Editorial: Defining and Regulating the Boundaries of Sex and Sexuality

Hodson, Nathan; Earp, Brian D.; Townley, Lynne; Bewley, Susan

doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwz034

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for 1. The World Health Organization states, “Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.”2…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex, gender, and medical data

Bewley

McCartney

Meads

et al. 2021

BMJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex, gender, and medical data

Bewley

McCartney

Meads

et al. 2021

BMJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In humans, the penile and clitoral prepuces are undifferentiated in early fetal development, emerging from an ambisexual genital tubercle that is capable either of penile or clitoral development regardless of genotype (Baskin et al, 2018). Even at birth-and thereafter-the clitoral and penile prepuces may remain effectively indistinguishable in persons who have certain intersex traits or differences of sex development (Pippi Salle et al, 2007;Hodson et al, 2019;Grimstad et al, 2021). The penile prepuce has a mean reported surface area of between 30 and 50 square centimeters in adults (Werker et al, 1998;Kigozi et al, 2009) and it is the most sensitive part of the penis, both to light touch stimulation and to sensations of warmth (Sorrells et al, 2007;Bossio et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genital Cutting as Gender Oppression: Time to Revisit the WHO Paradigm

Earp

2022

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The World Health Organization (WHO) condemns all medically unnecessary female genital cutting (FGC) that is primarily associated with people of color and the Global South, claiming that such FGC violates the human right to bodily integrity regardless of harm-level, degree of medicalization, or consent. However, the WHO does not condemn medically unnecessary FGC that is primarily associated with Western culture, such as elective labiaplasty or genital piercing, even when performed by non-medical practitioners (e.g., body artists) or on adolescent girls. Nor does it campaign against any form of medically unnecessary intersex genital cutting (IGC) or male genital cutting (MGC), including forms that are non-consensual or comparably harmful to some types of FGC. These and other apparent inconsistencies risk undermining the perceived authority of the WHO to pronounce on human rights. This paper considers whether the WHO could justify its selective condemnation of non-Western-associated FGC by appealing to the distinctive role of such practices in upholding patriarchal gender systems and furthering sex-based discrimination against women and girls. The paper argues that such a justification would not succeed. To the contrary, dismantling patriarchal power structures and reducing sex-based discrimination in FGC-practicing societies requires principled opposition to medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting of all vulnerable persons, including insufficiently autonomous children, irrespective of their sex traits or socially assigned gender. This conclusion is based, in part, on an assessment of the overlapping and often mutually reinforcing roles of different types of child genital cutting—FGC, MGC, and IGC—in reproducing oppressive gender systems. These systems, in turn, tend to subordinate women and girls as well as non-dominant males and sexual and gender minorities. The selective efforts of the WHO to eliminate only non-Western-associated FGC exposes the organization to credible accusations of racism and cultural imperialism and paradoxically undermines its own stated goals: namely, securing the long-term interests and equal rights of women and girls in FGC-practicing societies.

show abstract

“…In humans, the penile and clitoral prepuces are undifferentiated in early foetal development, emerging from an ambisexual genital tubercle that is capable either of penile or clitoral development regardless of genotype (Baskin et al, 2018). Even at birth -and thereafter -the clitoral and penile prepuces may remain effectively indistinguishable in people with certain intersex traits or differences of sex development (Pippi Salle et al, 2007;Fahmy, 2015;Hodson et al, 2019). The prepuce is an integrated feature of the external genitalia, having evolved to function in concert with other genital structures; for example, it forms the anatomical covering of the glans penis or clitoris, thereby internalising each and 'decreasing external irritation and contamination' (Cold and Taylor, 1999: 34).…”

Section: Box 1: a Brief Overview Of The Human Prepucementioning

confidence: 99%

Against legalising female ‘circumcision’ of minors: a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Earp

2022

Global Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defenders of male circumcision increasingly argue that female ‘circumcision’ (cutting of the clitoral hood or labia) should be legally allowed in Western liberal democracies even when non-consensual. In his target article, Richard Shweder (2021) gives perhaps the most persuasive articulation of this argument to have so far appeared in the literature. In my own work, I argue that no person should be subjected to medically unnecessary genital cutting of any kind without their own informed consent, regardless of the sex characteristics with which they were born or the religious or cultural background of their parents. Professor Shweder and I agree that Western law and policy on child genital cutting is currently beset with cultural, religious and sex-based double standards. We disagree about what should be done about this. In this commentary, I argue that ‘legalising’ childhood FGC so as to bring it into line with current treatment of childhood MGC is not an acceptable solution to these problems. Instead, all medically unnecessary genital cutting of non-consenting persons should be opposed on moral and legal grounds and discouraged by all appropriate means. Key messages <ul><li>Under current legal norms, children with female-typical sex traits, male-typical sex traits, and intersex traits are treated fundamentally differently when it comes to protection from medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting</li> <li>Defenders of non-consensual male circumcision increasingly argue that non-consensual female ‘circumcision’ should be legalized in Western liberal democracies</li> <li>Advocates of children’s rights counter that all non-consenting persons, irrespective of their sex-characteristics, should be protected from medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting</li> <li>An emerging view is that non-consensual child genital cutting of any type is already contrary to criminal law, constituting physical assault and battery; parents cannot legally “consent” to the physical assault of their children</li> <li>Nevertheless, questions remain about the prudence of applying criminal sanctions (at least in the immediate future) to parents or providers who authorize or perform child genital cutting</li></ul>

show abstract

Editorial: Defining and Regulating the Boundaries of Sex and Sexuality

Cited by 11 publications

References 5 publications

Sex, gender, and medical data

Sex, gender, and medical data

Genital Cutting as Gender Oppression: Time to Revisit the WHO Paradigm

Against legalising female ‘circumcision’ of minors: a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About