Wednesday 11 May 2022

Intersex in Early America

 

A Conversation with Professor Elizabeth Reis
   
Queer History 101
 
 

Intersex in Early America

 

A Conversation with Professor Elizabeth Reis

 
Dr. Eric Cervini
Apr 12
Like
Comment
Share
 

Welcome back to Queer History 101!

What separates womanhood from manhood? This question has transfixed the medical community in America since its founding. But the need to enforce a binary gender––male or female––tells a darker history about the struggle for acceptance of people born with intersex traits. Elizabeth Reis, a professor at the Macaulay Honors College at the City University of New York and author of Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex, has dedicated her research to bringing awareness to intersex history, specifically the medical management of people born with atypical sex development.

As we began our conversation, Reis took me back to the mid-18th century. “Doctors were trying to figure out: When is somebody a woman? When is somebody a man? What bodily characteristics were required?” Before medicine was capable of studying hormones, chromosomes, and gonads (ovaries and testes), doctors only had genitals (and a person’s social presentation) to help provide answers. “That idea of determining a person's ‘true sex’ permeated all of intersex history.” And this is where intersex history merges with the history of homosexual oppression.

“Physicians were determined to figure out a person’s sex if it wasn’t immediately clear because they wanted to promote heterosexuality and eliminate homosexuality,” Reis told me. “The doctors of the late-18th and the 19th centuries thought that if a person wasn't sure if they were male or female, that might then lead them to become attracted to a same-sex person.” Cue the fear of homosexuality.

In early America, so-called corrective surgeries on people's genitals were, of course, not medically possible. The techniques and medicine had not been invented yet. “But what the doctors did want,” said Reis, “was for the person to choose their gender and stick with it.” For some people, choosing a stable gender identity proved difficult.

Reis found evidence of a person with intersex traits in a two-page document from a Virginia court in 1629. The person at the center of the case sometimes went by the name of Thomasine Hall and at other times lived as Thomas Hall. “One of the things that struck me in this case was the nosy townspeople,” said Reis. “They stormed into Hall’s room at night, ripped off his clothes, and tried to examine his body.” Hall, who at the moment of intrusion was presenting as a man, described his anatomy on record by saying, “I have a piece of both.” The court sentenced Hall to an unusual punishment: to wear half women’s clothing, half men’s clothing. As Reis described it, “It was a sanction that marked Hall as somebody whose gender fraud (from the court’s perspective) would no longer be able to deceive others.”

Reis found other people who may have had intersex traits by examining divorce proceedings. Divorce was rare, even throughout the 19th century, but it was grantable for specific reasons, one of them being if the marriage was never consummated. As Reis outlined for me, “A person would have testified that the marriage remained unconsummated. Then the court would have had a doctor examine the person’s genitals. And based on those findings, the court could rule, ‘Because this person is a perfect male, no, your divorce is not granted.’” Enforcing the binary maintained social relations, including heterosexual marriage, as they were then understood.

As Reis’s research entered the late-19th century, when physicians began to professionalize, she found evidence of intersex management in their medical journals. “The first surgery that I found was in 1849,” Reis told me. “That was a four-year-old girl who had internal testes. And this is where you can see how much people cared about homosexuality even from this early case.” The doctor, worried that internal testes might “inspire” sexual desires toward women, opted for surgery. He even claimed that the girl would be “reviled by all humans” if he didn’t operate. The doctor reported the surgery a medical success, but ethically, Reis argues, it was a nightmare.

“None of these surgeries were medically necessary,” said Reis. “And that is a key point with intersex politics today: such surgeries have been driven by what doctors (and some parents) have seen as a social necessity.” And it's this conversation, one of ethics and necessity, that would guide Reis’s research into the 20th century and today.

In the 1950s, a Johns Hopkins psychologist, John Money, believed intersex cases should be handled at infancy. He reasoned that because a baby’s gender identity is malleable for the first 18 months of life, surgery would be an easy solution to “correct” intersex conditions. “Money wrote hundreds of articles with his team, and many doctors were happy with his strategy,” Reis told me. With a few exceptions, the medical community eagerly welcomed his idea for infantile surgery, and unfortunately, the idea continues to be welcomed today.

But intersex advocates have pushed back. Reis explained: “This is what intersex advocates are against. They're against surgery on non-consenting infants. The parents are consenting, but the parents aren't the patients. It is a human rights violation to tamper surgically with somebody's genitals and prevent that person from developing their own sexual self-authorship in terms of their gender, their reproductive possibilities, and their sexuality.”

In a potential move toward change, one major hospital, the Lurie Children's Hospital in Chicago, announced in July 2020 that it would stop cosmetic infant surgeries. It stated: “We empathize with intersex individuals who are harmed by the treatment that they received, according to the historic standard of care, and we apologize and are truly sorry. The medical field has failed these children.”

“We're in a different era now, where people are more comfortable with difference,” concluded Reis. Thanks to disability politics, as well as transgender and queer visibility, society has worked toward becoming more aware. And though the fight for acceptance continues, especially in Republican-controlled states like Texas and Florida, Reis still sees hope: “The silver lining of this terrible climate is that it's brought trans and intersex activists together. All people deserve to make their own decisions about how their bodies look and function.”

To read more of Reis’s phenomenal work, see:

I would love to hear your thoughts! Hit "Join the discussion" at the bottom of this email to leave a comment on this newsletter.

And don't forget to subscribe to get more amazing queer content in your inbox every week! See you in the next class!

Join the discussion
 

The UN Shield talk by David Selves


In April, we enjoyed an interesting and information evening with David Selves who is a great speaker and  thrilled The Network with the story of “UN Shield – the Elimination of War between Sovereign States”, it has long been spoken about and it is high time to implement it in view of the current situation in Ukraine!" 

Check about the UN Shield on:

https://www.selvesgroup.co.uk/un-shield.html

Friday 25 March 2022

Membership

Tuesday 8 March 2022

Highlight of our members: Stephen Trockle and Carlos Lumiere

 

Lumiere London LTD


Lumiere London is home to seven unique venues, centrally located in Southbank/Waterloo, Hyde Park Corner/Victoria, Shoreditch/Liverpool Street, Hoxton/Regent Canal and Old Street. Ranging from 700 to 5,900 sqft, Lumiere London hosts corporate events, product launches, workshops, conferences, filming and private dining and drinks receptions. Lumiere's clients include PWC, EY, Diageo, The Guardian, BT, Chanel, Facebook, Amazon, Virgin, Unilever and all major broadcasters and film and TV production companies. 

Lumiere London was founded by acclaimed fashion photographer Carlos Lumiere in 2007. 

Originally from Spain, Carlos has lived and worked in New York, Paris, Milan, Miami, Havana, Madrid, Munich, Barcelona, and Hamburg, Carlos' work includes clients and magazines such as ELLE, Harper’s Bazaar, GQ, FHM, CITIZEN K, Cacharel, Harrods, Hackett, Harvey Nichols, Vivienne Westwood, Longines, Royal Ascot, Christian Lacroix, Lanvin, and Dunhill.

Carlos is Lumiere London’s flagship creative visionary and responsible for each studio’s look and style.

In 2016, Carlos' husband Stephan Trockle joined the company to help with the expanding business. 

Prior to this, Stephan has worked for an extensive number of broadcasters, production companies, distributors, branding agencies and media consultancies, in the UK, the US, Germany and Luxembourg. Previous employers include BBC Drama, Company Pictures, Headline Pictures, MediaXchange, PRO7 Media and the RTL Group.

Stephan’s first feature film, QUARTET, was directed by Dustin Hoffmann, starring Dame Maggie Smith, Sir Tom Courtney, Billy Connolly, Pauline Collins. His second feature film, INVISIBLE WOMAN directed by Ralph Fiennes, starring Fiennes, Felicity Jones and Kristin Scott Thomas, was nominated for an Oscar at the 2014 Academy Awards.

Carlos and Stephan have been together since 1997 and married in Carlos' hometown Cuenca, Spain in 2012.




Wednesday 16 February 2022

Queer History 101 Love between Women in Early Modern England

 


Queer History 101
 
 

Love between Women in Early Modern England

 

A conversation with Professor Laura Gowing

 
Dr. Eric Cervini
Feb 15
 

Welcome back to Queer History 101!

In our class, we’ve seen a lot of evidence of same-sex relationships between men in premodern times. Indeed, evidence of same-sex relationships between women is often harder to find–especially since historical scholarship on women’s lives was unfairly neglected for centuries.

But Prof. Laura Gowing, who teaches Early Modern History at King’s College London, is illuminating these hidden stories. By combing through unconventional archival material, she’s uncovering some truly fascinating ideas about queerness during that time. I recently sat down with her to talk about her work.

Gowing began researching women’s history in early modern England because “there seemed to be a point where there was a massive gap, which really kind of was the case.” Still, even as she was looking at that history, she was wondering if there was enough archival document to trace lesbian history.

“Now,” she added, “it seems much more possible!”

But those documents can be hard to find. As she explained it, “You’re in a double-bind: not only is it hard to find records that women have actually written–there’s very few women in England during this period who are literate–but you’re also looking for queerness.”

So she turned to legal records, printed books, midwives’ books, and even pornography to find evidence of women who loved other women. There wasn’t much in legal records; there was a lot in midwife’s literature. “It really forces us to think about what gets recorded and what doesn’t get recorded–how an archive itself is a tool of power.”

What remained in the archive, though, revealed some fascinating stories, including how people subverted traditional ideas of gender. “We could call it gender rigidity or sexual fluidity or gender non conformity, but we can't interpret it in the same terms as we use,” explained Gowing.

It’s not quite what we’d call “trans” today, but more of what the scholar Jen Manion has called “trans-ing”: the idea of moving around the gender line given the confines of early modern gender norms. Since clothes were gender-defining, it was easier for women to pass as men by “simply putting on britches.” And since ideas of “biological sex” were still quite flexible and evolving–no one really knew how anything worked–a lot of norms were surprisingly fluid.

Religion played a powerful role in regulating those norms–but for love between women, it actually could be “sort of a facilitating factor.” Since there were no convents or nunneries in England, there weren’t people looking for “suspicious relationships between women,” Gowing said. But those relationships certainly existed.

One example was the 1682 case of Amy Pulter. Two women, having married each other, were prosecuted––not because they were married, but because one of them had already been married to someone else. But then, it turned out that Pulter, the woman who was dressed as a man, was actually switching between dressing as a man and a woman during the length of their relationship! How did she get away with this? Apparently, she said she was a man dressed in women’s clothes! “It's kind of double cross dressing,” said Gowing.

Pulter also declared that she was “no hermaphrodite, nor a person of a double gender.” Gowing was startled: this was the first time she had seen a reference to “gender” in this legal context. “The idea of a hermaphrodite,” she explained, “figures quite heavily in early modern culture and provides a means of talking about sex between two people of apparently the same sex.”

Relationships and friendships between women were interesting not only on a social level, but also on a larger political level. Queen Anne, for example, had a “favorite” (an intimate companion of a ruler), Abigail Masham. That relationship helped Masham network and get ahead, but it also sparked gossip about “dark deeds at night.” As Gowing put it, “Both the everyday aspects of friendship and the more intimate, physical side of it can have a political instrumental, important element to them.”

It’s hard to know exactly what happened in Queen Anne’s rooms at night, or what happened after Amy Pulter left that courtroom. But, as Gowing explained, that’s not the point of queer history. “The point is more to reconstruct the landscape in which queer relationships were perceived, what kinds of relationships people had, and where they might be erotic.”

That idea really struck me: finding queerness in history isn’t about being able to go back in time and “work out how many people are having sex with whom,” in Gowing’s words.

The queering of history lies in the possibility: we don’t have to interpret everything as heterosexual or cisgender, and we don’t have to assume that people thought like we do today. We can only try to study the past through the perspective of the people who lived it and attempt to rebuild their world.

For more of Prof. Laura Gowing's amazing work, see:

Join the discussion