Assistance needed TODAY on writing

Please only place a bid this will be completed TODAY (SEP 22,2024)
by 9:00 PM Central Daylight Time Zone //
21:00 CDT. Approx. 6.5 hours from posting time.

4-5 pgs in length not counting title and references page.
a title page, double spaced, reference page, APA format.

Rubric attached for details + options for citation references to be used. (minimum of 5 references)

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
22

School Administration, Multicultural Education, & Inclusion

Jericha Hopson

is the Student Disabilities Services
Coordinator for Tarleton State University,

a member of the Texas A&M System,
Stephenville, Texas.

(Barnes & Mercer, 2001). The call for this
formation is reinforced by outrageous and
blatantly discriminatory “Ugly Laws” in
the United States, which have placed so-
cial restrictions on those whose physical
appearance might offend “normal” people
(Gerber, 1996).
According to the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA), a person with a
disability is a person

who, with or without reasonable modifi-
cations to rules, policies or practices, the
removal of architectural, communication,
or transportation barriers, or the provision
of auxiliary aids and services, meets the
essential eligibility requirements for the
receipt of services of the participation in
programs or activities provided by a public
entity. (Section 12111)

Disability culture promotes a sense of
common identity and interests that unites
disabled people and helps to create and
sustain meanings, identities, and the con-
sciousness that takes a political movement
forward (Barns & Mercer, 2001). Steven E.
Brown (2003), cofounder of the Institute on
Disability Culture, described the culture of
disability as follows:

People with disabilities have forged a
group identity. We share a common his-
tory of oppression and a common bond
of resilience. We generate art, music,
literature, and other expressions of our
lives and our culture, infused from our ex-
perience of disability. Most importantly,
we are proud of ourselves as people with
disabilities. We claim our disabilities
with pride as part of our identity. . . .
We are who we are: we are people with
disabilities. (pp. 80–81)

Introduction
Regardless of which perspective one
takes, the definitions and meanings of
disability are wide and varied; it is best
defined by and with people with disabil-
ities. Disability can also be defined from
a cultural framework (Gilson & Depoy,
2000). The cultural view of disability
presents the issue of disability from the
perspective of group identity distinct
from other groups who do not share the
disability identity (Mackelprang & Sals-
giver, 1996). Pride is taken in the “unique
talents and attributes of each individual,”
grounding the person with a “positive
disability identity” (Brown, 1995).
Fear of judgment, denial, embarrass-
ment, and ignorance is one of the reasons
persons with disabilities do not disclose,
discuss, or seek understanding of their
disabilities. These barriers stem from
a negative disability identity and the
destructive stigmatization of disability
as a problem held by the larger society.
A well-developed identity allows individ-
uals to have a better understanding of
their strengths, weaknesses, and unique
attributes (Marcia, 1966).
When individuals are able to accept
their disabilities, they have higher levels of
self-esteem, better coping skills, higher goals,
and more motivation (Arnold-Oatley, 2005).

There is extensive research in relation to
racial identity. A healthy racial identity
has been shown to have positive effects
on physical health, such as lower levels of
stress, anxiety, and suicidal ideation (Ai,
Aisenberg, Weiss, & Salazar, 2014).
This article attempts to articulate the
importance of disability identity, culture,
and acceptance while advocating for the
inclusion of disability culture in the con-
versation about diversity. By extending
the same concepts of cultural competency
that have been used for racec and ethnic-
ity, cultural differences can be applied to
disability culture.
In the minority group model of disabil-
ity, people with disabilities may be viewed
as a socially stigmatized minority group
subjected to stereotypes, prejudice, and
institutional barriers similar to those of
an ethnic minority (Eddey & Robey, 2005).
The inclusion of those with disability as a
cultural group will open doors that have
previously been shut to a population that
has come up against many closed doors.
Cultural groups are afforded respect and
position in society, which allows for a co-
hesive community to develop.

Disability Culture
Awareness of the disabled population
has increased over the last few years, and
has prompted a call for the formation
of a disability culture, with the goal of
challenging the individualization and
medicalization of disability, the essentialist
and determinist definitions of disability,
the idolization of “normalcy,” and negative
stereotyping and exclusion of the disabled

Disability as Culture

Jericha Hopson

FALL 2019
23

School Administration, Multicultural Education, & Inclusion

A disability culture movement can
foster disability pride, the discovery of
shared experiences and rituals, and the
establishment of values, goals, and iden-
tity. When a strong image is presented,
it motivates people to want to belong,
to be part of something that is powerful
(Johnson, 2015). Cultural competence goes
beyond understanding the values, beliefs,
and needs associated with age, gender,
or racial, ethnic, or religious background
(Eddey & Robey, 2001).
Disability culture extends across every
other cultural boundary and can be found
in every corner of the world and through-
out history. Disability culture is one of the
only cultures and protected populations
that can be joined involuntarily, suddenly,
and unexpectedly. Anyone can have an
accident and suddenly no longer fit into
the nondisabled world.
Previously, the disabled world was
seen as abstract and ambiguous. The tra-
ditional psychological models of disability
focused on disability as a deficit to be fixed
(Schulz, 2009), but there has been a call for
a move to a social model of disability that
underscores the role of society in defining
and perpetuating disability (APA, 2012).
The social model of disability suggests
that the stigma experienced by those with
a disability renders them a socially mar-
ginalized group (Olkin & Pledger, 2003).

Disability Identity
Disability is commonly perceived as
a misfortune that can lead to underesti-
mation of existing abilities and a global
devaluation of the person (Dembo, Leviton,
& Wright, 1975). In psychology, the term
identity is often used to refer to the self,
expressions of individuality, and the groups
to which people belong.
Dunn and Burcaw (2013) have pos-
ited that disability identity refers to the
possession of a positive sense of self and
connection to, and unity with, the disability
community. An articulate disability identi-
ty is believed to help individuals adapt to
disability, social stresses, and daily hassles
(Dunn & Burcaw, 2013).
Those with visible disabilities may
be viewed by others differently due to
appearance; similarly, people of color have
observable differences resulting in the
perception not of the individual but of the
person’s race (McEwen, 2003). Just as peo-
ple of color face obstacles unique to their
race, people with disabilities often come
up against barriers unique to themselves
(Bentley-Townlin, 2002). Unlike racial

identity, where there are often others who
share one’s race in close proximity and/or
direct family, for persons with disabilities
to interact with other people with disabil-
ities, they typically face the challenge of
seeking them out, placing the responsibil-
ity on the individual to find such persons
(Forber-Pratt & Zape, 2017). This can be
particularly difficult for those not located
in a homogeneous society.
Putnam (2005) has offered a few
aspects as being pertinent to political
disability identity and disability activism:
self-worth, pride, and awareness of dis-
crimination. Putman also mentioned other
aspects, but these three seem to be the most
applicable here. A sense of self-worth allows
people with disabilities to see themselves as
possessing the same worth as nondisabled
individuals. Pride emboldens people with
disabilities not to deny or mask but to
“claim” (Hahn, 1997).
Finally, discrimination necessitates
awareness and recognition of the fact that
people with disabilities are frequently the
recipients of biased, prejudiced, and unfair
treatment on a daily basis (Chan, Livneh,
Pruett, Wang, & Zheng, 2009).

Disability Acceptance
Acceptance of disability does not focus
on the “preference of one’s own state over
others” but the “conditions facilitating
acceptance of one’s disability as non-deval-
uating” (Wright, 1960, p. 108). Acceptance
is a process in which an individual can
“seek satisfaction in activities that befit
his/her own characteristics as a person
rather than those of an idolized normal
standard” (Wright, 1960, p. 134).
Individual acceptance of disability
may spark the move toward social ac-
ceptance (Li & Moore, 1998). The value
shift needed for acceptance of disability
is dependent on a person’s ability to
change the way he or she thinks about
his or her disability, moving from a
negative devaluing system to a system
where retained values are emphasized
(Dembo et al., 1975). Better acceptance
of disability increases a person’s belief
that he or she is considered a member
of society, resulting in increased social
confidence (Li & Moore, 1998).
The degree to which an individual
accepts his or her disability is directly
related to the societal perceptions and
stigmatization of disability. There is a
widespread presumption that negative cul-
tural and media stereotypes of disability
and disabled people serve to reinforce and

extend disability stereotypes held by the
general public (Barnes & Mercer, 2001).
Personal affirmation of disability
promotes a feeling of social inclusion, to be
recognized and treated like everyone else
within a group or society (Dunn & Burcaw,
2013). Finding meaning and affirmation
entails searching for significance and
positive attributes that can accompany
disability, which can lead to personal ac-
ceptance (Dunn & Burcaw, 2013).

Social Justice
Many people with disabilities, like oth-
er minorities, desire to achieve acceptance
and inclusion in society (Li & Moore, 1998).
For this to be accomplished, there needs to
be a fundamental change in how society
treats and perceives disability as a whole.
People with disabilities themselves have a
vital role to play in changing the cultural
representation of disability.
Courage is needed to recognize that
there are challenges to being disabled but
also positive things in which pride can be
taken. This recognition can change the way
nondisabled people make judgments about
the lives of people with disabilities and
truly challenge current representations of
people with disabilities, taking charge of
the way in which disability is defined and
perceived (Morris, 1991).
Lummis (1992) has suggested that
“equality of opportunity makes sense in a
society organized as a competitive game, in
which there are winners and losers. What
is equal is not the people, but the rules of
the game” (p. 43). Who created these rules
and how can we change them? Is this not
a concept that can be applied to multi-
ple unjust situations? Recognition that
disability is socially constructed through
the societal and environmental obstacles
that have been created will reinforce the
understanding and feeling that having a
disability is not a personal deficiency.
A significant social movement is pos-
sible when there is a reconsideration of
the manner in which a specific group of
people “looking at some misfortune, sees
it no longer as a misfortune warranting
charitable consideration but as an injustice
which is intolerable to society” (Turner,
1969, p. 391).
Any advocate for social justice can
attest to the fact that major change can
be daunting and discouraging at times,
but the key is to continue to chip away at
the ice until it is gone. We must also accept
that the change we want to see may not
happen on a large scale in our lifetime, but

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
24

School Administration, Multicultural Education, & Inclusion

valorisation. In R. Thomson (Ed.), Freakery:
Culture spectacles of the extraordinary body
(pp. 38–53). New York, NY: New York Uni-
versity Press.

Gilson, S. F. (1996). Students with disabili-
ties: An increasing voice and presence on
college campuses. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 6, 263–272. https://doi.
org/10.1016/1052-2263(96)00191-2

Hahn, H. D. (1997). An agenda for citizens with
disabilities: Pursuing identity and empower-
ment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
9(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1052-
2263(97)00019-6

Johnson, M. (2015). Emotion and pride: The
search for a disability culture. Disability
Rag, 35(3), 4–10.

Li, L., & Moore, D. (1998). Acceptance of dis-
ability and its correlates. Journal of Social
Psychology, 138(1), 13–25. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224549809600349

Mackelprang, R. W., & Salsgiver, R. O. (1996).
People with disabilities and social work: His-
torical and contemporary issues. Social Work,
41(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/41.1.7

Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation
of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0023281

McEwen, M. K. (2003). New perspectives on
identity development. In S. K. Komives, D. B.
Woodard Jr. et al. (Eds.), Student services:
A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp.
203–233). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morris, J. (1991). Pride against prejudice. Lon-
don, UK: Women’s Press.

Olkin, R., & Pledger, C. (2003). Can disability
studies and psychology join hands? Amer-
ican Psychologist, 58, 296–304. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.4.296

Putnam, M. (2005). Conceptualizing disability:
Developing a framework for political dis-
ability identity. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 16, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.117
7/10442073050160030601

Turner, R. H. (1969). The theme of contemporary
social movements. British Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 20, 390–405.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
(2015). ADA update: A primer for state and
local governments. Retrieved from https://
www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII 2010/title ii
primer.html

Wright, B. A. (1960). Physical disability: A psy-
chological approach. New York, NY: Harper
and Row. https://doi.org/10.1037/10038-000

the work we do today will pave the way for
additional work to be done in the future.

Conclusion and Discussion
It has been almost 30 years since the
landmark signing of the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA), and as a nation, we
have made great strides toward equality.
The ADA prohibits public entities from
isolating or separating people with dis-
abilities or denying them the opportunity
to participate in the programs that are
offered to others.
However, we still have a lot of work
to accomplish. While not a revolutionary
concept by any means, the inclusion of
disability in the world of culture and diver-
sity shifts the perspective away from the
traditional medical model. When viewed
as a culture rather than a clinical catego-
rization of individuals, disability can be
an empowering part of one’s identity. The
ability to connect to a group of people who
may share similar thoughts, beliefs, and
experiences can be life altering, particular-
ly for those who do not reside in a highly
diverse community.
The sense of belonging to anything
can give renewed direction, hope, and
confidence in the future. The hallmark of
disability as culture is the network one
builds by meeting other people with dis-
abilities, particularly similar disabilities,
and forming relationships that can help
promote education, awareness, and accep-
tance. The disability culture movement
is growing every day and is becoming a
powerful vehicle for change.
However, people with disabilities are
often left out when discussing cultural
diversity or overlooked as an important
cultural group—perhaps not intentionally,
but yet it persists. In some institutions of
higher education, disability is often housed
in a different administrative department
than diversity and inclusion. This sends
the message that disability does not belong
with diversity.
While I believe there should be an
administrative aspect to disability ser-
vices, I also strongly believe students with
disabilities deserve their place. I hope that
disability can be a source of pride and can
be celebrated as a culture rather than as
something secondary, with a “caution” label
affixed.

References
Ai, A. L., Aisenberg, E., Weiss, S. I., & Salazar, D.

(2014). Racial/ethnic identity and subjective
physical and mental health of Latino Ameri-
cans: An asset within? American Journal of
Community Psychology, 53(1–2). https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10464-014-9635-5

Americans With Disabilities Act, Public Law
101-336 (1990).

Arnold-Oatley, A. E. (2005). Students’ with
physical disabilities adaptation to university.
(Master’s thesis). York University, Toronto,
Canada.

Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2001). Disability
culture: Assimilation or inclusion? In L.
Albrecht, K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.),
Handbook of disability studies (pp. 515–534).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781412976251.n22

Bentley-Townlin, T. (2002). Understanding uni-
versity students’ construction of their hidden
disability identity. Digital Dissertations,
63(11), 37–97.

Brown, S. E. (2003). Movie stars and sensuous
scars: Essays on the journey from disability
shame to disability pride. New York, NY:
People With Disabilities Press.

Chan, F., Livneh, H., Pruett, S., Wang, C., &
Zheng, L. X. (2009). Societal attitudes toward
disability: Concepts, measurements, and in-
terventions. In F. Chan, E. Da Silva Cardoso,
& J. A. Chronister (Eds.), Understanding psy-
chosocial adjustment to chronic illness and
disability: A handbook for evidenced-based
practitioners in rehabilitation (pp. 333–367).
New York, NY: Springer.

Dembo, T., Leviton, G. L., & Wright, B. A. (1975).
Adjustment to misfortune: A problem of
social-psychological rehabilitation. Rehabil-
itation Psychology, 22(1), 1–100. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0090832

Dunn, D. S., & Burcaw, S. (2013a). Disability
identity: Exploring narrative accounts of
disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 58,
148–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031691

Dunn, D., & Burcaw, S. (2013b). Thinking about
disability identity: Major themes of disability
identity are explored. Spotlight on Disabil-
ity Newsletter. Retrieved from https://www.
apa.org/pi/disability/resources/publications/
newsletter/2013/11/disability-identity.aspx

Eddey, G. E., & Robey, K. L. (2005). Considering
the culture of disability in cultural compe-
tence education. Academic Medicine, 80,
706–712. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-
200507000-00019

Forber-Pratt, A. J., & Zape, M. P. (2017). Dis-
ability identity development model: Voices
from the ADA-generation. Disability and
Health Journal, 10, 350–355. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.12.013

Gerber, D. (1996). The careers of people exhibited
in freak shows: The problem of volition and

CHAPTER 2: WHAT’S IN A NAME?

The language of intellectual disability

JOHN SIMPSON R.P.N., M.ED. (SPECIAL EDUCATION)

IntroductionIntroduction

In act 2, scene 2 of William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Juliet declares: “What’s in a name? That which we

call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Unfortunately, Juliet’s point of view doesn’t extend to the

world of disability, where names do matter (Wehmeyer, 2013). This is particularly true for the disability previ-

ously called mental retardation. The historical record shows that whenever new names have been introduced to

identify and describe this disability, those names have eventually been abandoned because of the stigma they’ve

acquired (Tassé, 2013). Like the names that preceded them, mental retardation and mentally retarded were clin-

ical terms used to describe the presence of intellectual impairment. Like the other terms, they were eventually

absorbed into popular language and used as insults to demean or belittle someone or someone’s behaviour (Spe-

cial Olympics Inc., 2014). Insults like “What a retard” and “That’s so retarded” are common examples. While

these insults are often aimed at individuals without disabilities, it is important to know that they have been formed

from negative perceptions and attitudes about persons with mental retardation. They suggest that these persons

are somehow defective, not quite human, or less valuable human beings.

In The Cloak of Competence, Robert Edgerton (1967) wrote, “to find oneself regarded as a mental retardate is to

be burdened by a shattering stigma” (p. 205). Edgerton concluded, “persons cannot believe that they are mentally

retarded and still maintain their self-esteem” (p. 207). Although Edgerton’s terminology is now out of date, con-

cern about the effects of stigma on the lives of people with intellectual impairment remains. It continues to be

expressed in the words of those who have been hurt by the messages imbedded in the label mentally retarded and

its common offshoots, retarded and retard:

• “I use to skip school just so I wouldn’t have to hear kids use the R-word in the halls.”

• “Just hearing the R-word hurts, even if you don’t mean it that way.”

• “You may be joking and calling your friend the R-word, but I still hear it.”

• “When people say the R-word it really hurts my feelings and I feel bad about myself.” (Special Olympics

Inc., n.d.).

Attempts have been made to move away from the negative connotations and stereotypes associated with the terms

mental retardation and mentally retarded. A variety of alternative names have emerged throughout the world and

within individual countries (Ford, Acosta, & Sutcliffe, 2013). The world still struggles, however, to find a com-

mon language that is both respectful and effective in its ability to communicate to all stakeholders. Such language

is needed so that proper identification occurs, needed supports are provided, and suitable environmental adjust-

ments are made (Schalock & Luckasson, 2013).

In this chapter, we discuss the evolution of the clinical or official language that has been used to discuss intellec-

tual impairment. We start with a discussion of the purpose of naming and then move to a description of names that

have historically and more recently been applied. Guidelines for choosing an appropriate name are provided along

with information on how intellectual impairment is currently viewed and diagnosed. Throughout the chapter, the

impact of naming or labelling on people with intellectual impairment is discussed, and implications for caregivers

are identified.

The Purpose of NamingThe Purpose of Naming

Naming refers to assigning a specific term or label to someone or something. In the field of disability, naming is

the product of a systematic process of investigation known as diagnosis. Assigning a name, term, or label to an

individual or the individual’s disability is a powerful statement that can convey important messages about how

that individual is perceived and valued, and how human relationships will take place (Davis, 2004; Luckasson &

Reeve, 2001; Schalock, 2011).

In the field of disability, correctly identifying and naming the disability that a person experiences is important for

a number of reasons. Naming enables needed services and supports to be deployed and provides the opportunity

to remove physical and social barriers that prevent individuals from expressing their capabilities. Naming also

makes funding available for needed services and supports. On a broader level, naming encourages research and

communication about a particular disability. This can be important to improving conditions experienced by indi-

viduals with the disability. On the other hand, the negative connotations and stereotypes associated with names

such as mental retardation and mentally retarded have caused some self-advocates to adopt the motto “Label Jars,

Not People.”

Historical PerspectiveHistorical Perspective

Before the 1900s, the word idiot was used throughout much of the world to describe a generally vague class of

individuals who were not considered to be “normal.” Membership in this class was often assigned simply because

individuals were thought to look or walk “funny,” or because they were poorly coordinated. Others were singled

out because they did not speak, were not successful in school, or appeared to not act their age. The first broadly

used term in North America was feeble-minded. The term became common in the early part of the 1900s and was

eventually divided into diagnostic categories, or levels, of feeble-mindedness: moron, imbecile, and idiot. These

approximated the later categories of mild, moderate, and severe/profound mental retardation, and were assigned

WHAT’S IN A NAME? • 11

on the basis of IQ score, after the IQ system was developed and popularized in the early 20th century (Walsh,

2002).

By the middle of the 20th century the terminology shifted, with terms such as mental deficiency and mental defec-

tive emerging in an attempt to counteract the negative connotations of feeble-minded. Over time, the idea that

individuals were deficient and defective, and by extension not quite good enough, was replaced by the concept of

developmental rate. This term suggested that persons with intellectual impairment were “slow” or developmen-

tally arrested. The term mental retardation was used to represent this position.

In 1961, the American Association on Mental Deficiency (now the American Association on Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities or AAIDD) issued its new diagnostic and classification manual. It replaced the terms

moron, imbecile, and idiot with mild, moderate, severe, and profound mental retardation. The category borderline

mental retardation was also included, and referred to individuals who fell between 15 and 30 IQ points (between

one and two standard deviations) below the average IQ of 100. In 1973, the borderline category was eliminated as

IQ standards changed, so that people with IQs from 70 to 85 were no longer considered to have mental retardation.

This meant that, overnight, the population of people theoretically considered to have mental retardation (at least

on the basis of IQ score alone) decreased from about 16% to 3% of the general population. This reinforced the

understanding that, to a large extent, mental retardation (although under new names) was and remains a socially

constructed entity based on expectations of intellectual functioning. Those expectations can vary from time period

to time period and from society to society, though individuals with significant disability are identifiable across all

time periods and societies.

The Demise of Mental RetardationThe Demise of Mental Retardation

Like the clinical labels feeble-minded, idiot, imbecile, moron, and mental defective, the term mentally retarded

was quickly transformed into a common insult. The result was that well before the end of the 20th century, a chal-

lenge led by advocacy organizations deemed use of the label as no longer appropriate.

As acceptance weakened for the terms mental retardation and mentally retarded, a variety of terms arose to take

their place. The following are some examples of replacement terms:

• Mental handicap or developmental handicap. While these terms were once popular, labels that include the

word handicap or handicapped have largely been replaced with disability. Disabilities are impairments in

functioning that can be physical or intellectual, or both in combination. Handicaps, on the other hand, are

social or environmental obstacles imposed by society, institutions or individuals on persons with disabilities

(Finkelstein, 1993). For example, the absence of a wheelchair ramp at the entrance to a building imposes a

handicap on individuals who use wheelchairs. Likewise, failure to provide an individual’s usual communi-

cation device imposes a handicap by preventing that individual from effectively communicating his or her

needs, wants, thoughts, or interests in social situations. In addition, the word handicap echoes an earlier

time when persons with disabilities were commonly required to beg on the street for survival—to literally

extend their caps in hand for charitable donations (Darrow & White, 1997).

• Developmental disability. The term developmental disability is commonly used in Canada and some other

countries to refer to intellectual impairment. However, in the United States, developmental disability is also

viewed as an umbrella term that includes individuals who have intellectual or physical impairments, or a

12 • SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES & MENTAL ILLNESS

combination of both, that occur during the developmental period (National Association of Councils on

Developmental Disabilities, 2014). Examples of disabilities that fall under the heading of developmental

disability are epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and autism, as well as intellectual impairment. When the population

characteristics of all people with developmental disabilities are examined, only about one-quarter of them

have an intellectual impairment sufficient to apply the former label mental retardation (Warren, 2000). The

lack of specificity associated with the term developmental disability can lead to confusion when communi-

cating with individuals or groups outside the jurisdictions that use the term.

• Mental disability. In its Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act, the Province of Manitoba

(Manitoba, 2014) uses the term mental disability to refer to persons with intellectual impairment. This is a

term, however, that some people in the mental health field also claim. One problem with this term is that it

can cause confusion between the concepts of mental illness and intellectual impairment.

• Learning disability. In the United Kingdom, the term learning disability is used, having replaced the term

mental subnormality. In North America, however, learning disability refers to persons with specific learn-

ing disabilities that do not impede general intellectual functioning. Dyslexia is an example of a specific

learning disability. Many school districts, however, choose to apply a learning disability label to students

with mild intellectual impairment to avoid the stigma associated with the label mental retardation (Warren,

2000).

• Developmental delay. The term developmental delay has been used when discussing intellectual impair-

ment. However, while individuals with intellectual impairment commonly experience developmental

delays, not all individuals with developmental delays experience intellectual impairment.

Guidelines for Choosing the Right NameGuidelines for Choosing the Right Name

The name chosen to represent a disability has crucial implications for individuals to whom that name is applied.

Therefore choose the name, term, or label with deliberate care. In the end, the name given to a disability should

be able to meet the following standards (Luckasson & Reeve, as cited in Schalock & Luckasson, 2013):

• The name should be specific and refer to a single disability. It should allow the disability to be differentiated

from other disabilities.

• The name should possess attributes that permit it to be accepted and used consistently by all stakeholders.

Examples of stakeholders are individuals, families, service and support providers, professional organiza-

tions, advocacy groups, academics, researchers, government representatives, and policymakers.

• The name should effectively represent the current state of knowledge and be able to integrate new knowl-

edge as it appears.

• The name should be functional in definition, diagnosis, classification, and planning of supports.

• The name should have the capacity to communicate important values that are held for the named group of

people.

WHAT’S IN A NAME? • 13

Intellectual DisabilityIntellectual Disability

The term intellectual disability is increasingly understood to meet the guidelines above (Schalock, 2011). It is a

term commonly used by the research community and scholarly journals, and increasingly by the larger interna-

tional community. Countries that have adopted this term include Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Ire-

land, Israel, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries. In the United States, President George W. Bush

signed an executive order in 2003 that renamed the President’s Committee on Mental Retardation as the Presi-

dent’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (Ford, Acosta, & Sutcliffe, 2013). And, in 2010, the

U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives passed Rosa’s Law (S 2781—111th Congress, 2009), changing ref-

erences in federal legislation from mental retardation and mentally retarded to intellectual disability and individ-

ual with intellectual disability.

Advocacy organizations such as The Arc, Inclusion International, and Special Olympics use the term intellectual

disability. The Canadian Association for Community Living and People First of Canada also use this term,

although both intellectual disability and developmental disability are accepted and usage can vary by region.

Community Living Ontario mentions that it adopted the term intellectual disability “largely to conform with grow-

ing national and international use of the term” (Community Living Ontario, 2014).

In addition to the countries and organizations just mentioned, the three principal sources for defining and diagnos-

ing intellectual disability already use or will soon use the term intellectual disability. These sources are the 11th

edition of the AAIDD’s diagnostic manual; the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5); and the 11th revision of the World Health Organization’s

International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) (Tassé, 2013). The World Health Organization is expected to

adopt the term in 2015. Of particular importance is that the ICD is used by 70% of the world’s clinicians, with a

similar percentage of services and supports receiving funding based on the diagnostic criteria specified in the ICD

(Wehmeyer, 2013). To avoid use of the word disability, the term disorders of intellectual development has also

been discussed.

PeoplePeople with Intellectual Disabilities: Using People-First Languagewith Intellectual Disabilities: Using People-First Language

Advocates, self-advocates, and professional groups generally agree that labels should not act as personal nouns

to represent individuals. For example, statements such as “Rashid is an epileptic” or “Maria is intellectually dis-

abled” should be avoided. Individuals are much more than the disabilities they happen to experience. They are not

defined by their disabilities. Instead, “people-first language” should be used to introduce the presence of disabil-

ity. Statements such as “Rashid is a young man with (or, who has) epilepsy” or “Maria has Down Syndrome” or

“Maria is a person who lives with intellectual disability” represent people-first language. Unless there is a reason

to do so, mentioning an individual’s disability is not even needed. Consider how you might describe someone who

does not have a disability: for example, “Rani has a very dry sense of humour” or “Ampreet has such a warm and

caring manner” or “Sarah has a mischievous streak.”

This agreement that people-first language should frame conversations about intellectual disability extends to

agreement that possessive language should be avoided when talking about conditions that are associated with

intellectual or other disabilities. This means, for example, that the apostrophe and letter s should be removed when

referring to Down’s syndrome. Down syndrome is, therefore, the terminology of choice (although some self-advo-

14 • SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES & MENTAL ILLNESS

cates prefer to say that they have Up syndrome). This avoids the paternalism in naming conditions, disorders, and

diseases for the persons who first identified them.

What Is Intellectual Disability?What Is Intellectual Disability?

Intellectual disability affects general learning, so an individual with an intellectual disability can be expected to

take longer to learn and to encounter a lower learning ceiling. How low the learning ceiling is depends on the

severity of disability, exposure to learning opportunities, and availability of supports. While intellectual disability

places limits on an individual’s ability to understand and use new or complex information, the disability is not

presented in isolation from the surrounding environment. Disability and individual functioning then, is “always

an interaction between features of the person and features of the overall context in which the person lives” (World

Health Organization, 2002). Equally important is that each person’s features include strengths as well as limi-

tations and that these strengths can contribute to effective functioning within environments. This has important

implications for the person-centred planning process.

From a diagnostic point of view, the AAIDD states, “Intellectual disability is characterized by significant limita-

tions both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behaviour as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical

skills. This disability originates before age 18” (Schalock et al., 2010, p.1). Intellectual functioning is determined

by IQ testing, with an IQ below 70 to 75 establishing eligibility for a diagnosis of intellectual disability. The five-

point IQ range is recognition that IQs are not perfect measures, and that a score of 70 on a single IQ test actually

means that the true score is likely plus or minus 5 IQ points, somewhere between 64 and 76. Adaptive behaviour

refers to behaviours or skills that individuals acquire as they grow and develop. These lead to increasing levels of

independence and social responsibility within the individual’s culture and community. These behaviours or skills

are referenced to norms and take into account the expectations of particular societies for individuals at different

ages. In the context of intellectual disability, the presence or absence of limitations in adaptive behaviour is deter-

mined by outcomes achieved on adaptive behaviour assessments. Conceptual, social, and practical skills are cat-

egories of adaptive behaviour. They include skills in language, reasoning, writing, social judgment, interpersonal

communication, personal and domestic care, money management, and job responsibilities (American Psychiatric

Association, 2013).

In essence, adaptive behaviour is the outward expression of intellectual functioning. As a consequence, diagnosis

of intellectual disability depends on measurable limitations in adaptive behaviour as much as it depends on limita-

tions in IQ outcomes (see Table 2.1). This suggests that there is no reason to apply a label of intellectual disability

to someone if that person is able to function satisfactorily within his or her environment, regardless of IQ score.

Table 2.1 Diagnosis of intellectual disabilityTable 2.1 Diagnosis of intellectual disability

IQ Above 70–75 IQ Below 70–75

No significant adaptive behaviour limita-
tions

NO intellectual disabil-
ity NO intellectual disability

Significant adaptive behaviour limita-
tions

NO intellectual disabil-
ity

YES intellectual disability *Plus: occurs before
age 18

WHAT’S IN A NAME? • 15

ClassificationClassification

Like people everywhere, people with intellectual disability are not all the same. The range includes individuals

with “few, if any, self-preservation skills who require round-the-clock supports, to individuals who differ very lit-

tle from the general population” (Walsh, 2002, p. 73). Classification systems are in part recognition that the name

or label intellectual disability is an inadequate description of how the disability is expressed by each individual.

This is reflected in classification categories that differentiate either levels of intellectual disability or intensities of

support needs.

Levels of intellectual disability are specified by two of the three major diagnosis and classification systems, the

DSM-5 and the ICD-10 (soon to be ICD-11). When an individual is diagnosed with intellectual disability, he

or she is assigned a level of mild, moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability. In contrast, the AAIDD

chooses to assess for support needs across a variety of everyday domains or areas of functioning. Instead of focus-

ing on limitations or individual deficits that are invariably associated with levels of intellectual disability (“He

can’t do that. … he’s severely retarded!”), this shift in thinking takes as its starting point “considerations of what

it will take to enable people to function successfully in typical environments” (Wehmeyer, 2013, p. 124).

Intensities of support needs are classified as intermittent, limited, extensive, and pervasive. For any individual,

these may vary from domain to domain and from time to time, depending on events and circumstances. Intensities

of support needs are described as follows:

• Intermittent. Support is periodic and of short duration. An example is support during lifespan transitions

such as job loss, family member loss, or an acute medical crisis. During the time that it is given, this support

may be of high or low intensity.

• Limited. Support is more consistent but not intense. An example of this support is time-limited employment

training.

• Extensive. Regular support (e.g., daily) is provided in some environments. For example, long-term support

may be required in the home or work environments.

• Pervasive. Intense and constant supports are provided in all environments. These supports have life-sustain-

ing potential, and typically involve more staff members and intrusiveness than extensive or limited sup-

ports. Keep in mind, however, that intermittent supports may be high intensity during the time that they are

provided (Luckasson et al., 2002).

The Impact of Names Beyond the Hurt Feelings: Implications for Service and SupportThe Impact of Names Beyond the Hurt Feelings: Implications for Service and Support

As has been stressed throughout this chapter, the names or labels that we use to talk about people with disabilities

reveal something important about the way society views them. As a result, the names or labels (and the percep-

tions that underlie them) have an impact on how we interact with persons with disability. For example, when

adults with intellectual disabilities are viewed as “eternal children” and referred to as “kids,” as was the case

within many large, traditional institutional settings, their possibilities become limited by the expectations that we

commonly hold for children. In practice, this has meant that adults with intellectual disabilities have been talked

to in a childlike manner and have been required to participate in child-oriented activities. This means that they are

16 • SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES & MENTAL ILLNESS

not provided with opportunities to develop and prosper beyond the confines of the restrictive points of views of

others. By implication, people with intellectual disabilities will never achieve the status of a valued adult.

From the point of view of service and support systems, negative impressions and expectations associated with

disability-related names or labels sometimes mean that labelled individuals do not received services that would

be given to non-labelled individuals. For example, an impatient mental health professional may dismiss concerns

of a support provider about a person with intellectual disabilities and a suspected mental health disturbance, with

a comment such as “What do you expect? She’s mentally retarded!” Reiss and colleagues (1982) refer to this

practice as “diagnostic overshadowing”: the tendency to diminish the importance of unexpected or symptomatic

behaviour as merely representative of intellectual disability. This form of stereotyping and prejudice is demean-

ing. In part, it has contributed to the comparatively poorer health and shorter lifespan experienced by people with

intellectual disabilities. It is important, therefore, for service and support providers to confront their own miscon-

ceptions and prejudices, should they exist. Other people’s misconceptions and prejudices might then be corrected

for the well-being of people with intel

lectual disabilities.

When service and support providers understand the impact of names and language and the attitudes that support

them, they are better equipped to understand appropriate names and language to use, as well as language to avoid.

The Impact of Names Beyond the Hurt Feelings: Implications for Service andThe Impact of Names Beyond the Hurt Feelings: Implications for Service and
SupportSupport

… Language to AVOID… Language to AVOID

Key Points for Caregivers

1. Avoid describing people with intellectual disabilities as all the same. For example, avoid using the
word the, as in the intellectually disabled, when talking about individuals with intellectual disabili-
ties. This form of description treats people with disabilities as objects and interferes with recognizing
each person’s uniqueness.

2. Avoid referring to individuals as particularly remarkable or interesting because they are people
with intellectual disabilities. Language that sets individuals or groups apart as somehow special or
unusual because of their disability actually reduces their value as human beings. This includes prais-
ing someone as “brave” or “courageous,” simply because that person has an impairment.

3. Avoid using language that expresses pity for a person with disability or for their family. For exam-
ple, avoid comments such as “It’s just so unfair (or “What a shame” or “What a pity” or “How
awful”) that your son has to live with such a disability.”

4. Avoid polite terms or language that is vague and confusing. Though some terms sound sensitive,
such as differently abled or developmentally challenged, those terms only indicate that a disability
exists. They do not actually identify the disability.

5. Avoid using language that labels a person with an intellectual disability as someone who suffers

WHAT’S IN A NAME? • 17

from, is a victim of, or is afflicted with the disability. These descriptions give negative suggestions
about the person with the disability.

6. Avoid using language that describes people with intellectual disabilities as having lower status.
For example, by describing people without disabilities as “normal,” individuals with disabilities are
suggested to be “abnormal.” This can suggest that people with disability are not good enough to
belong to the preferred group, normal.

The Impact of Names Beyond the Hurt Feelings: Implications for Service andThe Impact of Names Beyond the Hurt Feelings: Implications for Service and
SupportSupport

… Language To USE… Language To USE

Key Points for Caregivers

1. Use language that is respectful, caring, and kind, and that communicates that the person is valued.

2. Use language that is appropriate to age and culture. For example, when meeting an older adult, a
common custom may be to use a greeting such as “I am pleased to meet you Mr. Dodge. May I call
you Henry?” rather than presuming that Mr. Dodge can be called Henry simply because he has intel-
lectual disability.

3. Use language that is preferred by the person living with the disability. For example, members of
the People First self-advocacy organization in Great Britain prefer to say that they experience learn-
ing difficulties instead of saying that they have intellectual disability, or a learning disability.

4. Use the person’s name and discuss issues in the same way that you would discuss issues when
talking with or talking about someone who does not live with intellectual disability.

5. Treat each person as a person first, and with the understanding that using diagnostic labels is
required only rarely and only in highly specific situations.

ConclusionConclusion

In this chapter we have discussed the evolution of language used to talk about people with intellectual disabilities.

The value of naming has been described, as have been the negative consequences associated with names that

were historically applied to people with intellectual disabilities. Guidelines for choosing an appropriate name

have been listed, with the term intellectual disability identified as the name or label that has widespread national

and international use and appears to meet standards for selection. The importance of using people-first language

to frame discussion has been emphasized, stressing that the labels and diagnoses assigned to individuals do not

define individuals.

18 • SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES & MENTAL ILLNESS

This chapter has included a definition of intellectual disability, along with a description of the criteria used to diag-

nose intellectual disabilities. The value of classifying disability according to intensities of support needs, rather

than on the basis of level of disability, has been described. Finally, implications for service and support providers

have been discussed from the point of view of the impact that names and language can have on people with intel-

lectual disabilities.

Chapter Audio for PrintChapter Audio for Print

This chapter contains a number of short audio clips. If you are reading this in print, you can

access the audio clips in this chapter by scanning this QR code with your mobile device. Alternatively, you can

visit the book website at opentextbc.ca/caregivers and listen to all the audio clips.

ReferencesReferences

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5 [Fact sheet]: Intellectual Disability. Retrieved from

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Intellectual%20Disability%20Fact%20Sheet

Commonwealth of Australia (2013). Communicating with people with disability: National guidelines for emer-

gency managers: Handbook 5 (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.em.gov.au/Publications/Australianemergen-

cymanualseries/Documents/CommunicatingwithPeoplewithDisabilityNationalGuidelinesforEmergencyMan-

agers.PDF

Community Living Ontario (2014). What is intellectual disability? Retrieved from http://www.communitylivin-

gontario.ca/about-us/what-intellectual-disability

Darrow, A.A. & White, G.W. (1997). Sticks and stones … and words CAN hurt: Eliminating handicapping

language. Retrieved from http://www.rtcil.org/products/RTCIL%20publications/Media/

Sticks%20and%20Stones

Davis, K. (2004). What’s in a name: Our only label should be our name: Avoiding the stereotypes. The Reporter,

9(2), 10–12. Retrieved from http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/index.php?pageId=364

Edgerton, R.B. (1967). The cloak of competence: Stigma in the lives of the mentally retarded. Los Angeles: Uni-

versity of California Press.

Finkelstein, V. (1993). Disability: A social challenge or an administrative responsibility? In J. Swain, V. Finkel-

stein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers—Enabling environments (pp. 26–33). London: Sage.

WHAT’S IN A NAME? • 19

http://opentextbc.ca/caregivers/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2015/02/chapter2audio

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Intellectual%20Disability%20Fact%20Sheet

http://www.em.gov.au/Publications/Australianemergencymanualseries/Documents/CommunicatingwithPeoplewithDisabilityNationalGuidelinesforEmergencyManagers.PDF

http://www.communitylivingontario.ca/about-us/what-intellectual-disability

http://www.rtcil.org/products/RTCIL%20publications/Media/Sticks%20and%20Stones

http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/index.php?pageId=364

Ford, M., Acosta, A., & Sutcliffe, T.J. (2013). Beyond terminology: The policy impact of a grassroots movement.

Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52(2), 108–112. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-51.2.108

Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Buntinx, W.H.E., et al., (2002). Mental Retardation: Definition, classifica-

tion, and systems of supports (10th ed.). Washington,

DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

Lukasson, R. & Reeve, A. (2001). Naming, defining, and classifying in mental retardation. Mental Retardation,

39(1), 47–52. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2001)039<0047:NDACIM>2.0C);2

Manitoba (2014). The vulnerable persons living with mental disability act. Retrieved from

https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/v090e.php

National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities (2014). What are developmental disabilities?

Retrieved from http://www.nacdd.org/about-nacdd/what-are-developmental-disabilities.aspx

Reiss, S, Levitan, G.W., & Szyszko, J. (1982). Emotional disturbance and mental retardation: Diagnostic over-

shadowing. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86(6), 567–574. S 2781—111th Congress. (2009). Rosa’s

Law. Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s2781

Schalock, R.L. (2011). The evolving understanding of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Develop-

mental Disabilities, 36(4), 223–233. doi:10.3109/13668250.2011.624087

Schalock, R.L., Borthwick-Duffy, S.A., Bradley, et al., (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification,

and systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental

Disabilities.

Schalock, R.L. & Luckasson, R. (2013). What’s at stake in the lives of people with intellectual disability? Part

I: The power of naming, defining, diagnosing, classifying, and planning supports. Journal of Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities, 51(2), 86–93. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-51.2.086

Special Olympics Inc. (n.d.). Spread the word to end the word [poster].

Special Olympics Inc. (2014). How “retardation” went from a clinical description to a word of derision. Retrieved

from http://www.r-word.org/r-word-why-pledge.aspx#.UvUr5DlgO5Q

Tassé, M.J. (2013). What’s in a name? Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(2), 113–116.

doi: http://dx.org/10.1352/1934-9566-51.2.113

Walsh, K.K. (2002). Thoughts on changing the term mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 40(1), 70–75.

Warren, S.F. (2000). Mental retardation: Curse, characteristic, or coin of the realm? News & Notes. Washington

DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

Wehymeyer, M.L. (2013). Disability, disorder, and identity. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabili-

ties, 51(2), 122–126. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-51.2.122

World Health Organization (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health. The

20 • SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES & MENTAL ILLNESS

https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/v090e.php

http://www.nacdd.org/about-nacdd/what-are-developmental-disabilities.aspx

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s2781

http://www.r-word.org/r-word-why-pledge.aspx#.UvUr5DlgO5Q

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from

http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide

WHAT’S IN A NAME? • 21

http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide

Chapter 12. Gender, Sex, and Sexuality

Figure 12.1. Some children may learn at an early age that their gender

does not correspond with their sex. (Photo courtesy of trazomfreak/

flickr)

Learning Objectives

12.1. The Difference between Sex and Gender

• Define and differentiate between sex and gender

• Define and discuss what is meant by gender identity

• Understand and discuss the role of homophobia and heterosexism in society

• Distinguish the meanings of transgendered, transsexual, and homosexual identities

12.

2. Gender

• Explain the influence of socialization on gender roles in Canada

• Understand the stratification of gender in major North American institutions

• Describe gender from the view of each sociological perspective

12.3. Sex and Sexuality

• Understand different attitudes associated with sex and sexuality

• Define sexual inequality in various societies

367

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Figure-12-1

• Discuss theoretical perspectives on sex and sexuality

Introduction to Gender, Sex, and Sexuality

When Harry was born, his parents, Steve and Barb, were delighted to add another boy to their family. But as their baby

boy began to grow and develop, they noticed that Harry began to express himself in a manner that they viewed as more

feminine than masculine. He gravitated toward dolls and other toys that our culture typically associates with girls. But

Harry’s preference was not simply about liking pink more than blue or flowers more than fire trucks. He even began

to draw himself as a girl, complete with a dress and high-heeled shoes. In fact, Harry did not just wish to be a girl; he

believed he was a girl.

In kindergarten, Harry often got into arguments with male classmates because he insisted that he was a girl, not a boy.

He even started calling himself “Hailey.” Steve and Barb met with several psychologists, all of whom told them that

Hailey was transgendered. But Steve and Barb had a hard time understanding that their five-year-old son could have

already developed a gender identity that went against society’s expectations. Concerned with the social ramifications

associated with his child being transgendered, Steve hoped this was just a phase. But Barb, and eventually Steve, realized

that Harry’s feelings were genuine and unyielding, and they made the decision to let Harry live as Hailey—a girl. They

came to this decision after concluding that the criticism he would endure from his peers and other members of society

would be less damaging than the confusion he might experience internally if he were forced to live as a boy.

Many transgendered children grow up hating their bodies, and this population can have high rates of drug abuse and

suicide (Weiss 2011). Fearful of these outcomes and eager to make their child happy, Steve and Barb now refer to Harry

as Hailey and allow her to dress and behave in manners that are considered feminine. To a stranger, Hailey is likely to

appear just like any other girl and may even be considered extra girly due to her love of all things pink. But to those who

once knew Hailey as Harry, Hailey is likely to endure more ridicule and rejection as the result of adopting a feminine

gender identity.

Currently, seven-year-old Hailey and her parents are comfortable with her gender status, but Steve and Barb are

concerned about what questions and problems might arise as she gets older. “Who’s going to love my child?” asks Steve

(Ling 2011). This question isn’t asked because Hailey is unlovable, but because North American society has yet to fully

listen to or understand the personal narratives of the transgendered population (Hines and Sanger 2010).

In this chapter, we will discuss the differences between sex and gender, along with issues like gender identity and

sexuality. What does it mean to “have” a gender in our society? What does it mean to “have” a sexuality? We will also

explore various theoretical perspectives on the subjects of gender and sexuality.

12.1. The Difference between Sex and Gender

When filling out a document such as a job application or school registration form you are often asked to provide your

name, address, phone number, birth date, and sex or gender. But have you ever been asked to provide your sex and

your gender? As with most people, it may not have occurred to you that sex and gender are not the same. However,

sociologists and most other social scientists view sex and gender as conceptually distinct. Sex refers to physical or

physiological differences between males and females, including both primary sex characteristics (the reproductive

system) and secondary characteristics such as height and muscularity. Gender is a term that refers to social or cultural

distinctions associated with being male or female. Gender identity is the extent to which one identifies as being either

masculine or feminine (Diamond 2002).

368 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Figure 12.2. While the biological differences between males and females are fairly

straightforward, the social and cultural aspects of being a man or woman can be complicated.

(Photo courtesy of FaceMePLS/flickr)

A person’s sex, as determined by his or her biology, does not always correspond with his or her gender. Therefore, the

terms sex and gender are not interchangeable. A baby boy who is born with male genitalia will be identified as male. As

he grows, however, he may identify with the feminine aspects of his culture. Since the term sex refers to biological or

physical distinctions, characteristics of sex will not vary significantly between different human societies. For example,

all persons of the female sex, in general, regardless of culture, will eventually menstruate and develop breasts that can

lactate. Characteristics of gender, on the other hand, may vary greatly between different societies. For example, in

American culture, it is considered feminine (or a trait of the female gender) to wear a dress or skirt. However, in many

Middle Eastern, Asian, and African cultures, dresses or skirts (often referred to as sarongs, robes, or gowns) can be

considered masculine. The kilt worn by a Scottish male does not make him appear feminine in his culture.

The dichotomous view of gender (the notion that one is either male or female) is specific to certain cultures and is not

universal. In some cultures, gender is viewed as fluid. In the past, some anthropologists used the term berdache to refer

to individuals who occasionally or permanently dressed and lived as the opposite gender. The practice has been noted

among certain Aboriginal groups ( Jacobs, Thomas, and Lang 1997). Samoan culture accepts what they refer to as a

“third gender.” Fa’afafine, which translates as “the way of the woman,” is a term used to describe individuals who are

born biologically male but embody both masculine and feminine traits. Fa’afafines are considered an important part of

Samoan culture. Individuals from other cultures may mislabel them as homosexuals because fa’afafines have a varied

sexual life that may include men or women (Poasa 1992).

Sexual Orientation

Sexual orientation refers to a person’s emotional and sexual attraction to a particular sex (male or female). Sexual

orientation is typically divided into four categories: heterosexuality, the attraction to individuals of the opposite sex;

homosexuality, the attraction to individuals of one’s own sex; bisexuality, the attraction to individuals of either sex; and

asexuality, no attraction to either sex. Heterosexuals and homosexuals may also be referred to informally as “straight”

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 369

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Figure-12-2

Figure 12.3. George Catlin (1796-1872), Dance to the Berdache. Caitlin’s sketch depicts a

ceremonial dance among the Sac and Fox Indians to celebrate the two-spirit person. (Photo

couresy of Wikimedia Commons).

and “gay,” respectively. North America is a heteronormative society, meaning it supports heterosexuality as the norm.

Consider that homosexuals are often asked, “When did you know you were gay?” but heterosexuals are rarely asked,

“When did you know that you were straight?” (Ryle 2011).

According to current scientific understanding, individuals are usually aware of their sexual orientation between middle

childhood and early adolescence (American Psychological Association 2008). They do not have to participate in sexual

activity to be aware of these emotional, romantic, and physical attractions; people can be celibate and still recognize

their sexual orientation. Homosexual women (also referred to as lesbians), homosexual men (also referred to as gays),

and bisexuals of both genders may have very different experiences of discovering and accepting their sexual orientation.

At the point of puberty, some may be able to claim their sexual orientations while others may be unready or unwilling

to make their homosexuality or bisexuality known since it goes against North American society’s historical norms (APA

2008).

Alfred Kinsey was among the first to conceptualize sexuality as a continuum rather than a strict dichotomy of gay or

straight. To classify this continuum of heterosexuality and homosexuality, Kinsey created a six-point rating scale that

ranges from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual (see Figure 12.4). In his 1948 work Sexual Behavior in

the Human Male, Kinsey writes, “Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The

world is not to be divided into sheep and goats … The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects”

(Kinsey et al 1948).

Later scholarship by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick expanded on Kinsey’s notions. She coined the term “homosocial” to oppose

“homosexual,” describing nonsexual same-sex relations. Sedgwick recognized that in North American culture, males

are subject to a clear divide between the two sides of this continuum, whereas females enjoy more fluidity. This can be

illustrated by the way women in Canada can express homosocial feelings (nonsexual regard for people of the same sex)

through hugging, handholding, and physical closeness. In contrast, Canadian males refrain from these expressions since

they violate the heteronormative expectation. While women experience a flexible norming of variations of behaviour

that spans the heterosocial-homosocial spectrum, male behaviour is subject to strong social sanction if it veers into

homosocial territory because of societal homophobia (Sedgwick 1985).

370 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2013/12/Catlin_-_Dance_to_the_berdache-e1413823165620

Making Connections: Social Policy & Debate

The Legalese of Sex and Gender

The terms sex and gender< have not always been differentiated in the English language. It was not until the 1950s

that American and British psychologists and other professionals working with intersex and transsexual patients

formally began distinguishing between sex and gender. Since then, psychological and physiological professionals

have increasingly used the term gender (Moi 2005). By the end of the 2oth century, expanding the proper usage of

the term gender to everyday language became more challenging—particularly where legal language is concerned. In

an effort to clarify usage of the terms sex and gender, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 1994

briefing, “The word gender has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as

opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female

and masculine is to male” (J.E.B. v. Alabama, 144 S. Ct. 1436 [1994]). Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

had a different take, however. Viewing the words as synonymous, she freely swapped them in her briefings so as to

avoid having the word “sex” pop up too often. It is thought that her secretary supported this practice by suggestions

to Ginsberg that “those nine men” (the other Supreme Court justices), “hear that word and their first association is

not the way you want them to be thinking” (Case 1995).

In Canada, there has not been the same formal deliberations on the legal meanings of sex and gender. The

distinction between sex as a physiological attribute and gender as social attribute has been used without

controversy. However, things can get a little tricky when biological “sex” is regarded as simply a natural fact,

especially in the case of transsexuals (Cowan 2005). For example, in British Columbia, people who have surgery to

change their anatomical sex can apply through the provisions of the Vital Statistics Act to have their birth certificate

changed to reflect their post-operative sex. If a person was born male, does this mean that after surgery that person

is fully regarded as a female in the eyes of the law though? In the 2002 case of Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society,

a male to female transsexual, Kimberly Nixon brought an application to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that she

had been discriminated against by the Vancouver Rape Relief Society (VRR) when her application to volunteer

as a helper was rejected. The controversy was not over whether Kimberly was a woman, but whether she was

woman enough for the position. VRR argued that as Kimberly had not grown up as a woman, she did not have the

requisite lived experience as a woman in patriarchal society to counsel women rape victims. The B.C. Human Rights

Tribunal ruled against VRR, finding that they had discriminated against Kimberly as a transsexual. The ruling was

overturned by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which argued that the Act ‘‘did not address all the potential

legal consequences of sex reassignment surgery’’ (Cowan 2005, p. 87). The court acknowledged that the meaning of

both sex and gender vary in different contexts. The case is currently under appeal.

These legal issues reveal that even human experience that is assumed to be biological and personal (such as our self-

perception and behaviour) is actually a socially defined variable by culture. The question of “what makes a woman”

in the case of Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society is a matter of legal decision making as much as it is a matter of

biology or lived

experience.

There is no scientific consensus regarding the exact reasons why an individual holds a heterosexual, homosexual, or

bisexual orientation. There has been research conducted to study the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social,

and cultural influences on sexual orientation, but there has been no evidence that links sexual orientation to one factor

(APA 2008). Research, however, does present evidence showing that homosexuals and bisexuals are treated differently

than heterosexuals in schools, the workplace, and the military. The 2009 Canadian Climate Survey reported that 59

percent of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered) high school students had been subject to verbal harassment at

school compared to 7 percent of non-LGBT students, 25 percent had been subject to physical harassment compared to 8

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 371

Figure 12.4. The Kinsey scale indicates that sexuality can be measured by more than just

heterosexuality and homosexuality.

percent of non-LGBT students, 31 percent had been subject to cyber-bullying (via internet or text messaging) compared

to 8 percent of non-LGBT students, 73 percent felt unsafe at school compared to 20 percent of non-LGBT students, and

51 percent felt unaccepted at school compared to 19 percent of non-LGBT students (Taylor and Peter 2011).

Much of this discrimination is based on stereotypes, misinformation, and homophobia, an extreme or irrational

aversion to homosexuals. Major policies to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation have not come into

effect until the last few years. In 2005 the federal government legalized same-sex marriage. The Civil Marriage Act now

describes marriage in Canada in gender neutral terms: “Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons

to the exclusion of all others” (Civil Marriage Act (S.C. 2005, c. 33)). The Canadian Human Rights Act was amended

in 1996 to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, including the unequal treatment of gay men,

lesbians, and bisexuals. Organizations such as Egale Canada (Equality for Gays And Lesbians Everywhere) advocate for

LGBT rights, establish gay pride organizations in Canadian communities, and promote gay-straight alliance support

groups in schools. Advocacy agencies frequently use the acronym LGBTQ, which stands for “lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgendered,” and “queer” or “questioning.”

Gender Roles

As we grow, we learn how to behave from those around us. In this socialization process, children are introduced to

certain roles that are typically linked to their biological sex. The term gender role refers to society’s concept of how

men and women are expected to act and how they should behave. These roles are based on norms, or standards, created

by society. In Canadian culture, masculine roles are usually associated with strength, aggression, and dominance, while

feminine roles are usually associated with passivity, nurturing, and subordination. Role learning starts with socialization

at birth. Even today, our society is quick to outfit male infants in blue and girls in pink, even applying these colour-coded

gender labels while a baby is in the womb.

One way children learn gender roles is through play. Parents typically supply boys with trucks, toy guns, and superhero

paraphernalia, which are active toys that promote motor skills, aggression, and solitary play. Girls are often given dolls

and dress-up apparel that foster nurturing, social proximity, and role play. Studies have shown that children will most

372 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Figure-12-4

likely choose to play with “gender appropriate” toys (or same-gender toys) even when cross-gender toys are available

because parents give children positive feedback (in the form of praise, involvement, and physical closeness) for gender-

normative behaviour (Caldera, Huston, and O’Brien 1998).

Figure 12.5. Fathers tend to be more involved when their sons engage

in gender appropriate activities such as sports. (Photo courtesy of

stephanski/flickr)

The drive to adhere to masculine and feminine gender roles continues later in life. Men tend to outnumber women

in professions such as law enforcement, the military, and politics. Women tend to outnumber men in care-related

occupations such as child care, health care, and social work. These occupational roles are examples of typical Canadian

male and female behaviour, derived from our culture’s traditions. Adherence to them demonstrates fulfillment of social

expectations but not necessarily personal preference (Diamond 2002).

Gender Identity

Canadian society allows for some level of flexibility when it comes to acting out gender roles. To a certain extent, men

can assume some feminine roles and women can assume some masculine roles without interfering with their gender

identity. Gender identity is an individual’s self-conception of being male or female based on his or her association with

masculine or feminine gender

roles.

Individuals who identify with the role that is the opposite of their biological sex are called

transgendered.

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 373

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Figure-12-5

Transgendered males, for example, have such a strong emotional and psychological connection to the feminine aspects

of society that they identify their gender as female. The parallel connection to masculinity exists for transgendered

females. It is difficult to determine the prevalence of transgenderism in society. Statistics Canada states that they have

neither the definitive number of people whose sexual orientation is lesbian, gay, or bisexual, nor the number of people

who are transgendered (Statistics Canada 2011). However, it is estimated that 2 to 5 percent of the U.S. population is

transgendered (Transgender Law and Policy Institute 2007).

Transgendered individuals who wish to alter their bodies through medical interventions such as surgery and hormonal

therapy—so that their physical being is better aligned with gender identity—are called transsexuals. They may also

be known as male-to-female (MTF) or female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals. Not all transgendered individuals choose

to alter their bodies: many will maintain their original anatomy but may present themselves to society as the opposite

gender. This is typically done by adopting the dress, hairstyle, mannerisms, or other characteristic typically assigned to

the opposite gender. It is important to note that people who cross-dress, or wear clothing that is traditionally assigned to

opposite gender, are not necessarily transgendered. Cross-dressing is typically a form of self-expression, entertainment,

or personal style, not necessarily an expression against one’s assigned gender (APA 2008).

There is no single, conclusive explanation for why people are transgendered. Transgendered expressions and

experiences are so diverse that it is difficult to identify their origin. Some hypotheses suggest biological factors such as

genetics or prenatal hormone levels as well as social and cultural factors such as childhood and adulthood experiences.

Most experts believe that all of these factors contribute to a person’s gender identity (APA 2008).

It is known, however, that transgendered and transsexual individuals experience discrimination based on their gender

identity. People who identify as transgendered are twice as likely to experience assault or discrimination as non-

transgendered individuals; they are also one and a half times more likely to experience intimidation (National Coalition

of Anti-Violence Programs 2010). Organizations such as the Canadian Professional Association for Transgender Health

(CPATH), Trans Pulse, and National Center for Trans Equality work to support and prevent, respond to, and end all

types of violence against transgendered, transsexual, and homosexual individuals. These organizations hope that by

educating the public about gender identity and empowering transgendered and transsexual individuals, this violence

will end.

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

Real-Life Freaky Friday

What if you had to live as the opposite sex? If you are a man, imagine that you were forced to wear frilly dresses,

dainty shoes, and makeup to special occasions, and you were expected to enjoy romantic comedies and glamour

reality shows. If you are a woman, imagine that you were forced to wear shapeless clothing, put only minimal effort

into your personal appearance, not show emotion, and watch countless hours of sporting events and sports-related

commentary. It would be pretty uncomfortable, right? Well, maybe not. Many people enjoy participating in activities

that are typically associated with the opposite sex and would not mind if some of the cultural expectations for men

and women were loosened.

Now, imagine that when you look at your body in the mirror, you feel disconnected. You feel your genitals are

shameful and dirty, and you feel as though you are trapped in someone else’s body with no chance of escape.

As you get older, you hate the way your body is changing, and, therefore, you hate yourself. These elements

of disconnect and shame are important to understand when discussing transgendered individuals. Fortunately,

sociological studies pave the way for a deeper and more empirically grounded understanding of transgendered

experience.

374 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Figure 12.6. Chaz Bono is the transgendered son of Cher and Sonny

Bono. Being transgendered is not about clothing or hairstyles; it is about

self-perception. (Photo courtesy of Greg Hernandez/flickr)

12.2. Gender

Gender and

Socialization

The phrase “boys will be boys” is often used to justify behaviour such as pushing, shoving, or other forms of aggression

from young boys. The phrase implies that such behaviour is unchangeable and something that is part of a boy’s nature.

Aggressive behaviour, when it does not inflict significant harm, is often accepted from boys and men because it is

congruent with the cultural script for masculinity. The “script” written by society is in some ways similar to a script

written by a playwright. Just as a playwright expects actors to adhere to a prescribed script, society expects women and

men to behave according to the expectations of their respective gender role. Scripts are generally learned through a

process known as socialization, which teaches people to behave according to social norms.

Socialization

Children learn at a young age that there are distinct expectations for boys and girls. Cross-cultural studies reveal that

children are aware of gender roles by age two or three. At four or five, most children are firmly entrenched in culturally

appropriate gender roles (Kane 1996). Children acquire these roles through socialization, a process in which people

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 375

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Figure-12-6

Figure 12.7. Traditional images of North American gender roles

reinforce the idea that women should be subordinate to men. (Photo

courtesy of Sport Suburban/Flickr)

learn to behave in a particular way as dictated by societal values, beliefs, and attitudes. For example, society often views

riding a motorcycle as a masculine activity and, therefore, considers it to be part of the male gender role. Attitudes

such as this are typically based on stereotypes, oversimplified notions about members of a group. Gender stereotyping

involves overgeneralizing about the attitudes, traits, or behaviour patterns of women or men. For example, women may

be thought of as too timid or weak to ride a motorcycle.

Gender stereotypes form the basis of sexism. Sexism refers to prejudiced beliefs that value one sex over another. Sexism

varies in its level of severity. In parts of the world where women are strongly undervalued, young girls may not be

given the same access to nutrition, health care, and education as boys. Further, they will grow up believing that they

deserve to be treated differently from boys (Thorne 1993; UNICEF 2007). While illegal in Canada when practised as

discrimination, unequal treatment of women continues to pervade social life. It should be noted that discrimination

based on sex occurs at both the micro- and macro-levels. Many sociologists focus on discrimination that is built into the

social structure; this type of discrimination is known as institutional discrimination (Pincus 2008).

Gender socialization occurs through four major agents of socialization: family, education, peer groups, and mass media.

Each agent reinforces gender roles by creating and maintaining normative expectations for gender-specific behaviour.

Exposure also occurs through secondary agents such as religion and the workplace. Repeated exposure to these agents

over time leads men and women into a false sense that they are acting naturally rather than following a socially

constructed role.

Family is the first agent of socialization. There is considerable evidence that parents socialize sons and daughters

differently. Generally speaking, girls are given more latitude to step outside of their prescribed gender role (Coltrane

376 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Figure-12-7

Figure 12.8. Although our society may have a stereotype that associates

motorcycles with men, female bikers demonstrate that a woman’s place

extends far beyond the kitchen in modern Canada. (Photo courtesy of

Robert Couse-Baker/Flickr)

and Adams 2004; Kimmel 2000; Raffaelli and Ontai 2004). However, differential socialization typically results in greater

privileges afforded to boys. For instance, sons are allowed more autonomy and independence at an earlier age than

daughters. They may be given fewer restrictions on appropriate clothing, dating habits, or curfew. Sons are also often

free from performing domestic duties such as cleaning or cooking and other household tasks that are considered

feminine. Daughters are limited by their expectation to be passive, nurturing, and generally obedient, and to assume

many of the domestic responsibilities.

Even when parents set gender equality as a goal, there may be underlying indications of inequality. For example, when

dividing up household chores, boys may be asked to take out the garbage or perform other tasks that require strength or

toughness, while girls may be asked to fold laundry or perform duties that require neatness and care. It has been found

that fathers are firmer in their expectations for gender conformity than are mothers, and their expectations are stronger

for sons than they are for daughters (Kimmel 2000). This is true in many types of activities, including preference of

toys, play styles, discipline, chores, and personal achievements. As a result, boys tend to be particularly attuned to their

father’s disapproval when engaging in an activity that might be considered feminine, like dancing or singing (Coltrane

and Adams 2008). It should be noted that parental socialization and normative expectations vary along lines of social

class, race, and ethnicity. Research in the United States has shown that African American families, for instance, are more

likely than Caucasians to model an egalitarian role structure for their children (Staples and Boulin Johnson

2004).

The reinforcement of gender roles and stereotypes continues once a child reaches school age. Until very recently,

schools were rather explicit in their efforts to stratify boys and girls. The first step toward stratification was segregation.

Girls were encouraged to take home economics or humanities courses and boys to take shop, math, and science courses.

Studies suggest that gender socialization still occurs in schools today, perhaps in less obvious forms (Lips 2004).

Teachers may not even realize that they are acting in ways that reproduce gender-differentiated behaviour patterns. Yet,

any time they ask students to arrange their seats or line up according to gender, teachers are asserting that boys and girls

should be treated differently (Thorne 1993).

Even in levels as low as kindergarten, schools subtly convey messages to girls indicating that they are less intelligent

or less important than boys. For example, in a study involving teacher responses to male and female students, data

indicated that teachers praised male students far more than their female counterparts. Additionally, teachers interrupted

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 377

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Figure-12-8

girls more and gave boys more opportunities to expand on their ideas (Sadker and Sadker 1994). Further, in social as

well as academic situations, teachers have traditionally positioned boys and girls oppositionally—reinforcing a sense of

competition rather than collaboration (Thorne 1993). Boys are also permitted a greater degree of freedom regarding

rule-breaking or minor acts of deviance, whereas girls are expected to follow rules carefully and to adopt an obedient

posture (Ready 2001). Schools reinforce the polarization of gender roles and the age-old “battle of the sexes” by

positioning girls and boys in competitive arrangements.

Mimicking the actions of significant others is the first step in the development of a separate sense of self (Mead 1934).

Like adults, children become agents who actively facilitate and apply normative gender expectations to those around

them. When children do not conform to the appropriate gender role, they may face negative sanctions such as being

criticized or marginalized by their peers. Though many of these sanctions are informal, they can be quite severe. For

example, a girl who wishes to take karate class instead of dance lessons may be called a “tomboy” and face difficulty

gaining acceptance from both male and female peer groups (Ready 2001). Boys, especially, are subject to intense ridicule

for gender nonconformity (Coltrane and Adams 2008; Kimmel 2000).

Mass media serves as another significant agent of gender socialization. In television and movies, women tend to have

less significant roles and are often portrayed as wives or mothers. When women are given a lead role, they are often

one of two extremes: a wholesome, saint-like figure or a malevolent, hypersexual figure (Etaugh and Bridges 2003). This

same inequality is pervasive in children’s movies (Smith 2008). Research indicates that of the 101 top-grossing G-rated

movies released between 1990 and 2005, three out of four characters were male. Out of those 101 movies, only seven

were near being gender balanced, with a character ratio of less than 1.5 males per 1 female (Smith 2008).

Television commercials and other forms of advertising also reinforce inequality and gender-based stereotypes. Women

are almost exclusively present in ads promoting cooking, cleaning, or child care–related products (Davis 1993). Think

about the last time you saw a man star in a dishwasher or laundry detergent commercial. In general, women are

underrepresented in roles that involve leadership, intelligence, or a balanced psyche. Of particular concern is the

depiction of women in ways that are dehumanizing, especially in music videos. Even in mainstream advertising,

however, themes intermingling violence and sexuality are quite common (Kilbourne 2000).

Social Stratification and Inequality

Stratification refers to a system in which groups of people experience unequal access to basic, yet highly valuable, social

resources. Canada is characterized by gender stratification (as well as stratification of race, income, occupation, and the

like). Evidence of gender stratification is especially keen within the economic realm. Despite women making up nearly

half (48 percent) of payroll employment, men vastly outnumber them in authoritative, powerful, and, therefore, high-

earning jobs (Statistics Canada 2011). Women’s income for full-year, full-time workers has remained at 72 percent of

the income of men since 1992. The average hourly wage is better: Women earned 83 percent of men’s average hourly

wage in 2008, up from 76 percent in 1988 (Statistics Canada 2011). However, as one report noted, if the gender gap in

wages continues to close at the same glacial rate, women will not earn the same as men until the year 2240 (McInturff

2013). Additionally, women who are in the paid labour force still do the majority of the unpaid work at home. In 2010

women spent an average 50 hours a week looking after children compared to 24.4 hours a week for men, 13.8 hours a

week doing household work compared to 8.3 hours for men, and 49 percent of women spent more than 10 hours a week

caring for a senior compared to 25 percent for men (Statistics Canada 2011). This double duty keeps working women in

a subordinate role in the family structure (Hochschild and Machung 1989).

Gender stratification through the division of labour is not exclusively North American. According to George Murdock’s

classic work, Outline of World Cultures (1954), all societies classify work by gender. When a pattern appears in all

societies, it is called a cultural universal. While the phenomenon of assigning work by gender is universal, its specifics

are not. The same task is not assigned to either men or women worldwide. But the way each task’s associated gender is

378 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

valued is notable. In Murdock’s examination of the division of labour among 324 societies around the world, he found

that in nearly all cases the jobs assigned to men were given greater prestige (Murdock and White 1969). Even if the job

types were very similar and the differences slight, men’s work was still considered more vital.

There is a long history of gender stratification in Canada. When looking to the past, it would appear that society has

made great strides in terms of abolishing some of the most blatant forms of gender inequality (see timeline below) but

underlying effects of male dominance still permeate many aspects of society.

• Before 1859—Married women were not allowed to own or control property

• Before 1909—Abducting a woman who was not an heiress was not a crime

• Before 1918—Women were not permitted to vote

• Before 1953—Employers could legally pay a woman less than a man for the same work

• Before 1969—Women did not have the right to a safe and legal abortion (Nellie McClung Foundation N.d.)

Figure 12.9. In some cultures, women do all of the household chores with no help from men,

as doing housework is a sign of weakness, considered by society as a feminine trait. (Photo

courtesy of Evil Erin/Flickr)

Theoretical Perspectives on Gender

Sociological theories serve to guide the research process and offer a means for interpreting research data and explaining

social phenomena. For example, a sociologist interested in gender stratification in education may study why middle-

school girls are more likely than their male counterparts to fall behind grade-level expectations in math and science.

Another scholar might investigate why women are underrepresented in political office, while another might examine

how women members of Parliament are treated by their male counterparts in meetings.

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism provided one of the most important perspectives of sociological research in the 20th century

and has been a major influence on research in the social sciences, including gender studies. Viewing the family as the

most integral component of society, assumptions about gender roles within marriage assume a prominent place in this

perspective.

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 379

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Figure-12-9

Functionalists argue that gender roles were established well before the preindustrial era when men typically took care

of responsibilities outside of the home, such as hunting, and women typically took care of the domestic responsibilities

in or around the home. These roles were considered functional because women were often limited by the physical

restraints of pregnancy and nursing and unable to leave the home for long periods of time. Once established, these

roles were passed on to subsequent generations since they served as an effective means of keeping the family system

functioning properly.

When changes occurred in the social and economic climate of Canada during World War II, changes in the family

structure also occurred. Many women had to assume the role of breadwinner (or modern hunter and gatherer) alongside

their domestic role in order to stabilize a rapidly changing society. When the men returned from war and wanted to

reclaim their jobs, society fell into a state of imbalance, as many women did not want to forfeit their wage-earning

positions (Hawke 2007).

Talcott Parsons (1943) argued that the contradiction between occupational roles and kinship roles of men and women in

North America created tension or strain on individuals as they tried to adapt to the conflicting norms or requirements.

The division of traditional middle-class gender roles within the family—the husband as breadwinner and wife as

homemaker—was functional for him because the roles were complementary. They enabled a clear division of labour

between spouses, which ensured that the ongoing functional needs of the family were being met. Within the North

American kinship system, wives and husbands roles were equally valued according to Parsons. However, within the

occupational system, only the husband’s role as breadwinner was valued. There was an “asymmetrical relation of the

marriage pair to the occupational structure” (p. 191). Being barred from the occupational system meant that women

had to find a functional equivalent to their husbands’ occupational status to demonstrate their “fundamental equality”

to their husbands. As a result, Parson theorized that these tensions would lead women to become expressive specialists

in order to claim prestige (e.g., showing “good taste” in appearance, household furnishings, literature, and music),

while men would remain instrumental or technical specialists and become culturally narrow. He also proposed that

the instability of women’s roles in this system would lead to excesses like neurosis, compulsive domesticity, garishness

in taste, disproportionate attachment to community or club activities, and the “glamour girl” pattern: “the use of

specifically feminine devices as an instrument of compulsive search for power and exclusive attention” (p. 194).

Critical Sociology

According to critical sociology, society is structured by relations of power and domination among social groups (e.g.,

women versus men) that determine access to scarce resources. When sociologists examine gender from this perspective,

we can view men as the dominant group and women as the subordinate group. According to critical sociology, social

problems and contradictions are created when dominant groups exploit or oppress subordinate groups. Consider the

women’s suffrage movement or the debate over women’s “right to choose” their reproductive futures. It is difficult

for women to rise above men, as dominant group members create the rules for success and opportunity in society

(Farrington and Chertok 1993).

Friedrich Engels, a German sociologist, studied family structure and gender roles. Engels suggested that the same

owner-worker relationship seen in the labour force is also seen in the household, with women assuming the role of

the proletariat. Women are therefore doubly exploited in capitalist society, both when they work outside the home and

when they work within the home. This is due to women’s dependence on men for the attainment of wages, which is

even worse for women who are entirely dependent upon their spouses for economic support. Contemporary critical

sociologists suggest that when women become wage earners, they can gain power in the family structure and create

more democratic arrangements in the home, although they may still carry the majority of the domestic burden, as noted

earlier (Risman and Johnson-Sumerford 1998).

380 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory is a type of critical sociology that examines inequalities in gender-related issues. It uses the critical

approach to examine the maintenance of gender roles and inequalities. Radical feminism, in particular, considers the

role of the family in perpetuating male dominance. In patriarchal societies, men’s contributions are seen as more

valuable than those of women. Additionally, women often perceive a disconnect between their personal experiences and

the way the world is represented by society as a whole. Dr. Dorothy Smith referred to this phenomenon as bifurcated

consciousness (Smith 1987). There is a division between the directly lived, bodily experience of women’s worlds

(e.g., their responsibilities for looking after children, aging parents, and household tasks) and the dominant, abstract,

institutional world to which they must adapt. There are two modes of knowing, experiencing, and acting that are

directly at odds with one another (Smith 2008). Patriarchal perspectives and arrangements, widespread and taken for

granted, are built into the relations of ruling. As a result, not only do women find it difficult to find their experiences

acknowledged in the wider patriarchal culture, their viewpoints also tend to be silenced or marginalized to the point of

being discredited or considered invalid.

Sanday’s study of the Indonesian Minangkabau (2004) revealed that in societies that some consider to be matriarchies

(where women are the dominant group), women and men tend to work cooperatively rather than competitively

regardless of whether a job is considered feminine by North American standards. The men, however, do not experience

the sense of bifurcated consciousness under this social structure that modern Canadian females encounter (Sanday

2004).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism aims to understand human behaviour by analyzing the critical role of symbols in human

interaction. This is certainly relevant to the discussion of masculinity and femininity. Imagine that you walk into a bank,

hoping to get a small loan for school, a home, or a small business venture. If you meet with a male loan officer, you may

state your case logically by listing all of the hard numbers that make you a qualified applicant as a means of appealing

to the analytical characteristics associated with masculinity. If you meet with a female loan officer, you may make an

emotional appeal by stating your good intentions as a means of appealing to the caring characteristics associated with

femininity.

Because the meanings attached to symbols are socially created and not natural, and fluid, not static, we act and react

to symbols based on the current assigned meaning. The word gay, for example, once meant “cheerful,” but by the

1960s it carried the primary meaning of “homosexual.” In transition, it was even known to mean “careless” or “bright

and showing” (Oxford American Dictionary 2010). Furthermore, the word gay (as it refers to a homosexual) carried

a somewhat negative and unfavourable meaning 50 years ago, but has since gained more neutral and even positive

connotations.

These shifts in symbolic meaning apply to family structure as well. In 1976, when only 27.6 percent of married women

with preschool-aged children were part of the paid workforce, a working mother was still considered an anomaly and

there was a general view that women who worked were “selfish” and not good mothers. Today, when a majority of

women with preschool-aged children are part of the paid workforce (66.5 percent), a working mother is viewed as more

normal (Statistics Canada 2011).

Sociologist Charles H. Cooley’s concept of the “looking-glass self” (1902) can also be applied to interactionist gender

studies. Cooley suggests that one’s determination of self is based mainly on the view of society (for instance, if society

perceives a man as masculine, then that man will perceive himself as masculine). When people perform tasks or possess

characteristics based on the gender role assigned to them, they are said to be doing gender. This notion is based on the

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 381

work of West and Zimmerman (1987). Whether we are expressing our masculinity or femininity, West and Zimmerman

argue, we are always “doing gender.” Thus, gender is something we do or perform, not something we are.

Making Connections: Sociological Research

Being Male, Being Female, and Being Healthy

In 1971, Broverman and Broverman conducted a groundbreaking study on the traits mental health workers

ascribed to males and females. When asked to name the characteristics of a female, the list featured words such as

unaggressive, gentle, emotional, tactful, less logical, not ambitious, dependent, passive, and neat. The list of male

characteristics featured words such as aggressive, rough, unemotional, blunt, logical, direct, active, and sloppy (Seem

and Clark 2006). Later, when asked to describe the characteristics of a healthy person (not gender specific), the list

was nearly identical to that of a male.

This study uncovered the general assumption that being female is associated with being somewhat unhealthy or

not of sound mind. This concept seems extremely dated, but in 2006, Seem and Clark replicated the study and

found similar results. Again, the characteristics associated with a healthy male were very similar to that of a healthy

(genderless) adult. The list of characteristics associated with being female broadened somewhat but did not show

significant change from the original study (Seem and Clark 2006). This interpretation of feminine characteristic

may help us one day better understand gender disparities in certain illnesses, such as why one in eight women

can be expected to develop clinical depression in her lifetime (National Institute of Mental Health 1999). Perhaps

these diagnoses are not just a reflection of women’s health, but also a reflection of society’s labelling of female

characteristics, or the result of institutionalized sexism.

12.3. Sex and Sexuality

Sexual Attitudes and Practices

In the area of sexuality, sociologists focus their attention on sexual attitudes and practices, not on physiology or

anatomy. Sexuality is viewed as a person’s capacity for sexual feelings. Studying sexual attitudes and practices is a

particularly interesting field of sociology because sexual behaviour is a cultural universal. Throughout time and place,

the vast majority of human beings have participated in sexual relationships (Broude 2003). Each society, however,

interprets sexuality and sexual activity in different ways. Many societies around the world have different attitudes

about premarital sex, the age of sexual consent, homosexuality, masturbation, and other sexual behaviours that are not

consistent with universally cultural norms (Widmer, Treas, and Newcomb 1998). At the same time, sociologists have

learned that certain norms (like disapproval of incest) are shared among most societies. Likewise, societies generally

have norms that reinforce their accepted social system of sexuality.

What is considered “normal” in terms of sexual behaviour is based on the mores and values of the society. Societies

that value monogamy, for example, would likely oppose extramarital sex. Individuals are socialized to sexual attitudes

by their family, education system, peers, media, and religion. Historically, religion has been the greatest influence on

sexual behaviour in most societies, but in more recent years, peers and the media have emerged as two of the strongest

influences, particularly with North American teens (Potard, Courtois, and Rusch 2008). Let us take a closer look at

sexual attitudes in Canada and around the world.

382 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Figure 12.10. Sexual practices can differ greatly among groups. Recent trends include the

finding that married couples have sex more frequently than do singles and that 27 percent of

married couples in their 30s have sex at least twice a week (NSSHB 2010). (Photo courtesy of

epSos.de/Flickr)

Sexuality around the World

Cross-national research on sexual attitudes in industrialized nations reveals that normative standards differ across the

world. For example, several studies have shown that Scandinavian students are more tolerant of premarital sex than

are North American students (Grose 2007). A study of 37 countries reported that non-Western societies—like China,

Iran, and India—valued chastity highly in a potential mate, while western European countries—such as France, the

Netherlands, and Sweden—placed little value on prior sexual experiences (Buss 1989).

Even among Western cultures, attitudes can differ. For example, according to a 33,590-person survey across 24

countries, 89 percent of Swedes responded that there is nothing wrong with premarital sex, while only 42 percent of

Irish responded this way. From the same study, 93 percent of Filipinos responded that sex before age 16 is always wrong

or almost always wrong, while only 75 percent of Russians responded this way

(Widmer, Treas, and Newcomb 1998).

Sexual attitudes can also vary within a country. For instance, 45 percent of Spaniards responded that homosexuality is

always wrong, while 42 percent responded that it is never wrong; only 13 percent responded somewhere in the middle

(Widmer, Treas, and Newcomb 1998).

Of industrialized nations, Sweden is thought to be the most liberal when it comes to attitudes about sex, including sexual

practices and sexual openness. The country has very few regulations on sexual images in the media, and sex education,

which starts around age six, is a compulsory part of Swedish school curricula. Sweden’s permissive approach to sex has

helped the country avoid some of the major social problems associated with sex. For example, rates of teen pregnancy

and sexually transmitted disease are among the world’s lowest (Grose 2007). It would appear that Sweden is a model for

the benefits of sexual freedom and frankness. However, implementing Swedish ideals and policies regarding sexuality

in other, more politically conservative, nations would likely be met with resistance.

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 383

http://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Figure-12-10

Sexuality in Canada

Canada is often considered to be conservative and “stodgy” compared to the United States, which prides itself on

being the land of the “free.” However the United States is much more restrictive when it comes to its citizens’ general

attitudes about sex. In the international survey noted above, 12 percent of Canadians stated that premarital sex is

always wrong, compared to 29 percent of Americans. The average among the 24 countries surveyed on this question

was 17 percent. Fifty-five percent of Canadians compared to 71 percent of Americans condemned sex before the age

of 16, 68 percent compared to 80 percent condemned extramarital sex, and 39 percent compared to 70 condemned

homosexuality (Widmer, Treas, and Newcomb 1998). A 2013 international study showed that on the question “Should

society accept homosexuality?” 80 percent of Canadians said “yes” compared to 14 percent who said “no” whereas, in the

United States, 60 percent said “yes” and 33 percent said “no” (Pew Research Center 2013).

North American culture is particularly restrictive in its attitudes about sex when it comes to women and sexuality. It is

widely believed that men are more sexual than women are. In fact, there is a popular notion that men think about sex

every seven seconds. Research, however, suggests that men think about sex an average of 19 times per day, compared to

10 times per day for women (Fisher, Moore, and Pittenger 2011).

Belief that men have—or have the right to—more sexual urges than women creates a double standard. Ira Reiss,

a pioneer researcher in the field of sexual studies, defined the double standard as prohibiting premarital sexual

intercourse for women but allowing it for men (Reiss 1960). This standard has evolved into allowing women to engage

in premarital sex only within committed love relationships, but allowing men to engage in sexual relationships with

as many partners as they wish without condition (Milhausen and Herold 1999). Due to this double standard, a woman

is likely to have fewer sexual partners in her life time than a man. According to a Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) survey, the average 35-year-old woman has had three opposite-sex sexual partners while the average

35-year-old man has had twice as many (Centers for Disease Control 2011). In a study of 1,479 Canadians over the age

of 18, men had had an average of 11.25 sexual partners over their lifetime whereas women had an average of 4 (Fischtein,

Herold, and Desmarais 2007).

Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Sexuality

Sociologists representing all three major theoretical perspectives study the role that sexuality plays in social life today.

Scholars recognize that sexuality continues to be an important factor in social hierarchies and relations of power and

that the manner in which sexuality is constructed has a significant effect on perceptions, interactions, health, and

outcomes.

Structural Functionalism

When it comes to sexuality, functionalists stress the importance of regulating sexual behaviour to ensure marital

cohesion and family stability. Since functionalists identify the family unit as the most integral component in society,

they maintain a strict focus on it at all times and argue in favour of social arrangements that promote and ensure family

preservation.

Functionalists such as Talcott Parsons et al. (1955) have long argued that the regulation of sexual activity is an important

function of the family. Social norms surrounding family life have, traditionally, encouraged sexual activity within the

family unit (marriage) and have discouraged activity outside of it (premarital and extramarital sex). From a functionalist

point of view, the purpose of encouraging sexual activity in the confines of marriage is to intensify the bond between

spouses and to ensure that procreation occurs within a stable, legally recognized relationship. This structure gives

offspring the best possible chance for appropriate socialization and the provision of basic resources.

384 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

From a functionalist standpoint, homosexuality cannot be promoted on a large-scale as an acceptable substitute for

heterosexuality. If this occurred, procreation would eventually cease. Thus, homosexuality, if occurring predominantly

within the population, is dysfunctional to society. This criticism does not take into account the increasing legal

acceptance of same-sex marriage, or the rise in gay and lesbian couples who choose to bear and raise children through

a variety of available resources. It is of course not the case that homosexuals are unable to marry or procreate with

members of the opposite sex as this has occurred throughout history.

Critical Sociology

From a critical perspective, sexuality is another area in which power differentials are present and where dominant

groups actively work to promote their worldview as well as their economic interests. Homosexuality was criminalized

in Canada in 1841. At the time of Confederation in 1867, sodomy was prohibited, and in 1890 the Canadian Criminal

Code made “acts of gross indecency” between men illegal. Acts of “gross indecency” between women were not

prohibited until 1953. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, homosexuals were even treated as national security risks and

hundreds of gays and lesbians lost their civil service jobs or were purged from the military. Thousands were kept under

surveillance (Kinsman 2000). It was not until 1969 that the Criminal Code was amended to relax the laws against

homosexuality. As Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau said in 1967 when the amendments were introduced, “Take this thing

on homosexuality. I think the view we take here is that there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I

think that what’s done in private between adults doesn’t concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public this is a

different matter, or when it relates to minors this is a different matter” (CBC 2012). It was not until 2005 that same-

sex couples were given the right to marry. Critical sociology asks why homosexuality, and other types of sexuality, have

been the subject of persecution by the dominant sexual majority.

From a critical sociology point of view, a key dimension of social inequality based on sexuality has to do with the concept

of “sexuality” itself. Sexuality is caught up in the relationship between knowledge and power. The homosexual was first

defined as a “kind of person” in the 19th century: the sexual “invert.” This definition was “scientific,” but in no way

independent of the cultural norms and prejudices of the times. The idea that homosexuals were characterized by an

internal, deviant “inversion” of sexual instincts, depended on the new scientific disciplines of biology and psychiatry

(Foucault 1980). After centuries in which an individual’s sexual preference was largely a matter of public indifference,

the problem of sexuality suddenly emerged in the 19th century as a biological, social, psychological, and moral concern.

The new definitions of homosexuality and sexual inversion led to a series of social anxieties that ranged from the threat

to the propagation of the human species to the perceived need to “correct” sexual deviation through psychiatric and

medical treatments. The powerful normative constraints that emerged, based largely on the 19th century scientific

distinction between natural and unnatural forms of sexuality, led to the legacy of closeted sexuality and homophobic

violence that remains to this day. They depended on how scientific types of knowledge, which defined the homosexual

as an unnatural type of person, were combined with emerging forms of medical, psychiatric, legal, and state power.

Part of the power issue involved in having a sexuality or a gender therefore has to do with the perceived “naturalness”

of one’s sexual identity. However, having a gender or sexual identity only appears natural to the degree that one fits

within the dominant gender schema. The dominant gender schema is an ideology that, like all ideologies, serves to

perpetuate inequalities in power and status. This schema states that: 1) sex is a biological characteristic that produces

only two options, male or female, and 2) gender is a social or psychological characteristic that manifests or expresses

biological sex. Again, only two options exist, masculine or feminine. “All persons are either one gender or the other.

No person can be neither. No person can be both. No person can change gender without major medical intervention”

(Devor 2000).

For many people this is natural. It goes without saying. However, if one does not fit within the dominant gender schema,

then the naturalness of one’s gender identity is thrown into question. This occurs first of all by the actions of external

authorities and experts who define those who do not fit as either mistakes of nature or as products of failed socialization

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 385

and individual psychopathology. It is also thrown into question by the actions of peers and family who respond with

concern or censure when a girl is not feminine enough or a boy is not masculine enough. Moreover, the ones who

do not fit also have questions. They may begin to wonder why the norms of society do not reflect their sense of self,

and thus begin to feel at odds with the world. For critical sociology, these are matters defined in the context of power

relationships in society.

Symbolic Interactionism

Interactionists focus on the meanings associated with sexuality and with sexual orientation. Since femininity is devalued

in North American society, those who adopt such traits are subject to ridicule; this is especially true for boys or men.

Just as masculinity is the symbolic norm, so too has heterosexuality come to signify normalcy.

The experiences of gender and sexual outsiders—homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, women who do not look or act

“feminine,” men who do not look or act “masculine,” etc.—reveal the subtle dramaturgical order of social processes and

negotiations through which all gender identity is sustained and recognized by others. From a symbolic interactionist

perspective, “passing” as a “normal” heterosexual depends on one’s sexual cues and props being received and interpreted

by others as passable.

The coming-out process of homosexuals is described by Vivienne Cass as a series of social stages that the individual

is obliged to negotiate with others (Devor 1997): first, a period of identity confusion in which the person attempts to

deny or resist the growing suspicion that he or she is homosexual; second, a period of identity comparison in which the

person examines the series of available identity options to see which one explains his or her sense of self best; third, a

period of identity tolerance in which the person recognizes “I probably am gay” and seeks out more information and

contacts; fourth, a period of identity acceptance in which the person carefully manages sexual information or claims

public acknowledgment of his or her sexual identity; fifth, a period of identity pride in which the person identifies

strongly with his or her reference group and minimizes the value of others; and sixth, a period of identity synthesis

in which the person’s sexuality is naturalized, becoming “no big deal.” Of course the transition between these stages is

not predetermined, and it is possible to remain stuck in one stage or even to go backwards. For the homosexual, these

transitions are fraught with difficulty.

To what degree does the same process apply to heterosexuals? Although the idea of coming out as a heterosexual, or as

a masculine man or a feminine woman, might seem absurd, this absurdity is grounded in the norms of heteronormative

society that are so deeply entrenched as to make them appear natural. The social processes of acquiring a gender and

sexual identity, or of “having” a gender or a sexuality, are essentially the same; yet, the degree to which society accepts the

resulting identities is what differs.

Interactionists are also interested in how discussions of homosexuals often focus almost exclusively on the sex lives

of gays and lesbians; homosexuals, especially men, may be assumed to be hypersexual and, in some cases, deviant.

Interactionism might also focus on the slurs used to describe homosexuals. Labels such as “queen” and “fag” are often

used to demean homosexual men by feminizing them. This subsequently affects how homosexuals perceive themselves.

Recall Cooley’s “looking-glass self,” which suggests that self develops as a result of one’s interpretation and evaluation

of the responses of others (Cooley 1902). Constant exposure to derogatory labels, jokes, and pervasive homophobia

would lead to a negative self-image, or worse, self-hate. The CDC reports that homosexual youths who experience high

levels of social rejection are six times more likely to have high levels of depression and eight times more likely to have

attempted suicide (CDC 2011).

Queer Theory

Queer theory is a perspective that problematizes the manner in which we have been taught to think about sexual

386 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

orientation. By calling their discipline “queer,” these scholars are rejecting the effects of labelling; instead, they embrace

the word “queer” and have reclaimed it for their own purposes. Queer theorists reject the dominant gender schema

and the dichotomization of sexual orientations into two mutually exclusive outcomes, homosexual or heterosexual.

Rather, the perspective highlights the need for a more flexible and fluid conceptualization of sexuality—one that allows

for change, negotiation, and freedom. The current schema used to classify individuals as either “heterosexual” or

“homosexual” pits one orientation against the other. This mirrors other oppressive schemas in our culture, especially

those surrounding gender and race (black versus white, male versus female).

Queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick argued against North American society’s monolithic definition of

sexuality—against its reduction to a single factor: the sex of one’s desired partner. Sedgwick identified dozens of other

ways in which people’s sexualities were different, such as:

• Even identical genital acts mean very different things to different people

• Sexuality makes up a large share of the self-perceived identity of some people, a small share of others

• Some people spend a lot of time thinking about sex, others little

• Some people like to have a lot of sex, others little or none

• Many people have their richest mental/emotional involvement with sexual acts that they do not do, or do not

even want to do

• Some people like spontaneous sexual scenes, others like highly scripted ones, others like spontaneous-

sounding ones that are nonetheless totally predictable

• Some people, whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, experience their sexuality as deeply embedded

in a matrix of gender meanings and gender differentials. Others of each sexuality do not (Sedgwick 1990)

In the end, queer theory strives to question the ways society perceives and experiences sex, gender, and sexuality,

opening the door to new scholarly understanding.

Throughout this chapter, we have examined the complexities of gender, sex, and sexuality. Differentiating between sex,

gender, and sexual orientation is an important first step to a deeper understanding and critical analysis of these issues.

Understanding the sociology of sex, gender, and sexuality will help to build awareness of the inequalities experienced

by subordinate groups such as women, homosexuals, and transgendered individuals.

Key Terms

bifurcated consciousness the experience of a division between the directly lived, bodily world of women’s lives

and the dominant, masculine, abstract, institutional world to which they must adapt

doing gender when people perform tasks based upon the gender assigned to them by society and, in turn,

themselves

dominant gender schema an ideological framework that states that there are only two possible sexes, male and

female, and two possible genders, masculine and feminine

double standard concept that prohibits premarital sexual intercourse for women but allows it for men

gender a term that refers to social or cultural distinctions of behaviours that are considered male or female

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 387

gender identity an individual’s sense of being either masculine or feminine

gender role society’s concept of how men and women should behave

homophobia an extreme or irrational aversion to homosexuals

queer theory a scholarly discipline that questions fixed (normative) definitions of gender and sexuality

sex a term that denotes the presence of physical or physiological differences between males and females

sexism the prejudiced belief that one sex should be valued over another

sexual orientation a person’s emotional and sexual attraction to a particular sex (male or female)

sexuality a person’s capacity for sexual feelings

transgendered a term that refers to individuals who identify with the behaviours and characteristics that are the

opposite of their biological sex

transsexuals transgendered individuals who alter their bodies through medical interventions such as surgery

and hormonal therapy

Section Summary

12.1. The Difference between Sex and Gender

The terms “sex” and “gender” refer to two different identifiers. Sex denotes biological characteristics differentiating

males and females, while gender denotes social and cultural characteristics of masculine and feminine behaviour. Sex

and gender are not always synchronous. Individuals who strongly identify with the opposing gender are considered

transgendered.

12.2. Gender

Children become aware of gender roles in their earliest years. They come to understand and perform these roles through

socialization, which occurs through four major agents: family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Socialization

into narrowly prescribed gender roles results in the stratification of males and females. Each sociological perspective

offers a valuable view for understanding how and why gender inequality occurs in our society.

12.3. Sex and Sexuality

When studying sex and sexuality, sociologists focus their attention on sexual attitudes and practices, not on physiology

or anatomy. Norms regarding gender and sexuality vary across cultures. In general, Canada tends to be less conservative

than the United States in its sexual attitudes. As a result, homosexuals still continue to face opposition and

discrimination in most major social institutions but discrimination based on sexual orientation is legally prohibited in

the Canadian constitution, gays and lesbians are able to get married in Canada, and school boards across the country

have instituted anti-bullying policies to prevent the targeting of LGBT students.

388 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Section Quiz

12.1. The Difference between Sex and Gender

1. The terms “masculine” and “feminine” refer to a person’s _________.

1. Sex

2. Gender

3. Both sex and gender

4. None of the above

2. _______ is/are an individual’s self-conception of being male or female based on his or her association with

masculine or feminine gender roles.

1. Gender identity

2. Gender bias

3. Sexual orientation

4. Sexual attitudes

3. Research indicates that individuals are aware of their sexual orientation ___________________.

1. At infancy

2. In early adolescence

3. In early adulthood

4. In late adulthood

4. A person who is biologically female but identifies with the male gender and has undergone surgery to alter her

body is considered _____________________.

1. Transgendered

2. Transsexual

3. A cross-dresser

4. Homosexual

5. Which of following is correct regarding the explanation for transgenderism?

1. It is strictly biological and associated with chemical imbalances in the brain.

2. It is a behaviour that is learned through socializing with other transgendered individuals.

3. It is genetic and usually skips one generation.

4. Currently, there is no definitive explanation for transgenderism.

12.2. Gender

6. Which of the following is the best example of a gender stereotype?

1. Women are typically shorter than men.

2. Men do not live as long as women.

3. Women tend to be overly emotional, while men tend to be level-headed.

4. Men hold more high-earning, leadership jobs than women.

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 389

7. Which of the following is the best example of the role peers play as an agent of socialization for school-aged

children?

1. Children can act however they wish around their peers because children are unaware of gender

roles.

2. Peers serve as a support system for children who wish to act outside of their assigned gender roles.

3. Peers tend to reinforce gender roles by criticizing and marginalizing those who behave outside of

their assigned roles.

4. None of the above

8. To which theoretical perspective does the following statement most likely apply: Women continue to assume

the responsibility in the household along with a paid occupation because it keeps the household running

smoothly (i.e., in a state of balance)?

1. Conflict theory

2. Functionalism

3. Feminist theory

4. Symbolic interactionism

9. Only women are affected by gender stratification.

1. True

2. False

10. According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, we “do gender” _____________________.

1. During half of our activities

2. Only when it applies to our biological sex

3. Only if we are actively following gender roles

4. All of the time, in everything we do

12.3. Sex and Sexuality

11. What Western country is thought to be the most liberal in its attitudes toward sex?

1. United States

2. Sweden

3. Mexico

4. Ireland

12. Compared to most Western societies, U.S. sexual attitudes are considered _____________.

1. Conservative

2. Liberal

3. Permissive

4. Free

13. Sociologists associate sexuality with _______________________.

1. Heterosexuality

2. Homosexuality

390 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

3. Biological factors

4. A person’s capacity for sexual feelings

14. Which theoretical perspective stresses the importance of regulating sexual behaviour to ensure marital

cohesion and family stability?

1. Functionalism

2. Conflict theory

3. Symbolic interactionalism

4. Queer theory

Short Answer

12.1. The Difference between Sex and Gender

1. Why do sociologists find it important to differentiate between sex and gender? What importance

does the differentiation have in modern society?

2. How is children’s play influenced by gender roles? Think back to your childhood. How “gendered”

were the toys and activities available to you? Do you remember gender expectations being conveyed

through the approval or disapproval of your playtime choices?

12.2. Gender

1. In what way do parents treat sons and daughters differently? How do sons and daughters typically

respond to this treatment?

2. What can be done to lessen the effects of gender stratification in the workplace? How does gender

stratification harm both men and women?

12.3. Sex and Sexuality

1. Identify three examples of how Canadian society is heteronormative.

2. Consider the types of derogatory labelling that sociologists study and explain how these might

apply to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Further Research

12.1. The Difference between Sex and Gender

For more information on gender identity and advocacy for transgendered individuals see the Global Action for Trans

Equality website at http://openstaxcollege.org/l/trans_equality.

12.2. Gender

For more gender-related statistics, see the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website at

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/center_disease_control/ and browse through to pictures like “gender and education” and

“gender and health.” (Include quotation marks when searching.)

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 391

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/trans_equality

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/center_disease_control

References

12. Introduction to Gender, Sex, and Sexuality

Hines, Sally and Tam Sanger. 2010. Transgender Identities: Towards a Sociological Analysis of Gender Diversity. New York:

Routledge.

Ling, Lisa. 2011. “Transgender Child: A Parent’s Difficult Choice.” http://www.oprah.com. Retrieved February 13, 2012

(http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Transgender-Child-A-Parents-Difficult-Choice).

Weiss, Debra C. 2011. “Report: ‘Staggering’ Rate of Attempted Suicides by Transgenders Highlight Injustices.” ABA

Journal, February 4. Retrieved January 10, 2012 (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/

staggering_rate_of_attempted_suicides_by_transgenders_highlights_injustices/).

12.1. The Difference Between Sex and Gender

American Psychological Association (APA). 2008. “Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual

Orientation and Homosexuality.” Washington, DC. Retrieved January 10, 2012 (http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/

orientation.aspx).

Caldera, Yvonne, Aletha Huston, and Marion O’Brien. 1998. “Social Interactions and Play Patterns of Parents and

Toddlers with Feminine, Masculine, and Neutral Toys.” Child Development 60(1):70–76.

Case, M.A. 1995. “Disaggregating Gender from Sex and Sexual Orientation: The Effeminate Man in the Law and

Feminist Jurisprudence.” Yale Law Journal 105(1):1–105.

Cowan, Sharon. 2005. “ ‘Gender is no substitute for sex’ : A comparative human rights analysis of the legal regulation of

sexual identity.” Feminist Legal Studies. 13:67–96.

Diamond, Milton. 2002. “Sex and Gender Are Different: Sexual Identity and Gender Identity Are Different.” Clinical

Child Psychology & Psychiatry 7(3):320–334. Retrieved February 13, 2012 (http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/

2000to2004/2002-sex-and-gender.html).

Jacobs, Sue-Ellen, Wesley Thomas, and Sabine Lang. 1997. Two Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality,

and Spirituality. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

J.E.B. v. Alabama, 144 S. Ct. 1436 (1994).

Kinsey, Alfred C. et al. 1998 [1948]. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

Moi, T. 2005. Sex, Gender and the Body. New York: Oxford University Press.

National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. 2010. “Hate Violence Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,

Queer and HIV-Affected Communities in the United States.” Retrieved January 10, 2012 (http://www.avp.org/storage/

documents/Reports/2012_NCAVP_2011_HV_Report ).

Poasa, Kris. 1992. “The Samoan Fa’afafine: One Case Study and Discussion of Transsexualism.” Journal of Psychology &

Human Sexuality 5(3):39–51.

Ryle, Robyn. 2011. Questioning Gender: A Sociological Exploration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

392 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

http://www.oprah.com

http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Transgender-Child-A-Parents-Difficult-Choice

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/staggering_rate_of_attempted_suicides_by_transgenders_highlights_injustices/

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2002-sex-and-gender.html

http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/Reports/2012_NCAVP_2011_HV_Report

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1985. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Statistics Canada. 2011. “Gay Pride…by the numbers.” Media Room: By the Numbers. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from

http://www42.statcan.gc.ca/smr08/2011/smr08_158_2011-eng.htm

Taylor, Catherine and Tracey Peter. 2011. Every class in every school: The first national climate survey on homophobia,

biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Final report. Toronto: Egale Canada Human Rights Trust. Retrieved April

29, 2014, from http://mygsa.ca/sites/default/files/resources/EgaleFinalReport-web

Transgender Law & Policy Institute. 2007. Retrieved February 13, 2012 (www.transgenderlaw.org).

12.2. Gender

Coltrane, Scott and Michele Adams. 2008. Gender and Families. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s.

Davis, Donald M. 1993. “TV Is a Blonde, Blonde World.” American Demographics, Special Issue: Women Change Places

15(5):34–41.

Etaugh, Clair and Judith Bridges. 2004. Women’s Lives: a Topical Approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Farrington, K. and W. Chertok. 1993. “Social Conflict Theories of the Family.” Pp. 357–381 in Sourcebook of Family

Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach, edited by P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm and S.K.

Steinmetz. New York: Plenum.

Hawke, Lucy A. 2007. “Gender Roles Within American Marriage: Are They Really Changing?” ESSAI 5:70-74. Retrieved

February 22, 2012 ( http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=essai).

Hochschild, Arlie R. and Anne Machung. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York:

Viking.

Kane, Eileen. 1996. “Gender, Culture, and Learning.” Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.

Kilbourne, Jean. 2000. Can’t Buy Me Love: How Advertising Changed the Way We Think and Feel. New York: Touchstone

Publishing.

Kimmel, Michael. 2000. The Gendered Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lips, Hillary M. 2004. “The Gender Gap in Possible Selves: Divergence of Academic Self-Views among High School and

University Students”. Sex Roles 50(5/6):357–371.

McInturff, Kate. 2013 Closing Canada’s Gender Gap: Year 2240 Here We Come! Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Ottawa. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/

National%20Office/2013/04/Closing_Canadas_Gender_Gap_0

Mead, George Herbert. 1967 [1934]. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Murdock, George Peter and Douglas R. White. 1969. “Standard Cross-Cultural Sample.” Ethnology 9:329–369.

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 393

http://www42.statcan.gc.ca/smr08/2011/smr08_158_2011-eng.htm

http://mygsa.ca/sites/default/files/resources/EgaleFinalReport-web

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/

http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=essai

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2013/04/Closing_Canadas_Gender_Gap_0

National Institute of Mental Health. 1999. Unpublished Epidemiological Catchment Area Analyses.

Nellie McClung Foundation. N.d. “History of Women’s Rights.” The Nellie McClung Foundation. Retrieved April 30,

2014, from http://www.ournellie.com/womens-suffrage/history-of-womens-rights

Oxford American Dictionary. 2010. 3rd ed. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Parsons, Talcott. 1958 [1943]. “The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States.” Pp. 177-196 in Essays in

Sociological Theory. NY: Free Press.

Pincus, Fred. 2000. “Discrimination Comes in Many Forms: Individual, Institutional, and Structural.” Pp. 31-35 in

Readings for Diversity and Social Justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Raffaelli, Marcela and Lenna L. Ontai. 2004. “Gender Socialization in Latino/a Families: Results from Two

Retrospective Studies.” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 50(5/6):287–299.

Ready, Diane. 2001. “‘Spice Girls,’ ‘Nice Girls,’ ‘Girlies,’ and ‘Tomboys’: Gender Discourses, Girls’ Cultures and

Femininities in the Primary Classroom.” Gender and Education 13(2):153-167.

Risman, Barbara and Danette Johnson-Sumerford. 1998. “Doing It Fairly: A Study of Postgender Marriages.” Journal of

Marriage and Family (60)1:23–40.

Sadker, David and Myra Sadker. 1994. Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. Toronto, ON: Simon & Schuster.

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. 2004. Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Seem, Susan Rachael and Diane M. Clark. 2006. “Healthy Women, Healthy Men, and Healthy Adults: An Evaluation of

Gender Role Stereotypes in the Twenty-first Century.” Sex Roles 55(3-4):247–258.

Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Smith, Stacy. 2008. “Gender Stereotypes: An Analysis of Popular Films and TV.” Geena Davis Institute on Gender

in Media. Retrieved on January 10, 2012 (http://www.thegeenadavisinstitute.org/downloads/

GDIGM_Gender_Stereotypes ).

Staples, Robert and Leanor Boulin Johnson. 2004. Black Families at the Crossroads: Challenges and Prospects. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Statistics Canada. 2011. Women in Canada: A Gender Based Statistical Report. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Retrieved April

30, 2014 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/89-503-x2010001-eng

Thorne, Barrie. 1993. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

UNICEF. 2007. “Early Gender Socialization.” August 29. Retrieved January 10, 2012 (http://www.unicef.org/

earlychildhood/index_40749.html).

West, Candace and Don Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society 1(2):125–151.

12.3. Sex and Sexuality

American Psychological Association (APA). 2008. “Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual

394 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

http://www.ournellie.com/womens-suffrage/history-of-womens-rights

http://www.mendeley.com/research/healthy-women-healthy-men-healthy-adults-evaluation-gender-role-stereotypes-twentyfirst-century/

http://www.thegeenadavisinstitute.org/downloads/GDIGM_Gender_Stereotypes

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/89-503-x2010001-eng

http://www.unicef.org/earlychildhood/index_40749.html

Orientation and Homosexuality.” Washington, DC. Retrieved January 10, 2012 (http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/

orientation.aspx).

Broude, Gwen J. 2003. “Sexual Attitudes and Practices.” Pp. 177–184 in Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: Men and Women

in the World’s Cultures Volume 1. New York, NY: Springer.

Buss, David M. 1989. “Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypothesis Tested in 37 Cultures.”

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12(1):1–49.

CBC. 2012. “Timeline: Same-sex rights in Canada.” CBC News. January 12. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/timeline-same-sex-rights-in-canada-1.1147516

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health.” January 25.

Retrieved February 13, 2012 (http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm).

Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner.

Devor, Aaron. 1997. FTM: Female-to-Male Transsexuals in Society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Devor, Aaron. 2000. “How Many Sexes? How Many Genders? When Two Are Not Enough,” Retrieved April 30, 2014,

from http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/HowMany/HowMany.html

Fischtein, Dayna, Edward Herold, and Serge Desmarais. 2007. “How Much Does Gender Explain in Sexual Attitudes

and Behaviors? A Survey of Canadian Adults.” Archives of Sexual Behaviour. 36: 451–461.

Fisher, T.D., Z.T. Moore and M. Pittenger. 2011. “Sex on the Brain?: An Examination of Frequency of Sexual Cognitions

as a Function of Gender, Erotophilia, and Social Desirability.” The Journal of Sex Research 49(1):69–77.

Foucault, Michel. 1980. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. NY: Vintage Books.

Grose, Thomas K. 2007. “Straight Facts About the Birds and Bees.” US News and World Report, March 18. Retrieved

February 13, 2012 (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26sex.htm).

Kinsman, Gary. 2000. “Constructing Gay Men and Lesbians as National Security Risks, 1950-1970.” Pp.143-153 in

Gary Kinsman, Dieter K. Buse, and Mercedes Steedman (eds.) In Whose National Security? Canadian State Surveillance and

the Creation of Enemies. Toronto: Between the Lines Press.

Milhausen, Robin and Edward Herold. 1999. “Does the Sexuality Double Standard Still Exist? Perceptions of University

Women.” Journal of Sex Research 36(4):361–368.

Parsons, Talcott. 1958 [1943]. “The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States.” Pp. 177-196 in Essays in

Sociological Theory. NY: Free Press.

Parsons, Talcott, Robert F. Bales, James Olds, Morris Zelditsch, and Philip E. Slater. 1955. Family, Socialization, and

Interaction Process. New York: Free Press.

Pew Research Center. 2013. “The Global Divide on Homosexuality: Greater Acceptance in More Secular and Affluent

Countries.” Pew Research Center. June 4. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/06/Pew-

Global-Attitudes-Homosexuality-Report-FINAL-JUNE-4-2013

CHAPTER 12. GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUALITY • 395

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/timeline-same-sex-rights-in-canada-1.1147516

http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm

http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/HowMany/HowMany.html

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26sex.htm

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/06/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Homosexuality-Report-FINAL-JUNE-4-2013

Potard, C., R. Courtois, and E. Rusch. 2008. “The Influence of Peers on Risky Sexual Behavior During Adolescence.”

European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 13(3): 264–270.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Widmer, Eric D., Judith Treas and Robert Newcomb. 1998. “Attitudes Toward Nonmarital Sex in 24 Countries.” Journal

of Sex Research 35(4):349.

Solutions to Section Quiz

1. B | 2. A | 3. B | 4. B | 5. D | 6. C | 7. C | 8. B | 9. B | 10. D | 11. B | 12. A | 13. D | 14. A

Image Attributions

Figure 12.3. Dance to the Berdache by George Catlin (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Catlin_-

_Dance_to_the_berdache ) is in the public domain (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain)

Figure 12.8. Pink by Robert Couse Baker (https://www.flickr.com/photos/29233640@N07/3951652557/in/

gallery-42031937@N04-72157623838686839/) used under CC BY 2.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

by/2.0/)

396 • INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Catlin_-_Dance_to_the_berdache

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

https://www.flickr.com/photos/29233640@N07/3951652557/in/gallery-42031937@N04-72157623838686839/

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

LEXINGTON BOOKS

Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Gender and Sexuality in
Critical Animal Studies

Edited by

Amber E. George

George_9781793624352.indb 3 23-02-2021 20:11:11

163

Nonhuman animals have endured centuries of abuse because their bodies fail
to conform to the “normalized” versions of bodies and minds. Even human
bodies perceived as “abnormal,” such as those with visible disabilities and
those who defy the gender/sex binary, receive more acceptance than nonhu-
man animals. Of those who resist identity binaries, intersex is one that has
gained attention in recent years as it is believed intersex people make up as
much as 1.7 percent of the human population born (Fausto-Sterling, 2000).
“Intersex” is a term used to describe a broad range of biological traits that lie
between the traditional binary classification of “male” and “female” sex varia-
tion. Despite being a condition that is not so rare, this population is underrep-
resented and misunderstood. Like humans, nonhuman intersex individuals are
often met with disdain and repulsion by cultural attitudes that suggest being
born with “ambiguous” reproductive organs is inherently problematic. This
chapter investigates the ableist, speciesist, and intersexist values that inform
nonhuman animals’ harm and abuse. This analysis seeks to disrupt the medi-
cal community’s preference to surgically correct intersex conditions through
invasive medical procedures that erase intersex traits and injure bodily auton-
omy. Instead, individuals born with natural variations in their sex characteris-
tics should not be forced to conform. Rather than focusing on individualized
bodies as isolated in their own “abnormality,” this chapter also highlights the
systemic social forces that oppress bodies that fall outside the norm.

Specifically, this analysis uses news media to explore the stigmatizing ide-
ologies that describe intersex nonhuman animals. While there are no official
statistics to demonstrate how often animals such as cats and dogs are born
with intersex conditions, a brief Google search yielded over a dozen stories

Chapter 9

Intersex Inclusion
Indeterminant Sex and Gender

Acceptance for Nonhuman Animals

Amber E. George

George_9781793624352.indb 163 23-02-2021 20:11:19

164 Amber E. George

from the past five years of “unusual” domesticated pets. There are some non-
human animal species that have reproductive organs of both sexes already
integrated into their bodies upon birth, and while these species are interest-
ing, this analysis studies those who are not biologically programmed to have
both. For clarity, this chapter does not engage in an in-depth analysis of pet-
keeping, despite the importance of such research. Furthermore, this analysis
does not critique pronoun use; all pronouns correspond to each news story’s
usage. Likewise, despite the continual reference to the term “hermaphrodite”
in the news stories, this analysis uses “intersex” to replace the outdated and
insensitive term (Ray, 2017). Moreover, intersexuality should be described
with sensitivity in the media, not sensationalism.

This analysis supports the notion that intersex individuals have a valid
existence aside from undergoing nonconsensual, painful often unsuccessful,
cosmetic surgical measures. Rather than adopting oppressive medicalized
perspectives, humans should resist pathologizing intersex into disability-like
conditions. When an individual is pathologized as being diseased and requir-
ing a cure or rehabilitation, their ability to live freely becomes compromised.
Assuming that intersex individuals will be social outcasts or unrecognizable
as fully functioning beings is predicated on irrational fears about what is
perceived as “natural.” This social construction of “natural” has far-reaching
implications for classifications of intersex, disability, and animality. The
deviation from “normality” is not a problem that resides within the intersex
individual themselves; rather, the problem is attitudes of people who take
an alarmist stance toward “abnormal” body types, refusing to accept that all
body types are valid and natural (Intersex Society of North America, 2018).

DEFINING INTERSEX AND DISABILITY

Loosely defined, intersex is a condition that arises from genetic variations
among chromosomal and/or hormone composition. There are several dozen
variations of intersex conditions, all of which get lumped under the intersex
umbrella of definitions (Dreger et al., 2005). When offspring are born in most
cultures, one of the first questions is whether it is a boy or a girl. In other
words, what is sought is clarification on whether one’s genitals typify male
or female characteristics. However, as with all body types, nature is never this
simple, and many variations exist. Consider the case of a three-year-old tabby
cat initially named Rex/Regina who was surrendered to the SPCA because
his human companion could not handle his incessant spraying and howling.
The veterinarian indicated that “he has caused quite a sensation” because he
has both “male and female reproductive organs” (SPCA, 2017). The article
describes him as “a very rare hermaphrodite cat” whose condition is caused

George_9781793624352.indb 164 23-02-2021 20:11:19

165Intersex Inclusion

by a chromosomal “abnormality.” Variation from the “norm” is often equated
with “abnormal” and something that needs correction.

The definitions of males and females in Western society are varied and
diverse, leaving many scientists, biologists, and medical professionals to
stumble with being consistent and clear about an already arbitrary sex/gen-
der classification system. Since these definitions are arbitrary, not everyone
agrees on which characteristics designate certain sex categorizations, leaving
much to be determined by the discretion of doctors, veterinarians, and other
medical practitioners. Western culture generally expects only two sex varia-
tions, forcing those who do not fit evenly to be forced into one category or
the other. As was true for Rex/Regina, and as the article states, “The biggest
challenge for his/her new human companions will be what to call him/her,
and whether to refer to him/her as a boy or a girl” (SPCA, 2017). Thus, what
is most troublesome about intersex conditions is not one’s “atypical” genitalia
but rather how humans respond to those who exist outside the traditional sex/
gender binary. This results in identifying one as an object rather than a living
being.

Like intersex, disability is also defined using an umbrella-type approach,
as evidenced by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of dis-
ability as:

an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participa-
tion restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or structure; an
activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a
task or action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an
individual involved in life situations. (WHO, 2018)

In this instance, the disability is rooted primarily in the person’s body,
resulting in a limitation or lack without considering how environmental and
social barriers impede one’s freedom. The WHO definition also applies to
intersex designation because many medical professionals regard intersex peo-
ple as impaired with a disordered body structure. In 2006, a group of medical
practitioners collectively decided to call intersex conditions “Disorders of
Sex Development” or DSD in an attempt to gain clarity and move away from
the term “hermaphrodite” and intersex altogether (Hughes et al., 2006). There
once was a time when “hermaphroditism” was a regular staple in circus side-
shows, along with “freak” exhibits that featured so-called half-men and half-
women. Their very presence in society signaled what Wendy Bashant refers
to as “an inability to control and categorize,” that which was deemed dan-
gerous (1995, p. 19). Those with disabilities were also considered “freaks”
and placed on display. The same is true for nonhumans, as animals are also
displayed against their will for profit in zoos, circuses, and other exhibitions.

George_9781793624352.indb 165 23-02-2021 20:11:19

166 Amber E. George

Even today, nonhuman animals with intersex traits have their organs on dis-
play, as evidenced by are put on display as evidenced by the star veterinarian
of the American reality show “The Incredible Dr. Pol.” As Dr. Pol explains,
“The most unusual thing I’ve ever seen was just recently: I was doing surgery
on a Belgian stallion and I pulled out a uterus! It was intersex! . . . I saved that
uterus in formaldehyde in the clinic among my souvenirs” (Haviland, 2020).

It is still customary to typify animals with intersex conditions as having her-
maphroditic features within the sciences (Dreger et al., 2005). Similar to how
“handicapped” is used as an outdated medicalized term for denoting disability
status, hermaphrodite is equitable with being inferior. Identifying intersex as
a disorder makes it a medical issue, although most intersex individuals do
not require medical intervention; instead, they need social acceptance. Often
classified as having a sex development disorder, intersex encompasses struc-
tural impairments stemming from one’s genitals, gonads, chromosomes, or
other related reproductive structures. To quell the dangers embodied by the
“hermaphroditic” body, many nineteenth-century medical practitioners who
were men sought physical evidence to solidify the two sexes into a gender
binary for sexual distinction. As Alice Dreger states, “Many men of science,
following the footsteps of the great Charles Darwin, wrote with confidence
and enthusiasm about the natural and profound differences of the male and
female types” (1998, p. 26). Dating back to these times, when medical men
encountered an intersex individual, they felt compelled to determine that
person’s sex regardless of the consequences that such a decision might bring.
Classifying individuals with intersex conditions as disordered is stigmatizing
and incorrect because most people born with this condition do not require
medical attention and are often indistinguishable from others who are not
intersex (Tamar-Mattis & Diamond, 2007; Diamond & Beh, 2008).

Media outlets often frame intersex conditions as unfavorable, emphasiz-
ing the notion that individuals can be made whole again through corrective
surgery to fix abnormalities. The role that “framing” plays is best described
by Erving Goffman (1974) as a means of perceiving, identifying, and
labeling information in unconscious ways (p. 21). News journalists bor-
row frames from popular culture to allow the readership to process facts
and comprehend them quickly. Thus, when frames are stigmatizing or
oppressive, they are perpetuated without hesitation. Consider the case of a
cockapoo puppy, Kennedy, initially considered female when purchased for
$1,000 by a woman in Florida from an alleged puppy mill. Upon its first
trip to the veterinarian, the woman discovered her pet was also male. The
news coverage described how angry the distraught woman was for “being
duped” into purchasing an “(im)perfect” dog that required costly cosmetic
surgery to be made perfect. The human companion wanted to warn other
consumers that they should be careful before buying a dog. She said, “It

George_9781793624352.indb 166 23-02-2021 20:11:19

167Intersex Inclusion

was overlooked by the pet store, it was overlooked by the breeder, it was
overlooked by me” until she shaved the pup down and noticed “something
that looked a little odd in her private parts” (Amaro, 2013). This person pur-
chased what was most likely a “puppy mill” puppy from a pet store known
for their questionable breeding and selling practices. Dr. Kelly Farrell with
First Coast No More Homeless Pets said that “It is not possible to just look
at a puppy and see these defects right on the first exam” (Amaro, 2013). In
this case, Kennedy was purchased like property and viewed as being “defec-
tive” or broken and needing correction. The medical model of disability
also presents disability within this “cure rhetoric” that necessitates that one
must be rehabilitated, cured, or fixed to conform. Without this therapy, a
being with a disability, or in this case, intersex traits, may never be whole
or have intrinsic worth. This curing rhetoric erases traits and a whole culture
of shared experiences that fall within the disability and intersex community
for humans and nonhumans alike. The medical model of disability and
the traditional notion of hermaphrodism have power in common; socially
constructed historical concepts that keep groups oppressed while being
shrouded in scientific objectivity (Oliver, 1990). The goal, then, is to upend
the assumption that disability and intersex traits must be cured of their so-
called deficiencies.

Kennedy’s story raises questions about the history of cosmetic surger-
ies applied to domesticated animals like cats and dogs. Actions such as tail
docking and ear cropping, declawing, debarking, and even the placement of
testicular prosthetics post-neutering are options that some veterinarian clin-
ics offer human guardians. While the ethics of neutering remains outside
this analysis’s focus, of concern is whether medically unnecessary cosmetic
procedures to recreate a nonhumans’ anatomy are ethical. One company,
Neuticals, has sold over 500,000 sets of silicone testicular implants for ani-
mals ranging from dogs to elephants to bulls and pretty much any species
that can be neutered (Wells, 2018). This has linkages with human anxiety
surrounding the emasculation of their pets. The implants do not require FDA
approval, and their safety for animals remains questionable. The creator of
Neuticals has said, “Let’s face it, the pet owner is the one who writes the
check, so it’s more for the pet owner” (Wells, 2018). Critical animal studies
(CAS) scholars and activists are opposed to surgeries performed on animals
to meet breed standards or correct supposed imperfections. These proce-
dures are unacceptable because of the suffering and potential disfigurement
they cause individual animals bereft of benefit. It makes sense for certain
animal breeds like French bulldogs and pugs to have surgical alterations to
relieve painful situations and breathing difficulties due to impaired anatomy.
However, inflicting unnecessary pain on an animal for the sole purpose of
cosmetic enhancement is immoral.

George_9781793624352.indb 167 23-02-2021 20:11:19

168 Amber E. George

When such immoral acts are presented in a news article, the focus tends to
be on that which appears odd or unusual to selectively highlight information
accordingly (Gitlin, 2003). The words used to describe the reactions to these
conditions include “stunned,” “special,” “shocked,” and in “awe.” Media
frames are used by journalists to silence or broadcast certain narratives.
Journalists routinely select words that reinforce prevailing views among the
readership and slant the stories to favor them. The news is often “constructed
with a systematic bias in favor of reporting what is novel, bizarre, sensational,
or odd” (Paul & Elder, p. 281). In the news story with the headline, “Mum
who bought female puppy for daughter’s Christmas gift shocked after find-
ing out it has both private parts” (Warrander, 2017), the dog was described
as “special” and “rare.” The experience of being deemed special or unique
is not uncommon for people with disabilities. As the Center for Disability
Rights (CDR) suggests, “Today, the vast majority of articles written about
disability or disabled people are harmful, in part, because they use stigmatiz-
ing language” (CDR, 2020).

In another news story, “Pet Human Companion Left Stunned After Vet
Discovers Her FEMALE Dog Has Male Private Parts Too” (Warrander,
2018), words like “stunned” are accentuated to reinforce the sensationalism
presumed in the story. This story concerned Saira, a Staffordshire bull terrier,
who became female after successfully undergoing sex reassignment surgery.
Human companion John Conchie said Saira went in for a routine check-up
at the veterinarian’s office and was “stunned” to learn she was a “hermaph-
rodite.” Veterinarian and operating surgeon Richard Weston said he had
never encountered a “canine hermaphrodite” in his thirty years in practice.
Mr. Weston’s son, James, who assisted with the operation, was reported as
saying, “It was completely bizarre. I’ve never seen anything like it” (Byrne,
2012). In another example, Marbles the cat was featured, whose headline
read, “Meet Marbles the hermaphrodite cat who is both male AND female.”
Marbles’s owners, Tom Minns and Claire Gidley, were “shocked to discover
Marbles is a rare hermaphrodite” (Smith-Squire, 2015). Mr. Minns stated,
“The one good thing is we called it Marbles. At least we won’t need to change
the name.” These examples demonstrate how the media can frame a distorted
view of nonhuman intersexuality. While intersex conditions may be uncom-
mon, there is no need to describe such individuals as dramatic, odd, or weird
nor keep their body parts on display. Furthermore, failing to use the correct
definition or terminology can be just as impactful to one’s representation.

Just as animals and humans with physical disabilities are often rescued
and put on display for charity or sociopolitical causes, some intersex ani-
mals are also forced into this role. In 2016, a silver pit bull mix arrived at
the Detroit Dog Rescue in a sickly and malnourished state as the victim of
neglect and abuse by its previous owners. At first, the dog was listed as a

George_9781793624352.indb 168 23-02-2021 20:11:19

169Intersex Inclusion

male named Cody, but upon closer examination, the pup had both male and
female external genitalia. The executive director of the Detroit Dog Rescue,
Kristina Rinaldi, turned this situation into a media story by making Cody the
spokesperson for LGBTQIA awareness and made the following statement:

We also may want to use Cody to talk to teens who maybe are going through the
same things, we want to reach out to Affirmations in Ferndale and maybe we can
use Cody as an example that there’s nothing wrong with you, it’s not strange, it
happens to the best animals and the best people. . . . Maybe Cody can help some
other people deal with some feelings they may be dealing with. (CBS, 2016)

Affirmations is a Metro-Detroit-based community center for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people. Using Cody in this fashion echo the long-
standing way that people with disabilities, people who are transgender,
and others have been put on display as “poster children” for social orga-
nizations and charities. Whether by force or coercion, no one should face
public exposure without consent. This issue is not just about privacy and
publicity concerns; rather, it is about upholding the dignity of the individuals
involved. Using Cody to evoke sympathy, compassion, or pity on account
of perceived biological differences does not represent these human’s best
attempts at benevolence or good intentions. Forcing Cody into the role of a
therapy dog for the disenfranchised could reinforce what disability scholars
call “inspiration porn,” a type of representation that suggests they are victims
of circumstance, tragic figures that deserve pity (Grue, 2015). Exposing any
vulnerable population to being on display, whether they have intersex traits,
are transgender, or have a disability, devoid individuals the ability to share on
their own terms. Furthermore, the humans responsible for Cody’s care should
not own the pup’s consent; rather, they should be merely entrusted with it.
In other words, Cody’s best interests need to be considered by all those
involved. While there should be support for various organizations that sup-
port disenfranchised groups, such as Affirmations mentioned above, it should
be an inclusive enterprise that welcomes and destigmatizes all involved as
equitable partners in the bid to change perceptions and increase empower-
ment, not as objects to evoke pity.

As it turned out, Cody was not sent to be a therapy dog at Affirmations
but was instead sterilized and studied for sexual abnormality at Michigan
State University (MSU). It is unknown whether Cody was used for invasive,
painful experimentations while at MSU. Once the MSU study was complete,
Cody was adopted by attorney Dana Nessel and her wife, Alanna Maguire.
Nessel is known for her advocacy for same-sex marriage. Nessel represented
April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who challenged Michigan’s same-sex mar-
riage prohibition and won a Supreme Court appeal, resulting in marriage

George_9781793624352.indb 169 23-02-2021 20:11:19

170 Amber E. George

equality throughout the nation. “We weren’t interested in his sex organs or
whether he was a male or female,” Nessel said. “We just wanted a dog that
needed a home and the boys just loved this dog” (CBS, 2016). In this case,
Cody’s new human guardians did not view intersex as shameful and therefore
avoided surgical correction. However, CAS scholars would still take issue
with the sterilization and medical experimentation on Cody.

It is not uncommon for “animal models” to be used in science to study
human health disorders. Some scientists justify using nonhuman animals in
experiments because they are not like humans; therefore, harming them dur-
ing the experimentation process becomes morally justifiable. However, as
CAS scholars would agree, this line of reasoning is inherently contradictory:
there is no point in using nonhumans if they are not like humans. They are
very much like humans; hence the reason animals are used in experiments.

Cody’s story also exemplifies how animals are often “found” for scientific
research. Animals are routinely obtained from animal shelters, pet stores, the
streets, and even stolen from people’s backyard. Meanwhile, other institu-
tions own and operate “biological supply companies” or breeding farms
where animals such as cats and dogs are purposely bred for scientific dissec-
tion (Festing & Wilkinson, 2007). CAS scholars are quick to point out that
technological advancements have ushered in a whole host of non-sentient
alternative methods for teaching and learning. There are interactive computer
software programs, lifelike human and animal models, and other educational,
safe tools for teaching the most basic to advanced biological principles and
procedures without using invasive and potentially deadly animal experimen-
tation (NAVS, 2020).

Several news articles presented a predominant concern that the animals
with intersex conditions surrendered to the shelter may not have been
adopted. Consider the story of a kitten named Bellini born with a mix of male
and female genitalia. Bellini, initially classified as male, was taken to the
Cats Protection Center in Saint Helens, Merseyside, United Kingdom, along
with the rest of their litter. The veterinary staff at the shelter ordered further
diagnostic tests to determine Bellini’s biological sex. They feared this kitten,
described as loving, unique, and likely to bring joy to whomever he went to,
would not be adopted due to his ambiguous appearance. One volunteer at the
center said, “I was pretty stunned. It’s so unusual. I have seen over 3,000 cats
during my time at Cats Protection and only seen one other hermaphrodite cat.
I certainly never thought I’d see two” (Cats Protection, 2016). In nearly every
article surveyed for this chapter, at least one person mentioned they never
thought they would see an animal displaying an intersex condition. This dem-
onstrates that intersex conditions may be a bit more common than most would
presume. Another article, “A hermaphrodite dog has undergone surgery to
make her female and boost the chances of her finding a new home,” implied

George_9781793624352.indb 170 23-02-2021 20:11:19

171Intersex Inclusion

that intersex conditions generated fear and avoidance among adopters. This
was precisely the reason why there was some reluctance to adopt Georgie,
a stray Staffordshire bull terrier. As Manager Lisa Graham said, “Georgie
received a lot of interest but when people found out she had both male and
female organs they backed away” (BBC News, 2010).

Another puppy from Lincolnshire, England, Little Lola, began growing a
penis after about one year of age. When Lola was spayed, they discovered
testicles where her ovaries should have been. Lola’s owner said that her
appearance in public generated a range of cruel and intolerant comments
from people, including remarks that the owner had gotten “two for the price
of one” or that she should “put her down, she’s a weirdo.” The human com-
panion commented that when people made these remarks, it hurt her feelings.
Many well-intentioned people fall privy to the social pressures that dictate
normality versus abnormality. However, this particular human companion
did not succumb to prejudice and fear. She shared that “It’s ridiculous. She’s
just a normal everyday dog, which I don’t think people realize. But to me
she’s just Lola, I don’t see her as this dog with a problem” (Howson, 2015).
As Lola’s companions reported, “We won’t remove her penis as this would
be too much of a dangerous operation for her. So she’ll be staying how she
is now!” (Howson, 2015). This sentiment reflects that surgical intervention is
generally unnecessary, and there are people prepared to love animals as they
are born.

Often overlooked issues are variation within intersex conditions and
questions about genetic modification. Bijuo, a healthy French bulldog, was
brought to a veterinarian’s office for a routine vaccination when the vet
became alarmed by the size of the dog’s clitoris, which was characterized
as “larger than normal” (Live Science Staff, 2011). The article suggests that
veterinarians should prevent people from breeding “hermaphrodite puppies”
because “it’s likely that at least half of their litters will be carriers of the
mutant genes” (Live Science Staff, 2011). Bijuo was perceived as a “freak”
of nature. Inherent in this case are several assumptions based on the notion
that intersex individuals have inferior, defective genes that should be erased
from future existence.

There are several issues at stake with this particular case, including that,
like humans, nonhumans have ordinary sexual interests and desires. CAS
scholars are deeply concerned about the reproductive freedom of animals. In
this sense, Bijuo should be free to engage in sexual activity that could result
in pregnancy. This entails exercising his full sexual capacity through his own
will, provided it does not harm himself or others. One must inquire into what
harm entails in this context. Perhaps the veterinarian believes that they must
restrict Bijuo’s reproductive capacity based on the assumption that copula-
tion could harm him, his mate, or his offspring. Does harm mean reproducing

George_9781793624352.indb 171 23-02-2021 20:11:19

172 Amber E. George

potentially genetically abnormal offspring? Moreover, is there any harm that
could arise from preventing Bijuo from copulating in the first place?

From a CAS perspective, the reproductive and sexual repression of ani-
mals based on genetic differences is immoral and contestable. Additionally,
forced, unnecessary sterilization could harm Bijuo’s reproductive health.
History has proven the immorality of eugenic programs carried out on so-
called undesirables under the guise of preventing harm to future generations.
Eugenics supports the notion that some individuals’ genes are inferior to oth-
ers based on an arbitrary understanding of normality. Preventing harm and
reinstating “normal” under eugenic policies was motivated by racism, sexism,
and ethnic and religious oppression, and not actual physical or mental harm.
Returning to Bijuo, should any harm come to him, his partner, or the potential
offspring due to copulation, then involuntary sterilization would be neces-
sary. Furthermore, one might argue that any animal could encounter harm
from copulation, regardless of intersex conditions. Why single out healthy
intersex nonhumans for sterilization in such a case? Nevertheless, harm in
Bijuo’s case is not predicated on speciesist beliefs but instead on genuine
concern for Bijuo and his mates’ well-being.

In many cases, intersex conditions can be diagnosed prenatally and
described as a “genetic defect” that results in pregnancy termination by
selectively aborting a fetus deemed “undesirable” (Blackshaw, 2020). In
other cases, technology now allows parents to use preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD) to select which embryo to implant and which to terminate.
While deciding to discard an embryo or fetus with a disability is common,
preventing a pregnancy based on intersex undesirability is relatively new.
Prenatal diagnostic testing capabilities are concerning for disabled and inter-
sex individuals because many clinicians and genetic counselors recommend
termination based on prenatal testing outcomes alone, which are often hypo-
thetical and inaccurate (Orr, 2015). Using these genetic technologies is to
“select against traits that we consider human variations reproduces the very
prejudices—like intersexism, ableism and queerphobia—that oppress living
people” (Orr, 2015). Just as with humans, suggesting that this technology be
used on nonhumans to eliminate “imperfect” or “unviable” beings indicates
that those with bodily variations have pitiable existences (Orr, 2015). Using
genetic technologies to select against intersex individuals is particularly
problematic because it reinforces the inadequate sex binary. By extension,
it suggests that nonheterosexual or queer perspectives are somehow wrong.
Preventing the birth of intersex individuals is immoral and counterproductive
to challenging intersexism oppression. It does nothing to stop the violence
and mutilation that intersex individuals encounter because of society’s inabil-
ity to accept biological differences from the norm. Societal perceptions are
what need to change, not the mutilation of intersex bodies.

George_9781793624352.indb 172 23-02-2021 20:11:20

173Intersex Inclusion

Adrienne Asch (2000) argues that a central problem with prenatal testing
for congenital anomalies is as follows:

It is a clear case of first impression, and as with any such impression, it is
[incomplete]; when followed by selective abortion of discarding an otherwise
implantable embryo, that first impression includes a decision never to learn
about the rest of who that embryo or fetus could become after its birth. (p. 235)

The issue arises when clinicians and parents conflate difference with disease,
assuming that an individual born with a specific condition will suffer or be
impaired. Under these influenced assumptions, parents terminate viable preg-
nancies based on fear mongering, social anxiety, and the desire for the perfect
baby. Concern should center on the attitudes, presumptions, and unrealistic
expectations placed on parents and nonhuman pet guardians to conform to
a nonexistent sense of normalcy that renders disabled and intersex bodies
broken or wrong.

Many of the issues outlined in this chapter could be addressed by adopt-
ing some facets of the social model of disability in relation to intersex
experiences. The social model has been hailed as beneficial for people with
disabilities because it calls for dismantling the binary between biology/
medicine/impairment and disability. However, one must not dismiss the
notion that some individuals have medical conditions that cause severe and
chronic illness requiring medical treatment. There are cases when individu-
als with intersex conditions can legitimately identify as having a disorder
or disability, such as those who cannot perform essential functions of waste
elimination or menses. Assuming that these individuals need social justice
to alleviate their medical needs could be insulting, and simply not enough.
Thus, medical intervention and therapy should be accepted and recognized as
a legitimate path. However, the vast majority of those born with these condi-
tions typically endure very little by way of pain, suffering, or disruption in
everyday bodily functioning that would require a medical model approach.
Medical practitioners often pressure humans to obtain elective cosmetic
surgery for their dog’s or cat’s genitalia to make it look “more normal” and
make the human guardian feel less embarrassed. These unnecessary surger-
ies often go wrong, causing scar tissue, pain, and years of trauma from being
a medical oddity constantly on display. It is often the case that those with
intersex conditions experience serious physical and mental trauma from
the medical interventions meant to “correct” the condition (Human Rights
Watch, 2017). In the human realm, research by Amnesty International has
determined that these forced surgeries constitute a human rights violation,
especially for children who are too young to meaningfully decide or consent
for themselves (Amnesty International, 2017). These violations infringe upon

George_9781793624352.indb 173 23-02-2021 20:11:20

174 Amber E. George

their interests to receive the highest attainable standard of health and bodily
integrity.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The sheer number of intersex combinations found in the animal kingdom
proves that nature does not only create male or female watertight taxo-
nomic categories. Humans construct this reality for convenience and cope
with the endless variations of sex and gender designations found in many
species. Since Western notions of binaries are not culturally universal, it
should not be difficult to imagine alternative gender and sex constructions
that dismantle mutually exclusive hierarchical categories. However, this
call to dismantle dualistic models does not mean simply creating a model
that has three sexes (male, female, or intersex). Some scholars have sug-
gested adopting indigenous peoples’ understanding of a third-gender such
as Two-Spirit and Indian Hijra categories (Lugones, 2006). Meanwhile,
scholar Anne Fausto-Sterling challenged the physiological sex binary to
suggest “five sexes” (2000; 2018). These paradigms prove fruitful for chal-
lenging long-standing heteronormative notions of sex and gender, but still
reinforce categorizing bodies into social constructs that may fail to capture
the diversity of experiences. This system of designating bodies into two,
three, or five gender/sex categories reinforces a power structure that main-
tains hierarchical division. Regardless, these examples help accentuate the
failings of the sex/gender system of identification with the hopes of creating
solutions in areas related to inclusion, social justice, and social change for
nonhumans and beyond.

My solution to move beyond the gender and physiological sex binary
is to think about the concepts of “both-and.” One can have both male and
female anatomy while feeling like neither a man nor a woman, for instance.
Gender and sex identity should be perceived as a continuum or spectrum
informed by cultural understandings of gender and sex identities. I imagine
these identifiers to be vast, changeable, and learned through socialization.
Rather than present gender and sex distinctions as easily classifiable, fixed,
and undisputable, cultural perception should move toward accepting models
that exist beyond dimorphic constructs. One’s identity claims would be cre-
ated and validated through social exchanges that allow individuals to express
their identities not simply through labels, but also through their character
and actions. This must occur because no one’s identity exists in a vacuum;
we need to express ourselves and recognize another using familiar symbols
and language. For nonhumans animals, humans must communicate messages
about gender and sex using inclusivity and equity.

George_9781793624352.indb 174 23-02-2021 20:11:20

175Intersex Inclusion

The takeaway point is this: individuals are not fixed beings with fixed
natures and should be recognized in the media and elsewhere. Individuals
from all species are at once beings who develop over time due to complex
relations among their biology, culture, and positioning in nature. Variation to
the norm is beautiful and natural. There is an imminent variety of bodies that
should be valued not for their difference, but just for their existence, with no
conditions or qualifiers. Furthermore, consumers of media must notice the
ignored implications and whether messages are empowering. In cases where
intersex conditions are discussed in an unfavorable light, people must men-
tally correct the information that reflects a bias toward the unusual, dramatic,
and sensational by putting them into perspective or discrediting them alto-
gether. For instance, a recent news story coming out of New Zealand entitled,
“Discovery of a female cat with testicles among weirdest pet claims” serves
as an excellent example of how to counteract the sensationalism surround-
ing Cameo’s experiences as a cat with intersex traits (Preston, 2019). If one
shared this story on social media, they could note the speciesist and inter-
sexist language used to reinforce Cameo’s condition as “strange,” “weird,”
“shocking,” “perplexing” (Preston, 2019). Furthermore, one might encourage
veterinarians to be more accepting and feel less “bamboozled” by this “suspi-
cious” discovery (Preston, 2019).

There is a positive value in allowing individuals to be autonomous and
privy to a good quality of life and bodily care. In practice, this means that
a policy of noninterference for any atypical features must be adopted, espe-
cially for those that prove more troubling to animal guardians than to the
animals themselves. While the appearance-based features of intersex condi-
tions are of primary concern, there are other types of corporeal anomalies to
which such a stance could apply. For instance, consider a guardian choosing
to purchase cochlear implantation for their deaf dog or cat so that they can
auditorily hear. Among disability rights advocates, using cochlear implants to
“cure” hearing disabilities has proven controversial. Consider the case of five
deaf white kittens age 12 and 24 weeks, who were used as scientific models to
conduct studies on human deafness. This experiment promoted the erasure of
disability experience and used non-consenting kittens to test hearing appara-
tuses, which was not without risks to their health, in a scientific laboratory for
the furtherance of scientific progress that benefited humans (Kretzmer et al.,
2004). Despite this example not touching upon intersex issues, CAS scholars
could rally against experimentation on the grounds of speciesist and perhaps
even ableist claims. I would hope that they would also renounce instances that
reinforce intersexist practices against animals as well.

Humans must also pay attention to intersex narratives that explore how med-
icine, however well-intentioned in its traditional approach, has failed to meet
their needs. Ultimately, the moral concerns recognized for one species should

George_9781793624352.indb 175 23-02-2021 20:11:20

176 Amber E. George

inform one’s moral concerns for another species. However, whether about
reproductive technologies or surgical intervention, one’s right to bodily choice
should also be protected. Since obtaining consent from nonhuman animals is
impossible, humans must intervene with concern, care, and consent based on
medical needs. I hope that intersex activists will turn their attention toward
securing protection, which includes freedom from cruel treatment, in joining
the struggle for affirming intersex nonhuman animals’ needs. Furthermore,
intersex individuals, groups, and allies must take ownership of the sex/gender
categorization process. Humans could best serve nonhuman intersex indi-
viduals by preventing the misguided medical community from dominating the
discourse about intersex experiences. Rather than reducing individuals’ lives
down to their anatomies and attempting to “fix” or eliminate intersex bod-
ies, everyone’s time would be better served by valuing bodily variation. This
involves unlearning prejudices, ceasing with harmful surgical practices, and
rethinking notions about what is normal relative to the happiness shown by
those who proudly proclaim intersex, disability, and nonhuman status.

REFERENCES

Amaro, K. (2013, August 3). Pet human companion discovers her puppy is a her-
maphrodite. First Coast News. https :/ /ww w .dai lymai l .co. uk /ne ws /ar ticle -2386 096
/P et -ow ner -s hocke d -dis cover -pupp y -bou ght -f emale -ac tu ally- HERMA PHROD ITE
.h tml

Amnesty International. (2017). First, do no harm ensuring the rights of children with
variations of sex characteristics in Denmark and Germany. https :/ /ww w .amn esty.
org /d ownlo ad /Do cumen ts /EU R0160 86201 7ENGL ISH .P DF

Asch, A. (2000). Prenatal testing and disability rights. Braille Jymico Inc.
Bashant, W. (1995). Redressing androgyny: Hermaphroditic bodies in Victorian

England. Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies, 4, 5–23.
BBC News. (2010, October 12). Manchester Dogs’ Home operates on hermaphrodite

dog. https :/ /ww w .bbc .com/ news/ uk -en gland -manc heste r -115 22483
Blackshaw, B. P. (2020). Genetic selective abortion: Still a matter of choice. Ethic

Theory Moral Prac, 23, 445–455. https :/ /do i .org /10 .1 007 /s 10677 -020 – 10080 -5
Byrne, P. (2012, January 27). Hermaphrodog: Saira the super-rare dog born with male

and female sex organs. Mirror. https :/ /ww w .mir ror .c o .uk/ news/ weird -news /herm
aphro dog -s aira- the -s uper- rar e- dog -b orn -2 69704

Cats Protection. (2016, April 18). Meet Bellini—the hermaphrodite kitten looking for
a new home. https :/ /ww w .cat s .org .uk /n ews /m eet -b ellin i– -t he -he rmaph rodit e -kit
ten -l o okin g -for -a -ne w -hom e

CBS News. (2016, January 7). Rare hermaphrodite dog turns up at Detroit Animal
Control. https :/ /ww w .cbs news. com /n ews /r are -h ermap hrodi te -do g -tur ns -up -at -d
etro i t -ani mal -c ontro l/

George_9781793624352.indb 176 23-02-2021 20:11:20

177Intersex Inclusion

Center for Disability Rights. (2020). Disability writing and journalism guidelines.
http: / /cdr nys .o rg /di sabil ity -w ritin g -jou rnali sm -gu ideli nes/

Couser, T. (1997). Recovering bodies: Illness, disability, and life writing. University
of Wisconsin Press.

Diamond, M., & Beh, H. G. (2008). Changes in management of children with
differences of sex development. Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology &
Metabolism, 4, 4–5.

Dreger, A. D. (1998). Hermaphrodites and the medical invention of sex. Harvard UP.
Dreger, A., Chase, C., Sousa, A., Gruppuso, P., & Frader, J. (2005). Changing the

nomenclature/taxonomy for Intersex: A scientific and clinical rationale. Journal of
Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism,18, 729–734.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construct of
sexuality. Basic Books.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2018). Why sex is not binary: The complexity is more than cul-
tural. It’s biological too. New York Times. https :/ /ww w .nyt imes. com /2 018 /1 0 /25/
opini on /se x -bio lo gy- binar y .htm l

Festing, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2007). The ethics of animal research. Talking point on
the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO, 8(6), 526–530.

Gitlin, T. (2003). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and
unmaking of the new left. University of California Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Harper & Row.

Grue, J. (2015). The problem with inspiration porn: A tentative definition and a pro-
visional critique. Disability & Society, 31(6), 838–849.

Haviland, L. (2020, Oct. 21). Dr Jan Pol of ‘The Incredible Dr. Pol’ says this is 1 of
his biggest pet peeves, literally. Showbiz Cheatsheet. https :/ /ww w .che atshe et .co m
/ent ertai nment /dr -j an -po l -of- the -i ncred ible- dr -po l -say s -thi s -is- 1 -of- his -b igges t -pet
-peev es -li teral ly .ht ml/

Howson, J. (2015, June 17). Female dog Lola turns hermaphrodite after she suddenly
grows a penis. The Mirror. https :/ /ww w .mir ror .c o .uk/ news/ uk -ne ws /fe male- dog -l
ola -t urns- herma phrod ite -5 89930 6

Hughes, I. A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S. F., Lee, P. A., & Group, L. C. (2006).
Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Archives of Disease in
Childhood, 91(7), 554–563.

Human Rights Watch. (2017, July 25). “I want to be like nature made me.” Medically
unnecessary surgeries on intersex children in the U.S. Human Rights Watch. https
:/ /ww w .hrw .org/ repor t /201 7 /07/ 25 /i- want- be -na ture- made- me /me dical ly -un neces
sary- surge ries- inter sex -c hildr en -us #

Intersex Society of North America. (2018). Our mission. http://www .isna .org/
Kretzmer, E. A., Meltzer, N., Haenggeli, C. A., & Ryugo, D. K. (2004). An animal

model for Cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 130(5), 499–508.
doi:10.1001/archotol.130.5.499

Live Science Staff. (2011, March 24). French Bull dog found to be hermaphrodite.
Life Science. https :/ /ww w .liv escie nce .c om /13 389 -s ex -re versa l -fre nc h -b ulldo g
.htm l

George_9781793624352.indb 177 23-02-2021 20:11:20

178 Amber E. George

Lugones, M. (2006). Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender sys-
tem. Hypatia, 22(1), 186–209. https://muse .jhu .edu /article /206329

MacKinnon, C. (2004). Of mice and men: A feminist fragment on animal rights, ani-
mal rights: current debates and new directions. In Nussbaum, M., & Sunstein, C.
(Eds.). Animal rights: Current debates and new directions (pp. 263–276). Oxford
University Press.

National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS). (2020). Animal testing alternatives.
https :/ /ww w .nav s .org /what -we -d o /kee p -you -info rmed/ scien ce -co rner/ alter nativ es /
al terna tives -to -a nim al -test ing/# .X6WN4pNKii4

Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Palgrave Macmillian.
Orr, C. (2015, July 10). Eliminating intersex babies is not a legitimate use of genetic

embryo testing. The Guardian. https :/ /ww w .the guard ian .c om /co mment isfre e /201 5
/jul /10 /i nters ex -ba bies- gene t ic -em bryo- testi ng

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2016). Critical thinking: Concepts & tools. Foundation for
Critical Thinking.

Preston, N. (2019, February 3). Discovery of a female cat with testicles among
weirdest pet claims. NZ Herald. https :/ /ww w .nzh erald .co .n z /nz/ disco very- of -a-
femal e -cat -with -test icles -amon g -wei rdest -pet- claim s /S4P Z3KO2 QHBZS OTVO2
LCOFX BSQ/

Ray, A. (2017, December 25). Difference between intersex and hermaphrodite. https
:/ /an unnak iray. com /2 017 /1 2 /25/ diffe rence -betw een -h ermap hrodi t e -an d -int ersex /

SPCA. (2017, May 28). Rex/Regina has both male and female reproductive organs.
http: / /www .iomt oday. co .im /arti cle .c fm ?id =3378 7 &hea dline =Manx SPCA% 20col
umn: %20R ex /Re xina% 20has %20bo th %20 male% 20and %20fe male% 20rep roduc
tive% 20org ans &s ectio nIs =n ews &s earch year= 2017

Smith-Squire, A. (2015, March 14). Meet Marbles the hermaphrodite cat who is both
male AND female. Mirror. https :/ /ww w .mir ror .c o .uk/ news/ weird -news /meet -marb
les -h ermap hrodi te -ca t -who -5335 802

Tamar-Mattis, A., & Diamond, M. (2007). Managing variations in sex develop-
ment. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, 20, 552–553.

Warrander, R. (2017, December 25). Mum who bought female puppy for daughter’s
Christmas gift shocked after finding out it both private parts. The Sun. https :/ /ww w
.the sun .c o .uk/ news/ 52103 66 /pu ppy -h ermap hrodi te -do g -c hr istma s -pre sent/

Warrander, R. (2018, January 22). Pet human companion left stunned after vet dis-
covers her FEMALE dog has male private parts too. The Sun. https :/ /ww w .the sun
.c o .uk/ news/ 53938 23 /hu man companion -stun ned-a fter- vet-r eveal s-her mapho rdite
-dog/

Wells, J. (2018, May 23). Fake dog testicles made this man a millionaire. CNBC.
https :/ /ww w .cnb c .com /2018 /05 /2 2 /neu ticle s -tes ticul ar -im plant s -for -dogs -have
-made -gr eg g -mil ler -r ich .h tml

World Health Organization. (2018). Disability. http: / /www .who. int /t opics /disa bilit
ies /e n/

George_9781793624352.indb 178 23-02-2021 20:11:20

Assistance needed TODAY on writing

Top-quality papers guaranteed

100% original papers

Confidential service

Money-back guarantee

Enjoy the free features we offer to everyone

Calculate how much your essay costs

How to place an order

What we are popular for

Ask experts to write you a cheap essay of excellent quality