Voltron, Sex & Gender... A Thought Experiment.

The new Voltron Force TV show is great... it exists (roughly) within the same continuity as the original series, it simplifies the cast (or more specifically, their uniforms) to make it more obvious which pilot controls which giant robot Lion, slim-lines and individualizes the Lions for a more satisfying aesthetic, and introduces the very cool gimmick of having the Lions each take turns as the torso of the titular Voltron robot. Two of the new characters, cadets Vince and Daniel, are from minority racial groups, Black and Asian respectively, without any sort of fuss being made about the fact, and Vince especially proves himself to be at the heart of the new show and not just the ‘token’ Black (although it would still be nice to see a few more skin tones represented, but it’s a step in the right direction). Pidge is no longer the incredibly annoying character he once was, and in fact he sorta sets my gaydar pinging... I find myself wondering if this will be a Thing in the show (it’d be great if Voltron Force broke that particular new ground). To top it all off, we have environmental awareness entering the narrative, and not in some preachy, over-the-top way, but just as a part of the team’s regular code of practice. It’s a cool, slick and timely production that I’m sure kids are going to love. I sure as hell do.


And yet there’s one thing that still kinda gets my goat. Despite the show’s overall awesomeness, the sex-ratio is still definitely askew. In a regular cast of thirteen, we have only three female characters, and one of these was killed off/turned into a monster-of-the-week in what - the third episode? Leaving us with two girls, Princess Allura and her niece Larmina. New Allura is a HUGE improvement over Original Allura, whereas before the Princess of Planet Arus was your stereotypical pretty princess in pink, insecure, naive and a bit weak (although admittedly, she did take to piloting one of the five Lions after Sven, the original pilot, was injured), now she’s strong, rational, confident, capable of looking after herself and rescuing the boys, the very heart and soul of the team. I think I’m in love with a cartoon character, is what I’m saying. Her niece Larmina is another Strong Female Character, though in an altogether different way, and one that seems calculated to contrast with the weak and fragile depiction of women in the original cartoon. Larmina is physically strong, a much better fighter than the other two cadets, she’s the fiery redhead with the smack-talkin’ and sarcasm... a little less interesting than her aunt, in other words, kinda cliché. She was obviously written in to include the girls in the audience, to say ‘Hey! Girls can be badass too!’



But the fact remains that there are only two major female characters, and with such a paucity of females in the cast each has to be more a statement of female capability and strength than an actual character. It’s also worth noting that both Allura and Larmina are attractive, slim, White girls. Now, if it had been up to me, I’d have dispensed wit the annoying Cadet Daniel completely, or better yet, replaced him with another female character to try and balance those sex-scales a bit more, that would have given us a 4:9 ratio instead of a 3:10, which while better than the original show is still less than ideal.

Now, there are bound to be some of you out there who think I’m making a big deal out of nothing, and others who will have never given this sort of thing a second thought. The problem is, it happens ALL THE TIME... females are marginalised in pop culture, so much so that in any five-man-band in movies and TV, if there’s even a girl on the team at all she will be The Chick - her sex will be her defining characteristic. But why should girls be forced to identify with male role-models? Why should women be excluded from Action/Adventure stories like this? To me, it smells like ‘putting women in their place’ or just good old fashioned sexism - meaning that women and girls just aren’t ‘real’ people. So, as a thought experiment, I decided to reverse the sexes in Voltron Force, just to show what the Voltron universe might look like if men weren’t the ones hogging the limelight. To do this, I’ve taken the Premise and Opening Voice-Over from Voltron Force’s Wikipedia page and the character profiles from the combined Voltron/Voltron Force List of Characters page and changed all the names and personal pronouns. So, without further ado:

Premise

The exact relationship of Voltrix Force to the original 1980s Voltrix series is unspecified, as there are several visual and character inconsistencies (most notably, Prince Adonis having a teenage nephew who has lived "a lifetime on Arus" even though Adonis is unmarried and has no siblings), but the characters are five to seven years older than those in the original series, and the general concept of the original series is mostly accepted as back-story. Continuing the back-story, Princess Lotus was killed when Voltrix destroyed Doom Castle. Voltrix is being celebrated on Earth for the destruction of Queen Zarkis along with her forces (led by Lotus). However, due to the actions of Sky Marshall Warde, a corrupt official in the Galaxy Alliance, the Robot Lionesses go haywire and virtually destroy a city during the festivities. The Lionesses are immediately condemned, stripped of their duty as Defenders of the Universe and separated, with the Black Lioness locked away in Galaxy Alliance HQ and the other Lionesses sealed away on the planet Arus, the home of Prince Adonis. Though officially disbanded, the Voltrix Force secretly act to get the Black Lioness back while gathering three cadets (Danielle, Val, and Adonis’ nephew Lawrence) to train them to become future Force members and Lioness pilots. With the cadets by their side, the reunited Voltrix Force are needed once more not only to combat a resurrected Lotus and a new form of energy from another old enemy of theirs, but also to expose Warde's criminal actions.

Opening

The series intro is narrated by Danielle:

“Evil is back. The Drule Queen Lotus has returned with a dark energy that can destroy the galaxy. Our only hope, the Voltrix Force: a team of five heroic pilots that control five awesome robot Lionesses. When Lotus's Robeasts attack, Lionesses come together to form...Voltrix, Defender of the Universe.”

Characters

Commander Kelly: Commander and leader of the Voltrix Force, who pilots the Black Lioness that forms the bulk and head of Voltrix. Kelly wears a red uniform in the original series, and a black uniform in the new series. Kelly is a quiet individual who spends much of her time pondering her decisions, thinking up new strategies, and simply being a leader. She also has a hobby of reading books and can often be found doing so either in the pilot's lounge, or in her room. She seemingly cherishes Prince Adonis and is thought to be somewhat protective of him; her worst fear is that he would be forced to marry the evil Princess Lotus.

Lois: Second-in-command of Voltrix, who pilots the Red Lioness that forms the right arm of Voltrix. Lois wears a blue uniform in the original series, and a red uniform in the new series. She is a tall woman, both wiry and wily, and is always cracking jokes and teasing others whenever she gets the chance. She is the only one in the group who contests any of Kelly's commands. She is a flirt and a great pilot, though reckless at times.

Penny: Penny is the youngest, smartest, and smallest of the group; she pilots the Green Lioness that forms the left arm of Voltrix, and wears a green uniform. Her home planet Balto was destroyed by nuclear missiles from Queen Zarkis. Penny graduated from the academy at a young age, and her specialty is science. Like the others, she is well-trained in martial arts, and uses her size and agility to her advantage. Penny is not afraid to speak her mind, especially to the villains. Her heart is often in her words.

Svana: Svana, a Norwegian pilot, was the original second-in-command. She piloted the Blue Lioness and wore a black uniform at the very beginning of the original series. In Episode 6, she was badly injured during an attack by the sorcerer Hagar, and was sent away to the planet Ebb for medical treatment. Ebb was attacked and raided by Lotus' forces, and Svana was captured. The prison ship on which she was transferred accidentally crashed on Planet Doom and Svana went into hiding, becoming a hermit within the caves. She eventually encountered Adonis’ cousin from the Planet Pollux, Prince Roman, who had been sent to the slave mines after he rejected Lotus’ advances. During Svana's time on Planet Doom she witnessed Zarkis and Lotus' cruelty to their slaves, which drove her to the point of madness. She recovered thanks to Roman's emotional support and helped him escape Doom. Svana was later reassigned to the Planet Pollux with Roman and his sister Princess Banda. Svana eventually fell in love with Roman, though she was reluctant to pursue her feelings because she felt he was unworthy of him. She was always very quiet and reserved, and spoke only when she had something important to say. Though she may not show it, she is a very emotional person, and her heart is always leading her mind in any decision. Although Svana no longer pilots the Blue Lioness on a regular basis after Episode 6, she continued to be featured as a pilot for the Voltrix Force in the opening credits of the series while Adonis appears in the closing sequence. However, Svana piloted the Blue Lioness into combat on one more occasion, during the second season episode "Who's Flyin' Blue Lioness," and quickly demonstrated that her time away had not diminished her formidable combat piloting skills.

Prince Adonis: Prince Adonis of the planet Arus is the ruler of the Kingdom of Altair, as well as de facto ruler of the entire planet, and is also the object of Lotus’ affections. Son of the late Queen Alfin, Adonis inherited his mother’s authority on her death and is commander in chief and head of state for the planet Arus, and thus Commander Kelly’s superior. However, later he takes over for Svana as the pilot of the Blue Lioness that forms Voltrix's right leg, and defers to Kelly during operational engagements. Adonis wears a pink uniform in the original series, and a blue uniform in the new series. Though a bit naïve, especially with matters of romance, Adonis is a strong-willed person, and is very capable of ruling his planet, though some like Royal Advisor Corrine tend to doubt this ability. He is capable of invoking the dead, particularly his mother, the late Queen Alfin.

Hetty: Hetty is the strong-woman of the group, piloting the Yellow Lioness that forms Voltrix's left leg. She is shown wearing an orange uniform in the original series, and a yellow uniform in the new series. She may look tough and mean, but she has a soft heart, especially when it comes to children and puppies. She is never late for a meal. Though her friends tease her about her appetite, most of Hetty’s bulk is muscle. It is revealed that she eats "'Fruit Loops' (almost) every morning".

Cadets

Danielle: Exclusive to Voltrix Force, she is one of three new cadets for the Voltrix team. She and Val were once cadets for the Galaxy Alliance, but were selected to be cadets for the Voltrix Force due to their piloting skills. She also has a liking for going fast. She’s kind of impulsive, always getting into trouble; though sometimes her antics are beneficial to the success of Voltrix Force. She sometimes gets jealous of Val and Lawrence because of their connections to Voltrix, and tends to feel left out of the group.

Val: Exclusive to Voltrix Force, she is one of three new cadets for the Voltrix team. She and Danielle were once cadets for the Galaxy Alliance, but were selected to be cadets for the Voltrix Force due to their piloting skills. She also has impressive technical skills and appears to have some kind of power that links her to Voltrix. The reason of why Val has it is currently unknown, but recently it has been revealed that the Voltrix Lionesses have programming that enables them to use Val’s power as a "Key" to allow Voltrix to accomplish special functions when the situation calls for it, particularly to make new formations of Voltrix with new powers by reconfiguring with a different Lioness forming the main body while having the Black Lioness form a limb. This explains the true nature of Val’s power, particularly why it tends to act on its own. Val can use her power under her own will, but it takes a lot of concentration and effort.

Lawrence: Exclusive to Voltrix Force, he is one of three new cadets for the Voltron team. He is highly skilled in hand-to-hand combat and is Adonis’ nephew. While Adonis is unmarried and an only child, the original Voltrix series twice featured Adonis’ surviving Uncle. It is possible that this man is Lawrence’s father, with 'Uncle' being a title of respect to an elder cousin.


See? Male characters not only dominate pop culture, but they’re much more fleshed out than female characters, on the whole. By switching the sexes, we get a great variety of female characters with different body shapes and sizes, skills, interests and preferences (I’ve NEVER seen a female character on TV or in a movie being individualized to the extent of having a favourite food - have you?) It just goes to show, doesn’t it?

Now you can make fun of the names I chose if you like, I’m not committed to them I was just trying to prove a point, and that point required changing the obviously or implicitly male names to obviously female ones. I tried to keep them as similar as I could, but honestly, sometimes it was hard to think of a substitute. There is no female version of ‘hunk’ that starts with an ‘H’, and ‘Pidge’ isn’t even a real name. On the other hand, ‘Svana’ is, funny enough, an actual Norwegian girl’s name, so I was pleased with that one. And changing ‘Daniel’ to ‘Danielle’ was just obvious. ‘Voltrix’ sounds a bit silly, but I figured the gender of the robot had to change as well, because Voltron is male by default (Incidentally, turning all or even just four of the Voltron Lions into Lionesses makes a lot of sense, because in a pride of real lions, the lionesses not only outnumber the males, but they do the ‘lion’s share’ of the work, too. Just sayin’). I chose to change Allura’s name to ‘Adonis’ because her name emphasizes her attractiveness, she may as well have been called ‘Generic Pretty Princess,’ in fact. If that’s acceptable to do to girls, it should be acceptable to do to guys too, and the name of the mythical Greek character ‘Adonis’ has basically come to mean ‘handsome man’ in contemporary use. As for not changing the characters’ uniform colours... whoever said girls had to wear pink in the first place? Who said guys can’t? When I’ve asked my female friends their favourite colours, none of them have answered pink. Girls’ colour preferences are as varied as boys’. And besides, in this adaptation, where women make up the majority of the cast, colour-coding girls as pink is kind of meaningless. Happily, my lone male pilot ends up in the blue Lioness, so the same basic gender-coding effect is achieved :)



"You can tell I'm a girl because I wear pink tee-hee!"

Comments!! I Heart Comments!!

The following is an email I received about an old essay I posted on this blog about the role of women in early Christianity, and my response.

I sent an email to the address mentioned on your profile page then I saw this email addy so I'm guessing this is the right one.
I read this: http://liminald.blogspot.com/2009/05/role-of-women-in-early-christianity.html
and I don't agree with the conclusion, I don't see any evidence for jesus preaching equality between men and women and I was wondering whether you could elaborate on that.
RW

Hi RW,

Thanks for your email. The piece you refer to is an old essay of mine for a philosophy paper at Massey University called Sex, Gender and Religion. Unfortunately we have word limits on the essays and I couldn't make space to elaborate on the teachings of Jesus in regards to women, my focus being on women's place in Christian communities in the time after his death. I believe this is the section that could have been expanded:

"Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183)."

The papers by Brown (1988), Heine (1986) and Swidler (1971), which I cite at the bottom of the essay, were particularly helpful, Leonard Swidler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Swidler) goes into some detail about the messages about women's place in society that were central in the teachings of Jesus. He makes particular note of the gospel story of Mary and her sister Martha, how Martha busied herself with household chores - fulfilling her 'womanly' duties - while Mary sat at the feet of Jesus eager to learn. Sure, it was religious education, but there really wasn't any other sort in Israel at the time. The point being, Mary is praised, and Martha criticised. The message of the story can be interpreted as being that spiritual growth and education supersede social roles.

Another account in the gospels (Mark 5:24-34, Luke 8:43-48, Matthew 9:20-22) is of Jesus being touched by an 'unclean' woman, that is, a woman who was ritually unclean due to her hemorrhaging or prolonged menstruation. An 'unclean' woman was subject to all sorts of social restrictions, about the company she could keep, where she could go in public and so forth, to say nothing of the social stigma, and this woman, with her perpetual 'uncleanness', had suffered more than most. She hoped for healing, and by touching Jesus she had broken the laws regarding ritual cleanliness and had made him 'unclean' also. But Jesus did not rebuke her for this, he said that her faith had made her well, demonstrating explicitly that faith, or spiritual cleanliness, was more important than ritual cleanliness, and implicitly stating that a woman's menstruation was not valid reason to exclude her from social or religious life. again, the message is couched in religious tems, but the message is clear that there should be no barriers to participation in social and religious life, which for the Jews of the time were one and the same.

Again and again throughout the gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry we find him aligning himself with the poor, the 'unclean,' the outcasts, whether Samaritans (a race whom the Jews particularly despised), Gentiles, (who the Jews regarded as heathens and hated for their occupation of Israel), beggars, tax collectors (seen as blights on society), the lame and blind and those afflicted with leprosy (all of which made a person 'unclean' and unfit for participation in social/religious life) and women, the most systematically excluded and restricted underclass in that society. The central message of Jesus was therefore one of equality for all -- a profoundly social message that sadly is often overlooked in contemporary Christian teaching.

I'll leave it at that, but again, thank you for your interest, and please feel free to email back or post comments on the blog - I love feedback :)

Danny

"It's Like They Want You To Get Fat" - Williams & Potter, 1999

- by DannyR

Throughout her life a woman in modern, westernised society is externally pressured to conform to a pervasive societal ideal of thinness that emphasises her sexual availability to men. Yet when she becomes pregnant she is expected to easily adjust to a complete reversal those expectations and alter her behaviour.

Pregnant women are frequently no longer perceived as sexual persons, and often feel undesirable and unattractive due to the disparity between the societal ideal of attractive and their changed bodies. A pregnant woman’s sexuality and approval of her own body are deemed less important than her role as ‘baby factory’ and thus she is expected to become heavier, to conform to a maternal ideal with accompanying bodily changes. She herself participates in this reconstruction of her body, to the extent that she feels and responds to these pressures. For example some women, and especially younger women on whom there is more pressure to conform to societal expectations of attractiveness, may feel guilt about their weight gain and worry about the difficulty of losing it post-partum, while others see the changes as significant of their changed role, and consign their sexual desirability to the past.

The role of the expectant mother entails a changed relationship with food to ensure the foetus is well nourished. Eating is no longer for the mother’s pleasure or sustenance but instead considered ‘part of your job’. They are criticised for making personal choices to eat unhealthy food – the implication being that ‘your body isn’t just yours now!’ The medicalisation of pregnancy extends the expectation of the doctor’s control over childbirth back into the duration of the pregnancy, removing from women even a sense of control over their own pregnancy.

A woman’s expectations of her own body and the expectations of those around her toward that body are socially constructed, as evidenced by the vastly different standards for feminine attractiveness across cultures and across time. That pregnancy has become medicalised is evidenced by the results of qualitative research, women report feeling measured through pregnancy against prescribed weight gains as though weight gain were the most important predictor of pregnancy outcome. Many worry that they are ‘bad mothers’ if they are ‘not doing it right’.

This topic illuminates the sociological themes of Differences and Divisions; women are subjected to more pressure to conform to ideals of weight than are men, and are thus defined in terms of roles or functions. To some extent this also demonstrates the interaction of the Social and the Personal, as many women internalise this categorisation and come to define themselves in relation to their food and weight.

References

Williams, L. & Potter, J. (1999). ‘“It’s like they want you to get fat”: Social reconstruction of women’s bodies during pregnancy.’ In J Germov & L Williams (Eds.), A Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social Appetite, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Just Off The Top Of My Head...

Here's an email I sent through to a mate to help her with her Women's Studies assignment...

Compulsory or institutionalised heterosexuality is a set of beliefs that were a central feature of modern societies in the 20th Century; a set of beliefs about the specific roles, behaviours and relationships that are appropriate for the sexes. It's virtualy synonymous with the nuclear family, and somewhat outdated now, but it had a huge effect on western societies, and it continues to hold some sway in the beliefs of a significant proportion of the population.

Institutionalised heterosexuality requires men to be unemotional, rational, good at all things practical, mechanical, mathematical and logical. They are expected to find full-time paid employment in a trade and to use their earnings from that employment to provide for their families, a role commonly referred to as the 'breadwinner.' In many societies, and in Aotearoa New Zealand particularly, men are also expected to enjoy sports, to dislike artistic and cultural pursuits, to have a more sexual focus in intimate relationships and a tendency towards promiscuity, and to be the head of the household.

Women, in contrast, are expected to be emotional, irrational, good at caring, communicating, and maintaining relationships, poor at practical and financial pursuits. It is expected that they will want to have children and spend their time in the home, that they are naturally suited to domestic and child-care tasks and that therefore the home is the most appropriate place for them. They are expected to enjoy shopping, especially for household appliances and furnishings, and to enjoy motherhood. Artistic and cultural pursuits are more appropriate for women than for men, they are expected to dislike or 'put up with' sex, to be more interested in the romantic aspects of relationships and inherently monogamous, and to be obedient and supportive to their spouse.

Institutionalised heterosexuality prescribed marriage as the only appropriate relationship between men and women, with minimal physical intimacy prior to marriage, and the expectation that once married, a man and a woman would remain together for the rest of their lives in a monogamous union. They are expected to own their own home and raise children together.

And that's a really important aspect - they are expected to have children, and to enjoy motherhood. Women who choose not to have children or who cannot have children are considered LESS womanly than those who can and do. Similarly, women who are good with practical skills or sports are considered overly masculine, and it's considered indecent for women to enjoy sex and be anything other than monogamous.

Times have changed somewhat, there is no longer quite the same expectation that relationships will last for life or that the partners will be married, and with the changing nature of paid work over the past fifty years and more equal rights, women are employed to some extent more often than not. Serial monogamy has replaced absolute monogamy. But women are STILL expected to pursue a romantic relationship with a man who they expect to be their lifelong partner, and to give up or reduce their participation in paid employment in order to become mothers. Women are still expected to be responsible for the majority of household labour, to be the primary caregiver for the children and to enjoy motherhood without being paid for it.

Institutionalised or compulsory heterosexuality refers to a SPECIFIC model of heterosexuality that places women in a position of dependence on men, it is institutional because it is expected, and normalised. Anything that deviates from this model is considered immoral, pathological, dysfunctional, less than optimal.

The Role of Women in Early Christianity

by DannyR

Anyone who investigates women in the New Testament gets a dusty answer: some names are mentioned, and in a few cases a little more than that. The authors of the biblical writings have no interest in biographies; as men, moreover, they are more interested in their own history (Heine, 1986:55).

All the many contradictory positions on the place of women within Christianity have their foundations in the Bible, and much of the interpretive work that shaped these positions were based on texts written in the first four centuries C.E. (Drury, 1994:31). In seeking to understand the roles of women in the Christian tradition, it is first necessary to uncover their origins in the early Church and the social contexts of its beginnings. In the following, ‘women’s roles’ will refer to those duties performed by, but not necessarily those exclusive to women, while ‘early Christianity’ encompasses the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the subsequent era of Pauline theology and the Pastoral Epistles, and finally the era of Gnosticism (Heine, 1986:11).

This essay will trace the evolution of women’s roles through this early period of Christian history, paying particular attention to the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions against which Christianity initially was a reaction, demonstrating that despite its revolutionary origins, the Early Church eventually followed its forbears in relegating women to subservient roles.

Jesus of Nazareth led one of a number of ‘renewal movements’ within Judaism that was condemned as heretical by the religious authorities of the time (Heine, 1986:55). The first Christian women were, like their male counterparts, called by Jesus to leave their families and follow him in his ministry. Heine (1986:61) notes that ‘following’ in all Biblical texts connotes “complete participation in the conviction and activity of the travelling preachers,” thus, women became disciples of Jesus to engage in religious practice from which they had been excluded under Jewish law (Swidler, 1971:180). Theirs was a life of homelessness, dependent for their survival on the gifts they received from those they preached to and from their families, and such wealth as they brought with them, which was shared. Three women are named among these followers – Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Johanna – and “it is quite in keeping with the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers that these women… should have supported the Jesus group by giving them provisions” (Heine, 1986:59-60).

Women’s practice in this primordial Christianity stood in stark contrast to their roles in Jewish society of the time, in which they were decidedly inferior – along with slaves and children, women were considered unfit to testify in legal proceedings, and were not permitted to study the Torah, read aloud in the synagogues or lead the assembly in any manner (Swidler, 1971:178). Women held no responsibilities of any significance at prayer and were restricted to the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem, and rabbinical teachings discouraged their leaving the house (except to visit the synagogue) and sought to limit women to particular ‘female areas’ of the home (Swidler, 1971:178-179). Women’s roles were thus reduced to the bearing and raising of children, and further, Jewish women were always answerable to a man, whether her father or husband, or “if a widow, the dead husband’s brother” (Swidler, 1971:178) A Jew could have multiple wives, a Jewess only one husband, she could be divorced with ease by her husband, but could not herself initiate separation (Swidler, 1971:178).

Contempt for women was by no means restricted to Judaism. While Rabbis thanked God that they were not born gentile, female or ‘ignorant’ (Swidler, 1971:178), Hellenistic men gave thanks that they were born neither animal, nor woman, nor barbarian, and thus “much as these men differ in ethnic character, they are united in gratitude that they have the ‘right’ sex” (Heine, 1986:85). Indeed, even secular philosophers such as Aristotle declared the inherent superiority of men over women (Drury, 1994:35). In the wider Roman Empire in which Christianity developed, the reproductive function of marriage was of great importance, due to much loss of life through war and disease, and short life expectancy, thus marriage was encouraged at a young age, and women were expected to bear a number of children. Furthermore, the secular Roman world was at that time making the regressive transition from the marital egalitarianism and liberty of the Republic to the patriarchal marriage form exemplified by Augustus and his household and thus, given this tide of misogyny, it is hardly surprising that women in particular, both Jew and gentile, were attracted to the nascent Christian religion (Heine, 1986:93).

In the period following the death of Jesus, Christian emphasis shifted from the early ideals of ascetism and homelessness to the establishment of faith communities in order that families should no longer be “torn apart over belief” (Heine, 1986:93-94). Women’s roles within Christianity were redefined in this period by the apostle Paul who, in preaching to non-Jewish communities to create the ‘Israel of God’ (Brown, 1988:49), nevertheless insisted that all who entered the new faith should live according to Jewish custom, with all its rabbinical bias against women (Heine, 1986:95). He propounded his belief that women should be veiled and silent in communal gatherings (Brown, 1988:52), justifying this subordinate, inferior status by appealing to the Creation account in Genesis 1-3, in which God is said to have created women “after men and from men and for men” as companions or helpers (Drury, 1994:34).

But perhaps Paul is not so misogynistic as he is commonly made out to be – he certainly “met women of acknowledged status who were actively engaged in mission and the building up of the community independently of him… not only does he nowhere question working with these women but he confirms, values and at times stresses it – more often and more explicitly than any other author in the New Testament” (Heine, 1986:86). Almost a quarter of the “active collaborators” named in Paul’s writings are women – among them, Euodia and Syntyche, hinted to be martyrs and missionaries like himself, and Phoebe, whom he appears to regard as a deacon in Cenchreae, even including in Romans 16 a ‘letter of commendation’ for her missionary work (Heine, 1986:87-89). His contemporaries, also, record in ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ that Mary, mother of John Mark, and Lydia, a wealthy merchant, each lead a Christian house community; that Tabitha’s charity work was deemed so valuable that Peter raised her back from the dead so she might continue it, and that the four daughters of Philip of Caesarea were prophetesses of renown (Heine, 1986:89). Prisca (or Priscilla) is recorded as having co-founded a Christian community in Ephesus with her husband Aquila, and as participating in the teaching of converts and visitors (Heine, 1986:43). Indeed,

Despite the none too lavish sources, we can construct a vivid picture of community life at the time of the women involved: their influence extended from Caesarea to Rome. Mothers, wives, sisters… and young girls worked at spreading the new faith and building up the communities. Their functions ranged from the highest to the ‘lowest.’ They worked as apostles, deacons, community leaders, teachers and prophets. They travelled as missionaries and did charitable work; they preached, taught, gathered the believers together and sewed clothing for the women. There were well-to-do women among them who shared what they had and kept open house, and there were poor women and slaves… in all this they were no different from men and fellow Christians (Heine, 1986:89-90).

Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183).

Yet even within the early Christian church, there was much disagreement over such issues, and the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, “not written by Paul, although they explicitly mention Paul as their author” (Heine, 1986:15) demonstrate this ambivalence toward women. Drury (1994:31) asserts that the teachings of these mostly “celibate male writers” with “fears about their own sexuality” have been used to assign women a secondary or inferior status in the later Christianity, while D’Angelo (2001:399) notes that the writers of the Pastoral Epistles “prescribe submission to a husband… forbid women to have rich clothing, braided hair, teaching, authority over men and early celibacy… and require silence in the assembly.” In fact some early Christian communities such as the Essenes, continuing in the earlier ascetic tradition of the first followers of Jesus, went so far as to exclude women completely, considering them disruptive in that they ‘caused’ jealousy and conflict in men by arousing men’s sexual lust (Brown, 1988:38-39). The Gnostic groups were largely among these.

Gnosticism, “a religious attitude and practice which seems to derive the motives for its views from many different religions and world-views” (Heine, 1986:108-109), was strongly influenced by the philosophical writings of secular philosophers such as Aristotle, who considered every baby girl “a failure, less than the ideal, useful only for her ability to bear children” (Drury, 1994:35). While in some Gnostic sects women certainly held positions of prestige (Heine, 1986:8), influential writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian in other sects expressed considerable hostility toward women (D’Angelo, 2001:405-406; Drury, 1994:35-36; Heine, 1986:35) and to all “womanliness” or sensuality (Brown, 1988:36). Clement, whose writings would be highly influential in later Christian thought, expressed his belief that the souls of men and women are indeed equal in virtue, but that women’s bodies mark them out for a role in childbearing specifically (Heine, 1986:33-35), and asserted that a woman’s role is to “get what is needed out of the provision store, tread mill the mill, do the cooking so that it tastes good to the husband, make the bed, get the drinks… [and] to have children so that the city and the inhabited world do not go under for want of men;” they are to “bathe for purification and for their health, men only for their health” (Heine, 1986:35). And thus, the message of liberation for women from patriarchal oppression that was so central to the message of Jesus (Swidler, 1971:179) was undermined, and Christian thought returned to its androcentric roots, setting a decidedly anti-feminine tone for the Christian tradition and limiting women’s roles to reproduction and household management for centuries to come.

To conclude, understanding the roles of women in the early Church allows us to comprehend the evolution of those roles and thus their many incarnations today, but we must also understand that women’s roles in the early church were even then shaped by historical forces and the social and cultural contexts of the time. This essay has traced women’s roles from their revolutionary origins in early Christianity, exploring the background against which they developed, demonstrating in so doing that the influences of Pauline and Gnostic theology effectively reinstituted the patriarchal status quo that existed in Judaism and the secular Roman Empire prior to the advent of Christianity, thus undermining the emphasis placed on sexual equality by the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

References
Brown, P. (1988). From Apostle to Apologist: Sexual order and sexual renunciation in the Early Church. In ‘The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in Early Christianity’, pp.33-64. New York: Colombia University Press.

D’Angelo, M. R. (2001). Veils, virgins, and the tongues of men and angels: Women’s heads in Early Christianity. In Elizabeth A. Castelli and Rosamond C. Rodman (eds.) ‘Women, Gender, Religion: A reader, pp.389-419. New York: Palgrave.

Drury, C. (1994). Christianity. In Jean Holm and John Bowker (eds.), ‘Women in Religion.’ pp.30-58. London: Printer Publishers Ltd.

Heine, S. (1986). Women and Early Christianity: Are the feminist scholars right? London: SCM Press Ltd.

Swidler, L. (1971). Jesus was a feminist. Catholic World, 212, pp.177-183.

Feminism: Its History and Ongoing Influence on Religious Studies

by DannyR

“It is increasingly recognized that feminist theories have not only constituted a most influential scholarship within academia, they have also had a profound impact on the subjectivities of countless women worldwide. This has led to immense personal and political transformations, the consequences and direction of which are still unfolding” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p3).

Feminism has always been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both politics and religion, from its beginnings in the eighteenth century through to the political turmoil of the 1960s, and into the more reflexive postmodern period. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases and allowing women to reinterpret and criticise religious texts, and this has in turn allowed men to become aware of their own gendered natures and religious subjectivities, sometimes to the detriment of the feminist enterprise. The following charts the history of feminist thought as it pertains to the study of religion, concluding that it is a field of enquiry that continues to develop in scope and subtlety.

In order to understand the impact of feminism on religion, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by each term. Feminism is a perspective that exposes and questions the privilege and prestige accorded to men (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3), being traditionally focused on inequalities founded on biological sex but having given rise to the relatively new concept of gender and genderedness (King, 1995, p.12). Alice Schlegel defines gender as the cultural perception, construction and expectations of the sexes, as opposed to actual biological sex (King, 1995, pp.12-13). Defining religion is more problematic, for as King notes (1995, p.10) the term can apply to either a “historically and culturally evolved,” “cumulative” tradition or to a subjective, transcendental experience.

Feminism as a recognizable political and intellectual movement first appeared against the backdrop of Industrialisation in Europe and America (Osto, 2008, p.4), though its origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century writings of Mary Wollstonecraft (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.2) among others. This first wave of feminism was largely concerned with the rights of women to vote and achieving equality in the eyes of the law (Osto, 2008, p.4) but the growing awareness of sex inequality was reflected in religious scholarly circles by the publication of such discourses as Elizabeth Candy Stanton’s The Women’s Bible in 1895 (Giddens, 1997, p.449), in which the author propounds her view that man and woman had been created equal, that the Bible did not reflect this equality and did not therefore reflect the values of God, but rather the views of the committees of men who periodically revised the Biblical texts.

Having declined somewhat after the First World War, the feminist movement regained momentum in the 1960s (Giddens, 1997, p.516). This second wave was characterised by an emphasis on solidarity, intense political activism around employment, reproductive and sexual rights, and the push for the inclusion of Women’s Studies programmes in universities (Osto, 2008, p.4). Central to this activism was the development of the concept of patriarchy, the way in which “masculine values” are built into the very workings of “most organizations” at all levels of management (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.146). The seemingly all-pervasive power of patriarchy led some feminist scholars to name it a religion in itself, “the prevailing religion of the entire planet,” and to declare all world religions merely sects (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, pp.32-33). Yet even in the 1970s some feminist scholars noted that this concept of worldwide patriarchy disregarded historical context, was “monolithic” and “dismissive of women’s resistance and agency” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.147).

Thus in its third wave, beginning in the 1980s, feminism became decidedly theoretical and postmodern in character, rejecting essentialism and shifting its focus from gender inequalities to constructions of gender – or, put another way, the existence of a variety of masculinities and femininities (Osto, 2008, p.4). No longer could women be considered a “homogenous group,” as increasingly it was recognized that sexual preference, race, class and age all contribute to the shaping of subjectivity (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, p.11; Armour, 1999, p.7). It is this more nuanced approach to gender that has allowed religious discourse to blend the masculine with the feminine in its conceptions of divinity, or in some cases to transcend gender altogether, rather than simply substituting the male for the female (King, 1995, p.15). Anne E. Carr, among others, asserts that the task of this third, mature stage of feminism is the building of general theories and the establishment of a “unifying framework” for these more integrative and inclusive analyses (King, 1995, p.20), though this has met with some resistance from separatist feminists such as Mary Daly (King, 1995, p.14).

The challenge posed by feminism has given rise to a number of different responses by men, from the “avidly anti-feminist… such as the Christian Promise Keepers, through to a possibly more accommodating mythopoetic movement” in which men may acknowledge their own gendered natures and spiritual subjectivities (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, pp.4,283). Another such response is the advent of masculinities studies within the academy, which some consider the completion of the feminist project (King, 1995, p.14). If men’s traditional perception of feminism as “about women,” and the lack of discussion around gender in men’s writing “has served to make men invisible, particularly to themselves” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.4), the move toward studies of masculinity, then, constitutes some recognition by men of the validity of women’s experience. A chief criticism of this movement, however, is that where ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ are studied separately the gender dichotomy is in fact reinforced, the genders polarized further (King, 1995, pp.14-15).

Feminism continues to evolve in European, American, and Australasian countries, and is beginning to have an impact in Asia, Africa and the Middle and Far East (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). The backlash against feminist critique has been at times severe, leading Whitehead and Barrett (2001, p.3) to posit that the resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world may be a response by men to the “changing positions and expectations of women.” They note that “in terms of sustaining unequal material advantage, opportunity, status and privilege, men have much to lose with the rise of feminist thinking” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). However, the authors are quick to see the opportunities for men in the exchange – empathy, quality in relationships, reflexivity, emotional wellbeing and balance in their lives (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). Such analyses owe their very existence to the insights born of the feminist perspective.

To conclude, from its inception feminism has been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both the political and religious arenas, developing through periods of activism into a discipline concerned with the construction of general theories of gender, becoming ever more reflexive and nuanced in its analyses of patriarchy and subjectivity. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases, and this has resulted in the development of reflexive men’s studies and further opportunities for its own growth. As King (1995, p.12) observes, while “progress in the study of religion is slow … there is no doubt that the perspective of gender is of increasing importance in theoretical and empirical studies.”

References
Armour, E.T. Deconstruction, feminist theology, and the problem of difference: Subverting the Race/Gender divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Biezeveld, Kune & Mulder, Anne-Claire, (eds.), Towards a different transcendence: Feminist findings on subjectivity, religion and values. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang, European Academic Publishers, (2001).

Giddens, A. Sociology, 3rd Edn. Cambridge: Polity press, 1997.

King, Ursula, (ed.), Religion and gender. London: Blackwell, 1995.

Osto, D. 135.207/307 Sex, Gender and Religion Study Guide. Palmerston North: Massey University, 2008.

Whitehead, S.M., Barrett, F.J. (eds.), The masculinities reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2001.

On Love, And Other calamities (Part One)

The feelings we experience through different stages of love are due to chemicals that we produce within our bodies, hormones that wash over our brains, compelling us to act in ways that are mistaken for fate or folly. Ask any old married couple, and they'll tell you that the excitement of initial infatuation becomes deeper attachment with the passage of time, but inevitably the excitement fades to little more than memory.

There are three stages of what we call love: Lust, Romantic Love, and Attachment, each different, but all in the service of the biological imperative to successfully reproduce. Lust gets us hunting for potential mates, Romantic Love narrows our focus down to just one individual, and Attachment encourages us to stick with this partner long enough to raise children. Each of these stages is characterised by the presence of different levels of certain hormones in a person's circulatory system and neurochemistry.

Let's look at Lust first. We're all aware of this initial stage of love, that jolt of excitement and piqued curiosity when we are in close proximity to a person to whom we are mysteriously attracted. Lust would seem to be a primarily visual phenomenon, and certainly our cultural heritage deals with it in such a way. The words of Jesus were that "anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and further that "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" (Matthew 5:28-29), hence the Religious Right's almost fanatical vendetta against pornography and infidelity.

We now know that it's quite natural to 'keep an eye out' for potential mates, but increasingly scientists are discovering that Lust is fundamentally a chemical phenomenon.It has been found that women are more aromatically susceptible than men - that is, they have a better sense of smell - perhaps because they have evolved to regard smell as a significant indicator of a partner's suitability, being the one stuck with the most work in reproduction. Not only is a woman's sex cell, the gigantic egg or ovum, more biologically costly to produce than the man's millions of tiny sperm cells, she has to carry the developing embryo within her body, nourishing it at her own expense, and this duty does not cease when once the offspring is born, she then has to breastfeed, and gather foods for her infant for years afterward! The man, by contrast, has the option of disappearing after the act of copulation, no further expense incurred.

Smell is indicative of the state of an individual's immune system - we're programmed to seek partners with different immunity to our own so that our offspring will have the strongest immune system possible and thus a better chance of surviving. Heterosexual couples with similar immune systems have higher incidence of spontaneous miscarriage during pregnancy, and frequently have more trouble conceiving in the first place. Interestingly, the Contraceptive Pill confuses a woman's sense of smell to prefer a partner with a scent similar to her own. Consequently, perhaps, among the top complaints heard by divorce lawyers from women is "I can't stand his smell." But on the lighter side, once two people are emotionally attached they're disposed to see (and smell) each other in a more positive light.

Lust is also characterised by a surge of testosterone in both men and women. It is a common misconception that testosterone is the 'male hormone,' but this simply is not true. While it certainly is responsible for the development of male anatomy and secondary sex characteristics (body hair, deeper voice, sperm production) at specific points in the individual's life, it is by no means a chemical exclusive to men. Testosterone, it seems, arouses an individual, be they male or female, in readiness for copulation. Men have more interest in sex, (and in having sex more often, at that) because they have a set of glands that are devoted to full-time production of testosterone. A woman's sexual response is tempered by which stage she is at in her monthly menstrual cycle, as testosterone production waxes and wanes.

Romantic Love is the (far from inevitable) next step in the process, and is quite distinct, introducing the major chemical player in romance, a hormone known as dopamine. Dopamine and norepinephrine levels surge when a person is confronted by the unknown. These are the same chemicals responsible for addiction - and for experiencing elation, hope, despair and rage.In the initial stage of Romantic Love, they cause such exhilaration that we forget to eat or sleep. This is commonly referred to as 'lovesickness,' for indeed throughout history it has been regarded as a sort of madness or illness. It is only comparatively recently in Western societies, in the last two hundred years roughly, that being 'In Love' has come to be seen as a good foundation for marriage and the raising of children.

This wave of dopamine, however, eventually subsides, and is followed by vasopressin and oxytocin, hormones that lead to long-lasting Attachment. These are 'Cuddle Chemicals,' released during sex; they give us the 'warm fuzzies,' making us want to stick together. They condition both partners so that they will maintain a pair bond for the successful rearing of offspring. Oxytocin, in particular, may actually subdue levels of unruly dopamine and norepinephrine, taking away that 'high' of initial infatuation, effectively 'squashing' Romantic Love.

There is something about the way our society is structured - our Western 'rules of propriety' - handed down through Christian tradition and surviving today in secular form - that creates and bolsters the conditions to capitalise on the natural high which accompanies the initial dopamine and norepinephrine surge. We commonly believe that 'dating' is a sensible practice put in place so that we may 'shop around' to find a good match, but perhaps it serves a further purpose. The rules of propriety that accompany dating (no sex before marriage, no sex on a first date and so on) are a restriction or barrier when you have found that one 'special someone,' they serve to frustrate the natural impulse and prolong the 'romantic high,' until marriage and consummation, for it is well known that when it comes to romance, you always want what you cannot have.

This delay may in fact bring about an even more powerful wave of Cuddle Chemicals than would otherwise be the case, leading to even longer-lasting attachment. Gay and lesbian communities in the Western world largely lack such societally-imposed restrictions, and indeed consummation of the natural procreative impulse, though directed at a partner of the same gender and thus confounding its biological imperative, follows swiftly in these communities. It is perhaps unsurprising that gay and lesbian relationships generally do not last nearly as long as 'straight' partnerships, when the conditions for lifelong partnership are largely a product of rules designed to frustrate the urges of 'normal' heterosexual mating pairs.

The problem with the 'Cuddle Chemical' stage is that it too begins to wane with time, as sex becomes less frequent. Men in particular are naturally programmed to seek out new sexual partners, and will inevitably begin to look around, being none too choosy. And women, far from being the passive objects they have been made out to be in much of Western tradition, are actually programmed to be continuously on the lookout to 'trade up' and secure a partner with better genetics, more resources and greater dominance (hence the appeal of shopping and wealthy husbands). And thus even the most the most stable, affectionate couple is vulnerable to infidelity or dissolution in time.

Novelty makes your brain and body pump out the exciting hormones, norepinephrine and dopamine, so if you find attraction waning, if your partnership has lost it's excitement and you want to persevere, then do new and varied things and fall in love all over again. You can fool your brain into seeing your partner as a new one. Studies show that couples who share more exciting experiences (such as entering competitions together and travelling together on vacations to new places) report more happiness and satisfaction. This may in fact explain the success of arranged marriages in other cultures, for while we in the West do not generally like the idea, the anxiety, suspense, and the thrill of Chinese or Indian wedding pageantry may in fact drive dopamine levels up so high that romantic love positively flourishes.

We have other tools to bring on the dopamine. Humour is one of the best. And as if you needed an excuse, having sex elevates testosterone levels in both males and females, which in turn revs up the dopamine, allowing partners to recapture the thrill of romantic love, at least temporarily. The simplest way, however, is enforced separation or a good old screaming row. Arguments trigger a rush of adrenaline, which kicks in during risky, new situations. Separation prolongs the production of dopamine, you want the person more as the barriers to togetherness are increased, which increases the frustration and makes the reward of being together so much richer. The problem with this is that both partners have to be in-sync for what's comfortable or challenging, and not many of us are. Our drives for novelty can be unifying or divisive once the exhilaration of courtship gives way to the routines of partnership.

Most enduring couples, it is found, are seeking similar levels of stimulation. People who seek high levels of stimulation (high sensation seekers) are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, explore unknown territory, experiment with drugs and alcohol and seek out a variety or larger number of sexual partners. High sensation seekers have low levels of dopamine (oddly enough) and serotonin, probably because of low levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO), which regulates dopamine and other neurotransmitters. Low serotonin levels go hand in hand with impulsive behaviour. Men tend to have lower MAO levels than women, which is not to say that they are deficient, but rather that this characteristic serves the man's quite different biological reproductive agenda (more on sex differences between men and women later).

A couple made up of two high sensation seekers is more likely to dissolve out of boredom, and this is almost certainly a factor in the generally rapid dissolution of male-male couples. A couple where one partner is a high sensation seeker and the other is a low sensation seeker will not easily understand each other (the majority of couples fall into this category, this being largely the state of the heterosexual population). The happiest couples are comprised of two people who aren't looking for high excitement, but lest you hastily conclude that lesbian relationships must be more content than any other couple form, it must be noted that even within each biological sex there may be vast disparities in individuals' levels of sensation seeking. It's not always obvious in the beginning stages of a relationship what level your potential partner is.

So there we have it: a brief overview of the chemistry of love and sex. Just as an aside, it should perhaps be noted that the hormones that incite us to couplehood and attachment actually decrease our individual testosterone production, making sex progressively less interesting over time. Couples who maintain interesting and satisfying sexual relationships generally have a lot of fights, go through periods of separation and reunion, have rich fantasy lives or make allowances for infidelity or the possibility (even if unacted upon) of sex with others. But lest you come away from this brief essay gloomy or disillusioned, take comfort in the fact that there are plenty of other areas in a relationship that may deepen and become richer with time, and that long-term Attachment is something wonderful in and of itself.

It's not all about sex.

DannyR

Being Intersex -- Deviant, CHAFF 2007

Alice, from Holland, has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS)
Alice has XY chromosomes, which is the norm for males, as opposed to XX for females. When she was 17, Alice went to the doctor to find out why she still hadn't got her first period. He sent her on to a hospital for a test. As the test was being administered, she saw the technician frown; he said that the machine didn't seem to be working, and they had better move to another room and try another machine. Again, there seemed to be something wrong.

The technician left the room to call a doctor. The doctor looked at the machine, frowned too, and then did an internal check up. What he found was nothing. In Alice's body, he found no womb, no uterus, no ovaries. Nothing. It was only then that Alice discovered she had AIS. Although she has XY chromosomes, being insensitive to testosterone, she developed in a female direction. Complete AIS means that the person will look absolutely female from the outside. However AIS is only one of about 75 different intersex conditions.

What is intersex?
Intersex people are born with external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, and/or endocrine system that are different from most other people. There is no single "intersex body"; it encompasses a wide variety of conditions that do not have anything in common except that they are deemed "abnormal" by the society. What makes intersex people similar is their experiences of medicalization, not biology. Intersex is not an identity. While some intersex people do reclaim it as part of their identity, it is not a freely chosen category of gender - it can only be reclaimed. Most intersex people identify as men or women, just like everybody else.

Are intersex conditions harmful?
In general, intersex conditions do not cause the person to feel sick or in pain. However, some intersex conditions are associated with serious health issues, which need to be treated medically. Surgically "correcting" the appearance of intersex genitals will not change these underlying medical needs.

How common are intersex conditions?
No one knows exactly how many children are born with intersex conditions because of the secrecy and deception surrounding it, and also because there are no concrete boundaries to the definition of "intersex." It is nonetheless estimated that about one in 2,000 children are born visibly intersex, prompting early intervention. It is estimated that approximately 30 babies are born each year in New Zealand with indeterminate sexual organs.

Can't they just do a test to find out babies' true sex?
Medicine cannot determine the baby's "true sex." For example, chromosomes do not necessarily dictate one's gender identity, as it is obvious from the fact that most people born with androgen insensitivity syndrome live as women despite their XY chromosomes. In other words: science can measure how large a clitoris is, but cannot conclude how large or small it needs to be. That is a social determination.

How do we know the correct gender of a child with an intersex condition?
In most cases the decision is made by parents and doctors when the child is an infant, based on their best prediction, and this is followed by repeated genital surgery, ongoing hormonal and psychological treatment, and socialisation in the assigned gender. The extent to which such intervention is necessary for the child's physical and mental health, or whether it is both physiologically and psychologically harmful, remains a contentious issue. It is however recommended that the child be assigned a gender, and allowed to determine for himself or herself once he or she is old enough to do so. Irreversible surgeries on infants should be avoided in order to give them the widest range of choices when they are older. Performing surgeries will not eliminate the possibility that our prediction is wrong.

What is the correct pronoun for intersex people?
Pronouns should not be based on the shape of one's genitalia, but on what the person prefers to be called. For children too young to communicate what her/his preference is, go with the gender assignment parents and doctor agreed on based on their best prediction. Do not call intersex children "it": that is dehumanizing.

Are there five sexes?
The notion of "five sexes" was popularized by Anne Fausto-Sterling's article "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough" published in 1993. In this largely tongue-in-cheek piece, she wrote that three subcategories among "intersex" should be considered as three additional sexes aside from male and female. Unfortunately, the "five sexes" theory does not help people with intersex conditions. Fausto-Sterling later wrote in "Sexing the Body" (2000) that she was "no longer advocating" these categories, "even tongue-in-cheek".

Are intersex people "third gender"?
Many people with intersex conditions identify solidly as a man or as a woman, like many non-intersex people. There are some who identify as a member of an alternative gender, like some non-intersex people. While everyone has a right to define his or her own identities, people with intersex conditions should not be expected to be gender-transgressive just because of their condition.

Is intersex part of the trans community?
While some people with intersex conditions also identify as trans, intersex people as a group have a unique set of needs and priorities beyond those shared with trans people. Too often, these unique needs are made invisible or secondary when "intersex" becomes a subcategory of "transgender". For example, people who discuss about intersex in the context of transgender often stress the risk of assigning a "wrong" gender as an argument against intersex genital mutilation, which overlooks the fact that intersex medical treatment is painful and traumatic whether or not one's gender identity happens to match her or his assigned gender. It is for this reason that intersex people prefer to have "intersex" spelled out explicitly rather than have it included in the "transgender" umbrella.

What is the difference between "hermaphrodite" and "intersex"?
In biology, "hermaphrodite" means an organism that has both male and female sets of reproductive organs (like snails and earthworms). In humans, there are no actual hermaphrodites in this sense, although doctors have called people with intersex conditions hermaphrodites because intersex bodies do not neatly conform to what doctors define as the "normal" male or female bodies. The word "hermaphrodite" is misleading, mythologizing, and stigmatizing. Although some intersex activists do reclaim and use this term to describe themselves, it is not an appropriate term to refer to intersex people in general. In short, snails are the hermaphrodites; humans are not. Also, please avoid using the word "intersexual" as a noun; it is preferable to say, "intersex people" or "people with intersex conditions/experiences."

“Gender is really outdated. You might say that we're very much wired as a society to believe that there's only 2 answers ... gender isn't just male or female. There's a plethora of options between, why do we have to stick with one or the other? It's not a yes/no binary question. It's like asking someone from Canada, "Do you live in Montreal or Quebec?" with absolutely no expectation of any other answer - it's completely ridiculous.”

DannyR, Trysha E'Layne Kaneko