|
中間性
-
怎樣對待中間性 |
|
社會-文化的態度
-
法律傳統
|
|
性權利 |
 |
|
|
點擊圖示
Click on logo.
|
|
|
在西方法律傳統裏，像其他性少數的成員一樣，中間性者從未有過任何明確的權利。早在1930年代明確表達性權利的嘗試不理智地被駁回。甚至於聯合國人權宣言(1948)也未包括性權利。過了大半個世紀以後，到了1999年，世界性學會(World Association for Sexology，現在改稱世界性健康協會，World Association for Sexual
Health)在香港通過了性權利宣言。這個性權利宣言總結了自1960年代“性革命”伊始由各個社會團體提出的各種有關性權利的訴求。與此同時，其他數個組織發表了自己的性權利宣言，例如世界衛生組織(WHO)於2002年發表的性權利宣言。
可是，這些文獻無一項提出中間性者所關切的涉及性的特殊事項。這些文獻確實提到了“性的完整性”或“身體的完整”的權利，卻沒有清晰地對在嬰兒期常規外科手術性器官“標準化”的特殊重要性做出規定。這些文獻也沒有條款規定成年期性別再指派(sex reassignment)問題，或者沒有規定一旦個人的身份認證證件從一個性別轉為另一個性別後保持婚姻的權利。當然，在這些文獻中也沒有提及有關第三種性別選擇的性別自認(sexual
self-identification)問題，這種性別選擇為“X
性別=既不是女性也不是男性”。另一方面，甚至在中間性者自身方面，也沒有就上述文獻所疏忽的問題需要做出改正和應該訴求各自的性權利，達成有影響力的一致意見。以下的內容可能會足以對中間性者的各項權利提出較為廣泛的或更精確的闡釋： |
|
|
|
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: |
