Intersex: cultural and social perspectives

Monro, Surya; Carpenter, Morgan; Crocetti, Daniela; Davis, Georgiann; Garland, Fae; Griffiths, David Andrew; Hegarty, Peter; Travis, Mitchell; Grinspan, Mauro Cabral; Aggleton, Peter

doi:10.1080/13691058.2021.1899529

Cited by 36 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Children with male-typical sex traits on the other hand, are not legally protected from genital cutting practices, even when the practice is considerably more physically invasive than some of the prohibited types affecting children with female-typical sex traits, for instance, symbolic nicking [7][8][9][10][11]. Children with intersex traits or differences of sex development also lack legal protection from medically unnecessary genital cutting and modification, even when the modification is as if not more physically invasive than prohibited procedures affecting children with female-typical sex characteristics [8,15], with a few notable exceptions [8,16].…”

Section: Current Inconsistencies In Law and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Routine secular child MGC in the US, for instance, is practised for various reasons, from parental aesthetic preferences to the medically controversial belief that prepuce removal promotes genital health or hygiene [1,7,8,22,24]. Intersex child genital modification is defended on the assumption that children have a psychosocial need for their genitals to fit a physical sex binary [8,15,16,22]. Duivenbode argues that the blanket prohibition of medically unnecessary child genital cutting would further disadvantage marginalised minority religious groups [29], but importantly, religion is seldom the only justification cited to defend child genital cutting practices and is often not cited at all [30].…”

Section: Pursuing Policy Paritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children

Townsend

2021

Int J Impot Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the time of writing in mid-2021, policy on child genital cutting and modification is inconsistent in the UK, US, and most European states, and there is growing consensus that this inconsistency should end [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. The question addressed here, is whether Western liberal democracies ought to discourage, if not legally prohibit, all forms of medically unnecessary child genital cutting and modification, or permit some relatively minor forms. Given the core political values of Western liberal democracies, including a commitment to human rights, this piece takes a liberal normative approach and argues that individual rights to bodilyand especially genitalintegrity should take priority over group rights if they come into conflict.

show abstract

Section: Current Inconsistencies In Law and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pursuing Policy Paritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children

Townsend

2021

Int J Impot Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The risk of loneliness may be even greater for some older intersex people, however, due to stigmatisation and prejudice toward bodies and appearances that might be considered non-normative. 60 Stigma and discrimination early in the life of an intersex person can influence future interactions with people and their ability to form satisfying relationships. 4 Early medical procedures are still justified as necessary to facilitate family acceptance; 19 however, for some, these early procedures sow division between parent and child.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ageing in obscurity: a critical literature review regarding older intersex people

Berry

Monro

2022

Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intersex people experience a range of human rights abuses, including non-consensual, irreversible medical interventions on minors. These abuses have lifelong effects, yet little is known about older intersex people. People in this diverse group face multiple marginalisations and erasures across different policy and practice arenas. This article reviews literature about intersex issues, drawing out materials relevant to older intersex people using an historically grounded approach. It focuses on the key issues affecting older intersex people living in a range of countries in the global North, as harmful medical practices originated in this region. Based on existing evidence, we found a pressing need for medical reform including a cessation of harmful medical practices and the development of appropriate healthcare that centres the needs and wishes of each intersex person. As intersex issues are currently heavily erased in most countries, research, cross-sectoral policy and practice work, and awareness-raising are all needed.

show abstract

“…Endosex, in contrast to intersex, refers to (persons with) congenital sexual anatomy judged to fall within the typical or normal range-statistically and prescriptively-for binary, mutually exclusive male or female categorization according to prevailing biomedical and/or legal criteria. [9][10][11] These criteria have changed over time and contine to be contested. 12-15 c. In practice, medically unnecessary "cosmetic" female genital cutting of adults-and even some post-pubescent minors with parental permission-has been exempted from the purview of the law, although whether this is legitimate based on the wording of the law is a matter of dispute.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-therapeutic penile circumcision of minors: current controversies in UK law and medical ethics

Lempert

Chegwidden

Steinfeld³

et al. 2022

Clinical Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current legal status and medical ethics of routine or religious penile circumcision of minors is a matter of ongoing controversy in many countries. We focus on the United Kingdom as an illustrative example, giving a detailed analysis of the most recent British Medical Association guidance from 2019. We argue that the guidance paints a confused and conflicting portrait of the law and ethics of the procedure in the UK context, reflecting deeper, unresolved moral and legal tensions surrounding child genital cutting practices more generally. Of particular note is a lack of clarity around how to apply the “best interests” standard—ordinarily associated with time-sensitive proxy decision making regarding therapeutic options for a medically unwell patient—to a parental request for a medically unnecessary surgery to be carried out on the genitalia of a healthy child. Challenges arise in measuring and assigning weights to intended sociocultural or religious/spiritual benefits, and even to health-related prophylactic benefits, and in balancing these against potential physical, functional, and psychosexual risks or harms. Also of concern are apparently inconsistent safeguarding standards being applied to children based on their birth sex categorization or gender of rearing. We identify and discuss recent trends in British and international medical ethics and law, finding gradual movement toward a more unified standard for evaluating the permissibility of surgically modifying healthy children's genitals before they can meaningfully participate in the decision.

show abstract

Intersex: cultural and social perspectives

Cited by 36 publications

References 38 publications

Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children

Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children

Ageing in obscurity: a critical literature review regarding older intersex people

Non-therapeutic penile circumcision of minors: current controversies in UK law and medical ethics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About