GENITAL AUTONOMY 2020 UPDATE: MALE, FEMALE & INTERSEX

FGM, Circumcision, Intersex, Transgender, and Genital Autonomy Campaigners – Do they have a common goal?

In the fight for genital autonomy and the recognition of the harm that is caused by genital cutting without informed consent, we are happy to see that organisations are standing up for children’s rights. Especially the right to take part in decisions involving their own bodies whilst taking into account their physical, emotional and mental health.

Here is a recent quote from a joint statement released this October.

“On matters of health treatment all children have the right to be listened to independently and have their wishes taken seriously – this includes children and young people who identify as trans and who may be undergoing hormone treatment therapy.” Barnardo’s & The NSPCC Joint Statement

“It’s vital that trans children and young people feel listened to, understood and accepted.”

This statement is fantastic news! We can only assume that this principle applies to all children in terms of autonomy over their own genitals.

The genital autonomy of all people should be protected

When it comes to permanent modification of the genitals (cutting parts off), we do not understand how anyone can ascertain the child’s wishes (that they purport to want to take seriously) if the child is unable to express them.

We know that no medical authority suggests the routine practice of circumcision for male children. Female children have legislation guarding their right to intact genitals and protection from undergoing life-altering mutilation, sadly these protections do not apply to male or intersex children who still routinely undergo alteration as infants to try to make their genital appearance conform to binary gender norms.

So for those who do not know, what does being intersex mean?

“Intersex is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male. For example, a person might be born appearing to be female on the outside, but having mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside. Or a person may be born with genitals that seem to be in-between the usual male and female types—for example, a girl may be born with a noticeably large clitoris, or lacking a vaginal opening, or a boy may be born with a notably small penis, or with a scrotum that is divided so that it has formed more like labia. Or a person may be born with mosaic genetics, so that some of her cells have XX chromosomes and some of them have XY.”

– Quote taken from Isna.org

GENITAL AUTONOMY IS IMPORTANT

It is for these reasons that we campaign for genital autonomy, where the owner of the genitals in question gets to decide for themselves what happens to them when they are able, capable and competent to make such decisions.

15 Square is very happy that from this joint statement, it seems that these charities Barnardo’s, NSPCC, National Children’s Bureau and The Children’s Society are now on board with the genital autonomy campaign.

We are watching for the outcome of the High Court Decision as we know just how important this is for the trans and intersex allies we work with, it is just as important for the genital autonomy campaign, as defining a young person to have rights over their body is precisely what the core of genital autonomy is.

We already have legislation in the UK that protects female children from undergoing genital alterations, without their consent.

GENITAL AUTONOMY MATTERS

We firmly believe and actively campaigning for those born with ‘DSD’ (disorder/differences of sex development) some times called variations in sex development (VSD) or intersex and male children to have this right enshrined in law as well.

When we agree that the owner of the genitals must be the driving force in deciding what if anything happens to their body, we enable an inclusive society that accepts children for the autonomous human beings they are, and gives them the inalienable right to keep their body as it is, until such times as they are deemed competent and capable to make decisions about their person.

As in this case, the Gillick competency rule has been a long-standing benchmark of when a child/young person is competent to advocate for their own needs.

“When practitioners are trying to decide whether a child is mature enough to make decisions about things that affect them, they often talk about whether the child is ‘Gillick competent’ or whether they meet the ‘Fraser guidelines’.” (NSPCC 2020)

You can find out more information on Gillick competency and the Fraser guidelines on the NSPCC website.

WHO DISAGREES WITH GENITAL AUTONOMY?

Where the opponents of genital autonomy disagree with us is to state that the parent has the overarching right to make medical decisions for a child that is unable to give consent to procedures, that parents do not have to have their child’s consent to undergo a course of vaccination, or any other medical choice they make on their child’s behalf.

This unfortunately overlooks that for these circumstances they would be going with science and medical advice in proven beneficial actions in their child’s best interests, the same can not be said for infant genital cutting. Additionally, this same argument could be used to promote FGM, which would be abhorent.

The NSPCC states the following when considering if a young person meets the Gillick competency principle:

“Medical professionals need to consider Gillick competency if a young person under the age of 16 wishes to receive treatment without their parents’ or carers’ consent or, in some cases, knowledge.”

– NSPCC

Undergoing surgical alteration of one’s genitals when they are immature can be detrimental to the natural growing process their body undergoes. By taking away these children’s freedom to grow with the body they are born with, and barring defined medical needs can cause detrimental physical and psychological effects.

When these decisions are made over a child’s body, it deprives them of the chance to understand the ramifications of undergoing these rituals. Naturally, this is part of the reason why these traditions have continued. It can be argued that it is an intentional denial of the right for the child to express their own freedoms, rather than have those of their parents and community imposed upon them.

GENITAL AUTONOMY IS IMPORTANT FOR INTERSEX PEOPLE TOO

Male and Female children born with ‘DSD’ (disorder/differences of sex development) some times called variations in sex development (VSD) or intersex, deserve to be part of any decision process that involves the surgical modification of their body it is naturally born with a difference in their sex development they need to grow up feeling supported, loved and healthy, not made to undergo secret surgeries or hormones

Far too often medical interventions do not have the vital accompanying psychological support for children or even adults/families. The families are told it is a “quick fix” when the reality of the impact of those procedures anything but easy. Autonomy and informed consent are important in medicine.

There is never going to be a “correct” age for these so-called treatments, no matter which trait/variation/disorder.

Just because a person is too young to remember the pain, does not diminish the harm caused.

The law in the UK that covers FGM, is important to understand in the context of intersex people. Medical professionals are making decisions on the genitals of infants born with intersex genitalia to decide if they have a large clitoris or a small penis.

If the child is deemed female then they are protected under the FGM law. If the child is deemed male presenting they are not protected and can be circumcised upon the parents’ request. Occasionally pressure is applied by medical institutions to modify the intersex child.

The current inequality in legislation explicitly shows that male and intersex children are afforded less respect for their bodies.

LGBTQ+ & GENITAL AUTONOMY

The same philosophy that is granted to women (as time progresses) trans-identifying individuals applies equally to intersex and male children.

In the fight for gender equality, it is amazing that these double standards still exists.

We are excited by Barnardo’s and The NSPCC’s joint statement and awareness of Gillick competencies, as this de-facto implies that they will be applying their sound logic and reasoning to boys, girls, intersex and trans people equally.

If not, it will be interesting to see how they will justify treating the sex and genders differently.

They can’t.

“On matters of health treatment all children have the right to be listened to independently and have their wishes taken seriously.”