I have been thinking a lot about misrepresentation this week. In a world where "copying" and "pasting" is so easy, where splicing and clipping and reposting is second nature, how easy is it to misrepresent someone's point? I met with Anne in the beginning of last and we talked about my essay. She mentioned that she wished that I had used more quotes from Eli Clare in my writing about freakdom, to which I replied that I felt that using his words in my paper felt like a misrepresentation. But would I have been? In taking Clare's words and turning them around to use them to argue against him, would I have actually have been misrepresenting him? As I have thought more and more about this, I have decided that while I did not have malicious intent, in using his words, which were intended for a specific purpose to prove the opposite, I would be misrepresenting him. Any time that you take someone's words and turn them around to mean something which they had not meant to mean, that is a misrepresentation. Not only is this not what they intended to say, but it can often have a very negative effect. 

I was glad to see that Anne had posted the Pseudoscience of Same-Sex Schooling study published in Science magazine. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6050/1706) Though I am not a Bryn Mawr student, I did go to an all girl's middle school, and while reading "The He Hormone" I found myself reflecting on the experience. I think that there is a value in same-sex education that Pseudoscience overlooks. The study begins its argument by pointing out that the test scores of girls in a SS environment were much less impressive when one took into account their elevated performance prior to entering the school. While this may seem like a mildly interesting statistic, I felt that it missed the point of Same Sex education. I think that a lot of what SS institutions strive to address is less tangible (and perhaps less statistically testable) than test scores. Though I do remember middle school as feeling academically challenging, I think the real value of the experience came from being in an academic environment during those awkward and tumultuous middle-school years that allowed me to behave as a student without being concerned with the gender dynamics at play. I think McAuliffe alludes to this when she quotes the Bryn Mawr grad who said that "I could concentrate on learning instead of being the representative of a gender. Gender became irrelevant instead of being something that defined me." I have no way of knowing how I would be different as a student or a person had I not gone to an all girls middle school.

Rebecca Jordan-Young's article (and some posts on here) discuss David Reimer's case in relation to "proving" that gender is inborn in people, and cannot be nurtured or influenced by society. For me, this has been an interesting topic to debate, since I read the book (As Nature Made Him) a few years ago for my gender studies class in community college. Many of my fellow classmates and even my teacher confessed that before reading about Reimer's case, they considered gender to be more influenced by nurture than nature. I am reminded of my two nieces, who are two and five years old - they are obsessed with all things (forgive me for using this word) - girly. And no one in the family has outwardly encouraged this female-centric behavior. It's an interesting perspective to see such young children who are so aware of their femininity. Of course, both my nieces "fit" into their genders. I am also reminded of an article I read (in People magazine I think) about a little boy who was diagnosed with gender dismorphic disorder. He wears dresses, and goes by a girl's name, instead of his birth-given boy name. His parents are raising him/her as a girl, and trying to help him/her deal with his/her gender as best they can. Both these examples are a strong argument towards the nature aspect that, when it comes to gender, maybe we are (as Lady Gaga would say) just born this way. 

I work at the Women’s Center on Haverford’s campus, and we deal with a host of issues relating to sexuality. While I was at work this week, a male friend of mine came into the center, and somehow our conversation turned to the subject of how the issue of sexual assault is presented to freshmen during Customs week. While I admitted that I didn’t really remember the specifics of the talk that was given during my own freshman orientation, he told me he had been shocked by the emphasis he felt the campus put on the idea that when the issue of consent is in question, men are always to blame, and that and it is entirely the male partner’s responsibility to halt the encounter, particularly if alcohol is involved. He stressed to me how scared and helpless he felt at the implication that simply by being male and pursuing a sexual encounter he could unintentionally assault someone.

As some of you may know (and some of you may not), I just posted a rather negative course evaluation.  I was nervous about posting it.  I talked to another classmate who felt it was "ballsy" that we had been asked to submit non-anonymous mid-semester evaluations.  We talked about how we still are getting graded, how we still are regularly interacting with professors and classmates, and how it feels a bit risky to post negative feedback.  So, anyway, my heart was racing a little bit while I was writing my evaluation, and posting it was rather scary.

But a song came on my iPod that really encouraged me, and helped me keep going.  Weirdly enough, it was the song "Roman's Revenge" by Nicki Minaj, which is an offensive song for a number of reasons.   I'm even a little ashamed that it is on my iPod in the first place.  You can read the lyrics here (http://www.directlyrics.com/nicki-minaj-romans-revenge-lyrics.html) or listen to the song here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9h_I90M8-M).

Usually when I listen to this song, it makes me uncomfortable.  But for some reason, listening to it tonight made me feel stronger.  How could this song, which is so offensive, empower me?  Make me feel like a stronger woman?  Is it the strong beat?  Is it the angry tone?  The words?  I have no idea.  I just thought it was interesting that a song that is so offensive, particularly regarding gender and sexuality, could light a fire under me about a gender and sexuality course.

"Most striking is McFadden's admission that his primary theory relies on evidence that is largely circumstantial" (2008, 309). Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz

     This reminded me a lot of the discussion we had in class about the Biology textbook chapters and the validity of the text based on the author's status at a University and the fact that Kaye had picked the text. Although we seem to have full-diclosure here I am left feeling unamused that such serious research would be conducted from a loose evidentiary base.

"After acknowledging the possibility that there may, in fact, be no common underlying cause for all the different observations, McFadden reminds the reader that until the answer is found "science dictates that one tries to find the simplest possible explanation for as many facts as possible, and the prenatal-androgen-exposure explanation appears to do the job' (2008, 318). Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz

Again, this is extremely unsettling to me, as an individual I prefer the rational and logic. However, this sounds like more of a wild goose chase to me. Is it really prudent to conduct research simply searchng for the simplest possible explanation? As we have learned, when is it ever simle when it comes to something as complex, individualized and intimate as someone's sexuality and gender?

    I'm still thinking about last class' medical/legislative activity, where, assuming a different professional role we were all supposed to give our advice about genital reassignment surgery. I was the legislator, in charge of making policy decisions regarding whether or not this surgery should be covered by healthcare. Although I am deeply uncomfortable that parents can choose this surgery for their children, it worries me more that this policy represents a limitation at the convergence of gender and class. The consequences of government policies are amplified for individuals with less money. People would still be getting gender reassignment surgery, but only people with money.  The poor are tied to their bodies in a way the wealthy are not. This is a simplified dichotomy, but a true one regardless.
    We briefly mentioned how much our discussion on genital modification reminded us of the discourse surrounding abortion (waiting periods, prescribed education,  counseling etc). The similarities extend to the legislative venue as well. When Legislators want to stop abortions, knowing full well they can't outlaw them, their solution is regulation. To make them as hard to get, for as many women. Women with means don't generally have difficulty getting around these regulations They can pay for the childcare, they can afford to travel the sometimes hundreds of miles for their procedure. The women who lack the means however, may be stuck in their pregnant bodies.

"Colorblind" - Counting Crows

One of the things I most enjoy about our class is the variance in perspective that comes from engaging with individuals who study in alternating areas. I, for example, am an English and Creative Writing student; other in our class may be studying Biology, History of Art, Psychology, or another area different than my own.  In Rebecca Jordan-Young’s selection Brain Storm, she describes the term network and how it is used to “describe groups of connected people, and in science studies especially to describe how personal and professional connections among scientists shape the scientific knowledge they produce” (Jordan-Young 8).  We may all be pursuing different areas of academia, but this class is our common link. By meeting each week to discuss Perspectives on Gender, we become a part of a network.

I was particularly intrigued by Jordan-Young’s perception of sex, gender, and sexuality as a three-ply yarn. They are all distinct strands and alone are functional; however, they may be wound together in the formation of a new entity that may be slightly “fuzzy around the edges.” This ties back into the idea of network, of individual people or thoughts that are connected through a commonality. But what do we call this newly formed three-strand yarn that is sex, gender, and sexuality? Do we even need to give it a name?