The Feminist Movement is generally characterized as a fight to end sexism and receive gender equality. In recent years, body positivity has become a prominent practice among feminists. In my short time on this earth, I have seen more representation of different body types across various media platforms. The song Victoria’s Secret by Jax exemplifies what it means to be liberated from oppressive societal standards surrounding women’s bodies. In the opening lines of the song, Jax characterizes the desirable body that society constructs by singing the following lines:
“God, I wish somebody would’ve told me
When I was younger that all bodies aren’t the same
Photoshop itty bitty models on magazine covers
Told me I was overweight”
In these lyrics, Jax showcases society’s shaming of bodies that deviate from thinness. She also highlights the use of photoshop and other editing tools to achieve the body types that are “acceptable” in society. The use of these technologies to “doctor” photos further emphasizes how the images put forth in society are unattainable and set dangerous expectations for women. In addition to lessons surrounding body image, in the chorus of the song, Jax solidifies the hypocrisy and male-dominating discourse surrounding the female body by singing:
“I know Victoria’s secret
Girl, you wouldn’t believe
She’s an old man who lives in Ohio
Making money off of girls like me”
Cashin’ in on body issues
Sellin’ skin and bones with big boobs
I know Victoria’s secret
She was made up by a dude”
These lyrics reveal that a man is the creator of the notorious “Victoria’s Secret” brand. With this in mind, Jax is setting the tone that women should not conform to societal standards put onto women when they weren’t even made with women (or by women) in mind in the first place. This song continuously reminds me of the consumerism associated with achieving a certain image and allows me to question further the powers that enable and sustain constructs to continue circulating in society.
Last Tuesday I decided to attempt the “No Product Challenge”. Last Tuesday I drove home to Georgia for Thanksgiving break at around 5 am. I had to drop my roommate off at the airport and decided on the car ride home that this would be the perfect day to attempt the challenge. My roommate and I woke up a little later that we planned (as usual), and we rushed to get out the door. I did not have any time to wash my face or apply makeup, and I even forgot to put deodorant on before we left. Once we arrived at the airport and I dropped my roommate off, I decided since I had around a 5 hour car ride home I would attempt the “no product day” challenge.
I started off pretty strong and had only minor issues during the beginning of the day. While stopping at gas stations I felt very self conscious walking in without any makeup on. I do not normally wear a full face of makeup but I do wear some to cover up my basic insecurities. I have always been self conscious of my forehead because I believe it is rather big, so normally I fill in my very light blondish eyebrows with an eyebrow pencil to make my forehead appear smaller. While in the gas stations I felt very self conscious, so I just tried to remind myself that no one cared what I looked like (especially at 7 am) and that I looked beautiful regardless of what my forehead looks like. It is such a minor change, but it is something that I am used to covering up every day.
By the time I arrived home, I was exhausted and fell asleep for a couple hours before my boyfriend came over to my house with breakfast. In the beginning of our relationship I always wore a decent amount of makeup and always had my eyebrows filled in, but after dating for over a year I realized he truly does not care how I dress or look in front of him. What shocked me the most was that when he gave me a hug he commented on how good I smelled. At that point I had forgotten that I had not put on deodorant that morning, and it made me feel good knowing that I did not smell like bad body odor. I told him that I was participating in the “no product day” challenge and he immediately smiled. It made me feel really confident knowing that other people still thought I was pretty (and not stinky) when I did not use any products.
I only hung out with the rest of my family that night so I was completely comfortable not wearing any makeup. The only thing I noticed is that when I went to respond to my friends on snapchat, I was a bit nervous about sending just a bare picture of myself. In the spirit of the “no product day” challenge, I sent them anyways. This challenge has made me realize that I do not need makeup to be presentable and beautiful in the eyes of others and myself.
I attended the My Body, My Choice, My Voice talk hosted by AKA. This talk focused on the reality of reproductive rights in our country today and worked to inform all of us on what abortion really is. While I would consider myself pretty knowledgable on the topic of abortion and reproductive rights, I do think I gained a lot from the talk.
The new information that I was most surprised by was the percentage of abortions that are done six weeks or earlier. According to the speakers, about 90% of abortions occur before the 13th week and about 75% before or during the sixth week. This fact was astonishing because so often the argument against abortion is, in reality, an argument against late abortion. In combination with this fact, the speakers included pictures of what a six week abortion looks like as well as a, if I remember correctly, a ten week abortion. Both images showed what looked like a small white sack, which had only grown a little in the four week difference. The importance of these images was to show that the images pro-life supporters commonly use are not accurate depictions of an abortion and are instead, frequently, pictures of late-term miscarriages.
I think the talk in general is very applicable to GSS101, but my new understanding most closely relates to our discussions in class about abortion at the beginning of the semester. In my opinion, the images provide proof of the fear mongering that pro-life supports do in order to try to prevent abortions from happening. However, the reality is they only prevent safe abortions. I think this can be applied to so many topics we’ve talked about, such as gay rights. For example, strict laws against gay marriage or even expression of gay ideologies and behaviors did not stop them from occurring. Instead, people just got better at sneaking around, but it became less safe because they had no protection, abortion is similar in this way. Overall, I think that attending talks about the reality of reproductive justice in America is incredibly important in order to form an evidence based opinion before voting. I am personally thankful for AKA hosting this open event and showing me that even when I think I’ve learned all there is to know about a topic such as abortion, there is always misinformation to be corrected and perspective to be given.
Back in September 27 I participated in the No product day challenge. As I read the instructions the day before, It seemed pretty easy. When the day came, I learned how hard it was for me to stay away from so many products. I have been insecure about one main feature from my face that being my eyebrows. I put makeup on everyday in order to cover how light my eyebrows are, so it was very hard to go one day with out putting makeup on. In addition, I found it challenging not to use cream on my face, because I have very dry skin and It is something i have to use.
Through the day I felt as though something was missing, It made me feel very negative and insecure that I did not feel okay with out makeup. I tried to close myself from people or avoid seeing people in order not to get any comments about my appearance. I however, got a different response and a lot of compliments. This day helped me a lot about how I feel, I needed to know that I am still myself with or without makeup.
Nick Nguyễn shared his ethnography in this talk where he pointed out challenges, barriers that were in the past and are still being phased now by BIPOC at Davidson college and in the American Medicine. Nguyen brought up many statistics and personal statements given by students at Davidson college. Something that stuck out the most to me was the Imposter syndrome BIPOC students at Davidson feel. He talked about an specific experience he encountered where a classmate had got published their fall semester of freshman year. Nguyen talked about how many BIPOC students came from public schools and were not funded the same education white students had.
I really enjoyed this talk because I was suffering from imposter syndrome during this time. I am from a public underfunded school, and did not even have the options to select the classes I wanted to take like AP biology or anatomy. Coming here was such a culture shock and kept doubting myself. After the talk Nguyen made me feel more assure of myself and that I have place in.
In our current political climate, Conservative pundits spew MUCH misinformation regarding gender and its relation to sex. The common belief in the conservative western world is that sex and gender are interchangeable and distinctly binary. The progressive viewpoint, which seemingly contradicts that of the conservatives, accepts the gender binary as a social construct but maintains that the sex binary is indeed embedded in reality. Author, Feminist, and Biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling challenges these beliefs in her book Sexing the Body. The underlining question of the book: mainstream political and medical discourse tends to agree on the sex binary (male/female), is this rooted in biological truth?
Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling is a renowned American sexologist who pioneered the Anti-Binary ? movement. She has written extensively on the topic of sex and gender, including several books and opinion pieces in multiple prominent newspapers. Due to her scientific background, Fausto-Sterling provides a unique argument for HUMAN REJECTION OF THE SEX BINARY, WHICH HAS GROWN MUCH BROADER AND BIGGER SINCE SHE PUBLISHED THE FIRST EDITION IN XX. Fausto-Sterling is best known for her work “The Five Sexes,” which calls for broadening the sex binary to include three additional categories. https://www2.kobe-u.ac.jp/~alexroni/IPD%202016%20readings/IPD%202016_3/FAUSTO_STERLING-2000-The_Sciences%205%20sexes%20revisited.pdf In Sexing The Body, Fausto-Sterling analyzes research and medical practices (1700s-Present) related to reinforcing the sex binary. As a feminist and biologist, Fausto-Sterling examines THIS research through scientific and social lenses. Her analysis follows a similar pattern, a summary of the research question, an explanation of the actual study and its findings, and a lengthy examination of its questionable conclusions.
Fausto-Sterling opens with an issue relevant to contemporary debate; the classification of female athletes. Until the late 1960s, Olympic woman athletes seeking to verify their sex for competition were asked to “parade naked in front of a board of examiners” (3). This blatant violation of personal health reinforces Fausto-Sterling’s belief in the sex binary. If sex is confirmed through visual inspection — “Breasts and a vagina were all one needed to certify one’s femininity” (3) — then is it impossible that the binary can exist; because a person could show both ovarian and testicular tissue. Through visual inspection, the board is not conforming to the actual sex of the subject. It is instead comparing the subject to their social understanding of a woman. Fausto concludes, “We may use scientific knowledge to help us make the decision, but only our beliefs about gender—not science—can define our sex” (5). Identifications have long been glorified assumptions, and biological truths are at odds with the male/female binary.
Fausto-Sterling’S rejection of the male/female binary is at odds with most scientific and medical beliefs. Fausto-Sterling argues that doctors and scientists alike are not looking to address sex from a truthful and biological standpoint but are instead REVISE a product of fear and “deep confusion that arises when it [sex] can’t be easily determined” (30). The “scientific” classification of sex is additionally meant to support the “natural dominance of male over female hormones” (164). Inter-sex or hermaphrodite persons are at odds with this scientific community. Today children born WITH ” “either/or—neither/both” GENITALS—a fairly commonNOT UNCOMMON? phenomenon—usually disappear from view because doctors “correct” them right away with surgery.” (31). Fausto-Sterling argues that INTERSEX persons pose such a risk to our societal structure at large because we rely on the binary system. But if we eliminate those at odds with our biologically “correct” system, isn’t it biologically incorrect? Conservative movements point to the idea of “biology” as a way of endorsing the two-sex, two-gender NORM. However, a further dive into the reality of biology reveals that regularly and naturally, people defy these classifications. Fausto-Sterling asks that we move to a medical system that “permits ambiguity to thrive” (101). There are, without a doubt, variations of sex that exist; it is time our medical practices accept them.
The author includes studies regarding hormonal research to demonstrate the relationship between respected biological studies and the pervasive and unfounded assumption of two sexes. Researchers “never questioned the fundamental assumption that there are only two sexes because their goal in studying intersexuals was to find out more about ‘‘normal’’ development” (46). Fausto-Sterling underlines that the majority of intersex and sex hormone research is reliant on the assumption of a sex binary and that this binary is a “false dichotomy” (27). Researchers and doctors sought to correct the confusion around intersex folk by attributing them to the “cultural conceptions of maleness” (59) or femaleness and carrying out medical procedures that endorsed the dichotomy. Fausto-Sterling comes to two bold and well-supported claims: 1. The sex binary is not biologically accurate 2. the medical community and medical research have never questioned the legitimacy of the sex binary and only seek to reinforce it.
Fausto-Sterling is strongest in her understanding and critique of scientific processes, but her piece lacks in other areas. First, Fausto-Sterling is thoughtful and diligent in her writing regarding intersex persons; but her writing regarding transgender and binary persons seems like an afterthought. It appears that Fausto-Sterling is most concerned with medical discrimination during unwanted procedures (intersex) but pushes aside alterations of sex that are requested (transgender) and how they experience similar discrimination. Secondly, Fausto-Sterling’s strength is indeed her scientific exploration of the topic. But the pages of complex explanations, which I am certain adequately back up her claims, are dull and far from engaging. Lastly, FAILS to grapple with the racial implications of a failed medical system. Fausto-Sterling’s exploration of intersex medical intervention is overwhelmingLY white-centric, and the author fails to mention centuries of sterilization against the black community Fausto-Sterling’s inability to analyze her position from a radicalized lens severely limits the credibility of her argument
Although Fausto-Sterling lacks in certain areas, it is difficult not to applaud her work. Fausto-Sterling challenges mainstream academia; she is unapologetic in her UNPOPULAR? beliefs and successfully backs them up. It is her dual credentials that provide such a convincing argument. Her ability to critique historically accepted research from a feminist and biological standpoint provides multidisciplinary reasoning. Fausto-Sterling provides diagrams that are especially helpful in understanding the research being explained — specifically the rat diagrams and pictures regarding natural sexual interactions. Fausto-Sterling’s plea for a more accepting model, which refuses the sole dichotomy of male/female, provides the reader with a conclusive answer to the issue at hand; and a system that enables naturally inter-sexual people to exist is far from controversial. Fausto-Sterling is uniquely successful in de-radicalizing a concept — abolishing the sex binary — that can, at times, appear TOO radical.
I strongly recommend Sexing The Body to every reader, especially those interested in the history of medicine. The book is somewhat time-consuming but yields life-changing and necessary information. Before I read this book, I, too, subscribed to the mainstream belief in the sex binary and brushed inter-sex people off as medical enigmas. This book has taught me that the non-female/male sexes exist naturally in our world and inherently contradict the two-sex model. I am aware of the controversy surrounding the claim Fausto-Sterling is making, and for this reason, I doubt this literature will find its way into MANY K-12 schools; this underscores the necessity to seek out information outside of what is handed to us and question what is. Sexing The Body will do just that.
Sources:
“Home – Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling.” Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, 3 Oct. 2016, www.annefaustosterling.com.
2. “Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality: 9780465077144: Fausto-Sterling, Anne: Books.” Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality: 9780465077144: Fausto-Sterling, Anne: Books, 30 Nov. 2000, www.amazon.com/Sexing-Body-Politics-Construction-Sexuality/dp/0465077145.
To me, not using products for a day was more or less an easy task. The products that I typically use that I had to omit were: deodorant, hair oil, bodywash, shampoo, and conditioner. At no point in my day did not using these products make me feel uncomfortable because I didn’t work out that day. I purposefully chose to not work out, though. Had I gotten sweaty, I would have felt less comfortable not showering and using deodorant.
There was one moment where I had an internal dilemma about my use of products. I have been using a hair growth product for the last year since a dermatologist identified my early onset hair loss. I think of this as a medicine that would fall outside of the no-product day challenge. Honestly, though, this product is cosmetic rather than health-related.
No-product day made me think about how hair is one part of the body where men have expectations that feel like those the patriarchy often puts upon women. Young men who are losing their hair are seen as unattractive and therefore less worthy of attention. I have been afraid of losing my hair because lots of men in my extended family are bald and I like having lots of hair, but I am starting to reckon with this change and how it conflicts with societal expectations.
Overall, my takeaway is that for cis-men the consumer culture around products is nowhere near as stringent and encompassing as it is for other people. Even with this privilege, I was still able to feel the pressure to buy products to change yourself given by our capitalist society.
Stacey Waite is a poet and Professor of English at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Her poetry is bold in its confrontation of gender norms and ideals, but her beliefs are nuanced in an interesting and creative way.
What I found most interesting about Waite’s visit to Davidson was her discussion of pronouns. As a teacher and professor, she doesn’t have a time when students are supposed to share their pronouns. I have become so familiar with the introduction (especially in queer safe spaces) that includes name, fun fact, and pronouns. Waite believes that if you give everyone an opportunity to share what is most important to them, those who want to share their pronouns can. I personally like what we did in your class where we put our pronouns somewhere where people can see them if they want to see them.
Stacey Waite’s beliefs about pronouns display her more generalized belief that gender shouldn’t be taken so seriously. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that she believes you shouldn’t have to respect people’s gender identity and performance. Instead, she believes that gender should be fun and however you want it to be. She believes that people who have progressive ideas about gender and sexuality shouldn’t push out people who haven’t gotten here yet. Rather, we should bring them in to help them know that a person is defined beyond their gender and that you care about them wanting to learn and change. These beliefs were very powerful to me because I have personally worked with my parents about their beliefs that contradict mine. Because I didn’t shut my parents out, they were able to grow and learn so many new ways of thinking. Obviously not everyone owes this to the people in their lives, but it is cool to see an activist with such a positive attitude towards the direction of gender.
To me, I love hearing about someone who expresses the malleability and exciting possibility of gender in their art. Waite’s poems were beautiful and emotional. They reminded me of Jacob Tobia (a personal role model) and their coming of gender story. I am super excited that Davidson was able to get Stacey Waite to come to talk to us because I have another gender role model who creates art that I am interested in.
Imagine this scenario: you are a black woman and you lay uncomfortably flat on your back with your legs strapped open. Slowly, you wake up from the poor anesthesia you were lucky to receive. You feel the cold sensation of the metallic instruments being inserted into your vagina and feel violated because you see someone who is not your doctor performing a medical procedure without your consent. This situation was not uncommon for the women of the twentieth century. Drexel University professor and former gynecological teaching associates (GTA), Dr. Kelly Underman, writes in her scholarly monograph, “Feeling Medicine: How the Pelvic Exam Shapes Medical Training,” on the horrific history and evolution of the pelvic exam. Dr. Underman analyzes life before gynecological training associates, the impact of the Women’s Health Movement in shaping modern-day pelvic exams, and the importance of building a doctor-patient relationship.
Kelly Underman is a woman from Rittman, Ohio who received her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is a qualitative researcher and has an interest in researching medical sociology and how sociology plays a key role in the institution of medical schools. Her inspiration to conduct this research is derived from her first-hand experience of observing communities that have had the strength to grow and flourish despite living in the 1950s, where women were objectified for the purpose of gaining medical knowledge. Underman explains this throughout “Feeling Medicine: How the Pelvic Exam Shapes Medical Training,” where she highlights the Women’s Health Movement and how supporters of this movement challenged the healthcare system by drawing attention to issues that specifically women faced in medical practice. The Women’s Health Movement was powerful enough to defeat outdated practices that harmed women.
Before the development of GTA’s programs, trained assistants served as models who volunteered to help students perform better pelvic exams with their own bodies. Throughout the early twentieth century, medical students learned how to perform a pelvic exam from random patients in a waiting room, who were then treated as objects to gain knowledge. In chapter 1 of her monograph, Dr. Underman explains “A woman waiting in a public clinic…medical students examine her in exchange for her ‘free’ healthcare…become an object under medical gaze.” (25) During the 1970s and 1980s, women who were patients were dehumanized and not treated with appropriate care. Dr. Underman elaborates on how medical students learned to do pelvic examinations on prostitutes and cadavers. The majority of the students cared more about receiving hands-on experiences on how to perform an examination rather than the importance of how their actions and attitude toward a patient influence a patient’s experience. The idea of medical students helping others was only recently established because in the past, it was not part of the norm. The author argues that the students were not taught to be delicate with the instrument such as the vaginal spectrum and how inserting it the wrong way could potentially harm a patient. In Chapter 1, Dr. Underman states “… the expectation that women deserved to be in pain or could tolerate it without complaint – while those who could not [were] considered psychologically abnormal” (31). However, later in the book, you learn the risks that come along with poorly performed pelvic exams, which includes increased chances of infection if a physician does not wash their hands before treating a patient. In Chapter 3, women told stories about students whose nails had not been properly trimmed and who, as a result, scratched their vaginal walls (107). Further, women of color were treated with less care than white women because doctors believed that Black people did not feel pain in the same manner because of the abuse they went underwent as slaves (29). Women who were mistreated by medical students rose up together and started a movement to help with the improvement of pelvic exams.
Dr. Underman argues how the history of enduring painful pelvic exams led to the uprising of the Women’s Health Movement during the 1970s. Feminist activists were frustrated by how horrible the gynecology system was and advocated for change. They learned how to perform abortions and pelvic exams on one another and developed the fundamental components that would later shape the creation of gynecological training associates. Followers of the Women’s Health Movement were taught how to properly take care of a woman during an examination. In Chapter 1, Underman states “In 1975, feminist activists embarked on a new way of teaching the pelvic exam…[to] challenge the dehumanization of patients during the exam” (34-35). Because of these activists, women now receive better pelvic exams than in the 20th century. In addition, in chapter 4, Dr. Underman quotes Lena, a GTA who states, “We’re there because we want to improve healthcare…” (136). Lena and other GTAs have heard multiple stories of women who have had a pelvic exam and details about how uncomfortable it was for them. Through these narratives, it motivated the GTAs to continuously put their genitals on the line to instruct medical students to positively alter the experiences of patients. This will make future patients less anxious to receive a pelvic exam and reassure them that the physician knows what they are doing and that they will be treated with empathy. Not only does GTA teach students how to do a pelvic exam, but also how to reduce their anxiety and increase their confidence, which in turn, decreases the chances of harming the patient. Thus, Dr. Underman thoroughly argues in her monograph how imperative it is to shape great physicians through the assistance of GTAs.
Dr. Underman elaborates on the importance of the doctor-patient relationship and how it was never taught until the creation of GTA. The experience for women used to be that physicians executed only their medical responsibilities, but the women were never given information about the procedure that was done on their bodies. However, GTAs teach their students the significance of “neutral touch,” which means placing a hand on the knee and providing a verbal warning before touching or inserting an instrument into the genitals (87). Having a connection between a doctor and a patient also improves the patient’s experience because having a conversation allows them to know what the physician is doing and enhances their level of comfort (123). Thus, the doctor-patient relationship is essential to ensuring patient comfort.
In my opinion, Dr. Underman does a great job of explaining her arguments and providing primary sources to support her claim. In every chapter, the author includes a quote from a medical professional like gynecological teaching associates and doctors or students to bring validity to her claims. Quotes directly from someone in the field also makes her arguments in the monograph more trustworthy and reliable because her interviewers give her direct information that reinforces her claims. The quotes that Dr. Underman provides are highly qualitative, but the reader may be persuaded more by numerical evidence.
A weakness of this source is that the author hardly uses statistical evidence. In the monograph, she elaborates on the enhancement of the pelvic exam but does not provide data on its impact nationwide. I believe that through statistics, the reader can understand more about how GTAs have improved the experiences of women compared to the early twentieth century. It would have been helpful to see a chart that analyzed women’s opinions on current-day pelvic exams, to see how much it has changed over time. For example, Dr. Underman could have researched data of the number of women involved in the Women’s Health Movement during the late 1970s compared to the 21st century after methods were improved. Including these statistics would have made Dr. Underman’s arguments stronger because her words would become more valuable and factual.
Overall, I enjoyed reading this book because, although it had flaws, it was still well-written and held my attention. I like books that make me stop and think and even frustrate me because it pushes me to continue reading. Through her inclusion of personal experiences and direct quotes from medical professionals, Dr. Underman showcased the history of the pelvic exam and the Women’s Health Movement. Anyone who is interested in reading about how the medical system has evolved would benefit from reading this book. Also, those who care about how training medical students in the medical field shape how they practice medicine and how their actions impact their patients would enjoy Underman’s work.
For decades, transgender medicine has been a site of confusion, fascination, and intense conflict. There remains disagreement in how to provide gender-affirming medical interventions as well as how to determine who should receive it. Stef Shuster (they/them) tackles these questions in their book Trans Medicine: The Emergence and Practice of Treating Gender. They argue that the uncertainty in trans medicine has led to a medicalization of gender that identifies medical providers as experts and ignores trans people’s expertise in their individual bodies and experiences. Because contemporary medical perspectives are influenced by old assumptions about gender, this power dynamic perpetuates inequalities in healthcare.
When the era of what we now know to be trans medicine first began, the few healthcare providers who entered the field faced intense backlash from those who viewed such interventions to be inappropriate or even immoral (26). To protect themselves from the critique, medical providers who treated transgender patients corresponded extensively with each other, creating a shared understanding of trans medicine and establishing a sense of authority within the field (24). The focus became on “normalizing” trans people’s bodies and experiences—strict guidelines were set for who could be provided with medical intervention. Providers needed to be assured that their patient would be able to “successfully” live in their target gender; this definition of successful was entirely based in the medical and scientific community’s expectations for gender conformity and sexuality (24). Anything that deviated was met with suspicion that the patient was not truly transgender. Due to this, trans patients were judged based on appearance and were subject to intensive questioning about their personal life in order to establish their credibility (34). Trans people who did not fit these expectations were deemed unworthy of access to gender-affirming medical interventions (24). The author argues that due to the strict guidelines enacted to establish medical authority, trans people were forced to acquiesce to public expectations of gender conformity in order to receive gender-affirming medical care.
Still, uncertainty on how to determine who should receive gender-affirming care remained, leading physicians to reach out to psychiatrists and psychologists for assistance in assessment with the expectation that they would support their recommendations (50). Rather than working together, however, each group of healthcare providers argued that their field’s method of understanding transgenderism was sufficient. The author argues that this disagreement resulted in a battle over which field of medicine should claim power and authority over transgender treatment (49). Not long after psychiatrists and psychologists began assisting with the evaluation of trans patients, they began to offer recommendations for allowing or denying access to gender-affirming care, much to the physicians’ dismay, who thought their only role should be in assessing patients’ mental health (51). This resulted in a battle for not only power, but legitimacy as both sides questioned whether the other was equipped to claim authority.
Psychiatrists and psychologists, like physicians, focused on transgender patients’ personal lives in assessing them for receiving gender-affirming intervention: they also made recommendations based off gender conformity and physical appearance (59). However, they needed another way to distinguish their authority from that of physicians, so they turned to taking explicit sexual histories in order to ensure the credibility of transgender patients. They wanted to ensure that people were not using gender-affirming medical transition as a method of ignoring homosexuality (60-1). Shuster argues that this further subjected transgender people to adhering to the strict binary of gender and gender roles: therapists assumed that trans people would leave their existent families and go establish new, heterosexual ones where they would fulfill the familial role of their new gender. Therapists based their recommendation off trans patients’ intentions to do so (61-2). The efforts of both physicians and therapists were to assert their authority in trans medicine by establishing scientific guidelines in which to abide by and quell the uncertainty that existed in the field.
In contemporary transgender medicine, this uncertainty remains. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has rapidly increased in popularity arising from critique that medicine needed to be more objective and standardized (77). Rather than basing guidelines off personal expectations as before, EBM represented an effort to base recommendations off scientific evidence. The author argues that in contemporary trans medicine, providers attempted to confirm the legitimacy of trans medicine by constructing evidence and codifying expectations (78). Codifying the trans experience led to it becoming a diagnosis: “gender dysphoria.” Shuster argues that this is a “double-edged sword:” a diagnosis increases the likelihood that insurance companies will reimburse out-of-pocket expenses for gender-affirming care, but it also implies that transgenderism is an illness (80).
Despite this, there was no clear path for clinical guidelines to follow in trans medicine because there was no scientific evidence: there were no randomized control trials determining risks or benefits of medical intervention (85). Trans medicine has rather been supported by case studies and patient reports (86). Because of the lack of scientific evidence, there remains ambiguity in the guidelines for providing gender-affirming care, leaving decision-making regarding trans care largely up to the discretion of the provider and allowing decision-making to be influenced by norms and societal factors. With healthcare providers vying to claim expertise, patients cannot claim the expertise over their gender identities themselves (88).
Shuster argues that this discomfort in the lack of scientific evidence has also resulted in a lack of confidence in healthcare providers in treating trans patients (90). Having been taught EBM, providers feel unequipped. Trans medicine is not taught broadly in medical schools (90). This discomfort and lack of experience in working with trans people leads to providers unintentionally exhibiting trans exceptionalism—where trans patients are perceived to be so unique that it is difficult for providers to use their knowledge and experience in other areas of medicine to inform their decision-making regarding trans patients (4). This makes it difficult for trans people to find a provider who feels comfortable working with them (91). The lack of scientific evidence backing gender-affirming care and lack of knowledge of the risks makes providers even more hesitant to offer access, particularly when trans people have coexisting conditions that may be affected. Though the guidelines no longer dictate gender conformity, their ambiguity allows providers to turn away trans people with mental health disorders or other health conditions due to the potential risk (95-97).
In summary, the author argues that due to the fact that medical providers are not trained in trans medicine, there exists uncertainty in how to assess trans patients and how to go about providing gender-affirming medical interventions. Because of this, there has a been an ongoing power struggle between different fields of healthcare in who can claim expertise in trans medicine and offer recommendations for care. This has medicalized understanding of gender and has given medical providers authority over gender, leaving trans patients at the whim of physicians’ interpretations of the ambiguous clinical guidelines based in EBM (104). This unintentionally perpetuates healthcare inequalities because decision-making is influenced by societal factors, cultural norms, and historical contexts (159). Their conclusive argument is that medical providers should not have authority over gender identity, nor should they impose medicalized understandings of gender onto trans people’s experiences: providers must advocate for their trans patients’ needs and place more trust in their patients’ expertise over their own bodies (164-6).
To support their arguments, the author employed several different methods of research. First, to provide historical context of transgender medicine, they examined letters of correspondence between medical providers in the 20th century found in the archives of the Kinsey Institute (11). These documents provided the discourse present in the medical and scientific communities on how providers were to make decisions regarding eligibility for gender-affirming medical interventions. From these Shuster gained knowledge of the assumptions that medical providers had when working with trans patients (11). They then conducted interviews with therapists and physicians from a wide variety of specialties and geographical locations. These interviews informed them how old assumptions of gender continue to influence contemporary structure of trans medicine and its lack of certainty today (12). The author also attended healthcare conferences and observed how providers taught each other to work with patient populations. Lastly, they examined diagnostic criteria and clinical guidelines related to transgender medicine from leading health organizations (13).
In conclusion, Shuster argues for the focus in trans medicine to be shifted away from the expertise of medical providers and onto the individual experiences of trans people. They call for better training in medical schools, increased research into the long-term effects of medical interventions such as hormones, and increased focus to be put on the healthcare disparities that trans people experience. Trans medicine is a place where science and values can coexist, and it needs to be redefined that way.
Stacey Waite, a poet and Associate Professor of English at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, is known for her poetry exploring the intersections of gender, sexuality, and relationships. Waite’s Dear Gender event elaborated on this exploration, allowing some audience members to feel heard and others to comprehend the perspectives of those who defy the gender binary.
As discussed in our class, gender begins at birth—sometimes even pre-birth. Gender reveals have become increasingly popular as finding out the sex of the baby becomes a milestone that many look forward to when pregnant. Professionals have begun to cite that parents only reinforce the idea of a “gendered world” in the gender stereotypes reinforced through toys, play, and the environment.
Stacey Waite takes a new perspective on all of this, questioning what happens when instead of getting rid of gender, we take gender less seriously.
While it is hard for me, as a cis-woman, to connect to the struggles gender non-confirming individuals face in a world designed for the binary, Waite’s helped to establish this connection. Waite noted that everyone, even cis-gendered individuals, has stories of gender. Immediately, I remembered something that happened to me in 5th grade. I was at aftercare sitting cross-legged at my desk when the person leading it, a male, gave me a note: “You can’t sit like that as a girl. You have to cross your legs.” I quickly got up from my desk and threw the note away before returning to my desk and sitting “like a lady.” I was mortified. I immediately questioned myself. “Why was he watching the way I was sitting? Was he looking up my skirt? I was wearing shorts under anyways. What had I done wrong?” Fifth-grade me knew what he did was weird, but I respected him because he was in a position of authority. However, I was too young to recognize that this was just one of the many ways society reinforces gender norms.
As a cis-woman, I am in a position of power. Still, gender is forced on me in numerous ways; this is something nearly all of us experience daily. While Waite’s poems were moving—and very much needed in today’s world—I took more away from Waite’s conversation about gender. As Waite established, individuals must identify the systems of privilege they are in and use that for change. Simply reflecting on some of my experiences, as sparked by Waites, only amplified the importance of doing such.
The narrative surrounding queerness in society today includes overcoming challenges, facing daily adversities, and experiencing more hardships than heterosexual peers. The Tragedy of Heterosexuality breaks this illusion of heterosexuality being easier than homosexuality and provides sympathy for those oppressed in heterosexual relationships. Jane Ward suggests that straightness is a means for people to access cultural and institutional rewards. However, while heterosexuality offers this privilege, it continues to be a site of oppression, violence, disappointment, and discrimination for women. Heterosexuality, from a queer lens, is just a ‘fetish for normalcy.’ Through this book, Ward reveals how heterosexuality is rooted in concepts of patriarchy, male domination, and toxic masculinity, to name a few. Ward realized she was ‘crying queer tears for straight people.’ Hence, through her research and personal experiences of being a lesbian feminist, Ward examines how queer relationships are healthier and more empowering than straight ones. According to her, ‘It’s not that it gets better for queer people; it’s that heterosexuality is often worse.’
While Jane Ward is best known for her 2021 PROSE Award Winning book, The Tragedy of Heterosexuality (New York University Press, 2020), she has written several outstanding books, including the 2016 Lambda Literary Award Finalist- Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men (NYU Press, 2015), and Respectability Queer: Diversity Culture in LGBT Activist Organisations. In addition, her research has been featured in The Guardian, Huffington Post, BBC, and The New York Times, to name a few. Apart from being an author, Ward is a professor, urban gardener, baker, and parent to what she likes to call ‘one human child, one potbelly pig, nine chickens, and one cat.’ Ward has also cofounded the Altadena/Pasadena chapter of Showing Up for Racial Justice. She received her Ph.D. in sociology in 2003 from the University of California Santa Barbara and is now a Gender and Sexuality Studies professor at the University of California Riverside. Her teaching and writing focus on feminism, queer, and heterosexuality studies.
The tragedy of heterosexuality is caused by what Ward has termed the misogyny paradox. The misogyny paradox is where ‘boys’ and men’s desire for girls and women is expressed within a broader culture that encourages them to hate girls and women.’ (pp. 25-26) Hence, the misogyny paradox promotes stereotypical roles in heterosexual relationships, such as the dominance of men and the submission of women. Ward exposes how this oppresses straight women as ‘their sexual relationships with men have been maintained by force, both through cultural propaganda targeting girls and women and more directly through sexual assault, incest, compulsory marriage, economic dependence, control of children, and domestic violence (p. 3). The situation is worse because straight men and women romanticize this unequal gender binary.
Their romantic and erotic attachments to the misogyny paradox give rise to an entire industry of self-help books, marriage and relationship counselors, pick-up artists, and seduction coaches. These industries encourage toxic masculinity and promote the idea that women want men to take the lead and be the decision-makers in the relationship. Women are objectified, and the ideal woman is created and viewed through the male gaze- waxed, shaved, toned, etc. Hence, Ward suggests that the ‘key difference between straight culture and queer culture in this regard is that the latter does not attribute these destructive behaviors to a romantic story about a natural and inescapable gender binary.’ (p. 27). Ward proposes the concept of ‘deep heterosexuality’ as the solution for this ‘tragedy.’ Deep heterosexuality is a ‘framework for honoring and preserving what straight people experience as fulfilling about hetero sex and straight culture and for pushing further and deeper in these pleasurable hetero directions’ (p. 159). Ward pushes for the expansion of heterosexual attraction to include the sexual vulnerability of men and the humanity of women. Hence, “straight men do not need to be queered; they need to learn to like women” (158)
What I admire most about Jane Ward’s writing is her unapologetic honesty, blunt criticism, and matter-of-fact approach to controversial topics. She rips off the band-aid of ignorance and forces us to see the pain caused by the oppression and inequalities associated with heterosexuality. Her strength lies in her ability to voice deeply personal opinions while supporting them with concrete empirical evidence. Her in-depth analysis of the historical context of the self-help industry and marriage counseling in the 1900s, the deep-dive into the pick-up artist and seduction industry, the critique of books such as Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (1992) make it impossible to turn a bind eye to her argument. In addition, ward does a great job highlighting and examining the intersectionality of race and sexuality, a topic often overlooked. For example, she talks about how heterosexuality is often the only privilege black women have, which they cannot afford to lose, regardless of the oppression and injustice they might face within it. She also cites the work of the South Asian American feminist scholar Shamita Das Gupta, who highlights how immigant women conceal their husbands’ violence to project an ‘unblemished’ image of their communities to prevent discrimination. Hence, her writing displays the layers of oppression associated with heterosexuality.
However, there are some topics that I wish Ward had touched upon in the book. In my opinion, the book focuses on comparing and contrasting the ways straight men and lesbian women treat and think about women. While this is a valid and current issue to be discussed, it would have been interesting to include a few other perspectives. For example, I would have loved to know how bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and transgender relationships would have played into this debate. Would there be a difference in the relationship dynamic between two straight people and two bisexual people? How would an asexual-identifying male’s opinion differ from a straight man’s opinion on women? I think including these perspectives would have made the book more inclusive and reflective of our society’s diversity of opinions and experiences. Moreover, homosexuality in the book is depicted as a safe haven and escape from the oppression and violence associated with heterosexuality. This can lead to a dangerous trajectory of justifying violence or toxicity in queer relationships. Physical, mental, and emotional abuse can occur in all sorts of relationships, regardless of whether they’re queer or straight.
As a South Asian woman, I felt the book was centered around white American opinions on heterosexuality, where men are the bad guys and women are the damsels in distress. While I truly respect how Ward centered the book around calling out toxic male behavior and directly addressed men, I think she failed to address an equally important demographic- women! Ward suggests that a part of the problem would be solved if ‘men liked women more, but I believe that women need to like women more too. In South Asian cultures, women are often the strongest upholders of patriarchy. In my life, I’ve experienced more women shaming, discriminating, and slamming other women than men. Teachers slut-shame girls in school, grandmothers, and aunts constantly comment on bodies and clothing, and mothers train girls to believe their only role in life is to be good wives and mothers. While my dad refuses to celebrate any patriarchal Indian festivals and rituals, my mom consciously continues to partake in them for the sake of ‘tradition.’ It’s ironic how the matriarchs in South Asian culture actively promote patriarchy in the name of culture and tradition. Hence, men and women must reflect on their indoctrination of patriarchal values. It’s impossible to fight discrimination if women stand against each other rather than together and in support of each other.
Overall, I think this book provides us with a much-needed wake-up call. After reading this book, I became aware of the saturation of heteronormativity in my upbringing. I realized how the media I consumed (books, movies, social media) contributed to the romanticization of the gender binary. I think this book is a fascinating read and has much to offer to everyone. It shows us that oppression is multifaceted and emphasizes the intersectionality of feminism, queerness, race, and culture. It is one of few books that call out heteronormativity and shows us what we can learn from queer communities. The illuminating discussion and debate initiated in this book will ensure that everyone reflects on how they can better their relationships.
“To the straight people reading this book, let me say with all my love and solidarity, I am your ally” (Ward, 13). Who knew that such a normalized sexuality – heterosexuality – could result in the depressing lives of both parties? In Jane Ward’s scholarly monograph The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, she examines the normalized problems inside hetero-relationships, like misogyny, toxic masculinity, and gender roles. Because of these problems, women feel like many parts of their lives are trivial compared to men; on the other hand, men don’t feel secure in their own manhood to “pick up” a woman and keep them around. Let’s dive into why Ward says such things, and why Ward ends the book with “Straight men do not need to be queered; they need to learn to like women” (Ward, 171).
Beside The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, Jane Ward, a professor of Feminist Studies at University of California Santa Barbara, has written two other books: Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men, which was published in 2015, and Respectably Queer: Diversity Culture in LGBT Activist Organizations, which was published in 2008. With these published books, Ward has written about various topics, such as “trans relationships”, “the evolution of straight culture”, “the meaning of sex between straight-identfied men”, and more (these topics as well as the complete information of Jane Ward will be linked). Because of these previous works, Ward knows the reality of, in this case, straight people and their couple troubles. She has been aware of such topics early on, to which one could say she has an expertise in these fields. Even if not straight herself, Ward seems to know more than enough than one might expect.
As the book starts, Ward tells the reader that she views the life of “‘straight culture’…through a queer, feminist lens.” To put the problem of “straight culture” into perspective, Ward, as a queer person herself states, “Straight women’s lives are very, very hard. It’s not that it ‘gets better’ for queer people; it’s that heterosexuality is often worse.” With this line, I kind of reflected and thought how true it is – of course queer lives get better, but never realized how hard heterosexuality actually is. Growing up and accepting the fact that one is queer is already hard enough, but to put this context into the actual world of men trying to get with women is already depressing enough. This idea of sexism and toxic masculinity takes over straight culture, to which women and men can not have a successful life with one another because of these coinciding problems. How can men expect more from women when they can not expect more out of themselves? Men are too scared to break out of this heteronormative shell to which they resort of to the seduction of women and plain sexism.
There is a shift from women doing things to themselves – dieting, shaving, waxing, dying – to deem themselves worthy of a man’s “love,” now to men who realize that their bodies may not be enough to attract a woman’s love, such as being too bald, too short, or too fat. Because of this shift in men’s views, some men have started going to get help from pickup artists, which is, essentially, the idea of “how fast am I able to inappropriately touch you?” During this rise of pickup artists, Strauss’s book The Game was introduced; because of this, the pickup industry expanded into bootcamps, allowing for usually men to give men a lesson on how to get “game,” which is the same idea of seducing woman – how to get a woman into you and getting with her the same night (Ward, 87). As years passed, men slowly started to realize this isn’t what girls need or what – they want to feel seen, heard, and reassured; as a matter of fact, we know women don’t want to be seduced because women have developed “survival strategies…to manage sexual objectification” – these strategies being “bitch shields (i.e., being rude to, or ignoring, men) and shit tests (i.e., insulting men)” (Ward, 99). Women want men who are capable of showing these range of emotions, not the typical self-destructive men who needed a woman to “save” them and make them feel like woman actually had a job other than sex (Ward, 109). Like said earlier, as time moved, these pickup artist industry got more progressive (at least some of them, like Project Rockstar, who had better – younger, more attractive – instructors teaching men how to properly “game”: “thinking beyond consent to consider the quality of women’s sexual experiences, and using spot-on metaphors to help each other conceptualize good, humanizing sex” (Ward, 115). With this shift to a more progressive pickup artist industry,
One strength about Ward’s writing is her tendency to use others’ work as examples, which strengthen Ward’s own argument. For example, during chapter 4, Ward uses her queer acquaintances and friends as more opinions onto straight life and its culture; with these opinions, she is able to reinforce her own perspective to something more reliable and accurate. She’s also able to draw out something more from these different opinions and perspectives. Additionally, another strength with Ward’s writing is critique a problem – with detail – within straight culture, and is able to offer a solution or workarounds to be able to enjoy a relationship where men actually love women and vice versa.
While I admire almost everything about the book, one weakness about the book is the lack of perspectives coming from the other side. Yes, I agree this is something that shouldn’t have another side, and that dismantling this patriarchy is ultimately the step that allows for something more in these relationships. However, one effective strategy, I would say, is that Ward would be better off using rebuttals to her perspective, and counter those arguments, which also give the mentality of “Nothing-to-lose.” Here’s what I mean: for example, within the pickup industry, some men had “that nothing-to-lose frame of mind that allows men to approach women they would otherwise find intimidating” (Ward, 104). By refuting these opinions coming from the other side of this battle, we can then give women and men a same state of mind, allowing them to try these new, which they somehow deem “queer,” like exploring sexual, such as polyamory or “pegging.”
After reading this book, I realized that some of these issues did not occur to me. While I am queer myself and know there has always been issues within straight relationships, I never knew what specifically. Reflecting on my past years, I recognize how little my life has been filled with straight relationships and their problems. I have three sisters, so of course I’ve been exposed to that of hetero couples, but have never actually noticed the problems embedded within. This book has put out more than I realized could be wrong with straight relationships, such as how men are scared of hurting their manhood in any way and would rather dismiss their female partner and their feelings and/or interests (I knew men were scared of hurting their manhood, but did not know until now how they would treat their partner just to protect themselves). While this book has a specific audience range consisting of mostly straight people, I say anyone with an open-mind should read this book. While some people may not consider themselves straight, I think this book provides a great opportunity to know more of the world around us revolving around straight culture. To some degree, I would not say there is a specific audience; although it mostly takes place within these hetero-relationships and they should be the one to fix it – through communicating and experimenting – I think those outside of the straight community also play as a role to disassemble this hetero-patriarchy: as Ward, a queer person, says herself, “I wish for them that their lust for one another might be genuinely born out of mutual regard and solidarity.” For straight women, this book does a great job at giving light to these problems; it can be freeing to have a book dedicated to the ways your life can be improved. Thus, I think this book has something in store for everyone, and we could all learn a thing or two as the principle of love is something mentioned, even if towards straight men.
Throughout the last century the treatment of trans individuals in modern society has evolved and become more publicizedWC. With this increasing exposure, the discourse surrounding the treatment of trans individuals and their rights also increases. One important area of discourse is trans medicine. In their monograph Trans Medicine: The Emergence and Practice of Treating Gender, stef shuster discusses the history of trans medicine from the mid-20th century to the early 21st century. Shuster utilizes a multi-sited research design to incorporate archival records of physicians interactions and perspectives with a combination of modern day interviews to demonstrate the gaps in trans medicine that have existed throughout time. As modern medicine develops and new technology is created, the opportunity and range of treatment for a trans individual increases. However, treatment of trans patients still needs to be altered. The monograph covers topics from physician gatekeeping, to the balance of treatment between psychologist and physicians, and uncertainty regarding treatment.
This monograph focuses on trans-medicine from the perspectiveWC of a physician. It examines the variety of medical practices used throughout the 20th and early 21st century and it demonstrates the thought process exhibited by many physicians when dealing with trans patients. In an interview with Indian Public Radio, shuster declared that his monograph attempts to answer the following questions regarding trans medicine: “How do healthcare providers manage their uncertainty? How does their vast uncertainty challenge their sense of themselves as experts? What does trans medicine teach us about medicine in general?” I argue shuster succeeds in providing answers to these questions and accurately provides insight into the mind of a variety of physicians and their relationships with trans medicine. The monograph highlights the unique power dynamic between a trans patient and their physicianSAY MORE. ADD TRANSITIONS AND SIGNPOSTS THROUGHOUT, The common gender conforming interventions such as hormone interventions or surgical interventions are highly regulated and require approval from a physician or psychiatrist. Physicians are often crucial in the transitioning process so the relationship they have with their trans patients is extremely important. Shuster additionally highlights gaps within trans medicine and the treatment of patients that must be addressed. Shuster argues that medicine has become so uniform in the attempt to improve the quality and prevent mistakes that it no longer teaches how to approach each situation from an individualistic perspective. A clear framework for trans medicine does not exist CLARIFY SEEMING CONTRADICTION so many physicians do not feel prepared or qualified to treat trans patients.
The author of Trans Medicine: The Emergence and Practice of Treating Gender is stef shuster. Stef is a professor of psychology at Michigan State University. They earned their bachelor’s degree in Sociology from Indiana University, Bloomington and their Ph.D in Sociology from University of Iowa. Their work at Michigan State University focuses on medical providers, social movement actors, and language used to regulate subjugated groups. Shuster discusses their personal history in an interview on Indiana Public Ration (Chambers). Stef states that they identify as a part of the queer communities. In the same interview stef states they began to identify as trans during college and discovered that as they began to consider gender conforming interventions for themselves there were gaps within the healthcare for trans individuals. As their experience in this community grew, they identified a clear lack of education for doctors and healthcare providers on how to treat trans people. They discovered that although many doctors were willing to have trans people as their patients, they felt ill equipped to properly treat them and did not want to be a disservice to them. These discussions inspired shuster to look further into the field of trans medicine. They ended up writing their dissertation on the perspective of healthcare providers in trans medicine, which eventually developed into the monograph discussed in this paper.
The monograph is split into two sections, part one details the history of trans medicine and part two explores the modern day healthcare provider’s perspective on trans medicine. Shuster used a multi-sited research design ALONGSIDE BOTH HISTORICAL? AND QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGIES (11). Part one utilized historical archives from the Kinsey Institute which is composed of artifacts from the biologist and sexologist Alfred C. Kinsey who worked in the mid 20th century. Within these archives were detailed records from Harry Benjamin, an endocrinologist who was known for treating trans patients. Benjamin corresponded with many health care providers and trans patients throughout the mid 20th century. These letters of correspondence reveal an extremely flawed system surrounding healthcare that places the power directly in the hands of the physicians. During this time period the physicians willing to treat trans patients were extremely limited and those who did had a narrow minded view of the perception of trans people. Trans patients were expected to “feel disgust with their bodies, particularly their genitals, and always to want to dress in the clothing and play with the toys of the ‘opposite’ gender”(Shuster, 32). Patients who did not fit this description or have the financial means or social status deemed sufficient by the doctor were denied. MORE DETAILS–HOW DOES SHUSTER DISCUSS THEIR METHOD, DIGITAL ARCHIVES, SECONDARY MATERIALS OR PRIMARY SOURCES?
In part two of this monograph, shuster jumps in time to the modern status of trans medicine. This part consists of a series of interviews with 23 physicians about their history and experiences working with trans patients. These interviews demonstrate a wide variety of perspectives. In addition to these interviews, shuster attended a variety of medical conferences and observed the discussion of trans medicine. Conferences are designed to discuss emerging and new healthcare ideas and strategies. Finally, shuster examined the diagnostics and clinical guidelines created for trans-medicine. Combined these sources provide perspective on the individual and systemic level.
Shuster provides an unbiasedWC review of the history of trans medicine. Although they discuss the flaws within many of the common practices by physicians, they do not place blame on the physicians instead accrediting misdeeds to the medical institution and training system as a whole. Additionally, the monograph provides a wide range of physicians perspectives, including those who have become somewhat experts in the field of trans medicine as well physicians who know very little. CLARIFY THIS SENTENCE WITH EXAMPLES–>Shuster also does a remarkable job of parsing out the individual components of trans medicine. They provide ample evidence and direct quotations that demonstrate each aspect that is discussed.
This monograph provides a comprehensive overview of the history of Trans Medicine from the perspective of a healthcare provider, however it distinctly lacks information regarding the patient’s perspective. Excluding a few letters from patient’s during the mid-20th century, there are no modern day perspectives. It could have been helpful to include information from the patient discussing their experience with healthcare and the treatment they have received. Patient perspective is a crucial component in improving the system and adjusting to treat their needs. Although each patient is different, it can be helpful to know general strategies that are successful. The two parts of the monograph focus on the mid-20th century and modern times, the early 21st century, how it does not discuss the status of trans medicine in the intervening years. Although many of the issues in part 1 of the monograph are still concerns in the second part, a large chunk of progress and history is absent in that could illustrate the specific event that caused any changes in the practice of trans medicine. Additionally the monograph provides no future directions towards the improvement of trans medicine.
This monograph could serve as a powerful tool for physicians. Although it focuses on trans medicine the monograph emphasizes larger themes surrounding health care and interactions with patients. It stresses the importance of the doctor patient relationship and the trust that should be formed within this bond to make the best possible decision for the patient. Ultimately, it teaches physicians how to be more mindful. Each student coming out of medical school should be required to read this monograph to improve their understanding of trans medicine and develop an understanding of the history of trans medicine as well as the progress that still needs to be made.
References:
Chambers, A. (2021, November 8). Sociologist stef shuster. other, Bloomington, Indiana; WFIU Public Radio.
Stef Shuster. Department of Sociology | Michigan State University. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2022, from https://sociology.msu.edu/people/directory/shuster-stef.html
Shuster, S. M. (2021). Trans medicine: The emergence and practice of treating gender. New York University Press.
About a year ago, I went through my first real breakup. I was in a toxic, straight relationship with a man for nearly three years, and since our breakup, I have often wondered: how unique was my experience? Reading Jane Ward’s monograph, The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, I was struck by the degree to which my former relationship was indicative of a larger problem with straight culture, and the ways my experience aligned with many other women’s experiences. Ward outlines the patriarchal structures and influences of rape culture that inform straight men’s violence against and general lack of empathy toward women. She goes on to connect these structures and influences to the widespread dissatisfaction (at best) of women in straight relationships. Ward proposes that straight women are in danger and calls for a reversal of the ally relationship in which queer individuals become allies to straight women.
According to Ward, straight culture’s impact on straight women has elicited queer concern and confusion for decades; members of the LGBTQIA+ community have often described straight relationships as, at best, boring, but often toxic, and at worst, violent. Ward talks about her love for her queer life and argues “that the basic premise of the question—that heterosexuality is easier than queerness—requires renewed investigation” (Ward 2). Ward centers lesbian feminist scholarship and cites that the “tragedy of heterosexuality” is “a critical but still largely overlooked consequence of the drowning out of lesbian feminist ideas and experiences” (Ward 4). By centering lesbian and queer feminist perspectives, Ward posits the tragedy of heterosexuality is that “straight life is characterized by the inescapable influence of sexism and toxic masculinity” (Ward 8).
The Tragedy of Heterosexuality’s overarching argument is that heterosexuality is “a system equally organized around love and abuse,” and rooted in white supremacy and patriarchal structures (Ward 12). Many straight women, according to Ward, are unhappy—so what entices them to stay? By outlining the historical and structural contexts of straight culture, Ward situates straightness as a “fetish for normalcy” (Ward 15). Heterosexuality has often been framed as the norm, reinscribing gender roles and biological essentialism, among other sexist narratives that permeate straight culture. Ward argues we must address the ways in which heterosexual relationships reinscribe these narratives—the “we” presumably being individuals across the spectrum of sexuality.
Ward quickly addresses that her focus is straight culture, not necessarily sexuality itself. One prominent aspect of straight culture is normalized mutual dislike: “Across time and place, most forms of heterosexual coupling have been organized around men’s ownership of women (their bodies, their work, their children) rather than their attraction to, or interest in, women” (Ward 34). But Ward argues that in addition to men’s control of women, “straight women’s and men’s shared romantic and erotic attachments to an unequal gender binary” indicates a wider issue with and fear of detachment from the norms of the gender binary and sexuality, further reinforcing heterosexuality as a fetish for normalcy (Ward 22).
Ward, who is a professor of Feminist Studies at UC Santa Barbara, “has published on topics including the marriage self-help industry, the rise and fall of pickup artists, how early lesbian feminist ideas shaped contemporary gender politics, the meaning of sex between straight-identified men, queer childhood and parenting, the evolution of straight culture, the corporatization of gay pride festivals, the race politics of same-sex marriage, the social construction of whiteness, feminist pornography, and trans relationships” (Jane Ward). In addition to The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, she is known for her works Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men (2015) and Respectably Queer: Diversity and Culture in LGBT Activist Organizations (2008). Ward’s book, Not Gay, was featured in Newsweek, New York Magazine, Forbes, The Guardian, BBC, Washington Post, USA Today, Huffington Post, Salon, Vice, and Slate (Jane Ward). Her first book, Respectably Queer, was named by The Progressive magazine as a best book of 2008 and has been featured on NPR (Jane Ward). Ward, who herself identifies as queer, has published many works about queer existence, flipping the dominant narrative of straight as normalcy on its head.
In Ward’s discussion of the history of straight culture, she begins with the eugenicist marital hygiene ideals of the early 20th century: “…this era also initiates straight culture as a gendered mode of consumption in which the purchase of beauty products and relationship advice were vital to maintaining the delicate balance” (Ward 47). Then, midcentury advertising campaigns and educational films capitalized on these gendered modes of consumption to add more pressure on women: “…advertisers skillfully connected their products—from cosmetics to electronic dishwashers—to the project of heterosexual repair…” (Ward 53). Ward finishes out the historical context with the late-century explosion of a self-help industry “built on biopsychological claims about gender difference,” which further normalized heterosexual misery (Ward 30). To explore these circles of the late-century, and more recent iterations, of self-help, Ward discusses pickup artists and seduction coaches, and their redevelopment of a “woke masculinity” (Ward 31). Ward outlines the motives and degree to which these self-proclaimed dating experts contribute to the tragedy of heterosexuality: “Seduction coaches, at some level, know that heterosexuality’s continued fragility and failure produce a demand for interventions that can build a women’s sexual desire for average men and increase average men’s capacity to elicit that desire” (Ward 87).
Starkly contrasting the perspectives of seduction coach culture are the queer subcultural materials and interviews with queer people. For instance, one portion of the queer testimonials is entitled “It’s Sad How Much Women and Men Dislike Each Other,” in which queer individuals talk about the heartbreaking ways straight culture normalizes mutual dislike and straight women’s dissatisfaction with their male partner. As a rebuttal to the tragedy of heterosexuality, and particularly the issue of mutual dislike, Ward discusses the concept of “deep heterosexuality,” in which straight men would essentially take notes from lesbians and identify with women to develop a deep mutual regard (Ward 158).
The Tragedy of Heterosexuality’s greatest strength as an academic work is its grounding in reality, not the theoretical. Ward takes an anthropological approach, using real human testimonials supported by lesbian feminist scholarly literature; her inclusion of queer perspectives in the chapter “Sick and Boring Life” exemplifies the degree to which this work is rooted in lived human experience. In addition to these queer perspectives, her interviews and described interactions with modern pick-up artists and dating coaches emphasize the humans behind and the humans suffering because of hetero-patriarchal structures. What makes the book so powerful is the way in which Ward marries the academic and the personal; I related to nearly every single tragedy of heterosexuality—but before reading this I did not know these experiences were a part of a larger system. I thought it was normal and inevitable to feel stuck with a boyfriend who disappoints you, relies on you for therapeutic counseling, and acts in controlling, manipulative and misogynistic ways. Ward shows straight women (and men) that there is another way.
Though I heavily related to the content of this book, I find that one thing it was missing was the perspective of straight women. Much of the discussion of straight women’s experience is rooted in academia and considering this is a work about straight women, a lot of the included perspectives were not theirs. From Ward, we learned how queer people feel about straight relationships and how some straight men feel about straight relationships (although, not the ones who indicate an inclination toward deep heterosexuality), but to “save” straight women, do we not need to understand the feelings tied to the tragedy of heterosexuality, too? I think a chapter like the queer perspectives chapter, but with anecdotes from straight women, could have made the work stronger.
As a personal reading experience, I found this book to be very validating and liberating. As a scholarly experience, I found the book immensely enlightening in how Ward breaks down the structures that cultivate oppressive realities for straight women in heterosexual relationships. Any straight women or women who have been in a straight relationship should read this book to understand why straight relationships function as they do; frankly, they should read The Tragedy of Heterosexuality to understand that many of the shortcomings of their straight relationships are not their fault. I also think straight men could benefit from reading this book; Ward provides insight into the situations they place women in and outlines how heterosexual misery is not an inevitability.
As Ward calls for queer allyship, queer individuals should at least read excerpts from the book (potentially excluding the queer perspectives chapter if they are very well-versed in the realities of heteronormativity and the tragedy of heterosexuality). Examining the tragedy of heterosexuality from a queer lens is an example of why it is critical to view normative, dominant structures from those who have been marginalized by them. Queer people understand their own existence and straight existence, and the insights they can provide, as outlined by Ward, are invaluable in turning the tragedy of heterosexuality into healthy relationships bonded by deep heterosexuality.
Works Cited
Jane Ward: Scholarship for the Feminist Future, https://www.janewardphd.com/.
Ward, Jane. The Tragedy of Heterosexuality. New York University Press, 2020.
