On Defining Gender: A Perspective From An XO

[The Stage is on Fire] is a page-turner in which, much like life, there are no easy answers and yet each step of the journey yields insight and hope. This work of heart must not be missed!

Melanie Faith

Creative Writing Teacher, Essayist & Poet.

Katie Steedly’s first-person piece [The Unspeakable Gift] is a riveting retelling of her participation in a National Institutes of Health study that aided her quest to come to grips with her life of living with a rare genetic disorder. Her writing is superb.

The Society of Professional Journalists

In recognition of receiving the Dateline Award for the Washingtonian Magazine essay, The Unspeakable Gift.

I thank you … It is the authenticity of your “class notes”; and it is the delicacy and skill with which you present the nuances of classroom life and the actuality of your students’ and fellow teachers’ lives.

Maxine Greene

Philosopher and Education Scholar

Enter your email here to receive Weekly Wide-Awake

back

On Defining Gender: A Perspective From An XO

As a woman living with Turner syndrome, I know gender is a particularly complex, fluid, and amazing thing.

Chromosomally speaking, typical females are XX. I am XO. My genetic make-up is a phenotypic wild card. Most XO’s are miscarried before birth. (Making my very life somewhat miraculous.) Some are born with severe heart and kidney issues. Some are born with social and cognitive difficulties. Most, like me, are unusually short in stature. Most, like me, are born without functioning ovaries, which makes having children difficult/impossible. Scientifically and culturally, I push gender boundaries.

I live as a female, but if subjected to genetic testing, the complexity of that label is laid bare. I am a medical example of the difficulty of strictly defining gender. I offer a personal testament to why we must trgender carefully and compassionately.

Because of my experience, I have a unique perspective on the thus far informally proposed changes to the Federal definition of gender. (I am beginning to look into the legal history of the intersection between gender and sex, but I will save this space for a current issue – defining gender.) The New York Times has told the story. Scientific American gave a public health perspective. The Washington Post looked at the implications of gender definitions for families.

Here is what I say about defining gender.

Science Is Important

We can map the human genome. We know the complexity of gender. We see variations in expression of traits. We name mosaic forms of genetic conditions. Science has made it possible for us to see the multi-faceted truth of gender. Once that is known, reductionist definitions of gender that focus on genitalia and include genetic testing can only cause harm. Plainly understood, rigid definitions of gender are inaccurate and wrong and cause harm.

A Policy of Fear

Why define gender? I assert that a movement to broadly define gender, and the political movement toward civil rights, acceptance, and inclusion, has struck fear into the hearts of some leaders. Fear of the unknown. Fear of losing power. Fear of the other. We must make decisions based on science and compassion – not fear.

Intended Consequences

We know what happens socially, politically, culturally, and legally if gender is narrowly defined. The consequences are negative. Society will be less safe. Laws that discriminate will be written and upheld. Life will be made even harder for people already navigating tough terrain. Make decisions knowing the consequences. Again, choose toward science and compassion.

The Right Side of History

At one point, history will decide that the capacity to define your gender is an individual and civil right. When the scientific foundation for that decision and the cultural momentum toward compassion and love meet, that is when the need to define and label, and ultimately control and harm, will cease.