTF w om en claim gen d ered statu s as w om en based on ‘kn ow in g’ th em selves to be w om en w ith ou t th e accep ted corp oreal sign s d esign ated as ‘fem ale’.

Ch ristin e Jorgen sen ’s sex-ch an ge op eration in 1953 p rop elled MTF tran s- sexu alism on to th e m od ern p u blic stage. Th e MTF tran ssexu al n arratives of th is tim e ad h ered stron gly to th e ‘w om an -trap p ed -in -m ale-bod y’ trop e. Bolin (1994) argu es th at th is n arrative w as p erform ative, created ou t of th e

354 Feminist Theory 1(3)

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 354

n ecessity to forge an ‘origin story’, requ ired by th e m ed ico-p sych iatric com - m u n ity w h o regu lated access to su rgery. Th at is, m ed ical p ractition ers, p sy- ch ologists an d tran ssexu als alike crafted a ‘tran ssexu al id en tity’ based on th e su stain ed d esire for su rgery (Billin gs an d Urban , 1982; Bolin , 1994). Man y tran ssexu als w ere also keen to d ifferen tiate th em selves from p ath ol- ogized ‘gen d er’ id en tities. Th u s tran ssexu alism w as em p h asized as tem - p orary id en tity, a p it-stop before p erm an en t w om an h ood .

Given fem in ists’ com m itm en t to illu m in atin g su p p osed ly in n ate ‘fem i- n in e’ beh aviou rs as socially con stru cted requ irem en ts of p atriarch al society, tran ssexu al n arratives u n su rp risin gly raise su sp icion s an d ran cou r. Raym on d ’s critiqu e h as been ch oru sed by a n u m ber of fem in ists. For in stan ce, Jeffreys (1990) p rovid es a critical review of early au tobiograp h ies by Roberta Cow ell an d Jan Morris, w h om Jeffreys claim s are ‘typ ical’ tran s- sexu al stories. Jeffreys argu es th at tran ssexu als ch oose to ‘im itate th e m ost extrem e exam p les of fem in in e beh aviou r an d d ress in grossly stereotyp ical fem in in e cloth in g’, in p referen ce to fem in ists, w h o su p p osed ly d ress ‘in jean s an d t-sh irts’ (1990: 177, 178). Jeffreys criticizes MTF tran ssexu als for w h at, sh e argu es, is an in ability to u n d erstan d su p p osed ly ‘fem in in e’ beh aviou rs an d ch aracteristics as th ose w h ich w om en m u st ad op t in ord er to avoid p u n ish m en t from p atriarch y. Wh at tran ssexu als con sid er in d i- vid u al attribu tes, Jeffreys m ain tain s are p olitical sign ifiers of w om en ’s op p ression . By d on n in g stereotyp ed cloth in g an d beh aviou rs, tran ssexu als, for Jeffreys, collu d e w ith p atriarch y an d fu rth er con tribu te to w om en ’s op p ression .20

Jeffreys’s su sp icion tow ard s sex-reassign m en t as ‘tran sgressive’ is argu ed from a fem in ist p ersp ective, bu t sch olars m ore gen erally sh are th is scep ti- cism . Th ose op p osed to sex-reassign m en t su rgery argu e th at th e m ed ical fra- tern ity collu d es w ith society to silen ce th e cu ltu ral im p erative of th e tw o-sex system . For exam p le, MacKen zie (1994) argu es th at su rgery m ain - tain s th e cu rren t artificial d istin ction s based on ‘sex’, rath er th an ch allen g- in g it in an y w ay. In S ex by Prescrip tion (1990), Szasz su ggests th at tran ssexu alism is a ‘con d ition tailor-m ad e for ou r su rgical-tech n ological age’ – th e d esire to exp erim en t w ith n ew tech n ology en su res th at critical reflec- tion on th e efficacy of sex-reassign m en t is m in im ized (1990: 86). A n u m ber of sch olars argu e th at tran ssexu alism is a con form ist, in au th en tic gen d er exp ression , in ven ted by a m od ern , m ed ical com m u n ity keen to exp erim en t w ith n ew tech n ology (Sagarin , 1978; Socarid es, 1975; Szasz, 1990). In Ch an gin g S ex , Hau sm an (1995) argu es sim ilarly th at tran ssexu alism is a p rod u ct of a m od ern belief in tech n ology as societal saviou r. Tran ssexu al- ism , for Hau sm an , figu res as a literal (em bod ied ) p rivilegin g of gen d er id en - tity over th e sexed bod y (Hem m in gs, 1996). For th is reason , Hau sm an calls for a retu rn to ‘bod ies’ an d ‘sex’ rath er th an w h at sh e sees as th e reification of gen d er id en tity. Un d er Hau sm an ’s gaze, m ed ical d iscou rse con stru cts th e tran ssexu al, to th e exclu sion of tran ssexu als’ ow n su bjective accou n ts. For Hau sm an , tran ssexu als’ agen cy is lim ited to claim s for sex-reassign m en t su rgery. As I h ave attem p ted to argu e in th is article, th is retu rn to ‘sex’ as th e arbiter of ‘real’ actu ally reveals th e tw o-sex m od el an d sex d ifferen ces m ore gen erally as n o less d iscu rsively im agin ed th an ‘gen d er’ id en tity.

Hird: Gender’s nature 355

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 355

Th e op p osition th at Raym on d , Szasz, Hau sm an an d oth ers exp ress tow ard s sex-reassign m en t is ch allen ged by em ergin g tran ssexu al n arratives th at su ggest th at m an y tran ssexu als ch oose sex an d gen d er id en tification by d efau lt. As argu ed above, m od ern p sych o-m ed ical d iscou rses com p el in d ivid u als to id en tify th em selves as on ly on e of tw o sexes an d (corre- sp on d in g) gen d ers. Un til recen tly, tran ssexu al n arratives h ave been scarce becau se tran ssexu al su rvival h as d ep en d ed largely on th e ability to d isap - p ear. In th e 1990s a d istin ct set of tran ssexu al n arratives began to con test th e d efin ition al statu s of ‘gen d er’ based on sh ared exp erien ce. Th ese an aly- ses argu e th at if gen d er can be learn ed , th en ‘w om an h ood ’ is available to an yon e w ith th e cap acity to learn (Den n y, 1996; Fein berg, 1996; Lew in s, 1995; More an d Wh ittle, 1999; Prosser, 1998; Roth blatt, 1995; Ston e, 1991; Stryker, 1994, 1995). Th ese n arratives reflect a ten sion in th e tran ssexu al com m u n ity betw een th ose w h o w an t to ‘p ass’ as gen itally ‘correct’ w om en or m en , an d an in creasin g n u m ber of tran ssexu als w h o seek d isru p tion of th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ system .

Tran sgen d er stu d ies u ses tran ssexu alism as a key qu eer trop e in ch al- len gin g claim s as to th e im m u tability of sex an d gen d er. As su ch , tran s- gen d er stu d ies in vests h eavily in tran ssexu alism ’s ‘tran sgressive’ p oten tial. Th ese em ergin g n arratives, an d recen t tran sgen d er con feren ces, forecast a com in g of age for tran sgen d er stu d ies.21 Tran ssexu als agitatin g in th e 21st cen tu ry again st th e tw o-sex an d gen d er system are ch allen gin g th eir ‘d evian t’ statu s in p sych ology in m u ch th e sam e w ay as h om osexu als ch al- len ged th eir ‘d isease’ statu s d u rin g th e 1980s. For exam p le, Fein berg (1996) refu ses to legally con form h ir sex to h ir exp ression of gen d er, in stead d irect- in g h ir efforts tow ard s qu estion in g society’s n eed to categorize by sex at all – th e requ irem en t to ‘p ass’ for Fein berg is itself a p rod u ct of op p ression . Kris asks, ‘d oes th e fact th at everyw h ere I go everyon e calls m e “sir” m ake m e a m an ? Does th e fact th at I h ave breasts an d a cu n t m ake m e a w om an ?’ (in Fein berg, 1996: 158). Born stein rem arks, ‘I kn ow I’m n ot a m an – abou t th at m u ch I’m very clear, an d I’ve com e to th e con clu sion th at I’m p robably n ot a w om an eith er, at least n ot accord in g to a lot of p eop le’s ru les on th is sort of th in g’ (1994: 8). Born stein argu es th at tran ssexu als can n ot becom e m en or w om en , n ot becau se th ey are ‘in au th en tic’ as Raym on d an d Jeffreys believe, bu t becau se tran ssexu als w h o refu se to id en tify th em selves as ‘fem ale’ or ‘m ale’ rad ically d econ stru ct sex an d gen d er. Born stein ’s au to- biograp h y h igh ligh ts th e fact th at if tran ssexu als reveal an yth in g at all, it is h ow m essy th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary really is.22

As I see it, th e p roblem w ith th e ‘au th en tically exp erien cin g w om an ’ argu m en t is th at, d esp ite th e em p h asis on sociality, it n everth eless ad h eres to sex as ‘real’. Mead (1934) forcefu lly argu ed th at th e self can n ot exist w ith ou t society: th e con tin u ou s in teractive p rocess betw een in d ivid u als establish es an d m ain tain s con cep tion s of self by reflectin g back im ages of th e self as object.23 For Han sen , th is is th e ‘gen iu s of ou r in d ivid u ality, for w e are n ot born w ith in d ivid u ality – w e create it’ (1976: 21). Th e p oin t is n ot to d eterm in e w h eth er tran ssexu als can or can n ot ‘kn ow ’ th at th ey are th e ‘op p osite’ sex, or w h eth er sex-reassign m en t su rgery con stitu tes an eth ical resolu tion . As Goffm an argu es:

356 Feminist Theory 1(3)

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 356

Ou r con cern . . . ou gh t n ot to be in u n coverin g real, n atu ral exp ression s, w h atever th ey m igh t be. On e sh ou ld n ot ap p eal to th e d octrin e of n atu ral exp ression in an attem p t to accou n t for n atu ral exp ression , for th at . . . w ou ld con clu d e th e an aly- sis before it h ad begu n . (1976: 7)

Goffm an (1976) n otes th at w h ereas gen d er id en tity d oes n ot, in an y essen - tial w ay, exist, th e ‘sch ed u le’ for its p ortrayal d oes, an d is often m istaken as ‘essen tially real’. So, to th e exten t th at tran ssexu als are able to ‘p ass’ as ‘real’ w om en or m en , ‘gen d er’ is revealed to ad h ere to p articu lar bod ies h ap h azard ly. Tran ssexu als, in effect, ren d er visible th e in visible sign s on w h ich society relies to p rod u ce gen d er. Th ese are p re-establish ed p er- form an ces th at tran ssexu als, lik e all oth er in d iv id u als, are con fron ted w ith :

Th e m ore closely th e im p ostor’s p erform an ce ap p roxim ates to th e real th in g, th e m ore in ten sely w e m ay be th reaten ed , for a com p eten t p erform an ce by som eon e w h o p roves to be an im p ostor m ay w eaken in ou r m in d s th e m oral con n ection betw een legitim ate au th orisation to p lay a p art an d th e cap acity to p lay it. (Goffm an , 1971: 66)

Tran ssexu als w ryly n ote th at ‘h ow ever stran ge a cross-d resser looks, a gen etic w om an can alw ays be fou n d w h o looks even stran ger’ (Taylor, 1995: 6).

On th e on e h an d , fem in ist th eory seem s p articu larly cogn izan t of th e social asp ect of ‘kn ow in g’ gen d er – Raym on d ’s d efin ition em p h asizes w om en ’s id en tity based on social in teraction w ith p atriarch al stru ctu res. Yet even th ou gh ‘th ere is n oth in g in [d e Beau voir’s] accou n t th at th e “on e” w h o becom es a w om an is n ecessarily fem ale’, m ost fem in ist th eory n ever- th eless m akes th is assu m p tion (Prosser, 1998: 29). To reject MTF w om en ’s claim s to ‘w om an h ood ’ is to lay claim to th e con stitu tion of ‘kn ow in g’ gen d er, w h ich can n ot be d on e w ith ou t recou rse to biology – an tith etic to th e w h ole p oin t of sociality argu m en ts.

Em ergin g tran ssexu al an alyses con test th is ex p licit em p h asis on social- ity, for its im p licit relian ce on ‘biology’. For in stan ce, Prosser (1998) p re- sen ts a com p ellin g th eory of th e m ech an ism s th rou gh w h ich tran ssexu als ‘feel’ th em selves to be th e bod ies of th e ‘op p osite’ sex. In terestin gly, it is p recisely th e p sych ic in vestm en t in th e m ateriality of th e bod y th at en ables th e tran ssexu al to ‘im agin e’ su rgically con stru cted gen itals as ‘real’. In th e sam e w ay th at p eop le w h o h ave lost lim bs m ain tain th e ‘feelin g’ of th ose lim bs p h an tasm atically, Prosser argu es th at tran ssexu als are able to recog- n ize th e p ostsu rgical con stru cted bod y p arts as th ose sam e p arts ‘felt’ p h an - tasm atically before su rgery. Th is is m ateriality w ith ou t ‘sex’.

Th e m ajor m ech an ism of th is p h an tasm atic ‘feelin g’ is n arrative. As Sh illin g p oin ts ou t, m od ern su bjectivity is in creasin gly situ ated in em bod - ied biograp h y, ‘a p roject w h ich sh ou ld be w orked at an d accom p lish ed as p art of an in d ivid u al’s self-id en tity’ (1993: 5). Narrative restru ctu rin g is a con stan t p rocess, u su ally begin n in g years before th e tran ssexu al is con - stru cted th rou gh m ed ical tech n ology, con trary to Hau sm an ’s claim th at tran ssexu als are a m ed ico-tech n ical creation . Th is n arration is an in h er- en tly in teractive p rocess (Gagn é an d Tew ksbu ry, 1998). Wh at Hau sm an also fails to recogn ize is th at n arrative restru ctu rin g is a p rocess com m on to all

Hird: Gender’s nature 357

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 357

in d ivid u als. How else d o girls learn th at th eir vagin as p lace th em in a p ar- ticu lar relation sh ip w ith p atriarch y, if n ot th rou gh social in teraction an d n arrative in tegration ?

Differen tiatin g betw een ‘au th en tic’ an d ‘in au th en tic’ n arratives is a m oral exercise, an d callin g for a retu rn to ‘bod ies’ an d ‘sex’, as Hau sm an d oes, p rovid es n o m ore reassu ran ce of au th en ticity th an ‘gen d er’. Moreover, Hau sm an in vokes a literalizin g (tran ssexu al)/ d eliteralizin g (gen d er) bin ary th at rein scribes th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary. Th e en tire p u rp ose of tran ssexu al au tobiograp h y is to tell th e d ifferen ce of gen d ered em bod im en t, an d to m ake th is d ifferen ce p rocessable. Th erefore, th e en terp rise is am bivalen t – ‘in com in g ou t an d stakin g a claim to rep resen tation , th e tran ssexu al u n d oes th e realn ess th at is th e con ven tion al goal of th is tran sition ’ (Prosser, 1998: 11). Wh ile Hau sm an d iverts th e literal creation of sex in to a cu ltu ro- tech n ical creation , I su ggest th at th e tran sp aren cy of tran ssexu al creation s of ‘sex’ an d ‘gen d er’ m akes th eirs p erh ap s th e m ore h on est rep resen tation .24

Concluding remarks A fem in ist m ovem en t based on biology is h azard ou s: ‘to accep t th at bio- logical bou n d ary w ou ld m ark a d efin ite break w ith th e key p rin cip le of th e secon d w ave of w om en ’s liberation . . . th at biology is n ot given ’ (Fein berg, 1996: 110). Con solid ated social id en tification , h ow ever, is often bou gh t at th e exp en se of exp erien ced variation . Relian ce on a n otion of ‘sh ared exp erien ce’ su bsu m es variation s of class, race, eth n icity, age an d sexu ality th at p oststru ctu ral fem in ists h ave so p ow erfu lly h igh ligh ted . If it is sh ared exp erien ce w e are after, th en carryin g firew ood , h au lin g w ater an d w orkin g on assem bly lin es u n ite m ost w om en on th is p lan et.

Th eorizin g in tersexu ality an d tran ssexu alism in volves a fu n d am en tal ch allen ge n ot so m u ch to u n d erstan d in gs of ‘gen d er’, bu t to th e fact th at w e rarely con test th e con stitu tion of ‘sex’; an d in ou r d iscu ssion s of ‘gen d er’, ‘sex’ rem ain s con cealed , bu t p resen t n everth eless. In oth er w ord s, w e h ave relied on a p articu lar set of assu m p tion s abou t th e m ateriality of bod ies an d th e relation th is m ateriality h as to gen d er. How m igh t fem in ist th eory p roceed from h ere?

Fem in ist th eory offers tw o broad resp on ses to th is critical reflection , w h ich I w ill exam in e on ly briefly h ere. On e fem in ist resp on se argu es w ith qu eer an d tran sgen d er stu d ies for th e m u ltip licity of ‘sexes’/ ‘gen d ers’ (Bu tler, 1990; Fein berg, 1996; Grosz, 1994; Roth blatt, 1995). For in stan ce, in an effort to p rop el tran sgressive p olitics, Roth blatt su ggests th e u se of a colou r sch em e w ith w h ich in d ivid u als term th eir ‘sex’ id en tity. Th e qu es- tion im m ed iately raised by Roth blatt’s ch rom atic id en tity is w h y u se an y categories at all? Su rely it is th e very regu lation of in d ivid u als in to in creas- in gly d etailed d ivision al categories th at h as p rod u ced th e sexism , racism , ageism , n ation alism an d tran s-p h obia th at Roth blatt’s sch em a clearly seeks to op p ose. Rep lacin g a tw o-‘sex’ m od el w ith a 10-sex (or 20 or 30) m od el d oes n ot in itself secu re th e abolition of gen d er d iscrim in ation , on ly p erh ap s th at th e m en tal gym n astics requ ired to ju stify su ch d iscrim in ation becom es m ore com p lex.25

358 Feminist Theory 1(3)

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 358

Alth ou gh qu eer th eory con tests th e attribu tion of an y p articu lar ch arac- ter to m ascu lin ity or fem in in ity, p erform in g or ‘d oin g’ gen d er seem s to con sist p rin cip ally in com bin in g or p arod yin g existin g gen d er p ractices. Qu eer th eory p resu m es th at tran sgressin g bou n d aries w ill su bvert, an d even tu ally d ism an tle, h ierarch ies based on sex an d gen d er. Bu t su bversion can lead to u n an ticip ated ou tcom es th at m ay n ot be tran sgressive at all. By forgin g a ‘th ird ’ sex, tran sgen d erism m ay leave u n ch allen ged th e tw o-sex system .

A ll m od ern exp ression s of sex an d gen d er id en tity d ep en d on th e cu rren t tw o-sex system for th eir exp ression . Th e trou ble in accep tin g m ale lesbian s is p recisely th at lesbian ism , h om osexu ality an d h eterosexu ality are d efin ed by a p articu lar m orp h ological base (Zita, 1998). Th at is w h y tw o m en in a lovin g relation sh ip are n ot typ ically d efin ed by th em selves, or oth ers, as lesbian . In oth er w ord s, qu eer th eory m igh t be able to p rod u ce in terestin g cakes, bu t it u ses th e sam e in gred ien ts every tim e.

Th e secon d resp on se calls for th e ‘en d ’ of ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’. Jackson (1999) asks, ‘w h y n ot th in k in stead of th e en d of gen d er, th e en d of th e h etero/ h om osexu al d ivision ?’ (1999: 182). Jackson criticizes Bu tler an d Grosz’s alm ost exclu sive focu s on ‘bod ily asp ects of gen d er’ (1999: 176). Sh e is w ary of accou n ts th at p u rp ort a d efin ition al sep aration betw een ‘sex’, ‘gen d er’ an d ‘sexu ality’ – em p h asizin g in stead th eir ‘exceed in gly com p lex’ in terd ep en d en t d efin ition al statu s. Jackson ’s aim is to d econ stru ct h ow th ese d ivision s are m ad e m ean in gfu l, rath er th an to join th e effects of th ese categories in n ew com bin ation s to ‘d o gen d er’.

It is d ifficu lt to im agin e, let alon e p ractise, su bjectivities w ith ou t ‘gen d er’ or ‘sex’, an d ap p ealin g to a m u ltip le gen d er sch em a m ay be an attem p t to forestall, or at least tread softly tow ard s, su ch an even tu ality. I th in k th is is w h y th eories of m u ltip le gen d er h ave garn ered su ch ap p eal of late. Con - fron ted w ith an alyses of h eteron orm ativity, m argin alization in lesbian an d gay com m u n ities, an d th e gen eral fragm en tation of id en tities, m u ltip lyin g sexes/ gen d ers seem s to offer a w ay to exp ress a variety of sexed an d gen - d ered id en tities w ith ou t an yon e actu ally h avin g to give u p th eir ‘ch osen ’ id en tity. Th ere is also th e ten d en cy of tran sgen d er th eory to u se tran ssex- u ality as m etap h or for m u ltip le sex/ gen d er ‘best p ractice’. As Prosser n otes, ‘qu eer th eory h as w ritten on tran sition s as d iscu rsive bu t it h as n ot exp lored th e bod ilin ess of gen d ered crossin gs’ (1998: 6). In tersexu als an d tran ssexu als th em selves m ay n ot seek at all to ‘tran sgress’ sex/ gen d er bou n d aries an d th e ‘en d ’ of gen d er h as m ajor im p lication s for con tin u ed access to h orm on es an d sex-reassign m en t su rgery, w h ich m u st be con - sid ered .26

Th is is w h y I th in k th at in tersexu als an d tran ssexu als offer su ch valu able in sigh ts in to con tem p orary d ep en d en ce on th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary. In ter- sexu als an d tran ssexu als w h o attem p t to ‘fit’ in to a sexu ally d ivid ed w orld reveal th e regu latory m ech an ism s th rou gh w h ich sexu al d ifferen ce is en forced ; w h ereas in tersexu als an d tran ssexu als w h o refu se an eith er/ or ‘sexed ’ id en tity d istu rb th e in fallibility of th e bin ary.27 On tological assu m p - tion s abou t ‘sex’ are all too often eith er in visible or p osed in th e abstract. Cred it w h ere cred it is d u e, in tersexu als an d tran ssexu als live th e in tern al

Hird: Gender’s nature 359

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 359

in stability of th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary. Rath er th an exp lorin g h ow su ccess- fu lly in tersexu als an d tran ssexu als m ay d efin e th em selves as ‘w om en ’ or ‘m en ’, th e foregon e an alysis su ggests th at all recou rse to ‘n atu re’ to d efin e eith er th e con stitu tion of ‘sex’ or h ow w e ‘kn ow ’ ou r ‘gen d er’ is p roblem - atic. If ou r u n d erstan d in gs of n atu re con tin u e to reveal th e focu s on sexu al d ifferen ce as p olitically d erived , fem in ist th eory w ill n eed to ascertain th at th e artificial em p h asis on sexu al d ifferen ce, con tra n atu re, is better able to effect social ch an ge th an con join ed efforts to exp ose ‘sex’ as a con stru ction in ten d ed to grou n d d ivision s.

Notes Th e au th or w ish es to gratefu lly ackn ow led ge th e h elp fu l com m en ts received from th e an on ym ou s review ers an d ed itors on an earlier version of th is article.

1. For a u sefu l su m m ary of fem in ist critiqu es of th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary, see Sed gw ick (1991), esp ecially p p . 27–35.

2. Th e p riority accord ed rep rod u ction as th e ‘sou rce’ of sex d ifferen ces h as been argu ed elsew h ere (see Delp h y, 1994; Hird an d Absh off, forth com in g).

3. Sed gw ick (1995) m akes th e p oin t th at th e rh etorical u se of bin aries n ot on ly d esign ates tw o d iscrete op p osites, bu t also organ izes th e m u ltip le d ifferen ces betw een th e tw o axes of an y bin ary.

4. Sh ild rick seem s to sid estep th e qu estion of sexu al d ifferen ce altogeth er as sh e len gth ily qu otes Haraw ay’s (1990) w ork on cyborgs an d th en con clu d es ‘w h eth er a cyborg h as a sex is p erh ap s rath er m ore com p licated ’ an d en d s th e article by statin g ‘th ere rem ain s also th e issu e . . . of w h at becom es of sexu al d ifferen ce’ (1996: 10, 12).

5. For a d iscu ssion of th e em ergen ce of th e cu rren t tw o-sex system , see Laqu eu r (1990).

6. Th e Mich igan Wom yn ’s Mu sic Festival h as con tin u ed to exclu d e tran sgen d ered w om en from th e p h ysical sp ace of th e festival sin ce 1991. Th e cu rren t p olicy is to in clu d e w om yn -born -w om yn -on ly, bu t th e festival organ izers h ave d rop p ed th e p h ysical exam in ation requ ired for ad m ission to earlier festivals [h ttp :/ / w w w.cam p tran s.com ].

7. My th an ks to th e an on ym ou s review er w h ose critical qu estion in g of an earlier version of th is article h elp ed refin e m y argu m en t h ere.

8. I d efer to Kessler’s (1990) d istin ction betw een gen ital ‘variability’ an d ‘am bigu ity’. See p p . 8–9.

9. Accou n ts d iffer as to th e statistical frequ en cy of in tersexu ality. Th e In tersex Society of North Am erica (ISNA) states th at on e in every 2000 in fan ts is born w ith som e form of in tersexu ality, from ap p roxim ately 14 d ifferen t cau ses (Nataf, 1998).

10. Mon ey’s m an agem en t p h ilosop h y is alm ost exclu sively ad op ted , an d th e vast m ajority of p u blish ed literatu re h as been w ritten or co-w ritten by Mon ey. Very few p h ysician s seem p rep ared to con trad ict Mon ey, or p rovid e altern ative m an agem en t th eses; n otable am on g th e excep tion s are Diam on d (1982) an d Diam on d an d Sigm u n d son (1997).

11. It is fu rth er testam en t to th e variability of ‘sex’ th at several factors can be

360 Feminist Theory 1(3)

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 360

u sed sin gly or in tan d em to ‘d eterm in e’ an in d ivid u al’s ‘sex’: ch rom osom al sex, h orm on al sex, gon ad al sex, gen ital sex an d rep rod u ctive sex.

12. Desp ite in creased risks of sten osis or in ju ry th at accom p an y early vagin al con stru ction , som e p h ysician s ‘p refer’ to com p lete all su rgical p roced u res before th e ch ild reach es 18 m on th s of age (Perlm u tter an d Reitelm an , 1992).

13. In d eed , su rgical team s con sid er th at on e of th e w orst m istakes th at can be m ad e is to ‘create an in d ivid u al u n able to en gage in gen ital [th at is, h eterosexu al] sex’ (Kessler, 1990: 20).

14. Kessler qu otes on e in terview ed en d ocrin ologist as sayin g ‘w h y d o w e d o all th ese tests if in th e en d w e’re goin g to m ake th e d ecision sim p ly on th e basis of th e ap p earan ce of th e gen italia?’ (1990: 13).

15. Man y in tersexu als d o n ot becom e aw are of th eir con d ition u n til ad olescen ce.

16. Testosteron e is also released in oth er ch rom osom e variation s. 17. Roth blatt (1995) p oin ts ou t th at th e average Jap an ese m an an d Am erican

w om an sh are th e sam e w eigh t an d h eigh t, alth ou gh w e w ou ld n ot organ ize in tern ation al sp orts tou rn am en ts su ch th at Jap an ese m en com p ete again st Am erican w om en , or th at Asian m en com p ete as a sep arate category.

18. Am on g p ostm od ern fem in ist sch olars w h o are accu sed of ‘aban d on in g’ th e m ateriality of th e bod y, bu t w h o d o, in fact, atten d to th is m ateriality, are An gier (1999), Probyn (1993) an d Riley (1989).

19. Ph ysician s are m ore likely to en d orse su rgery for in tersexu als th an tran ssexu als, even w h en th ey are beh aviou rally in d istin gu ish able (Green , 1969).

20. Wh ittle (1998) p oin ts ou t th at m ale-to-fem ale tran ssexu als seek in clu sion w ith in th e grou p (th at is, w om en ) th at p atriarch y op p resses, leavin g beh in d w h atever ben efits th ey d erived from th eir m ale statu s.

21. Th e Ren aissan ce Tran sgen d er Association w ill h ost th e 4th In tern ation al Con gress on Crossd ressin g, Sex an d Gen d er in May 2000. GENDYS 6th Gen d er Dysp h oria Con feren ce w ill be h eld in Sep tem ber 2000.

22. For fu rth er d isru p tive tran ssexu al n arratives, see Ekin s an d Kin g (1996) an d More an d Wh ittle (1999).

23. Wh at n ow m igh t be term ed th e ‘p erform ative’ asp ect of id en tities, Mead em p h asized as th e con tin u ally ren egotiated ch aracter of social action , w h ich p rod u ces m alleable id en tities, an d w h ich allow s for th e p ossibility of con trad iction an d con flict.

24. Hau sm an w as p regn an t d u rin g th e w ritin g of Ch an gin g S ex an d exp ressed h er terror at th e th ou gh t of h avin g an in tersexed ch ild . Th e d esire to h ave a ‘n orm al’ ch ild reveals m u ch abou t Hau sm an ’s ow n n orm ative p osition in g w ith regard to tran ssexu alism .

25. Fau sto-Sterlin g (1993) offers a variation on th is th em e by argu in g for a five-sex taxon om y.

26. ISNA an d th e In tersex Society of New Zealan d lobby again st com p u lsory sex-reassign m en t su rgery. Both organ ization s recogn ize, h ow ever, th at in d ivid u al in tersexu als m ay w ish to u n d ergo su rgery.

27. In terp retation of th e p u blic effects of revealin g th e in tern al in stability of th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ system vary. Bu tler (1993), for in stan ce, in terp rets Ven u s

Hird: Gender’s nature 361

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 361

Xtravagan za’s life (in Paris is Bu rn in g) as ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ tran sgressive in th at sh e is in coh eren tly fem ale. Th is tran sgression is su stain ed , for Bu tler, as lon g as Ven u s d oes n ot u n d ergo th e sex-reassign m en t su rgery sh e seeks. Th e ‘sex’/ ‘gen d er’ bin ary is violen tly rein voked by Ven u s’s d eath , as in th e sim ilarly violen t d eath of Bran d on Teen a. Th eir d eath s p rod u ce for Prosser, con tra Bu tler, ‘n ot th e revelation of th e fiction ality of gen d er categories bu t th e soberin g realisation of th eir on goin g fou n d ation al p ow er’ (1998: 11). Th is is n ot to say, h ow ever, th at su ch p ow er can n ot, or sh ou ld n ot, be resisted .

References An gier, N. (1999) Wom an : A n In tim ate Geograp h y . Boston , MA: Hou gh ton

Mifflin . Billin gs, D. an d T. Urban (1982) ‘Th e Socio-Med ical Con stru ction of

Tran ssexu ality’, S ocial Problem s 29(3): 266–82. Bolin , A. (1994) ‘Tran scen d in g an d Tran sgen d erin g’, p p . 447–86 in G. Herd t

(ed .) T h ird S ex , T h ird Gen d er. New York: Zon e Books. Born stein , K. (1994) Gen d er Ou tlaw . New York: Rou tled ge. Brow n , W. (1997) ‘Th e Im p ossibility of Wom en ’s Stu d ies’, Differen ces 9:

79–101. Bu rke, P. (1996) Gen d er S h ock . New York: An ch or Books. Bu tler, J. (1990) Gen d er Trou ble. New York: Rou tled ge. Bu tler, J. (1993) Bod ies th at Matter. New York: Rou tled ge. Ch ase, C. (1998) ‘Herm ap h rod ites w ith Attitu d e’, GLQ 4: 189–212. Coh en , P. (1995) ‘Th e Bod y w h ose Blood h as n o Fath er’, N ew S cien tist 7

October: 16. Colap in to, J. (1997) ‘Joh n / Joan ’, Rollin g S ton e 11 Decem ber: 54–97. Colborn , T., D. Du m an oski an d J. Myers (1996) Ou r S tolen Fu tu re. Lon d on :

Little, Brow n . d e Beau voir, S. (1953) T h e S econ d S ex . Aylesbu ry: Pen gu in . Delp h y, C. (1984) Close to Hom e. Lon d on : Hu tch in son . Delp h y, C. (1994) ‘Ch an gin g Wom en in a Ch an gin g Eu rop e’, Wom en ’s S tu d ies

In tern ation al Foru m 17: 187–201. Den n y, D. (1996) Cu rren t Con cep ts in Tran sgen d er Id en tity . New York:

Garlan d . Dew h u rst, C. an d R. Gord on (1969) T h e In tersex u al Disord ers. Lon d on :

Balliere, Tin d all an d Cassell. Diam on d , M. (1982) ‘Sexu al Id en tity, Mon ozygotic Tw in s Reared in

Discord an t Sex Roles an d a BBC Follow -u p ’, A rch ives of S ex u al Beh avior 11(2): 181–6.

Diam on d , M. an d H. Sigm u n d son (1997) ‘Sex Reassign m en t at Birth ’, A rch ives of Paed iatrics an d A d olescen t Med icin e 151: 298–304.

Ekin s, R. an d D. Kin g (1996) Blen d in g Gen d ers. New York: Rou tled ge. Fau sto-Sterlin g, A. (1993) ‘Th e Five Sexes’, T h e S cien ces March –Ap ril: 20–4. Fein berg, L. (1996) Tran sgen d er Warriors. Boston , MA: Beacon Press. Flax, J. (1990) ‘Postm od ern ism an d Gen d er Relation s in Fem in ist Th eory’, p p .

39–62 in L. Nich olson (ed .) Fem in ism / Postm od ern ism . Lon d on : Rou tled ge. Fraser, N. (1995) Fem in ist Con ten tion s. Lon d on : Rou tled ge. Fu ss, D. (1995) Essen tially S p eak in g. New York an d Lon d on : Rou tled ge.

362 Feminist Theory 1(3)

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 362

Gagn é, P. an d R. Tew ksbu ry (1998) ‘Con form ity Pressu res an d Gen d er Resistan ce am on g Tran sgen d ered In d ivid u als’, S ocial Problem s 45: 81–101.

Garfin kel, H. an d R. Stoller (1967) S tu d ies in Eth n om eth od ology. Cam brid ge: Polity Press.

Goffm an , E. (1971) T h e Presen tation of S elf in Everyd ay Life. Harm on d sw orth : Pen gu in .

Goffm an , E. (1976) Gen d er A d vertisem en ts. Lon d on : Macm illan . Green , R. (1969) ‘Attitu d es tow ard s Tran ssexu alism an d Sex-Reassign m en t

Proced u res’, p p . 235–42 in R. Green an d J. Mon ey (ed s) Tran ssex u alism an d S ex Reassign m en t. Baltim ore, MD: Joh n s Hop kin s Un iversity Press.

Griffin , J. an d J. Wilson (1992) ‘Disord ers of Sexu al Differen tiation ’, p p . 1509–37 in P. Walsh , A. Retick, T. Stam ey an d E. Vau gh an (ed s) Cam p bell’s Urology. Ph ilad elp h ia, PA: Sau n d ers.

Grosz, E. (1994) Volatile Bod ies. In d ian ap olis: In d ian a Un iversity Press. Han sen , D. (1976) A n In vitation to Critical S ociology. New York: Free Press. Haraw ay, D. (1990) ‘A Man ifesto for Cyborgs’, p p . 190–233 in L. Nich olson

(ed .) Fem in ism / Postm od ern ism . New York: Rou tled ge. Hard in g, J. (1996) ‘Sex an d Con trol: Th e Horm on al Bod y’, Bod y an d S ociety

2(1): 99–111. Hau sm an , B. (1995) Ch an gin g S ex . Du rh am , NC: Du ke Un iversity Press. Hem m in gs, C. (1996) ‘Hau sm an ’s Horror’, Rad ical Devian ce: A Jou rn al of

Tran sgen d ered Politics 2(2): 59–60. Hird , M. an d K. Absh off (forth com in g) ‘Wom en w ith ou t Ch ild ren : A

Con trad iction in Term s?’, Can ad ian Jou rn al of Com p arative Fam ily S tu d ies. Hird , M. an d J. Germ on (1998) ‘Wom en on th e Ed ge of a Dyk-otom y:

Con fron tin g Su bjectivity’, p p . 103–12 in D. Atkin s (ed .) Lesbian S ex S can d als. Bin gh am ton , NY: Harrin gton Press.

Hird , M. an d J. Germ on (2001) ‘Th e In tersexu al Bod y an d th e Med ical Regu lation of Gen d er’, in K. Backett-Milbu rn (ed .) Con stru ctin g Gen d ered Bod ies. Lon d on : Macm illan .

Hood -William s, J. (1996) ‘Good bye to Sex an d Gen d er’, T h e S ociological Review 44(1): 1–16.

Jackson , S. (1999) Heterosex u ality in ?u estion . Lon d on : Sage. Jeffreys, S. (1990) A n ticlim ax . Lon d on : Wom en ’s Press. Kessler, S. (1990) ‘Th e Med ical Con stru ction of Gen d er’, S ign s 16: 3–26. Laqu eu r, T. (1990) Mak in g S ex . Cam brid ge, MA: Harvard Un iversity Press. Lew in s, F. (1995) Tran ssex u alism in S ociety . Melbou rn e: Macm illan . MacKen zie, G. (1994) Tran sgen d er N ation . Bow lin g Green : State Un iversity

Pop u lar Press. Margu lis, L. an d D. Sagan (1997) W h at is S ex ? New York: Sim on an d Sch u ster. Mead , G. (1934) Min d , S elf an d S ociety. Ch icago, IL: Un iversity of Ch icago

Press. Mon ey, J. (1985) ‘Th e Con cep tu al Neu terin g of Gen d er an d th e

Crim in alisation of Sex’, A rch ives of S ex u al Beh aviou r 14: 279–91. More, K. an d S. Wh ittle (1999) Reclaim in g Gen d ers. Lon d on : Cassell. Nataf, Z. (1998) ‘Wh atever I Feel . . .’, N ew In tern ation alist Ap ril: 22–5. Pagon , R.A. (1987) ‘Diagn ostic Ap p roach to th e New born w ith Am bigu ou s

Gen italia’, Ped iatric Clin ics of N orth A m erica 34: 1019–31. Perlm u tter, A. an d M. Reitelm an (1992) ‘Su rgical Man agem en t of

Hird: Gender’s nature 363

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 363

In tersexu ality’, p p . 1951–66 in P. Walsh , A. Retik, T. Stam ey an d E. Vau gh an (ed s) Cam p bell’s Urology. Ph ilad elp h ia, PA: Sau n d ers.

Plan t, S. (1997) Z eros an d On es. Lon d on : Fou rth Estate. Probyn , E. (1993) S ex in g th e S elf. Lon d on : Rou tled ge. Prosser, J. (1998) S econ d S k in s. New York: Colu m bia Un iversity Press. Raym on d , J. (1994) T h e Tran ssex u al Em p ire. New York: Teach ers College

Press. Riley, D. (1989) A m I T h at N am e? Min n eap olis: Un iversity of Min n esota

Press. Roth blatt, M. (1995) T h e A p arth eid of S ex . New York: Crow n . Sagarin , E. (1978) ‘Tran ssexu alism : Legitim isation , Am p lification an d

Exp loitation of Devian ce by Scien tists an d Mass Med ia’, p p . 243–62 in C. Win ick (ed .) Devian ce an d Mass Med ia. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sed gw ick, E. (1991) Ep istem ology of th e Closet. New York: Harvester Wh eatsh eaf.

Sed gw ick, E. (1995) S h am e an d its S isters. Du rh am , NC: Du ke Un iversity Press.

Sh ild rick, M. (1996) ‘Posth u m an ism an d th e Mon strou s Bod y’, Bod y an d S ociety 2(1): 1–15.

Sh illin g, C. (1993) T h e Bod y an d S ocial T h eory. Lon d on : Sage. Socarid es, C. (1975) Beyon d S ex u al Freed om . New York: Qu ad ran gle. Ston e, S. (1991) ‘Th e Em p ire Strikes Back’, p p . 280–304 in K. Strau b an d

J. Ep stein (ed s) Bod y Gu ard s. New York: Rou tled ge. Stryker, S. (1994) ‘My Word s to Victor Fran ken stein above th e Village of

Cah m ou n ix’, GLQ 1: 237–54. Stryker, S. (1995) ‘Tran ssexu ality: Th e Postm od ern Bod y an d / as Tech n ology’,

Ex p osu re 30(1/ 2): 38–50. Szasz, T. (1990) S ex by Prescrip tion . Syracu se, NY: Syracu se Un iversity Press. Taylor, J. (1995) ‘Th e Th ird Sex’, Esqu ire 123: 102–12. Wh ittle, S. (1998) ‘Th e Tran s-cyberian Mail Way’, S ocial an d Legal S tu d ies 7:

389–408. Wittig, M. (1993) ‘On e is n ot Born a Wom an ’, p p . 103–9 in H. Abelove, M.

Barale an d D. Halp erin (ed s) T h e Lesbian an d Gay S tu d ies Read er. New York: Rou tled ge.

Zita, J. (1998) Bod y Talk . New York: Colu m bia Un iversity Press.

Myra J. Hird is a lectu rer in th e Sch ool of Sociology an d Social Policy, at th e Qu een ’s Un iversity of Belfast. Sh e is th e au th or of several articles on sexu ality. Sh e is co-ed itin g S ociology for th e A sk in g (Oxford Un iversity Press) an d com p letin g a sole-au th ored book on th e relation sh ip of in tersexu ality an d tran ssexu ality w ith fem in ist gen d er th eory.

Address: Dep artm en t of Sociology an d Social Policy, Qu een ’s Un iversity of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK. Em ail: M.Hird @qu b.ac.u k

364 Feminist Theory 1(3)

06hird (ds) 5/10/00 2:34 pm Page 364