Saturday, September 2, 2017

Conservative Evangelicals Embrace Intersex Genital Mutilation


Something frightening happened this week that may have a profound impact on intersex infants and the intersex community. In the midst of the constant bombardment of news of political and natural disasters that is the state of things in the U.S. today, you may not have even noticed. But you need to know about it. A large group of conservative evangelical Christian leaders signed and released a document they call the "Nashville Statement." To the extent that it got media attention, it has mostly been because it says true Christians must oppose same-gender love and marriage, and refuse to acknowledge gender transition or even that gender identity exists.

But while morally repugnant--including to a huge number of Christians--there's nothing new in that part of the Nashville Statement. We knew conservative evangelical activists oppose LGBT rights. What's new is that this declaration officially puts intersex advocacy in the very same boat. Intersex advocates are sinners now, officially, they say. And this is going to infuse a blast of energy into attacking us politically that our small but growing movement has not experienced before.

So we need to be prepared. We need the help of allies. And we need to understand what this Nashville Statement says.

What is the Nashville Statement?

The Nashville Statement was written by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a group that has been around since the 1980s. Its original focus was on fighting feminism, but it expanded its mission to opposing same-gender marriage, and then to denying recognition of trans identities and gender transition. The Nashville Statement is a manifesto, and the 187 conservative evangelical leaders who initially signed it intend it to serve a number of purposes. One is stop the spread of tolerance in their own followers by declaring acceptance of sex/gender/sexual variance to be a sin in itself. Another is to create a document to use in legal battles seeking to oppose LGBT+ rights by making claims to a "religious freedom" to discriminate. And a third is to try to frame variance in sex, gender, and sexuality for the public as disorder. It is, they say, on one level an issue of physical or mental disorder. But more importantly, they claim, it is evidence of a general social disorder, an international shared sickness, based in rejection of God's order of creation.

It's in this context that the Nashville Statement frames intersex status, calling it a "physical disorder of sex development." And as an intersex advocate, I find this both frightening and fascinating, because it is adopting what we call "DSD" language, and doing this explicitly to attack intersex advocacy.

What is "DSD" Language and Why Does it Matter?

Prior to 2005, the term "intersex" was used by medical practitioners and by people born sex-variant alike. But late in that year, the term "Disorders of Sex Development" or "DSD" burst onto the scene. It came out of a big conference that involved medical professionals and some intersex advocates. The goal of the intersex participants was to stop doctors from rushing to cut up the genitals of babies born sex-variant. And, ironically, it was at the urging of some intersex advocates that one of the things that came out of this big conference at the last moment was the statement that people should stop using the term "intersex," and start using "Disorders of Sex Development" instead.

Those intersex individuals who helped introduce DSD language thought that it would slow down the rush to surgery. Their reasoning was that the term "intersex" evokes sexual perversion, queerness, and radicalism. But "DSD" just sounds like any other medical condition, and so, they hoped, would cease freaking out parents and doctors. Instead of stigma and shame, there would be medical conditions that could be treated calmly, deliberately, and with the minimum intervention necessary. Sex-variant people would be empowered in interactions with medical professionals, and sex-variant advocates seen as reasonable people. Those were good intentions.

But that's not how things worked out.

In fact, what happened is that most out intersex advocates quickly rejected DSD language as repugnant. We didn't see ourselves as "disordered." We saw the problems we faced as socially and medically produced. The forced genital surgeries and other treatments imposed on us without our consent didn't "save" us, they caused us terrible suffering. They constituted intersex genital mutilation. Our problem did not lie in our sex-variant bodies, it lay in a society that framed such bodies as horrifying rather than just an eternal part of natural human diversity.

But you know who loved DSD language, and rushed to embrace it? The medical community, which used it to justify continuing, even intensifying interventions into sex-variant bodies. Disorders, after all, should be cured! Oh, and many parents of intersex kids quickly adopted DSD language, too, after hearing it from doctors, because it supported their desire to have their children "cured" and become "normal." These parents and doctors alike had a shared vision of intersex children being transformed into "regular" girls or boys who would gratefully grow up to be genderconforming and happily, heterosexually, married.

So in 2017 what we find is that in the U.S., we have two competing terms being used to describe those born sex-variant. Advocates call ourselves intersex, as do human rights organizations supporting us, while the medical community and those seeking medical "cures" use DSD language.

Right under the surface of the embracing of DSD language by doctors and many parents has been a great deal of homophobia and transphobia, though that has remained a subtext. It is that subtext that we now see revealed in the Nashville Statement, as conservative evangelical Christians have climbed aboard the DSD boat. Let's look at the Nashville Statement language to see how they deploy the language of disorder, and why.

The Nashville Statement and What it Means

I'll give you the most relevant text from the Nashville Statement for you to read yourself, but I have to warn you--it's written in evangelicanese. What the words mean for the conservative evangelical Christian activists who wrote them may not be at all apparent from the words as they are understood in ordinary English. So what I'll do is give you the text, and then a translation into everyday English.

Here is the most relevant language, from Articles IV-VI of the Nashville Statement:
  • Article IV: We affirm that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing.
  • Article V: We affirm that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God’s design for self-conception as male or female. We deny that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.
  • Article VI: We affirm that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known. We deny that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.
Translated from the evangelicalese, this says something like this: "God requires binary sex and gender, and forbids homosexuality or gender transition. LGBT people are all sinners. Being born intersex is not the individual's fault, so it's not a sin. It is, however, a medical disorder, and if a doctor can be found who will assign an intersex child male or female, then infant genital surgery must be embraced, and the individual must identify with their assigned sex and as heterosexual or they become a sinner."

Oh, and thus under Article X, which compels rejection of sex, gender and sexual variance, parents who fail to seek out intersex genital mutilation for their children, or who accept it if their intersex children do not identify as straight members of their medically-assigned binary sex--those parents are committing a terrible sin and cannot call themselves Christians.

Intersex Advocacy as Sin

What the Nashville Statement reveals is that intersex advocacy is now fully on the radar of conservative evangelicals, who oppose it.

The main goal of intersex advocacy is to stop doctors from being allowed to impose unconsented-to sex change surgeries on babies. Our society would never allow this for the endosex babies it frames as "normal," and should not allow it in the case of intersex ones. Medical interventions aimed at changing the sex characteristics of someone's body should only be performed if a fully informed, sufficiently mature individual requests them of their own will. (Yes, of course, if an infant has a functional impairment that endangers their physical health, parents should be able to consent to medical treatment limited to fixing that impairment--but the vast majority of intersex genital surgeries are performed without the child having any functional problem.)

After this core priority, the goal of intersex advocacy is to ensure intersex children can grow up in a family, community and medical regime that treat intersex bodies and healthy and beautiful. We want to ensure intersex children full freedom to explore and assert their own gender identity, whatever it may be. We want them to have access to any medical interventions they mature to desire, but to make decisions about any medical interventions completely free from coercion, in a context where choosing to access no interventions is fully supported.

The Nashville Statement calls this sin.

According to the Nashville Statement, part of submitting to the will of God means, in the case of intersex individuals, submission to the will of doctors. Doctors are treated as agents of God's will in determining a binary sex to which to assign a poor benighted, disordered intersex infant. It may seem quite strange for religious authorities to declare medical authorities diviners of God's will, but in fact this partnership between religion and science in enforcing binary sex/gender ideology has been around for centuries--you can read my prior post discussing that here. It was perhaps at its height during the heyday of European colonialism, when Christian missionaries partnered with European scientists and doctors to pathologize and dismantle nonbinary sex categories among colonized peoples. But there's an ongoing religious and scientific partnership in proselytizing the ideology of "natural sex," and we see that very clearly in the case of the Nashville Statement.

Here, we see conservative evangelical leaders joining doctors in framing intersex as disorder. Intersex people must be medically assigned to a binary sex and have their bodies altered to conform to it as much as possible. To object to this is now not simply to fail to respect medical authority-- it is now proclaimed to violate God's will.

What Does This Mean for Intersex Advocacy?

I believe that what this means for us is that a storm is coming. In the past, conservative evangelical opposition to variance in sex, gender and sexuality hasn't focused on intersex advocates. We've been dismissed as pitiful, freakish, and rare, and conservative religious approaches to us haven't been consolidated.

Well, now they have been. And in terms of advocacy, for me the main takeaway here is that the Nashville Statement answers the questions of whether intersex advocacy should be making common cause with LGBT advocates.

For many years, intersex communities have been divided over whether we should be placed "under the LGBT+ umbrella." Intersex support groups where parents of intersex children have had a strong voice have tended both to embrace DSD language and resist the idea of allying with LGBT communities, because their goal has been one of assimilation. The have desired to to distance the community from people viewed as radical and queer and present intersex people (or "people with DSDs") as "normal." This tendency is likely to continue. There's a growing number of parents who have been educated by trans and intersex advocacy who oppose surgical alteration of their intersex babies' genitalia, but for the larger group that view intersexuality as a curable disorder, the Nashville Statement is actually likely to be fairly resonant.

But then there are those of us who are out intersex advocates fighting the pathologizing and mutilation of our bodies. And among us, while opinion about whether to ally with LGBT advocacy groups has been much more positive, there are still those of us who have been against it. This is not because of an assimilationist desire, but out of frustration with LGBT+ organizations that have demonstrated poor allyship. I will acknowledge that there's been a substantial amount of ally failure. Common examples include organizations that put an "I" in their group acronym (such as LGBTQIAA) without having any out intersex people in their group; treating sex variance as an abstract concept to use to advance an LGBT group's agenda without recognizing us as actual people around them who need to be understood and aided; misunderstanding intersex community needs as being primarily about respect for gender identity instead of ending IGM and other forced medical interventions; and denying that physical sex has any reality as a tactic for fighting transphobia, which makes it impossible to even articulate our mutilation and suffering.

But whether we are satisfied with how we have been treated by LGBT organizations and advocates or not, we are all in the same boat in the eyes of those who would cause us vast suffering and call it "Christian love." And because our community is most likely to be in the closet, our organizations younger and smaller, and our suffering least understood by the general public, we really really need the aid of LGBT community partners.

So: it is time for us to do a whole lot more educating--of both LGBT advocates with whom we share common cause, and of the general public. And it is time to prepare for the active opposition of conservative evangelical groups that have announced in the Nashville Statement that opposition to IGM is now right up there with advocating marriage equality or support for gender transition as acts that claim "ruin human life and dishonor God."

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

The Problematic Ideology of Natural Sex

What is human nature?

In the Western world today, science and religion are often understood to be enemies. It’s believed they offer two competing explanations of how the world works. What I want to show you is how when it comes to understanding human nature, Christianity and Science are in fact complete bedfellows. They both are deeply invested in a belief system, which I will call the Ideology of Natural Sex. And both have been shoring up that ideology, enforcing it brutally, and imposing it by force on others around the globe, for centuries.

What is this Ideology of Natural Sex? What do authorities from the Pope to our medical and scientific textbooks jointly believe, and insist we believe, about sex? It’s their unified theory of sex, gender and sexuality, and it goes like this:

“As ordered by God/evolutionary biology, humans come in two and only two physical sexes. This is the nature of things because a male and a female make a reproductive unit. The purpose of sexual interaction is reproduction. Thus, the determinative factor in dividing men from women is genitalia. Genitalia determine gender—the way society organizes people through gender roles, and the way people should properly identify and understand their place in the world. And this world is one in which men are (by God’s design or by biological imperative) the dominant sex, the sexual “aggressor,” while women’s interests center on nurturing families and offspring.”

Four things that are central to my own life pose challenges to this ideology. The first is that the empirical reality of physical sex is that it is a spectrum, and people, like myself, have always been born intersex. The second is that people around the world and throughout history have identified with genders other than male or female, and/or have been assigned to one sex at birth, and felt called to move to live in another. The third is that people engage in sex all the time that is not procreative. This is true of people who are infertile, people in same-sex pairings, and fertile men and women who do not wish to conceive with one another at the time of their sexual interaction. And the last is the reality that gender inequality is not inevitable. Patriarchy, the privileging of men over women, is a form of inequity that is successfully being reduced.

How have religious and scientific authorities dealt with these challenges over the past several centuries? They have periodically declared them to be “unnatural.”

Now, if ever you want to know when to suspect an ideology is at work, you can be sure it is the case when someone tells you something is unnatural and should not occur. Because here’s the thing about true natural laws: they function whether you want them to or not. Nobody needs to urge or force anyone else to obey them. Consider gravity. It’s a natural law, so nobody needs to enforce it. No religious tracts or psychological textbooks have been written urging people to obey the principle of gravity and refrain from floating about bumping into ceilings. Or consider this example: people may argue over vegetarianism, and whether it is healthy. But you have never seen a letter to the editor or an internet comment war complaining about how kids these days are engaging in the unnatural practice of giving up both meat and vegetables and choosing to engage in photosynthesis instead.

There is no #PhotosynthesisIsUnnatural hashtag because it truly is unnatural for people to turn green and live off sunlight directly instead of eating things for energy. Truly unnatural things do not occur, so they generate no outrage squads decrying their transgression.

As for the “laws of natural sex”—well, it’s another story.

Around the world, over the past four or five hundred years, people have been cajoled, threatened, forcibly re-educated, beaten, imprisoned, locked in mental hospitals, put in the stocks, publicly humiliated, mutilated, and burnt at the stake for violating one or more of the precepts of “Natural Sex.” That’s the sure sign of enforced ideology, not a true natural law.

And it’s not just a story of superstitious, ignorant days gone by. There is a war being waged over the ideology of “Natural Sex” today. And in that war, religion and science stand hand in hand on the same side. Who stands on the other?

Intersex people whose genitals are surgically mutilated without their consent to force their bodies to resemble binary sex expectations.

Trans people who are treated as having a mental illness, as delusional, as perverted, as pariahs.

People in same-gender relationships, who have made great strides in the West recently in terms of a right to secular marriages, but who are still not permitted to marry in many religious denominations, and who are not protected from perfectly legal discrimination of many sorts in many places.

Oh, and women pursuing sexual pleasure. Religious authorities frame women in particular as ruining themselves through seeking sex outside the context of marriage. Meanwhile, scientists continue to frame female orgasm as a puzzle as they state it is “unnecessary,” since women can conceive without it. Women, according to both religion and science, should want babies, and only engage in sex to make them, not for fun.

The extraordinary thing is, with so many groups fighting and suffering for recognition denied them under the ideology of “natural sex,” how incredibly powerful that ideology is, how amazingly resilient. We are taught the Ideology of Natural Sex so early, by parents and media and schools and churches, that we believe in it at the same fundamental level that we believe in things like gravity.

And even when individuals are persecuted in some way under the Ideology of Natural Sex, very often it never occurs to them to challenge the whole, as that seems unthinkable, but only one small part of the ideology impacting them particularly. Thus we have women who decry female genital mutilation as cruelly enforcing the belief that women should not have sex for pleasure, yet who see similar surgeries being performed on intersex babies as appropriate, as heroically “correcting malformation.” We have gay men and lesbians who frame themselves as natural and normal, wanting only to marry and reproduce like anyone else, while disdaining trans people as "crazies" who are making gay people look bad by association under the LGBT umbrella. We have people born with sex-variant bodies who reject the label intersex, and wish only to be referred to as “people affected by disorders of sex development.” Why? Because they are worried that the term “intersex” will make others associate them with trans people or think they have nonbinary identities or otherwise find them disturbingly transgressive of the Ideology of Natural Sex, and God forbid, they don’t want any of those things to be thought of them.

And everywhere, everywhere, we have ignorance of the long and violent history of the imposition of the Ideology of Natural Sex under European colonialism.

The genius behind framing an ideology as “natural” is that its history erases itself. Why would anyone study the history of something natural and eternal? We don’t study the history of covalent bonds in chemistry or cumulus clouds in meteorology.  And so we don’t study the spread of European binary sex ideology under colonialism. If you do, you’ll find that all over the world before European colonialism there were societies recognizing three, four, or more sexes and allowing people to move between them—but that’s a subject for another post. Suffice it to say that societies were violently restructured under European colonialism in many ways, and one of those was the stamping out of nonbinary gender categories and stigmatization of those occupying them as perverts.

Meanwhile, missionaries and European scientists spread the word that nonprocreative sexual practices—same-gender relationships, oral sex, masturbation—violated God’s will or the scientifically known purpose of sex, and were thus both sinful and sick. Christian missionaries even taught that the only acceptable intercourse involved a married man atop his wife, other positions being “unnatural.” Scientists concurred, saying that only in the missionary position would gravity lead semen to the uterus. Nature, colonized peoples were taught, requires men to be on top--of society, and in sexual activity, literally.

Most people today are ignorant of this history of the ongoing struggles to impose the Ideology of Natural Sex on reluctant nations and social groups. This ignorance allows each generation to believe that those who do not fit under the ideology, such as intersex and trans people, are rare freaks—or, if there are many challenging the ideology at that time, such as feminists demanding access to birth control and abortion, or the gay pride movement, as a brand new threat to an until-then-eternal system.

And for a system that is presented as eternal and inevitable, the Ideology of Natural Sex is also strangely framed as fragile and endangered, requiring vigorous defense. One example: the 20th century claim that “homosexuality is unnatural, and if it is tolerated, the human species will go extinct as procreation will stop.” This claim was made by opponents of the so-called gay liberation movement, many of them religious conservatives, but using the language of science. And after all, for many years, scientists had been claiming that homosexuality was a medical disorder that must be cured.

The really weird thing about the end-of-the-species claim, if you think about it, is that it presumed that if same-gender sexual activity were tolerated, then nobody would ever have mixed-gender sex again. Why would people who presumably happily identified as heterosexual think something like that? Well, it’s because each of the precepts of the Ideology of Natural Sex are seen as inextricably linked. The purpose of sex is reproduction; this requires men and women; people must accept their assigned gender roles. Allow two men or two women to have sex, and the other precepts will fall as well. Society as we know it will collapse, and in fact, we’ll die out as a species as we won’t reproduce anymore. Our nature will be destroyed and humans will suffer an apocalypse.

Today, in the early 21st century, intersex and trans issues are coming to the fore. And the same patterns emerge, as they have in the past of which we are unaware.

From science and medicine, what we see is the framing of bodies, identities and behaviors that fall outside the Ideology of Natural Sex as disorders to be classified and treated. The goal is to restore the “natural order” through techniques developed by science: eugenic programs, surgical “normalization,” and psychotherapies. Consider intersex status right now. There is a growing social movement of intersex people to put an end to the nonconsensual genital surgeries that have been imposed on intersex children since the 20th century. But doctors are extremely resistant to this movement. Living with a sex-variant body is presented by doctors as a fatal condition. It will lead to social death, which may lead in turn to suicide. Without a body that conforms to binary sex expectations, it will be impossible to find a mate, so even if one lives, it will be an empty life, a painful one full of strange nonconforming behavior and self-loathing. Surgeons claim they are compelled to continue intersex genital mutilation to preserve life and quality of life, dismissing the cry of intersex advocates that these “treatments” in fact degrade their quality of life.

From the religious side, what we see is an assertion that Natural Law created by God must be affirmed by all human laws. To do otherwise is not only an offense to God, but will destroy humanity. Speaking recently of the supposed danger of the trans rights movement, Pope Francis said, "We are experiencing a moment of the annihilation of man as the image of God." Natural law, understood as decreed by God, requires binary sex, and that gender conform to that binary sex. Worldly laws must not be enacted to acknowledge and support people's gender identities. In fact, say religious conservatives, to speak of gender at all is to offend God. There is only sex, and never before have humans suggested that one also has a gender identity and should express its inner truth! (The fact that gender identity recognition and gender transition are as old as humanity is a history that we’ve already seen has been erased by the “natural law” framing.) And fascinatingly, the Catholic church evokes science to “prove” its position. Sex, the Church states, is determined by DNA. DNA, unlike clothing or hormones or genitals, cannot be changed. Thus, one can never change one’s “true” sex. Gender transition is a wicked lie, a deception, and according to Pope Francis, as dangerous to humanity as nuclear weapons. It must be stopped and “nature” defended.

So science and religion walk arm in arm, trumpeting the ideology of the Natural Law of Sex. This gives everyone in the general population something to latch onto in framing the oppression of some group as necessary and good. Are you a socially conservative religious person who finds trans people disgusting? Claim that the statement “male and female created He them” in Genesis is not a generalizing poetic phrase but a morally prescriptive statement that must be socially enforced. Are you a radical cis feminist who disdains the Pope, but shares with him disgust for trans people?  Claim that DNA determines sex, that gender identity is a delusion, and that trans women are thus sick male threats to the safety of “biological women.”

There’s something for everyone.

What makes the Ideology of Natural Sex so powerful is that, like all deeply effective belief systems, it is so taken-for-granted that it is like water to a fish. Most people are unaware of the very concept of a sex/gender ideology. And therefore, merely to ask the question “How many genders are there in your society?” strikes them both infantile and very offensive. Show them a drawing of intermediate genitalia and they gasp in profound shock. Present them with a visibly trans body and they laugh or gag or feel incited to commit violence.  These strong negative reactions occur because having your ideology challenged is bad enough, but when you didn’t even know it was an ideology in the first place, it makes you question everything. And sadly, most people don’t want to do that at all.

But we have to do it.

If we truly believe in science, in a rational world where we look objectively at what is, rather than impose our beliefs onto reality, then we need to reject the Ideology of Natural Sex. We need to see the reality of the sex spectrum and stop framing intersexuality as a rare disorder that somehow violates natural law. We need to understand that different societies have divided the sex spectrum up into different numbers of social sexes, and that binary sex is no more or less arbitrary than trinary or quartic sex systems. We need to give up the silly idea that sexual interactions only serve reproductive purposes, when it is massively evident in nature that nonprocreative sex is everywhere in social species. We need to become aware of the omnipresent world history of gender transitioning, and let go of the myth that not until the 20th century introduced modern surgical transition procedures did “real” gender transitions occur.

And if we truly believe in religion, then we must adhere to the precepts of compassion that all religions teach, and stop using religion to oppress minorities or spread hate.

Intersex people, trans people, queer people, lusty women. . . we don’t violate natural law. In fact, we’ve always been a part of human nature. And accepting and respecting us as we are will not cause the end of the world. At all.

It could, however, spell the start of a kinder and fairer world. So please, just let go of the Western Ideology of Natural Sex.



Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Intersex Athletes of the Times


The NY Times Magazine is running a story on the binary sex policing of intersex athletes. Well, I should say, intersex woman athletes--nobody is testing to find out if men who are competing in international sporting competitions have intersex traits. Because what is really at stake here is ideology, not fact. And that ideology is that sex is binary when it is really a spectrum, and that the line being drawn between women and men is dividing lesser people from greater ones. Intersex men, framed not as "real men" but as lesser, are seen as pathetic. But intersex women are portrayed as unduly powerful, and a threat.

It's time for me to write another post on intersex athletes, as Dutee Chand's case is in the news. Because this issue keeps coming up. Because we, intersex people, continue to be out there, and contemporary Western society continues to frame us as violating the order of things, instead of a part of the natural order.

It's strange, the way we in the contemporary West collapse all the variety in human bodies into a sex binary. We're used to a trick of mind that allows us to say and believe "men are taller than women," while encountering plenty of women who are taller than plenty of men. Height, you see, is a spectrum, but the sexed-height-difference we speak of references just average heights. We ignore the spectrum and speak of the average difference when distinguishing women and men. Now, there are adult men who are under three feet tall, and there are men over eight feet tall. That's a five-foot range of difference. The difference in average height between women and men in the U.S. is five inches--a tiny amount in comparison. And this is true of all physical sex characteristics, including not just height or lung capacity or average hand size, but genital configuration and levels of sex hormones. The characteristics run along a spectrum, but we speak of them as a binary: "men's hands are bigger than women's" and "men have higher testosterone than women." The range of differences within a socially-imposed binary sex category is huge, while the average difference between those categorized as men and women is small. And the overlap between women and men is wide.

People of all sexes typically produce testosterone and estrogen and progesterone, and our bodies rely on all of them--though you might not know this by the way we say all the time that "men have testosterone and women have estrogen." You might imagine doctors and scientists would think less magically than laypeople when it comes to the idea that "T is for boys and E is for girls." After all, they should be aware of facts like estrogen being needed not just for ovulation in women, but also for spermatogenesis in men. But no. Doctors and scientists consulting with the Olympics have been speaking of testosterone in very magical ways. They have decided upon a "normal female range" of testosterone, and banned women who naturally produce more from competing.

Consider these facts:

1. Men competing in elite international sporting competitions do not have limits placed on how much testosterone they naturally produce. Women who produce higher-than-typical amounts of testosterone are treated as "cheating," men who do are not.

2. Actually, when studied, it turns out that 17% of elite male athletes have testosterone levels below the bottom of the "male range." These men are not disqualified as "cheating by being intersex." They aren't regulated at all, probably because it's presumed that their low testosterone must be a disadvantage. Yet these men with low testosterone are not lesser athletes; they are just as extraordinary in their performance as the men with typical testosterone levels. This illustrates how there's no direct relationship between the amount of testosterone a person produces and their athletic abilities.

3. Bodies vary widely in how sensitive they are to testosterone. Some intersex women have "complete androgen insensitivity syndrome." These are individuals with XY chromosomes who are born with female-typical genitalia due to their body's inability to respond to testosterone. They have internal testes where most women have ovaries, and these produce testosterone at puberty, but their bodies can't use it, so they develop breasts like other typical girls do, not beards. And focus on this fact: their bodies are insensitive to testosterone. The idea that they have some sort of athletic advantage due to having higher testosterone than typical girls is ridiculous--because they can't respond to testosterone.

4. People do not compete in athletic competitions using their genitals. Yet as the Times article discusses, girls with large clitorises are being told to submit to surgery to remove the "excess tissue" if they want to compete in the Olympics. When similar surgeries are performed on girls with average-sized clitorises for social reasons, this is deemed the outrage of female genital mutilation by the international community. Why is it acceptable to impose this on intersex girls? And what could be more magical thinking than saying that how your genitals look determines how fast you can run? By this logic, the longer the penis, the faster a man can run.

5. All Olympic athletes have atypical bodies. As one Olympian says in the article, they're all "freaks of nature." They may be endowed naturally with atypical levels of fast-twitch muscle, or unusually flexible joints, or huge hands, or extraordinarily long legs. We do not police these biological differences, or require that to compete in the Olympics, you must have an average body. We don't randomly pick citizens of each nation to compete in international sporting events--we get to see average people running for the bus all the time. We don't find this exciting, and it's the very atypicality of elite athletes' bodies that enthralls us. It's only this very specific type of atypicality--being a woman with hormonal or genital or chromosomal variance--that has been policed. And it's policed intensively, intrusively, punitively.

6.  The "science" being used today to exclude intersex women athletes is as amazingly full of biases and magical beliefs and unsupported assertions as it was many decades ago. Consider this: scientists testifying as to the supposed necessity of continuing to police intersex bodies recently claimed that a woman competing in Olympic track and field events is 140 times more likely to have a Y chromosome than the rest of the population. This is ludicrous, because we have no idea how many women in the general population have Y chromosomes. We don't test the general population for this--only women competing in elite athletic events. Right now, all over the world, there are millions of intersex people who have no idea of their intersex status--it's not like you can see your chromosomes. 

7. This reminds me of the magical thinking that went into the "supermale" theory in the 1950s and 60s. Scientists discovered that some men had XYY chromosomes, and decided that if one Y chromosome makes you a man, two must make you hypermasculine. So they went around testing the chromosomes of men who were imprisoned or institutionalized, and lo! they found out that a significant number had XYY chromosomes. There was a media frenzy about the powerful, predatory XYY superman. Only. . . nobody had done a comparison study. It turns out that when you test men who are not imprisoned or institutionalized, the same number have XYY chromosomes. Men with XYY chromosomes don't produce more testosterone than XY men. They aren't stronger, or more aggressive, or hairier. You're much more likely to be a sweet, tubby old history teacher than a serial killer if you are an XYY man.

What all of this makes clear is that scientists and doctors are just as immersed in our culture as anyone else. And our culture has been deeply invested in an ideology that sex is a binary--and that by virtue of being a male, a person is stronger, faster, more dominant, more assertive. It may be 2016, but our society continues to view women athletes as suspect, because they are strong, fast, and highly competitive. What is really at stake is patriarchy, and its positioning of men as superior to women. Powerful, nonconforming women still get pushback in the form of sex and gender policing, through street harassment, or poor work evaluations, or medical surveillance. And so we continue to scrutinize the bodies of women athletes, and to punish those whose bodies are deemed "too male" in certain ways. While we acknowledge that height is a spectrum, we insist that hormone levels require a no-gender's-land between acceptably female and acceptably male. And really, it would make no less sense to tell every woman athlete that women cannot be taller than 5'9", and that taller women must have their leg bones reduced until their height is in the female range or be banned from competition.

Sex and gender policing always pretend to be protecting "real women" from "fake ones" who would somehow hurt them. But in fact, they boil down to preserving the power that has been given to people categorized as male, by insisting that "real women" are vulnerable, small, submissive, weak.

Sex is a spectrum. Bodies don't cheat. If we really, truly, actually believed that testosterone levels determined ability, then we would test athletes of all genders and assign them to competition classes by testosterone levels. (The outcome of such a practice would immediately falsify the ridiculous premise.) If we really, truly believed that the size of the phalloclitoris corresponds to athletic ability, then we'd have the competition classes "small clitoris, medium clitoris, large clitoris, intermediate phalloclitoris, small penis, medium penis, large penis." That would be ludicrous, but would at least have the upside of being equally humiliating to men as it has been for all the women who have been forced to face genital inspections to get their "gender certificates" over the years.

Since sex is a spectrum, the division of it into a binary will always be arbitrary. We've been trying to hide the fact that sex is a spectrum, but it's time to grow up. And that means we have two choices. If we really think that bodily characteristics must define competition groups, then stop dividing athletes into men's and women's sports, and create competition classes based on leg length, or lung capacity, or body mass, or flexibility, or whatever is most central to a given sport. Or, if we insist on continuing to separate sports into binary gender categories, then stop policing the bodily characteristics of athletes. People who identify and live as women should compete as such, and the same for those who identify and live as men. People with nonbinary gender identities would have to just flip a coin or something, which would be cruel to them, but at least we would have stopped forcing people to submit to genital surgery they didn't want in order to run.

Dutee Chand was assigned female at birth and has always lived and identified as a woman. She has overcome amazing barriers to reach her level of competition, growing up in extreme poverty and running barefoot with no way to afford even a pair of sneakers. She is only 5 feet tall, and competing against women gifted by genetics and nutrition with much longer legs. To say she has an unfair advantage against her competitors because her higher-than-average testosterone level for a woman trumps all the advantages they have over her is ridiculous. Let Dutee run.

(P.S.--Whenever I post on this topic, inevitably I get an outcry from people who believe that simply letting people compete in their lived genders would mean that cis women would be pushed out of sports, which would be overrun with "men pretending to be women." This is the hysteria that has always driven sex policing in sporting competitions. It completely ignores reality. Cis men do not want to live their lives as women. Trans women face huge amounts of social stigma and violence that nobody wants to experience, and that negatively impact their ability to train or compete. And no one is proposing that a person who has lived their whole lives as a man can announce they identify as a woman and run in the women's marathon the next week, then say "oops, changed my mind" after they have a medal in hand. The rules for international sporting competitions in fact actively address this, by saying that in order to compete in women's athletics, a trans woman must have legally gender transitioned (a slow process), and continue to live as a woman for a least four years before any records or medals she wins are permanently awarded. So please, just let go of the myth that the humiliation and exclusion of intersex and trans women is necessary to protect innocent and deserving women from some ominous threat.)

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

When Intersex People are Collateral Damage in Transphobic Battles

As intersex people, we have to deal with a host of issues because our bodies lie between the socially-expected bodily norms of male and female. Our bodies are treated as disordered, as problems to be solved by the medical profession. Doctors and people on the street alike treat intersexuality as freakish and fascinating, both intriguing and repellent.  Our bodies are surgically altered without our consent as children, and we must live with the lifelong aftereffects of limited sensation and ongoing genital atypicality. We are taught to view our differences as shameful and to keep them secret. Very often we hesitate to enter romantic relationships, fearing rejection because our bodies challenge the very ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality through which most people understand themselves. We may be pursued, however, by sexual fetishists.

It's a lot to deal with, for many of us.  And then, on top of the challenges we're already facing, we find ourselves targeted by people who don't even recognize we exist: transphobic activists.

Today, trans gender people are making some social progress in securing protection from discrimination--but they face resistance. A central tactic of those who oppose trans gender rights in the U.S. is to propose legislation prohibiting trans people from using particular gendered facilities such as bathrooms, changing rooms, or locker rooms. Those proposing the legislation argue that the new law will protect  (cis) women and children from being harassed, attacked by sexual predators, or made to feel unsafe or uncomfortable.  Now, we should note a couple of things--first of all, proposed laws like these are aimed at trans women and girls--not even trans men, let alone intersex people. Those drafting the legislation clearly aren't imagining the situation in which an intersex teen using a school locker room is greeted by uncomfortable stares, or imagining that a trans man using a men's bathroom will make cis men flee the facility in fear. The proposed laws are transmisogynist: aimed at trans women, who are framed as "really men" who are some sort of sexual perverts. Secondly, sexual harassment and assault are already illegal, in bathrooms or elsewhere, so the only thing the proposed legislation actually accomplishes is to transform informal policing of the ideology of the sex/gender binary into formal policing. Those whose bodies don't clearly conform to expectations for what a woman's body is "supposed" to look like now become literal criminals.

But the drafters of transphobic bathroom laws run into a problem. People police binary sex/gender norms all the time, but they do so informally. The drafters have to come up with objective language to put into their proposed legislation.  Early efforts banning people from using bathrooms tended to require a person challenged upon entering a gendered bathroom to show ID with that gender listed on it. Of course, as part of the process of gender transition, large numbers of trans people have the gender listed on their driver's license or other ID changed. So the transphobic activists proposing these laws switched to using language of "birth certificate sex." But in some states, people who medically gender transition are able to change the sex listed on their birth certificate.

And that's why recent proposed bathroom-exclusionary language has moved to requiring people who use gendered facilities to have a matching "biological sex at birth" or even matching binary genotype of XX or XY.

Now, all forms of sex-policing bathroom bills, while aimed at trans people, are bad for at least some intersex people who are ipso gender (that is, who identify with the binary sex they were assigned at birth). An intersex person may be assigned female at birth, and identify as a woman, but have substantial amounts of bodily and facial hair, leading her to have to deal with a lot of sex and gender policing. Such an individual is likely to face many of the same issues of bias and outrage that visibly trans women encounter when they try to use women's bathrooms.

But the bills making it illegal to use a single-sex bathroom unless one was born with the anatomy expected for people of that sex basically declare it illegal for intersex people--by definition born with bodies that are neither male nor female--to use gendered bathrooms at all.

Further, the Texas law basing bathroom use on genotype specifically states, "If the individual's gender [sic] established at the individual's birth is not the same as the individual's gender [sic] established by the individual's chromosomes," that their gender for bathroom-use purposes would be determined by chromosomes. Just think about what this means for, say, a woman with CAIS, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. She is born with female-typical external genitalia and assigned female at birth. She's raised as a girl and identifies as one.  At puberty she develops breasts, but no menstrual cycle, and it's only when tests are done to determine why that she finds out she has XY chromosomes, no uterus, and internal testes (whose testosterone her body cannot respond to). The Texas law tells her she must use the men's room, because her Y chromosome trumps her physical appearance, genitalia, birth certificate, sex of rearing and gender identity.  This law is telling her she is "really" a man.  If she uses a women's room, it's a class-A misdemeanor for which she could get a year in jail. And if her employer finds out she has CAIS--something that her medical records reveal--well, then, if he lets her repeatedly use the women's bathroom at work, then he is committing a felony, punishable by two years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

So what should we as intersex people do about this?

It's very unlikely that we are the intended targets of these proposed laws--we're just collateral damage. Some may argue that few ipso gender intersex people look androgynous enough to trigger enforcement--that nobody's going to call the cops on us.  But some of us *are* physically androgynous and genitally different and regularly have to cope with gender-policing. Furthermore, it's now becoming popular to have provisions in bathroom-panic legislation that either put employers and facility owners at risk of fines, like the Texas law, or give third parties who see a person of the "wrong sex" in the bathroom, locker room, etc. the right to sue the school or business and get guaranteed recompense. For example, high school students in Kentucky who see a student whose sex is "incorrect" in the bathroom or locker room would be entitled to sue the school for $2500 for each time they catch the student in the facility.

Imagine what could happen to an intersex high school child in Kentucky who has a visible genital difference under a scheme in which classmates could earn $2500 each time they complained they saw their "incorrect" genitals.

These proposed laws give people a financial incentive to scrutinize our intersex bodily differences and to report them to authorities. They give employers and businesses a financial incentive to increase their sex and gender policing, lest they face a fine.  They are a bad thing for us.

Now, one solution some might propose would be to educate transphobic legislators about the difference between intersexuality and transsexuality. We could ask that the laws being proposed include exemptions for people born intersex, based on the presumption that if transphobic lawmakers understood what intersexuality is, they would express sympathy rather than bigotry toward us.

I think not only is this naively optimistic, but that it would be a terrible mistake.

Now, I acknowledge that relations between the intersex and trans communities are not always the best.  I validate the complaints of many intersex people that trans people are quick to use evidence of our existence to try to break down the ideology of immutable binary sex/gender--but slow to act as allies, and understand our community's needs, and include us appropriately in their antidiscrimination regulatory proposals.

But I believe we must consider trans issues to be our issues.  Firstly, because the portion of the intersex community that gender transitions is much higher than the proportion of nonintersex people who gender transition. There are a lot of intersex trans folks--like myself, like my spouse--who are active in the intersex community.

Beyond that, it's rational for us to stand side by side with nonintersex trans folks in battles like these precisely because we are impacted just as they are. So many people in our society think intersex people are trans people that transphobia constantly impacts us, even those of us who are ipso gender rather than trans.  We are fighting against our own mistreatment.

Ultimately, I believe that even those of us who, pragmatically speaking, are likely never to be personally impacted by bathroom-panic laws--because our bodies and genitals and birth certificates and chromosomes and gender identities all fortunately align and our intersex differences are not visible--all of us should stand against transphobic laws. We should do so as ethical human beings, opposed to all inequality and bias, not just those forms of bigotry that negatively impact us personally.

Now, all that said, I need to have a word with our trans allies, with whom I hope our community will stand. And that is: please, nonintersex trans people out there, don't try to use us without including us. Though we're taking collateral damage, we're not the primary targets in the bathroom wars.  If you think that femme CAIS women would make great mouthpieces for delivering talking points about how cruelly these laws would impact "innocent" women like them (and I've seen the calls and requests), fine.  But don't use members of our community or the very idea of intersexuality as a way to win your battles--without making an equal effort to fight for our rights, especially the right of intersex people to be free of unconsented-to surgery.

With all these things said--intersex and trans siblings, let's stand together against sex and gender policing laws.


Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists and Intersex Experience


Recently I spent several days in a public internet group for "gender critical" people, after a few intersex friends voiced some positive things about this line of thinking.  Feminists who call themselves "gender critical" are a controversial bunch, but their critique of the term "cis gender" had caught the interest of some intersex people I respect.  The term "cis gender" is an awkward one to use in the context of intersex people, which was the subject of my last blog post.  So I wanted to approach this branch of feminism with an open mind, and see if there was theorizing or political advocacy I could use in my intersex work.  The group I joined promised respectful listening to people of varying beliefs, and banned personal attacks, so I had high hopes.

My hopes, I'm afraid, were naive.  The group turned out to be completely dominated by "TERFs," trans-exclusionary radical feminists, and when it came to intersex topics, not people I would consider good allies in the least.  So, since I know there are other intersex advocates who've presented "gender critical" politics in a positive light, I wanted to write a post about why I consider this a bad idea.

First, since I suspect that a good number of readers may be unfamiliar with the terms "gender critical" and "TERF," I will present an overview of the beliefs involved, in the form of a handy numbered-list primer.

A TERF Primer

1.  Calling themselves "radfems" or "gender-critical feminists," and named TERFs by radical-feminist-identified people who are not transphobic, these are cis women who oppose the inclusion of trans women in feminist organizations, women's spaces, and female facilities.  TERFs do not describe themselves as cis women, however, but as women-born-women, natal women, or (unmodified) women.  They assert that the terms "TERF" and "cis" are slurs.  Generally they just refer to one another in discussions as "feminists" and as "women," as if anyone who is a feminist would agree with all that they say, and as if their female status should go unmarked, as the normative or "real" female status.

2.  Trans-exclusionary radical feminists believe that sex is a natural binary, innate and immutable: men have penises, women have vaginas and uteri.  They note that gender is a relationship of power, in which men seek to control women's uteri, reproductive capacities and lives.  The ultimate expression of this patriarchy is the use of the penis to rape.  As a result, "gender critical feminists" make the strong claim that anyone who denies that sex is a binary and that genitals determine gender is ignoring the terrorizing of (natal/cis) women by rapists.

3.  TERFs argue that sex cannot be changed: trans women are really and eternally men, and trans men are really and eternally women.  Identifying with a gender that doesn't match one's genitals is a delusion or mental illness.  The phrase "gender critical" denotes being critical of (or more bluntly, rejecting) the concept of gender identity--most especially the fundamental precept of trans gender advocacy, which is that when gender identity and legal sex conflict, this provides pragmatic and ethical justification for a change of legal sex.

4.  TERFs deny that they are transphobic, and say they have compassion for men under the delusion that they are women, which they present as equivalent to believing one is really a horse or a space alien.  Dysphoria with one's body, they point out, is not a special characteristic of trans people, but a near-universal, and the solution is to accept one's body.  Accepting one's body means accepting that one cannot call oneself a woman while having a penis.  (Nor can sex be altered through genital reconstructive surgery , which is a radical mutilation to no purpose, as genes can't be changed and binary sex is essential.  But in most of the discussion threads I read, it was assumed that trans women all have penises, making them dangerous, as penises are rape weapons.  In fact, I've never read the word "penis" so often outside of a urology blog.)

5.  TERFs are not just binary sex essentialists, they also have a theory of gender socialization.  Their vision of gender socialization is bleak: boys are socialized to dominate, control, and rape women; girls are socialized to submit to this and embrace their oppressors and call this "femininity."  Clearly this is bad, and feminism is a movement of (natal/cis) women that teaches women to recognize and resist this programming.  Men, however, are presented as inevitably and eternally shaped by their socialization into patriarchy, as it advantages them.  Trans women are men, and while they may claim they do not enjoy being treated as men, this just illustrates their blindness to their own privilege.  Trans women are inevitably socialized to try to control "natal" women, as evidenced by their belief they should be able to force cis women into supporting their gender delusion and treating them as sisters.

6.  Thus, this conclusion about trans people: trans women are confused men, fetishists of the feminine, who are prompted by their male socialization to seek to control women--in this case, due to their delusion that they are women, to control feminism and women-born-women's spaces.  Trans men are less of a problem, since they pose no threat to anyone, lacking both penises and socialization into the role of the oppressor.  Trans men are just sad: women who don't understand that it's ok to be a butch woman or a lesbian, victims of Stockholm syndrome identifying with their oppressor.  Women who are deluded into thinking they are men should be pitied and exhorted to return to the fold.  But men who delude themselves that they are women are a serious problem.  They must be stopped: with exclusionary policies, taking back feminism from a trans-obsessed trend; by fighting antidiscrimination clauses that would let trans women and girls use women's bathrooms; through telling the world that supporting trans children in their identities is child abuse.

7.  Feminists who are trans allies and transfeminists counter each of these points.  They state that sex is not a natural binary, but naturally a spectrum (i.e., intersexuality happens).  They point out that many cis women lack uteri, yet are still considered women by everyone, even TERFs.  They note that gender socialization is complex and variable, that it is shaped by the gender with which one identifies, and that acknowledging both these facts is in no way a denial of the reality of patriarchy.  They assert that it is important, however, to acknowledge the intersectional nature of marginalization and privilege, and speak not just of patriarchy but of kyriarchy, taking into account race, age, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, and other dimensions along which power is distributed.  And one of these dimensions is the axis of cis privilege and trans marginalization.  Trans women--particularly those who are poor, of color, and/or have a disability--suffer huge levels of social stigma, violence, employment discrimination, etc.  Cis women need to acknowledge that while they are marginalized as women, they are privileged as cis people.

8.  TERFs respond to trans allies with anger.  They say trans allies are dupes, following a trend that counters basic logic, biology, nature, and the English language when they accept the idea that a person with a penis can be called female.  (Quoting the dictionary is popular to "prove" that genitals determine gender.)  They discount all the statistics about violence against trans women (and to a lesser extent trans men) as manufactured and overstated.  They assert that a woman can never oppress a man, and trans women actually being men, "natal" women cannot oppress them.  The TERFs repudiate being termed cis gender, equating the term "cis" with gender-conforming and unenlightened femininity, and regularly linking it to the violent phrase "die cis scum," which they assert is the core sentiment of men who think they are women, as if trans women's goal is to kill off all cis feminists so that trans women can have every feminist organization that exists all to themselves.  Finally, they equate acknowledging cis privilege with asserting a belief that women are not oppressed.

Intersex People and "Gender Critical" Politics

It's clear that I view TERFs, in a word, as bigots.  Their mission is to discriminate against and exclude a marginalized group.  I hoped I might encounter something less stark and more nuanced in the "gender critical"internet discussion group I joined, since some other intersex advocates have had some positive things to say.  But that's not what happened, and a couple of days spent reading and attempting to have conversations left me feeling depressed and sullied.  There were a few positive moments, but they were vastly outweighed by slogging through a lot of LOLing about how stupid a person must be to think they can call themselves female when they were born with a penis.

So, my first question is, why have a few intersex friends had anything good to say about TERFs?  I think I can point to a few things.

1.  The phrase "gender critical" sounds appealing.  My intersex friends are critical of the way sex and gender are understood and enforced in the contemporary West, since this involves unconsented-to surgery performed on intersex infants' genitalia with lifelong ramifications that can be quite negative (loss of genital sensation, loss of fertility, loss of a source of natural sex hormones, and sometimes assignment to a sex with which the child does not grow up to identify).  A group that says they critique gender from a feminist perspective certainly sounds like it would make a reasonable ally.

2.  Intersex people are often uncomfortable with the application of the terms "cis" and "trans" to intersex experience.  The terms apply very poorly because they presume that physical sex is binary (even if gender identities may be nonbinary).  That is, if a person is born genitally intermediate, surgically assigned female, and grows up to identify as a woman, is she "trans gender" because she was surgically genitally altered to become female, or "cis gender" because she identifies with the sex she was assigned at birth?  Either term winds up misrepresenting something about her experience.  (I've suggested the term "ipso gender" in my last post as an alternative.)  In any case, TERFs reject the term cis gender, and this may appeal to an intersex person frustrated with this terminology.

3.  In recent months, there have been a series of "mainstream" articles and online posts in which TERFs' positions have been sympathetically expressed.  For example, one article mentioned by an intersex friend critiqued the term "cis privilege" by caricaturing it as meaning "having a female body is a privilege."  Clearly this is false: because of patriarchy, female bodies are sexualized, framed as weak, and subjected to surveillance.  Tons of cis women don't enjoy getting periods or feeling constantly at risk of an unwanted pregnancy.  Having a female body is not a privilege--but it is also not how trans advocates define cis privilege at all.  Trans people actually define cis privilege as "the benefits one derives from being seen as a 'real' and 'natural' member of one's identified sex" (lack of public scrutiny of one's primary and secondary sex characteristics, being able to use a public bathroom with relative ease, having an ID that matches one's identity, etc.).  Nor do trans people deny, as the linked article claims, that cis people also suffer from gender policing.  Someone who identifies as a woman yet who is very butch can suffer from bathroom panic, and a male-identified person who is quite feminine may face a great deal of street harassment.  That is why trans advocates always fight for laws banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression.  But if you read the linked article and took it at face value--why, the arguments of trans women sound regressive and ludicrous and enforcing of binary gender stereotypes.  Trans women are telling "natal" women their privilege is to enjoy being pretty and silent and submissive and having lots of babies, says the author!  If that were true, transfeminists really would be revealed to be patriarchal oppressors in disguise.  Only. . . it's not true.  It's a false characterization on par with saying that "feminists are man-haters."

OK, now we have some ideas about why intersex people might think that "gender critical" camp could be reasonable allies for intersex people.  The next question to address is what did I actually find TERFs to say about intersex issues when they were raised in group discussions?  Clearly the "gender crits" aren't trans allies, but are they nonetheless intersex ones?

The first thing I really want to acknowledge is that it's not all bad.  A couple of points came up where "gender critical" positions did align with intersex advocates'.  Most centrally, since TERFs believe that the "natural" sexed body should be accepted rather than medically altered, a good number of commenters were opposed to performing genital surgery on intersex infants, seeing it as mutilation.   That's a good thing.  And secondly, when I posted about Dutee Chand, an athlete who has been excluded from international sports due to sex-policing of her natural levels of testosterone, I found that at least in situations in which a person was born with vulva, raised as a girl, and has XX chromosomes, the TERF posters believed she should be allowed to compete in women's sports despite having testosterone levels that were considered "male."  Also good!

Well, those positions sound heartening!  Why then do I say that the "gender critical" partisans are not good allies for the intersex community?  Because of these numerous other positions of theirs:

1.  There was a total consensus among the trans-exclusionary feminists that sex is naturally a binary.  The fact that people are born sexually intermediate was somehow said not to undermine this assertion, because intersexuality was presented as a disorder, and, I was informed, "you can't take a disorder and call it a sex."  All intersex people were held to have a true binary sex.  While doctors shouldn't perform cosmetic genital surgery, TERFs asserted they should examine the infant and assign them to the correct binary sex on their birth certificates.  I was told that the correct sex would be based on capacity to reproduce in the "very rare" situations in which that would be possible without surgery, and otherwise on genes.

2.  Removing sex-markers from birth certificates generally, or making a preliminary sex marker amendable at will at maturity to M, F, or a nonbinary category--as suggested by intersex advocates--were thus framed as crazy.  It could confuse the child into believing they are members of a third sex, while "real" intersex people identify as women or men, discussants claimed.  It was presumed to be bad for intersex children, while encouraging trans genderqueer fantasies.  Since TERFs see gender identity as a sort of delusion or myth, the idea that families and society should allow the child to mature to develop and assert their own gender identity (male, female, or something else) is basically incomprehensible. 

3.  Nobody on the site at the time I was on it seemed aware what the result of the sex assignment scheme they described would be.  For example, people with CAIS, born with typical vulvae and developing female secondary sex characteristics at puberty if unaltered by gonadectomy, would be understood as permanently and naturally male, being infertile and having XY chromosomes.  Yet CAIS is often not diagnosed until late childhood or puberty, so either CAIS teens would be forced into gender transitions--a process the "gender crits" frame as impossible--or the TERFs would have to accept XY women.  Meanwhile, people born with a phallus fully masculinized by CAH would be permanently assigned female based on having XX chromosomes, while left surgically unaltered.  Given that the most central tenet of TERF politics is that a person with a penis cannot be female, this is a particularly strange outcome.

4.  I was surprised to find myself repeatedly informed that "intersexuality is a derail" when I raised concerns in conversations.  One reason for this is that being born intersex was framed as vanishingly rare.  Basically this argument held that half the population is made up of "natal women" under threat from men trans-deluded into thinking they have a right to enter women's spaces, while intersex issues only impact a handful of people, and concerns about a minor edge case shouldn't come to dominate a discussion about masses of women-born-women.

5.  The main reason I was told that TERF group members were "far beyond the point of reasonable frustration or tolerance for the intersex derail in conversations about gender identity" is that it was supposedly "only ever brought into conversations" as a distractor by men (that is, trans women) trying to deny the reality that genitals determine immutable binary gender, that "natal" women are oppressed rather than privileged, and that trans women are privileged rather than oppressed.  The fact that I, who am intersex and not a trans woman, was the person raising intersex issues was glossed over.   Intersexuality is presented as a straw man issue beloved by trans women.

6.  Another thing I was told is that most people claiming to be intersex are actually trans gender pretenders.  Now, I as an intersex advocate have spoken before about there being an issue of "intersex wannabes"out there, a problem for our community when they present physically-impossible stories--such as having been born with a full set of female reproductive organs and a full set of male ones--that contribute to disinformation.  But I do not appreciate being told that most people who say they are intersex are liars, and that the "tiny minority" of people who actually are intersex are being used by these men-who-caricature-women, proof that real intersex people should revile trans people.  I can make my own determinations about the true prevalence of intersex status, and who is supporting or exploiting me.  Not to mention that asserting that most people who identify as intersex are in fact lying itself contributes to disinformation about our community.

7.  The main situation in which intersex concerns were actually treated as relevant was in the context of discussions of trans-identified children.  (A particularly overwrought conversation in the group discussed an article which bore the blaring title "Toddler Aged 3 Assessed for Sex Change at London Clinic," which actually just reported that a 3-year-old was assessed for gender identity issues, not that the child was offered any sort of hormonal or surgical treatment.)  A claim made in the discussions of trans-identified children was that for parents to "indulge" this "fantasy" by bringing them to a clinic to be diagnosed, changing the pronoun they used to refer to the child, and/or having the gender marker on their ID changed was analogous to forcing genital surgery on intersex children, and thus a human rights violation that should be banned.  I don't see an analogy at all, but rather an inversion: forced genital surgery performed on infants violates their autonomy, while validating a child in their gender identity supports the child's autonomy.  I see TERFs appropriating intersex concerns about unconsented-to genital surgery to advance their goals.

So: I followed a recent suggestion that "gender critical" politics might be useful to intersex people, and spent several days reading posts and participating in a group for "gender critical" partisans.  What I found was something that left an awful taste in my mouth: a lot of transmisogyny, a denial of the lived reality of trans people of all genders, and an insistence on an immutable sex binarism that frames intersex people as disordered.  I was told that most people who say they are intersex are trans pretenders, using a tiny minority to advance their nefarious goal of insisting that gender identity should be respected and genitals treated as nobody's business other than the person bearing them and their intimate partners.  And I found the intersex community's concerns being co-opted to vilify parents who support their children in identifying with a gender other than that on their birth certificates.

They may call themselves by the intriguing moniker "gender critical," but I believe these trans-exclusionary feminists make very poor allies for the intersex community.