Big Question: What Is Normal?

In reading about trans* issues, and reading the works of trans* author Dean Spade, I thought about one question that really stood out in my mind: What is normal?

 

When I ask that, I’m thinking more specifically about Spade’s piece “About Puportedly Gendered Body Parts,” where he mentions that our language regarding people’s bodies is quite cissexist by saying things like “male body parts,” “biologically female” or “female-bodied” (Spade, 2013). In our current state of the English language, we assign certain body parts, such as uteruses, penises, etc. to specific genders (in a very binary fashion) and then we claim that these assignments are “normal”.

 

I guess the big question could be tailored even more to say, “Does our language have a large effect on how ‘normal’ cis-identities are or are there other external pressures and factors that influence our language?” or “What is the standard we should set in our language to make sure that all identities, including trans* identites, are considered ‘normal’?” Spade has suggested that “We can talk about uteruses, ovaries, penises, vulvas, etc. with specificity without assigning these parts a gender” (Spade, 2013).

 

While Spade’s idea could potentially catch on in a social context, will this normalization of not assigning specific body parts to specific genders catch on in the medical field, since that seems to serve as a big hurdle in normalizing trans* identities?

 

Works Cited:

Spade, Dean. “About Purportedly Gendered Body Parts.” Dean Spade. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://www.deanspade.net&gt;

Big Question: What is the gendered body?

To put a gender onto a set of organs is inaccurate at best and incredibly harmful at worst.  In Dean Spade’s reading “About Purportedly Gendered Body Parts,” he talks about how reinforcement of certain organs being attributed to certain genders is inaccurate and enables the perpetuation of stereotyping and enforcing certain gender norms. It additionally presents unfortunate consequences to the people that don’t align with the gender that people typically associate with that set of genitals.  This can also pose problems, as brought up in Spade’s other reading “Resisting Medicine Re/Modeling Gender”  with regards to there being such a heavy influence on organs and gender that people who identify as non-cisgender who would like top/bottom/”facial feminization”surgeries (I recognize the also heavily gendered connotation of the phrase “facial feminization” however that is the only current term for what that surgery does) need a special diagnosis of GID to even get it because of how heavily gendered the body parts are. Another way that gendering body parts is dangerous is very explicitly outlined in “The Sexual Politics of Sickness” where it is discussed that not too long ago, all ailments of cis women were blamed entirely on the uterus and ovaries.  There was an assumption that cis women (which was really the category of “all women that anyone cared about”) and the gendering of that specific body part led to thousands of women being forced to lead a life that caused them nothing but depression because of some “mysterious” illness that was the “female condition” relating heavily to the uterus and ovaries.

American Apparel: selling women or clothing?

American Apparel has long been noted for its racy ads; its website features girls scantily clad—even in see-through clothing with nipples and genitals visible—and often comes across as almost pornographic. Their ad campaigns have a history of receiving backlash from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), many eventually banned for their racy content. This advertisement, in particular, is for bodysuits and thigh highs (though you would not necessarily be able to tell) and utilizes fragmentation of the body in order to sexualize the image. The model—headless, and only comprising of a bottom half—is shown in various sexual positions, including with her legs spread apart, her butt in the air, and kneeling suggestively on a bed. By choosing to show only sexualized parts of the model’s body—legs, genitals, buttocks, some cleavage—American Apparel dehumanizes the model as simply a commodified object for sexual gratification. This is a common technique, according to the documentary Dreamworlds 3, in music videos, advertising, and other media to cater to the straight, male viewer; it conveys to young women that this is what men want to see—and, therefore, that it should be imitated—and only perpetuates among men that this is the standard of female beauty and sexuality to be expected. This type of advertising encourages the notion that women should be valued for their beauty and sexuality, specifically individual body parts that are pleasing to men. Indeed, this ad makes one wonder if they are aiming to sell the clothing or the woman’s commodified body parts featured in the photos.

 

Works Cited

Ellie Krupnick. “American Apparel, ASA oOn The Outs Again With New Banned Ads (PHOTOS).” Style. Huffington Post. April 10, 2013. Accessed October 22, 2013 from https://genderandsociety2013.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php.