by David Balashinsky
I am proud to have marched in Washington, D.C. on January 21st, 2017. It's a good feeling to know that one has been not only a witness to but a participant in history. And how could I do otherwise? The sexual predator and liar-in-chief who has just been sworn in as the nation's 45th president has not only boasted about sexually assaulting numerous women and not only makes a habit of denigrating women and grading them on their looks but, against this background of casual and aggressive sexism and misogyny, has stated his intent to nominate for the SCOTUS only candidates committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, returning women to the days of wire-hanger abortions in seedy motels. I believe that abortion rights are central to human rights because nothing is more important to one's ability to determine her or his own destiny than control and ownership of one's own body. That's why I protested last Saturday.
But I would also like to argue another closely related point here and, in so doing, issue a public challenge to my fellow feminists. While I remain committed to the idea that bodily autonomy is the quintessentially feminist position, I remain equally committed to the idea that bodily autonomy does not belong to women alone. It's time for feminists to stand up on behalf of boys, men, and intersex children for the same right of genital autonomy and bodily self ownership that they rightfully claim for girls and women. It is time for feminists to embrace the cause of ending non-consensual and non-therapeutic genital surgery of infant boys and intersex infants.
Why? Because, as Jeannine Parvati Baker has pointed out, "Circumcision is where sex and violence meet for the first time." Because routine infant circumcision is medically unnecessary, harmful, painful, and poses numerous risks of complications including death. Because non-therapeutic circumcision is performed overwhelmingly for reasons of custom, cosmesis, or religion and none of these reasons is of sufficient merit to warrant depriving the individual himself of the right to bodily self-ownership. Because, from an ethical and moral perspective, non-therapeutic circumcision is no different from female genital mutilation. (Infant circumcision was popularized in the United States and Great Britain during the Victorian era as a way to discourage boys from masturbating. It is every bit as anti-sex and as contrary to contemporary notions of personal self-determination as FGM.) Because routine infant circumcision is increasingly being recognized by professional medical organizations around the world as unethical and as a human rights violation. Because every child, regardless of sex, including intersex, has an innate right to grow up with all of her or his body parts intact and to decide for herself or himself, when mature enough to do so, which parts s/he gets to keep and which parts get amputated. Because non-therapeutic female genital cutting has been illegal in the United States since 1996 and boys and intersex infants have the same right to be protected against medically-unnecessary genital surgery as girls. Because feminism is not only about bodily rights, bodily autonomy and self-determination but about equality, too. Genital-alteration surgery when not medically necessary (and it virtually never is) is inconsistent with everything that feminism stands for.
One of the themes that emerged both during the planning stages of the Women's March on Washington and during the demonstration itself was the principle of "intersectionality," the idea that a person may face discrimination in more than one way on account of different aspects of what she or he is. For example, though both an African-American woman and a woman of Celtic ancestry may have to contend with sexism, the African-American woman also has to contend with racism. An intersectionality-oriented approach to feminism is based on the recognition of these multiple ways in which a person can face discrimination. This approach is often contrasted with (and emerged as a critique of) a monolithic (if perhaps a pragmatic and compromising) approach to feminism in which the claims of racial or other minorities have been given short shrift or expected to be subsumed within the larger claims of feminists on behalf of women broadly.
One of the themes that emerged both during the planning stages of the Women's March on Washington and during the demonstration itself was the principle of "intersectionality," the idea that a person may face discrimination in more than one way on account of different aspects of what she or he is. For example, though both an African-American woman and a woman of Celtic ancestry may have to contend with sexism, the African-American woman also has to contend with racism. An intersectionality-oriented approach to feminism is based on the recognition of these multiple ways in which a person can face discrimination. This approach is often contrasted with (and emerged as a critique of) a monolithic (if perhaps a pragmatic and compromising) approach to feminism in which the claims of racial or other minorities have been given short shrift or expected to be subsumed within the larger claims of feminists on behalf of women broadly.
It is no secret that these sometimes contentious and differing approaches have led to some tension within the feminist movement and, as has been widely reported, even threatened to undermine the unity and turnout of the Women's March on Washington last weekend. I am not arguing here for any additional fracturing of feminism nor for any dilution of the feminist message. I am also sensitive to the vigilance of women feminists against male whataboutism and against the tendency of some men in some quarters to hijack women's issues and make everything always about men. I acknowledge that arguing for an end to male genital cutting on the basis of the feminist principle of respect for the bodily rights of the individual may subject me to accusations that that is what I am doing, particularly because I am making this argument in the context of the Women's March.
I am willing to take that risk because I remain more convinced than ever, after marching last Saturday, that the issue of bodily integrity not only has a rightful place under the rubric of feminism but that to abstract it from feminism makes no sense philosophically or strategically. Every feminist has an interest in creating a society that respects the borders of every human body, no matter what that body looks like or how it is configured.
These thoughts crystallized for me last Saturday in Washington, D.C. as I stood taking in the many protest signs that were on display. Three in particular forcefully drove home to me the way in which bodily integrity for all is a feminist issue.
One sign, held by a 30ish man read, "I want my daughters and sons to be treated equally." This is as compelling a statement against denying boys equality with respect to genital autonomy and integrity as it is against denying girls equality with respect to education, sports and every other opportunity that boys enjoy.
Another sign contained a quote by Audre Lorde: "There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives." This, to me, epitomizes the importance of the intersectionality-oriented approach to feminism. But it also epitomizes an essential feature of feminism. Namely, that feminism is not just about equal pay for women, freedom from sexual violence and harassment. It is about many things, including LGBTQ+ rights, deconstructing gender roles, ending human trafficking, opposing racism, environmental justice, and many other important issues, besides. But, on the most fundamental level, feminism is about autonomy: autonomy of the body and autonomy of the self. Non-therapeutic infant circumcision violates these principles and this, too, is why this issue belongs under the rubric of feminism.
At the same time, precisely because of the principle of intersectionality, there is room for it there. Patriarchy, after all, does not only harm women; it harms children of all sexes and genders, too. Male genital cutting and the binary-normative sexual-assignment surgery to which intersex children are routinely subjected are both cases in point.
Still another sign that I saw contained the great line (attributed to various authors, including Sartre, King Jr., and Maya Angleou), "No one is free unless everyone is free." Here again is an articulation of the universality of the feminist principles of justice and equal opportunity irrespective of sex or gender. And, just as feminism has never been about benefiting women at the expense of men's rights (fundamental human rights, as we so often point out, are not like a pie, where a fair share for all means less for anyone else), so feminism must recognize that the right to bodily autonomy belongs as much to people with penises and to intersex individuals as it does to people with vulvas.
I am willing to take that risk because I remain more convinced than ever, after marching last Saturday, that the issue of bodily integrity not only has a rightful place under the rubric of feminism but that to abstract it from feminism makes no sense philosophically or strategically. Every feminist has an interest in creating a society that respects the borders of every human body, no matter what that body looks like or how it is configured.
These thoughts crystallized for me last Saturday in Washington, D.C. as I stood taking in the many protest signs that were on display. Three in particular forcefully drove home to me the way in which bodily integrity for all is a feminist issue.
One sign, held by a 30ish man read, "I want my daughters and sons to be treated equally." This is as compelling a statement against denying boys equality with respect to genital autonomy and integrity as it is against denying girls equality with respect to education, sports and every other opportunity that boys enjoy.
Another sign contained a quote by Audre Lorde: "There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives." This, to me, epitomizes the importance of the intersectionality-oriented approach to feminism. But it also epitomizes an essential feature of feminism. Namely, that feminism is not just about equal pay for women, freedom from sexual violence and harassment. It is about many things, including LGBTQ+ rights, deconstructing gender roles, ending human trafficking, opposing racism, environmental justice, and many other important issues, besides. But, on the most fundamental level, feminism is about autonomy: autonomy of the body and autonomy of the self. Non-therapeutic infant circumcision violates these principles and this, too, is why this issue belongs under the rubric of feminism.
At the same time, precisely because of the principle of intersectionality, there is room for it there. Patriarchy, after all, does not only harm women; it harms children of all sexes and genders, too. Male genital cutting and the binary-normative sexual-assignment surgery to which intersex children are routinely subjected are both cases in point.
Still another sign that I saw contained the great line (attributed to various authors, including Sartre, King Jr., and Maya Angleou), "No one is free unless everyone is free." Here again is an articulation of the universality of the feminist principles of justice and equal opportunity irrespective of sex or gender. And, just as feminism has never been about benefiting women at the expense of men's rights (fundamental human rights, as we so often point out, are not like a pie, where a fair share for all means less for anyone else), so feminism must recognize that the right to bodily autonomy belongs as much to people with penises and to intersex individuals as it does to people with vulvas.
I am proud to have taken to the streets to defend women's rights to own and control their own bodies. I've done so before this past Saturday and I will do so again. But now I call upon all feminists to stand up in the same way on behalf of the right of boys, men, and intersex infants to own and control their own bodies. It's time for all feminists and all progressives and anyone who cares about human rights to resolutely condemn the unnecessary alteration of any child's genitals.
Growing up with one's body whole and intact is a basic human right. Recognizing and acknowledging that right as belonging to all of us by virtue of our common humanity is demanded by the principles of justice and equality. What could be more feminist than that?
* * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment