Reply to comment

Lavinia does a nice job of describing FGM, but I do want to point out a slight piece of (mis)information: "Such a procedure in the western world is unheard of." This is actually not entirely true.

There is a whole slew of conditions, known as Disorders of Sex Development (DSDs), which result in what used to be called "hermaphroditism" and is now termed "intersex." Some intersex babies are born with ambiguous genitalia; that is, it is less than 100% obvious what the sex of the baby might be based on appearance of the genitals alone (sex is often assigned from hormone studies, karyotypes, and gonadal biopsies).

95% of babies with ambiguous genitalia have something called Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, in which an excess of male hormones (androgens) are produced in utero, resulting in enlarged clitorises and partially-fused vaginas in baby girls. These children have a lot of health problems - they don't properly manufacture cortisol, a stress-regulating hormone, and they tend to lose salt, so they often have dangerously low blood pressure and cannot properly respond to stress. CAH is the only DSD that can be fatal if left untreated, but the first thing that most doctors do is surgically alter the genitals. That's right, they go in and "trim back" the clitoris to make the baby look "more normal." This procedure is performed almost universally on CAH girls, despite the fact that most of them have very little, if any, sexual sensation and often spend their lives living in shame of their genitals. (For more information, visit ISNA.org and caresfoundation.org.)

As a self-proclaimed biochem afficianado, I am absolutely fascinated by DSDs and the effects that mutations can have on the endocrine system. As a scholar of evolution, I am struck by four things in the intersex example:

1) There are far more mutations and variations in humans than we ever really think about.

2) It seems that biology is significantly more tolerant of variation than society is: we will stop at nothing to force people into categories, even if it means cutting into their bodies.

3) Sex and gender are arbitrary labels that do not actually reflect the natural diversity of human morphology. If that's the case, how many of our other labels are limiting?

4) If we insist on labeling ourselves without making allowances for variation, are we inhibiting the natural course of cultural evolution?

And I'm spent.

Katie Baratz