Sex in Limbo: Noninvasive Prenatal Testing and the (Un)Making of Sex Chromosome Variations.

IF 1.2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Shana Riethof
{"title":"Sex in Limbo: Noninvasive Prenatal Testing and the (Un)Making of Sex Chromosome Variations.","authors":"Shana Riethof","doi":"10.1007/s10912-025-09939-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2017, Belgium became the first European country to offer full access to noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for all pregnant individuals. NIPT is commonly used to screen for aneuploidies like Down syndrome and assess fetal sex. One consequence of genome-wide NIPT is the potential to detect sex chromosome variations (SCVs), whose inclusion in the NIPT panel remains debated. This paper examines the moral ambivalence surrounding the prenatal detection of SCVs in light of the ongoing medicalization of intersex bodies. Combining humanities and ethnography, I explore how two techniques have made SCVs visible to the scientific community. I contrast NIPT with the Barr body, a sex testing method developed in the 1950s. I ask, what are the social and material consequences of each mode of making sex visible? In turn, how does it inform the debate on including SCVs in prenatal screening? First, I show how SCVs have been historically framed as medical conditions, disconnected from intersex concerns. Drawing on fieldwork on NIPT in Belgium, I highlight how the framing of SCVs as pathological categories is underpinned by epistemic uncertainties related to the role of vision in scientific practice. I argue that contemporary genetics' approach to SCVs reflects a continuation of the gender binary framework, wherein SCVs are treated as medical conditions rather than as evidence that sex, like gender, is socially mediated. Ultimately, I suggest that integrating an intersex perspective into the conversation about SCVs could offer an alternative to the medicalization of sex differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":45518,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Humanities","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-025-09939-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2017, Belgium became the first European country to offer full access to noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for all pregnant individuals. NIPT is commonly used to screen for aneuploidies like Down syndrome and assess fetal sex. One consequence of genome-wide NIPT is the potential to detect sex chromosome variations (SCVs), whose inclusion in the NIPT panel remains debated. This paper examines the moral ambivalence surrounding the prenatal detection of SCVs in light of the ongoing medicalization of intersex bodies. Combining humanities and ethnography, I explore how two techniques have made SCVs visible to the scientific community. I contrast NIPT with the Barr body, a sex testing method developed in the 1950s. I ask, what are the social and material consequences of each mode of making sex visible? In turn, how does it inform the debate on including SCVs in prenatal screening? First, I show how SCVs have been historically framed as medical conditions, disconnected from intersex concerns. Drawing on fieldwork on NIPT in Belgium, I highlight how the framing of SCVs as pathological categories is underpinned by epistemic uncertainties related to the role of vision in scientific practice. I argue that contemporary genetics' approach to SCVs reflects a continuation of the gender binary framework, wherein SCVs are treated as medical conditions rather than as evidence that sex, like gender, is socially mediated. Ultimately, I suggest that integrating an intersex perspective into the conversation about SCVs could offer an alternative to the medicalization of sex differences.

2017 年,比利时成为第一个向所有孕妇全面提供无创产前检测(NIPT)的欧洲国家。NIPT通常用于筛查唐氏综合征等非整倍体,并评估胎儿性别。全基因组 NIPT 的结果之一是有可能检测到性染色体变异(SCV),但将其纳入 NIPT 面板仍存在争议。本文从双性人医学化的角度,探讨了围绕产前检测性染色体变异所产生的道德矛盾。结合人文学科和人种学,我探讨了两种技术是如何让科学界看到 SCV 的。我将 NIPT 与 20 世纪 50 年代开发的一种性别检测方法--巴尔体进行了对比。我要问的是,每一种使性别可见的模式都会带来哪些社会和物质后果?反过来,它对将 SCV 纳入产前筛查的辩论有何启发?首先,我将展示在历史上 SCV 是如何被定格为与双性关注脱节的医疗状况的。通过对比利时 NIPT 的实地调查,我强调了将 SCV 定义为病理类别是如何受到与视觉在科学实践中的作用有关的认识论不确定性的支撑的。我认为,当代遗传学处理 SCV 的方法反映了性别二元框架的延续,其中 SCV 被视为医疗条件,而不是性别与性别一样是社会中介的证据。最后,我建议将雌雄同体的观点纳入有关 SCV 的讨论中,从而为性别差异的医学化提供一个替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Humanities
Journal of Medical Humanities HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Humanities publishes original papers that reflect its enlarged focus on interdisciplinary inquiry in medicine and medical education. Such inquiry can emerge in the following ways: (1) from the medical humanities, which includes literature, history, philosophy, and bioethics as well as those areas of the social and behavioral sciences that have strong humanistic traditions; (2) from cultural studies, a multidisciplinary activity involving the humanities; women''s, African-American, and other critical studies; media studies and popular culture; and sociology and anthropology, which can be used to examine medical institutions, practice and education with a special focus on relations of power; and (3) from pedagogical perspectives that elucidate what and how knowledge is made and valued in medicine, how that knowledge is expressed and transmitted, and the ideological basis of medical education.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信