Queer reproduction revisited and why race, class and citizenship still matters: A response to Cristina Richie

Leibetseder, Doris

doi:10.1111/bioe.12416

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the concluding paragraph of the article, the author introduces a controversial topic, which does not follow from his previous argument: what he calls "the right to parenthood." There is enough literature to conclude that the so-called queer reproductive rights generate considerable bioethical controversy due to their biocolonialist potential and the conceptualization of the child as a "product" (Kalender 2012;Leibetseder 2016Leibetseder , 2018Mamo 2013;Preciado 2013;Richie 2016). Moreover because the justification for these alleged rights cannot be the same for intersex, transgender, and homosexual or bisexual people, it is not possible to consider them in the same way.…”

Section: The Right To Parenthoodmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Vatican Opinion on Gender Theory

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is a reasoned response to the article by Timothy F. Murphy, recently published in the prestigious journal Bioethics, on the supposed opposition between the views of the Catholic Church and what he calls “contemporary science” in relation to certain anthropological issues linked to the gender perspective. To point to “the Vatican” as anchored in an unscientific and anachronistic position, using the term contemporary science to which he attributes a unanimous representation of current scientific thinking on the subject is, in our view, unfounded and completely unacceptable. In his reflection, he does not adequately distinguish between intersex and transgenderism, two clearly different realities with different needs. The author defends the obsolescence of the binary sex/gender model that, in his view, “betrays human sexuality.” Furthermore, he does so without providing a plausible justification or a definition of human nature that is able to support the plurality and indeterminacy of sexual conditions, without falling back on untenable dualisms or relativism devoid of scientific objectivity. In our response, we highlight how the dialogue between Faith and Reason, as developed in the recent Magisterium of the Catholic Church, is essential to explain nature, the human being and, in general, all creations. Finally, contemporary science does not provide a monolithic and unquestionable view of the nature of human beings and their sexual identity, as the author claims, with many scientists confirming evidence of a binary human sexuality genetically and phenotypically determined. Summary This paper is a reasoned response to the supposed opposition between the views of the Catholic Church and “contemporary science” in relation to certain anthropological issues linked to the gender perspective.The dialogue between Faith and Reason, as developed in the recent Magisterium of the Catholic Church, is essential to explain nature, the human being and, in general, all creation, against the opinion of those who defend the obsolescence of the binary sex/gender model that, in their view, “betrays human sexuality”.

show abstract

Section: The Right To Parenthoodmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Vatican Opinion on Gender Theory

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the 21 st century, queer bioethical debate has been established as a consistent field of inquiry frequently present in prestigious mainstream journals like Bioethics (see Wahlert and Fiester 2012;Murphy 2015;Richie 2016;Leibetseder 2018). Even though this can be considered a breakthrough in its own right, it must be acknowledged that current prominence has been made possible by decades of systematic queer and LGBT thought and research with often marginal material resources-the latter still very true today.…”

Section: Making Bioethics More Ethicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Queering Vulnerability

Sudenkaarne

2019

Suomen Antropologi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vulnerability is a concept often used in bioethics. However, it is seldom interrogated from a queer point of view. By queer inquiry, I refer to an umbrella understanding of gender and sexuality as diverse. In this article I discuss lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and intersex -related (LGBTQI) approaches to vulnerability. Framing these discussions from queer and LGBTQI bioethical theory, I offer an original approach to vulnerability based on queer bioethics and on a layered understanding of vulnerability. After considering queer bioethics and its (queer) critiques, I conclude that a layered understanding of vulnerability has strong potential for analyzing LGBTQI/queer vulnerabilities in bioethics. For further research, I formulate four layers of queer vulnerabilities to demonstrate some of that potential. I call these the layer of ethical sustainability, the layer of queer agency, the layer of interrogatory intimacy, and the layer of troubled kinship. I insist all layers should be critically evaluated and developed further with intersectional approaches. Keywords: vulnerability; LGBTQI; queer bioethics; queer-feminist anthropology of vulnerability; layers of queer vulnerabilities

show abstract

“…In the 21 st century, queer bioethical debate has been established as a consistent field of inquiry frequently present in prestigious mainstream journals like Bioethics (see Wahlert and Fiester 2012;Murphy 2015;Richie 2016;Leibetseder 2018). Even though this establishment can be considered a breakthrough on its own right, it must be acknowledged that current prominence has been made possible by decades of systematic queer and LGBT thought and research with often marginal material resources -the latter still very true today.…”

Section: Queer Injectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%