Quickies

Quickies: Defining sex, alcohol linked to cancers, and autism in the workplace

  • Finally a sanitary pad advertisement done right! – CN: Blood. Yup, that’s right, a sanitary pad ad that actually shows blood! From Veronica.
  • What is a “male body?” – “The medical experts I have spoken with could not identify a single medical purpose for assigning sex at birth and explain that the components of sex are far more complex than just external genitalia and include, at least, chromosomes, genes, hormones, internal genitalia, gender identity, and secondary sex characteristics. By embracing a narrative that one is born with a “male body,” we reinforce the idea that only the bodies we assign male at birth—?bodies that have medically normative penises—?are male.”
  • Alcohol is a direct cause of seven forms of cancer, study says – “Fresh analysis of evidence accumulated over recent years implicates alcohol in the development of breast, colon, liver and other types of cancer.” From Amy.
  • Making room for autism in the workplace – “Programs such as the one in Florida are trying to address the gap between willing workers and these companies by helping to train job candidates or retool hiring processes.”
Amanda

Amanda

Amanda is a science grad student in Boston whose favorite pastimes are having friendly debates and running amok.

Previous post

Ghostbusters, Misogyny, and Perceptual Bias

Next post

Transwoman Caught Creeping in Target

1 Comment

  1. July 23, 2016 at 3:09 am —

    It always makes me happy to see trans writers getting work!

    I’ve never liked the reference to complicated physiology when arguing against the terms “male” and “female” though. Regardless of the specifics, all the bits and chemicals, in aggregate, serve one of two functions and fall into one of two physiological categories. The result is that a person can have bits mostly of one category or a closer-to-equal mix of the two. Either way, the terms “male” and “female” are entirely justified in the context of medicine and biology.

    The problem starts when it’s assumed that these features are the basis of social development and identity. The configuration of someone’s junk determines, say, the nature of a groin injury in an auto accident, but doesn’t translate directly to childhood behavior (girls don’t “naturally” like dolls) or gender identity. Basically, I’m perfectly fine with reductive medical designations based on sexual characteristics in medical and biological contexts, since it’s useful for things like informing folks how to prevent UTIs and breast cancer. At the same time, I assert the relative autonomy of culture and identity, which allows for one to determine their sex and gender identification independently of these reductive designations, if desired.

Leave a reply