?

Log in

 
 
05 December 2007 @ 09:45 pm
Interesting Discourse on The View  


Interesting clip of Walters and the Women of the View discussing gender roles, transgendered identities and the discourse surrounding childhood. Thoughts?

Did anyone see the piece of transgendered children?
 
 
Current Music: Pink Martini :: Hang On Little Tomato
 
 
 
(Deleted comment)
Nikolaifaygoredpop on December 6th, 2007 04:23 am (UTC)
I'm fascinated by this obsession with binary thinking: you are one or the other, with no room for an ambiguous space or Borderland, to borrow from Anzaldua.

What you want is in the blood, Senatorsdemonista on December 6th, 2007 04:31 am (UTC)
sorry, i deleted my post because it posted randomly, in the middle of my writing my comment. it's properly done below. (i didn't think it would be responded to so quickly)
Nikolaifaygoredpop on December 6th, 2007 04:34 am (UTC)
I panicked and was awaiting a message from the moderator, if there is one, about an inappropriate post.

I'm actually procrastinating... Must. Write. Paper. NOW.

(Instead, I'm making mix CDs for friends and checking email. Nice.)
What you want is in the blood, Senatorsdemonista on December 6th, 2007 04:42 am (UTC)
Nor is their room for not identifying within a gender specrum. I do honestly believe that some of those poor kids were labelled trans, put in the opposite gender straight jacket, put on hormones, because they were gender noncomformists, not because they were dissatisfied with the "sex" of their bodies.
Nikolaifaygoredpop on December 6th, 2007 04:45 am (UTC)
I wonder about that; developmentally, how appropriate is it to label someone as they are figuring out who they are in relation to the world? I meant to look that up in the DSM-IV, but in the midst of finals, I've forgotten, although that would be a fascinating procrastination project.
What you want is in the blood, Senatorsdemonista on December 6th, 2007 04:30 am (UTC)
I saw the show on transsexual children. It was on 20/20 a few months ago. It was tragic--kids were being told that only girls wore dresses, only girls used pink cups, and so forth. it was painfully clear to me that at least some of these boys wanted to be girls because they were told that their interests, desired clothing, hobbies, and so on were only things the opposite sex did. e.g. child: "i want the pink cup." mom: "only girls get pink." "but i like pink." "but only girls like pink." "then i'm a girl."





And that Sherri is so damn ignorant. She's ridiculous. But kudoes to Whoopi, Joy, and Melina.
Duncan Major and Alanna Feltcarmel_devine on December 6th, 2007 10:57 am (UTC)
I think all of the labeling and compartmentalization, particularly at such a critical stage in a child's development, can only do a lot of damage on both a psychological and sociological level. Not to reduce the issue to extreme relativism, but it is quite complex. In a sense, I do like Whoopi's comment about 'letting kids be kids' - insofar as the behaviors and roles we expect children to take on in our culture.

What I do think is harmful is medicalizing the issue; that is, the approach that Barbara was taking. Faygoredpop, you mentioned looking this up in the DSM-IV. 'Sexual and Gender Identity Disorder' is actually listed as a psychological disorder in the DSM-IV; It's outrageous! Homosexuality was considered as such until the 1970s, when another revised edition of the DSM-IV was released. Though I should also mention that the DSM-IV is riddled with problem upon problem, and this is recognized. At the same token though, no one really seems to be doing much about it. It's set to be revised again in 2011, though as far as I know, 'Sexual and Gender Identity Disorder' is still expected to be listed as a legitimate disorder by then.
Zoe ~ Princesse de Rien: jb 1zoecb on December 6th, 2007 12:17 pm (UTC)
I think it's a little early to be diagnosing Gender Identity disorder and such... little boys can very easily play with make-up and dolls and then grow into perfectly comfortable male-idenifying heterosexuals... I don't really think it means all that much in most cases... just kids playing with stuff.
Duncan Major and Alanna Feltcarmel_devine on December 6th, 2007 02:45 pm (UTC)
but why diagnose at all? Be it a 3 year-old or an 18 year-old?


Nikolaifaygoredpop on December 6th, 2007 03:51 pm (UTC)
My friends who are transgendered have commented that the diagnosis affirms who they feel they are, confirming in some official way an identity that isn't often confirmed in the official.

However, I struggle, as always, with the blatant label.
Duncan Major and Alanna Feltcarmel_devine on December 6th, 2007 04:18 pm (UTC)
I guess that makes sense, and admittedly I haven't thought about it much from that perspective. Though some friends of mine (and myself included) who identify as being trans, queer, gender queer, etc. just feel that such a diagnoses attempts to push them into a relatively rigid category that is essentially contingent anyway.

Right now, homosexuality isn't considered a medical disorder though it used to be listed as such under the DSM-IV. I'm wondering if people being diagnosed with such a disorder back in the 70s were comforted with the notion that the diagnoses was affirming their identity in some way? I can't help but think that medicalizing the issue is just a way of illegitimating it. It's like our society splits the population into to broad categories: those who are normal and then those who are abnormal (all of which is of course socially constructed and thus arbitrary anyway), and then medicalizes those who fit into this abnormal category, since they don't adhere or conform to particularly expectations that our society deems as being 'proper.'

Here it an excerpt from a previous post I made on the issue, if you care to read it:

Why is it so difficult for people to realise that such broad concepts as sexuality and gender only exist because we decided to compartementalize them into such categories to begin with? They are not these distinct, 'natural' entities that have always existed, but rather mere categories that have been (and are) socially produced and regulated (I should probably cite Gary Kinsman in here somewhere...).

So, when it comes time for me to write my next test - seeming as how they are of an 'objective nature,' that is, true/false and multiple choice - I'm going to have to agree that 'sexual and gender identity disorder' is, in fact, a disorder.
[...]
The perpetuation of sexual norms and opression in our society continues...
SoftFruit: Jan 2006softfruit on December 24th, 2007 12:46 pm (UTC)
How can we promote in our wider cultures the idea that children are people you care for, not something you own?