Reply to comment

Some questions that I have in response to the readings...

1. In the Kessler/McKenna article, it says that in order to "make a male," it is more important to add a penis than to remove a vagina. This implies that the penis is a more gendered characteristic than the vagina. Why is this? Does it have to do with the fact that a penis is external while a vagina is more internal? How could the importance of the penis be deconstructed?

2. Kessler and McKenna state that transsexuals should "focus on creating decisive first impressions as male or female." I'm interested in whether you, Alex, still have trouble confidently presenting yourself as male? How does your membership to a women's institution complicate your ability to present your gender coherently? The authors recommend that transsexuals focus on embracing a sort of "naturalness' of their gender, but if gender is a social construction, what is this naturalness?

3. What would be the consequences of having a "androgeous society?" Do transsexuals even desire such an environment? It seems like such individuals depend as gender just as much as non-transsexuals, it's just in a different manner. For example, transsexuals seem to want their gender to be recognized- is this the case?

4. The Davis quotation in the Bornstein article describes humans' dependency on a society based on classification. If our inability to handle a state of ambiguity is fundamental to our species, is it worthwhile to work towards erasing gender divides? If humans psychological depend on such organizational systems, can they ever been banished?

5. Finally, I'm interested in Bornstein's comment that "hiding, and not proclaiming one's transsexual status, is an unworthy stance." Do you agree with this? If gender is not biologically based but socially constructed, than are they really hiding? How is the story that transsexuals tell a lie? Isn't everyone "passing" to some degree?