In this peer commentary on Maura Priest's "Transgender Children and the Right to Transition: Medical Ethics When Parents Mean Well but Cause Harm", I argue against the "mismatch" model of trans identity. On this model, which is prevalent in institutional and medical contexts, to be trans is to have one's gender identity "mismatch" with one's sexed body.

Hymen reconstruction is a controversial measure performed to help young females under threat of honour-related violence. Official guidelines often reject offering hymen reconstructions. On the other hand, extraordinary measures in order to enable operations of Jehovah’s Witnesses who want a bloodless operation in order to avoid religiously related sanctions are often considered praiseworthy. The aim is thus to examine whether or not there are relevant differences between these two measures.

The WHO, American Academy of Pediatrics and other Western medical bodies currently maintain that all medically unnecessary female genital cutting of minors is categorically a human rights violation, while either tolerating or actively endorsing medically unnecessary male genital cutting of minors, especially in the form of penile circumcision. Given that some forms of female genital cutting, such as ritual pricking or nicking of the clitoral hood, are less severe than penile circumcision, yet are often performed within the same families for (...) similar reasons, it may seem that there is an unjust double standard. Against this view, it is sometimes claimed that while female genital cutting has ‘no health benefits’, male genital cutting has at least some. Is that really the case? And if it is the case, can it justify the disparate treatment of children with different sex characteristics when it comes to protecting their genital integrity? I argue that, even if one accepts the health claims that are sometimes raised in this context, they cannot justify such disparate treatment. Rather, children of all sexes and genders have an equal right to bodily autonomy. This includes the right to decide whether their own ‘private’ anatomy should be exposed to surgical risk, much less permanently altered, for reasons they themselves endorse when they are sufficiently mature. (shrink)

If there is a single thread running through this issue of the journal, it may be the complex interplay between the individual and the system of which they are apart, highlighting a need for systems thinking in medical ethics and public health.1 2 Such thinking raises at least three sorts of questions in this context: normative questions about the locus of moral responsibility for change when a system is unjust; practical questions about how to change systems in a way that (...) is morally appropriate without triggering unintended, potentially harmful side-effects; and epistemic questions about how to predict the multidimensional consequences of a proposed change or set of changes to an intricate social system such as healthcare.3 These questions crop up throughout the issue, as I will discuss, but my focus is the target article and linked commentaries on gender bias in the surgical profession. Hutchison conducted in-depth interviews with 46 Australian women surgeons and surgical trainees, taking care to avoid leading questions regarding gender bias or gendered mistreatment. Nevertheless, despite minimal prompting, at least four types of gender-related concerns were described by the surgeons,whether directly or indirectly: 1. structural bias in workplace factors, including insufficient parental leave for women, exclusion from men’s spaces where informal training may occur, and a dearth of senior female role models; 2. epistemic injustices including unfair doubting of women’s surgical competence or knowledge relative to men; 3. stereotyped expectations that women surgeons would or should shoulder the burden of medical carework, for example, by attending to patients’ emotional needs; and 4. objectification, both by colleagues and patients, including sexual innuendo, remarks about clothing, and even outright sexual assault. Each of these concerns is disturbing on its own, and yet they do not operate in isolation. Rather, they interact …. (shrink)

Our understanding of the neurochemical bases of human love and attachment, as well as of the genetic, epigenetic, hormonal, and experiential factors that conspire to shape an individual's sexual orientation, is increasing exponentially. This research raises the vexing possibility that we may one day be equipped to modify such variables directly, allowing for the creation of “high-tech” conversion therapies or other suspect interventions. In this article, we discuss the ethics surrounding such a possibility, and call for the development of legal (...) and procedural safeguards for protecting vulnerable children from the application of such technology. We also consider the more difficult case of voluntary, adult “conversion” and argue that in rare cases, such attempts might be permissible under strict conditions. (shrink)

Hymen construction and nontherapeutic male circumcision are medical nonindicated interventions that give rise to specific ethical concerns. In Europe, hymen construction is generally more contested among medical professionals than male circumcision. Yet, from a standard biomedical framework, guided by the principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, circumcision of boys is, as this article explains, more problematic than hymen construction. While there is a growing debate on the acceptability of infant circumcision, in the case of competent minors and adults the (...) surgery is not questioned. In the case of hymenoplasty, usually requested by a competent patient, it is recommended to only perform the operation after extensive counseling and if there are compelling conditions. The article further explores why attitudes of medical professionals toward both surgeries diverge and seeks to explain how this is largely informed by gendered and socio-cultural understandings. The arti... (shrink)