No abstract

No abstract

Hasson provides an examination of menstrual suppression technologies and the implications they have on understanding menstruation as both quintessentially natural and socially constructed, and even what ‘counts’ as menstruation. Taking the case of birth control pills, Hasson studies menstrual suppression by analyzing medical journal articles, FDA advisory committee transcripts, and website marketing. Across these contexts, she finds that new definitions of ‘menstruation’ converge on the distinction between bleeding that occurs when women are taking hormonal birth control and when they are not. Finally, Hasson draws attention to the concept of redefining a biological process that is deeply significant for gendered embodiment, as well as a challenge to consider both the social and material construction of gendered bodies.

Despite a great deal of feminist work that has highlighted its social construction, menstruation seems a self-evidently “natural” bodily process. Yet, how menstruation is defined or what “counts” as menstruation is rarely questioned. Examining menstruation alongside technologies that alter it highlights these definitional questions. In this article, I examine menstrual suppression through an analysis of medical journal articles and FDA advisory committee transcripts, paired with websites used to market menstrual suppression to consumers. Across these contexts (clinical research, FDA regulation, and advertising), new definitions of menstruation converged on a distinction between bleeding that occurs when women are taking hormonal birth control and when they are not. The case of menstrual suppression birth control pills provides an opportunity to study the work of redefining a biological process understood as quintessentially natural and deeply significant for gendered embodiment, as well as a challenge to consider both the social and material construction of gendered bodies.

This article examines how feminist politics are made to 'stick' to appropriated technologies in the context of a contemporary feminist women's health clinic in the US. Feminist clinics such as 'FemHealth', founded as part of 1970s women's health movements, put medical tools and knowledge into lay women's hands, making the appropriation of medical technologies a centerpiece of their political project. In the process, they rejected the authority of physicians and gave new politicized meanings to the tools they claimed as their own. As lay healthworkers at FemHealth continued the project of appropriation, they also continued to negotiate their dependence on physicians to perform tasks that required a medical license. Drawing on participant observation and interviews with healthworkers, I argue that struggles over the role and authority of physicians in this clinic play out through debates over two similar and competing tools used in the abortion procedure: the single-tooth tenaculum and the cervical stabilizer. Many healthworkers invested in the stabilizer as 'inherently feminist' in hopes that it would maintain its politics even when passed into physicians' hands. While appropriation depends on the ability of users to alter a technology's meanings, actors may feel invested in the new politics taken on by appropriated tools and work towards making those meanings persist, or 'stick'.