On a whole I enjoyed these chapters. Particularly at the beginning of chapter 2, I found the break down of the XX and XY chromosome differences and such to be helpful, since biological science isn't exactly my arena. Although she did come across a little strong with her very pro-female perspective, she acknowledges that bias. While she doesn't shy away from it, she does state what is fact (or significant theory) and what are her own extrapolations.
The AIS woman was fascinating. Although I didn't fully comprehend all the nuances of what she was talking about, the information I could hold on to was pretty much brand new and quite interesting. I like learning about deviations from the standard gender binary; I know there are a lot more than I know and certainly a lot more than we as a culture are aware of. I would like to see if there is any data on a person with AIS who does not identify as a woman. Angiers stated that the majority of people are very comfortable as women, but I would be curious.
Near the end of chapter two is when she started losing me a little. Not out of disrespect for her argument, but the language got a little flowery for me. I did really like the ideas and points she was making; I guess it was only a minor set back. I found it to be besides the point? I don't know exactly what was off about it. Maybe just with so many articles with an extremely academic voice, the almost-prose was surprising. I will have to think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment