I just recorded a podcast on infant feeding with the thoughtful Francoise Girard for the Feminism Makes Us Smarter (FEMUS) podcast. We covered a lot of ground - Why this is such a hot button issue? Why I am so passionate about it? What is the gap between rhetoric and reality? What would make a better policy that truly promotes choice? This is an area ripe for reconsideration, imho. Let me know what you think!
Wednesday, 22 October 2025
Monday, 14 October 2024
Why we need urgent innovation in contraception - read the latest report I have written for BPAS
After months of research and writing, I'm thrilled to share a report I wrote for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) on the future of contraception.
The Pill was revolutionary in its time. It opened the door to women’s sexual liberation and gave women unprecedented control over their fertility. Yet, in the 60 years since the Pill was introduced, there has been remarkably little contraceptive innovation. Mostly, it’s just been new ways of delivering the same cocktail of hormones. Pills, injection, patch or coil - take your pick! But that is not real choice...
Not surprisingly, women are fed up – and want more. We at British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) recently commissioned a survey that included 1,000 respondents in the U.K. aged 18-45 years. We found that there has been a significant drop in women using oral contraception: While 21% of our survey respondents currently use oral contraception, 44% said they had used it previously. 1 in 7 respondents said they are dissatisfied with their contraception’s side effects. The vast majority have changed their contraceptive method at least once. Clearly, women are trying to find something better – but can’t.
That is why we are publishing our latest report ‘Contraception, Re-imagined: The Unfinished Revolution’ - for which I was lead author - highlighting women’s disillusionment with current contraception, the unacceptably long waiting times for coil insertions, and the huge appetite for change – for long-acting reversible methods of male contraception (a gel, pill or injection), and for a new form of flexible fertility control for women.
This new form of fertility control - known as contragestives – would involve taking a non-hormonal pill once a week or month, or only after unprotected sex and a missed period – whatever works best for you. 72% of respondents said they would be open to taking that non-hormonal pill, with the most popular option being taking the pill weekly. Only 14% of respondents said the way it operated (i.e. to prevent implantation or to end an early pregnancy) would be one of the most important factors influencing their decision – much more highly ranked were avoiding the negative side effects of other methods of contraception, safety and effectiveness.
What few people know is - that pill exists. And it will revolutionise the future of contraception.***
If you want to know more, please read our report and let me know what you think: Rebecca.Steinfeld@bpas.org Are you too fed up with the limited contraceptive options available? Do you want to see changes? More options for men? More flexible fertility control for women? I'd love to hear from you!
You can read the full report here: BPAS-Contraception-Re-Imagined-The-Unfinished-Revolution.pdf (bpas-campaigns.org)
You can read a guest blog I wrote for Mumsnet here: Guest Post: We need to make contraception better - for ourselves, and for our daughters | Mumsnet
If you would like to sign the petition we at BPAS have launched, calling on the government to urgently address contraceptive access issues and invest in contraceptive innovation, you can sign here: We Urgently Call for Investment in Contraception Innovation in the U.K. | 38 Degrees
Wednesday, 18 March 2020
Corona bucket list #1: PDF of my PhD thesis on reproductive politics in Israel
I submitted my PhD thesis to the University of Oxford in 2011. At the time, I planned to turn it into a book. But life had other plans for me - campaigning for equal civil partnerships, a career switch from academia to policy, and two beautiful babies. I wish I'd uploaded a PDF years ago, but it seems there's no time like the (uncertain) present.
No doubt some of the later chapters are out of date, and the policy debates have shifted. And I'm sure I'd have framed and phrased things differently if I'd written it now or turned it into a book. But that hasn't happened yet, perfection is the enemy of the good, and there's some useful material in here -- about covert discrimination in child allowances to encourage Jewish fertility, and on the flip side, the lack of data to back up the claim that Palestinian citizens of Israel were the only population group given free contraceptives.
My goal in sharing this now is to prevent any future researchers similarly intrigued by these questions of reproductive politics in Israel having to start from scratch. Hope it helps someone, somewhere, sometime.
Here it is.
No doubt some of the later chapters are out of date, and the policy debates have shifted. And I'm sure I'd have framed and phrased things differently if I'd written it now or turned it into a book. But that hasn't happened yet, perfection is the enemy of the good, and there's some useful material in here -- about covert discrimination in child allowances to encourage Jewish fertility, and on the flip side, the lack of data to back up the claim that Palestinian citizens of Israel were the only population group given free contraceptives.
My goal in sharing this now is to prevent any future researchers similarly intrigued by these questions of reproductive politics in Israel having to start from scratch. Hope it helps someone, somewhere, sometime.
Here it is.
Monday, 13 January 2020
Surrogacy – wish fulfilment or exploitation? Read my blog for Sprogcast
Whether surrogacy is wish fulfilment for those facing infertility or unethical exploitation of women's wombs is not an abstract question -- the Law Commission is in the process of a review of existing surrogacy laws in the UK, the aim of which is to reform them for the first time since 1985.
So, if you'd like to know more about some of the serious issues in this debate, please read my blog for Sprogcast via this link or copied below. As always, please let me know what you think.
Surrogacy – wish fulfilment or exploitation? A guest blog by Dr Rebecca Steinfeld, Senior Policy Officer for Health, Maternity Action
Surrogacy is a polarising issue. For some, it embodies true altruism – a woman realising the dreams of others by birthing their baby, with all the medical risks, and physical and emotional toll, that can come with pregnancy, birth and, ultimately, handing over a baby. Sprogcast’s interview with David Gregory-Kumar is a touching example of how surrogacy can help gay couples to become parents, as is the heart-warming story recently aired on BBC 2’s series The Baby Has Landed of Paul and Craig Saunders, whose work friend Mel carries their twins.
But that is not the whole the story. For others, surrogacy is inherently exploitative and unethical. They say it makes children commodities, and disadvantaged women “breeders.” Some even compare surrogacy to prostitution, and argue “womb rental” be the term used.
This debate is not abstract.
The Law Commission is in the process of a review of existing surrogacy laws in the UK entitled "Building Families Through Surrogacy: A New Law." Their proposals include a new pre-conception agreement and related pathway, as well as changes to the types and level of payments for surrogate mothers. The goal is to bring forward a Surrogacy Bill in 2021 that will constitute the first legal reform to surrogacy law in the UK since the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.
We at Maternity Action, along with a number of feminist organisations, submitted responses expressing our concerns about law reform in this area. Our concerns focus on the process of the consultation, barriers to accessing it (the consultation document was 502 pages long and had 118 questions!), and the extent to which surrogate mothers' rights and experiences are being taken into account.
But beyond the specifics of the consultation, there are several other serious issues at stake in this debate. These include potential power imbalances between surrogate mothers and intended parents, the risks of pregnancy and birth taken on by the surrogate mother, and human rights concerns that may crop up during a surrogate mother’s antenatal, intrapartum and/or postnatal care. It is crucial to acknowledge and reflect on these difficult areas in any discussion of surrogacy.
Surrogates may be vulnerable to exploitation as there is often socioeconomic inequality between surrogate mothers and intended parents. Intended parents tend to be older, wealthier, better educated and employed in higher status jobs than surrogate mothers. Though there does not appear to be any research exclusively considering the demographic characteristics of surrogates in the UK, evidence from other studies indicates that the majority of women who act as surrogate mothers are substantially less well-off, less powerful and less endowed with status than the majority of intended parents.
Though there may be some exceptions to this pattern in what are known as “traditional” or “altruistic” surrogacy arrangements – such as a sister carrying a baby for her brother/sister – these arrangements account for the minority of surrogacy arrangements. Plus, there may be other power imbalances in these familial arrangements, and economic inequalities may still exist.
There are inherent risks involved in pregnancy and birth for the surrogate. Emeritus Professor Susan Bewley, a retired consultant obstetrician with direct, first-hand experience of many UK surrogates contends that there are documented medical and psychosocial risks to surrogacy. All pregnancies carry physical and mental health risks to pregnant women, ranging from trivial to very severe (sepsis, pre-eclampsia, haemorrhage and maternal death for the woman; abnormality, prematurity, stillbirth, brain damage, infant death for the baby). For untested first-time mothers, or primigravidae, these risks are entirely unknown, and the Law Commission rightly asked whether primigravidae should be allowed to be surrogates.
Risks for the surrogate may be higher if she, or another woman, are involved as egg donor, which involves undergoing ovarian stimulation, egg extractions and a small risk of the serious complication of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. The surrogate may have many appointments, drug treatments, invasive procedures and timed embryo transfer. More importantly, she is at a significantly increased risk of developing pre-eclampsia. If it is a twin pregnancy, she is at increased risk of every complication barring postmaturity. Pre-eclampsia and multiple pregnancy, which remain high in the UK IVF sector, both increase the risk of prematurity, with possible lifelong health consequences for the child.
On a perinatal mental health level, although many surrogates are keen to hand over the baby, there are a lot of dramatic hormonal events in the first days and weeks after birth, and some find that handover triggers or exacerbates perinatal mental ill-health conditions, like postnatal depression or postpartum psychosis.
Finally, surrogates may experience coercion from intended parents during their antenatal care or birth. In their consultation response, the Woman’s Place UK said “it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where the mother may find it difficult to make choices which prioritise her own health and wellbeing if the intended parents are in the room with her, even if they do not actively put pressure on her to prioritise the welfare of the foetus. Or in a scenario where a scan reveals a foetal anomaly, the pregnant woman may feel unduly pressured to conform to the intended parents’ wishes regarding continuing or terminating the pregnancy if they are present in the room when the scan takes place.” As these scenarios suggest, the surrogate mother’s rights to dignity and bodily autonomy may be subtly undermined by the known wishes or momentary reactions of the intended parents.
Given the current policy climate and controversy around surrogacy, it’s crucial that public discussion of this issue includes the fullest range of perspectives. As well as hearing moving stories from intended parents about how surrogacy enabled them to overcome biological or social infertility to realise their dreams of becoming parents, we also need to hear from a range of surrogate mothers. That includes those whose experiences have not been so rosy, and who instead encountered challenging power imbalances between themselves and the intended parents, or who felt that their human rights were subtly or overtly undermined during their pregnancy or birth, or who suffered unexpected physical or emotional repercussions. There are two sides to this story, and both must be told.
So, if you'd like to know more about some of the serious issues in this debate, please read my blog for Sprogcast via this link or copied below. As always, please let me know what you think.
Surrogacy – wish fulfilment or exploitation? A guest blog by Dr Rebecca Steinfeld, Senior Policy Officer for Health, Maternity Action
Surrogacy is a polarising issue. For some, it embodies true altruism – a woman realising the dreams of others by birthing their baby, with all the medical risks, and physical and emotional toll, that can come with pregnancy, birth and, ultimately, handing over a baby. Sprogcast’s interview with David Gregory-Kumar is a touching example of how surrogacy can help gay couples to become parents, as is the heart-warming story recently aired on BBC 2’s series The Baby Has Landed of Paul and Craig Saunders, whose work friend Mel carries their twins.
But that is not the whole the story. For others, surrogacy is inherently exploitative and unethical. They say it makes children commodities, and disadvantaged women “breeders.” Some even compare surrogacy to prostitution, and argue “womb rental” be the term used.
This debate is not abstract.
The Law Commission is in the process of a review of existing surrogacy laws in the UK entitled "Building Families Through Surrogacy: A New Law." Their proposals include a new pre-conception agreement and related pathway, as well as changes to the types and level of payments for surrogate mothers. The goal is to bring forward a Surrogacy Bill in 2021 that will constitute the first legal reform to surrogacy law in the UK since the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.
We at Maternity Action, along with a number of feminist organisations, submitted responses expressing our concerns about law reform in this area. Our concerns focus on the process of the consultation, barriers to accessing it (the consultation document was 502 pages long and had 118 questions!), and the extent to which surrogate mothers' rights and experiences are being taken into account.
But beyond the specifics of the consultation, there are several other serious issues at stake in this debate. These include potential power imbalances between surrogate mothers and intended parents, the risks of pregnancy and birth taken on by the surrogate mother, and human rights concerns that may crop up during a surrogate mother’s antenatal, intrapartum and/or postnatal care. It is crucial to acknowledge and reflect on these difficult areas in any discussion of surrogacy.
Surrogates may be vulnerable to exploitation as there is often socioeconomic inequality between surrogate mothers and intended parents. Intended parents tend to be older, wealthier, better educated and employed in higher status jobs than surrogate mothers. Though there does not appear to be any research exclusively considering the demographic characteristics of surrogates in the UK, evidence from other studies indicates that the majority of women who act as surrogate mothers are substantially less well-off, less powerful and less endowed with status than the majority of intended parents.
Though there may be some exceptions to this pattern in what are known as “traditional” or “altruistic” surrogacy arrangements – such as a sister carrying a baby for her brother/sister – these arrangements account for the minority of surrogacy arrangements. Plus, there may be other power imbalances in these familial arrangements, and economic inequalities may still exist.
There are inherent risks involved in pregnancy and birth for the surrogate. Emeritus Professor Susan Bewley, a retired consultant obstetrician with direct, first-hand experience of many UK surrogates contends that there are documented medical and psychosocial risks to surrogacy. All pregnancies carry physical and mental health risks to pregnant women, ranging from trivial to very severe (sepsis, pre-eclampsia, haemorrhage and maternal death for the woman; abnormality, prematurity, stillbirth, brain damage, infant death for the baby). For untested first-time mothers, or primigravidae, these risks are entirely unknown, and the Law Commission rightly asked whether primigravidae should be allowed to be surrogates.
Risks for the surrogate may be higher if she, or another woman, are involved as egg donor, which involves undergoing ovarian stimulation, egg extractions and a small risk of the serious complication of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. The surrogate may have many appointments, drug treatments, invasive procedures and timed embryo transfer. More importantly, she is at a significantly increased risk of developing pre-eclampsia. If it is a twin pregnancy, she is at increased risk of every complication barring postmaturity. Pre-eclampsia and multiple pregnancy, which remain high in the UK IVF sector, both increase the risk of prematurity, with possible lifelong health consequences for the child.
On a perinatal mental health level, although many surrogates are keen to hand over the baby, there are a lot of dramatic hormonal events in the first days and weeks after birth, and some find that handover triggers or exacerbates perinatal mental ill-health conditions, like postnatal depression or postpartum psychosis.
Finally, surrogates may experience coercion from intended parents during their antenatal care or birth. In their consultation response, the Woman’s Place UK said “it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where the mother may find it difficult to make choices which prioritise her own health and wellbeing if the intended parents are in the room with her, even if they do not actively put pressure on her to prioritise the welfare of the foetus. Or in a scenario where a scan reveals a foetal anomaly, the pregnant woman may feel unduly pressured to conform to the intended parents’ wishes regarding continuing or terminating the pregnancy if they are present in the room when the scan takes place.” As these scenarios suggest, the surrogate mother’s rights to dignity and bodily autonomy may be subtly undermined by the known wishes or momentary reactions of the intended parents.
Given the current policy climate and controversy around surrogacy, it’s crucial that public discussion of this issue includes the fullest range of perspectives. As well as hearing moving stories from intended parents about how surrogacy enabled them to overcome biological or social infertility to realise their dreams of becoming parents, we also need to hear from a range of surrogate mothers. That includes those whose experiences have not been so rosy, and who instead encountered challenging power imbalances between themselves and the intended parents, or who felt that their human rights were subtly or overtly undermined during their pregnancy or birth, or who suffered unexpected physical or emotional repercussions. There are two sides to this story, and both must be told.
Friday, 6 December 2019
The radical feminist potential of civil partnerships
Civil partnerships have enormous feminist potential: They avoid the special-day sexism of many weddings, formalise a relationship of equals, and give the parties rhetorical leverage whenever there's creeping gender inequality.
But they've also kick-started a public conversation about the need for cohabitation law reform to ensure social policy keeps up with the reality of modern families. And, perhaps most importantly, by ending the unrivalled position of marriage, they widen the space for deeper discussions about giving legal recognition to other types of personal and caring relationships, such as those between friends, siblings and co-parents, as well as alternative sexual relationships.
Read my op-ed in iNews if you want to know more!
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/people/civil-partnerships-mixed-sex-hetrosexual-couples-new-years-eve-1333723
Friday, 8 November 2019
I've joined the Expert Panel of the Wrisk Project
I'm excited to announce that I've joined the Expert Panel of the Wrisk Project. For those who don't know, Wrisk is a collaboration between the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) and Heather Trickey at the School of Social Sciences at Cardiff University.
Working with stakeholders from a wide range of disciplines, the project draws on women’s experiences to understand and improve the development and communication of risk messages in pregnancy.
The project runs for two years from November 2018 to November 2020. In the first year, Wrisk conducted an extensive survey and interviews to gather women’s experiences of risk messaging. From January 2020, the Expert Panel will discuss the results, using a consensus methodology, and consider what lessons to draw from women’s experiences.
Stakeholders on the Expert Panel include scientists, public health and risk communication specialists, women’s advocacy groups, and specialists in women’s sexual and reproductive health - and me! This work will lead to the development of recommendations for respectful risk communication in pregnancy.
The project is funded by the Wellcome Trust.
Working with stakeholders from a wide range of disciplines, the project draws on women’s experiences to understand and improve the development and communication of risk messages in pregnancy.
The project runs for two years from November 2018 to November 2020. In the first year, Wrisk conducted an extensive survey and interviews to gather women’s experiences of risk messaging. From January 2020, the Expert Panel will discuss the results, using a consensus methodology, and consider what lessons to draw from women’s experiences.
Stakeholders on the Expert Panel include scientists, public health and risk communication specialists, women’s advocacy groups, and specialists in women’s sexual and reproductive health - and me! This work will lead to the development of recommendations for respectful risk communication in pregnancy.
The project is funded by the Wellcome Trust.
Friday, 8 March 2019
Speaking about civil partnerships at "Beyond Marriage" conference at the University of Cambridge in May
I'm really looking forward to contributing to the discussion at this forthcoming conference "Beyond Marriage" at the University of Cambridge at the end of May. I'll be discussing my experiences as co-claimant in Charlie Keidan's and my successful Judicial Review challenge of the ongoing ban on mixed-sex civil partnerships in the UK.
Here are the details:
"Beyond Marriage: Philosophy, Politics Law" conference
24-25 May 2019, University of Cambridge
Convenor: Clare Chambers, University of Cambridge
There have been significant changes to the institution of marriage in recent years, with many countries introducing same-sex marriage, civil partnerships, and other forms of non-traditional union. For some, marriage is a central institution that must be protected, for others it is inevitably unjust and should be abolished. This conference will bring together academics and practitioners from philosophy, politics, and law to debate what lies beyond marriage.
Here are the details:
"Beyond Marriage: Philosophy, Politics Law" conference
24-25 May 2019, University of Cambridge
Convenor: Clare Chambers, University of Cambridge
There have been significant changes to the institution of marriage in recent years, with many countries introducing same-sex marriage, civil partnerships, and other forms of non-traditional union. For some, marriage is a central institution that must be protected, for others it is inevitably unjust and should be abolished. This conference will bring together academics and practitioners from philosophy, politics, and law to debate what lies beyond marriage.
Speakers:
-Samia Bano, Law, SOAS
-Elizabeth Brake, Philosophy, Arizona State University
-Clare Chambers, Philosophy, University of Cambridge
-Baroness Lynne Featherstone (Lib Dem), former Minister of State
-Andrew Harrop, General Secretary, Fabian Society
-Tim Loughton MP (Con)
-Jo Miles, Law, University of Cambridge
-Rebecca Steinfeld, Claimant in Steinfeld and Keidan v. Secretary of State
-Lori Watson, Philosophy, University of San Diego
-Robert Wintemute, Law, KCL
-Elizabeth Brake, Philosophy, Arizona State University
-Clare Chambers, Philosophy, University of Cambridge
-Baroness Lynne Featherstone (Lib Dem), former Minister of State
-Andrew Harrop, General Secretary, Fabian Society
-Tim Loughton MP (Con)
-Jo Miles, Law, University of Cambridge
-Rebecca Steinfeld, Claimant in Steinfeld and Keidan v. Secretary of State
-Lori Watson, Philosophy, University of San Diego
-Robert Wintemute, Law, KCL
Chairs: Jude Browne, Clare Chambers, Tom Dougherty, Findlay Stark, Ralph Wedgwood
Bookings are now open here: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/27903
Thursday, 21 February 2019
'Campaigning for (circumcision) change: some ideas for the UK' - upcoming talk at the University of Leeds
I'm excited to be speaking at this conference on genital cutting at the University of Leeds at the end of April.
My talk - 'Campaigning for (circumcision) change: some ideas for the UK' - draws on my experiences and insights campaigning for equal civil partnerships. In it, I will suggest what I consider to be the most attainable and measurable objective for change; consider the feasibility, and potential advantages, of running a Judicial Review case aimed at challenging the unequal legal treatment of girls’ and boys’ genitals; explore how such a case could complement a broader political campaign; consider the limitations of legal challenges and changes; identify the merits of differing campaign messages (equality and human rights versus child protection, for example); and suggest some avenues for fundraising.
If you'd like to hear more from me and from an incredible group of academics, lawyers, doctors and activists about why a commitment to child's rights means extending protections to the genitals of male and intersex children too, please do come along. Hope to see you there.
Here is a link to eventbrite to book tickets.
My talk - 'Campaigning for (circumcision) change: some ideas for the UK' - draws on my experiences and insights campaigning for equal civil partnerships. In it, I will suggest what I consider to be the most attainable and measurable objective for change; consider the feasibility, and potential advantages, of running a Judicial Review case aimed at challenging the unequal legal treatment of girls’ and boys’ genitals; explore how such a case could complement a broader political campaign; consider the limitations of legal challenges and changes; identify the merits of differing campaign messages (equality and human rights versus child protection, for example); and suggest some avenues for fundraising.
If you'd like to hear more from me and from an incredible group of academics, lawyers, doctors and activists about why a commitment to child's rights means extending protections to the genitals of male and intersex children too, please do come along. Hope to see you there.
Here is a link to eventbrite to book tickets.
Thursday, 25 May 2017
How different are female, male and intersex genital cutting? Brian Earp's and my article in last week's The Conversation
Last week, my bioethicist colleague Brian Earp and I published an article in The Conversation asking how different are female, male and intersex genital cutting.
We frame our article around the recent indictment of three members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Islam on charges of “female genital mutilation” (FGM) in the US state of Michigan, and the decision by one of Norway's major political parties to back a measure to ban childhood male circumcision.
In Western countries, popular attitudes towards these procedures differ sharply depending on the child’s sex. But in our article we ask whether the supposedly clear distinction between these different forms of genital cutting stand up to scrutiny.
Having concluded that they do not, we argue that moral considerations should instead centre around medical necessity, autonomy, and respect for the bodily integrity of all children – regardless of their sex or gender.
We outline three practical advantages to this approach:
1) It deflects accusations of sexism by recognising that boys and intersex children – just like girls – are vulnerable to genital alterations that they may later come to seriously resent.
2) It reduces the moral confusion that stems from Western-led efforts to eliminate only the female “half” of genital cutting rites in communities that practice both male and female forms in parallel.
3) It neutralises accusations of cultural imperialism and anti-Muslim bias by avoiding racially tinged double standards.
This is because the same moral concern would apply to medically unnecessary genital cutting practices that primarily affect white children in North America, Australasia and Europe, as to those affecting children of colour (and immigrants) from Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
As we explain in our article, adopting such an approach does not necessarily mean “banning” all pre-consensual forms of non-therapeutic genital alteration. History shows that attempting to pass strict legal prohibitions before cultural readiness can backfire, creating intense resistance among those who are dedicated to modifying children’s genitals for whatever reason, and often driving such practices further underground.
Rather, there are many levers that societies can pull to discourage unethical practices: the law is only one among them, and not necessarily the most desirable or effective. Some authors have proposed step-wise regulation of medically unnecessary childhood genital cutting, along with community engagement and education, as alternatives and/or supplements to formal prohibition.
As Brian and I conclude, whatever specific policies are implemented, it is clear that fundamentally different treatment of female, male and intersex children, in terms of their protection from non-therapeutic genital alteration, will become increasingly difficult to justify in the years to come.
To read our article in full, please click here. We welcome your comments.
We frame our article around the recent indictment of three members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Islam on charges of “female genital mutilation” (FGM) in the US state of Michigan, and the decision by one of Norway's major political parties to back a measure to ban childhood male circumcision.
In Western countries, popular attitudes towards these procedures differ sharply depending on the child’s sex. But in our article we ask whether the supposedly clear distinction between these different forms of genital cutting stand up to scrutiny.
Having concluded that they do not, we argue that moral considerations should instead centre around medical necessity, autonomy, and respect for the bodily integrity of all children – regardless of their sex or gender.
We outline three practical advantages to this approach:
1) It deflects accusations of sexism by recognising that boys and intersex children – just like girls – are vulnerable to genital alterations that they may later come to seriously resent.
2) It reduces the moral confusion that stems from Western-led efforts to eliminate only the female “half” of genital cutting rites in communities that practice both male and female forms in parallel.
3) It neutralises accusations of cultural imperialism and anti-Muslim bias by avoiding racially tinged double standards.
This is because the same moral concern would apply to medically unnecessary genital cutting practices that primarily affect white children in North America, Australasia and Europe, as to those affecting children of colour (and immigrants) from Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
As we explain in our article, adopting such an approach does not necessarily mean “banning” all pre-consensual forms of non-therapeutic genital alteration. History shows that attempting to pass strict legal prohibitions before cultural readiness can backfire, creating intense resistance among those who are dedicated to modifying children’s genitals for whatever reason, and often driving such practices further underground.
Rather, there are many levers that societies can pull to discourage unethical practices: the law is only one among them, and not necessarily the most desirable or effective. Some authors have proposed step-wise regulation of medically unnecessary childhood genital cutting, along with community engagement and education, as alternatives and/or supplements to formal prohibition.
As Brian and I conclude, whatever specific policies are implemented, it is clear that fundamentally different treatment of female, male and intersex children, in terms of their protection from non-therapeutic genital alteration, will become increasingly difficult to justify in the years to come.
To read our article in full, please click here. We welcome your comments.
Reproductive injustice in Europe - my contribution to UCL's School of Slavonic & East European Studies' ongoing work in this area
Confronting reproductive injustice in Europe is urgent. I'm glad that I can be part of an ongoing conversation amongst academics and activists about the most pressing reproductive injustices in Europe, and how best to combat these.
At a panel discussion for International Women's Day on 8th March 2017, I contributed to a panel discussion convened by Dr. Rory Archer and Cara Spelman to broaden choice-related questions. As Dr Nevila Pahjumi recently wrote on UCL's School of Slavonic & East European Studies (SSEES) blog, during my introductory remarks I:
"exposed the limitations of pro-choice debates, and introduced some of the often-difficult questions that reproductive justice that Europe faces at the moment. Part of what the focus from ‘choice’ to ‘reproductive justice’ aims to achieve is, to expand the sometimes theoretical definition of ‘choice’ and ‘rights’ to include the dignified upbringing of children. Notably this switch in research, and hopefully also activism, seems promising in that pro-life activists offer no alternatives to childcare, which is an important concern for would-be parents, and indeed, a consideration that can lead to abortions. Some of the pressing concerns for reproductive justice that Rebecca has identified are: refugee access, general lack of access, as well as birth injustice."
With thanks to my colleagues at SSEES for organising such important and timely events to air these important issues.
For more, please read Dr Nevila Pehjumi's blog on behalf of SSEES here.
At a panel discussion for International Women's Day on 8th March 2017, I contributed to a panel discussion convened by Dr. Rory Archer and Cara Spelman to broaden choice-related questions. As Dr Nevila Pahjumi recently wrote on UCL's School of Slavonic & East European Studies (SSEES) blog, during my introductory remarks I:
"exposed the limitations of pro-choice debates, and introduced some of the often-difficult questions that reproductive justice that Europe faces at the moment. Part of what the focus from ‘choice’ to ‘reproductive justice’ aims to achieve is, to expand the sometimes theoretical definition of ‘choice’ and ‘rights’ to include the dignified upbringing of children. Notably this switch in research, and hopefully also activism, seems promising in that pro-life activists offer no alternatives to childcare, which is an important concern for would-be parents, and indeed, a consideration that can lead to abortions. Some of the pressing concerns for reproductive justice that Rebecca has identified are: refugee access, general lack of access, as well as birth injustice."
With thanks to my colleagues at SSEES for organising such important and timely events to air these important issues.
For more, please read Dr Nevila Pehjumi's blog on behalf of SSEES here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)