Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 569–578 | Cite as

Intersex Activists in Israel: Their Achievements and the Obstacles They Face

  • Limor Meoded Danon
Original Research


This article focuses on the dynamic between the medical policy on intersex bodies and intersex activists in Israel. Recently, in many countries changes have taken place in medical guidelines regarding intersex patients and laws that regulate medical practices and prohibit irreversible surgeries for intersex babies for cosmetic reasons and without the patient’s consent. In Israel, intersex activists are limited by several factors. On the one hand, they are influenced by the achievements of intersex activism around the world but on the other, the pathologizing medical discourse and socio-medical practices, which include early diagnosis, early irreversible surgeries, and secrecy surrounding intersexed bodies, present obstacles to achieving bodily autonomy for intersex individuals and social recognition of different sex development. Nevertheless, intersex activists are attempting to find different social and media spaces in which to achieve public acknowledgement and future bodily autonomy for intersexed people and seeking medical professionals’ cooperation. Recently, the Israeli Ministry of Health published a new circular for intersex/DSD patients, and while it does not clearly forbid irreversible surgeries, it provides information about the complexities of intersex people and their experience.


Intersex bodies Intersex activists Bodily autonomy Socio-medical practices Israel 


This article focuses on the dynamic between the medical policy regarding intersex bodies and intersex activism in Israel. The struggles of intersex activists have historically been and continue to be directed toward the medical system and medical practices. In the 1950s, the Johns Hopkins team established and reproduced the protocol according to which harmful, irreversible medical treatments were performed on intersex babies and children in order to “normalize” their bodies without their consent or knowledge of their conditions (Chase 1998, 2003; Karkazis 2008; Feder 2014; Kessler 1998; Preves 2003). Since the 1990s, intersex activists have been fighting for bodily autonomy, mainly to halt the social and physical damages wreaked by medical interventions aimed at regulating intersex bodies to fit male or female norms. Genital mutilation, damaged erogenous sensitivity and genital sensation, lack of reproductive potential, somatic alienation, a sense of shame and need for secrecy, social isolation, deep depression, and suicide attempts are only some of the myriad long-term consequences of such interventions (Creighton 2001, 2004; Crouch et al. 2008; Farkas et al. 2004; Liao 2006; Minto et al. 2003; Morland 2001, 2009; Schober 2004; Warne et al. 2005).

Many intersex activists have attempted to raise awareness of non-binary sex/gender categories among the general public and medical professionals and end the cycles of secrecy and concealment that surround intersex bodies (Davis 2015; Holmes 2008a, 2009; Sytsma 2006). Recently, various countries, including Malta,1 Chile, and Portugal (Guilbert 2018) have prohibited irreversible cosmetic genital surgeries for intersex babies. In Germany and other countries, there are new guidelines for medical professionals that ban irreversible surgeries performed for cosmetic reasons but permit them for health reasons when babies’ lives are at risk, for example in the case of cancerous tumours of the gonads, bladder infections, urethral obstruction, and so on (Cools 2018). These changes have come on the heels of the activism of scholars, medical professionals, and intersex support groups, for example Organization Intersex International (OII), an international umbrella organization of intersex activists that publicizes news about intersex people, their achievements, and the obstacles they face (OII Intersex Network 2018). The World Health Organization (WHO) found that irreversible medical procedures, especially genital surgeries, are frequently performed on intersex infants for reasons other than ensuring healthy physical functioning, and determined that they are unjustified (Elders, Satchers, and Carmona 2017). These seeds of change are crucial in the quest for bodily autonomy for intersex people, and although their consequences have yet to be empirically assessed, they comprise positive steps toward the social recognition of intersex people and their bodies.

Despite the encouraging changes in some countries, in Israel intersex activism has remained limited. Although there is a support group for parents of children with 46XX congenital adrenal hyperplasia (46XXCAH), its members consider this condition a chronic women’s disease, not an intersex condition or category. The group’s members usually perceive early surgeries for constructing/correcting their daughters’ genitals as necessary socio-medical procedures that will allow them to raise their children as normative girls. Only very few intersex activists are actively seeking social spaces in which to achieve public acknowledgement and future bodily autonomy for intersex people. Recently, some progress has been made, including the publication of a new circular on intersex/DSD patients by the Israeli Ministry of Health and the establishment of a new intersex activist group called “PELE” (in Hebrew an acronym for “activism for intersex”), as I will discuss below. I will begin by describing how medical discourse and practices aim to conceal intersex bodies, and how this concealment creates one of the most crucial obstacles faced by intersex activists in Israel. Next, I will describe how intersex activism manoeuvres between the medical and human rights discourses to effect change in both the social status of intersex people and the medical policy aimed at their treatment.


This empirical article is based on narrative studies with biomedical professionals, parents of intersex children, and intersex activists in Israel. I have been conducting research on intersexuality in Israel that focuses on the biomedical discourse on intersex bodies, parents’ position and ways of coping, and the living experiences of intersex adults since 2005. From 2005 to 2009, I conducted narrative interviews with twenty-two professionals who diagnosed and treated intersex patients. I interviewed six parents of intersex children and eleven intersex adults (Meoded Danon 2014, 2015). Since 2014, I have been conducting narrative research with medical professionals, parents of intersex children, and intersex adults in Israel and Germany in order to explore the differences and similarities between the two countries in this field. In Israel, I interviewed sixteen medical professionals, four of whom took part in the previous study, five parents of intersex children, and three intersex adults. The interview location was decided according to the participants’ wishes. The biomedical professionals among the participants, who worked mainly in public hospitals, usually chose to be interviewed in their offices, while the parents and intersex adults mainly preferred meeting at coffee shops or their homes.

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. In my consent form, I described the research purposes that concerned the biomedical discourse on intersexuality (the term DSD only later came into use, and was added to the consent form) and explained that my aim was to learn about the lived experience of intersex people and parental experience with the medical establishment. I stated my commitment to participant confidentiality and my respect of participants’ desire to discontinue their participation at any time.

The main challenge I faced during my research was the secrecy that surrounds intersex bodies and intersex people. This secrecy, which I later learned is an integral part of the medical policy for intersex patients, made it difficult to find participants for my research. In 2005, the first endocrinologist I interviewed gave me an invitation from an intersex activist announcing that she was establishing a new support group for intersex people and their families. I contacted this woman, and she assisted me in locating other intersex people and their parents in Israel. It took me four years to interview only four intersex people, not because of intersex’s rarity but because of the secrecy and concealment of these bodies. I sought additional participants in many places other than the support group, including internet forums for parents of intersex children and forums on endocrinology, urology, fertility, LGBT, and so forth. At first, I published my research aims using the term “intersex,” but after I received no relevant responses, I began to use the names of specific “intersex conditions,” stating that I was searching for people/parents of children born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, Klinefelter syndrome, androgen insensitivity syndrome, hypospadias, and so on. This strategy increased the number of responses, and I managed to add more participants to my research.

As a researcher, I had to manoeuvre between maintaining my participants’ privacy and breaking the circle of secrecy regarding intersexuality that exists in Israel. The concealment of intersex bodies has preserved medical power and control over intersex patients, embodied in the doctor–patient relationship. But the medical treatment of intersex bodies must change because it harms intersex people physically, emotionally, and socially, as I learned from intersex activism around the world, especially in North America (Intersex Society of North America) and scholars in this field (Chase 1998; Dreger 1999; Kessler 1998; Preves 2003). In order to understand the gap between physicians’ and intersex activists’ discourses, I asked the biomedical professionals about their intersex patients’ feedback regarding their treatment practices (genital surgeries, the removal of gonads, and hormonal replacement therapy). The doctors usually explained that their patients were happy and satisfied with their treatment and that the intersex activists comprised a minority and did not represent all their patients. I asked intersex people and their parents about their knowledge and understanding of the biomedical discourse, which was usually absent or partial. This discursive gap has always existed in Israel, affecting public awareness and knowledge on intersex people and maintaining medical authority and control over their bodies. In the following section, I describe how the medical policy on intersex bodies in Israel limits intersex activism. All the names of the participants I quote here are pseudonyms.

Medical Authority Over Intersex Bodies in Israel

We currently live in an era in which almost all the information we need is highly accessible and available with the click of computer mouse, yet most Israelis, including intersex people themselves, have rarely heard the term “intersex” or know about the wide spectrum of sex development. This lack of knowledge is not coincidental but rather medically oriented to separate pathological and normalized bodies rhetorically and in practice, despite the fact that most intersex conditions present no health risks (Holmes 2008b, 177) and, indeed, the main risks to intersex bodies stem from socio-medical reactions and practices. The unique somatic development of intersex bodies challenges the fundamental dimorphic social soma/gender order, which is the line between women’s and men’s bodies. Biomedical professionals act as the gatekeepers of (normative) social bodies by using discourse and various practices to maintain the alleged dimorphism. I will describe here the discourse and practices of the biomedical professionals towards intersex bodies.

Dimorphic Sorting and Naming

“Intersex” is perceived by biomedical professionals, parents, and many intersex people in Israel as a third gender term and not a description of somatic sexual development. In 2006, the medical system replaced “intersex” (and older terms such as pseudo/true hermaphroditism) with “disorder of sex development” (DSD) as the medical-scientific umbrella term for describing bodies that genetically, chromosomally, and morphologically challenge normative male and female bodies (Lee et al. 2006). Using the pathologizing term “DSD” and rejecting the politically positive term “intersex” establishes and reproduces biomedical power over the body. The biomedical system currently categorizes all intersex bodies into three DSD groups, 46XYDSD, 46XXDSD, and DSD. Most of the diagnosed variations of soma-sexual developments are currently sorted by their chromosomal sex, which in most cases is either 46XX or 46XY, thus maintaining the notion of male/female dimorphism. Only in rare cases in which the sex chromosomes are mixed (for instance 45XO/46XY, 46XX/46XY, and so on) is the body perceived as belonging to the DSD group and being neither male nor female. In the nineteenth century, gonads were the deciding factor for biomedical professionals in sorting and determining the so-called “true sex” of people classed as hermaphrodites. Dreger called this period “the age of gonads” (Dreger 1998). Currently, we are in the “age of chromosomal sex.” According to the biomedical professionals, the activity of the SRY gene directs future sex development. Here are some of geneticists’ explanations of SRY in the context of intersex bodies:

What determines the differentiation of male or female is actually one gene, SRY. This gene is located on the Y chromosome, but sometimes for certain reasons in an XX female, the SRY gene is located on one of the Xs and then such a female will look like a male on ultrasound, but in an amniotic fluid test, it will look like a female. Why? Because in the amniotic fluid test, they look only at how many and which chromosomes there are, so it will be an XX female, but one of the Xs has the SRY, and this SRY will push the unidentified gonads towards becoming testicles and the testicles will secrete testosterone and the development will be male. And this male will be infertile because all the genes for spermatogenesis that are located on the Y chromosome are missing. The only thing that Y has contributed is the SRY, and so it will be an infertile XX male. (Prof. Yoni)

The default is development toward a female fetus, that is, if something active does not happen and this active thing is something determined on the Y chromosome or the segment we call the SRY. Actually from week 10, 11, 12, it begins to secrete hormones that cause the degeneration of the female system and the development of the male system. So if something in this cascade goes wrong, like a defective Y chromosome, an absent Y chromosome, a defective SRY, a lack of receptors, or any of these things, it causes the male not to be male. On the other hand, if there is an excess of male sex hormones, as in 21 hydroxylase deficiency (46XXCAH), the system will show high male sex hormones in an embryo that is genetically female. Then it goes more in the direction of masculinization of the female sex organs. (Dr. Eli)

Diagnostic practices and tools, together with the pathologizing (dimorphic) discourse of sex development and differentiation turn intersex patients and their parents into biological citizens. Biological citizens are individuals who cooperate with and accept the medical discourse on their physical states. As Georgiann Davis argues:

… biological citizenship is established and controlled by powerful institutions, notably medicine, whose rules and expectations are adhered to by active biological citizenship. These could include … in the case of the intersex community, adopting DSD nomenclature to describe intersex traits. (Davis 2015, 106)

Many Israeli parents of 46XXCAH babies are “biological citizens” according to Davis’s explanation, as they refuse the term “intersex” and accept the medical term “CAH girls” because most of the sexual characteristics of their children’s bodies are female. Consequently, they usually cooperate with the standard medical practices, especially early genital surgeries. One of the fathers from this group explained:

CAH patients or carriers cannot be labelled as “third sex” … I don’t want others to point at my daughter and say “here goes one of those.” No. I have no reason to … with CAH there is no surgical option because of the fact that [the vagina] is closed … and just as you can’t eat with your mouth closed, you have to open it. (Paz)

Many intersex adults describe how they encountered the term “intersex” only late in life and by coincidence, while they were searching the internet for information about their physical condition or reading articles that reminded them of their own experience. One participant explained how, while searching for information on the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group website, she found another Israeli who was calling for the establishment of a new support group in Israel. When they met, she heard the term “intersex” for the first time. She recalled:

I don’t think of myself as intersex. Before I knew the term, there was no possibility for me to think about its meaning, but even now I don’t connect well with it. So I thought she was very cheeky, that she shouldn’t use the term when she was talking to new people. It put me off and angered me. The term intersex is a gender issue and it’s a matter of choosing an identity, and I don’t feel that way. (Roni)

The connection between the categories of intersex and “genderqueer”2 made by medical professionals is an international phenomenon, and Israel is not exceptional in this regard. The refusal to use the term “intersex” is the refusal to accept bodies that undermine the dimorphic soma/gender relationship, which legitimizes medical authority and practices. Hence, many support groups that fit under the umbrella of intersex conditions reject the term “intersex” and adopt the pathologizing medical discourse (Dreger and Herndon 2009). Alyson Spurgas describes the dynamic between intersex activists who use queer discourse to challenge medical perception and treatment and intersex people who adopt the DSD medical discourse. She highlights the power relations in this field, the medical system, biotechnology, and insurance companies that benefit from DSD discourse and practices (Spurgas 2009). In Israel, the new intersex activists’ group PELE has adopted the term intersex and attempts to cooperate with the LGBT community in Israel, but most intersex people in Israel are “in the closet”—sometimes deliberately in order to maintain their privacy and sometimes because they do not want to relate to or be identified with queer discourse. In addition to the dimorphic naming and sorting of intersex bodies, I will focus next on biomedical diagnostic tools and how they aim to reduce the prevalence of intersex.

Early Diagnosis of Intersex Bodies and the Prevention of Their Existence Biomedical diagnosis in Israel is widely used before and during pregnancy in order to prevent the conception of pathological bodies or identify them as early as possible. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis testing (PGD) is offered to families with a history of various serious conditions, including some intersex conditions. It aims to prevent the conception of fetuses with a variety of intersex conditions, including congenital adrenal hyperplasia (Altarescu et al. 2011) and androgen insensitivity syndrome, as Yoni, an Israeli gynaecologist and geneticist explained:

The ones who interest us in such families are the carriers … a mother gives birth to one of these and her sister now comes for a consultation. And if the sister too is a carrier, we can offer her help. These women don’t want to give birth to an infertile XY daughter. So we can offer them diagnosis during pregnancy and if the fetus is affected, they can choose to terminate. That’s legitimate. Or they can do IVF and choose embryos that don’t carry the genetic defect, the mutation. … We have options to help when we know about the genetic defect. We definitely have something to offer the coming generations.

The prevention of the conception of embryos with known intersex conditions and the termination of pregnancies in which fetuses have different intersex conditions are significant socio-medical practices that control the future existence of intersex bodies in Israel. The more biomedical knowledge is gathered on intersex conditions, the more their future becomes questionable because of early diagnosis. Early diagnosis practices and their problematic consequences are not the main issue of concern for intersex activists in Israel or other countries for two main reasons. First, in many countries, early diagnostic testing is not as intense or socioculturally disciplined as it is in Israel, where it is also free of charge. Many Israeli scholars have highlighted the relationship between Israel’s pronatalist culture, advanced reproductive technology, government subsidization of fertility treatment and pregnancy testing, and Israeli sociocultural norms that valorize family and the importance of the continued demographical growth of the Jewish people in Israel (Hashiloni-Dolev and Shkedi 2007; Remennick 2006; Shalev and Gooldin 2006). I argue that the pronatalist culture in Israel and the advanced biotechnological fertility treatments are important and help many people to have families, but the same diagnostic tools threaten the existence of intersex bodies. Second, data on pregnancy terminations and the reasons for them are very limited and usually concealed in Israel and other countries. Pregnancy terminations due to early diagnosis of various intersex conditions were frequently mentioned in interviews with the genetic counsellors and gynaecologists in my studies. Although they do not have precise data, they refer to the terminations of such pregnancies as regular practice, as we can see in this quotation from an interview with an Israeli geneticist, Dr. Roi:

There are terminations for all kinds of reasons. People terminate pregnancies here for strange reasons—the gender isn’t what they want or it doesn’t suit them to be pregnant at the moment, so for such a small thing [Klinefelter] they will terminate out of fear. … In Israel there are more late terminations compared to the rest of the world. Is it good? Bad? I don’t know.

Morgan Holmes is among the scholars who have addressed this issue (Holmes 2008b). She acknowledges the autonomy of pregnant women and intersex children rather than taking one side and does not advocate the termination of pregnancies of intersex fetuses, as is common practice in the discourse on disabilities. Women’s reproductive choice and bodily autonomy should play a crucial role in the decision-making regarding the future of intersex fetuses (2008b). Yael Hashiloni-Dolev, in her comparative research on genetic counsellors in Germany and Israel, discusses the high rate of pregnancy termination in Israel in general, and among many fetuses’ physical conditions, she addresses Klinefelter and Turner syndromes and other sex chromosome formations such as triple X and XYY. She explains that the reason for the high rate of termination of pregnancies of fetuses with Klinefelter and Turner syndromes in Israel has to do with the lack of fertility that accompanies these conditions because in Israel (biological) family is an extremely high cultural value (Hashiloni-Dolev 2007). This important issue should be further addressed in both intersex activism and critical sociological research. Early diagnosis and termination of pregnancies empower the biomedical control of intersex bodies and reproduce the secrecy that surrounds them.

Early (Irreversible) Surgeries and Secrecy

Despite early diagnosis of intersex conditions and ensuing terminations, many intersex babies are born in Israel each year. However, the exact data on the number of babies born with specific intersex conditions is confidential; each hospital collects its own data and there is no collective information on the frequency of different intersex conditions. Neither the Israeli Ministry of Health nor the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics has this data. There is no regulation of the medical treatment on intersex bodies. Medical professionals from different hospitals in Israel who participated in my studies reported that genital surgeries for babies with non-normative genitalia and surgeries to remove internal sex organs are performed at least four to five times in their hospitals every year (there are eight large hospitals in Israel). The babies’ non-normative genitalia are normalized between the ages of six months and one year. One of the Israeli urologists, Dr. Benny, justified early genital surgeries by comparing them to ritual circumcisions:3

There is a reason that boys are ritually circumcized at age eight days and not eight years [in Judaism]. Really, it’s less painful and less psychologically traumatic. There’s less separation anxiety from the parents and everything that’s connected to it at older ages. There are many advantages to doing it at a young age, so today we recommend age six months to a year for such children.

The assumption of medical professionals that early surgeries are less psychologically traumatic is not empirically based. Furthermore, the many additional surgeries that follow the first surgeries may cause physical, psychological, and social traumas, as empirically based studies have shown (Creighton 2001, 2004; Crouch et al. 2008; Farkas et al. 2004; Liao 2006; Minto et al. 2003; Morland 2001, 2009; Schober 2004; Krege et al. 2000; Sircili et al. 2010; Warne et al. 2005). Many Jewish parents in Israel refuse to circumcize their babies, citing reasons that are similar to those cited by intersex activists in opposing genital surgery, including babies’ right to bodily autonomy, the possibility of irreversible physical damages, and the babies’ right to consent (Kasher 2017). To the best of my knowledge, there is no research describing or exploring social problems experienced by uncircumcized children. One of the Israeli psychologists, Mr. Tom, told me, as we discussed early surgeries for non-normative genitals, that he had not circumcized his sons and described their being uncircumcized as “a non-issue”:

T: I have relatives who didn’t circumcize their sons, and I debated whether or not to circumcize mine. Yes, society. No, society. The rhetoric is similar.

L: How do they cope with this on a daily basis?

T: They don’t. They don’t need to cope with it. Today, I look back and think “did I do right thing or not?” I don’t know. We were just laughing about the fact that there’s a kindergarten in the neighbourhood where most of the boys are uncircumcized, and the circumcized one is unusual, so that, too, can happen. (Mr. Tom)

These two groups, parents of uncircumcized children and parents of children with non- normative genitals, should think about creating spaces of cooperation in Israeli public discourse. Such cooperation could benefit both groups of parents and children and challenge the conventions of soma/gender dimorphism.

There is an intimate relationship between early surgeries and the concealment of intersex bodies. The various acts carried out in order to conceal intersex bodies from the public sphere and establish “normative” bodies and a heteronormative social order are connected to issues of power and subjection. Intersex people experience devastating physical and social damage as a consequence of their bodies’ concealment and of medical practices that “correct” the ambiguous threat of intersex bodies (Meoded Danon 2014, 2015). While doctor–patient confidentiality should exist formally and ethically, in this context, secrecy should not involve the intentional concealment of information from patients. The form of secrecy that exists between doctors and patients in hospitals and clinical spaces enables the reproduction of the biomedical professionals’ power and authoritative control over the body, known in Foucauldian terms as biopower (Foucault, 1973, 1990, 1995).

As I have described previously (Meoded Danon 2015; Meoded Danon and Yanay 2016; Meoded Danon and Krämer 2017), the secret is a powerful socio-medical agent that involves medical professionals, parents of intersex children, and intersex people and aims to keep intersex bodies concealed from “outsiders.” Intersex children know that there is a secret related to their bodies but have no name for it and learn not to ask questions. When they do discover the secret, they feel anger, betrayal, loneliness, and physical alienation. Some describe a sense of having been medically raped. The lack of support groups for parents is part of the paradoxical, devastating vicious cycle of secrecy, as one psychologist explained:

There are no support groups and I also wonder whether there can be, since many times I have felt that parents want so much to distance themselves from this issue that they don’t even want to define themselves as being part of this thing … In most of the families I’ve met, most of the parents have a hard time acknowledging that we’re talking about what we call intersex but then it’s not even possible to talk to them about intersex.

The secrecy and silence that surround intersex bodies are significant obstacles established by medical policy together with parents of intersex children. Secrecy and silence reproduce the biopower over intersex bodies and constitute the “soma-emotional”4 prison of intersex children and adults in Israel. How do intersex activists deal with medical authority? What changes, if any, have recently been implemented in Israeli medical policy?

Seeds of Change (?)

Among the intersex activists in Israel are four intersex adults, ethicists, academic scholars, and feminist activists who are aiming to change the medical policy on intersex children through law and public awareness. One of their most important achievements so far has been the production of the 2015 documentary on intersex people, Sharon Luzon’s Third Person. The film, the first in Israel to address intersex, sheds light on the experience of two intersex adults in Israel, the secrecy that surrounds intersex, and the problematic medical discourse and treatments. It has initiated the process of undermining the secrecy that surrounds intersex in Israel. The film was widely distributed in the country, screened at the annual Docaviv documentary film festival in 2015, and broadcast by the Yes cable company. I shared all of my knowledge on intersex people in Israel and the medical treatment practices aimed at them with the filmmakers during the time they were conducting research for the film. The intersex people who participated in the film established a Facebook group, which has many members, some intersex people and some supporters.

In 2017, following eight years of intersex activists’ work with medical professionals, ethicists, feminist activists, and scholars, the Israeli Ministry of Health published a new circular on approved procedures regarding intersex and distributed it to all the hospitals in Israel. It is the first such document to include detailed information about intersex/DSD conditions for parents and patients and address the importance of putting the patients’ needs and well-being at the centre of treatment policy. What is the importance of this new circular? What are its aims? How does it facilitate bodily autonomy for intersex children? Maayan Sudai, one of the intersex rights activists who worked on the circular wrote the following:

One of its most important statements is that a DSD condition that does not pose a danger to the patient’s life or mental or physical health does not necessarily require medical treatment, and that each case should be decided according to the specific circumstances and wishes of the patient and parents, or both. The circular does not prohibit sex assignment surgery in infancy, nor does it set a new default of non-surgery; however, it provides guidance that will hopefully give rise to informed, well thought out decision making by multiple participants. (Sudai 2017, 2)

Nonetheless, the circular makes it clear that medical authority is strongly preserved both systematically and in practice. It gives medical professionals the authority to decide how to treat intersex/DSD children and does not address the problematic and potentially devastating consequences of the treatments themselves; the multiple surgeries and the traumatic socio-somatic consequences of treatment are notably absent. It emphasizes both the sex chromosomes as the main factor that reflects the patients’ sex and gender and the existence of only two normative body types. Although this circular is relatively new and its consequences have yet to be assessed, it constitutes another minor step towards changing medical policy in Israel and advancing bodily autonomy for intersex people.

In 2017, PELE, the new group for intersex activists, was established.5 This group includes some five or six intersex activists, feminist activists, academic scholars, therapists, and ethicists. The main goals of PELE are to encourage a positive attitude towards intersex people in Israel, to change the policy of performing early irreversible surgeries on intersex babies, to increase intersex children’s bodily autonomy, and to establish support groups for parents and intersex adults. Currently, PELE focuses on producing and participating in conferences in different places in Israel and recruiting additional intersex people and parents. Using social media networks, sharing knowledge with intersex activists around the world, and raising intersex issues in different circles is the beginning of a long journey that’s purpose is to change biomedical discourse and practices in Israel.


The medical policy on intersex bodies in Israel locks intersex bodies into an authoritative, pathologizing discourse that facilitates the unquestioning cooperation of parents of intersex children with the medical system, although they may have no previous knowledge and understanding of intersex conditions and the politics that surround their treatment. Together with biotechnological diagnostic tools, this discourse controls the existence of intersex bodies and reproduces their concealment. When babies are born with non-normative genitalia and/or mixed internal sexual characteristics, they undergo early, irreversible surgeries to “normalize” their bodies, concealed behind hospital walls. These practices rob children of their right to bodily autonomy and prevent public awareness and recognition of differences of sex development.

Intersex activists in Israel are attempting to find ways to change medical policy and raise public awareness from the bottom up. The abovementioned documentary film and Facebook group are spaces that undermine secrecy and challenge biomedical authority and discourse. From the top down, the aim of the new Ministry of Health circular is to provide more information to parents of intersex children and question the necessity of surgery. These actions are historically important for intersex activism in Israel because they are departure points for change. Intersex activists in Israel and other countries must disseminate knowledge about intersex bodies and the significance of bodily autonomy for intersex individuals in the education system, medical schools, and psychology and social worker departments, which currently lack information about intersex conditions and their medical, social, and psychological complexities. This may take a long time, but the seeds of change have undoubtedly been planted.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.

    Relating to a person who identifies as gender non-binary, as both male and female, or neither.

  3. 3.

    Ritual circumcision is a very important tradition in Judaism. The ritual marks the covenant between the Jewish people and G-d and includes the removal of the foreskin, usually at the age of eight days. Some doctors who took part in my research explained that there are times that intersex babies who have male genitals and female internal organs are circumcized.

  4. 4.

    Describes the inner relations between emotions and embodied experiences, how the body expresses emotions, and how emotions are expressed in bodily manners.

  5. 5.


  1. Altarescu, G., O. Barenholz, and P. Renbaum. 2011. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)—Prevention of the birth of children affected with endocrine diseases. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism 24(7/8): 543–548.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chase, C. 1998. Hermaphrodites with attitude: Mapping the emergence of intersex political activism. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbians and Gay Studies 4(2): 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ––––. 2003. What is the agenda of the intersex patient advocacy movement? The Endocrinologist 13(3): 240–242.Google Scholar
  4. Cools, M., A. Nordenström, R. Robeva, et al. 2018. Caring for individuals with a difference of sex development (DSD): A Consensus Statement. Nature Reviews Endocrinology 14: 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. 2015. Human rights and intersex people. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Accessed July 30, 2017.Google Scholar
  6. Creighton, S.M. 2001. Surgery for intersex. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 94(5): 218–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ––––. 2004. Long-term outcome of feminization surgery: The London experience. British Journal of Urology International 93(3): 44–46.Google Scholar
  8. Crouch, N.S., L.M. Liao, C.R. Woodhouse, G.S. Conway, and S.M. Creighton. 2008. Sexual function and genital sensitivity following feminizing genitoplasty for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The Journal of Urology 179(2): 634–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, G. 2015. Contesting intersex: The dubious diagnosis. New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dreger, A.D. 1998. Hermaphrodites and the medical invention of sex. Cambridge, and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dreger, A.D. (ed). 1999. Intersex in the age of ethics. Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  12. Dreger, A.D., and A.M. Herndon. 2009. Progress and politics in the intersex rights movement: Feminist theory in action. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbians and Gay Studies 15(2): 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elders, M.J., D. Satcher, and R. Carmona. 2017. Re-thinking genital surgeries on intersex infants. Palm Center Blueprints for Sound Public Policy. Accessed July 30, 2017.
  14. Farkas, A., K. Dimitry, and B. Chertin. 2004. Masculinizing genitoplasty in male pseudohermaphroditism. Pediatric Endocrinology Reviews 2(1): 15–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Feder, E.K. 2014. Making sense of intersex: Changing ethical perspectives in bio-medicine. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. 1973. The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  17. ––––. 1990. The history of sexuality. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  18. ––––. 1995. Discipline and punishment: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  19. Guilbert, K. 2018. Portugal approves law to boost transgender rights, protect intersex infants. Reuters, April 14. Accessed July 27, 2018.
  20. Hashiloni-Dolev, Y. 2007. A life (un)worthy of living: Reproductive genetics in Israel and Germany. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Hashiloni-Dolev, Y. and S. Shkedi. 2007. On new reproductive technologies and family ethics: Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for sibling donor in Israel and Germany. Social Science and Medicine 65(10): 2081–2092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmes, M. 2008a. Intersex: A perilous difference. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press.Google Scholar
  23. ––––. 2008b. Mind the gaps: Intersex and (re-productive) spaces in disability studies and bioethics. Bioethical Inquiry 5(2/3): 169–181.Google Scholar
  24. Holmes, M., ed. 2009. Critical intersex. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Karkazis, K. 2008. Fixing sex, intersex, medical authority and lived experience. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kasher, R. 2017. Second thoughts on circumcision. Herzliya: Niv Books (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  27. Kessler, S.J. 1998. Lessons from the intersexed. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Krege, S., K.H. Walz, B.P. Hauffa, I.K. Örner, and H. Rubben. 2000. Long-term follow-up of female patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia from 21-hydroxylase deficiency, with special emphasis on the results of vaginoplasty. British Journal of Urology International 86(3): 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, P.A., P.H. Christopher, S.A. Faisal, and A.H. Leuan. 2006. Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Pediatrics 118(2): 488–500.Google Scholar
  30. Liao, L.M. 2006. Psychology and clinical management of vaginal hypoplasia. In Ethics and intersex, edited by S.E. Sytsma, 225–240. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Meoded Danon, L. 2014. What kind of body? The effects of the MinGuf process on intersex peoples’ lives. Tel Aviv: Resling (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  32. ––––. 2015. The body/secret dynamic: Life experiences of intersexed people in Israel. Sage Open 5(2): 1–13.Google Scholar
  33. Meoded Danon, L., and N. Yanay. 2016. Intersexuality: On secret bodies and secrecy. Studies in Gender and Sexuality 17(1): 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meoded Danon, L., and A. Krämer. 2017. Between concealing and revealing intersexed bodies: Parental strategies. Qualitative Health Research 27(10): 1562–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ministry of Health, Israel. 2017. Open image in new window Open image in new window [Diagnosis and treatment of a person withDSD/intersex (official circular on procedure] March 6, 2017.Google Scholar
  36. Minto, C.L., L.M. Liao, C.R. Woodhouse, P.G., Ransley, and S.M. Creighton. 2003. The effect of clitoral surgery on sexual outcome in individuals who have intersex conditions with ambiguous genitalia: A cross-sectional study. The Lancet 361(9365): 1252–1257.Google Scholar
  37. Morland, I. 2001. Management of intersex. The Lancet 358(9298): 2085–2086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ––––. 2009. What can queer theory do for intersex? GLQ: : A Journal of Lesbians and Gay Studies 15(2): 285–312.Google Scholar
  39. OII Intersex Network. 2018. Welcome [webpage]. Accessed July 27, 2018.
  40. Preves, S.E. 2003. Intersex and identity: The contested self. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Remennick, L. 2006. The quest for the perfect baby: Why do Israeli women seek prenatal genetic testing? Sociology of Health and Illness 28(1): 21–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Schober, J.M. 2004. Feminizing genitoplasty: A synopsis of issues relating to genital surgery in intersex individuals. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism 17(5): 697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shalev, C., and S. Gooldin. 2006. The uses and misuses of in vitro fertilization in Israel: Some sociological and ethical considerations. Nashim: A Journal of Women’s Studies and Gender Issues 12(1): 151–176.Google Scholar
  44. Sircili, M.H. P., F.A. e Silva, E.M. Costa, et al. 2010. Long-term surgical outcome of masculinizing genitoplasty in large cohort of patients with disorders of sex development. The Journal of Urology 184(3): 1122–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spurgas, A. 2009. )Un)Queering identity: The biosocial production of Intersex/DSD. In Critical Intersex, edited by M. Holmes, 97–122. Surrey, Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  46. Sytsma, S.E., ed. 2006. Ethics and intersex. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Sudai, M. 2017. Changing ethical and legal norms in the management of differences of sex development. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 5(10): 764–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warne, G., S. Grover, J. Hutson, et al. 2005. A long-term outcome study of intersex conditions. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism 18(6): 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Martin Buber Society of Fellows in the Humanities and Social SciencesThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations