Search

People with innate variations of sex characteristics (also known as intersex traits or disorders or differences of sex development) have any of a wide range of innate physical traits that differ from medical and social norms for female and male bodies. Responses to these physical differences create experiences and risks of stigmatisation, discrimination, violence, and harmful medical practices intended to promote social and familial integration and conformity with gender stereotypes. As is evident globally, the Australian policy response to the existence and needs of people with innate variations of sex characteristics has been largely incoherent, variously framing the population as having disordered sex development in need of "fixing", and a third sex/gender identity group in need of recognition, with only recent engagement by intersex community-controlled civil society organisations. This paper presents an overview of the context and goals of the intersex human rights movement in Australia. Australian intersex community organisations have sought to apply human rights norms and develop new infrastructure to address key health and human rights issues, and necessitating new ways of resolving policy incoherence. Together with human rights, mental health, and public health institutions, they have called for significant changes to medical models of care and reform to research and classification systems. Intersex community organising and resourcing have made a tangible difference. The Australian Capital Territory is the first jurisdiction in the country to move ahead with reforms to clinical practice, including a legislative prohibition of certain practices without personal informed consent, oversight of clinical decision-making, and investment in psychosocial support. A national community-controlled psychosocial support service has also commenced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children with innate variations of sex characteristics (also termed differences of sex development or intersex traits) are routinely subjected to medical interventions that aim to make their bodies appear or function more typically female or male. Many such interventions lack clear evidence of benefit, they have been challenged for thirty years, and they are now understood to violate children's rights to bodily autonomy and bodily integrity. In this paper I argue that these persist in part due to epistemic injustices and biomedical authority. Epistemic injustices include limited disclosure of current practices, the systemic marginalisation of community voices and psychosocial professionals, and attempts to discredit or misrepresent testimony. Bioethics has largely failed to change medical practice, and sometimes plays a role in perpetuating epistemic injustices. I find that the development of an intersex movement provides opportunities for epistemic justice and liberation by engaging with other disciplines and promoting oversight of medical decision-making. The paper draws particularly on Australian sources, including internationally influential ethical principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2006 Yogyakarta Principles apply human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Created outside the UN system, their aim was to promote good practices in protecting the rights of LGBT and intersex people. They were ineffective in protecting the rights of intersex people, including due to an inappropriate framing around 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity'. In the same year, a group of clinicians published a 'consensus statement' reframing intersex traits as 'disorders of sex development', entrenching medical authority over intersex bodies. It was not until 2015 that the first country (Malta) sought to enact protections of rights to bodily integrity and physical autonomy and freedom from discrimination, associated with a new attribute of 'sex characteristics'. In 2017, an update to the Yogyakarta Principles known as the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10 incorporated the new attribute and recognised rights to bodily integrity, truth and legal recognition. These principles have direct relevance to the human rights situation of intersex people. This paper addresses reasons why the earlier Yogyakarta Principles were ineffective and presents the goals of the update process, inviting adoption of a new attribute of sex characteristics and new principles relevant to intersex populations, advocates and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]