人工子宫、冷冻胚胎和亲子关系:体外生殖会重新分配怀孕的性别责任吗?

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Feminist Legal Studies Pub Date : 2022-01-08 DOI:10.1007/s10691-021-09482-2
Horn, Claire
{"title":"人工子宫、冷冻胚胎和亲子关系:体外生殖会重新分配怀孕的性别责任吗?","authors":"Horn, Claire","doi":"10.1007/s10691-021-09482-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A growing body of scholarship argues that by disentangling gestation from the body, artificial wombs will alter the relationship between men, women, and fetuses such that reproduction is effectively ‘degendered’. Scholars have claimed that this purported ‘degendering’ of gestation will subsequently create greater equity between men and women. I argue that, contrary to the assumptions made in this literature, it is law, not biology, that acts as a primary barrier to the ‘degendering’ of gestation. With reference to contemporary case law involving disputes over frozen embryos, I demonstrate that though reproductive technologies have already made it possible for gendered progenitors to have an ‘equal’ say in gestation, law mires the possibilities of these technologies in traditional stories of gendered parenthood. Looking to the way binary assumptions about gender limit the self-determination of trans men and nonbinary and genderqueer people who are gestational parents, I argue the ‘degendering’ of gestation will come not with artificial wombs but with the end of limited legal paradigms for gendered gestational parenthood.</p>","PeriodicalId":45822,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Legal Studies","volume":"43 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Wombs, Frozen Embryos, and Parenthood: Will Ectogenesis Redistribute Gendered Responsibility for Gestation?\",\"authors\":\"Horn, Claire\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10691-021-09482-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A growing body of scholarship argues that by disentangling gestation from the body, artificial wombs will alter the relationship between men, women, and fetuses such that reproduction is effectively ‘degendered’. Scholars have claimed that this purported ‘degendering’ of gestation will subsequently create greater equity between men and women. I argue that, contrary to the assumptions made in this literature, it is law, not biology, that acts as a primary barrier to the ‘degendering’ of gestation. With reference to contemporary case law involving disputes over frozen embryos, I demonstrate that though reproductive technologies have already made it possible for gendered progenitors to have an ‘equal’ say in gestation, law mires the possibilities of these technologies in traditional stories of gendered parenthood. Looking to the way binary assumptions about gender limit the self-determination of trans men and nonbinary and genderqueer people who are gestational parents, I argue the ‘degendering’ of gestation will come not with artificial wombs but with the end of limited legal paradigms for gendered gestational parenthood.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Feminist Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"43 21\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Feminist Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-021-09482-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-021-09482-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

越来越多的学者认为,通过将妊娠与身体分离,人工子宫将改变男性、女性和胎儿之间的关系,从而使生殖有效地“去性别化”。学者们声称,这种所谓的怀孕“去性别化”将随后在男女之间创造更大的平等。我认为,与这些文献中的假设相反,是法律,而不是生物学,成为了妊娠“去性别化”的主要障碍。参考涉及冷冻胚胎纠纷的当代判例法,我证明,尽管生殖技术已经使性别祖先在妊娠中拥有“平等”的发言权成为可能,但法律在传统的性别父母故事中掩盖了这些技术的可能性。关于性别的二元假设限制了跨性别男性、非二元性别和性别酷儿的自我决定,我认为妊娠的“去性别化”不会随着人工子宫而到来,而是随着性别化妊娠父母的有限法律范式的终结而到来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Artificial Wombs, Frozen Embryos, and Parenthood: Will Ectogenesis Redistribute Gendered Responsibility for Gestation?

A growing body of scholarship argues that by disentangling gestation from the body, artificial wombs will alter the relationship between men, women, and fetuses such that reproduction is effectively ‘degendered’. Scholars have claimed that this purported ‘degendering’ of gestation will subsequently create greater equity between men and women. I argue that, contrary to the assumptions made in this literature, it is law, not biology, that acts as a primary barrier to the ‘degendering’ of gestation. With reference to contemporary case law involving disputes over frozen embryos, I demonstrate that though reproductive technologies have already made it possible for gendered progenitors to have an ‘equal’ say in gestation, law mires the possibilities of these technologies in traditional stories of gendered parenthood. Looking to the way binary assumptions about gender limit the self-determination of trans men and nonbinary and genderqueer people who are gestational parents, I argue the ‘degendering’ of gestation will come not with artificial wombs but with the end of limited legal paradigms for gendered gestational parenthood.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Feminist Legal Studies is committed to an internationalist perspective and to the promotion and advancement of feminist scholarship in all areas of law. It aims to publish critical, interdisciplinary, theoretically engaged feminist scholarship relating to law (broadly conceived) and has a particular interest in work that extends feminist debates and analysis by reference to critical and theoretical approaches and perspectives, including postcolonial, transnational and poststructuralist work.  Although the focus of the journal is law, the editorial board encourages the submission of papers from people working outside the academy, as well as academics other than lawyers as well as interdisciplinary work addressing the concerns not only of lawyers but others, women and men, interested in feminist work. The editorial board is a collective drawn from feminists working at leading law schools across the UK. A full list of the editorial board can found on the Journal’s website: http://www.springer.com/law/international/journal/10691?detailsPage=editorialBoardAlongside traditional articles and book reviews Feminist Legal Studies is committed to publishing material that challenges conventional forms of academic writing/knowledge and encourages creative approaches to scholarship, analysis and debate. Such material is normally published in our “Creative Content” section (see Instructions for Authors for more details). The board also welcomes proposals for themed issues of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Labour Law’s (Mis)Management of Menopausal Workers Those Lucky Enough to Transcend Gender: Travis Alabanza, Radical Transfeminism, and the Law Gender-Based Violence and Carceral Feminism in Australia: Towards Decarceral Approaches Separate But Equal: Is Segregated Schooling (Still) Good for Girls? The Art of Waiting Humbly: Women Judges Reflect on Vertical Gender Segregation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1