"And I'm... I'm real. I'm a real boy!" -Pinocchio

Having recently taken my first biology class since I was 15 (how did I graduate from college again?) I've been getting inordinately excited about biology-related news, articles, references in conversation, etc. because now I GET IT. A little.

Naturally, I was interested in the chromosome talk in We're all intersex at Salon. Thomas Rogers interviewed Gerald N. Callahan, a professor at Colorado State University, about his new book "Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of the Two Sexes." As the title implies, Callahan argues that our strict male/female labels ignores a large amount of variation:

In between what we call the ideal biological male or ideal biological female, there's a whole range of other possibilities that don't differ from our basic preconceptions to the extent that we have names for them or call them a disorder. Just like with every other human trait, there are an infinite number of possibilities... We might say two people have brown eyes but that doesn't mean that they're brown in exactly the same way, or what is seen through those eyes is the same.

The Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) goes on to explain this idea in terms of a spectrum:

Intersex is a socially constructed category that reflects real biological variation. To better explain this, we can liken the sex spectrum to the color spectrum. There’s no question that in nature there are different wavelengths that translate into colors most of us see as red, blue, orange, yellow. But the decision to distinguish, say, between orange and red-orange is made only when we need it—like when we’re asking for a particular paint color. Sometimes social necessity leads us to make color distinctions that otherwise would seem incorrect or irrational, as, for instance, when we call certain people “black” or “white” when they’re not especially black or white as we would otherwise use the terms.

I highlighted the term "only when we need it" because I think that's the key here. We shouldn't be bothered by a person living their life part way between male and female, and I think most people probably don't care too much. However, feathers get ruffled when we try and classify or categorize people who can't or don't want to be assigned a gender.

I wonder... Could one even go so far as to relate this to Kinsey's Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale? You know, how everyone is just a little bit gay? JK! That's not exactly what the scale represents, but it does illustrate the idea that options exist outside the socially constructed labels. Beyond the gay-straight-bisexual labels exists a world of possibilities.

Furthermore, Deborah Blum's review of the book at New Scientist even pokes fun at the traditional gender binary:

Callahan's argument arises from the fact that human sexuality spans a slippery biological spectrum. The stereotypical view of two sexes - me Tarzan, you Jane - is not only cartoonish, it limits our understanding and appreciation of our own biology.

From a strictly scientific view, Callahan appears to have an important, well-documented point. There can be a large amount of variation at the chromosomal level beyond the perceived 46XX for a woman and 46XY for a man. In fact, statistics compiled by the ISNA suggest that 1 in 1,667 babies has a chromosomal variation other than XX or XY, and 1 in 100 babies have bodies that differ from the standard male or female (including genitalia that just look a little different, but still function normally; see What is Intersex?).

The problem arises when Callahan concludes that "In truth, we're all intersex."

I haven't read the book, so it's unclear whether he means this literally, or in a more euphemistic we're-all-children-of-the-world kind of way (i.e. the instance of intersex is so high that we probably know more biologically intersex individuals than we think/you may be intersex and not know it).

That statement is what really seems to piss people off, as witnessed in the letters section of the Salon article. One contributer, "aeschylus", writes:

Horse shit. Sometimes there's a glitch in our genes: a cleft palate here, a flipper baby there. They are deviations from the norm and we should want to correct/prevent them. And no, I'm not talking about homosexuality. But this type of transgender chromosomal mash-up needs to be recognized for the disorder that it is.

There are several offensive things about this comment (one being the fact that he/she didn't read the article well, because Callahan goes out of his way to say intersex does not equal transgender), but the biggest issue is that this person fails to make the distinction between "variation" and "disorder". A deviation from the norm does not a disorder make, but when a clear gender has not been chosen and adhered to, people get very uncomfortable. This is where the social-biological worlds clash, which is not always pretty. (At least he/she isn't "talking about homosexuality". Ha!)

In any case, I'd like to point out that I am not necessarily an intersex advocate. Like I said before, I have a new found appreciation for science-y news, and I also enjoy reading bone-headed comments like the one above. I don't know why.

The final thing that piqued my interest in this article, was Callahan's discussion of biological sex versus sexual preference.

Gay and lesbian people can fairly easily identify with the classic binary of male and female, and intersex people for the most part cannot. They have to me a much more complex and graduated series of events they need to deal with [than do gay and lesbian people]. I think that people have a tendency to group all of that together -- sexual preference, gender dysphoria, transgender, intersex -- and they're really in my mind very separate sorts of things.

Right. This is an idea that is very clear in my mind, that often gets muddled amongst the vast array (rainbow?) of GLBT issues. The "T" in GLBT doesn't exactly fit for me, because gender identity is a completely separate issue from sexual preference. It's true that all of the sexual and gender minority groups tend to get lumped together sort of reluctantly, even when the different facets have little to nothing in common with each other.

What I do understand is that the GLB community is very accepting and happy to include the transgendered folk in the parades and dance parties and whatnot, and I am happy to make their acquaintance at such events. This inclusion also provides greater awareness for trans issues and a bigger community to participate in. So, just to be sure -- I'm not complaining about the inclusion, just wanted to clarify for my own peace of mind.

To conclude the intersex discussion, let's just hope this never becomes a modern day witch-hunt, with mandatory genetic testing to see who is a "real" man or woman and who is NOT. That is a bad, bad idea. But personally, I'd be kind of psyched if I was a XXX superwoman, or if my legs had some XY cells. Maybe I would run better.