Advertisement

The Future: Intersex Shaping Inclusive Laws

  • Nikoletta Pikramenou
Chapter

Abstract

After having examined the situation of intersex rights in both regional and international levels, it can be observed that jurisdictions are still “struggling” to accommodate intersex. Intersex rights are explicitly protected only in few countries while there is a global trend for implicit protection of intersex. According to the findings of this research, this tendency can be justified if we consider the legal evolution of “sex” and “gender”. Intersex movements have been advocating for intersex rights only since the 1990s and therefore the legislator, confronted with a relatively new reality, seems “hesitant” to challenge the male/female binary as it is well-founded in both societies and the law. “Sexual orientation” and “gender identity” issues were addressed first as they became visible prior to issues surrounding “intersex” and/or “sex characteristics” and in the absence of explicit and comprehensive intersex rights’ frameworks, intersex people benefit from frameworks on SOGI rights even though they do not address their specific needs. A typical example is legal recognition where the developments on the field of “gender identity” have been major during the previous years and many jurisdictions around the globe tend to apply existing “gender identity” frameworks on intersex to protect their rights while intersex do not identify with the binary as trans individuals do. Under the same token, legal frameworks on “sexual orientation” have impacted intersex as well and especially their right to marry and found a family.

Bibliography

Books

  1. Büchler A, Cottier M (2015) Intersexualität, Transsexualität und das Recht” Geschlechtsfreiheit und körperliche Integrität als Eckpfeiler einer neuen Konzeption. Freiburger FrauenStudien 17, (in German only). https://www.ius.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:54618db1-62b2-43b8-9b2f-4e77e77d40d2/BuechlerCottierIntersexualitaetTranssexualitaetRecht.pdf
  2. Butler J (2004) Undoing gender. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eekelaar J, Nhlap T (eds) (1998) The changing family, international perspectives on the family and family law private bodies. HartGoogle Scholar
  4. Foucault M (2012a) The history of sexuality: an introduction, vol 1, initially published in 1990. Knopf Doubleday Publishing GroupGoogle Scholar
  5. Herring J, Probert R, Gilmore S (2015) Great debates in family law, 2nd edn. PalgraveGoogle Scholar
  6. Jellinek G (2011) System of subjective public rights (in German), 2nd Revised edn. Siebeck MohrGoogle Scholar
  7. Kasimatis G (1980) “Constitutional Law II” (in Greek). SakkoulasGoogle Scholar
  8. Manesis A (1982) Constitutional rights (in Greek). SakkoulasGoogle Scholar
  9. Morgan A, Douglas J (1994) Constituting families: a study in governance: United Kingdom association for legal and social philosophy. Franz Steiner VerlagGoogle Scholar
  10. Okin Moller S (1989) Justice, gender and the family. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Papantoniou N (1983) General principles of civil law (in Greek). SakkoulasGoogle Scholar
  12. Peters A (2016) Beyond human rights, the legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Tsatsos D (1988) Constitutional law (in Greek). SakkoulasGoogle Scholar

Journals

  1. Ben-Asher N (2006) The necessity of sex change: a struggle for intersex and transsex liberties. Harv J Law Gender 29:51–98Google Scholar
  2. Garland F, Mitchell T (2018) Legislating intersex equality: building the resilience of intersex people through law. Legal Stud 38(4):587–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Habermas J (2010) The concept of human dignity and the realistic Utopia of human rights. Metaphilosophy 41(4):464–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Palk L, Grunsted S (2018) Born free: toward an expansive definition of sex. Michigan J Gender Law 25(1). https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol25/iss1/2. Accessed 15 Dec 2018
  5. Stamatis K (2005) The “common sense of justice” as a misleading criterion of correctness. (in Greek), Nomiko vima, Issue 5Google Scholar
  6. Tobler C (2014) Equality and non-discrimination under the ECHR and EU law a comparison focusing on discrimination against LGBTI persons. ZaöRV 74:521–561. https://edoc.unibas.ch/34809/1/74_2014_3_a_521_562.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2018
  7. Waldron J (2009) Judges as moral reasoners. Oxford University Press, New York. University School of Law 7(1):2–24Google Scholar

Reports

  1. OII Europe, Malta Declaration (1 December 2013) available on https://oiieurope.org/malta-declaration/

Presentations/Papers

  1. Andrew A (2009) Intersexed, intertext: a critique of limited gender identity in Herculine Barbin and Middlesex. Clemson University. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1585&context=all_theses

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikoletta Pikramenou
    • 1
  1. 1.AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations