Author: StopIGM.org | Page 27

Geneva > France Questioned over Intersex Genital Mutilations by UN Committee on the Rights of the Child – Minister Stalls & Diverts

March 21, 2021January 27, 2016 by StopIGM.org

Bearing witness to IGM, 71st Session of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child:
Daniela Truffer (StopIGM.org), Vincent Guillot (France), Gavan Coleman (Ireland),
Markus Bauer (StopIGM.org, photo) at Palais des Nations, Geneva 12.01.2016

France is the first country coming up for review of IGM practices at the 71st session of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (to be followed by Ireland).

StopIGM.org reports live from the hearings in Geneva on Wednesday 13 January 15-18h CET + Thursday 14 January 10-13h CET (videos now available via treatybodywebcast.org), including Unofficial Translations (from French) of Intersex Q&As:

Session 1: Wednesday 13 January 2016

Wed 15:00h: The Session with Q&As on Intersex Genital Mutilations with the French Delegationis open and the live transmission is on.

Wed 15:28h Committee Member Jorge Cardona Llorens, one of the Country Co-Rapporteurs of the Committee for France (who already questioned Chile over IGM practices last year), asks the French Delegation questions on Intersex and IGM practices! YAY!!

«France has been at the vanguard in combatting certain harmful practices like female genital mutilation, and we must congratulate you for that, surely with keeping in mind not to throw in the towel but to ensure you have the means to continue the struggle. However, it is just because of this firm stand that I have to confess to be perplexed about circumstances that on could describe as encouraging surgical interventions on intersex children during the first months of their lives, despite that such interventions are medically unnecessary, but are done for cosmetic and social reasons, and seriously impinge on the bodily integrity of the children, mutilated boys and girls, they prevent their emotional and sexual development, and violate their right to identity. Could you tell me if you’re planning measures to modify these protocols and to ensure that the integrity of intersex children is respected?»

17:36h Jorge Cardona Llorens just reminded the French delegation that the answer on Intersex Genital Mutilations is still due.

After the session: This blog has learned that the French Delegation have not forgotten the question, but first will consult with Paris tonight. The Answer of France is expected for the second session tomorrow morning.

Session 2: Thursday 14 January 2016

Thu 10:00h: The Session with the French Delegation’s answers on Intersex Genital Mutilations is open and the live transmission is on.

Thu 10:13h: Madame la Ministre Laurence Rossignol, Head of the Delegation, Minister of State for the Family, Elderly People and Adult Care, attached to the Minister of Social Affairs, Health and Women’s Rights, answers the question regarding intersex children and “the respect of their physical integrity”. She says that it’s an extremely recent topic and that the State Party hasn’t yet explored the “psychological and medical questions” and nor decided which Ministry should take the lead. She diverts from IGM to the recent judgement in France concerning a neutral civil registration, and is generally playing for time – actually until the next CRC review of France, circa 2022:

«Thank you. This is a extremely recent issue, so we’re still assessing whether the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Justice should urgently tackle this difficulty of children which present a visibly ambiguous sex, that is a difficulty to determine the sex at birth according to the genitals. It’s an issue for which all persons concerned need to be involved, the intersex persons themselves, which should take a leading role, but also the doctors and associations responsible for the definition of the interests of the child. Hence, my answer answer may perhaps not entirely satisfy the persons who asked the questions. We have not yet fully explored the the psychological and medical questions that are put forward by this new issue, but there are several French members of parliament who are already extremely committed to this issue and who would like to contribute to a collective reflection. In addition, a judgement of a French court has recently recognised a neutral sex, and it understandably appears to the chancellery that this judgement deserves a debate in the highest judicial authorities and a collective reflection. Therefore, this is an issue regarding which we think that at the time of the next review of France we will have worked on that and particularly heard the voice of the persons concerned.»

Thu 10:14h: The Co-Rapporteur for France Jorge Cardona Llorens follows up at once and says there shouldn’t be a neutral civil status entry for intersex children, as this is a stigmatisation from the start. He suggests that the medical protocols have to be abrogated and reiterates that the parents aren’t properly informed, “that’s a fact”.

«Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning everybody. Well, I’m clearly hearing your announcements […]. Finally, this protocol [for registering births of intersex children] seems to address a let’s say a bit a peculiar vision, and the problem is that these children have a sex that is not yet clearly known, therefore to declare their sex to be neutral means to stigmatise the child from the start. And in this context I believe it’s mperative to introduce mechanisms that are a bit more flexible in this regard. Additionally, I suggest to abrogate the protocols calling for interventions, and foremost to properly inform the parents of these children, because information is painfully lacking, that’s a fact.»

Thu 10:14h: Madame la Ministre Laurence Rossignol, Head of the Delegation, Minister of State for the Family, Elderly People and Adult Care, attached to the Minister of Social Affairs, Health and Women’s Rights, reiterated that exactly such questions would first have to be made the subject of lengthy “debate and reflection” before anything could be done:

«[inaudible] is precisely indicative of the terms of the debate and reflection we must have on this issue.»

After the session: Vincent Guillot reports having beeen approached by a delegation official in person and via email regarding the overdue answer to a letter sent to the ministry months ago, with assurances that an answer should be expected soon.

My 2 cents: Yet more years of endless “debates” with doctors, and even more “collective reflection” on an ongoing lawsuit concerning civil registration of an adult person as a pet project for “extremely committed” politicians and magistrates still evaluating which Ministry would actually be responsible for the eternally “new” issue – while at the same time the daily mutilations in French children’s clinics are permitted to continue unhindered – how typical is that?!
Fortunately, the Committee doesn’t seem to fall for such stalling and diversionary tactics. So we’re once more expecting particularly strong “Concluding Observations” – for France due on 29 January. To be continued …

>>> UN-CRC sternly reprimands France and Ireland for IGM Practices!

>>> CRC 2015 Thematic Intersex NGO Report for France
>>> English UN Media Release on the Session, mentions intersex

Intersex Genital Mutilations in France: CRC NGO Report
Human Rights Violations Of Children With Variations Of Sex Anatomy
IGM – Most Common Forms • What is Intersex? • How Common are IGMs?
>>> Download (PDF 3.41 MB)

IGM on a Global Scale: 2015 UN-CRC Briefing
• IGM: A Survivor’s Perspective • Intersex Movement History
• What are Variations of Sex Anatomy? • What are IGM Practices?
• IGM and Human Rights • Conclusion: IGM is a Harmful Practice
>>> Download PDF (3.14 MB) >>> Table of Contents

Eliminating IGM practices by holding the perpetrators accountable via well-established applicable human rights frameworks, including Inhuman Treatment and Harmful Practices – Presentation @ UN expert meeting on Intersex Human Rights in Geneva 26.–27.10.2015
>>> Download PDF (831kb)

Geneva > Ireland Questioned over Intersex Genital Mutilations by UN Committee on the Rights of the Child – Minister Denies but Admits!

March 21, 2021January 26, 2016 by StopIGM.org

Bearing witness to IGM, 71st Session of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child:
Vincent Guillot (France), Daniela Truffer (StopIGM.org), Gavan Coleman (Ireland),
Markus Bauer (StopIGM.org, photo) at Palais des Nations, Geneva 13.01.2016

Ireland was the second country coming up for review of IGM practices at the 71st session of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (after France).

StopIGM.org reports live from the hearings in Geneva on Thursday 14 January 10-13h CET + Thursday 14 January 15-18h CET (videos now available via treatybodywebcast.org), including complete Unofficial Transcripts of Intersex Q&As:

Session 1: Thursday 14 January 2016, 10h

Thu 10:05h: The Session with Q&As on Intersex Genital Mutilations with the Irish Delegation is open, live transmission is on!

Thur 10:39h: Committee Member Gehad Madi, one of the Country Co-Rapporteurs of the Committee for Ireland, brings up Intersex Genital Mutilations and lack of measures to ensure physical and mental integrity, autonomy and self-determination for intersex children in Ireland! YAY!!

«We are also noting that there are discriminations against intersex children, including reports of Intersex Genital Mutilation, and the lack of appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures to insure the right of intersex children to physical and mental integrity, autonomy and self-determination.»

Thu 10:45h: Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Ireland, José Angel Rodríguez Reyes now asks questions about intersex and IGM, framing the medical treatment of intersex children as violence against children, and inquires about Ireland’s position. YAY!!

«I would also like to address the topic of intersex children. I’m addressing this point under this heading [violence against children] because, whilst this could be considered from a health standpoint, it would also be worth considering it from the point of view of violence against such children. And in particular I would like to know whether you exercise any form of oversight on the basis of the legislation over publicly operated sector health facilities with a view to ensuring that there’s a prohibition of irreversible surgical interventions of non-consensual treatment imposed on intersex children. In short: are you ensuring, do you have oversight to avoid the use of such practices? Do you indeed consider that this is a problem that needs to be addressed?»

Thu 10:57h: Committee member Wanderlin Nogueira Neto asked an intersex follow-up question regarding compensation for IGM survivors. YAY!!

«Very good morning to you all. I would like to wish an especially warm welcome to the Irish Delegation and also my greetings to our chair, Miss Aldoseri. I would like to ask a follow-up question to Mister Rodriguez’ question about intersex children. So my question is as follows: I would like to know, if there is a possibility to provide compensation to those children who have been subject to surgery without their prior and expressed consent. That’s my question, thank you.»

Thu 12:10h: A member of the Irish delegation says he’s going to answer questions on transgender and intersex, gives answers on transgender, then says he’ll come back to intersex later – how typical is that?!

Session 2: Thursday 14 January 2016, 15h

Thu 15:14h: Irish Delegation moderator Elizabeth Canavan (Department of Health Children and Youth Affairs) announces answers on intersex:

«There was a number of matters that were raised in relation to intersex children so I’d ask my colleague from the department of health to take that topic, thanks Colm.»

Thu 15:15h: Irish Delegation member Colm Desmond (Department of Health, Principal Officer Mental Health Unit (!!)), answering on intersex, went the route of denial, downplaying intersex as “very, very rare,” and claiming in Ireland only medically necessary treatments were undertaken with the consent of the parents, so the issue of compensation would not normally arise – totally evading the actual questions, while at the same time admitting to IGM still taking place in Ireland – twice!

«Hello. Thank you. A number of issues in relation to the department of health and forcely in relation to intersex children, were choices made at birth. These situations highlighted by the committee members are very, very rare and the decisions taken in relation to choices are very often, I understand, determined by a physical or renal need rather than a gender assignment need. It usually is taken by a consultant dealing with that on the basis of very detailed case management, as would be the normal case with very sensitive birth or natal conditions, natal situations involving an intersex case. We would not see that the issue of compensation would normally arise, but the normal medical negligence provisions around compensation of course apply in Ireland.»

Thu 15:15h: When Committee member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Ireland, José Angel Rodríguez Reyes immediately replied …

«I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the answer.»

Thu 15:16h: … Irish Delegation member Colm Desmond (Department of Health, Principal Officer Mental Health Unit (!!)), kindly extended his non-answers on intersex:

«The answer is where the issue of intersex situations has been highlighted, our view is that this is an extremely rare situation that arises, and where an intervention is needed it may often be for reasons around renal or physical needs in the case of the individual child. And that decision is usually taken following very careful consultation between the consultants in that particular case, and all of the necessary expertise would be brought to bear on decisions around intersex in case conferences. On that basis we consider this is a very rare issue but we do acknowledge that these decisions are taken on a medical basis in these rare cases. In relation to the issue of compensation we are not aware of a specific compensation process, but normal medical negligence compensation processes apply in Ireland and it would apply in any case of an alleged medical negligence.»

Thu 15:45h: Committee member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Ireland, José Angel Rodríguez Reyes thus followed-up again regarding intersex and informed consent:

«Now, in terms of intersex children I have heard that a consultation may take place, but I wonder whether that implies consent on the part of the child, who may, given the circumstances, be subject to an operation. Thank you.»

Thu 15:46h: This time the Head of the Irish Delegation, Minister Dr. James Reilly (Children and Youth Affairs, medical doctor by profession) intervened, reiterated the blanket denial plus downplaying intersex as “extremely rare” and claiming interventions would only be done to “sort serious anatomical and physiological difficulties” – while at the same time openly admitting to IGM also in Ireland mostly being practiced on “very young babies” – according to his own personal “experience”:

«If you forgive me to intervene, because my previous job was minister for health, and I am also a doctor by profession. Can I just say in relation to intersex: this is very rare, that it’s a clinical decision to intervene, that consent from parents has to be obtained, that’s very, very clear. I think if you relate to the consent of the child you’ll obviously have to be talking about older children. And to my knowledge these operations do not take place later in life, unless there is some really compelling anatomical functional issue that has to be addressed. Now, I can stand be corrected on that, but that’s my experience in practice. And I can absolutely state that these matters should – don’t occur without the consent of the parents. So, very often we are talking about very young babies here, very very young children, who have a serious anatomical, physiological difficulty to be sorted out, and that’s the basis on which these procedures might be carried out. But I want to emphasis again, that it’s extremely rare.»

My 2 cents: Yet another flat-out Gov denial – while at the same time freely admitting that IGM practices still take place – how telling is that?!
Fortunately, the Committee once more proved to be well-informed, and determined to get to the bottom of the serious human rights violations against intersex children. So I’m quite confident that these non-answers will again lead to particularly strong “Concluding Observations” – for Ireland due on 29 January. To be continued …

>>> UN-CRC sternly reprimands Ireland and France for IGM Practices!

>>> 2016: UN-CRC to investigate IGM Practices in France + Ireland
>>> English UN Media Release on the Session with Ireland, mentions intersex

Intersex Genital Mutilations in Ireland: CRC NGO Report
Human Rights Violations Of Children With Variations Of Sex Anatomy
IGM – Most Common Forms • What is Intersex? • How Common are IGMs?
>>> Download (PDF 3.60 MB)

‘I feel violated from hypospadias surgery’ – Interesting search string …

March 21, 2021January 24, 2016 by StopIGM.org

Peace, solidarity and strength to the person(s) having used the

>>> search string ‘I feel violated from hypospadias surgery’.

You are not alone in your search for justice!

And an invitation to everybody checking the interesting results this search produces …

>>> “My childhood was filled with pain, surgery, skin grafts, and isolation”
>>> VIDEO: ‘Unnecessary & Harmful’: Tiger Devore on ‘Hypospadias Repair’ (Pt. 1)

Intersex Genital Mutilations • 17 Most Common Forms
Human Rights Violations Of Children With Variations Of Sex Anatomy
IGM – Historical Overview • What is Intersex? • How Common are IGMs?
>>> Download PDF (3.65 MB) >>> Table of Contents

Eliminating IGM practices by making the perpetrators accountable via well-established applicable human rights frameworks, including Inhuman Treatment and Harmful Practices – Presentation @ UN expert meeting on Intersex Human Rights in Geneva 26.–27.10.2015
>>> Download PDF (831kb)

Chile > Ministry of Health Calls for Abolishing IGM Practices

March 21, 2021January 10, 2016 by StopIGM.org

Circular No. 18 of the Ministry (Photo: Camilo Godoy Peña) >>> PDF >>> english transl.

Christmas present for the Intersex Movement from Santiago!

The Subsecretariat for Public Health of the Chilean Ministry for Health published a Circular No. 18 “Instruction on Certain Aspects of Health Care of Intersex Children” dated 22 December and signed by the Secretary for Support Networks (Dr. Gisela Alarcón) and the Secretary for Public Health (Dr. Jaime Burrows).

Therein, the Ministry expresses “deep concern” over non-consensual “tratments” on intersex children and adolescents, and refers to statements by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

According to Camilo Godoy Peña, the circular specifically stipulates:

The suspension of “unnecessary ‘normalising’ treatments on intersex children, including irreversible genital surgeries, until they are old enough to decide themselves about their own bodies.”
Establishing working groups in health care institutions, consisting of endocrinologists, gynaecologists, psychologists and ethicists, tasked to formulate a treatment plan for each intersex person, which has to be transmitted to the Central Committee of the Ministry of Health for approval.
The appointment of a person in charge in every halth care institution responsible for the documentation an registration with the Ministry of all cases.

Thus, this should prevent IGM practices as well as ensure solid data collection and monitoring of all cases.

My 2 Cents: Good news from Chile! Even though the entire document ~~doesn’t seem publicly available yet~~ is now available: >>> PDF >>> english transl., and we’ll have to await if really all forms of IGM practices will be covered by this new regulation, and if future perpetrators won’t find loopholes to just ignore it – also according to a solidary paediatric surgeon only the fear of tangible punishments including suspension / adaption of the statutes of limitations will effectively prevent further mutilations. Nonetheless, Circular No. 18 is a historic development regarding the urgent and vital protection of intersex children in Chile – a move also warmly recommeded to other Ministries of Health around the globe! For this, to Camilo Godoy Peña, Andres Rivera Duarte and everybody else who contributed, a heartfelt thank you from this blog!

>>> UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) reprimands Chile over IGM
>>> Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) condems IGM practices

IGM as a Harmful Practice: 2015 UN-CRC Briefing
• IGM: A Survivor’s Perspective • Intersex Movement History
• What are Variations of Sex Anatomy? • What are IGM Practices?
• IGM and Human Rights • Conclusion: IGM as a Harmful Practice
>>> Download PDF (3.14 MB) >>> Table of Contents

2016 > Switzerland > Prohibition of IGM in Both Houses on Agenda

March 21, 2021January 10, 2016 by StopIGM.org

Photo: Nonviolent Intersex Protest + Open Letter on Human Rights Day, Berne 10.12.2015

Christmas present for the Intersex Movement from the Swiss Capital of Berne! On Human Rights Day, we distributed an Open Letter (PDF, in German) and a flyer with additional info outside parliament, which we both also handed in or mailed to all members of the Swiss government, the presidents of both chambers of parliament, all parties and their youth organisations, and which we also emailed to every member of both houses.

The Open Letter reminded of the lack of follow-up on the 2012 recommendations by the Swiss National Ethics Commission NEK-CNE and the recent rebukes of Switzerland by the UN Committee of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the UN Committee against Torture (CAT), and amongst other things called for legislation against Intersex Genital Mutilations including scrapping or prolonging the statutes of limitations, free access to psychosocial support including peer support for all persons concerned and their families, and public acknowledgement of the suffering inflicted on survivors.

Just before Chrismas we received a first answer by the Secretariat of the Legal Committees (PDF –> p. 3, in German) dated 22 December, informing us that the Open Letter has been considered as a petition and forwarded to the Legal Committees of both Houses of Parliament, where it will be discussed in public proceedings, which “according to experience will take some time.” Therefore, a legal prohibition of IGM practices is now on the agenda in both houses!

Zwischengeschlecht.org / StopIGM.org warmly welcomes this move – and intends to use this time for further upping the pressure. Already we’re in contact with members of parliament, and currently also the UN Human Rights Committee (HRCttee) is investigating IGM practices in Switzerland. And in the near future Switzerland will be coming up for more state reviews e.g. by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). To be continued …

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) condems Intersex Genital Mutilations!

December 3, 2023January 5, 2016 by StopIGM.org

Action + Letter on Intersex Awareness Day in Chile, Santiago 26.10.2015:
Camilo Godoy Peña outside Government Palace with placard “No to IGM”

In December, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS), published an extensive >>> Report “Violence against LGBTI Persons” (PDF 7 MB, spanish) – with an english version to follow –, which contains a seperate Chapter E “Medical Violence against Intersex Persons” (p. 126-133) and clearly and unmistakably criticises IGM practices.

For this from this blog a heartfelt “Thank you!” to everybody involved!

The report is based on testimonies to and reports on IGM practices amongst others from Argentine, Brasil, Canada, Columbia, Costa Rica, Chile, El Salvador, Mexico, Uruguay and the USA, and refers amongst others to the Thematic Intersex NGO Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) by Zwischengeschlecht.org/StopIGM.org from 2014 und and the CRC reprimanding Chile in October 2015.

IACHR also published a >>> Press Release No. 143/15 on the Report which again contains clear statements on intersex:

For example, violence against intersex persons is based on prejudice toward body diversity and specifically toward those whose bodies differ from what is considered male or female. The violence suffered by intersex persons for the most part is different from that suffered by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) persons. […]

Meanwhile, the violence that affects intersex persons is very different. Intersex children are often forced to undergo surgical operations and procedures that, for the most part, are not medically necessary, for the sole purpose of changing their genitals to look more like those of a boy or a girl. These surgeries, which are irreversible in nature, tend to be done without their consent—on newborn babies or very young children—and can cause enormous harm to intersex persons, including chronic pain, loss of genital sensitivity, sterilization, trauma, and reduced ability or inability to feel sexual pleasure.

IACHR Criticises Lack of Data Collection and Monitoring

From January 2013 to February 2014, the Commission also collected data on violence against LGBTI persons and published the resulting statistics in December 2014. In a >>> Press Release and an >>> Annex (PDF), the Commission explicitly critisised the lack of data collection on medical violence against intersex people, and concluded that root causes include that this form of violence is State approved and mostly ignored by media and organisations, with shame and fear of survivors compounding the invisibility:

Achievements Thanks to Initiatives and Testimonies by Persons Concerned

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights investigated human rights violations against intersex people latest since 2013. Crucial were once more initiatives and moving testimonies by survivors of IGM practices and their allies:

IACHR Intersex Hearing, Washington 15.03.2013 (left to right): Natasha Jiménez (Mulabi, Costa Rica), Paula Sandrine Machado (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil), Pidgeon Pagonis (Advocates for Informed Choice, USA), Mauro Cabral (initiator of the hearing, Consórcio Latino Americano de Trabalho sobre Intersexualidade, Argentina).
>>> Video (multilingual) >>> Report AIC (en) >>> Report HRBrief (en) >>> Photos

In addition, IACHR commissioned a >>> Thematic Report by Anne Tamar-Mattis of Advocates for Informed Choice (PDF, english).

Hopefully, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and survivors of IGM practices will internationally continue upping the pressure – until Intersex Genital Mutilations will finally be history, historical reappraisal and coming to terms with the past will take place internationally, victims will be adequately compensated, and future perpetrators will feel the full force of the law!

“Silence sur ordonnance” – Super Article Intersex dans “Horizons” No. 107, Décembre 2015

March 21, 2021January 2, 2016 by StopIGM.org

>>> Español >>> English >>> Deutsch

Photo: Manif Intersex non violente + Lettres Ouvertes la Journée des Droits Humains, Palais Fédéral, Berne 10.12.2015

Super Article de Antoinette Schwab dans l’actuelle édition de “Horizons. Le magazine suisse de la recherche scientifique”, publié par le “Fonds national suisse de la recherche scientifique (FNS)” et les “Académies suisses des sciences” – Merci!
(Malheureusement, tous les autres articles du “Point fort Intersexualité” dans cette édition sont que des exemples typiques de l’appropriation des intersexes, et de l’habituel “parler de nous, mais pas avec nous” – Honte à vous!)

Silence sur ordonnance

La médecine a longtemps opéré les enfants nés avec des variantes du sexe biologique sans jamais les informer. La situation n’évolue que lentement. Par Antoinette Schwab

Des enfants qui viennent au monde avec un sexe ambigu, il y en a toujours eu. On les a appelés hermaphrodites, puis intersexes. Ce dernier terme est toutefois trompeur parce qu’il semble faire référence à la sexualité: «L’intersexualité concerne le corps et, suivant les cas, certaines maladies, mais pas l’orientation sexuelle», souligne Jürg Streuli, médecin à Zurich et éthicien de la médecine. Depuis quelques années, on utilise donc l’abréviation DSD pour «disorders» ou «differences of sex development» (~~variantes ou troubles~~ désordres ou differences du développementsexuel).

Des interventions nuisibles

A partir des années 1950, on s’est couramment mis à assigner aussi vite que possible un sexe à ces enfants et à procéder à une adaptation chirurgicale correspondante. Cette pratique remonte à John Money, spécialiste américain des comportements sexuels. Auparavant, des personnes avec un DSD étaient déjà opérées, mais c’est lui qui a fourni les fondements théoriques pour que cela se fasse de manière systématique. John Money était convaincu qu’il était possible de tout modeler, pour autant que l’environnement se comporte en conséquence. Pour faciliter ce processus, il fallait, disait-il, que l’apparence des organes génitaux corresponde au sexe attribué. Et donc que les corrections génitales soient réalisées dès que possible après la naissance. Dès lors, chaque enfant né avec un DSD était traité comme une urgence, même s’il n’en était pas une au sens médical. Des opérations inutiles et cosmétiques ont ainsi été conduites sur des enfants qui, si elles avaient été désirées, auraient aussi pu être réalisées plus tard. Lorsqu’elles se livrent en interview ou dans leurs biographies, certaines personnes qui ont vécu ces interventions parlent de torture, de mutilation génitale, de maltraitance.

Le poids du silence

Pour elles, le silence imposé a été aussi terrible que les opérations. Les dossiers médicaux portaient la mention «Ne pas communiquer le diagnostic au patient», là aussi une idée de John Money. L’enfant, selon lui, ne devait pas avoir le moindre doute sur son sexe. Une situation paradoxale: d’un côté, il subissait des interventions chirurgicales sur ses organes génitaux. Un raccourcissement ou une amputation du clitoris – ou s’agissait-il d’un pénis? Un vagin reconstruit qu’il fallait sans cesse distendre; autrefois, au moyen d’une barre de métal, remplacée par du plastique par la suite. Souvent aussi, on procédait à l’ablation des testicules et des ovaires au nom d’un possible risque de cancer. De l’autre côté, médecins, étudiants et infirmiers scrutaient l’entrejambe de ces enfants sans que ces derniers sachent pourquoi. La plupart des personnes qui s’expriment aujourd’hui ont appris leur diagnostic par hasard. Les histoires sur les forums Internet se ressemblent souvent: les douleurs, les médicaments qu’il fallait avaler sans qu’on sache pourquoi. La honte et le sentiment d’avoir une maladie monstrueuse. Certains ont appris leur diagnostic quand ce dernier a été étalé en public: les premiers tests de vérification du sexe dans le monde du sport ont identifié des femmes athlètes avec des chromosomes masculins qui n’en savaient rien. Les instituts qui évaluaient ces tests étaient souvent ceux qui avaient conseillé de dissimuler le diagnostic aux enfants avec un DSD.

Stopper les opérations

Comme ces personnes ont été maintenues dans l’ignorance durant des décennies, la résistance aux pratiques chirurgicales d’assignation sexuelle est apparue tardivement: au début des années 1990, des individus concernés ont commencé à s’opposer au traitement standard. Cette résistance s’est renforcée lorsqu’on a appris, en 1997, que l’un des cas d’école de John Money, auquel les médecins du monde entier continuaient de se référer, s’était avéré un échec: le garçon John, opéré pour devenir la fille Joan à l’âge de 2 ans, avait à nouveau changé de sexe à 14 ans et vivait sous le nom de David. Il s’est suicidé en 2004 à l’âge de 38 ans.

«L’intersexualité concerne le corps et non pas l’orientation sexuelle.»
Jürg Streuli

La Suissesse Daniela Truffer a elle aussi découvert son histoire à l’âge de 35 ans par son dossier médical. Née en 1965 avec des chromosomes masculins et des organes génitaux ambigus, elle avait été opérée en fille. Une mauvaise décision, avait noté plus tard un médecin dans son dossier. Pour elle, il est trop tard: «Mon état physique originel est irrémédiablement perdu, on m’a volé ma dignité», écrit-elle sur son blog. Constatant sur Internet que d’autres avaient vécu la même chose, elle a créé en 2007 l’organisation Zwischengeschlecht.org. Elle se bat pour que les opérations cessent et pour l’intégrité physique et psychique des enfants avec un DSD. Elle est convaincue qu’aujourd’hui encore, on opère toujours une grande partie d’entre eux, sans que ni eux ni leurs parents ne soient complètement informés.

«La société doit reconnaître les souffrances que les pratiques antérieures ont infligées à des personnes présentant un tableau clinique de «disorder of sex development» (DSD).»
Commission nationale d’éthique

Le groupe, qui conseille d’autres activistes à l’étranger, a déjà obtenu certaines choses. L’Hôpital des enfants de Zurich, qui jouait un rôle pionnier dans les années 1950 en matière de traitement de DSD, a entamé en 2014 les démarches pour une recherche historique sur le traitement de personnes avec un DSD. C’est la première étude de ce genre au monde.

Reconnaître la souffrance

Le Conseil fédéral a chargé la Commission nationale d’éthique pour la médecine humaine de se pencher sur le sujet. Elle a recommandé en 2012 que les décisions en matière de traitements pour l’assignation du sexe soient différées jusqu’à ce que la personne qui les subira soit capable de discernement. Les parents ne devraient donc pas prendre de décision lourde de conséquences, même si, dans leur confusion ou désespoir après la naissance, ils souhaitent souvent une solution rapide. «La société doit reconnaître les souffrances que les pratiques antérieures ont infligées à des personnes présentant un tableau clinique de DSD», stipule la première des 14 recommandations de la commission.

Aujourd’hui, les cliniques font preuve de plus de retenue. Certaines opérations qui ne sont pas indispensables sont repoussées à plus tard. Enfants et parents sont mieux informés, et à l’Hôpital des enfants de Zurich, par exemple, les décisions sont prises par une équipe regroupant médecins, éthiciens et psychologues. En revanche, il n’existe pas de vue d’ensemble pour savoir ce qui est opéré et où. Et les recommandations de la Commission nationale d’éthique n’ont pas valeur d’obligations. Le Conseil fédéral entend répondre à cette prise de position d’ici fin 2015.

L’ONU se penche aussi sur le sujet. En un an, trois de ses comités se sont exprimés sur la situation en Suisse. Le Comité des droits de l’enfant s’est montré très préoccupé par les interventions chirurgicales, parlant de «pratiques préjudiciables». Le Comité des droits de l’homme demande des chiffres. Quant au Comité contre la torture, il constate qu’à ce jour il n’y a eu ni sanctions ni réparations et propose que toutes les mesures nécessaires soient prises pour garantir à l’avenir l’intégrité et l’autodétermination des personnes concernées.

Antoinette Schwab est journaliste scientifique libre à Berne.

[ Pages françaises sur Zwischengeschlecht.org ]

Intersex.ch (groupe de soutien, en allemand)

NGO Report to the 5th Periodic Report of France on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

>>> Download (PDF 3.41 MB)

Compiled by:
Vincent Guillot + Zwischengeschlecht.org
Endorsed by:
OII Francophonie

“Enforced Silence” – Great Intersex Article in “Horizons” No. 107, December 2015

March 21, 2021December 31, 2015 by StopIGM.org

>>> Español >>> Français >>> Deutsch

Photo: Nonviolent Intersex Rally + Open Letters on Human Rights Day, Swiss Federal Building, Berne 10.12.2015

Great Article by Antoinette Schwab in the current issue of “Horizons. The Swiss magazine for scientific research”, published by “Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)” and “Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences” – Thanks!
(Unfortunately, all the other articles in the issue’s thematic “Focus: Intersexuality” are textbook examples for intersex appropriation, and for “talking about us, but not with us” – Shame on you!)

Enforced silence

For a long time, the medical profession has been keeping quiet about people whose biological ~~identity~~ [typically appropriating “translation” – here we go again …] SEX strayed from the norm. And change is only coming slowly. By Antoinette Schwab

There is nothing new about children being born with ambiguous ~~gender traits~~ SEX CHARACTERISTICS [typically appropriating “translation” – here we go again …]. They used to be called hermaphrodites, and later ‘intersexuals’. The latter term is misleading, however, because it incorporates the word ‘sexual’. To be more precise, “‘intersexuality’ refers to bodies, and in some circumstances to illness. It doesn’t primarily refer to sexuality or sexual orientation”, says Jürg Streuli, a doctor and medical ethicist from Zurich. For this reason, the abbreviation ‘DSD’ has been in use for a few years now, meaning ‘Disorders of Sex Development’ (or ‘Differences of Sex Development’).

The damage done by desiring clarity

From the 1950s onwards it was customary for DSD children to be assigned a gender as soon as possible, and for them to be surgically operated so as to adjust them to this chosen gender. This practice goes back to the sex researcher John Money in the USA. People with DSD had been operated on before this, but now it was given a theoretical basis and carried out systematically. It was in this context that Money standardised the use of the word ‘gender’ to signify one’s sexual identity in society. He was convinced that you could turn anyone into anything, as long as the environment was constructed accordingly. In order to make this easier, the appearance of the genitalia had to correspond to the gender to which one was assigned. So the genitalia had to be corrected as soon as possible after birth. Every child born with DSD was consequently treated as an emergency, even if this wasn’t the case in a medical sense. As a result, children underwent unnecessary cosmetic operations that could have been done at a later date, had they been desired. Some of those who experienced these operations in their childhood have described them in interviews and autobiographical reports as ‘torture’, ‘genital mutilation’ or even ‘child abuse’.

Secret diagnoses

Those affected have found the silence enforced around them to have been at least as bad as the operations themselves. Their patient records bore the instruction: “The patient is not to be informed about this diagnosis”. That, too, was Money’s idea. The child should not be allowed any doubt about its gender. It had to endure surgical operations to the genitals – the clitoris was shortened or even amputated (or was it in fact really a penis?) and a neovagina was created that had to be stretched constantly. Initially, a metal rod was used for this; later it was made of plastic. And to avoid the supposed danger of cancer occurring, testicles and ovaries were also often removed. It was a paradoxical situation. For on the one hand, the children had to endure doctors, students and nurses peering between their legs at regular check-ups, but on the other hand, no one was allowed to say anything about it.

Most of those who speak out today only became aware of their diagnoses by accident. The stories they tell in Internet forums often sound similar: stories of pain and drugs without any explanation as to why these were necessary. Stories of shame, and of feeling afflicted by some possibly monstrous disease. Some even had to endure the public revelation of their diagnoses. When sex tests began to be carried out in sports, some female athletes were found to possess male chromosomes even though they had no idea about it at all. Such tests were sometimes evaluated by the very same institutions that had advised silence on the diagnosis of DSD in children.

Stopping the operations

It took a long time for people to start arguing against surgical gender assignment – and the reason for this probably lies precisely in the fact that people with DSD were kept in the dark about it for decades. It was not until the early 1990s that those affected began to protest against what had by then become a standard treatment. Their resistance became stronger when it was revealed in 1997 that Money’s textbook example – the so-called ‘John/Joan case’, to which doctors all over the world were still referring – had long been a failure. The boy in question had been surgically altered to assume a female gender at the age of two, but had switched his gender back at the age of 14, living from then on as ‘David’. He committed suicide in 2004.

“Intersexuality refers to bodies, not to sexual orientation”
Jürg Streuli

Daniela Truffer is from Switzerland, and she also only found out her story when she saw her medical files – by which time she was 35 years old. She was born in 1965 with male chromosomes but indeterminate genitalia and was then surgically operated upon to become a girl. It was the wrong decision, as a doctor later noted in her medical files. But that recognition came too late for her: “My original physical state has been lost irretrievably”, she has written on her blog: “They took my dignity from me”. She found out on the Internet that there are others who had undergone similar experiences. In 2007, Daniela Truffer founded the human rights group ‘Zwischengeschlecht.org’. Since then she has fought to have these operations stopped and has also been campaigning for the physical and mental integrity of children with DSD to be respected. She is convinced that many of these children are still being subjected to surgery today, and that children and parents alike are being inadequately informed.

Her group also offers advice to activists abroad and has already achieved success in several cases. For example, the Zurich Children’s Hospital had played a pioneering role in treating DSD in the 1950s, but in 2014 it initiated a medico-historical study to evaluate the treatment of people with DSD. This will be the first-ever study of its kind in the world.

Recognising suffering

The National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics has also been dealing with this topic at the express request of the Swiss Federal Council. In a statement in 2012 – which is probably unique in the world – the Commission recommended that any decisions on treatment in the realm of gender determination should only be made when the persons affected are able to make those decisions for themselves. After a birth, parents can be in a confused or desperate state of mind and thus often want a quick decision; but this is precisely what should not be allowed. The Commission’s first recommendation on their list of 14 points runs as follows: “The suffering that some people … have had to experience because of past practices must be recognised by society”.

Today, clinics are more reticent. Some operations that are not medically necessary are postponed till later. Children and parents are better informed, and in the Zurich Children’s Hospital, for example, the team that decides on treatment includes representatives not just from the different medical areas but also from the fields of ethics and psychology. However, no overview exists of what operations are being carried out, or where. And to the present day, the recommendations of the Advisory Commission have not been turned into a binding regulation. The Federal Council intends to reply to this position paper by the end of 2015.

“The suffering that some people have had to experience because of past practices must be recognised by society”
National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics NEK-CNE

The topic is also being discussed at the UN. No less than three UN committees have commented on the Swiss situation in the space of a single year. Under the title “Harmful practices”, the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed its deep concern about the surgical operations. The Human Rights Committee has asked for statistics, and the Committee against Torture has noted that neither sanctions nor reparations have been made, and it further recommends that all necessary measures be taken to guarantee the integrity and self-determination of those affected in future.

Antoinette Schwab is a freelance journalist in Bern.

www.intersex.ch (self-help)

Nuremberg Hermaphrodite Lawsuit: Michaela “Micha” Raab Wins Damages and Compensation for Intersex Genital Mutilations!

March 21, 2021December 17, 2015 by StopIGM.org

Photo: Intersex Solidarity Rally for 2nd day in Nuremberg State Court, Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth 22.10.2015

Today the Nuremberg State Court issued a first decision in the “Hermaphrodite Lawsuit” – and ruled the Erlangen University Clinic to pay damages and compensation to Michaela “Micha” Raab for non-consensual IGM treatments, including partial clitoris amputation, castration and imposition of hormones, according to a >>> Press Release by the Court (in German). The verdict can still be appealed, also the amount to be paid by the clinic is still to be determined in a forthcoming separate ruling.

Micha is suing the University Clinic and surgeon Prof. S. for 250,000 Euros in damages and a monthly pension of 1,600 Euros. The court now dismissed the case against the surgeon, arguing the lack of disclosure of the diagnosis, karyotype and treatment options was not his fault, but the responsibility of other doctors, and ruled the clinic would have to pay.

This is only the second case worldwide of a verdict against perpetrators of Intersex Genital Mutilations, and the very first time that an institution was found liable.

And it’s only the 4th case going before a court reported at all:

• In the well-publicised Cologne Hermaphrodite Lawsuit 2007-2009, Christiane Voelling won 100,000 Euros damages from her former surgeon Prof. L., who in vain tried to fight the ruling through all levels of jurisdiction.

• Currently, in Germany there’s also another civil suit ongoing in Munich, like Micha’s against a Bavarian clinic and individual IGM doctors.

All above cases concern non-consensual intersex treatments on adult persons.

• In the U.S. there’s currently yet another case pending, initiated by adoptive parents suing a South Carolina clinic, individual doctors and the state over IGM on a child while in care of the South Carolina Department of Social Services.

So far, no adult survivor of early childhood IGM practices ever managed to bring a civil case before a court, and no-one ever succeeded in pressing criminal charges at all.

This factual impunity of IGM perpetrators has been criticised by intersex advocates around the globe. Regarding lack of access to justice and redress for IGM survivors, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) has so far reprimanded Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark and Hong Kong, and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Switzerland and Chile. The fight has just begun – so who’s next?

More on the Case:
>>> Intersex Solidarity at Nuremberg Court Date #1, 26.02.2015
>>> Media Report in English in The Local
>>> Intersex Solidarity at Nuremberg Court Date #2, 22.10.2015

Nürnberger Nachrichten report on 1st day in Court, 27.03.2015
See also:
• January 2016: UN-CRC to investigate IGM Practices in France + Ireland
• UN Committee for the Rights of the Child (CRC) 2015: IGM = Harmful Practice
• UN Committee against Torture (CAT) 2015: IGM = Inhuman Treatment or Torture
• UN Human Rights Committee (HRCttee) to examine IGM Practices
• UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) condems IGM
• Historic 56th Session of Committee against Torture reprimands 4 Governments over IGM
• CAT 2011: Germany must investigate IGM practices and compensate survivors!

Intersex Genital Mutilations in France and Ireland: Reports to UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

March 21, 2021December 16, 2015 by StopIGM.org

“Friendly garda helping us to set up the protest!”
Trinity College, Dublin 18.09.2014

Intersex human rights defenders Vincent Guillot and Gavan Coleman in collaboration with StopIGM.org submitted two more thematic intersex NGO reports for the CRC review of France and Ireland in Jauary 2016.

In 2015 the UN Committee in the Rights of the Child already reprimanded Switzerland and Chile over Intersex Genital Mutilations.

This marks the first time that the Committee will investigate IGM practices in more than one country in a single session!

NGO Report to the 5th Periodic Report of France on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

>>> Download (PDF 3.41 MB)

Compiled by:
Vincent Guillot + Zwischengeschlecht.org
Endorsed by:
OII Francophonie

This report contains 2 case stories of IGM survivors.
Review of France: Wed 13 Jan 15-18h + Thur 14 Jan 10-13h

NGO Report to the 3rd and 4th Periodic Report of Ireland on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

>>> Download (PDF 3.60 MB)

Compiled by:
Gavan Coleman
Zwischengeschlecht.org / StopIGM.org

Review of Ireland: Thur 14 Jan 10-13h + Thur 14 Jan 15-18h