出生证明性别更正:针对跨性别者强制绝育的反复出现的敌意

J. Ostrowsky
{"title":"出生证明性别更正:针对跨性别者强制绝育的反复出现的敌意","authors":"J. Ostrowsky","doi":"10.5070/L3272051566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Author(s): Ostrowsky, Jon | Abstract: Nearly a century ago, the Supreme Court sanctioned compulsory sterilization in Buck v. Bell, echoing eugenicists and reasoning that “[i]t is better for all the world . . . [if] society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” In addition to this eugenics-based rationale, compulsory sterilization in the early twentieth century also sought to punish and stigmatize LGBTQ persons, who were called “sexual deviants.” Today, at least fourteen states and one territory continue to—in effect—involuntarily sterilize transgender individuals. In these states, transgender individuals must undergo sex-reassignment surgery before they can correct the gender on their birth certificates. This Article argues that like many of America’s early sterilization laws targeting LGBTQ individuals, today’s surgical requirement laws seek to advance three forms of animus that are separate from eugenics. First, these laws seek to deny transgenderism. Second, these laws seek to punish or stigmatize perceived deviance. Third, the laws impose a view of heteronormative sexual ethics, which seeks to define what sexual conduct is tolerable in society. As transgender rights advocates mount a new wave of legal challenges, they should challenge laws requiring surgery to change one’s gender on a government-issued birth certificate. Such laws violate the fundamental right of bodily autonomy to choose and refuse medical treatment because they are not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. Instead, surgical requirement laws advance animus against transgender persons. These laws also echo the historical animus against LGBTQ individuals that motivated compulsory sterilization during the Buck era in the early twentieth century. Thus, litigation challenging surgical requirement laws presents an opportunity for the Court to definitively overturn Buck.","PeriodicalId":83388,"journal":{"name":"UCLA women's law journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Birth Certificate Gender Corrections: The Recurring Animus of Compulsory Sterilization Targeting Transgender Individuals\",\"authors\":\"J. Ostrowsky\",\"doi\":\"10.5070/L3272051566\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Author(s): Ostrowsky, Jon | Abstract: Nearly a century ago, the Supreme Court sanctioned compulsory sterilization in Buck v. Bell, echoing eugenicists and reasoning that “[i]t is better for all the world . . . [if] society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” In addition to this eugenics-based rationale, compulsory sterilization in the early twentieth century also sought to punish and stigmatize LGBTQ persons, who were called “sexual deviants.” Today, at least fourteen states and one territory continue to—in effect—involuntarily sterilize transgender individuals. In these states, transgender individuals must undergo sex-reassignment surgery before they can correct the gender on their birth certificates. This Article argues that like many of America’s early sterilization laws targeting LGBTQ individuals, today’s surgical requirement laws seek to advance three forms of animus that are separate from eugenics. First, these laws seek to deny transgenderism. Second, these laws seek to punish or stigmatize perceived deviance. Third, the laws impose a view of heteronormative sexual ethics, which seeks to define what sexual conduct is tolerable in society. As transgender rights advocates mount a new wave of legal challenges, they should challenge laws requiring surgery to change one’s gender on a government-issued birth certificate. Such laws violate the fundamental right of bodily autonomy to choose and refuse medical treatment because they are not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. Instead, surgical requirement laws advance animus against transgender persons. These laws also echo the historical animus against LGBTQ individuals that motivated compulsory sterilization during the Buck era in the early twentieth century. Thus, litigation challenging surgical requirement laws presents an opportunity for the Court to definitively overturn Buck.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UCLA women's law journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UCLA women's law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5070/L3272051566\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UCLA women's law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/L3272051566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:近一个世纪前,美国最高法院在巴克诉贝尔案(Buck v. Bell)中批准了强制绝育,呼应了优生学家的观点,理由是“这对全世界都更好……”(如果)社会能够阻止那些明显不适合的人继续他们的行为。”除了这种基于优生学的理由之外,20世纪初的强制绝育也试图惩罚和污名化LGBTQ人群,他们被称为“性变态者”。今天,至少有14个州和一个地区继续——实际上——非自愿地对变性人进行绝育。在这些州,变性人必须先接受变性手术,才能修改出生证明上的性别。本文认为,就像美国许多针对LGBTQ个体的早期绝育法一样,今天的手术要求法试图推进三种与优生学不同的男性意向。首先,这些法律试图否认跨性别主义。其次,这些法律试图惩罚或污名化察觉到的越轨行为。第三,法律强加了一种异性恋规范的性伦理观,它试图定义社会上可以容忍的性行为。随着跨性别权利倡导者发起新一轮法律挑战,他们应该挑战要求通过手术改变政府签发的出生证明上性别的法律。这些法律违反了选择和拒绝医疗的身体自主权的基本权利,因为它们不是狭隘地针对令人信服的国家利益而制定的。相反,手术要求法助长了对变性人的敌意。这些法律也呼应了历史上对LGBTQ个人的敌意,这种敌意促使了20世纪初巴克时代的强制绝育。因此,诉讼挑战手术要求法提供了一个机会,为法院明确推翻巴克。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Birth Certificate Gender Corrections: The Recurring Animus of Compulsory Sterilization Targeting Transgender Individuals
Author(s): Ostrowsky, Jon | Abstract: Nearly a century ago, the Supreme Court sanctioned compulsory sterilization in Buck v. Bell, echoing eugenicists and reasoning that “[i]t is better for all the world . . . [if] society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” In addition to this eugenics-based rationale, compulsory sterilization in the early twentieth century also sought to punish and stigmatize LGBTQ persons, who were called “sexual deviants.” Today, at least fourteen states and one territory continue to—in effect—involuntarily sterilize transgender individuals. In these states, transgender individuals must undergo sex-reassignment surgery before they can correct the gender on their birth certificates. This Article argues that like many of America’s early sterilization laws targeting LGBTQ individuals, today’s surgical requirement laws seek to advance three forms of animus that are separate from eugenics. First, these laws seek to deny transgenderism. Second, these laws seek to punish or stigmatize perceived deviance. Third, the laws impose a view of heteronormative sexual ethics, which seeks to define what sexual conduct is tolerable in society. As transgender rights advocates mount a new wave of legal challenges, they should challenge laws requiring surgery to change one’s gender on a government-issued birth certificate. Such laws violate the fundamental right of bodily autonomy to choose and refuse medical treatment because they are not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. Instead, surgical requirement laws advance animus against transgender persons. These laws also echo the historical animus against LGBTQ individuals that motivated compulsory sterilization during the Buck era in the early twentieth century. Thus, litigation challenging surgical requirement laws presents an opportunity for the Court to definitively overturn Buck.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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