|
中间性
-
怎样对待中间性
|
|
社会-文化的态度
-
法律传统
|
|
性权利
|
|
|
|
|
点击图标
Click on logo.
|
|
|
在西方法律传统里，像其他性少数的成员一样，中间性者从未有过任何明确的权利。早在1930年代明确表达性权利的尝试不理智地被驳回。甚至于联合国人权宣言(1948)也未包括性权利。过了大半个世纪以后，到了1999年，世界性学会(World Association for Sexology，现在改称世界性健康协会，World Association for Sexual
Health)在香港通过了性权利宣言。这个性权利宣言总结了自1960年代“性革命”伊始由各个社会团体提出的各种有关性权利的诉求。与此同时，其他数个组织发表了自己的性权利宣言，例如世界卫生组织(WHO)于2002年发表的性权利宣言。
可是，这些文献无一项提出中间性者所关切的涉及性的特殊事项。这些文献确实提到了“性的完整性”或“身体的完整”的权利，却没有清晰地对在婴儿期常规外科手术性器官“标准化”的特殊重要性做出规定。这些文献也没有条款规定成年期性别再指派(sex reassignment)问题，或者没有规定一旦个人的身份认证证件从一个性别转为另一个性别后保持婚姻的权利。当然，在这些文献中也没有提及有关第三种性别选择的性别自认(sexual
self-identification)问题，这种性别选择为“X
性别=既不是女性也不是男性”。另一方面，甚至在中间性者自身方面，也没有就上述文献所疏忽的问题需要做出改正和应该诉求各自的性权利，达成有影响力的一致意见。以下的内容可能会足以对中间性者的各项权利提出较为广泛的或更精确的阐释： |
|
|
|
Intersexuality - Dealing with Intersexuality
|
|
Socio-cultural Attitudes - Legal Traditions
|
|
Sexual Rights
|
|
|
|
|
Click on logo.
|
|
|
In the Western legal tradition, intersexual persons, like members of other sexual minorities, never had any specific rights.
An early attempt in the 1930s to formulate sexual rights was simply ignored. Even the
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) did not include sexual rights. More than a half-century later, in 1999, the
World Association for Sexology (now World Association for Sexual Health) passed its declaration of sexual rights in Hong Kong. It summarized the demands made by various groups since the beginning of the “sexual revolution” in the 1960s. In the meantime, several other organizations have issued their own sexual rights declarations, for example the
World Health Organization (WHO) in 2002.
However, none of these documents addresses the specific concerns of intersexual persons. They do mention a right to “sexual integrity” or “bodily integrity”, but there is no explicit reference to routine surgical sex “normalization” in infancy. Neither is there a hint at the problem of sex reassignment in adulthood, or the right to stay married once personal identification papers have been changed from one sex to another. And, of course, with regard to sexual self-identification, there is no mention of a third option “X = neither female nor male”. On the other hand, there is no general agreement, even among the intersexes themselves, that these omissions need to be corrected and that respective new rights should be demanded. It may very well be enough to develop a wider or more precise interpretation of the following texts: |
