Sex is Social and Historical

Sex is Social and Historical

http://www.wormbook.org/chapters/www_hermcellfate/hermcellfate.pdf

Elizabeth Reis, author of Impossible Hermaphrodites: Intersex in America 1620-1960 captures the essence of the history behind intersex during the early 1600’s through the late 1960’s. During the earlier year’s intersex defined as hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites defined by Reis piece states that ““true hermaphrodites” were those whose bodies (examined during autopsies) contained both ovarian and testicular tissue. (412) Reis piece suggests that defining the sex of an individual was solemnly based on certain factors such as visual markers or indicators of womanhood. And in some cases, when doctors were unable to identify the individual, social behaviors would be taken in consideration when labeling/identifying their sex. However, in this blog I want to explore the other possibilities of explaining hermaphrodites as researched by medical doctors in the 21^st century and how that has affected the relation on how doctors and ‘professionals’ identify an individual through views of those who like Reis explained, the history behind identifying an individual based on their physical attributes, social behaviors or through the visual markets, the penis and vagina.

As we have advanced in medical research, many ‘professionals’ and individuals with knowledge feel like they can possibly have an explanation for all medical conditions. There are some aspects of gender and sex identification that medicals are able to explain based on research. As I was looking into the differences between our history and our present, I was constantly asking myself the number of people that have questioned their sexuality and gender. But what made my question upset myself, was to think about the amount of times that these individuals were identified either male or female based on a social and historical construction and not based on what they felt like identifying as. We have lived in a society in where history matters and has impacted the way we construct meaning and how we give meaning to things but in particular, individuals. In Reis piece, medicals identified based on their assumptions on social construct, religion or politic knowledge.

 On the other hand, in the 21^st century author Micheal A. Herman author of Hermaphrodite cell-fate specification states in his research that hermaphrodites were based on structures that are generated by sex-specific cell lineages (in its simplest explanation). While looking into some work done on hermaphrodites, I noted that these explanations were very much looked into with the intention to have other medicals look into the research. There are too many concepts and ideas in which I, someone that has never learned medical medicine didn’t quite understand.  But what I understood was that hermaphrodite defined by Herman was that; “Hermaphrodites are basically females that produce a small number of sperm that can fertilize their own oocytes”. Herman’s research was indeed an explanation of the way a body produces hermaphrodite and the explanation of how an individual is born with this condition. With this in mind, I found myself having trouble understanding and grasping the reality of science and its research. Herman explains that hermaphrodites are females, but in some cases as seen in Reis is that this is developed in different bodies. This is where I want to argue that as we move on to the 21^st century, the ideas of gender and identification of an individual have moved on forward through a more scientific explanation. We now have proof that hermaphrodites are developed by women yet, we see this involve in men. So is it all based on science and not the individual?

Through reading of Reis and Herman pieces I was able to acknowledge that the difference between a research in the 21^st century and the early 1600’s was that indeed doctors and ‘professionals’ are able to give us a full explanation of what happens to the body of the individual. In the 21^st century, medicals such as Herman explain sex-specific cells during the process of developing sex genitals. However, in the early 1600’s people were more concerned with those individuals with power such as religion and political power that were considered to be the ones to distinguish between a man or a woman. Distinctively, we can see that in relation to these two time periods, the advancement of science has evolved. However, the point I want to convey is that no matter the explanation and the research of hermaphrodites and how much doctors want to be acknowledged through their work or individuals with power want to set, at the end of the day we have to understand that each individual is assigned to their own gender/identity. There comes a time when an individual with all its rights is allowed to change into their own identity/gender without any social or historical construction. We as a society are too focused on making this change and think about all the ways in which an individual express themselves and not be judged or punished for. As much as we want answers for everything in this society, especially answers from the uncommon things, we have to get used to the idea that the world is evolving, slowly but it has done change especially when talking about individual’s rights to their own sexuality.