150 words summary -06

Anonymous
timer Asked: Oct 20th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $10

Question Description

Total word count: 150, use the reading that I attached, no outside resources needed. Need to answer all the following questions.

The questions below are designed to help you read and take notes for the assigned articles. Make sure you apply them to each article you read.

1.What is the main point or central argument of this article? What is the author’s purpose in writingt his article?

2.What evidence does the author present to support her main point/central argument?

3.Are you convinced by the author’s argument? Why? Why not? What evidence, if any, is missing?

4.What did you learn from this reading that you didn’t know before?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Special Issue on What is Transgender? (https://www.atria.nl/ezines/web/IJT/97-03/numbers/symposion/kessler.htm) Who put the "Trans" in Transgender?1 Gender Theory and Everyday Life Suzanne Kessler (Division of Natural Sciences, Purchase College, State University of New York) and Wendy McKenna (Department of Psychology, Barnard College) Abstract In theory, transgender is a challenge to the social construction of gender. In practice, it usually is not. Transgendered people ---in one way or another--- place themselves outside the conventional female/male dichotomy, yet live in a social world that recognizes only females and males. How could a self-identified transgendered person earn and maintain a transgender attribution, when others are constrained to attribute an unproblematic "male" or "female" gender to him/her? Is it possible to alter, in practice, what seems to be the incorrigibility of the gender attribution process? Is this, in fact, what transgendered people want to do? In the light of three possible meanings of trans, we consider whether there is any point to deconstructing gender. The prefix "trans" has 3 different meanings. Trans means change, as in the word "transform." In this first sense transgendered people change their bodies to fit the gender they feel they always were. They change from male to female or vice versa. Transgender in this sense is synonymous with what is typically meant by the term "transsexual."Trans means across as in the word "transcontinental." In this second sense a transgendered person is one who moves across genders (or maybe aspects of the person cross genders). This meaning does not imply being essentially or permanently committed to one or the other gender and therefore has a more socialconstructionist connotation. Nevertheless, the transgendered person in this meaning does not leave the realm of two genders. Persons who assert that although they are "really" the other gender they do not need to change their genitals, are transgendered in this sense of "trans." The emphasis is on the crossing and not on any surgical transformation accompanying it. Such a person might say, "I want people to attribute the gender "female" to me, but I'm not going to get my genitals changed. I don't mind having my penis." This type of identity is relatively recent as an open, public identity, but it does not seem to be an identity separate from male and female. It is more like a 1 previously unthinkable combination of male and female. But even a combination of male and female reflexively gives credence to these categories. There are still two genders.The third meaning of "trans" is beyond or through as in the word "transcutaneous." In this third sense a transgendered person is one who has gotten through gender, beyond gender. No clear gender attribution can be made, or is allowed to be made. Gender ceases to exist, both for this person and those with whom they interact. This third meaning is the most radical and the one of greatest importance to gender theorists like us who are interested in the possibility, both theoretical and real, of eliminating gender. The Social Construction of Gender: Transsexuals Over 20 years ago we wrote a book asserting that all aspects of gender, including the physical/biological aspects, which people refer to as "sex," are socially constructed.2 Our point was that the male/female dichotomy is not essentially given in nature. In developing our argument, we analyzed the natural attitude toward gender.3 These taken-for-granted beliefs of the culture include: 1. There are two and only two genders. Apparent violations are not really violations. If you look long enough, ask enough questions, or do enough medical tests, the "real" gender will be revealed. 2. Gender exists as a biological "fact" independently of anyone's ideas about gender. 3. A person's gender never changes. 4. Genitals are the essential defining feature of gender. That is, if you do not have the right organ between your legs, you cannot be what you say you are. You are not the "genuine article," even if you have everything else. (That is why transsexuals, at least historically, were not really the gender they claimed until they had surgery, and that is why intersexed infants are required to have genital "reconstructive" surgery.) By the mid- 1970's most people, in and out of academia, were beginning to accept that roles, appearances, and characteristics (what they called "gender") were socially defined and culturally varied. However, biological features (what they called "sex") were considered to be given in nature. We argued that the biological is as much a construction as the social is. Although hormones, chromosomes, gonads, and genitals, are real parts of the body, seeing them as dichotomous and essential to being a female or male is a social construction. That is why we believed (and continue to believe) that in discussions of this topic it is critical to only use "gender" and never use "sex" (in the conventional meanings).If anything is primary, it is not some biological sign, but what we called "gender attribution" --- the decision one makes in every concrete case 2 that someone is either a male or a female. Virtually all of the time, gender attribution is made with no direct knowledge of the genitals or any other biological "sex marker." It seemed to us in the mid-1970's that transsexuals exemplified the social construction of gender. We talked to as many as we could about what their experience was with gender attributions made to them and how they insured that "mistakes" were not made. As we pondered our conversations with them, we were struck by how the immediate and interactive presentation of gender is impossible to ignore. In a social setting we do not see one another's chromosomes, genitals, or gender history. In fact, once we make a gender attribution, we are able to discount or reinterpret chromosomes, genitals, or gender history that does not "match" the gender attribution. If you are "obviously" a man and then you tell new acquaintances that you were given a female gender assignment at birth and do not have a penis, they have an adjustment to make, but that will probably not mean that they will change their minds about whether you are a man. We asserted that the primacy of gender attribution benefits transsexuals ---if they make an initial credible gender presentation --- because other people will interpret contradictory information (like the gender on a driver's license) as a clerical error rather than as evidence of the person's intent to deceive.What we did not consider 25 years ago was the possibility that someone might not want to make a credible gender presentation --- might not want to be seen as clearly either male or female. In addition, although we advocated that because of the primacy of gender attribution, persons could be whatever gender they wanted without costly and dangerous surgery, it did not seem to us that this would happen for a very long time, if ever. It did not even occur to us that within 20 years there would be some people who would want to confront others with the contradiction between their gender presentation and other "facts" such as their genitals or gender history. In other words, we did not address what has come to be called "transgender." Transgender was neither a concept nor a term 25 years ago. Transsexual was radical enough. Transgender: Transformation, transfer, or transcendence? Recently, we did a Web search for "transgender," using the Google search engine and found over 3300 matches for that term. Clearly "it" exists, but what is "it?" And what is the meaning of "gender" now? Realizing that we needed more information about this, especially from younger people, in the Fall of 1999 we gave a questionnaire to 83 students in a human sexuality class at a college with a reputation for attracting and reasonably tolerating all types of genders and sexualities. The students' answers to our questions are some indication of what is different now and what is the same, at least among young, liberal and presumably gender-progressive people.Our first two questions, "What is the meaning of the category "gender?" and "How do you know someone's gender?" were treated as reasonable questions --- not nonsensical ones. In 1975 we suspect most people would have been mystified as to why we were asking 3 questions like that. It would have been like asking "How can you tell if someone is dead or alive?" a question about a simple, objective fact. The students still believe there are two genders, but they seem to have more of a sense that gender is a complex, not a simple, dichotomy; yet it is still a dichotomy. There is the acknowledgment by some that gender characteristics can be mixed. (Perhaps we have Jerry Springer and other purveyors of the atypical to thank for this.) The answers to "how do you know" in any given case were those things that we had described as important in gender attribution like breasts, Adam's apples, body shape, and voice. Although students rarely wrote that they use genitals to decide a person's gender, they did write that genitals are the essential defining feature of what it means to be a gender. Men have penises and women have vaginas, even if later on in the questionnaire they said that other combinations are possible like men with vaginas and women with penises. The equation gender = genitals is no different from what we found 25 years ago.However, there has been a significant change regarding genitals. In our original work we provided evidence that the penis was the only socially real genital. People held the often unstated belief that males had penises and females had no penises. In this recent questionnaire though, the vagina was mentioned almost as often as the penis. It appears that the vagina and vulva have become more socially real. How and why has this happened, and what that implies are intriguing areas for further inquiry. Although these students may consider gender extremely complex and allow for the possibility that it is not that important to categorize people by gender, in everyday life not knowing a person's gender still makes them very uncomfortable. They try to find out what the person "really" is.Gender continues to be real and dichotomous, even if an ambiguous presentation is tolerated. The students said that what has changed in the way their generation thinks about gender compared to their parents is awareness and acceptance of alternatives (mainly homosexuality) and more flexibility/inclusion in expectations for women. Whatever changes in expectations there have been for men, this was not acknowledged by the students. Why has the "trans"formation only gone in one direction? In light of the question "Who put the "trans" in transgender?" of particular interest is the students' answers to the question, "What does transgendered mean?" Almost none of the students indicated that they knew what it meant.A few who did, said that it referred to someone who changes gender, and then they described what most people mean by "transsexual." One person said the term referred to someone being "torn between a physical existence and a mental existence," but only one or two referred to a person who feels comfortable with physical aspects of both genders, e.g. having breasts and a penis. Only four of the students said they knew a transgendered person. 4 However, there were others who understood that their belief that they did not know transgendered people only meant that "as far as they knew" they did not, but they might. We think that in 1975 basically everyone would have believed that they would know if a person was not "all man or all woman."Judging from this one sample, as well as observations and discussions with others, we could conclude that in the last 25 years the absolute either/or aspect of biological gender has been reduced, at least for some people. But just because more people acknowledge that gender features can be mixed together or that a person can move more easily between categories, this has not led to an expansion of or transcendence of the gender categories. There are still two and only two genders, even if some of the women have penises and some of the men have vaginas.Twenty-five years ago we thought that because transsexualism seemed to violate the rule that you can not change gender, it had revolutionary potential. Now what seems radical are those who identify as "transgender" and reject "transsexual" as too restrictive and too diagnostic. But even if there are transgendered people for whom the gender dichotomy ceases to exist, of what import is that if transgendered people live in a world of two conventional genders? Could a person with a transgendered identity translate it into a public transgendered attribution, where the attributor would say "That's neither a woman nor a man," rather than "I can't tell if that's a woman or a man"? To cultivate such an attribution in this third sense of transgender (beyond or through) is extraordinarily difficult and might be impossible. Transgendered people (even those who are publicly "out" on stage, in print, or among trustworthy others) know that unless they do what it takes to get a male or female gender attribution, their physical safety may be in jeopardy. How do we reconcile the desire to radically transform gender (which some transgenderists and theorists share) with the practical need to transform the publicly visible body in gender dichotomous ways? People with a public transgender identity still have one of the standard gender attributions made about them by the casual passerby, even if the passerby has questions. This is because the gender attribution process is an interactive one, grounded in the attributors' unshakable belief that everyone can and must be classified as female or male. In everyday life even gender theorists do not treat the gender dichotomy as problematic. Twenty-five years of our and others' theorizing about gender has in many ways unsettled the meaning of gender, but it has done no damage to the gender dichotomy. The next challenge is understanding why. References Virginia Prince should probably be credited as having introduced the term "transgender." Because she needed a term to describe her decision to become a woman without changing her genitals (what she would call her "sex,") the term 5 "transsexual" would not do. C.F. Prince, Virginia. 1979. "Charles to Virginia: Sex Research as a Personal Experience." In The Frontiers of Sex Research. ed. Vern Bullough, 167-175. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Kessler, Suzanne, and Wendy McKenna. 1978. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. New York: Wiley. This analysis was based on Harold Garfinkel's description of the natural attitude toward gender. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 6 ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

anspencer
School: Cornell University

Attached is the complete output for the task as assigned above. Should there be a need to review the work, I am readily available. Thanks

Surname: 1

Name:
Tutor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Kessler and McKenna’s “What is Transgender?” Article Summary
Quipped by the desire to find out what transgender really means, Kessler and Mc...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors