Skip to main content

How Sex Selection Undermines Reproductive Autonomy

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry volume 14, pages 195–204 (2017)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Although, since ought implies can, the degree to which any such inclinations (if they exist) can be changed would affect how much gender equality we could realistically aspire to achieve (Kennett 2011).

References

  • 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 

  • Averett, K.H. 2015. The gender buffet: LGBTQ parents resisting heteronormativity. Gender & Society 30(2): 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 1994. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, J.M., and J.W. Snyder. 1998. Racism and sexism in medically assisted conception. Bioethics 12(1): 25–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, T.K. 2016. Why parents should not be told the sex of their fetus. Journal of Medical Ethics 43(1): 5–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D.S. 1997. Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report 27(2): 7–15.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. The parental investment factor and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report 39 (2): 24–27.

  • Dworkin, G. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fine, C. 2010. Delusions of gender : How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Goldberg, A. 2009. Heterosexual, lesbian, and gay preadoptive parents’ preferences about child gender. Sex Roles 61(1–2): 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • ———. 2010. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hendl, T. Forthcoming. Queering the Odds. The case against “family balancing.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 10(2).

  • Kane, E.W. 2012. The gender trap: Parents and the pitfalls of raising boys and girls. New York and London: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennett, J. 2011. Science and normative authority. Philosophical Explorations 14(3): 229–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Meyers, D.T. 1989. Self, society and personal choice. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J.S. 2003. On liberty, edited by D. Bromwich and G. Kateb. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. 2011. Futures of reproduction: Bioethics and biopolitics. Vol. 49. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahilly, E.P. 2015. The gender binary meets the gender-variant child: Parents’ negotiations with childhood gender variance. Gender & Society 29(3): 338–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. 1994. Children of choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, B.K. 2000. Recreating motherhood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. 2004. The case against perfection. The Atlantic Monthly 293(3): 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. 2008. Sexism, sex selection and ‘family balancing’. Medical Law Review 16(3): 369–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. 2015. What do we mean by “sex” and “gender”? http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/. Accessed February 27, 2015.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks to Adam Henschke, whose feedback helped to crystallise my ideas on reproductive autonomy, to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper, and to my husband, Jason, for listening to me go on about it.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia

    Tamara Kayali Browne

  2. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia

    Tamara Kayali Browne

Authors
  1. Tamara Kayali Browne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamara Kayali Browne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Browne, T.K. How Sex Selection Undermines Reproductive Autonomy. Bioethical Inquiry 14, 195–204 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9783-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9783-z

Keywords

  • Reproductive autonomy
  • Procreative liberty
  • Sexism
  • Gender
  • Sex selection