Uncategorized

>>> 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

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

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) 

>>> 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)

See also:
• 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
• CAT 2011: Germany must investigate IGM practices and compensate survivors!  

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

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

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! 

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

“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 

See also:
• 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! 

Photo: UNHRC UPR #14, Geneva 20.10.2012

Today, the UN Committee against Torture published its binding “Concluding Observations” on the >>> CAT 56th Session Homepage.

As intersex human rights defenders testifying in Geneva to the lifelong consequences of IGM practices had hoped for, the Committee issued strong recommendations on intersex and IGM practices for Austria, Denmark, Hong Kong and China, typically urging states to

(a)    Take the necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to guarantee the respect for the physical integrity and autonomy of intersex persons and ensure that no one is subjected during infancy or childhood to unnecessary medical or surgical procedures;

(b)    Guarantee counselling services for all intersex children and their parents, so as to inform them of the consequences of unnecessary surgery and other medical treatment;

(c)    ensure that full, free and informed consent is respected in connection with medical and surgical treatments for intersex persons and that non-urgent, irreversible medical interventions are postponed until a child is sufficiently mature to  participate in decision-making and give full, free and informed consent;

(d)    Provide adequate redress for the physical and psychological suffering caused by such practices to intersex persons.

StopIGM.org warmly welcomes these verdicts, marking the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th time that the Committee unmistakably denounces IGM practices as serious crimes clearly in breach of the Convention and constituting at least Inhuman Treatment or Torture – and the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th time in 2015 alone that a UN Committee reprimanded a state party over allowing this atrocity to continue unhindered.

In collaboration with local intersex human rights defenders and their organisations, we will continue to document the ongoing practice in ever more countries to relevant human rights bodies – including CAT, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Human Rights Committee (HRCttee) and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

States as contracting parties to the Convention against Torture and other applicable Covenants including CRC, CCPR and CRPD can no longer feign ignorance of the illegal nature of IGM practices, but now must take all appropriate measures including legislation to eliminate them, and to guarantee access to effective redress and justice for all survivors!

• Austria: NGO Report by VIMÖ & StopIGM.org | Transcript Intersex Q&A | COs

• Denmark: NGO Report by Ditte Dyreborg and StopIGM.org | Transcript Intersex Q&A | COs

• Hong Kong + China: NGO Report by BBKCI | Transcript Intersex Q&A | COs HK + CN

• Historic 56th Session of Committee against Torture questions 5 Governments over IGM

See also:
• 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
• CAT 2011: Germany must investigate IGM practices and compensate survivors!  

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

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

Above illustration is an unofficial adaption of the official Human Rights Day 2015 logo and its slogan “Our Rights. Our Freedoms. Always.”, made to raise awareness of the “endlessly emerging issue” of “Intersex Rights Are Human Rights!”.

10 December is International Human Rights Day, commemorating the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. This year’s Human Rights Day also commemorates 50 years adoption of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), the latter amongst other things ensuring Children’s Rights, the Right to Freedom from Torture, and the Right of Freedom from Medical Experimentation, to this day protections most important to intersex prople. Currently the UN Human Rights Committee (HRCttee), the UN body governing the CCPR, is investigating Intersex Genital Mutilations as a breach of the Covenant.

On Human Rights Day 2015, Zwischengeschlecht.org / StopIGM.org will hold a peaceful vigil outside the Swiss government building in Berne to highlight the complicity of Switzerland in the ongoing Intersex Genital Mutilations, despite the criticism by the Swiss National Ethics Commission NEK-CNE of the human rights violations of intersex people, and several reprimands by UN committees, including by the Committee of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Committee against Torture (CAT) – (more info on the protest in German).

See also:
• Historic 56th Session of Committee against Torture questions 5 Governments on IGM

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

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

Intersex Human Rights Pioneers of the 56th Session of the Committee against Torture:
Small Luk (BBKCI, Hong Kong), witness to IGM practices, with Sapana Pradhan-Malla (CAT member, Nepal), questioned Hong Kong, China, Macau and Denmark over IGM practices (plus Switzerland last August), at Palais des Nations, Geneva 19.11.2015.
Alex Jürgen (VIMÖ, Austria), Ditte Dyreborg (Denmark), Daniela Truffer (Zwischengeschlecht.org) and Markus Bauer (StopIGM.org) also testified.
CAT chairperson Claudio Grossman (Chile) questioned Austria.

During its ongoing 56th session in Geneva, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) recently questioned Austria, Denmark, and Hong Kong + China + Macau over Intersex Genital Mutilations. This marks the very first time that any UN body examined more than one country regarding IGM practices in one session. Now intersex human rights defenders are expecting the Committee to issue strong and binding “Concluding Observations” for all countries probably next week or soon after.

This global first was made possible by four Intersex NGOs from Europe and Asia combining forces to submit specific thematic intersex reports to the Committee for each country, substantiating the ongoing grave human rights violations against intersex children, and IGM survivors from Austria, Denmark, Hong Kong and Switzerland testifying to the Committee on the lifelong severe pain and suffering caused by IGM practices.

The Committee was impressed by the compelling evidence and testimonies, and consequently questioned all countries over the ongoing practice. Significantly, all state delegations issued flat-out denials, and went on to invoke “LGBTI leadership”, “transgender-intersex paradigm shift” and similar excuses to deflect from their complicity, obviously hoping the Committee wouldn’t recognise the difference.

However, the Committee proved knowledgeable about intersex issues and IGM and every time asked specific follow-up questions, with the delegations again feigning ignorance or simply ignoring the questions. In accordance with earlier similar attempts by state parties, this arrogance will hopefully result in particularly strong recommendations on IGM practices, to be published on the CAT 56th Session Homepage 9 December or soon after.

In the meantime, all Thematic Intersex NGO Reports are available for download via intersex.shadowreport.org, and Transcripts of the Intersex Q&As during the country examinations via StopIGM.org:

  • Austria: NGO Report by VIMÖ and StopIGM.org  |  Transcript Intersex Q&A

  • Denmark: NGO Report by Ditte Dyreborg and StopIGM.org  |  Transcript Intersex Q&A

  • Hong Kong + China + Macau: NGO Report by BBKCI  |  Transcript Intersex Q&A 

The Committee against Torture (CAT) has previously considered IGM practices as constituting “Inhuman Treatment” in violation of the Convention against Torture, and reprimanded Germany for complicity and lack of access to redress and justice for survivors in 2011, and Switzerland in 2015.

Similarly, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has recognised IGM as “Harmful Practice”, and in 2015 reprimanded Switzerland and Chile.

Also in 2015, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) reprimanded Germany, referring to CAT 2011.

The Human Rights Committee (HRCttee) is currently investigating IGM in Switzerland as a breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

Hear, hear! Powerful new statements by Alice Dreger and Tiger Devore, rejecting excuses and deflections of IGM doctors aimed at just continuing with criminal mutilations for as lang as anyhow possible, and calling for applying human rights standards, incuding access to redress and justice for survivors!

This blog says Thank you!

See links and quotes relating to the two statements:

>>> Alice Dreger: “Rejecting the Tranquilizing Drug of Gradualism in Intersex Care”
Alice Dreger, the academic with the arguably longest and strongest track record of publicly criticising IGM perpetrators (e.g. Dix Poppas + Maria New), in a companion piece to Tiger’s (see below), announces her departure from “scientific intersex projects” funded by NIH and AAMC, recognizing their approach «as constituting what Dr. King called “the tranquilizing drug of gradualism”»: «I can’t continue to help develop “conversations” around “shared decision making” that allow decisions to be made that I believe violate the most basic rights of these children.»

>>> Tiger Devore: “Statement”
«The surgeries will stop, by legal action, and by recognition of the rights of the child to bodily integrity and self determination over the psychological comfort of the parents who don’t want to have given birth to a “deformed” child. The experiment of surgery on genitalia to “normalize” naturally occurring variants that pose no medical risk has failed. The faster the medical community recognizes this and stops this arrogant practice, the smaller the settlement funds for non consenting experimental subjects like me will have to be.»

>>> VIDEO: Tiger Devore talks IGM Type 1: ‘Hypospadias Repair” – Part 1/4

>>> Intersex Flyer (PDF 118kb) commemorating the 26th Annual Day of the Rights of the Child and raising awareness of Intersex Genital Mutilations which we distributed in Geneva on occasion of the 15th Roundtable of the European Governmental LGBT Focal Points Network and the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Rainbow Cities Network, where Daniela “Nella” Truffer also did a presentation on IGM Practices and Intersex Human Rights.

Input by Daniela Truffer / Zwischengeschlecht.org, Rainbow Cities Network NGO meeting

Today is the Annual Day of the Rights of the Child, marking the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 20 November 1989, for intersex people a most important human rights framework.

As a survivor of Intersex Genital Mutilations, I am particularly grateful to be able to speak here today.

I was born in 1965 with abdominal testes and so called “ambiguous” genitalia.

At two months they removed my healthy testes and threw them in the garbage bin. At seven they cut my genital to make me look more like a girl, allegedly with my consent. At 12 I was prescribed estrogens to induce an artificial puberty, which I still have to take daily.

Today they would probably make a boy out of me, with even more surgeries, complications, and pain.

The doctors always lied to me and my parents. Only at 35 I discovered that I am not alone. Today I am fighting to prevent future intersex children from suffering like myself and my peers.

One of the most frustrating experience in my work is, how nowadays everybody seems to be caring for or at least talking about intersex, but hardly ever about IGM practices, let alone how to eliminate them.

I have to admit I was really irked by the Swiss Government’s press release for the Focal Points Roundtable, where they boast how Switzerland would be, I quote, «expressly extending protection to intersex persons» – that is, as long as it’s limited to, I quote, «discriminations based on sexual orientation or gender identity» – for most intersex people basically a non-problem.

On the other hand, regarding the undisputed intersex problem number one, IGM practices, Switzerland simply denies them, while in fact funding and protecting the perpetrators, not the victims – just like any other so called “developed nation”.

Currently, the UN Committee against Torture questioned Austria, Denmark and China over IGM. All countries flat-out denied the well-documented ongoing practice, while at the same time invoking «leadership in LGBTI issues».

One last example, the current “Intersex Focus Paper” by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, which simply fails to identify ANY relevant human rights frameworks or UN documents.

While the paper goes on and on about identity, gender and birth certificates – it NOT ONCE mentions harmful practices, inhuman treatment, legislation to end IGM, access to redress and justice, statutes of limitations, monitoring, or other crucial items for advancing intersex rights.

Tellingly, the FRA’s only legal recommendation concerns birth certificates and identity documents – while regarding IGM, they seriously propose having nice chats with the mutilators and their accomplices.

Frankly, with supporters like these, who needs enemies?

So, I would like you to consider for a moment:

Are you and your agency able to adequately address IGM practices, including as harmful practice and inhuman treatment – or are you only fit to address discrimination and identity?

In the first case, I would like to win you as a vital intersex ally.

In the second, I ask you to at least do better than the Swiss Government, falsely claiming to «expressly protect intersex persons».

Thank you.

>>> Intersex Flyer distributed @ Rainbow Cities + LGBTI Focal Points (PDF 118kb)

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

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