Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 5, Issue 2–3, pp 169–181 | Cite as

Mind the Gaps: Intersex and (Re-productive) Spaces in Disability Studies and Bioethics

  • M. Morgan Holmes
Article

Abstract

With a few notable exceptions disability studies has not taken account of intersexuality, and it is principally through the lenses of feminist and queer-theory oriented ethical discussions but not through ‘straight’ bioethics that modes valuing intersex difference have been proposed. Meanwhile, the medical presupposition that intersex characteristics are inherently disabling to social viability remains the taken-for-granted truth from which clinical practice proceeds. In this paper I argue against bioethical perspectives that justify extensive and invasive pre- and post-natal medical interference to eradicate intersex. I argue instead that to constitute the necessary conditions for the recognition of the intersexed child as a person, a life valid in its own right, clinicians must refrain from aggressive interference. Clinical specialists presuppose that intersexed children will be socially disabled and unrecognizable as persons; frustrated by the general failure of traditional interventions to assign a sex, clinicians are now pursuing prenatal technologies, including selective termination, to erase intersex.

Keywords

Intersex Disability studies Critical ethics Critical gender studies 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Shelley Tremain for motivating the authorship of the paper, Margaret Toye for comments on drafts at various stages, and Trevor Holmes, Michael O’Rourke and Noreen Giffney for critical input on the penultimate draft. I am also indebted to my two anonymous readers for encouraging changes to strengthen and streamline my argument. Thanks also to Katherine O’Donnell and the Women’s Education Research and Resource Centre at University College Dublin for providing material resources of time and space for me to complete the paper and present a draft version during my time as visiting scholar at the centre. In memory of Max Beck, friend, intersex activist, cancer-care advocate.

References

  1. 1.
    Tremain, S. (2001). On the government of disability. Social Theory and Practice, 27(4), 617–636.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morgan, K. P. (2005). Gender police. In S. Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 298–328). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roen, K. (2005). Queer kids: toward ethical clinical interactions with intersex people. In M. Shildrick & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), Ethics of the body (pp. 259–278). Cambridge (MA): MIT.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dreger, A. (1999). Intersex in the age of ethics. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elliott, C. (1998). Why can’t we go on as three? Hastings Center Report, 28(3), 36–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kessler, S. (1990). The medical construction of gender: case management of intersexed infants. Signs, 16(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frank, A. (2005). The perfect storm of enhancement. Hastings Center Report, 35(1), 46–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anonymous. Our 12 year old selves [monograph on the Internet]. AISSG; 2008 [cited 2008 Mar 12]. Available from: http://www.medhelp.org/ais/debates/12YEAROLD.HTM#Start.
  9. 9.
    Anonymous (1996). Sex, lies and ideology. Alias, 1(6), 7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anonymous (1994). Once a dark secret. BMJ, 308, 542 Feb 19.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chase, C. (1998). Affronting reason. In D. Atkins (Ed.), Looking queer (pp. 205–219). London and New York: Haworth.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coventry, M. (1998). The tyranny of the esthetic. On The Issues, VII(3), 16–20+.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groveman, S. (1998). The Hanukkah bush: ethical implications in the clinical management of intersex. Clinical Ethics, 9(4), 356–359.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harmon-Smith, H. (1998). Ten commandments. Clinical Ethics, 9(4), 371.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koch, T. (2004). The difference that difference makes: bioethics and the challenge of ‘disability’. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 29(6), 697–716.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomas, D. F. M. (2004). Gender assignment: background and current controversies. British Journal of Urology International, 93(Suppl 3), 47–50.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Özbey, H., Darendeliler, F., Kayserili, H., Korkmazlar, U., & Salman, T. (2004). Gender assignment in female congenital adrenal hyperplasia: a difficult experience. British Journal of Urology International, 94, 388–391.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Couser, T. (1997). Recovering bodies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hird, M. (2003). Considerations for a psychoanalytic theory of gender identity and sexual desire: the case of intersex. Signs, 28(4), 1068–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Butler, J. (1994). Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of sex. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koch, T. (2006). Bioethics as ideology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 31(3), 251–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Elliott, C. (2001). Attitudes, souls and persons: children with severe neurological impairment. In C. Elliott (Ed.), Slow cures and bad philosophers: essays in Wittgenstein, medicine and bioethics (pp. 89–102). Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Overboe, J. (2007). Disability and genetics: affirming the bare life (the state of exception). Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 44(2), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morland, I. (2005). Narrating intersex: on the ethical critique of the medical management of intersexuality, 1985–2005 [dissertation] (p. 306). Royal Holloway, University of London.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nelson, H. (2002). What child is this? Hastings Center Report, 36(2), 29–38.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The five sexes: why male and female are not enough. The Sciences, 33(2), 20–25+ March/April.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hester, J. D. (2004). Intersex(es) and informed consent: how physicians’ rhetoric constrains choice. Theoretical Medicine, 25, 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McRuer, R., & Wilkerson, A. (2003). Cripping the (queer) nation. GLQ, 9(1–2), 1–23.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holmes, M. (2006). Deciding fate or protecting a developing autonomy?: intersex children and the Colombian Constitutional Court. In S. Minter, P. Currah, & R. Juang (Eds.), Transgender rights (pp. 102–121). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Titchkosky, T. (2003). Disability, self and society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    American Academy of Pediatrics (2000). Technical report: congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Pediatrics, 106(6), 1511–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    New, M. (2001). Prenatal treatment of CAH: US experience. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, 20(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Donohoe, P. K., Powell, D. M., & Lee, M. M. (1991). Clinical management of intersex abnormalities. Current Problems in Surgery, 28(8), 513–579.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wertz, D. (2000). Drawing lines: notes for policymakers. In E. Parens & A. Asch (Eds.), Prenatal testing and disability rights (pp. 261–87). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Parens, E., & Asch, A. (2000). Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Asch, A. (2000). Why I haven’t changed my mind about prenatal diagnosis: reflections and refinements. In E. Parens & A. Asch (Eds.), Prenatal testing and disability rights (pp. 234–258). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge (MA): Belknap.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shakespeare, T. (1998). Choices and rights: eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability and Society, 13(5), 665–681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Atkins, C. (2008). The choice of two mothers: disability, gender, sexuality, and prenatal testing. Cultural Studies <=>Critical Methodologies, 8(1), 106–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hunt, L. K., de Voogd, K., & Castaneda, H. (2004). The routine and the traumatic in prenatal diagnosis: does clinical information inform patient decision-making? Patient Education and Counseling, 56(3), 302–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sharpe, K., & Earle, S. (2002). Feminism, abortion and disability: irreconcilable differences? Disability and Society, 17(2), 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lindemann, H. Shotgun weddings. Bioethics Forum [serial on the Internet]. 2007 Aug 30 [cited 2008 Mar 5]. Available from: http://www.bioethicsforum.org/abortion-Italy-Down-Syndrome.asp.
  44. 44.
    Asch, A. (1999). Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: a challenge to practice and policy. American Journal of Public Health, 89(11), 1649–1657.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology & CAST-MAWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations