Talk:Gender and sexuality studies

Possible Move
Wikipedia is not a dictionary - personally I'm suspicious whether we can get a whole entry out of some of the words from that list. I left them on the page for now so keyword searches will find the page. Comments? -- I was thinking of them as some topics to write pages in this area about. Maybe not all, but many of them could certaintly could be articles. Some of them already are articles, but some of these (e.g. AIDS) don't deal with the topic with the same emphasises as generally encountered in G&SS. G&SS tends to concentrate more on the social aspects of AIDS, for instance, than medical ones; especially as it effects gay people. -- SJK

Should this be renamed List of gender studies topics? &mdash;Ashley Y 23:49, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Come to think of it, should this be a category instead? &mdash;Ashley Y 08:21, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)


 * Given that it is alphabetically sorted, a category would probably be the best, although I personally have come to hate these stupid things. A list as backupt might not be bad, either. -- AlexR 12:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm going to rename it unless anyone has any objections. -- TheMightyQuill 11:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Genital Modification/Mutilation
Surely genital modification and mutilation is pretty obviously of interest to gender and sexuality studies? &mdash;Ashley Y 23:31, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
 * Why? - Robert the Bruce 05:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Because genital modification and mutilation affects sexuality directly, and in extreme cases may affect gender. &mdash;Ashley Y 09:14, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
 * Nah, you are casting the net altogether too wide. - Robert the Bruce 09:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, where do you get the idea of "affecting gender" from? If you mean sex-assignments of intersex kids that go wrong, well, the surgeries are not the cause of the trouble with gender assignment, but one consequence of it. Also, if I may say so, Genital modification and mutilation is a pretty stupid article, because it throws two things together that do not really belong togehter - it is like throwing together getting your ears pieced for earrings and cutting ears of as punishment in the middle ages. I see no reason of linking an article which is at best of periperal interest, especially when it is such a bad article. -- AlexR 13:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sex reassignment is a form of genital modification and is listed there accordingly. The article is clearly relevant: if you oppose the article itself, I suggest you argue there. &mdash;Ashley Y 22:04, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)


 * Have a look at some of the other entries to see how wide this net is usually cast. &mdash;Ashley Y 09:55, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If genital modification and mutilation isn't part of gender and sexuality studies, I don't know what is. It takes a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic to claim that. Timbo ( t a l k )  22:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think most people would agree that female genital cutting is an appropriate topic for gender and sexuality studies. If female genital cutting is an appropriate topic for gender and sexuality studies, why shouldn't male genital cutting also be an appropriate topic? -- DanBlackham 09:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Because female genital cutting is an intentional mutilation to "keep women in check" and therefore part of the overall problem of the surpression of women. Circumcision was just a lousy idea of a preventive medical treatment that just happend to apply to male bodied person. -- AlexR 17:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That is absurd. The cutting efforts in history target males ("the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment" thanks to Dr. Kellogg). Proponents of FGM never say they want to "keep women in check" - more often it is a claim of "marriagability".  Both were touted as medical by various cultures in various points in history, but I agree with your reluctace to detail such things here.  I propose that we direct only to genital modification and mutilation since there are clear gender and sexual overtones to the topic (including piercings and such clear sex-related information) and there is no need to detail the nuances within this article.   DanP 18:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Control of sexuality is only one of several reasons cited for female genital cutting. Like male circumcision, female genital cutting is done primarily for social and cultural reasons. Another reason cited for female genital cutting is the belief it improves hygiene. It is also sometimes done because the parents believe it is a religious requirement for their daughter to be circumcised.

There are many forms of female genital cutting ranging for genital scarification to infibulation which is the most damaging form. The form of female genital cutting most similar to male circumcision is called sunna circumcision. Sunna circumcision removes the prepuce of a girl's clitoris. Male circumcision removes the prepuce of a boy's penis.

All of the reasons cited for female genital cutting have been cited for male genital cutting, including control of sexuality. Non-religious circumcision started in the United States in the late 1800's in part because doctors thought it would keep boys from masturbating. Although control of sexuality is not a reason cited today for male circumcision, it is one of the reasons the practice was introduced in the United States.

In my opinion both female genital cutting and male genital cutting are appropriate topics for gender and sexuality studies. I understand that some people may feel that listing male genital cutting is not appropriate (especially people from circumcising cultures), but I am surprised there is any opposition to listing female genital cutting. -- DanBlackham 10:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. They belong in List of sexology topics, but not here. Exploding Boy 17:46, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

On the one hand: Absolutely absurd. How is genital (i.e. sexual organs of the body) violence/mutilation/alteration not a concern of gender and sexuality studies? It being concerned with body, sex, the sexed body, sexual violence... ? Besides which it just IS studied by those very scholars constituting queer theory, lesbian feminism, feminism (as well as psychoanalysis and anthropology) - hence "gender and sexuality studies."

Neverthless, gender and sexuality studies sounds like the name of a course. I have certainly never come across it as a conceptual terminology - is this a US thing perhaps?. Perhaps better to root under gender studies, feminism, lesbian and gay history, queer theory (and as the good man says sexology) etc.,?? Which do cover - or perhaps should - all of these things???

Possible merger - what do you think
I'm involved in the update and revision of the Gender Studies article and I was wondering should this page be merged with it. I'm sensitive to the difference between the two fields but I would say that Sexuality studies has a had a major impact on Gender Studies as a field. What would be the general opinion on merging this page into the Gender Studies page?--Cailil 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The content on this page is pretty weak. I would approve a merger, given that not much of this page makes it onto the Gender Studies page. - TheMightyQuill 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Studies?
Many of these items don't seem to have to do with gender and sexuality studies, per se... and it seems like a pretty random list of things that are somehow related to gender and sexuality. I think it's impossible to list everything that has something to do with gender and sexuality... maybe we could limit the list to things that are more academic-y? like queer theory, queer studies, gender studies, sexuality studies, intersection theory (i'm hoping to improve that article soon... it's just a stub), I dunno... any thoughts?

Fokion 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)