Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 195–204 | Cite as

How Sex Selection Undermines Reproductive Autonomy

Symposium: Bioethics and Biopolitics: Presents and Futures of Reproduction

Abstract

Non-medical sex selection is premised on the notion that the sexes are not interchangeable. Studies of individuals who undergo sex selection for non-medical reasons, or who have a preference for a son or daughter, show that they assume their child will conform to the stereotypical roles and norms associated with their sex. However, the evidence currently available has not succeeded in showing that the gender traits and inclinations sought are caused by a “male brain” or a “female brain”. Therefore, as far as we know, there is no biological reason why parents cannot have the kind of parenting experience they seek with a child of any sex. Yet gender essentialism, a set of unfounded assumptions about the sexes which pervade society and underpin sexism, prevents parents from realising this freedom. In other words, unfounded assumptions about gender constrain not only a child’s autonomy, but also the parent’s. To date, reproductive autonomy in relation to sex selection has predominantly been regarded merely as the freedom to choose the sex of one’s child. This paper points to at least two interpretations of reproductive autonomy and argues that sex selection, by being premised on gender essentialism and/or the social pressure on parents to ensure their children conform to gender norms, undermines reproductive autonomy on both accounts.

Keywords

Reproductive autonomy Procreative liberty Sexism Gender Sex selection 

References

  1. Arnold, F., and E. Kuo. 1984. The value of daughters and sons: A comparative study of the gender preferences of parents. Comparative Family Studies Journal 15(2): 299–318.Google Scholar
  2. Averett, K.H. 2015. The gender buffet: LGBTQ parents resisting heteronormativity. Gender & Society 30(2): 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 1994. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berkowitz, J.M., and J.W. Snyder. 1998. Racism and sexism in medically assisted conception. Bioethics 12(1): 25–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne, T.K. 2016. Why parents should not be told the sex of their fetus. Journal of Medical Ethics 43(1): 5–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Christman, J. 2015. Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta. The Metaphysics Research Lab: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  7. Dahl, E., M. Beutel, B. Brosig, et al. 2006. Social sex selection and the balance of the sexes: Empirical evidence from germany, the UK, and the US. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 23 (7–8): 311–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, D.S. 1997. Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report 27(2): 7–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2009. The parental investment factor and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report 39 (2): 24–27.Google Scholar
  10. Dworkin, G. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eliot, L. 2012. Pink brain, blue brain: How small differences grow into troublesome gaps—and what we can do about it. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Fine, C. 2010. Delusions of gender : How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  13. Fine, C., and E. Rush. 2016. “Why does all the girls have to buy pink stuff?” The ethics and science of the gendered toy marketing debate. Journal of Business Ethics: ePub ahead of print. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3080-3.
  14. Goldberg, A. 2009. Heterosexual, lesbian, and gay preadoptive parents’ preferences about child gender. Sex Roles 61(1–2): 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammer, M., and J. McFerran. 1988. Preference for sex of child: A research update. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice 44(4): 481.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, J. 1998. Rights and reproductive choice. In The future of human reproduction: Ethics, choice and regulation, edited by J. Harris and S. Holm, 5–37. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2010. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendl, T. Forthcoming. Queering the Odds. The case against “family balancing.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 10(2).Google Scholar
  19. Kane, E.W. 2012. The gender trap: Parents and the pitfalls of raising boys and girls. New York and London: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kennett, J. 2011. Science and normative authority. Philosophical Explorations 14(3): 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mackenzie, C., and N. Stoljar. 2000. Introduction: Autonomy refigured. In Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self, edited by C. Mackenzie and N. Stoljar, 3–31. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Meyers, D.T. 1989. Self, society and personal choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mill, J.S. 2003. On liberty, edited by D. Bromwich and G. Kateb. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mills, C. 2011. Futures of reproduction: Bioethics and biopolitics. Vol. 49. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Rahilly, E.P. 2015. The gender binary meets the gender-variant child: Parents’ negotiations with childhood gender variance. Gender & Society 29(3): 338–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robertson, J. 1994. Children of choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rothman, B.K. 2000. Recreating motherhood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sandel, M. 2004. The case against perfection. The Atlantic Monthly 293(3): 51–62.Google Scholar
  29. Savulescu, J., and E. Dahl. 2000. Sex selection and preimplantation diagnosis: A response to the ethics committee of the american society of reproductive medicine. Human Reproduction 15(9): 1879–1880.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Seavilleklein, V., and S. Sherwin. 2007. The myth of the gendered chromosome: Sex selection and the social interest. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16(1): 7–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharp, R.R., M.L. McGowan, J.A. Verma, et al. 2010. Moral attitudes and beliefs among couples pursuing PGD for sex selection. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21(7): 838–847.Google Scholar
  32. Sjöstrand, M., S. Eriksson, N. Juth, and G. Helgesson. 2013. Paternalism in the name of autonomy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38(6): 710–724.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilkinson, S. 2008. Sexism, sex selection and ‘family balancing’. Medical Law Review 16(3): 369–389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, D.S., E. Dietrich, and A.B. Clark. 2003. On the inappropriate use of the naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary psychology. Biology and Philosophy 18(5): 669–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. World Health Organization. 2015. What do we mean by “sex” and “gender”? http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/. Accessed February 27, 2015.
  36. Zeiler, K. 2004. Reproductive autonomous choice—A cherished illusion? Reproductive autonomy examined in the context of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7(2): 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Medicine, Faculty of HealthDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and EducationCharles Sturt UniversityBathurstAustralia

Personalised recommendations