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No doubt some of the later chapters are out of date, and the policy debates have shifted.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. 

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.  

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

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.

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.

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

Chairs: Jude Browne, Clare Chambers, Tom Dougherty, Findlay Stark, Ralph Wedgwood

Bookings are now open here: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/27903

'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. 

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. 

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. 

FGM/C Geneva conference presentation: Could efforts to eliminate female genital cutting be strengthened by extending protections to male and intersex children?

Over the last two days, I participated in an inspiring and enriching conference on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting at the Geneva University Hospitals. There, I met so many incredible people working so hard on such complex issues. 

I also shared some of my bioethicist colleague Brian Earp's and my research on whether efforts to eliminate female genital cutting could be strengthened by extending protections to male and intersex children. We created and displayed this eposter to summarise our analysis and arguments: 

In my presentation, I recognised that comparing female genital cutting with male and intersex genital alteration is controversial. At the same time, I emphasised that there are significant areas of overlap between these practices that necessitate reconsideration of their divergent ethical statuses and policy treatments.

I explained that some argue that efforts to reduce FGC are undermined by failing to apply principles of bodily integrity to children of all sexes. While a sex-based approach is incompatible with equality principles, it could also backfire because some defenders of male circumcision call for 'nicking' of females' genitalia for intellectual consistency. Essentially they're seeking to 'equalise down' by rolling back existing protections for females. 

By contrast, Brian and I have identified three advantages of a gender-inclusive approach:

1. It negates accusations of cultural imperialism by applying the same standards to white children in the USA as to children of colour in Africa.
2. It weakens accusations of sexism by recognising that boys and intersex children are also vulnerable to non-therapeutic genital alteration.
3. It clarifies the moral confusion caused by applying a gendered-double standard to communities that modify both sexes' genitals. 

We quoted the Swiss lawyer Sami Abu-Sahlieh, who said: “Female circumcision will never stop as long as male circumcision is going on. How do you expect to convince an African father to leave his daughter uncircumcised as long as you let him do it to his son?”

Finally, we made two arguments for extending protections to male and intersex children. The first was an ethical argument, namely that consent, not sex, should form the basis of policy: All children should be protected from non-consensual, non-therapeutic cutting of their genitalia. 

The second was an effectiveness argument: That efforts to eliminate FGC will only be successful if they expand to include vulnerable persons of all genders.

Participants' reactions to our analysis were very encouraging. Everyone was enthusiastically and vocally supportive of the need to apply principles of bodily integrity consistently to children of all genders. 

Thank you to the organisers for providing the space for this important conversation. Here's to many more discussions like this!

Workshops on Brit Milah and Brit Shalom at the JCC in Zurich on Sunday 19th March

I'm thrilled to have been invited to present at an emancipation-themed Jewish day of learning at the JCC in Zurich on Sunday 19th March. I'll be presenting two sessions, one on Brit Milah and the other on Brit Shalom. 

Here are my session descriptions:

ANALYZING THE DEBATES AROUND BRIT MILAH

(13:45 – 15:00)

Brit Milah is a profoundly meaningful Jewish practice imbued with great religious and cultural value. For many Jews, it is an ancient covenant that affirms their son’s Jewish identity and belonging. At the same time, some Jews are questioning the practice, reflecting broader discussions taking place across Europe and beyond. In this session, we will explore these debates, and learn more about the ethical and scientific research on circumcision. The session is open to all: those who would/did circumcise their son, those who have reservations, and those who have never before considered the question.

CELEBRATIONS TO WELCOME NEWBORN BABIES

(15:30 – 16:45)

Many parents welcome their newborn child into the Jewish community with a formal ceremony. While most perform Brit Milah for boys (in a variety of settings), others are turning to non-surgical and/or gender-inclusive ceremonies like Brit Shalom. In this practical session, we will learn about different types of baby-welcoming ceremonies being used in Jewish communities. We will discuss different possible structures for such ceremonies, how to incorporate Jewish and other content, and learn about some related prayers, psalms and songs. Participants are invited to share their experiences, ideas and insights.

Here's a link to the program. 

Reproductive Justice in Europe: A panel discussion on International Women’s Day

I'm thrilled to be contributing to a panel discussion at UCL on 'Reproductive Justice in Europe' for International Women’s Day on 8th March. 

I'll be speaking about the complex interplay of race and class on people’s diverse experiences of conceiving, gestating and raising children. So things like birth control as population control, the policing of pregnancy, obstetric violence, and parenting in prison - among other light, super-fun topics. 

Please come if you can, it might not be as depressing as it sounds... 

Here's a link to the UCL event page: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/silva/ssees/ssees-events-publication/reproductive-justice 

Here's a link to the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/events/177908502706336/

Finally, here are some beautiful images that capture the wide range of issues confronting campaigners for reproductive justice: 

Photo credits: Repeal Hyde Art Project  

“My overall conclusion: the appellants are right” – and yet we lost

Below is a copy of my partner Charlie's and my update to our supporters on Change.org regarding the narrow loss of our Court of Appeal challenge to the UK government's continued bar on mixed-sex civil partnerships:

---

Dear supporters, 

We are sorry to tell you that the Court of Appeal has gone against us. But we lost so narrowly that there’s everything to fight for. 

All three judges agreed that we’re being treated differently because of our sexual orientation, and that this impacts our private and family life. All three rejected the argument that we could ‘just get married.’ All three emphasized that the government cannot maintain the status quo for much longer – they are on borrowed time. 

Lady Justice Arden accepted our case on almost every point. She stated:
“My overall conclusion: the appellants are right” 

In the end though, Lady Justice Arden’s fellow judges concluded that the government should be allowed just a little more time to make a decision. It is on that technicality that we lost by two votes to one. 

We are deeply disappointed by the ruling and very sorry not to be able to share better news. But there is much in the ruling, together with your incredible support, that gives us reason to be positive and keep going. 

We remain determined to go on. Opening civil partnerships to all is fair, popular, and will be good for families and children. Over three million mixed-sex couples, with two million dependent children, cohabit in the UK. Yet this fastest-growing family type lacks legal and financial security. That isn’t right. None of us should be denied recognition or protection because marriage isn’t right for us. 

So while the campaign for civil partnerships gains more political support, we plan to challenge this ruling in the Supreme Court. But to do so, we need your help. An appeal to the Supreme Court will cost us at least £25,000. We want to go on, but we don’t have the financial resources to do it alone. 

So please, if you can, donate now: https://www.gofundme.com/ecpcampaigns 

If each of you gave only £10, we could go forward with much less stress. 

Defeat today is hard to accept. But it has also given us a chance to regroup, rally, and emerge stronger. Together we can make this change possible.

Thank you all for your ongoing support, 

Rebecca and Charles

The wait is over – please join us outside court tomorrow morning to hear the judgment

Dear supporters,

We’ve waited a long time for this moment. In less than 24 hours, the judges will hand down their ruling in our appeal against the government’s ongoing ban on mixed-sex civil partnerships.

Please join us outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in London at 9.30am on Tuesday for breakfast and a photo call, before coming with us to Court No. 74 for the judgment. Please see our Facebook page for details: https://www.facebook.com/events/1387999787908716/ 

Whatever the judgment, we need to show that opening civil partnerships to all is not just fair and popular, but also the right thing for so many families and children across the country.

Let’s get the biggest crowd possible outside court on Tuesday to show our strength of feeling. 

Whether you’re there in person or in spirit, we thank you for all your solidarity. Your support over these last few years has brought us all closer than ever to making this change possible. 

Thank you again for your support.

Warm wishes, 

Rebecca and Charles

#equalcivilpartnerships petition hand-in

Yesterday was a wonderful day for the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign: We handed in our more than 70,000-strong Change.org petition to the Minister for Women and Equalities, the Rt Hon Justine Greening MP. 

We were joined outside the Department for Education by supporters from across the political spectrum, including the Rt Hon Tim Loughton MP (Con) and Baronesses Lorely Burt (Lib Dem) and Liz Barker (Lib Dem). With us in spirit was our fabulous constituency MP Andy Slaughter (Lab), who has supported our efforts since the outset. 

There are over 3 million cohabiting couples with 1.9 million dependent children in the UK. These families urgently need access to the legal and financial safety net that civil partnerships can offer. It is simple for the Government to extend civil partnerships to all in order to protect those families - just remove the words limiting civil partnerships to couples "of the same sex" from the Civil Partnership Act 2004. 

We've shown that opening civil partnerships to both same-sex and mixed-sex couples is popular, fair and good for families. 

Now, let's hope the Minister for Women and Equalities lives up to the promise of her office, and does the right and simple thing - opens civil partnerships to all. 

Upcoming talk at UCL - 'Genital alteration and gender equality: the future of policy' - Wednesday 23rd November

At UCL next week, I will present my research on gender and genital alteration. My talk is entitled 'Genital alteration and gender equality: the future of policy.' It is part of the Institute of Advanced Studies' Gender and Feminism Network's seminar series. 

In the talk, I will critique contrasting global policies toward female and male genital alteration. These policies focus on eliminating female genital mutilation, or FGM, while tolerating or even encouraging male circumcision. 

I will explain that, on the surface, this seems unproblematic: Within global health and human rights circles, FGM is almost universally regarded as a barbaric manifestation of the patriarchal drive to control female sexuality, whereas male circumcision is seen as benign. 

Yet, I will point to the mounting empirical evidence and ethical critique that calls into question these contrasting perceptions and policies.

I will argue that maintaining policies premised on sex-based distinctions seems unsustainable and incompatible with gender equality. Instead, I will suggest that meaningful age-based distinctions between those unable (children) and able (adults) to give informed consent could constitute better policy. 

I will evaluate the merits of permissive and restrictive approaches to female and male genital alteration, assessing the advantages of specific policies. In so doing, I will argue for gender equality in genital alteration policies.

My talk stems from a wonderful collaborative partnership with my brilliant bioethicist friend and colleague, Brian Earp. We spent last summer conducting research at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva on a project entitled 'The Science, Politics, and Ethics of Male Circumcision: An Interdisciplinary Take on an Emerging Global Controversy.'

---

Event details:

Date: Wednesday 23rd November
Time: 4:30-6:00 PM 

Location: IAS Seminar Room 19, First Floor, South Wing, Wilkins Building

For more information, see the Institute of Advanced Studies' event page here.

Join us ON THURSDAY at the Department for Education to hand in our petition

Over 71,000 people have signed my partner Charles Keidan's and my Change.org petition to open civil partnerships to all. Now it’s time to hand it in to the Minister for Women and Equalities, Justine Greening MP, to show her that opening civil partnerships to all is popular, fair and good for families. 

Join us this Thursday 17th November at 10:00am outside the Department for Education (20 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BT). Our wonderful MP Andy Slaughter will be there, together with reporters from the national press, who would love to speak to you about your own reasons for seeking a civil partnership. 

If you can’t be there, please show your support by tweeting @JustineGreening on Thursday to demand #equalcivilpartnerships 

If possible, please also donate so that we can continue putting pressure on the Government to extend civil partnerships: https://www.gofundme.com/ecpcampaigns 

Update on the court case

The Court of Appeal judges clearly recognised the importance of this issue. Sadly, the Government remained intransigent. Now we await judgement. 

Thank you to everyone who joined us outside court – it meant so much to us. Our fearsome, all-female legal team did a stellar job! Thank you to Sarah Hannett, a brilliant rising star of equality law at Matrix Chambers, to Karon Monaghan for her incredible stamina over the two-day hearing, and to our dedicated solicitor Louise Whitfield, of Deighton Pierce Glynn. 

We will let you know the result as soon as we can. 

In the meantime, let’s celebrate the ground we’ve covered: over 71,000 signatures, backing from MPs across the political spectrum, civil partnerships on the Isle of Man, and more than £40,000 raised in crowdfunding. The wind is in our sails… 

Please help us to keep up the pressure. 

Thank you all so much,

Rebecca and Charles

For regular updates, please:
- Like our Facebook page
- Follow us on Twitter @EqualCPs
- Check out our website 

Tomorrow is our BIG day

No, my partner Charlie and I are not getting married!!!

Instead, this time tomorrow, we’ll be at the Court of Appeal making the case for civil partnerships for all.

We could not have come this far without our wonderful supporters: over 70,000 people have signed our Change.org petition! Thanks to their commitment and personal stories of why they want a civil partnership, the press, policymakers and the public now appreciate the importance of this issue. 

They understand that there are over 3 million cohabiting couples with 1.9 million dependent children. They realise that these families urgently need access to the legal and financial safety net that civil partnerships can offer. They recognise how simple it is for the Government to extend civil partnerships to all in order to protect those families. 

We need to repeat that message until the law is changed. If you support our efforts, please help us by doing these things NOW:

1. Join us outside Court tomorrow. Details: 9am, Wednesday 2nd November, The Royal Courts of Justice on The Strand, London WC2A 2LL. 

2. Please donate to our campaign fund so we can continue to push for #equalcivilpartnerships until this change is made: https://www.gofundme.com/ECPcampaigns

3. Tweet us and we’ll retweet you! Tweet your reasons for supporting #equalcivilpartnerships and/or wanting a civil partnership yourself to @EqualCPs. We’ll share your tweet with our followers. 

4. Please ask your MP to add their name to an Early Day Motion that was tabled in Parliament yesterday. You can ask your MP to support civil partnerships with just a few clicks via this link: http://fast-plains-92257.herokuapp.com/campaigns/equal-civil-partnerships-edm 

Thank you all so much,

Rebecca and Charles

Join us at Court!

It may be getting colder outside but things here at the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign are hotting up. In less than a month, my partner Charles Keidan and I take our case to the Court of Appeal! 

We would be honoured if you could join us outside the Court of Appeal in London as the hearing begins on Wednesday 2nd November. Let’s celebrate our shared cause together and show judges and policymakers alike how much this means to us all. 

We’ll be gathering outside the court at 9.00am for breakfast and photos, complete with lots of giant cut-out hearts! You can sign up here or just turn up on the day. The press may ask to interview couples who want a civil partnership, so if that’s you and you’re happy to be interviewed, please drop us a line: hello@equalcivilpartnerships.org.uk 

Date: Wednesday 2nd November
Time: 9am
Place: Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, London

We want to make the day as colourful as we can so we’re going to be putting our art skills to the test by creating lots of large cut-out hearts for the occasion. Please join us for that if you can on Tuesday 18th October - otherwise make your own at home and bring them along. Sign up here. 

Positive Progress 

There’s been lots of positive progress over the last few months. The Isle of Man has introduced same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnerships, showing how easy and possible it is to attain full relationship equality. Why can’t England and Wales be next? 

The number of MPs and other prominent people backing our cause has also continued to grow. MPs from all parties are calling for civil partnerships to be open to all. So too are public figures, like the writer Owen Jones, as well as organisations including Liberty and TUC Women. 

Every ounce of pressure counts. That’s why we would dearly like to see your show of support during our hearing. 

It’s only with all your support that we’ve come this far - and that we’ll be able to go further. 

Thank you all and warm wishes from all of us here at the campaign, 

Rebecca and Charles 

@beccasteinfeld & @charleskeidan

#equalcivilpartnerships #equallove 

PS - If you haven't already done so, please consider donating to the campaign via this link https://www.gofundme.com/ECPcampaigns

My talk on 'Genital Alteration: Towards More Empirical, Ethical and Effective Policies' at Keele University, 14 September

I am looking forward to sharing my research on policies towards female and male genital alteration at the 14th International Symposium on Genital Autonomy at Keele University on 14 September 2016.

As I explain in my abstract, global and Western states’ policies toward genital alteration tend to focus on eliminating female genital mutilation, or FGM, while tolerating or even encouraging male circumcision. On the surface, this seems unproblematic: Within global health and human rights circles, FGM is almost universally regarded as bad and barbaric – as a savage and severely harmful manifestation of the patriarchal drive to control female sexuality – whereas male circumcision is seen as benign or even beneficial. Yet mounting empirical evidence and ethical critique calls into question these contrasting perceptions, and, in turn, the divergent policies they underpin. In this paper, I argue that maintaining policies premised on sex-based distinctions seems unsustainable, as well as incompatible with gender equality. Instead, I suggest that meaningful age-based distinctions between those unable (children) and able (adults) to give informed consent could constitute more empirical, ethical and effective policies. I evaluate the merits and demerits of both permissive and restrictive approaches to female and male genital alteration, and assess the advantages and disadvantages of some specific alternative policies.

My talk stems from a wonderful collaborative partnership with my brilliant bioethicist friend and colleague, Brian Earp. Together, we have spent the summer conducting research at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva on a project entitled "The Science, Politics, and Ethics of Male Circumcision: An Interdisciplinary Take on an Emerging Global Controversy."

For more information about my talk, see here. 

For more information about the symposium and its programme, see here.

For more information about Brian Earp's and my research together, see here. 

Presentation on 'Gender in Israel' at Brandeis University's Summer Institute for Israel Studies

It was both a pleasure and a privilege to present my ideas for teaching about 'Gender in Israel' to the fellows of the 2016 Summer Institute for Israel Studies at Brandeis University.

As I explained in my talk, research on gender in Israel emanates from multiple disciplines and addresses numerous contested questions. These include:

• The extent to which kibbutzim have lived up to their egalitarian promise
• The impact of the military on gender roles and relations 
• The effect of religious beliefs and institutions on ideas about and practices relating to gender
• How gender has intersected with socio-economic class, ethnicity, race and religion in Israel
• The historical roots and contemporary sources of Israeli pro-natalism, or encouragement of childbirth
• The factors offsetting Israel's pro-natalism
• The implications of Israel's pro-natalism for women's reproductive health and rights

If you would like to read my syllabus, which includes an overview of the scholarship both on gender and on reproduction in Israel, together with my recommended readings, please click here. 

Thank you to the director of the Schusterman Centre for Israel Studies at Brandeis, David Ellenson, and to the associate director, Rachel Fish, for not only inviting me to present, but also giving me such a warm welcome. Thanks also to Anina Selve, Rise Singer and Abby Huber for all of their hard work in helping and supporting me in myriad ways.