Sunday, July 30, 2006

If The Female Gender Were Medicalized...


  • PMS, menopause and breast cancer would be called "co-morbidities".

  • Neuroanatomical differences between men and women would be cited as evidence of pathology.

  • Low employment wages and education rates (which would be worse than in our reality) would be cited as evidence of poor long-term outcome.

  • Some researchers would speculate that differences in hair and blood mineral concentrations between men and women might give clues on the etiology of femaleness, and could even lead to a cure.

  • Twin studies would find a very high concordance of femaleness among monozygotic twins (near 100%) and not so high among dizygotic twins (around 50%). Researchers would thus conclude that a single gene must be involved in the etiology of femaleness.

  • Giving birth would be considered a "splinter skill".

  • Instead of gynecologists, there would be DFN! doctors.

  • Some ethically-challenged doctors would recommend hormone agonists to try to cure femaleness, and some parents would go along with such recommendations despite well known adverse effects.

  • Parents would lament that their female children will never become engineers or athletes.

  • Whenever females do become engineers or athletes, people would wonder if that means they are men now.

  • Some parents would declare their female children "recovered" after they start playing with toy cars.

  • People would speculate that, curiously, women appear to be more attractive than men.

  • Men would tell of horror stories of women who became hysterical and "had to" be drugged/committed.

  • Thomas Szasz would claim that "female" does not exist, but is simply an expedient label given to those without penises so they can be marginalized.

  • Others would argue endlessly over whether femaleness is a disease, a disability, or simply a difference.

  • Some would also argue that person-first language ("she has femaleness") is more value-free than person-second language ("she is female").

  • Claims that gender roles are a cultural construct or that "female" is a type of person would be scoffed at.

  • Feminists would be called anti-cure advocates.

  • The feminist movement would be dismissed as being comprised mostly of mildly feminine females, and a few mildly masculine males.

  • Females with an anti-cure view would be asked for proof of gender, including pictures of genitalia. Females with a pro-cure view would not.

  • There would be a blog titled "Hating Femaleness" by someone who, not surprisingly, also hates homosexuality.

  • Whenever they come across a medicalized article about them, females would feel like crap.



[Inspired by The Etiology and Treatment of Childhood]

Addendum

Zilari has posted a follow-up titled A Better World?

40 comments:

  1. No offense to female readers, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Whenever females do become engineers or athletes, people would wonder if that means they are men now"

    Or perhaps people would wonder if they were female savants.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Would there be an "advocacy" group called "Females Speak" comprised of mostly Males?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've only read excerpts of it, and I think it's now out of print, but well-known social psychologist Carole Tavris wrote a book called The Mismeasure of Woman in which she debunked a whole bunch of common beliefs about gender differences (beliefs coming from both sides of the Battle of the Sexes) and concluded that there was a root cause for most of the nonsense: a tendency to take one sex (often, but not exclusively, the male one) as "normal" or "standard" and explain the characteristics of the other in terms of "deviation from the norm." It's pretty plain that much of the study of autism is poisoned by a similar non-reality-based schema.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Females (and any group in general) should not be concerned about being different from non-females. You can't stop most people from value judging difference as "less than", but hey, the important thing is how we value ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think "Females Speak" the proposed organization would be comprised entirely of males. They would find a male who thought of killing his daughter so that she would suffer as a female, and make a fundraising video out of it.

    Women who were willing to give birth to male children would be given token OK status. Those women might think of themselves as worth more than women who wouldn't or couldn't bear male children. Women unable to bear children would be considered hated burdens on society, a prenatal test for such women would be under development ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But that would be males with at least one female relative, right? That would supposedly give them in depth understanding of what femaleness is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The female gender is medicalized. Not as much as it used to be, but still is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. But it's medicalized to an appropriate level more or less? I think autism probably does need to be medicalized to an appropriate extent. For example, pediatricians specialized in autism would be nice, just as there are gynecologists.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What about parents of little girls who refuse to take their children for quack treatments to make them look (sorta...if you tilt your head to the left and squint a lot) like boys--would they be called child abusers?

    Would mums who struggle to instill a sense of pride in their female offspring be considered whackos?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Femaleness: a novel form of estrogen poisoning.

    Femaleness is a syndrome characterized by impairments in male relatedness and communication, feminine behaviors, non-masculine movements, and remote control dysfunction. Recent epidemiological studies suggest that femaleness may affect 1 in 2 US residents. Exposure to estrogen can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral changes similar to traits defining or associated with the female gender, and the similarities extend to neuroanatomy, neurotransmitters, and biochemistry.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Camille (is also a man's name)7/30/2006 7:58 PM

    1 in 2!!! ??? It hasn't always been this way!! We've had an epidemic!! A veritable tsunami of estrogen (don't get me started on projesteron!!!). Where's the "combatting feminity" bill? Outlaw soy beans!!! (with their so-called "harmless" estrogen like chemicals!!!!)

    Really, I mean you have to have some females around to keep the species going, but you wouldn't want them to actually influence the raising of male children. Boys should never be allowed extended contact with their defective mothers and sisters.

    Think of the sons,

    the sons of the fatherland

    burdened by

    female

    ((shudder))

    siblings... it's really,
    just
    too
    awful
    to
    contemplate.....
    I need to lie down... I mean, go change the oil on the car ....

    ReplyDelete
  13. Joseph, I don't know what happened, feel free to remove one of the rants... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Keep it up guys (pun intended). This is great:)

    Does house painting count as worthy of existence or is ir only map reading?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Camille, I removed the first one.

    So Camille is a man's name? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to see your diagnostic papers :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, of COURSE there weren't as many females a hundred years ago. Just look at the history books! Every U.S. President? Male. Every war hero? Male. Every famous inventor? Male.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Genderation Rescue7/30/2006 10:45 PM

    There are about 25 million 'new cases' of femaleness since 1990 in the U.S. alone - an increase of over 250,000 percent.

    ReplyDelete
  18. TexMex & Sex Chromosomes7/31/2006 6:38 AM

    "Twin studies would find a very high concordance of femaleness among monozygotic twins (near 100%) and not so high among dizygotic twins (around 50%). Researchers would thus conclude that a single gene must be involved in the etiology of femaleness."

    researchers being somebody with a credit card and an account on amazon.com, which reminds me, having read _A Brief History of Time_, I really ought to think about codifying a GUT to lay all this string nonsense to rest.

    what makes DFN! happy:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086619/
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120762/

    what makes DFN! cry:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084805/
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107614/

    ReplyDelete
  19. Actually, the incidence of femaleness is not that high now. Let's see. There are 151.86 million females in 2006. There will be 153.84 million females in 2007. We substract these two numbers and obtain 1.98 million "new females" in one year. As the total population of the US is 299.3 million, the incidence of femaleness is only 66 per 10,000 per year :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Psychologists would be praised for developing therapy programs such as "Peetime" to train girls in the vital social skill of how to urinate standing up.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Joseph, please email me. You can get my email address from DOC.

    ReplyDelete
  22. hatingfemaleness7/31/2006 11:05 PM

    The problem is obvious. Their dicks just don't work right. The doctors and the government don't want you to know this, but the cure has already been discovered. It's right there in your e-mail box. My child is recovering. Within 18 months, her handicap should go to 0. His. Whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Most excellent JBJr satire there 'hatingfemaleness'
    LMAO!

    ReplyDelete
  24. hatingmaleness8/01/2006 6:43 AM

    Did you know that almost all serial killers are male? They tend to have male characteristics, such as obsession with sex. It is maleness that we need to cure I tell you!

    ReplyDelete
  25. One more...

    Some would argue that femaleness is all the more tragic because females have a life expectancy even longer than that of males.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ROTFL!

    (I have a pair of twins, one male and one female, and the female does play with cars. She and her twin brother fight over the tow trucks, in fact.)

    I'm going to second the recommendation of Tavris's book. And if I had an extra copy, I'd offer to send it to whomever. (I think I gave my extra copies to other people already.)

    ReplyDelete
  27. You are all a bunch of GD wackos (Gender-Diverse)who want children to suffer as girls which is fine for you if you are already grown and used to the idea and don't know any better but we have the cure and anyone who continues to allow their kid to suffer as a female is guilty of child abuse. Why do you attack the brilliant scientists who have told us what causes femaleness and have shown us what that 75% of children treated according to Androgen Cutter's protocol will make a full recovery within 3 to 35 years. Maybe if your kid was born with the wrong APO gene they can't excrete estrogen and they need to be fixed or end up in an institution. I'm not talking about adult males who don't know how to box or like to eat quiche or other girly stuff. I'm talking about full blown playing with dolls pig tail wearing freaking train wreck girls! It's an epidemic. Wake up and smell the pheremones.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Very good, everybody. Amanda, on the point of femaleness being medicalised - I suspect this is probably true. It's interesting that giving birth occurs predominantly in hospitals, a place of treatment for ill health. I know of some feminists who argue for more home births with midwives. So there's an example of femaleness being medicalised.

    ReplyDelete
  29. As long as medicalization is not used to devalue types of people, or to force drugs or as an excuse for incarceration, I think it's fine. I'd argue that hospital births are inherently safer - however, I'm not familiar with all of the details of the feminist argument or the safety argument.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Neither am I. I was recently privy to a debate on another blog between two feminists about reproductive choices, and the argument for greater access to home births and midwives etc, was made. I think the argument is that women would have more control over the pre-natal process rather than when in hospitals, when doctors' priorities would take over.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm one feminist who was glad to have my deliveries in a hospital, but the way maternity leave is set up as a medical leave is weird. We just don't have a model for time off work for a non-illness. This is addressed in the book "The Mismeasure of Woman". Since men don't have babies, having babies must be treated as a disease-state. Maybe we could have childbearing sabbaticals?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Just another note about the present medicalisation of being female- it's not just pregnancy & childbirth that puts one at risk. Until recently women in perimenopause or menopause were considered strange at best if they were not opting for estrogen replacement therapy. It has since been discovered to be harmful to women's health, but I witnessed a televised interchange between one of the Women's Health Initiative investigators (a woman) who called the study to a halt because the study was showing these terrible health risks, & a gynaecologist (also a female) who was blithely listing the conditions for which she still prescribes ERT... without hearing a word the investigator was saying. It was truly scary. I am glad to have come into perimenopause myself in a time when it is actually accepted to try to "tough it out" without medical intervention... And, of course, the risk to women's mental health of society's expectation that they accept medical treatment so that they may remain pre-menopausal (ie: "young") forever is a whole other issue.

    Sorry to blather on, but this issue really hits close to home :) I very much appreciate this post (found from Zilari's site) & the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks Ruth and Lisa/Jedi. That clarifies some issues I'm guessing most of us males were not aware of.

    ReplyDelete
  34. China has a definite leg up on the U.S. in terms of erradicating femaleness. Perhaps, we should also look to them in our efforts to eliminate autism.

    ReplyDelete
  35. common anonimouse8/07/2006 2:57 PM

    My recovering child is making great gains on the DFN! protocol! Why, just the other day she (yes, I still call it a she, even though I know there's a thriving boy locked inside there somewhere) burped twice and asked to watch sports on ESPN. Ok, it was the U.S. Rythmic Gymnastics Championships, but we're making progress. Several months ago, she wouldn't have even sat down to watch ESPN without some kind of prissy meltdown.

    And to all of you who suggest that I don't love my child because I want it to be a boy instead of a girl, I suggest that you walk a minute in my shoes. Do you know what it's like to watch Powderpuff Girls over and over again? Or go dress shopping? I'm sure most of you have perfect MT (male-typical) children, and even if they're not they're not nearly as female as my kid is. My kid has problems, real problems, real big problems like wanting to wear lipstick and liking males. Do you think I can stand idly by while my strapping young stud is trapped in this hell?

    And nobody asks the ultimate question - why are there so many more females today than 15 years ago? Everyone knows that it was around that time that thimerosal content in vaccines started to increase, so it is patently obvious that thimerosal exposure is the reason that more children are being born female. Is the goverment doing anything about it? No. That's because they know that if they told the truth, millions of people would sue the drug companies and bankrupt them and then congressmen wouldn't get cushy trips to New Jersey to attend drug company conferences.

    I don't care if you ban me, because you can't stand dealing with logical arguments anyway. And oh yeah, Kevin Leitch is a tool.

    ReplyDelete