8-25-08, 9:36 am
Editor’s note: Sophia Siedlberg is a geneticist and the U.K. spokesperson for the Organization Intersex International.
Recently, I read an article in which Amy Hinton was discussing her work as an intersex activist. I found myself needing to respond to a few of her points.
The main issue for me is how a lot of intersex variations (I prefer to use 'intersex variations' instead of 'DSD' [ed. note: disorders of sex development]) seem to be underrepresented in the media. Often the discussion seems to be about Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, not that there is anything wrong with that, but for some reason the discussion goes into genetics, with the statement: 'They are women with male DNA.' or 'They are women with male chromosomes.' The first statement is untrue. In genetics there are 'Male Specific Regions,' some of which do lie on the X and Y chromosomes. But what needs to be understood is that there are more MSRs and also more genes that are involved in sex differentiation in the autosomes, that is, in the other chromosomes. In the case of AIS the gene involved that codes for Androgen Receptors does however lie on the X chromosome, but in a sense this illustrates the point – 'Male DNA' on a 'Female Chromosome.' It does not make much sense when you talk of 'Male' and 'Female' DNA.
Amy Hinton stated that 'Intersex can mean someone whose chromosomes are the sex opposite to their physical sex.' Well, as we have already established, chromosomes are not clear markers of sex and genetically speaking sex differentiation is more complex than this. Many people with CAH (Congenital adrenal hyperplasia) have 'XX chromosomes' and are often female, but there are some who end up as male. Does reducing people with CAH or AIS to chromosomes mean anything? I suspect not.
The point here is that you cannot define sex by genetics alone. In genetics there is no 'Male' or 'Female' DNA. Rather there are regions of DNA which are likely to result in a more male or more female anatomy, and also an intersexed anatomy. This brings me onto the next point where Amy Hinton says:
'Yes and no. Women's equality and LGBT rights should be fundamental rights we get at birth. I personally think it is sad that we live in a country where we have to define the rights of the citizenry to ensure proper equality while some groups are guaranteed freedoms just by winning some sort of genetic lottery (right gender, right sexuality, right color etc.).'
I think that defining sex on the basis of genetics alone, or stating that someone has a physical sex that does not match the chromosomes sets up the notion of a lottery in the first place. Amy Hinton correctly points out that treating what you inherit as a lottery is fraught with inequality, and yet there she is describing genetics in a way that lends itself to being described as a lottery in terms of legal status, etc. I find that confusing.
With many intersex variations the underlying genetic factors are complex and often contrary to the social 'understanding' of the subject. (Male DNA on a Female Chromosome for example). I also wonder about this business about women's equality and LGBT rights. When you look at it in more detail, you see that inequality is built into the language. To begin with 'Woman' and Man' set up a binary model. Lesbian: 'Woman who sleeps with women.' Gay: 'Man who sleeps with men.' Bisexual: 'Man or woman who sleeps with men or women.' Transgender: 'Man who lives as a woman or woman who lives as a man.' Transsexual: 'Man is really a woman and becomes such or woman who is really a man and becomes such.' You will notice that so far there is this adherence to 'Man' and 'Woman' running through the terms.
It is worth noting that for 'Intersex' we read 'Disorder of Sex Development.' Look at the nomenclature in question. '46XY DSD' (Meaning '46 XY but is female and is thus Disordered'). When you look at the language that way, you are looking at an extremely arbitrary view of what male and female are supposed to mean. 'Women' and 'LGBT' are terms that stay within these arbitrary definitions, reducing people to bits of sexual meat. 'Intersex' gets singled out because the arbitrary definitions are thrown into confusion because the arbitrary definitions are motivated by irrational thinking. I am not saying that Amy is being irrational. Far from it. It is the terminology and language she and all of us have been forced to use by society which is irrational. My main objection is that I do not see myself as a 'Disorder' or a 'Special problem' or 'Someone in need of special protections.' I would not be in need of 'Special protections' if I was regarded as human, like Men, Women, and LGBT people are.
While people say that because I, as an intersexed individual, do not fit some arbitrary definitions (Male or female or some label that fits in with male or female) and deem me as being a 'Disorder of Sex Development,' then the incentives to regard me as less than human or subject to a genetic lottery inevitably remain.
The truth is that whatever form we take, we are human beings, and the human genome is a distinct entity that tells us we are human. You have to see the whole picture and not define people by bits like chromosomes or the genes they contain, or the enzymes that are coded by the genes that are involved in the synthesis of 'sex' hormones, or even the hormones themselves. We also need to see people as people, not 'Lesbians' or 'Gays' or 'Bisexuals' or 'Transgenders' (These are cold labels being applied to lives being lived by human beings, that reduce these lived lives to little more that an act or a characteristic.)
Perhaps we need to rethink how we describe the world around us.
