Emi suggested at one point that the figures portrayed by the media (in entertainment) are sort’ve two-dimensional, so if they were the only figures out there representing intersex, she would be concerned. Since they’re not the only representation, she is not concerned. I thought that was a good way to look at media representation — it implies that every characterization of a person/trend/idea doesn’t have to portray it fully. It suggests that that portraying an aspect of something, without fleshing it out all the way, is ok, as long as it’s supplemented by the availability of a fuller view somewhere else.
This made me think of Barbie, and the frequent complaint that she’s a poor representation of women. Yet it’s not like she exists in isolation — there are other ideas about women that exist out there to supplement the ‘hot blonde’ segment that she portrays. I guess the problem arises when a two-dimensional representation like this becomes the primary representation of a group and becomes a model “for” the group rather than “of” the group (as in, women are expected to be like Barbie, rather than Barbie is expected to be like some women). But that’s why there’s Astronaut Barbie! (kidding.)