Intersexuality and the ‘Right to Bodily Integrity’

Abstract

In 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution on 'children's right to bodily integrity'. In the resolution, concerns were expressed for about practices carried out on children without their formal consent. Among these practices, female genital cutting (FGC), non-medical circumcision and 'normalizing' surgeries for intersex children were listed among these practices. As a result of the adoption of the resolution elicited, strong reactions, ensued especially from Jewish and Muslim communities, which widely practices male circumcision. Simultaneously, however, intersex activists welcomed the resolution, as it gave legitimacy to their long-standing call to establish a common framework for the evaluation of all invasive medical and surgical practices on children carried out without their informed consent (Preves, 2005). This article uses an examination of the resolution to reflect on both the emerging concept of the 'right to bodily integrity' and on current developments in the field of intersex human rights in Europe. Firstly, the article considers the political process leading to the adoption of the resolution, in order to understand and appraise the limitations of the choice to use the framework of the right to bodily integrity to jointly address jointly issues of FGC, Downloaded from circumcision and intersex 'normalizing surgeries' jointly, without fully engaging with the cultural, religious and social factors underpinning each of these phenomena. Following this discussion, the article will further analyses the specific case of intersex rights, particularly in relation to the difficult balance between a medical and the juridical approach to intersexuality. This reflection will ultimately be useful to assess the role of the resolution in helping to subtract intersexuality from the sole gaze of medical practitioners at the advantage of a human rights approach which may best protect the interests of intersex children and adults.

Intersex Epistemologies? Reviewing Relevant Perspectives in Intersex Studies

“…The reviewed authors question the human rights violations that intersex people face, denouncing the practice of non-consensual surgeries on the sex characteristics of intersex newborns, children, and adolescents (Ammaturo 2016b;Bastien-Charlebois and Guillot 2018;Bauer et al 2020;Carpenter 2016Carpenter , 2018aCarpenter , 2018bCarpenter , 2020Crocetti et al 2020a;Davidian [2011Davidian [ ] 2013Ghattas 2013;Guillot 2018;Mestre Martínez 2022;Monro et al 2019;Paechter 2021;Winter Pereira 2022;Zelayandía-González 2023). Furthermore, they identify a lack of adequate health care throughout their lifespan (Berry and Monro 2022;Crocetti et al 2020b;Crocetti et al [2023] 2024), as well as dynamics of social discrimination and exclusion in different contexts (Carpenter 2020;Sterling 2021;Winter Pereira 2022).…”

“…Intersex studies also provides a review of the historical development of local, regional, and international human rights-based intersex activism over the last decades in different world regions (Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice 2016; Bauer et al 2020;Chase 2013;Crocetti et al 2020a;Davidian [2011Davidian [ ] 2013Davis 2015;Haller et al 2022;Karkazis 2008;Rubin , 2019Suess-Schwend 2022von Wahl 2021;Winter Pereira 2022). The reviewed authors analyze the demands of regional and international intersex networks, identifying the protection of the right to bodily integrity and cessation of non-consensual surgeries performed on the sex characteristics of intersex newborns, children, and adolescents as main demands (Ammaturo 2016b;Bastien-Charlebois and Guillot 2018;Bauer et al 2020;Carpenter 2016Carpenter , 2018aCarpenter , 2018bCarpenter , 2020Crocetti et al 2020aCrocetti et al , 2020bDavidian [2011Davidian [ ] 2013Grabham 2007;Guillot 2018;Mestre Martínez 2022;Monro et al 2019;Paechter 2021;Sterling 2021;von Wahl 2021;Winter Pereira 2022;Zelayandía-González 2023). Furthermore, they review the lobbying activities of intersex activist groups and networks in international and regional human rights bodies (Bauer et al 2020;Rubin 2019;Winter Pereira 2022).…”

The Growing Visibility of Intersex Demands at the United Nations: A Review of the Treaty Bodies’ Concluding Observations

“…These networks provide a forum for interaction, strategizing and advocacy for the rights and political goals of this movement at the regional and global levels (Rubin 2015;Carpenter 2016). Over the last 15 years, international networks of intersex activists have increasingly advocated the use of human rights discourses and legal frameworks to shape their demands and voice their concerns, most notably their opposition to intersex 'normalising' surgeries (Bauer et al 2020;Ammaturo 2016;Winter Pereira 2022).…”

“…Among the member states of the EU and the Council of Europe (Coe), only five countries (Malta, Portugal, Iceland, Germany, Greece) have legislation that provide some form of protection against these types of interventions during early childhood. 2 In recent years, intersex activist movements have turned to the international fora and institutions to expose their needs and human rights demands, and arguably, these institutions have started to listen and increase visibility of the human rights demands of intersex people (Bauer et al 2020;Ammaturo 2016;Rubin 2015). However, little attention has been given in the field of intersex studies and social movements to activist groups' interactions with international human rights bodies and their efforts to raise awareness and visibility of their cause.…”

Looking Back, Looking Forward

“…Numerous examples of feminist scholarship in SLS consider questions of legal strategy and effective (or not) reform efforts in areas such as domestic violence (Lewis et al, 2001), sex work and trafficking (Munro, 2005), labour rights for sex workers (Cruz, 2013), intersexuality and the right to bodily integrity (Ammaturo, 2016), technologyfacilitated sexual violence (Henry and Powell, 2016), sexual assault (Arstein-Kerslake and Flynn, 2016) and forced marriage (Park, 2006).…”