Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Female Reproduction and Sexuality: The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on Women’s Rights in International Jurisprudence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Issues of International Law from a Gender Perspective

Part of the book series: Gender Perspectives in Law ((GPL,volume 3))

Abstract

The female role in reproduction generates and fuels stereotypes on women’s position as mothers, on their resulting situation in society and on their sexuality. The paper aims to consider how the European Court of Human Rights and UN human rights bodies have screened the impact of gender stereotypes on women’s fundamental rights, dealing with three main profiles. First, it focuses on fertility as a ‘qualitative standard’ and on the specific violations to which girls and women are subjected, due to their reproductive capacity. Second, it considers stereotypes affecting women when accessing reproductive health services. Third, it deals with preconceptions about female sexuality, which—along with other biases—constitute a serious obstacle to the recognition of equality between the sexes. In conclusion, it argues that the capacity to give birth explains the centrality of reproductive rights for women. While these rights belong to all couples and individuals, they have the greatest meaning and impact on women: only by being able to take free, informed and responsible choices about sexuality and reproduction, women can fully exercise their rights to life, health, education and be free from torture and other forms of ill-treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cook et al. (2010), pp. 255–258; Marván et al. (2008), pp. 673–687; Chrisler et al. (2014), pp. 634–657.

  2. 2.

    Neyer and Bernardi (2011), p. 164.

  3. 3.

    Office of the Hight Commissioner for Human Rights, Sexual and reproductive health and rights, https://www.ohchr.org/en/node/3447/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights.

  4. 4.

    World Health Organization, Addressing subfertility/infertility in developing countries, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility.

  5. 5.

    Okonofua et al. (1997), p. 216.

  6. 6.

    Ademóla (1982), p. 16.

  7. 7.

    Okonofua et al. (1997), p. 215.

  8. 8.

    Feldman-Savelsberg (1994), pp. 463–474.

  9. 9.

    Okonofua et al. (1997), p. 215.

  10. 10.

    Okonofua et al. (1997), p. 216.

  11. 11.

    On this topic see also Fledderjohann (2012), pp. 1383–1390; Marida and Larsen (2008), pp. 159–173.

  12. 12.

    UN Office of the Hight Commissioner for Human Rights, Child and forced marriage, including in humanitarian settings, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/WRGS/Pages/ChildMarriage.aspx.

  13. 13.

    More than 650 million women alive today were married before reaching age 18: UNICEF. 2020. Four areas of influence driving child marriage. What the data tells us and how it can inform programming https://www.unicef.org/documents/four-areas-influence-driving-child-marriage.

  14. 14.

    Human Rights Council, Resolution on Consequences of child, early and forced marriage UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/41/8 19 July 2019.

  15. 15.

    Cook (1993), pp. 73–86 at 74.

  16. 16.

    Nour (2009), pp. 51–56; Raj (2010), pp, 931–935; Raj et al. (2018), pp. 3–19.

  17. 17.

    Yaya et al. (2019); Nasrullah et al. (2014), pp. 534–543; Santhya (2011), pp. 334–339.

  18. 18.

    World Health Organization (2018), p. 15. WHO classifies FGM/C into four main typologies: (1) partial or total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce; (2) partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora; (3) Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with the creation of a covering seal by cutting and positioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation); this type includes the so-called re-infibulation, that is the procedure to narrow the vaginal opening in a woman after she has been deinfibulated (for example after childbirth); (4) All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, pulling, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization. World Health Organization (2018), pp. 1–4.

  19. 19.

    Maintenance of cleanliness, pursuance of aesthetic appeal, prevention of stillbirths in primigravidae and enhancement of fertility, promotion of social and political cohesion and increase in matrimonial opportunities, improvement of male sexual performance and pleasure: Green (2005), pp. 153–187, 155–158.

  20. 20.

    El-Shawarby and Rymer (2008), pp. 253–255.

  21. 21.

    Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, Report on Cultural practices in the family that are violent towards women UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/83 31 January 2002, para. 14.

  22. 22.

    Biglu et al. (2016), pp. 3–8; Raina et al. (2007), pp. 1273–1284.

  23. 23.

    See, in particular, Article 2 of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (General Assembly resolution 48/104), explicitly defining female genital mutilation as a form of violence against women and calling upon States to protect women against any form of violence that occurs within the family household or in other environments, and the Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women cit. [note 21], paras. 12–20.

  24. 24.

    Preston (2013), pp. 585–607; Bunting (2005), pp. 17–38.

  25. 25.

    UNFPA and UNICEF (2020).

  26. 26.

    Matanda et al. (2021).

  27. 27.

    Cook (1993), p. 73.

  28. 28.

    Cook (1993), p. 73.

  29. 29.

    Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Summary of the inquiry concerning the Philippines under Article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 22 April 2015,, para 2.

  30. 30.

    CEDAW, Summary, para 3.

  31. 31.

    CEDAW, Summary, para 43.

  32. 32.

    Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, L.C. v. Peru, Communication No. 22/2009, 4 November 2011.

  33. 33.

    Ngwena (2013), pp. 310–324.

  34. 34.

    Cusack and Pusey (2013), pp. 54–92 at 70; see also Bates (2013), pp. 640–656.

  35. 35.

    Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, L.C. v. Peru cit. [note 32], paras. 2.1-2.11.

  36. 36.

    CEDAW, L.C. v. Peru cit. [note 32], para. 8.10.

  37. 37.

    CEDAW, L.C. v. Peru cit. [note 32], para. 8.15.

  38. 38.

    CEDAW, L.C. v. Peru cit. [note 32], para. 8.15.

  39. 39.

    Human Rights Committee, Mellet v. Ireland, Communication No. 2324/2013, 17 November 2016.

  40. 40.

    Human Rights Committee, Whelan v. Ireland, Communication No. 2425/2014, 12 June 2017.

  41. 41.

    Sękowska-Kozłowska (2018), pp. 25–31.

  42. 42.

    Human Rights Committee, Mellet v. Ireland cit. [note 39], para. 3.19.

  43. 43.

    Human Rights Committee, Whelan v. Ireland cit. [note 40], para. 7.12.

  44. 44.

    Human Rights Committee, Mellet v. Ireland cit. [note 39], Individual opinion of Committee member Sarah Cleveland (concurring) para. 14.

  45. 45.

    Human Rights Committee, Whelan v. Ireland cit. [note 40], Individual opinion of Committee member Yadh Ben Achour (concurring) para. 6.

  46. 46.

    Human Rights Committee, Mellet v. Ireland cit. [note 39], para. 7.11; Whelan v. Ireland cit. [note 40], para. 7.12.

  47. 47.

    Sadler et al. (2016), pp. 47–55, at 50.

  48. 48.

    World Health Organization Statement (2015). The prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth, UN Doc. WHO/RHR/14.23.

  49. 49.

    Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Dubravka Šimonović, Report on a human rights-based approach to mistreatment and violence against women in reproductive health services with a focus on childbirth and obstetric violence, UN Doc. A/74/137, 11 July 2019, para. 16; see also Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 2306 (2019) Obstetrical and gynecological violence, 3 October 2019.

  50. 50.

    Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women (2019), para. 9.

  51. 51.

    Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women (2019), para. 46.

  52. 52.

    Jardim and Modena (2018), p. 8.

  53. 53.

    Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women (2019), para. 46.

  54. 54.

    Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, S.F.M. v. Spain, Communication No. 138/2018, 28 February 2020, para 3.1.

  55. 55.

    CEDAW, S.F.M. v. Spain, para 7.5.

  56. 56.

    Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women (2019), para. 49.

  57. 57.

    Kukura (2018), pp. 721–802, at 736; see also Ray (2021).

  58. 58.

    Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, ECtHR, App. No. 17484/15, Judgement 25 July 2017, para. 49.

  59. 59.

    Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, paras. 53–54.

  60. 60.

    Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, para. 55.

  61. 61.

    Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, para. 52.

  62. 62.

    Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, Joint dissenting opinion of Judges Ravarani and Bosnjak, para 18.

  63. 63.

    Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, Concurring opinion of Judge Yudviska.

  64. 64.

    Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, Concurring opinion of Judge Motoc, para. 18.

  65. 65.

    Timmer (2015), pp. 239–284, at 252.

  66. 66.

    Jardim and Modena (2018), p. 9.

  67. 67.

    On reproductive rights and their impact on women: Cook (1993); Temmerman et al. (2014), pp. e30–e31; Gebhard and Mora (2013), paras. 2–5. These rights basically rest upon the recognition of reproductive choice as codified under Article 16 (1) (e) of the CEDAW, which safeguards “the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, as well as to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health”.

  68. 68.

    International Conference on Population and Development. 1994. Program of Action, UN Doc. A/CONF.171/13, par. 7.3.

References

  • Ademóla A (1982) Changes in the patterns of marriage and divorce in a Yoruba town. Rural Africana 14:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates C (2013) Abortion and a Right to Health in International Law: L.C. v Peru. Camb J Int Comp Law 3(2):640–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglu M-H, Farnam A, Abotalebi P, Biglu S, Ghavami M (2016) Effect of female genital mutilation/cutting on sexual functions. Sex Reproductive Healthcare 10:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunting A (2005) Stages of development: marriage of girls and teens as an International Human Rights Issue. Soc Legal Stud 14(1):17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisler JC, Gorman JA, Marván ML, Johnston-Robledo I (2014) Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women in different stages of reproductive life: a semantic, cross-cultural approach. Health Care Women Int 35(6):634–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook RJ (1993) International Human Rights and Women's Reproductive Health. Stud Family Plan 24(2):73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook RJ, Cusack S, Dickens B (2010) Unethical female stereotyping in reproductive health. Int J Gynecol Obstetrics 109(3):255–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusack S, Pusey L (2013) CEDAW and the rights to non-discrimination and equality. Melb J Int Law 14(1):54–92

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Shawarby SA, Rymer J (2008) Female genital cutting. Obstet Gynaecol Reproductive Med 18(9):253–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman-Savelsberg P (1994) Plundered kitchens and empty wombs: fear of infertility in the Cameroonian grassfields. Soc Sci Med 39(4):463–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fledderjohann JJ (2012) ‘Zero is not good for me’: implications of infertility in Ghana. Human Reproduction 27(5):1383–1390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebhard J, Mora DT (2013) Reproductive rights, international regulation. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Green F (2005) From clitoridectomies to ‘designer vaginas’: The medical construction of heteronormative female bodies and sexuality through female genital cutting. Sex Evolution Gender 7(2):153–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jardim DMB, Modena CM (2018) Obstetric violence in the daily routine of care and its characteristics. Revista latino-americana de enfermagem 26:e3069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukura E (2018) Obstetric violence. Georgetown Law J 106(3):721–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Marida H, Larsen U (2008) Motherhood in sub-Saharan Africa: the social consequences of infertility in an urban population in northern Tanzania. Culture Health Sexuality 10(2):159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marván ML, Islas M, Vela L, Chrisler JC, Warren EA (2008) Stereotypes of women in different stages of their reproductive life: data from Mexico and the United States. Health Care Women Int 29(7):673–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matanda D, Groce-Galis M, Gay J, Hardee K (2021) Effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or respond to female genital mutilation: a review of evidence. UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO and Population Council, Kenya

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasrullah M, Muazzam S, Bhutta ZA et al (2014) Girl child marriage and its effect on fertility in Pakistan: findings from Pakistan demographic and health survey, 2006–2007. Matern Child Health J 18:534–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neyer G, Bernardi L (2011) Feminist perspectives on motherhood and reproduction. Historical Soc Res 36(2):162–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngwena CG (2013) A commentary on LC v Peru: the CEDAW Committee’s first decision on abortion. J Afr Law 57(2):310–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nour NM (2009) Child marriage: a silent health and human rights issue. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2:51–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Okonofua FE, Harris D, Odebiyi A, Kane T, Snow RC (1997) The social meaning of infertility in Southwest Nigeria. Health Transition Rev 7(2):205–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston DM (2013) Slapping the hand of cultural relativism: female genital mutilation, male dominance, and health as a Human Rights framework. William Mary J Women Law 19:585–607

    Google Scholar 

  • Raina R, Pahlajani G, Khan S, Gupta S, Agarwal ACD, Zippe. (2007) Female sexual dysfunction: classification, pathophysiology, and management. Fertil Steril 88(5):1273–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raj A (2010) When the mother is a child: the impact of child marriage on the health and human rights of girls. Archiv Dis Childhood 95:931–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raj A, Jackson E, Dunham S (2018) Girl child marriage: a persistent global women’s health and Human Rights Violation. In: Choudhury S, Erausquin JT, Withers M (eds) Global perspectives on women’s sexual and reproductive health across the lifecourse. Springer, Cham, pp 3–19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ray S (2021) The Husband-Stitch: Could it be Female Genital Mutilation? https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/institutes-and-centres/ethics-law-life-sciences/about-us/news/obstetric-violence-blog/the-husband-stitch/

  • Sadler M, Santos MJDS, Ruiz-Berdún D, Leiva RG, Skoko E, Gillen P, Clausen JA (2016) Moving beyond disrespect and abuse: addressing the structural dimensions of obstetric violence. Reproductive Health Matters 24(47):47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santhya KG (2011) Early marriage and sexual and reproductive health vulnerabilities of young women: a synthesis of recent evidence from developing countries. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 23:334–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sękowska-Kozłowska K (2018) A tough job: recognizing access to abortion as a matter of equality. A commentary on the views of the UN Human Rights Committee in the cases of Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland. Reproductive Health Matters 26(54):25–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Dubravka Šimonović (2019) Report on a human rights-based approach to mistreatment and violence against women in reproductive health services with a focus on childbirth and obstetric violence. UN Doc. A/74/137

    Google Scholar 

  • Temmerman M, Khosla R, Say L (2014) Sexual and reproductive health and rights: a global development, health, and human rights priority. Lancet 384(9941):e30–e31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmer A (2015) Judging stereotypes: what the European Court of Human Rights can borrow from American and Canadian equal protection law. Am J Comp Law 63:239–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNFPA and UNICEF (2020) Child marriage and the law: technical note for the global programme to end child marriage

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization Statement (2015) The prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth. UN Doc. WHO/RHR/14.23

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (2018) Care of girls & women living with female genital mutilation. A clinical handbook

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaya S, Odusina EK, Bishwajit G (2019) Prevalence of child marriage and its impact on fertility outcomes in 34 sub-Saharan African countries. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 19(1):33

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Turin, Department of Law, Turin, Italy

    Ludovica Poli

Authors
  1. Ludovica Poli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ludovica Poli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Ivana Krstić

  2. Department of Law, LUMSA, Palermo, Italy

    Marco Evola

  3. University of Cádiz, Cadiz, Spain

    Maria Isabel Ribes Moreno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Poli, L. (2023). Female Reproduction and Sexuality: The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on Women’s Rights in International Jurisprudence. In: Krstić, I., Evola, M., Ribes Moreno, M.I. (eds) Legal Issues of International Law from a Gender Perspective . Gender Perspectives in Law, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13459-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13459-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13458-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13459-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation