跨再生产:法律中的连续性、顺规范性和跨不平等

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1093/icon/moad055
A. Sørlie
{"title":"跨再生产:法律中的连续性、顺规范性和跨不平等","authors":"A. Sørlie","doi":"10.1093/icon/moad055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In recent years, increasing numbers of jurisdictions are abolishing sterilization requirements for legal gender recognition and are introducing self-declared change of legal gender. The abolition of this requirement leads to a change in the reproductive capacities of legal men and legal women, enabling legal men to become pregnant and to give birth, and legal women to beget children. The change in the reproductive capacities of the legal genders leads to biopolitical questions about how states do and should govern trans reproduction after decades of state-regulated sterilization. This article uses the situation in Norway to explore the regulation of trans reproduction and aims to explain why trans people’s reproductive rights are lesser than those of cis people. It first investigates the Norwegian regulation of medically assisted reproduction and how it applies to people who have changed their legal gender. It shows that trans people are excluded from accessing medically assisted reproduction because their legal gender does not fit the conceptions of reproduction and gender under the Norwegian Biotechnology Act. Second, the article explores why trans people’s reproductive rights are limited, and argues that the law is based on cis-normative assumptions about reproduction, pregnancy, and the desire to become pregnant. Such assumptions, it is argued, permeate the law and lead to discrimination against trans people. The Norwegian legislature has not given any reasons as to why trans people’s reproductive rights are limited. The article demonstrates that although the sterilization requirement for legal gender recognition is abolished, the law continues to concentrate on cis realities and to restrict trans people’s ability to form a family with children.","PeriodicalId":51599,"journal":{"name":"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trans reproduction: Continuity, cis-normativity, and trans inequality in law\",\"authors\":\"A. Sørlie\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/icon/moad055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In recent years, increasing numbers of jurisdictions are abolishing sterilization requirements for legal gender recognition and are introducing self-declared change of legal gender. The abolition of this requirement leads to a change in the reproductive capacities of legal men and legal women, enabling legal men to become pregnant and to give birth, and legal women to beget children. The change in the reproductive capacities of the legal genders leads to biopolitical questions about how states do and should govern trans reproduction after decades of state-regulated sterilization. This article uses the situation in Norway to explore the regulation of trans reproduction and aims to explain why trans people’s reproductive rights are lesser than those of cis people. It first investigates the Norwegian regulation of medically assisted reproduction and how it applies to people who have changed their legal gender. It shows that trans people are excluded from accessing medically assisted reproduction because their legal gender does not fit the conceptions of reproduction and gender under the Norwegian Biotechnology Act. Second, the article explores why trans people’s reproductive rights are limited, and argues that the law is based on cis-normative assumptions about reproduction, pregnancy, and the desire to become pregnant. Such assumptions, it is argued, permeate the law and lead to discrimination against trans people. The Norwegian legislature has not given any reasons as to why trans people’s reproductive rights are limited. The article demonstrates that although the sterilization requirement for legal gender recognition is abolished, the law continues to concentrate on cis realities and to restrict trans people’s ability to form a family with children.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moad055\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moad055","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,越来越多的司法管辖区正在废除法定性别承认的绝育要求,并开始自行宣布改变法定性别。这一要求的废除导致了合法男子和合法妇女的生殖能力的变化,使合法男子能够怀孕和生育,合法妇女能够生育。法定性别生育能力的变化引发了生物政治问题,即在几十年的国家管制绝育之后,国家应该如何管理跨性别生殖。这篇文章以挪威的情况来探讨对跨性别生殖的监管,旨在解释为什么跨性别者的生殖权利比顺性别者少。报告首先调查了挪威关于医疗辅助生殖的规定,以及该规定如何适用于改变了法定性别的人。报告显示,变性人被排除在医疗辅助生殖之外,因为他们的法定性别不符合《挪威生物技术法》中关于生殖和性别的概念。其次,文章探讨了为什么跨性别者的生殖权利受到限制,并认为该法律是基于对生殖、怀孕和怀孕愿望的顺式规范假设。有人认为,这种假设渗透到法律中,导致了对变性人的歧视。挪威立法机构没有给出任何理由,说明为什么变性人的生殖权利受到限制。文章表明,虽然法律上承认性别的绝育要求已被废除,但法律继续侧重于顺性现实,并限制跨性别者组建有子女的家庭的能力。
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
Trans reproduction: Continuity, cis-normativity, and trans inequality in law
In recent years, increasing numbers of jurisdictions are abolishing sterilization requirements for legal gender recognition and are introducing self-declared change of legal gender. The abolition of this requirement leads to a change in the reproductive capacities of legal men and legal women, enabling legal men to become pregnant and to give birth, and legal women to beget children. The change in the reproductive capacities of the legal genders leads to biopolitical questions about how states do and should govern trans reproduction after decades of state-regulated sterilization. This article uses the situation in Norway to explore the regulation of trans reproduction and aims to explain why trans people’s reproductive rights are lesser than those of cis people. It first investigates the Norwegian regulation of medically assisted reproduction and how it applies to people who have changed their legal gender. It shows that trans people are excluded from accessing medically assisted reproduction because their legal gender does not fit the conceptions of reproduction and gender under the Norwegian Biotechnology Act. Second, the article explores why trans people’s reproductive rights are limited, and argues that the law is based on cis-normative assumptions about reproduction, pregnancy, and the desire to become pregnant. Such assumptions, it is argued, permeate the law and lead to discrimination against trans people. The Norwegian legislature has not given any reasons as to why trans people’s reproductive rights are limited. The article demonstrates that although the sterilization requirement for legal gender recognition is abolished, the law continues to concentrate on cis realities and to restrict trans people’s ability to form a family with children.
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
2.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
67
期刊最新文献
Can the people exercise constituent power? Route 66: Mutations of the internal market explored through the prism of citation networks Parallel incorporation and public law Naming and (mis)informing in academic publications The political economy of effective judicial remedies
×
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