Intersex激进主义、医疗力量/知识与联合国的规模局限性

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Fae Garland, K. Lalor, Mitchell Travis
{"title":"Intersex激进主义、医疗力量/知识与联合国的规模局限性","authors":"Fae Garland, K. Lalor, Mitchell Travis","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngac020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article considers the extent to which human rights mechanisms can ameliorate intersex rights at a sub-national, or medico-local, level. It engages with both intersex activism and the academy where the United Nations (UN) has become understood as a key mechanism through which to challenge day-to-day practices of healthcare practitioners and bring an end to nontherapeutic surgical and hormonal interventions on intersex infants and children. Using the UK as an example, this article examines how and why the UN’s engagement with intersex has had little effect on the medical regulation of intersex people. To do so, the article draws on legal geography to examine how scale prevents the UN from having a clear and lasting impact on domestic issues – particularly those in healthcare settings. The different ways in which intersex bodies are recognised and regulated at different scales, coupled with the UN’s inability to form dialogue with the institutions of the state, such as the healthcare profession, are problematic barriers to challenge practice at the medico-local scale.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intersex Activism, Medical Power/Knowledge and the Scalar Limitations of the United Nations\",\"authors\":\"Fae Garland, K. Lalor, Mitchell Travis\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/hrlr/ngac020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article considers the extent to which human rights mechanisms can ameliorate intersex rights at a sub-national, or medico-local, level. It engages with both intersex activism and the academy where the United Nations (UN) has become understood as a key mechanism through which to challenge day-to-day practices of healthcare practitioners and bring an end to nontherapeutic surgical and hormonal interventions on intersex infants and children. Using the UK as an example, this article examines how and why the UN’s engagement with intersex has had little effect on the medical regulation of intersex people. To do so, the article draws on legal geography to examine how scale prevents the UN from having a clear and lasting impact on domestic issues – particularly those in healthcare settings. The different ways in which intersex bodies are recognised and regulated at different scales, coupled with the UN’s inability to form dialogue with the institutions of the state, such as the healthcare profession, are problematic barriers to challenge practice at the medico-local scale.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46556,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Rights Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngac020\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngac020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文考虑了人权机制在何种程度上可以在次国家或医疗-地方层面改善双性人权利。它与双性人行动主义和学院合作,联合国(UN)已被理解为一个关键机制,通过该机制挑战医疗保健从业人员的日常做法,并结束对双性人婴儿和儿童的非治疗性手术和激素干预。以英国为例,本文探讨了联合国与双性人的接触如何以及为什么对双性人的医疗监管几乎没有影响。为此,本文利用法律地理学来研究规模如何阻碍联合国对国内问题——特别是医疗保健领域的问题——产生明确和持久的影响。阴阳人的身体在不同层面上被认可和监管的方式不同,再加上联合国无法与国家机构(如医疗保健专业机构)形成对话,这些都是挑战医疗地方层面实践的问题障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intersex Activism, Medical Power/Knowledge and the Scalar Limitations of the United Nations
This article considers the extent to which human rights mechanisms can ameliorate intersex rights at a sub-national, or medico-local, level. It engages with both intersex activism and the academy where the United Nations (UN) has become understood as a key mechanism through which to challenge day-to-day practices of healthcare practitioners and bring an end to nontherapeutic surgical and hormonal interventions on intersex infants and children. Using the UK as an example, this article examines how and why the UN’s engagement with intersex has had little effect on the medical regulation of intersex people. To do so, the article draws on legal geography to examine how scale prevents the UN from having a clear and lasting impact on domestic issues – particularly those in healthcare settings. The different ways in which intersex bodies are recognised and regulated at different scales, coupled with the UN’s inability to form dialogue with the institutions of the state, such as the healthcare profession, are problematic barriers to challenge practice at the medico-local scale.
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
2.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Launched in 2001, Human Rights Law Review seeks to promote awareness, knowledge, and discussion on matters of human rights law and policy. While academic in focus, the Review is also of interest to the wider human rights community, including those in governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental spheres, concerned with law, policy, and fieldwork. The Review publishes critical articles that consider human rights in their various contexts, from global to national levels, book reviews, and a section dedicated to analysis of recent jurisprudence and practice of the UN and regional human rights systems.
×
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