LHMP #582a Linton 2022 Unmaking Sex Introduction

The introduction opens, as is often the case, with a case history illustrating the main theme of the book. A patient was referred to a doctor for “suffering in the genital parts” and on examination the doctor could make no solid conclusion about what sex the person was. Not only did the person have ambiguous genitals, but they performed socially alternately as a woman (at home) and a man (outside the home).

Several factors brought intersexuality into focus in 19th century France—a focus that manifested both in literature and medical records. France seems to have been a particular flashpoint for this topic and the present book explores why that was the case, as well as making connections between the literary and medical traditions. In contradiction to some theorist’s positions that the idea of everyone having a “true sex” was solidly established by the 19th century, this study finds that both literature and medicine served to undermine this position, concluding that sex could, in many cases, be unknowable.

The topic of 19th century interest does not correspond exactly to the modern category of intersexuality, not only because many conditions classified that way today were not identifiable by 19th century medicine, but also because the historic category of “hermaphrodite” encompass social and behavioral elements as well as physiology. The 19th century position (inherited from earlier eras) was that sex, gender, and sexuality were expected to align, therefore any contradiction or ambiguity within those categories could result in a diagnosis of hermaphrodism.

There is a survey of 19th century French literature that features either characters described as hermaphrodites, or whose indeterminant gender is a key plot point. The exploration of indeterminant gender in fiction was echoed by the language in medical case studies that debated (with no consensus) how to properly assign sex in ambiguous cases.

Fiction was not the only venue for spreading popular awareness of intersexuality. Divorce cases in which it featured were publicized in the papers, intersex people were exhibited in medical schools and “freak shows.” New medical specialties competed for authority over the phenomenon. Although traces of the mythological bi-functional hermaphrodite remained in literature, often as a romanticized and idealized figure, increasingly the depictions were realistic, appearing in decadent literature—though combinations of the two motifs also occurred.

The book begins by examining the historic reasons behind the explosion of interest in 19th century France. This includes medical discussions around sex categorization and the consequences of indeterminacy, especially as they played out in the court. Literary narratives intersect with science in how these cases are argued, which leads to the book’s study of the motif in literature.

Another aspect of this specific moment in intersex history was the spread of accessible literature on the topic that intersex people could use to interrogate their own lives and bodies. In the case of Marie B., who raised questions about herself in the context of a marriage proposal, her own studies of literature on hermaphroditism led her to a contradictory opinion from the doctors—they concluded she was a man, whereas she had confirmed to her own satisfaction that she was a woman.

The introduction goes on to discuss the data and methodology.

Why were hermaphrodites so prevalent in 19th century French fiction and medicine? The rise of large public hospitals serving the poor, an interest in treating venereal diseases (involving examination of the genitals), and expansion of medical publications—all increased visibility. French law (as a legacy of the Napoleonic code) required doctors to record the sex of each birth within three days, with no allowance for ambiguity. Urbanization, shifting family dynamics, and a decreased birth rate raised interest and anxiety around reproductive topics. There was a conflict between sociopolitical efforts to “naturalize” gender difference, while at the same time doctors were identifying cases that undermined the concept.