Instructions:
Articule : file:///Users/laurajimenez/Downloads/Few-That%20Monster%20of%20Nature-annotated.html
You will need to respond to the discussion questions posted by at least 2 other students in your group. In your responses, 250 words each, for a total of 500 words, you must refer to at least one specific reading to answer the question posed by your group member.
Manage Discussion Entry
“That Monster of Nature”: Gender, Sexuality, and the Medicalization of a “Hermaphrodite” pp 161-164 in Late Colonial Guatemala in 1800s physician Narciso Esparragosa was called to examine Juana Aguilar, as part of the legal proceedings against her for double concubinage with men and women.
Through his efforts to classify this woman, what proof could the physician provide to prove she was a hermaphrodite, other than their own beliefs and opinions?
Was this classification even accurate?
Was she a hermaphrodite, or just a woman with a larger clitoris than average?
(250 words for this)
Student # 2 : Branden Veliz
ThursdayOct 27 at 7:24pm
Manage Discussion Entry
The reading “That Monster of Nature”: Gender, Sexuality, and Medicalization of a “Hermaphrodite” is about a woman by the name of Juana Aguilar that was examined by a physician (Narciso Esparragosa) for some court proceedings that were charged against her for concubinage with both men and women. Esparragosa’s anatomical and physiological claims are set in the context of the age of enlightenment conceptions of sexuality and sexual difference in the first part, which also analyzes the scope and purpose of the study. The second part describes how Esparragosa developed the justification for placing Aguilar and her ambivalent sexual orientation in a distinct category as “neither man nor woman.” To describe Aguilar’s sexual and physical differences throughout his medical report, Esparragosa used powerful words such as monstrosity and reinterpreted them in gendered and racially biased ways. He utilized these statements to support his argument that female physiological and anatomy ambiguity contributed to sexual deviation and some categorization claims that sought to naturalize the female genitalia.
Was his examination fair and without bias?
What classification was Esparragosa able to conclude from the examination?
What did Esparragosa rely on to ensure that his classification was accurate?
(250 words for this)
