This article aims to analyse a possible manner of approaching the birth of intersexual children. We start out by summing up what intersexuality is and how it is faced in the dominant clinical practice. We then argue against this paradigm, in favour of a postponement of genital surgery. In the second part of this paper, we take into consideration the general question of whether only two existing sexes are to be recognized, arguing in favour of an expansion of sex categories. (...) In the third part, we illustrate the reasons supporting provisional sex attribution: the child’s best interest and respect for their developing moral autonomy. This position aims to increase the child’s well-being and self-determination, limiting parents’ freedom to take decisions on behalf of others, in particular, those decisions concerning basic aspects of their children’s personal identity. (shrink)

In a series of essays and letters published in 2010, commentators in bioethics debated the ethics of two interventions that aim to prevent or treat a symptom of a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which can cause “virilization” in affected baby girls—the development of atypical, sometimes masculine‐appearing, genitals. Surgeries are often performed to try to “normalize” both the appearance and the function of affected girls’ genitals, and a drug thought to prevent virilization is sometimes prescribed to pregnant women who (...) are likeliest to be carrying an affected fetus. The CAH debates suggest that there is profound disagreement in the field about whether preventing or treating virilization is an appropriate goal of medicine—or, indeed, parenting. Of course, that disagreement has its roots in ongoing debates about how to understand and react to a range of anatomical and behavioral differences, from short stature to deafness to hyperactivity, as well as ongoing debates about the limits of autonomy—in this case, parental autonomy, which is all the more complex. These issues are at the heart of bioethics. Yet it can be very difficult for us to talk and write respectfully and clearly about them. Here, I recount the debates, show how they lost focus, and attempt to explain why the question about how parents and physicians should respond to atypical genitalia in children is so important and difficult. I argue that it is not a question that should be answered based on a single principle or philosophical commitment. No one principle can do all of the work. For each individual or family that faces it, the question is shaped by details about particular interventions aimed at altering a particular difference and offered in a particular social and family context. Scholars in bioethics who hold an especially strong commitment to any one principle should advocate for their views, but they must also make room for and respect the kind of pragmatic, particularized decision‐making that parents sometimes engage in. (shrink)