Intersex Children: Who Are We Really Treating?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)
22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Surgery to align an infant child’s genitals to a medically assigned sex is controversial because it is irreversible and therefore may potentially be detrimental to the child as they develop into a gender identity. I argue that the significant issue for genital-normalising surgery is decision-making and that English law does not promote or protect the best interests of the intersex child or the inherent human rights that are protected by both domestic and international law. In acknowledgment of this legal and professional standards deficit I will propose a shared-decision-making approach to support the welfare of the child, which at its core, places the child as the primary decision-maker. Using a doctrinal and socio-legal methodology with analysis of bioethical argument, I argue that the interpretation of the best interests of infant intersex children is manipulated to support the lack of social, legal and medical acceptance of intersex as an ‘abnormality’ that must be corrected, in order to conform to the accepted normality of binary male and female sex.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-36
JournalMedical Law International
Early online date12 Sep 2017
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 12 Sep 2017

Fingerprint

surgery
infant
decision making
normality
international law
decision maker
deficit
human rights
acceptance
welfare
interpretation
Law
lack
gender
methodology

Keywords

  • Intersex
  • children
  • genital surgery
  • decision-making
  • birth registration
  • children’s rights
  • human rights

Cite this

@article{51201d11307f4e76af2433a9724c2812,
title = "Intersex Children: Who Are We Really Treating?",
abstract = "Surgery to align an infant child’s genitals to a medically assigned sex is controversial because it is irreversible and therefore may potentially be detrimental to the child as they develop into a gender identity. I argue that the significant issue for genital-normalising surgery is decision-making and that English law does not promote or protect the best interests of the intersex child or the inherent human rights that are protected by both domestic and international law. In acknowledgment of this legal and professional standards deficit I will propose a shared-decision-making approach to support the welfare of the child, which at its core, places the child as the primary decision-maker. Using a doctrinal and socio-legal methodology with analysis of bioethical argument, I argue that the interpretation of the best interests of infant intersex children is manipulated to support the lack of social, legal and medical acceptance of intersex as an ‘abnormality’ that must be corrected, in order to conform to the accepted normality of binary male and female sex.",
keywords = "Intersex, children, genital surgery, decision-making, birth registration, children’s rights, human rights",
author = "Edmund Horowicz",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1177/0968533217726109",
language = "English",
pages = "1--36",
journal = "Medical Law International",
issn = "0968-5332",
publisher = "Medical Law International",

}

Intersex Children: Who Are We Really Treating? / Horowicz, Edmund.

In: Medical Law International, 12.09.2017, p. 1-36.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intersex Children: Who Are We Really Treating?

AU - Horowicz, Edmund

PY - 2017/9/12

Y1 - 2017/9/12

N2 - Surgery to align an infant child’s genitals to a medically assigned sex is controversial because it is irreversible and therefore may potentially be detrimental to the child as they develop into a gender identity. I argue that the significant issue for genital-normalising surgery is decision-making and that English law does not promote or protect the best interests of the intersex child or the inherent human rights that are protected by both domestic and international law. In acknowledgment of this legal and professional standards deficit I will propose a shared-decision-making approach to support the welfare of the child, which at its core, places the child as the primary decision-maker. Using a doctrinal and socio-legal methodology with analysis of bioethical argument, I argue that the interpretation of the best interests of infant intersex children is manipulated to support the lack of social, legal and medical acceptance of intersex as an ‘abnormality’ that must be corrected, in order to conform to the accepted normality of binary male and female sex.

AB - Surgery to align an infant child’s genitals to a medically assigned sex is controversial because it is irreversible and therefore may potentially be detrimental to the child as they develop into a gender identity. I argue that the significant issue for genital-normalising surgery is decision-making and that English law does not promote or protect the best interests of the intersex child or the inherent human rights that are protected by both domestic and international law. In acknowledgment of this legal and professional standards deficit I will propose a shared-decision-making approach to support the welfare of the child, which at its core, places the child as the primary decision-maker. Using a doctrinal and socio-legal methodology with analysis of bioethical argument, I argue that the interpretation of the best interests of infant intersex children is manipulated to support the lack of social, legal and medical acceptance of intersex as an ‘abnormality’ that must be corrected, in order to conform to the accepted normality of binary male and female sex.

KW - Intersex

KW - children

KW - genital surgery

KW - decision-making

KW - birth registration

KW - children’s rights

KW - human rights

U2 - 10.1177/0968533217726109

DO - 10.1177/0968533217726109

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 36

JO - Medical Law International

JF - Medical Law International

SN - 0968-5332

ER -