My Sexuality Textbook

I am taking a Psychology of Human Sexuality course this semester, which I love. I really like the people that I’ve been acquainted with and I really like the professor. And originally, I really liked the main textbook for the course (“Our Sexuality”). Actually, I had been just telling a friend of mine how much I liked the textbook when I turned to the chapter about gender. That’s when my expectations were smashed. My first hint that I was going to be extremely angry in less than no time was the book’s definition of “sex”. The book defines sex as one’s “biological maleness or femaleness”. Basically, this means sex is the physical/biological parts of an individual that allow the individual to be put into one of two categories by society. What is so confusing about the book’s use of this problematic definition is that in just a few pages, the book starts to discuss intersex individuals. So why, dear textbook, would you define ‘sex’ as only having two options when obviously you acknowledge that this is not the case? For those who do not know, an intersex individual is someone whose sex does not fit within the socially acknowledged categories of “male” or “female”. An intersex individual is born with physically ambiguous internal and/or external sex characteristics, which do not allow society to shove them into either box. Causes for this could be genetic or hormonal. This is (or should serve as) testimony that the idea of sex as one’s concrete male/female destiny is faulty.  Obviously, there is more than two sexes in existence and obviously, sex is not as concrete as most people assume it is. Also, the book uses the word “hermaphrodite” to describe intersex individuals. The word “hermaphrodite” is a outdated and offensive. Don’t use it. I don’t care how ‘scientific’ it is and how much it falls in line with the biomedical model. Seriously, just don’t use it. Defining someone solely based on their genitals is not appropriate or polite for that matter. I don’t go around calling men “Penis” as if that is the only thing that defines them. 


But, oh wait, this book doesn’t stop there. When I start reading the section entitled “Transsexualism and Transgenderism,” I wanted to throw the book across the room. The book says there are three kinds of transgendered individuals: androphilic men, gynephilic men and gynephilic women. According to the book, an androphilic man is a man who cross-dresses either to attract heterosexual men or to perform as a drag queen. A gynephilic man has urges to become a woman, but is perfectly happy living a heteronormative life with his wife and white picket fence as long as he is allowed to dress up as a woman when the urge strikes him. And a gynephilic woman “manifests masculine qualities” (Crooks and Baur, 130). Now, time to unpack all this nonsense. First of all, a trans man is NOT a woman and a trans woman is NOT a man. Secondly, these categories are absolute nonsense! Trans women do not dress up to attract, seduce or trap heterosexual men! Spreading beliefs like these is criminal and fatal to trans individuals. So many people are abused and killed because of ignorant beliefs like these. Also part time transgenderism does not exist. Dear textbook, I think you are confused. A man who dresses like a woman infrequently or frequently is a cross-dresser (Also, dear textbook, the word “transvestite” is problematic. Please don’t use it. Thank you.). A trans woman is a WOMAN, not a man who is a part-time woman. And a trans man is a man, not a woman with “masculine qualities”. And to put icing on the cake, the book quotes John Goodrum, who says that transgendered people “to varying degrees, ‘transgress’ cultural norms as to what a man or woman ‘should be’”. I looked up the word ‘transgress’ in a thesaurus and I found the words: breach, infringe, misbehave, violate and err. Needless to say, transgress has a negative connotation. Gender variant individuals are not transgressing anything. It is these exclusionary societal norms that are transgressing the rights of its members. 


By the way, this is not an ancient book. It was copyrighted in 2010. This book highlights what troubles me about sex education and the misinformation that is being put out there. It is the duty of authors, instructors and scientists to present correct information. They need to be more cognizant of the information they disseminate and the effects it can have. 


My friend Erin and a few other individuals put together this great Trans 101 glossary, which I love. It gives clear and comprehensive definitions of terms related to sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. I check this glossary every couple of months to see if it has been updated. Honestly, I think she should write sex education textbooks for people of all ages. I would definitely buy them.