The Bodies That "Every Body" Forgets and the Case for Unanimity Within the Genital Autonomy Movement

by David Balashinsky

In "Every Body," directed by Julie Cohen, the plight of intersex people and the growing success of the intersex rights movement are at last receiving the attention they deserve.  It might not be an exaggeration to say that the intersex rights movement has arrived.  In the last several years, two large hospitals have announced that they will no longer perform certain types of medically unnecessary intersex surgeries.  One of them has even taken the unusual step of apologizing for having performed these surgeries in the past.  The intersex rights movement also recently has begun to achieve success legislatively.  For example, in 2021, Austin's city council passed a resolution condemning "nonconsensual and medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex children."  A half dozen mostly European nations have gone further, banning (most of) these surgeries, outright.  Now, with "Every Body" playing in theaters across the nation,  Cohen is helping to raise the public's awareness of this issue.  These developments - in medical practice, legislatively and socially - are all hallmarks of an idea whose time has come.  For all these reasons and more, "Every Body" is a hugely important film and I urge everyone - every body - to go see (or stream) it.

I have only one criticism of "Every Body" and, while it is only one, this criticism ties in to what I believe to be a serious and ongoing problem within both human rights discourse and the genital autonomy movement broadly.  Because this one flaw in Cohen's film epitomizes this problem, and without intending to detract in any way from this beautifully-made and inspiring documentary itself, I believe that the time is right - and that it's not unreasonable - to call attention to it.

The case that prompted Cohen to make her film in the first place is the tragic story of David Reimer.  Reimer was one of a set of identical twin boys who were both, at the age of seven months, diagnosed with phimosis.  It's important to understand here that, generally throughout childhood, the penile prepuce (the foreskin) remains fused to the glans, a normal condition that is known as physiological phimosis.  In infancy, true, pathological phimosis is extremely rare.  However, partly because of their unfamiliarity with intact penises, physicians frequently mistake physiological phimosis for pathological phimosis.  Consequently, in infancy, "phimosis" is almost always a misdiagnosis of what is, in fact, the natural state of the child's penis.   There is every reason to think then, that the diagnosis of phimosis that both boys received was a case of a physician pathologizing a normal physiological condition.  Not surprisingly, the boys' pediatrician recommended the treatment of choice which, at the time, was circumcision.  This was subsequently carried out by Jean-Marie Huot, a general practitioner, who opted to use, instead of a scalpel, an electrosurgical device (a Bovie cautery machine, to be precise).  In the process, David's entire penis was obliterated - literally burnt to a crisp.  Distraught, his parents turned to one of the world's most prominent sex- and gender researchers, John Money, who had been promoting his theory that gender is "malleable" for the first couple years of a child's life.  Money recommended that David be raised as a girl and that his parents do everything in their power to reinforce their son's gender as female.  The unique circumstances of David's having been born male but raised female while his identical twin brother was raised male made the twins ideal as living experiment-and-control subjects.  Thus, above and beyond providing a solution to the predicament the family (especially David) was faced with, the experiment would also serve to confirm Money's theory - if it worked.  It didn't.  Thanks to the courageous and diligent efforts of Doctors Milton Diamond and H. Keith Sigmundson, Money's claims, far from being confirmed, were debunked.  As for David, he never felt right living as a girl, he ultimately rejected the gender that had been imposed on him and he lived a short, troubled life that he ended himself with a shotgun blast at the age of 38.

It's also important to keep in mind here that, like physiological phimosis, ambiguous or indeterminate genitals - "intersex" - occur naturally and, in most cases, do not pose a problem for the individual who is born intersex.  Consequently, the surgical modification of the genitals of intersex children that became standard protocol during the 1970s is, like the treatment of physiological phimosis, simply a case of physicians having pathologized and then "treating" what is in fact a natural and benign condition.

The David Reimer case is not merely relevant to the practice of intersex surgery but foundational to it.  Before being discredited and even since, Reimer's putative "successful" transition from male to female through surgery, hormonal treatments and social conditioning was cited as proof of the efficacy of surgical sex- and gender-assignment and used, therefore, to justify the subsequent genital- and body-modifications to which who-knows-how-many intersex children were subjected.  A considerable portion of "Every Body," therefore, is appropriately devoted to the David Reimer case. 

But before there was intersex surgery there was penile circumcision.  And before David Reimer's sex, gender and identity were tampered with, his penis was.  It bears repeating here that the botched circumcision in this case was prompted, in all likelihood, not by a pathological condition but by a physician's having pathologized a normal one.  The problem, then, was not that Reimer's attempted circumcision was botched but that it was attempted in the first place.  The circumcision itself that was imposed on David Reimer, therefore, was the prime mover: the first in a concatenation of events that led, through diverging paths, to the disastrous outcomes in David's own life, to numerous unwanted and unnecessary intersex surgeries on other children, to the rise of the intersex rights movement, even to the making of Cohen's film.  I take it as axiomatic that, when connecting dots, the first dot is the most important and yet it is this dot that Cohen fails to connect to all the others.  It's not that Cohen fails to mention Reimer's circumcision - it would be impossible not to.  But Cohen seems to regard the original attempted surgical modification of David's penis as incidental: relevant to her subject only because its untoward and catastrophic results led to his being raised as a girl and because his allegedly successful sexual reassignment was then used to justify subsequent intersex surgeries on other children.  Thus, Cohen treats David's circumcision as something that stands apart, conceptually, from the equally unnecessary intersex surgeries that her film documents (and implicitly condemns).  As a result, this can leave the viewer with the impression that the problems that David faced in his life and that so many other intersex people would face in theirs did not begin at the moment the decision was made to subject David to circumcision but only after the decision had been made to subject him to sex- and gender-reassignment.  That is the one conceptual flaw in Cohen's film.

I want to be clear that I fully respect the right of a filmmaker to focus on whatever topic she chooses and, in presenting that topic to her viewers, to circumscribe her camera's field of view as narrowly as she deems appropriate.  Viewed strictly as a documentary about intersex people, intersex surgery and the intersex rights movement, it might seem unfair to criticize "Every Body" for not going far enough and to criticize Cohen for not connecting all the dots.

But "Every Body" is about much more than chromosomes and gonads.  To view it superficially, as though that were all there is to it, would be to miss its larger point.  The deeper message of "Every Body" - its fundamental truth - is that every body has an inherent right to exist as nature made them.  This is the guiding principle against which every norm, every injustice and every harm documented in the film stands in opposition, from what was done to David Reimer, to the imposition on intersex children of a socially-constructed and strict binary view of human sexuality (two absolute and mutually exclusive sexes, with nothing in between), to the imposition on transgender individuals of a parallel and equally rigid view of gender, to "bathroom bills" - and, especially - to physicians surgically "fixing" bodies that they themselves have needlessly pathologized.  More than anything, then, "Every Body" is an unequivocal condemnation of the practice of pathologizing naturally-occurring but harmless anatomical features - especially genitals - of human bodies and surgically altering them without consent in order to make them conform to socially-constructed standards of appropriateness or normalcy.  Nota bene: that is not just a description of intersex surgery - it is the very essence of routine penile circumcision. That is why Cohen's failure at least to acknowledge as much in her film is disappointing.

Again, I'm not faulting Cohen for failing to make a movie about circumcision. There are already several important films - "Whose Body, Whose Rights?",  "Cut - Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision" and "American Circumcision" - that have attempted to do for people with penises what Cohen has now attempted to do for people with intersex traits. But it's impossible to view intersex surgery accurately, both in theory and in practice, without contextualizing it within medicine's long history of pathologizing natural and harmless conditions (homosexuality and the penile prepuce are prime examples) and within its long-established practice of using these contrived pathologies as a justification for administering treatments that are neither needed nor desired and, especially, as a justification for performing medically unnecessary surgeries on the genitals of unconsenting children.  By the time surgical modification of the genitals of intersex children became standard protocol, medical professionals in the United States already had been performing surgical modifications to the normal genitals of infant males for decades.  In fact, at that point, most fully and normally developed infant penises were being operated on.  With a precedent like that, what chance might the anomalous genitals of the 0.5 to 1.7 percent of the population that is intersex stand?

Viewed this way, David Reimer's circumcision is neither extraneous nor even incidental to the story that, in "Every Body," Cohen seeks to tell.  That fact that his circumcision, in all probability, and like the vast majority of the million-plus infant circumcisions that are still performed every year in the United States, occurred for no other reason than that Reimer's penis had been patholgized, and because the surgery was therefore both medically unnecessary and imposed on Reimer without his consent makes it, in every way that matters, not just similar in its particulars but morally indistinguishable from the intersex surgeries that are the main focus of Cohen's film.

It is not only in large ways - that is, in principle - but in small ones, too, that nontherapeutic penile circumcision is identical to at least a major portion of intersex surgeries.  I do not know what the statistics are - intersex surgeries run the gamut from clitoral reduction to the removal of internal testes - but these would be those surgeries that are intended to "normalize" the external genitalia of intersex children in order to make them appear more stereotypically "male" or "female."  As a report by Human Rights Watch explains, 

"Intersex," sometimes called "Disorders or Differences of Sex Development (DSD) in medical literature and by practitioners, encompasses around 30 different health conditions that affect chromosomes, gonads, and internal and external genitalia.  In many cases, a significant factor motivating surgical intervention - and often the primary rationale for it [my emphasis] -  is the fact that these conditions cause children's genitalia to differ from what is socially expected of men's [again, my emphasis] and women's bodies.

Similarly and in parallel, social acceptability and meeting cultural expectations about the appearance of a child's genitals are also often the primary rationales for surgically altering a child's penis from an intact one to a circumcised one ("so he won't be made fun of in the locker room," "so his future sex partners won't be turned off").  By the same token, conformity with culturally-determined anatomical standards is embodied in that other stand-by justification for nontherapeutic penile circumcision: "so he will look like his father."

The more sinister aspect of cultural expectations, of course, is the body shaming by which they are enforced.  Alicia Roth Weigel, one of the intersex activists profiled in "Every Body," makes this point: 

We are told by doctors from the moment that we are born that our bodies are shameful and that they are a problem and need to be fixed and oftentimes we undergo nonconsensual surgeries. . . .  We all have different physical traits or . . . sex traits that maybe some people aren't accustomed to but we are fighting for the message that diversity is a beautiful thing. . . .

What I would tell Weigel, if I had the opportunity, is that there are millions of people with penises in this country who can relate, to one degree or another, with this statement.  The harsh truth is that it is not only intersex people - those with visibly atypical genitalia - whose genitals have been pathologized by the medical establishment.  The medicalization and normalization of penile circumcision have created a culture in which the penile prepuce has been utterly stigmatized.  Body-shaming of people with intact penises continues to be rampant and socially acceptable.  As a result, every person with a penis - whether circumcised or intact - grows up with the perception that they were born with a congenital "deformity" of their penis that either was "corrected" through circumcision or, if it wasn't, ought to have been.  And every time a physician performs a medically unnecessary circumcision, that physician contributes to this body-shaming culture.

Yet another similarity between intersex surgeries and penile circumcision is that both have been and continue to be rationalized on the basis of their putative benefits and prophylactic value.  But, in both cases, the evidence to support these claims is scant and, even when present, the anticipated health benefits - which may not be realized for years or even decades to come, if ever - do not justify depriving people of their right to make such personal medical decisions for themselves.  This is a point that is argued forcefully by Weigel.   In an interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air (NPR), Weigel explains how the internal testes with which she was born came to be surgically removed when she was less than one year old:

Doctors . . . told my parents that I had internal testes . . .  and that my internal testes could become cancerous one day and so they recommended removing them as soon as possible.  And here's the kicker: anyone who is born with testes could get cancer one day; that is true.   What we now know . . . is my risk of getting cancer is only somewhere between one and five percent and much later in life; that cancer never happens in childhood for people born like me, or very rarely if it ever does.  And so because of a somewhere between one and five percent risk of cancer they decided to remove my hormone-producing organs without asking me. . . .  Essentially, by trying to fix something that wasn't even broken, they created problems. . . .  By trying to fix me, they broke me.

This is how many circumcision survivors feel.  (I'm sure it's how David Reimer felt, too.)  And, by way of comparison, the risks of developing any of the diseases its boosters claim that neonatal circumcision can help prevent are also comparably low.  As Frisch et al. point out, 

. . . [about] 1% of boys will develop a UTI [urinary tract infection] within the first years of life.  There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) linking UTIs to circumcision status.  The evidence for clinically significant protection is weak, and with easy access to health care, deaths or long-term negative medical consequences of UTIs are rare.  [Morever,] UTI incidence does not seem to be lower in the United States, with high circumcision rates compared with Europe with low circumcision rates. . . . Using reasonable estimates . . . for every 100 circumcisions, one case of UTI may be prevented [but] at the cost of two cases of hemorrhage, infection or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death.

So with penile cancer ("one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world"), STIs, HIV & AIDS:

. . . only one of the . . . arguments has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the questionable argument of UTI prevention in infant boys.  The other claimed  health benefits are also questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves. . . .

The importance of allowing individuals to exercise informed consent - to decide for themselves which parts of their bodies they are permitted to keep - that Frisch et al. are asserting here with respect to penile circumcision is mirrored exactly in the sentiments expressed by intersex rights activists.  Here's Weigel, again: 

[A]n analogous example I like to give  . . . [is] the BRCA gene. . . .  The BRCA gene is a genetic variant that confers with it a high risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer and the risk of cancer if someone is born with the BRCA gene is much, much, much, much, much higher than my one-to-five-percent risk of testicular cancer ever would have been.  But you don't see them force-removing little girls' ovaries who are born with the BRCA gene because they could get cancer one day.  They wait until the girl is a certain age where she is able to make an informed decision with her consent. . . .  

We have suffered these nonconsensual and medically-unnecessary surgeries that everyone from the United Nations to the World Health Organization condemn as torture - they call it genital mutilation - and entire countries have banned these practices. . . . Unfortunately, they happen every day in accredited hospitals in the United States. 

I do not know how often an intersex child is subjected to a medically unnecessary surgery in the United States but even once per day is once per day too often.  At the same time, it's worth remembering that medically unnecessary penile circumcisions occur more than three thousand times every day in accredited hospitals in the United States.

If one accepts the premise of "Every Body" that intersex surgery is a medically unnecessary, nonconsensual body modification that is unethical in and of itself because it violates a person's rights to bodily integrity and self determination, it is difficult to see how can one look at the practice of nontherapeutic penile circumcision (let alone at what happened to David Reimer) and not come to the same conclusion about it, not form the same moral judgement about it, and not be as outraged by it. 

My own view is that, as an abstract principle, any medically unnecessary surgery (that is, a surgery not urgently necessary to save life or limb) that is imposed on someone without that person's consent is unethical.

Keeping that principle in mind, it doesn't matter what the surgery is and it doesn't matter what the sex or the gender of the victim is.

Keeping all of this in mind, all of the particulars of David Reimer's case - not just some of them - matter and are therefore inseparable from the premise of "Every Body."  A more appropriate way to have presented David Reimer, then, would be not merely as an unfortunate victim of happenstance or of medical incompetence who subsequently became a victim of medical malpractice but, rather, as the man whose very life (and, likely, death) represents the nexus between medically unnecessary penile circumcision and medically unnecessary intersex surgery.  

For this very reason, the most appropriate way to honor David Reimer's memory is to take from his case the lesson that the campaigns to end all medically unnecessary, nonconsensual genital (and other, non-genital) surgeries are, fundamentally, one and the same.  It is high time that the movements to end nontherapeutic penile circumcision, medically unnecessary intersex surgeries and female genital cutting (FGC) made common cause with one another and formed the strategic alliances that moral consistency and common sense demand.  The failure of these three pillars of the genital autonomy movement to unite on the basis of their shared logical, philosophical and ethical foundations is the ongoing problem within the genital autonomy movement, and within human rights discourse, more broadly, of which "Every Body" is, I began by observing, a good, if unwitting, illustration.  

I am not suggesting that it is somehow wrong for intersex rights activists to focus primarily on banning medically unnecessary intersex surgeries, for anti-FGC activists to focus primarily on banning FGC, or for anti-MGC (male genital cutting) activists to focus primarily on banning MGC, just as I am not suggesting that it was wrong for Cohen to make the intersex rights movement the primary focus of her film.  But I do think that it would be beneficial to all of these groups to present a united front to the world and to support one another by at least acknowledging their shared values and objectives and by treating one another as respected and valued allies.  Similarly, organizations concerned with promoting human rights more generally and with promoting the common good should be morally consistent and adopt a position of inclusion when condemning harmful practices that violate the rights of children.  Too often, however, the opposite has been the case.

Sometimes this is a failure of omission but sometimes, one of commission.   Equality Now, for example, used to have a "fact sheet" (and I use the quotation marks advisedly) on female genital mutilation (FGM) in which the author or authors went out of their way to differentiate FGM from nontherapeutic penile circumcision, representing the former as abhorrent and never justifiable and the latter as benign. This fact sheet included the eye-popping statement that "circumcision is the removal of foreskin and does not affect the male sex organ itself."  (The male foreskin, or prepuce, is, of course, an integral part of the penis - as integral to the penis, in fact, as any part of the external genitalia, including the female foreskin, is to the vulva.)   In contrast, the statement continued, "FGM damages the sex organs, inhibiting pleasure and causing severe pain and complications for women's sexual and reproductive health." It's a small but encouraging sign that Equality Now has since scrubbed from its site language denying the critical erogenous function of the penile foreskin and dismissing the human rights violation that necessarily occurs when it is surgically removed without consent.

But Equality Now is not the only organization that has gone out of its way to distinguish female genital cutting from male genital cutting.  The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS have gone even further, explicitly promoting male genital cutting while, at the same time, condemning female genital cutting.  

The reluctance by these organizations and others within the anti-FGC movement to recognize the similarities between FGC and MGC is hard to fathom.  Likewise, their apparent aversion to accepting the banning of nontherapeutic penile circumcision as a valid human rights concern.  Both campaigns to end genital cutting (that is, of penises and vulvas), like the intersex rights movement, rest on the same ethical and philosophical foundation: the right of every individual to bodily self-ownership - the right to control one's own body.  Yet, paradoxically, there appears to be a notion among some within the anti-FGC movement that the movement risks becoming trivialized or diluted by making common cause with the anti-MGC movement.  The thinking seems to be that, because FGC is so much worse, MGC can't be all that bad.  Or perhaps there is an apprehension by some that the true horrors of FGC can only adequately be characterized by distinguishing it from MGC.  But, even allowing that, in certain cases (but by no means all) FGC is more harmful than MGC, that is like reasoning that it's okay to cut off a boy's hand simply because cutting off a girl's arm is so much worse.  Both are wrong and it is morally inconsistent and ultimately counterproductive for opponents of FGC to view opponents of MGC as competitors in a zero-sum game.

An example of the failure of some to acknowledge others within the genital autonomy movement through an act of omission (although someone who is pessimistic about human nature might also view this as an act of commission) would be the post by Organisation Intersex International Europe last year in which it made a point of linking FGM and IGM (intersex genital mutilation) conceptually and strategically while conspicuously omitting male genital mutilation (MGM).  The meme, which was posted on Twitter, depicts a flower suspended between two hands, each coming from opposite ends of the image.  Next to one hand is the caption "#EndFGM" and, next to the other, the caption "#StopIGM."

Other notable examples can be found outside the genital autonomy movement.  The WHO, the United Nations and several other important human-rights- and physicians' organizations, including Physicians for Human Rights, the American Academy of Family Physicians, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, "have condemned medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex youth" while remaining silent on equally unnecessary genital surgeries on children with penises.

Still another example of this failure has been the subject of much of this essay: Julie Cohen's film, "Every Body," in which the original pathologizing and medical mismanagement of David Reimer's genitals are passed over and implicitly treated as being fundamentally distinct from the pathologizing and medical mismanagement of the genitals of intersex people.

In contrast to these exclusionary approaches to genital autonomy is the work of bioethicist Brian D. Earp and others who argue for a unified, ethical approach to solving the problem of genital cutting in all its various forms.  On the question, "Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse?," Earp concludes,

It is . . . to be welcomed that ethicists, activists and other stakeholders have been campaigning to protect the rights of girls to be free from non-therapeutic, nonconsensual cutting into their genital organs.  I cannot state enough that I am in support of such efforts. . . .  My argument has been that they should not be stopping there.  Female, male and intersex genital cutting . . . should be done exclusively with a medical indication or with the informed consent of the individual.  Children of whatever gender should not have healthy parts of their most intimate sexual organs removed before such a time as they can understand what is at stake in such a surgery and agree to it themselves.

A model of promoting unity and emphasizing the shared objectives of the three branches of the genital autonomy movement is the Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy (WWDOGA).  Although WWDOGA commemorates a judicial ruling vindicating the rights of a victim of male, or penile, genital cutting, the creators and organizers of this annual event have taken pains to deliver a message of universality on behalf of all victims and potential victims of genital cutting.  WWDOGA calls for "protection for all children from non-therapeutic genital interventions" and "Genital self-determination regardless of sex traits, gender, religion, tradition or where you come from."  Additionally, WWDOGA endorses The 2012 Helsinki Declaration of the Right to Genital Autonomy which states, in part,

Whereas it is the fundamental and inherent right of each human being to security without regard to age, sex, gender, ethnicity or religion as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child[,]

Now we declare the existence of a fundamental right of each human being a Right of Genital Autonomy, that is the right to:

* personal control of their own genital and reproductive organs; and

* protection from medically unnecessary genital modification and other irreversible reproductive interventions. 

Another modest but nonetheless important example of inclusiveness and support for its sibling movements by an organization created primarily to eradicate nontherapeutic, nonconsensual penile circumcision can be found in the Values Statement of the Genital Autonomy Legal Defense and Education Fund (GALDEF) which begins with these words: 

GALDEF promotes solidarity with female and intersex victims of genital cutting and we recognize that some transgender people have also been harmed by penile circumcision. 

(Full disclosure: I serve on the board of directors of GALDEF.)  Most recently, GALDEF has issued a public statement in support of the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.

There are several reasons why the three pillars of the genital autonomy movement should view and honor one another as allies, and these include not just philosophical reasons but strategic and practical ones as well.  Above all, it's the right thing to do.

A good illustration - and a good example of making common cause - is, again, provided by Alicia Weigel, herself.  (If I have given an unfair amount of space here to Weigel, it's because she is featured prominently in "Every Body" and is a prominent spokesperson for the intersex rights movement.  Additionally, it is because her comments, not surprisingly, are so relevant to the cause of banning nontherapeutic penile circumcision.  Beyond all this, she also happens to be tremendously quotable.)  Weigel, who also serves as a Human Rights Commissioner for the City of Austin, was asked by Terry Gross (in the Fresh Air interview, linked above) what she thought are the strengths and potential drawbacks of intersex people being included with the other communities represented respectively by the initials "LGBTQIA," with the "I," of course, standing for "intersex."  As Weigel explained,

We share so many common experiences.  Just like people who grow up gay, grow up often feeling ashamed  simply for existing, or might have undergone conversion therapy whereas intersex kids also undergo conversion therapy just using surgeons and scalpels, instead of electric shocks.  We also hold a lot in common with the trans community in that we often have had surgeries that change our bodies' gender presentation. . . .  So there's so much natural overlap and allyship between our experience that I think it makes total sense to include us in that community.  Just like there are some gay people who are closeted and not out, there are some intersex people who I think also don't consider themselves part of the LGBTQI+ community - and maybe it's because they're straight in terms of their sexuality; or the choice of their gender was not wrong.  But, for me, including us as part of that community helps all the other letters of the acronym feel compelled to stand up for us; just like the gay community was so vital in the trans folks finally getting a platform to stand up for their needs, we are now asking on all of our brothers, sisters and comrades in the broader queer and trans community to now fight for us, too.  Because, just like I showed up to help kill the bathroom bill, even though it wouldn't necessarily have affected me - it already says "female" on my birth certificate and I pee in the women's room - I was there to really help my trans friends that day, we really hope our gay and queer and trans friends will stick up for us as well, understanding that all of our liberation is intricately bound up in one another's progress [my emphasis].

The intersectionality expressed in this statement can, of course, be expanded even further.  There are literally millions of people with penises who have the exact same anger and resentment about what was done to their bodies that intersex people have about what was done to theirs.  I hope, for this reason, that Weigel may come to look upon these people with these bodies too as her natural allies and that they, in turn, will view and support Cohen's film and embrace Weigel, the other courageous stars of "Every Body," Sean Saifa Wall and River Gallo, and the entire intersex rights movement as allies. 

Another prominent intersex rights advocate, and one who has publicly made the connection between the movements to ban all forms of genital cutting (and other forms of medically unnecessary intersex surgeries), is Mx. Anunnaki Ray Marquez.  Marquez (who is also tremendously quotable: my favorite is "When you've met one intersex person, you've met one intersex person.") is the first person in the state of Colorado to receive (retroactively, and after fifteen months of fighting for it) an intersex birth certificate.  Marquez truly embodies the spirit of intersectionality and of making common cause with all movements to ban genital cutting.

Ultimately, the right to bodily integrity and the right to genital autonomy rest on the foundation of bodily self-ownership, no matter whose body we're talking about.  Either there is a fundamental right to bodily self-ownership that applies to every body, regardless of sex, or there isn't.  And, if there is, that means that that right is not just fundamental but universal.

This ties in to the underlying concept of Cohen's film just as it does to Weigel's comments about inclusion.  Importantly, the demands for justice and equality by any one group within the abbreviation "LGBTQIA" are not trivialized or diminished by the inclusion of any other group within that assemblage.  The cause of advancing gay rights, for example, is not undermined by linking it conceptually and strategically to the cause of advancing intersex rights.  By the same token, the right of intersex people and people with vulvas to autonomous control over their bodies (especially their genitals and reproductive organs) is not diminished, trivialized or threatened by acknowledging that that same right belongs no less to people who happen to have been born with penises.  On the contrary: that right can only be strengthened by recognizing its universality.  It's self-evident that a morally consistent principle is more powerful than one with a carve-out that omits 50% of the population.  Hence, the campaigns to end female genital cutting and medically-unnecessary intersex surgeries can only be strengthened by joining forces with the campaign to end male genital cutting.  Establishing the right to be free from nonconsensual genital surgery on the foundation of a universal right of bodily self-ownership rather than on a right narrowly tailored to protect only people with vulvas or only people with intersex traits will help secure and guarantee this right for Every Body.

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

About me:  I am originally from New York City and now live near the Finger Lakes region of New York. I am a licensed physical therapist and I write about bodily autonomy and human rights, gender, culture, and politics.  I currently serve on the board of directors for the Genital Autonomy Legal Defense & Education Fund, (GALDEF), the board of directors and advisors for Doctors Opposing Circumcision and the leadership team for Bruchim.

 
 

 

"Cured": What the Gay Rights Movement Can Teach Us About Grassroots Campaigns to Change Medical Practice

by David Balashinsky

In the history of the gay rights movement, certain events stand out as milestones.  First and foremost is the Stonewall uprising in 1969.  Another is the termination by Congress of the Defense Department's "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy in 2010 allowing lesbian, gay and bisexual people to serve openly in the armed forces.  Still another is the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing the right to same-sex marriage.  

Less well known by the general public is the decision in 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to drop its classification of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder.  Although it's hard to believe now that gay women and men were once subjected to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT, or "shock therapy") and other "treatments," for decades the APA viewed homosexuality as a condition that needed to be "cured."  Women and men were not merely stigmatized for being gay; their homosexuality was actually defined as a pathological condition by the medical establishment.  As a result, among other interventions that would now be condemned as medical malpractice, gay people were institutionalized, subjected to"aversive therapy" (a technique that involved, in the case of gay men, exposing them to pictures of nude or semi-nude men while administering electric shocks) and even subjected to lobotomies - all in an effort to "cure" them of their gayness.

It took years of advocacy and even direct confrontation before the APA was finally persuaded by gay rights activists (from within but mostly outside the organization) to revise its official stance on homosexuality.  The story of how these activists overcame decades of entrenched thinking within the APA is movingly told in the powerful, heartbreaking yet inspiring documentary, "Cured."

Anyone who cares about human rights should watch this film.  Anyone who cars about the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons should watch this film.  And anyone who cares about ending all forms of forced genital cutting should watch this film.  Why?  Partly because the gay rights movement has been phenomenally successful and there is always something to learn from a successful human rights movement.  But, more particularly, because the battles for gay rights that have been fought over the past 60 years and more have been waged within the social sphere, within the legal domain and within the realm of medical practice.  It is precisely in this respect that the gay rights- and genital autonomy movements have so much in common.

It goes without saying that both movements represent quests for fundamental human rights.  What right is more fundamental, after all, than the right not to have healthy, erogenous tissue surgically removed from one's body without consent?  At the same time, there are other rights perhaps not as crucial as the inviolability of one's physical boundaries but that are still important enough to be regarded as fundamental.  Chief among these is the right to equal protection.  The aim of the gay rights movement is for gay people to have the same rights to housing, employment, marriage, services and public accommodations, government benefits, healthcare and the myriad other rights that (some - not all) hetero people take for granted (rights that, at least, exist on paper).  These particular rights are typically legal rights: that is, they are either codified in statutes or they are rooted even more deeply in the texts of constitutions.  Additionally, an important aim of the gay rights movement has been and continues to be for social acceptance: not just of homosexual relationships but of homosexuality itself, as something intrinsic to an individual's identity.  Gay people want what all of us want: the right to live openly as themselves and without apology for who they are.  A third domain in which gay people have had to fight for their fundamental rights is the subject of "Cured": their treatment (in both senses of the word) by the medical profession.  All of these specific rights can be distilled down to fundamental human rights but it is significant that the struggle to achieve them has taken place within each of these three domains: the law, society, and medical practice.

This is exactly the case with the movement to end nontherapeutic penile circumcision (male genital cutting, or MGC), which comprises one of the three major pillars of the genital autonomy movement (the other two being the FGM-eradication movement and the movement to end the medically unnecessary surgeries that are imposed on intersex children in a misguided attempt to "normalize" their bodies).  Just as the gay rights movement has done, the MGC-eradication movement is pursuing its aims within each of these three spheres.  For example, the groundwork is now being laid for the pursuit of creative and effective legal strategies to redress individual cases of harm while creating impact litigation that will have a positive deterrent effect more broadly on the practice of subjecting unconsenting minors to medically unnecessary, irreversible and life-altering genital surgery.  That is the focus and raison d'être of the Genital Autonomy Legal Defence and Education Fund (GALDEF).  At the same time, campaigns within the social sphere to normalize intactness and to destigmatize the penile prepuce are gaining momentum.  Within the medical sphere, more and more physicians, physicians' organizations and other healthcare providers and medical ethicists are publicly stating their opposition to the practice of MGC. 

Notwithstanding these encouraging developments, the penile prepuce continues to be disparaged and worse by the medical profession.  It is particularly within the realm of medical practice, therefore, that the penile prepuce bears such a striking similarity to the state of being gay.  Both the penile prepuce and homosexuality have an overlapping history of explicit pathologizing by the medical establishment.  Both have been regarded, therefore, by medical professionals as conditions that warranted aggressive interventions for the well-being of the "patient."  In both cases, the goal of these interventions was the same: the elimination of the offending pathological condition.

It's worth bearing in mind that none of the three domains discussed here - law, society and medical practice - is entirely walled off (or "siloed") from the other two.  There is an active interplay between all of them as the prevailing normative values of each influence and, in turn, are influenced by the others.  That is partly why the problem of MGC has proved so intractable.  The unwarranted privilege it has enjoyed within the legal realm is unquestionably due to its persistent social acceptability and the gloss of legitimacy that it continues to receive from the medical profession.  By the same token, the medical profession continues to cite societal acceptance of MGC (including parental preference and prerogative) as justifications for its continued availability (and for third-party payment for it).  And the fact that legal sanctions have yet to be imposed upon any physician for performing what is nevertheless universally understood to be a medically unnecessary surgery - in contrast to other cases in which physicians have been prosecuted for and even convicted of performing medically unnecessary surgeries - surely indirectly reinforces the continued acceptance within the societal and medical realms for MGC.  By failing to prosecute medical professionals and others for performing any medically unnecessary penile circumcision - an act that, were it to involve any other body part, would be considered not just malpractice but battery - the state implicitly bestows its imprimatur on MGC and does so explicitly in those states (and there are still 34 of them) in which Medicaid Funds are used to pay for it.

But if each one of these three domains supports the other two and, together, all of them undergird the practice of nontherapeutic penile circumcision, it is also true that, like a three-legged stool, without any one of them, the stool must inevitably fall down.  Therein lies cause for hope.  That is why it is imperative that the struggle to eradicate MGC be waged in the legal sphere (in courts and in legislatures), in the public sphere (through media and online forums, through one-on-one engagement and through public protest) and in the medical sphere (through outreach to medical school faculties and students and to medical professionals, through efforts to defund nontherapeutic circumcision by eliminating third-party payments for it, such as Medicaid, through education aimed at new parents and through vociferous advocacy with medical organizations and regulatory bodies).  

Fortunately, not only has exactly this sort of three-pronged approach been employed before but it has succeeded.   To see how, we need only look to the gay rights movement.  In particular, the medical prong - the campaign by gay rights activists targeting the APA's pathologizing of homosexuality - is a paradigm of effective grassroots advocacy.  That is the story told by "Cured," which is why this documentary is must-see viewing for those who support the cause of genital autonomy. 

 

 

This post was originally published as a promotion for a fundraising event to benefit GALDEF that took place on 17 September 2023 which included a special screening of "Cured."  It has now been revised, accordingly. You can learn about distribution efforts for "Cured" by following it on Facebook, Instagram and X.  If you're interested in contacting the flimmakers, they can be reached at "Cured"'s website.  The producers of "Cured" have also created a Resource List.  Finally, if you would like to learn more about GALDEF or donate, please visit our website.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

About me: I am originally from New York City and now live near the Finger Lakes region of New York.  I am a licensed physical therapist and I write about bodily autonomy and human rights, gender, culture, and politics.  I currently serve on the board of directors for the Genital Autonomy Legal Defense & Education Fund, (GALDEF), the board of directors and advisors for Doctors Opposing Circumcision and the leadership team for Bruchim.

GALDEF Statement in Support of the 2023 WWDOGA

by David Balashinsky

May 7th, 2023 is the eleventh anniversary of the ruling by the Regional Court of Cologne recognizing that nonconsensual, non-therapeutic penile circumcision constitutes an illegal act of bodily harm.  That ruling has been commemorated every May 7th since as the Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy.

The Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy, or WWDOGA, calls for the State Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to honor their commitment to "take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children."  WWDOGA also calls for legislative initiatives to protect all children, regardless of sex, against non-therapeutic genital surgeries.  It calls for the protection of children with atypical sex characteristics from genital surgeries when not medically indicated; it calls for an immediate end to the campaign of mass circumcision of African boys; and it calls for a program of publicly-funded research and education on the consequences of genital cutting for children in all its various social contexts.  These objectives are so basic to any rational definition of fundamental human rights that WWDOGA has now grown into an annual observance that is supported by over 90 organizations around the world. 

One of these is the Genital Autonomy Legal Defense and Education Fund (GALDEF) which is proud to support of the eleventh annual Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy.

GALDEF's Mission is "to promote impact litigation by providing the resources needed for our clients to win legal cases involving medically unnecessary genital cutting."  Our Vision is "to create a world where the rights of children to bodily integrity and future autonomy over their genitals and their sexuality are respected and legally protected."  

Although our strategies may differ, the ultimate goals of WWDOGA and GALDEF are the same.  Both organizations are working to create a world in which the right of every individual to ownership of their own genitals is recognized and respected.  Like WWDOGA, GALDEF believes that this right is absolute, fundamental and belongs to every human being regardless of sex or any other individual- or group identification.  For us at GALDEF, that means helping those who have been deprived of this right seek redress through the judicial process.  But our mission is much broader, much deeper and much more ambitious than fighting for this cause on an individual, case-by-case basis.  We believe that strategic and targeted legal actions can result in precedent-setting and high-profile judgments that will reverberate throughout the legal landscape, across the country and beyond.  This will have the effect of discouraging others from violating or assisting others in violating the right to genital autonomy of every child everywhere.

It is not a coincidence that both WWDOGA and GALDEF have the phrase "genital autonomy" in their names.  The principle of genital autonomy is the moral foundation of both organizations; the universal safeguarding of this right, the cause to which both organizations are committed. 

Nor is it a coincidence that a judicial remedy for forced genital cutting lies at the heart of both organizations.  For as long as there have been law codes, charters and constitutions, courts have been the place of last resort where those who have been aggrieved can seek justice.  Courts have been the place where statutes that violate human rights have been struck down and where previously unrecognized rights have been recognized.  Throughout the history of jurisprudence, courts have been one of the most important tools that civilized societies have to insure justice and equality for every citizen within their jurisdiction.  On May 7th, 2012, it was one regional court in Cologne, Germany that issued the ruling that we now commemorate every May 7th as the Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy.

The essential holding of the Cologne ruling is that "a [medically unnecessary] circumcision, 'even when done properly by a doctor with the permission of the parents, should be considered [a] bodily harm if it is carried out on a boy unable to give his own consent.'"

The essential fact of the Cologne ruling is that it was symbolic: it had little or no practical effect because the German Bundestag shortly thereafter passed legislation explicitly permitting non-therapeutic penile circumcision - legislation that, of course, superseded the ruling. 

The essential significance of the ruling, however, is that it represented the first time that a legally-instituted body officially recognized that people with penises actually have a right to decide for themselves what part of their penises they may keep and what part gets cut off.  It was the first time that a court recognized that non-therapeutic penile circumcision is a harm in and of itself and that, when imposed on a child without his consent, his right not to be physically harmed is violated.  Thus, while this may have been one legal decision by one regional court with little or no practical effect, for the genital autonomy movement it was the legal shot heard round the world.

 

The deeper significance, then, of the Cologne ruling is that it transcended the personal interests of the child whose medically unnecessary penile circumcision led prosecutors to bring charges against the physician who had committed it.  The Cologne ruling was a vindication of the rights not only of that child but of every child born with a penis.  And, although the Cologne ruling pertained strictly to penile circumcision, the Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy, to its credit, regards the right to genital autonomy as universal, meaning that it is a right that belongs to every human being irrespective of sex, gender, nationality, religion and irrespective of the particular shape or structure of an individual's genitals.

The concept of universal human rights is important not only because it means that the rights apply to everyone equally but because the concept itself provides a moral framework in which each of us can extrapolate from our own unique situations to those of others from whom we differ.  That is why WWDOGA seeks to bring together advocates from every genital autonomy movement: not just those of us working to end male genital cutting but those working to end female genital cutting and intersex genital cutting, too.  Likewise, we at GALDEF believe in the universality of the cause of genital autonomy and we also recognize the strategic importance of making common cause with other genital autonomy movements.  This is reflected in our Values Statement in which GALDEF expresses its "solidarity with female and interesex victims of genital cutting. . . ."  

Sooner or later the world will recognize what the regional court in Cologne recognized eleven years ago.  Either there is a fundamental right to genital autonomy that applies to everyone regardless of sex or there isn't.  And, if there is, sooner or later that right must be recognized by unbiased courts in the constitutions and statutes that already exist or it must be enshrined in constitutional amendments or codified in new legislation.  Whatever course this campaign takes and however long it takes, GALDEF will be fighting for the right of every child to grow up with their genitals uncut, unharmed and intact. 

             

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

David Balashinsky is originally from New York City and now lives near the Finger Lakes region of New York. He is a licensed physical therapist and writes about bodily autonomy and human rights, gender, culture, and politics.  He currently serves on the board of directors for the Genital Autonomy Legal Defense & Education Fund, (GALDEF), the board of directors and advisors for Doctors Opposing Circumcision and the leadership team for Bruchim.

Some Thoughts on "They" as a Singular Pronoun and Other Linguistic Pet Peeves

by David Balashinsky

 

I had the good fortune to be off from work yesterday and so had the opportunity to listen to Here and Now which, where I live, airs on WSKG radio at 12:00 noon.  Yesterday's show featured an interview with sociolinguist and author Valerie Fridland who was there to discuss her new book, Like, Literally, Dude: Arguing for the Good in Bad English.  

I was not aware of the fact that so many people become so exercised about their linguistic pet peeves or what they believe to be misuses of the English language as to become impelled to write indignant emails about them to radio shows.  However, this phenomenon formed the backdrop not only of yesterday's interview but also (at least to some extent) of Fridland's book which on her site is described as "A lively linguistic exploration of the speech habits we love to hate - and why our 'like's and 'literally's actually make us better communicators."  

 

For my part, I do not object to "like" nearly as much as I object to "you know" but that phrase did not come up during the interview.  (I do not know whether Fridland addresses "you know" in her book and, if she does, whether she is as forgiving of it as she is of "like," "literally," "um" and ""uh.")  However, I found myself experiencing my own outrage at certain usages that did come up during the broadcast.  Not coincidentally, these happen to be several of my own favorite pet peeves so, like any indignant language lover who fires off an angry email, I am sharing them now - except, of course, that I get to vent spleen here on my blog. 

First is the use of the singular "they." I loathe the use of "they" as a singular pronoun not because I oppose the existence of a gender-neutral pronoun but simply because "they" is already taken (as a plural) and its use as both a singular and a plural is often confusing and grates on the ears like fingernails on a chalkboard.  There really should be a better alternative and I hope someone can come up with one.  In the interview, Fridland claims that "hundreds" of alternative, gender-neutral singular pronouns have been tried but that none has caught on in the way that "they" has.  Fridland attributes this to the fact that the use of "they" as a singular pronoun is "an organic development."  Not having read her book, I do not know how Fridland defines this term but it's probably safe to assume that by "organic development" she means a change in language that is unconscious and "natural."  I understand that English is always changing but I also know that people misuse words all the time and how we speak is inevitably influenced by what we hear and learn from others.  For this reason, common misuses of words tend to spread and become even more common until at last, through the alchemy of semantic change, a frequently misused word becomes a legitimate way of expressing the idea that it was formerly improperly used to convey.  

 

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  Well, after contacting Fridland directly and receiving not one but two very gracious and hugely enlightening responses, I believe it is fair to say that, at least from Fridland's perspective, it is neither.  A sociolinguist views the evolution of language much as a biologist views evolutionary changes in a species over time: these changes are neither "good" nor "bad" but merely adaptive.  As Fridland pointed out in her first email, the pronoun "you," exactly like "they," is used in both a singular and plural sense and this does not seem to bother anybody - at least not now.  I hadn't considered this and, honestly, this got me 98 per cent of the way there. 

 

And yet it is hard for me to let go of the idea that not every change is for the better.  Isn't it possible that, while language may be characterized by "organic development," like everything else it also tends to degrade from sheer entropy?  Over time, a building will begin to sag and its foundations give way until the building collapses.  At room temperature, food will decay and what once might have been dinner is now slimy and putrid.  That might be great for bacteria but it's not so great for the larger, more complex organism who was hoping to make a meal out of that rotting food.  This illustrates the principle that, depending upon one's point of view, change can be either "organic development" or simply organic decay. 

 

But this is where the view of the sociolinguist can actually be liberating.  As Fridland explained to me in her second email,

Over the long haul, language evolves in ways that meet the needs of speakers, but not always in ways that meet the social desires of those who have come to feel tied to the conventions of use at any one point in time on the long continuum of a language's history.  This is the crux of why people are so vehement in their views about language - it is a resource both intensely personal (communicating our own views and experiences) and, at the same time, communal (based on a set of conventions and usages that arise via collective agreement).  When people start messing with what we feel is established as normative use - especially when those speakers belong to groups less valued or well thought of socially, economically and politically (be it due to age, gender, ethnicity or region) - it irks us that they are changing the conventions we have helped to establish.  Toss in the fact that these norms have been taught to us every year in grammar class and so are validated in that way that these new forms are not and you get fierce opposition.  I think what is key is to realize that many of the forms that one or two centuries ago really angered people are now the things we all say without the dissolution of our ability to communicate having resulted.  One great example is that we now are not only using 'you' for both singular and plural but also using it as a subject pronoun (as in "You went home") when 'you' historically was only used for objects, and 'ye' was used exclusively for subjects.  In the 16th century, 'you' and 'ye' seem to have started to fall together, likely because in fast speech they sound similar and because in certain sentences it was a bit hard to tell which one should be used.  For instance, "ye know that man" becomes 'Know ye that man" where the subject 'ye' now is in a position that 'you' typically occupies, i.e., following the verb. Thus 'you' started to get used in that case instead, creeping into 'ye' territory one grammatical inch at a time.  The result?  Now all we say is 'you' and 'ye' is nowhere to be seen.  Has language been destroyed because of this change we didn't even know had happened?  Not really.  But when someone today does something similar such as saying "him and I are going to the party," we get upset with this grammatical infraction - one which we actually commit every time we use 'you' as a subject.  We might socially disfavor it, but that is . . . [no] worse . . . than what we did with 'you' and 'ye.'

That got me the rest of the way there - at least, intellectually.  And yet I still have a visceral antipathy for the singular "they."

 

There is another dimension to the question of whether "they" ought to be accepted as both a singular and a plural pronoun.  In realms such as language, where education, skill, artistry and rules figure prominently (and aren't these precisely what give language its charm, beyond its strictly utilitarian function?), changes over time can be either conscious and inorganic or unconscious and organic.  An example of a conscious, inorganic change in language - and one, for the better, in my opinion - would be the now ubiquitous title "Ms." as an alternative to "Miss or "Mrs."  There was nothing at all natural or "organic" about the way "Ms." was incorporated into everyday usage.  Its adoption and popularization were the result of very conscious and deliberate campaigns which arose in response to the inherent sexism of the use of either "Miss" or "Mrs."  

 

A further development along these lines would be to abandon "Ms." and "Mr." altogether in favor of a gender-neutral title such as "Mx.," which is now the leading choice among those expressing a preference.  To me, however, "Mx." seems inelegant and awkward in the same way that "Latinx" does.   On the other hand, "Ms." undoubtedly seemed unnatural and awkward when it was introduced, also.  And while there is a certain logic and even validity to "Mx.," the same, apparently, cannot be said of "Latinx." 

"They," as a singular pronoun, falls somewhere in between the organic development that Fridland talks about and the inorganic change in language that is consciously advocated as a way to rectify inequity, as in the case of "Ms."  I do not dispute that "they" has a long history of use as a singular pronoun but the organic development by which it came to be used was not a result of gender consciousness or of a rejection of heteronormativity and sexual-binary normativity.  People have misused "they" when they meant to say "he" or "she" for decades.  It is only recently that advocates for a more inclusive language have argued for the use of "they" specifically as a gender-neutral singular pronoun.  That is certainly a much more valid reason for its use than sheer carelessness or ignorance.  

 

That said, and aside from my longstanding objection to the use of "they" as a singular pronoun on strictly grammatical and aesthetic grounds, my argument has been that, if we are going to use "they" as a singular pronoun, we should at least follow the rule of grammar that a pronoun and a verb must agree in number.  In other words, we should be consistent, especially if there is any hope of the singular "they" acquiring any grammatical legitimacy.  Thus, for example, one ought to say "they is," not "they are."  Here are several additional examples of the correct way to use "they" as a singular pronoun in a sentence: "They is the president and CEO of that organization," or, "They writes for The Guardian and is a frequent contributor to other publications," or, "They is going to be delivering a lecture on semiotics which you won't want to miss because they is the leading expert on this topic."  Admittedly, using the correct verb forms, as in these examples, grates on one's ears, but no more so than the singular "they" does.  And if we are being asked to get used to "they" as a singular pronoun, don't we have a right to expect the champions of the singular "they" to get used to conjugations such as "they is"?

 

On the other hand, though, there is the powerfully convincing example that Fridland cites in which "you" is used as either a singular pronoun or a plural pronoun but always with a verb form as though it were a plural.  We never say "you is."  Yes, maintaining agreement in number between the singular "they" and the accompanying verb would serve the purpose of making it clear that one is speaking about one person and not more than one and so avoid the confusion that may occur with the use of the singular "they," as in this example: "The committee members and the chair could not come to an agreement about the budget because they were afraid that the funds would not be allocated properly."  In that sentence, does "they" refer to the committee members, to the chair of the committee, or to all of them?  Now try this: "The committee members and the chair could not come to an agreement about the budget because they was afraid that the funds would not be allocated properly."  Awkward, yes, but at least we understand that it is the chair of the committee and not the committee members who has reservations about approving the budget.   

 

Of course, all this awkwardness and confusion could be avoided by using a different, gender-neutral pronoun altogether.  However, if we are to use the singular "they," using it in a way that preserves agreement in number between the pronoun and the verb would, over time, as our ears become accustomed to it, have the added virtue of conferring more legitimacy on the use of "they" as a singular, specifically gender-neutral pronoun because it would make it unambiguous that the speaker used "they" deliberately as an affirmation of the non-binary gender of the person being spoken about rather than that the speaker used "they" simply out of carelessness.

 

To be clear, I am not objecting here to a person's choice of pronouns but to the inappropriate use of the verbs that accompany them.  As I have written elsewhere, I respect the right of everyone to identify herself, himself, or themself in any way that she or he or they chooses to.  Indeed, I do not regard it as "woke" so much as common courtesy to respect the wishes of each person to be addressed and identified as she, he or they wishes.  (And I say this not only as someone who bristles when people presume to call me "Dave" rather than by my real name - David - but as someone who legally changed his last name as an act of public repudiation of what I had long regarded as the ethnic self-abnegation of my forebears.)

 

So much for "they."  Secondly, I was flabbergasted to hear Professor Fridland use the expression "flash forward" (at 4:40 in the interview). No! No! No! It is "fast forward" - not "flash forward." This expression is used metaphorically - as Fridland used it - but comes, unless I am completely mistaken about this, from tape cassette players which included a "Play" button, a "Stop" button, a "Rewind" button and - you guessed it - a "Fast Forward" button.  If one wanted to quickly advance the tape, one would press "Fast Forward," hence the use of this phrase to mean rapidly advancing and skipping over the contents of something in order to get to the desired location much later on or farther along in the sequence.  "Fast forward" is therefore now used synonymously with phrases such as "skipping ahead to the present time. . .," or "bringing us up to the present moment. . . ."   "Flash forward" seems to be a corruption of "fast forward" and it also seems to be used exclusively by young people - at least, I have only ever heard young people use it.  This tends to confirm what I suspect is the cause of the change from "fast forward" to "flash forward," namely, the fact that most young people nowadays have never even seen, let alone operated, a tape cassette player.  They are, however, familiar with flash drives.  It is my hypothesis, therefore, that their familiarity with this more contemporary recording technology is the source of the corruption of "fast forward" into the increasingly prevalent "flash forward."  I also have to infer from her use of "flash forward" that Fridland falls into the category of post-boomer.

 

The broader point of Fridland's comments and, I assume, of her recent book, is that, because language is always changing and because this change reflects a natural process - the organic development of language cited above - one should respect neologisms and new constructions and be less dogmatic about English.  Fair enough.  But this raises another point which is my third pet peeve. Namely, if language is always changing, including its grammatical rules, the meaning of words, etc., then why even bother teaching grammar in the first place?   Why teach English as a subject to native English speakers?  When I was in elementary school, we all laboriously diagrammed sentences and learned what words to use, how to use them and how not to use them.  Was that all a gigantic waste of time?  It seems as though what Fridland is arguing is that every usage is valid.  Anything goes.  This would be consistent with what one of my English professors back in college stated, namely, that dictionaries are descriptive, rather than prescriptive.  As it happens, though, this is emphatically not what Fridland is arguing.  As she explained to me,

Language is self-sustaining and a remarkable and highly rule governed system - just not by the rules we tend to think of when we talk about 'language rules' typically.  People often mistake linguists to be saying there are no rules, but this is far from true.  Language can't operate without cognitive and articulatory rules that are deeply tied to how we understand and produce language. . . .  Natural inherent linguistic rules . . . allow language to keep thriving and changing without losing meaning or utility. . . .

These "inherent linguistic rules" differ, then, from "the social rules that have just become what we like to do [but do not reflect] what we need to do as language speakers."

 

So perhaps it's not unreasonable to say that, at least to some extent, the rules of grammar that we all struggle with are constructs (and, therefore, artificially rigid) in a way that the "cognitive and articulatory rules" to which Fridland refers are not.  If I understand her correctly, what Fridland is saying is that the formal rules of grammar - as taught - differ from the inherent logical rules of language itself.  I can accept that.  But if that is true, then I still maintain that no professor or grade-school teacher should ever again wield the red pen when grading a student's paper and criticize or "correct" her grammar, spelling, punctuation or (alleged) misuse of a word.

 

One last point - you'll notice that I used the pronoun "her" rather than "their" just now to refer to an individual of unspecified sex or gender.  As much as I loathe the use of "them," "they" and "their" in the singular, I also appreciate that the universal "he" or "him" when used to refer to an unidentified individual reflects the patriarchal and sexist roots of our society and actually perpetuates patriarchy and sexism by reinforcing the concept that maleness is the standard or the default in relation to which everything else is a subsidiary variation.  Accordingly, for decades now I have (with rare exceptions) used "her" or "she" instead of "him" or "he."  It's true that feminine pronouns are not inclusive and therefore "privilege" females, however, I figure that white males have enjoyed the benefits of affirmative action in language as in most other things for at least 5,000 years so it's probably time to give someone else a chance.

Revised, and with grateful acknowledgement to Professor Valerie M. Fridland, Ph.D., on 30 April 2023

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

About me: I am originally from New York City and now live near the Finger Lakes region of New York. I am a licensed physical therapist and I write about bodily autonomy and human rights, gender, culture, and politics. I currently serve on the board of directors for the Genital Autonomy Legal Defense & Education Fund, (GALDEF), the board of directors and advisors for Doctors Opposing Circumcision and the leadership team for Bruchim.