Gender Reassignment Surgery

Gender identification is not a “trait” residing in the individual; rather it is something people “do” in their social interactions. In any given situation our perceptions of what is socially

“acceptable or unacceptable” are indefatigably tied one’s gender and societal expectations of that gender. Thus, gender proves to be a master identity that affects our behavior in many instances.

Intersex individuals challenge social constructionist ideas about gender. Based on the logic of the sociocultural approach “Doing Gender”, I will highlight how gender reassignment surgery is a physical solution to a psychosocial problem, adheres to social norms, and has potentially devastating physical and psychological effects on the individual, thus requiring

Throughout the field, psychologists often postulate that behavior requires an entangled interaction between nature and nurture. Consequently, in order to fully understand human social behavior- we need to study, identify, and specify precisely how the two interact. When gender reassignment surgery was first introduced in the mid-20th century, the essential criteria in developing a stable gender identity were gender appropriate genitalia and reinforcement gender assignment through the child rearing process (Hughes, Houk, Ahmed, & Lee, 2006). However surgical reassignment, founded on sociocultural perspectives of the Standard Social Science Model, is based on the key ideology that nurture out weighs any influences of nature in establishing gender identity.

Intersexuality is not a medical condition- it is a natural occurrence in which an individual possesses anatomical sexual characteristics that are neither typically male nor female. A growing medical consensus views diverse intersex bodies as a normal byproduct of human biological development, in which 1% of Americans are born with (Aaronson & Aaronson, 2010).

Additionally there is little scientific evidence supporting the necessity of gender

Long-term successful adjustment is largely unmeasured in the scientific community and cannot be predicted based on immediate attitudes following surgery (Diamond &

Sigmundson, 1997). Ultimately, without proper evidence of medical vitality for survival, gender reassignment surgery remains a risky, invasive surgical treatment based solely on psychological and sociological reasoning.

The Adherence to Social Norms. Gender identity is routinely measured by subjective sociocultural definitions of masculinity and femininity. Cross-culturally, intersexuality is almost unanimously viewed as disruptive to the fixed ideologies regarding sexual orientation, gender roles, and gender identity. Though possessing the same psychological capability and range of sexual orientations and gender identities as those born without CAH, the rigid social construction

IMPLICATIONS OF SURGICAL REASSIGNMENT

3

of sex and gender condemns intersex individuals as unwelcome due to their existence outside social institutions of gender. Punishment, exclusion, lower status- all consequences of failing