Between+XX+and+XY:+Intersexuality+and+the+myth+of+two+sexes

They used a mechanical penis that could artificially

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: big around and as long as an erect penis, into the vaginas of sexually aroused women, and from ten firsthand insights he drew what he imagined would be the position of the genitals during a natural act of sexual intercourse. There are no obvious errors, no serious deviation from what we now consider to be true human anatomy. Shown in cross-section, the penis extends deeply and very nearly straight into the vagina. That, it turns out, is wrong. But working with glass tubes and only half the partnership, Dickinson could hardly have done better. That was nowhere near the end of this investigation. Thirty or so years after Dickinson peered through his tubes, William Masters and Virginia Johnson took another shot at it. They used a mechanical penis that could artificially simulate coitus and direct observation using a speculum and “bimanual palpation,” or manual examination of the internal organs from both inside and outside the body.13 Their most notable findings included the observation that, during intercourse, the uterus enlarged and the vaginal walls shifted, things not seen by any earlier observer. Unconvinced by Masters and Johnson’s findings, British physician A. J. Riley and his wife used ultrasound technology in 1992 to further investigate the anatomy of coitus.14 Unfortunately, the pictures they produced were of very poor quality—largely because they used inexpensive equipment and carried out all their scans on themselves while having intercourse—and their studies provided little in the way of further useful information. The most recent of these sorts of studies took place in 1999, in Groningen, the Netherlands, when gynecologist Willibrord Weijmar Schulz, physiologist Pek van Andel, anthropologist Ida Sabelis, and radiologist Eduard Mooyaart used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to attempt to definitively and finally reveal the secrets of human mating. They found that “during intercourse in the ‘missionary position’ the penis has the shape of a boomerang, and 1/3 of its length consists of the root of the penis. During female sexual arousal with intercourse the uterus was raised and the anterior vaginal wall lengthened. The size of the uterus did not change during intercourse . . .” even though Masters and Johnson swore it did. Schultz and his colleagues don’t say how they A Brief History of Sex 23 got those couples into an MRI tube, how they managed to get any clear images at all, or whether all of that may have affected the relative locations of any the important parts. But for the moment it seems to be the definitive study.15 However, we’ve already seen the sorts of problems that arise when something gets labeled “the definitive study.” Interestingly, in none of these studies did the authors think to question whether their findings and conclusions would be meaningful for more than the one man and one woman who had participated in the particular study. No one ever asked whether the obvious differences in genitalia among men and among women might have some relevance, or considered that the anatomy of intercourse might be as varied as the men and women engaging in it. Just as we have come to think of biological sex as offering only two opposite options, we have come to imagine that sex between any man and woman is just like sex between every other man and woman. You’d think that after all these years, after all the drawings and pictures, the ultrasounds and MRIs, we would have it right by now. Yet the sexual anatomy of human beings remains an evolving and sometimes contentious concept. Changing Times, Changing Sexes: Science as a Moveable Feast Or rather, sexual anatomy and the differences between men and women were evolving concepts, right? Now we have it correct, and the story has stopped evolving. Today we have a place for everything, and everything is in its place. The curlicue of the clitoris nestles in its proper crown. The ball bearing of the testicle lies oiled and sheathed beneath the caliper of the epididymis. All is right and fixed in the anatomical world, isn’t it? Perhaps not. For example, nested just above human and most other mammals’ hearts is an organ called the thymus. In immunology there is no organ as singularly important as the thymus; within its membranous walls, our immune systems learn the mystery of self/non-self discrimination. Without thymuses, humans and other animals disintegrate under the onslaught of infection. If you transplant skin from, say, a normal chicken onto a normal mouse, within just a few days the 24 Between XX and XY mouse will mount a violent immunological attack on the chicken skin and reject it. If you perform the same experiment using normal chicken skin and a mouse without a thymus, the mouse will grow feathers. Mice without thymuses have lost the ability to distinguish themselves from chickens. That is a very serious sort of identity crisis. Obviously something nearly miraculous happens inside of mammalian thymuses. This organ’s role is so crucial to the developing immune system that f...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/04/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online