Nonconsensual Intersex Surgery as Physical Conversion Therapy

Today, most people think of conversion therapy as a discredited practice of the past. Back in the bad old days, being "homosexual" was considered a mental disorder that psychologists tried to cure. But being gay was depathologized by the American Psychological Association back in 1972, and today, same-gender couples are socially accepted and have the constitutional right to marry. A small number of evangelical Christian "therapists" still attempt conversion therapy on LGBT people, but they are considered quacks by the medical profession and most of American society. The days of conversion therapy are seen as basically over.

They are not.

I am going to argue to you that "corrective," "normalizing" surgeries performed on intersex children who cannot give or withhold consent are conversion therapies. They are motivated by the same constellation of  ideas that produced conversion therapies aimed at LGBT people. And they take place way more often than most people think. Conversion therapies are alive and well and being imposed every day on unconsenting children in the U.S., harming them.

Mainstream medical practitioners in America today distinguish between LGBT conversion therapies and intersex "corrective" procedures. They frame conversion therapies for sexual or gender identity as wrong because they now agree there is nothing pathological about being queer, trans, or gender-nonconforming. These are minority identities, and trying to "cure" them is akin to doctors attempting to cure people of identifying as Jews or Muslims. It is not the place of the medical profession to impose the majority religious or sexual ideology on patients, and doctors who try to do so are violating professional ethics.

Intersex status, on the other hand, is pathological according to contemporary Western medicine. Physical sex variations are medically classified as "disorders of sexual development." It is the job of doctors to cure disorders. They sat that intersex people are born with tragic malformations, and we will live as social outcasts unless the medical profession heroically steps in to save us by converting our abnormal intersex bodies into endosex-appearing, normal bodies.

A Brief History of Conversion Therapies

The mid-20th century was the heyday of conversion therapies. This was an era of conformity, of faith in medical authority, and of optimism that social ills could be cured by science. It was taken as an article of faith that doctors should seek to convert deviance to normalcy. Funds were directed to developing a wide array of innovative medical interventions toward that end.

A key arena for the development of therapies was producing "normal sex." This midcentury umbrella term encompassed a wide array of matters related to sex, gender and sexuality. The goal was to ensure "natural sex relations." According to the scientific ideology of the time, evolutionary biology required that humans come in two opposite sexes--dominant, competitive men and gentle, nurturant women--who would be drawn by heterosexual attraction to form stable marital units, the necessary basis for parenting. The survival of humanity was believed to require bodies of binary sex, people who conform to binary gender stereotypes, and compulsory heterosexuality.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the medical profession made great investments in developing and institutionalizing conversion therapies, both psychological and physical. These therapies became mainstream and widespread. Doctors aimed to cure "hermaphroditism and pseudohermaphrodism" (i.e. intersex status), "sexual deviance and transvestism" (i.e. LGBT status), and gender nonconformity (under many labels, including "sissy boy syndrome" and  "neurotic penis envy").

The therapies doctors developed were deeply interventionist--often traumatizing and painful. To be converted from deviant to normal was seen as a positive outcome that justified a steep personal price. People with nonconforming sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions were often institutionalized. Some were given electroconvulsive shock treatments. Many were treated with aversion therapies--for example, being given painful shocks, perhaps to their genitals, while being shown same-gender erotica. These "treatments" amounted to torture, and while they could not change people's identities, they could render people incapable of arousal or of sexual relationships. Today, we see such an outcome as tragedy, but at the time, being incapacitated by panic and nausea when triggered by sexual arousal was viewed as better than being able to engage in same-gender sexual relations.

In this same time frame, "corrective" surgeries on intersex children became the norm. The goal of these surgical, hormonal, and other interventions was to produce a person who appeared endosex and was capable of engaging in penetrative penile/vaginal intercourse. Sexual sensation, freedom from pain, and issues of gender identity were dismissed as irrelevant. The goal was to enforce "normal sex" by creating a person who appeared to be of binary sex, was gender-conforming, and who had heterosexual intercourse, whatever the costs. This was very much in line with the painful treatments being imposed on LGBT people at the time.

Prettying Up Conversion Therapies

After the Stonewall uprising in 1969 and the rise of second-wave feminism, conversion therapies came under attack for enforcing compulsory heterosexuality and gender conformity. Lesbian and gay advocates successfully got homosexuality removed from the DSM, the "bible" of psychological diagnoses, in 1972. And supposedly, since then, nonconsensual conversion therapies became a thing of the past.

But in reality, conversion therapies persisted--they just put on an acceptable mask. Homosexuality was no longer classified as a mental illness, but being unhappy about being gay was (this was "ego dystonic homosexuality"). So therapists could still practice conversion therapies on LGB people, so long as they got the patients' consent--or, if they were minors, their parents gave consent and told the therapists their children's "homosexual tendencies" were causing depression.

Meanwhile, mainstream sexual orientation and feminist advocacy organizations of the 1960s-1980s largely ignored or actively opposed trans people's rights. So being trans remained classified as a mental illness, "gender identity disorder." A small number of fortunate trans women and a tiny number of trans men were able to use this diagnosis to access gender transition services during these decades. These individuals had financial resources, bodies that doctors deemed would not be visibly trans after hormonal and surgical treatment, and a demeanor and gestural repertoire that would be gender-conforming after transition, in accordance with the ideology of natural sex/gender binarism doctors were still enforcing. But most trans people were refused access to transition services by medical gatekeepers. Having failed one or more of the enforced gatekeeping criteria, they were instead treated with conversion talk therapies intended to resign them to living in their birth-assigned genders.

As for physical intersex conversion therapies, to the extent they appeared at all on the radar of progressive political activists in the post-Stonewall decades, it was in a positive light. Dr. John Money became something of a celebrity in this period. Money performed intersex "normalizing" surgeries, but became most famous for "treating" one of a pair of identical twin baby boys. This child was the victim of a botched circumcision, in which he lost the head of his penis. Money gave that infant sex reassignment surgery and had the parents raise the child as a girl. In his reports on the case, Money claimed that by enforcing strong gender stereotypes in their parenting, the end result was that the identical twins became a happy girl and a happy boy, both of them gender-conforming. In fact, that was not the case--the surgically reassigned child was never happy, gender transitioned back living as a boy in his teens, and committed suicide in his 20s. But in the 1970s, feminists and progressives saw the case as a cause célèbre, because it was framed as illustrating that gender is socially constructed and not some natural or innate matter.

Money became so famous as a result of this that his paradigm for the treatment of intersex infants became universal in the West. Money held that visibly intersex children should receive genital reconstruction as early in life as possible, so that their parents would raise them as "normal girls and boys," producing well-adjusted heterosexual women and men. So unlike sexual orientation conversion therapies, which had to become much more polite and consensual, intersex conversion therapies actually became more invasive, ubiquitous, and less consensual. 

The Spread of Resistance to Conversion Therapies

In the final years of the 20th century, advocacy movements for sex, gender and sexual minorities pushed back at the persistence of conversion therapies. Sexual orientation advocacy organizations did this overtly. They fought active campaigns against the idea of conversion therapy for LGB people, and in 1987 "ego dystonic homosexuality" was removed from the DSM. Conversion therapy aimed at LGB people was officially disclaimed by the American Psychological Association.

Trans advocates also overtly pushed back at conversion therapies. They focused particularly on the diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood. There being no protocols for social transition for children at the time, children given the "GID of Childhood" diagnosis were all treated with conversion therapies. Some of these children we'd recognize today as trans kids, but often the youths being "treated" had never expressed a trans identity--they were your classic feminine boys and tomboys, or LGB teens whose parents opposed their sexual orientations. Many were institutionalized against their will by their parents. And punitive aversion therapies, often involving physical punishments, were commonplace. The goals of these treatments were to produce complete conformity to the child's assigned binary gender. Trans advocates pushed back against this, and were joined in this instance by LGB and feminist activists.

Trans groups were also engaging in other advocacy efforts that amounted to fighting conversion therapies, but were not framed as such. Trans people were struggling against the gatekeeping by doctors that kept so many trans-identified people from accessing transition therapies. They were pushing for a different pathway to accessing transition services--one now called the "risk reduction approach," in which a patient signs a declaration attesting to their gender identiy and is then allowed to access services after some simple screenings. This advocacy was pushing back at the channeling of a majority of patients wishing to gender transition into cisgender conversion therapies instead of their desired transition treatments. Success in this advocacy let to the bypassing of extensive medical gatekeeping, which in turn led to rapid growth in the number of people accessing transition services. Especially empowered were those who were excluded in the past because they had nonbinary gender identities, would be LGB or gender-nonconforming after transition, and/or would remain visibly transgender after accessing hormones and the surgeries they desired and could afford. For many, conversion talk therapies were replaced with access to transition services.

This pushback against conversion therapies in the 1990s led to the burst of trans visibility in the 21st century. But intersex people still remain largely invisible.

That's because our fight against conversion therapies lags decades behind LGBT battles on these issues. The first major intersex advocacy group wasn't even founded until the 1990s. Having heard no intersex voices of protest, most endosex progressives entered the 21st century thinking of intersexuality as vanishingly rare, and of infant genital reconstruction as some cool proof of the flexibility of gender.

21st Century Intersex Advocacy

Most people today remain unaware of how common intersex status is. I explain its prevalence here: about 1 in 150 Americans is diagnosed with a "disorder of sex development." The fact that people aren't aware of how commonplace intersex status is illustrates the effectiveness of repressive conversion therapies. The very point of intersex surgeries performed in infancy without our consent is to render us invisible. For decades, the treatment paradigm included keeping our medical histories secret from us--lying to us about the nature of our treatments to hide our intersex status even from ourselves. For decades, our parents were told that if anyone learned of our secret, our lives would be ruined, so we must be taught never to talk about our differences. There's been more openness in the last decade--but doctors' diagnostic categories themselves continue to seek to convert us to endosex by concealing the nature of our differences. Rather than being told we are intersex, these diagnostic terms often label us "boys with a penile deformity" or "girls with clitoromegaly." We're told these are embarrassing issues, but ones doctors can cure for us with a few simple surgeries, so nobody will ever know and we'll never have to have the embarrassing problem revealed.

We live in a culture of shame and stigma in which intersex people are still taught that if our variance becomes known, potential friends and mates will be repelled and we will be doomed to lives of isolation. Doctors present us with a solution: physical conversion therapy to erase our physical sex variance, and silence about this ever having occurred. And it works, at least on one level. Few contemporary Americans are aware of how many intersex people are all around them.

But conversion therapies continue to come at a severe cost. For us, these include physical costs: the loss of sexual sensation that accompanies so many infant genital reconstructions; pain; infections. We are forced to show our genitals over and over to strange adults who poke and prod us, and then we are expected not to talk about it, which is a great training regimen to make us vulnerable to sexual abuse. And there's the fundamental issue of agency and self-determination over our physical sex characteristics. For those of us who don't grow up to identify with the binary sex we were coercively assigned at birth, there's the betrayal of knowing our bodies once better matched our identities, but then doctors cut off parts of us with which we identify, and our parents just went along with it. And even if we are in the majority that do grow up to accept our assigned binary sex, all intersex children whose genitals and gonads are surgically altered have endured a forced sex change--something our society would find horrific in endosex children, but accept in our case--and that is very hard to deal with.

And the thing is, conversion therapies never solve the fundamental problem. The problem is that the patient is a member of a stigmatized group. Even if a perfect conversion of a patient to endosex, to cisgender identity, to heterosexuality, or to gender conformity were possible, it only allows that specific patient to escape a social problem that persists. The real solution is to end stigma and discrimination against the minority group, so that every member of the group benefits.

Rather than reducing stigma and discrimination, conversion therapies strengthen them. They naturalize the discrimination and blame the victim.

The young intersex advocacy movement has tried several approaches to addressing the social problems we face. We've formed support groups. We've tried to work with doctors, hoping that if we are polite and educated and assimilated and attractive, they will listen to us and at least delay surgeries to allow children to mature enough express an opinion about whether they want them. The medical profession has been happy to co-opt us and present their uninterrupted intervention practices as having our seal of approval. We've tried confronting doctors individually. They call us atypical malcontents who received outdated surgeries, while they present current surgeries as cutting edge and advanced, with zero data to show any improvement in outcomes. We've tried analogizing infant genital "normalizing" surgeries to the cultural practices Western doctors call "female genital mutilation" and deem barbaric. Both are medically unnecessary cosmetic practices meant to make our bodies appear culturally acceptable to potential mates that traumatize us and deprive us of sensation. This convinced the U.N. to call for an end to unconsented-to medically unnecessary infant genital reconstructions, but basically only tiny Malta banned the practice. In the U.S. and most wealthy industrialized nations, medical interventions continue unabated. Doctors just frame every surgery they do as medically necessary to correct "disorder."

Doctors will only stop performing infant genital reconstructions to enforce their ideology that bodies must conform to binary sex expectations when parents stop consenting to it. In the 21st century we've been trying to educate the population about intersex issues, so parents will cease consenting. But it's been hard to get traction. One problem is that the medicalization of sex variance turns every conversation about intersex issues into a complex story of 17 diagnostic categories, and what each means, and how to evaluate twisted medical claims that surgeries they perform are necessary to enhance fertility (which they mostly reduce) or prevent cancer (which occurs at rates way, way lower than breast cancer--and we don't preemptively remove all breasts like doctors want to remove all internal testes and ovotestes). Medical terminology confuses most average people, and we are trained to defer to medical authority, so listeners often give up trying to process what we are saying.

That's why I suggest we make clear what intersex surgery is. It is a conversion therapy. Doctors say it's necessary to cure disorder and prevent stigma. But they said exactly the same thing about LGBT conversion therapies, until social movements made them relinquish these (lucrative) practices. LGBT conversion therapies were practiced in service to the ideology of "natural sex;" the same is true of intersex physical conversion therapies. But homosexuality is not "unnatural;" same-sex sexuality is found throughout nature. Trans identities are not "unnatural;" gender-crossing is found throughout history. And intersexuality is not "unnatural;" empirically speaking, sex is naturally a spectrum and not a binary.

The public doesn't have to enter a debate about multiple complex medical treatment paradigms any more than the public needed to read psychological journal articles comparing the efficacy of different aversion therapies.

The simple fact is that no person should ever be forced to endure a conversion therapy. No intersex child should be forced to have medical interventions to convert their bodies to appearing endosex. Genital reconstructions should only be performed on mature people who ask for them--whether intersex or endosex, cis or trans.

Having an intermediate phalloclitoris is no more inherently medically dangerous than having a penis or vulva. The danger that comes with having intermediate sex characteristics is purely social and comes from living in a society that discriminates against people whose bodies don't conform to binary sex expectations. The way to protect people from that is to ban the discrimination, not to try to conceal an individual's nonconformity so that that one individual escapes the discrimination.

Stop nonconsensual intersex surgeries. They are conversion therapies, and they are wrong.


 

 

Trans and Intersex Children: Forced Sex Changes, Chemical Castration, and Self-Determination

Children’s lives lie at the center of social struggles over trans gender and intersex issues. If you talk with trans and intersex adults about the pain they’ve faced, the same issue comes up over and over again, from mirror-image perspectives: that of medical interventions into the sexed body of the child. Intersex and trans adults are often despairing over not having had a say as children over what their sexes should be, and how doctors should intervene. Meanwhile, transphobes and the mainstream backers of intersex “corrective” surgery also focus on medical intervention into children’s bodies. They frame interventions into the sexual characteristics of intersex children as heroic and interventions into the bodies of trans children as horrific.

The terms and claims that get tossed around in these debates are very dramatic. Mutilation. Suicide. Chemical castration. Forced sex changes.

We need to understand what’s going on here, because it’s the central ethical issue around which debates about intersex and trans bodies swirl. The issue here is the question of self-determination, of autonomy. Bodily autonomy is the shared rallying cry of trans and intersex activists, though we might employ it in opposite ways. Refusing it to us is framed as somehow in our best interests by our opponents.

In this post we will look at how four groups frame the issue: intersex people, trans people, the mainstream medical professionals who treat intersex people, and opponents of trans rights.

If you talk to people who were visibly sexvariant at birth, you hear a lot of pain and anger and regret about how their bodies were altered. This is crystallized in the phrase of intersex genital mutilation, or IGM. As a result of infant genital surgery, many intersex people suffer from absent or reduced sexual sensation—something mainstream Western medicine presents as unethical female genital mutilation (FGM) when similar surgeries are performed on girls in other societies. There are further sources of pain: as a result of “corrective” surgeries, intersex people can suffer a wide range of unhappy results, such as loss of potential fertility, lifelong problems with bladder infections, and/or growing up not to identify with the binary sex to which they were assigned. It is extremely painful to identify as female and to know one was born with a vagina that doctors removed with your parents’ consent, or to identify as male and to know one’s penis was amputated. Imagine if someone performed a forced change on you--would you not feel profoundly violated?

So the intersex perspective is that no one should medically intervene in a person’s body without that person’s full informed consent. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right. Nobody except you can know how you will feel about your bodily form, whether you might want it medically altered, what risks of side-effects you’d consider acceptable. Routine “corrective” surgery performed on intersex infants is thus a great moral wrong.

When you speak with trans people, childhood medical intervention again comes up with an air of great regret, but now the regret is that one was not permitted to access it. Almost every person I’ve ever spoken with who wants to gender transition medically, whether they’re 18 or 75, has expressed the same fear to me: “I’m afraid I’m too old!” For a while this mystified me (how is 22 “old”?), until I realized what they meant was, “I’m post-pubertal.” For many trans people, childhood was awkward but tolerable, as children’s bodies are quite androgynous. Puberty, however, was an appalling experience. Secondary sexual characteristics distorted the body—humiliating breasts or facial hair sprouting, hips or shoulders broadening in ways no later hormone treatments could ever undo. Many trans people live with lifelong despair over how so much maltreatment and dysphoria could have been avoided if they could just have been permitted to avoid that undesired puberty.

So for trans activists, advocating for trans children so that they might avoid this tragedy is vitally important. The child’s autonomy is central, as it is for intersex advocates, but here the issue is getting access to medical treatment in the form of hormone suppressants, rather than fighting medical intervention. What trans activists seek is the right of children to ask for puberty-postponing drugs, to give the children’s families and therapists time to confirm that the children truly identify as trans, and fully understand what a medical transition involves. Then the individual can medically transition to have a body that looks much more similar to that of a cis person than can someone who has developed an unwanted set of secondary sex characteristics.

So for trans and intersex people, children’s autonomy is paramount when it comes to medical interventions into the sexed body. No child should have their sex (e.g. genitals, hormones, reproductive organs) medically altered until they are old enough to fully understand what is involved and actively ask for such intervention. Conversely, once a child is old enough to fully understand what is involved in medical interventions into the sexed body, and requests such intervention, then it should be performed—whether the child is born intersex or not.

This is not yet mainstream medical practice, however. Today, one in every 150 infants faces medical intervention into the sexed body to which they cannot object or consent. Doctors routinely perform such “corrective procedures” on babies with genital “defects” and “malformations.” Meanwhile, few trans-identified children are supported in their identities by families and medical practitioners—and great controversy and resistance swirls around them when it does happen.

So let’s look at the arguments made by mainstream medicine and transphobic activists. How do they counter the cry for autonomy, given that self-determination and freedom are such central ideals in Western societies? What we’ll see is that they employ two opposing claims based in medical ethics: the duty to save a life, and the duty to first do no harm. If we want to protect the rights of trans and intersex children, we have to understand these arguments and be able to counter them.

When intersex advocates try to fight the framing of intersex children’s bodies as “defective” and somehow in need of surgical “correction,” mainstream medicine responds with a claim of medical necessity. In some very rare cases, particular intersex conditions can be associated with actual functional problems such as an imperforate anus, clearly a serious medical problem that necessitates surgery. But the vast majority of medical interventions into intersexed bodies take place without any such functional, physical problem exsting. They are responses to a social issue (discomfort with sex variance) rather than a physical one. What doctors do, however, is reframe social issues into medical ones. “If we don’t do this surgery, this child will be mocked and humiliated—“he” won’t be able to stand to pee, “she” won’t be able to have “normal sex,” “it” will never be able to marry. The child will be a social pariah and thus be at risk for suicide.”

Through this line of argument, altering the body of the sexvariant infant is cast as a noble act that doctors perform out of their duty to save lives. To counter this, what we need to do is point out that actual studies of intersex adults show that while we do have a heightened risk of depression and suicide, these are caused by unhappiness with our medical treatment rather than prevented by it. Loss of sexual sensation, feelings of having been humiliated by doctors, pain from years of “repair” surgery after “repair” surgery, and for those who do not identify with the binary sex to which we were assigned, the vast sense of betrayal that those who were supposed to care for us subjected us to a forced sex change—these are what lead to an increased risk of suicide. What would really help is would be for doctors to follow the precept of “first do no harm,” to perform no procedures upon us without our full informed consent, and meanwhile, to provide intersex children and their families with social support.

Invocations of “primum non nocere,” first do no harm, and of despicable medical impositions on the lives of innocents are also raised by anti-trans advocates. Transphobic activists generally frame all medical transition interventions as mutilations, and this rhetoric rises to fever pitch when the issue of trans children arises. Recently, anti-trans rhetoric has framed the medical provision of puberty-postponing drugs as “chemical castration” (e.g. in this blog post).

“Chemical castration” is an odd concept. First off, if you read any medical article on the topic, you will find it starting by pointing out that the term is a misnomer, as none of the medications used in “chemical castration” destroy the gonads. The term is nevertheless employed due its specific history as a treatment being given by court order to “sexual deviants” to suppress their ability to have sex, where some prior courts had employed actual surgical castration. Today, some jurisdictions use “chemical castration” in cases of pedophilia, but it the past it was a treatment imposed on men convicted of sodomy—that is, to gay men in an era in which gay male sex was criminalized. Transphobic activists use the term “chemical castration” to evoke an aura of adult sexual deviance, in a manner calculated to frame doctors who provide puberty-suppressant drugs as sexually abusing children.

There is a curious twist in this matter of “chemical castration,” in that universally when court-ordered in the past, and often still today, it did not consist of testosterone suppression drugs as you would expect. Instead, injections of estrogen and/or progesterone were (and are) given. In essence, it caused a forced sex change. Thus, for example, when codebreaking British war hero Alan Turing was convicted of homosexuality in 1952 and sentenced to “chemical castration,” he found the unwanted sex changes in his body so horrifying and humiliating that he committed suicide two years into “treatment.”

In the case of trans-identified kids today, the use of the term “chemical castration” is thus a double misnomer. Firstly, no child is castrated—instead, puberty is simply postponed so that if the child, family, and therapist all agree later that a medical transition is appropriate, unwanted secondary sexual characteristics will not have developed. Plenty of adolescents are “late bloomers” by nature; in fact, puberty today occurs many years earlier than it did through most of human history, when human diets lacked sufficient fats and nutrients to support early puberties. So postponing puberty carries no significant dangers. Further, the point of hormone suppression is not to cause a sex change, in contrast to court-ordered “chemical castration treatments.” The point is merely to buy time to ensure that the trans child in question fully understands zir gender identity and the implications of medical transition.

So: we’ve seen a lot of charged language, of claims and counterclaims regarding mutilation versus vital treatment, cruel withholding of medical assistance versus the imposition of sex changes on unconsenting children. How should trans and intersex advocates respond?

What I would do is to point out that strange and conflicting ideas about children’s autonomy and free will are presented by our opponents. When specialists in intersex “corrective” treatments speak to parents or write in medical journals, they urge that genital surgery be performed in infancy, before age two and a half if at all possible. They claim that this way the child will not remember the treatment and will thus adjust well to the altered genitals and/or sex status. (As if medical monitoring and intervention did not often extend throughout the child’s life, and the procedures left no scars and caused no loss of sensation, so the child would “never notice.”) The age of two and a half came out of now largely-discredited ideas of a milestone of “gender constancy” occurring then, based upon notions of the developing brain that directly relate to autonomy. Before age 2.5, it was basically argued, the baby is irrational and lacks agency, and thus thinks magically about bodily sex, including accepting the “crazy” idea that the sex of the body can change. So, in urging very early intervention into intersex bodies today, conventional medicine is urging the total avoidance of the child’s rational thought and agency.

When it comes to treating trans children, on the other hand, instead of rushing things, all sorts of actors want to draw them out. Most doctors and clinics only provide transition services to legal adults. Those few who treat trans children are extremely cautious about providing any medical interventions other than the postponing of puberty.

Both of these approaches deny children autonomy over their bodies and their lives.

What we must urge is that society consistently respect the rights of children. No children should ever be subjected to sexual surgery without their consent. No children should be forced to have cosmetic surgery. But as children mature, they become able to consent to medical treatment that they do actively desire.

How old is “old enough” to agree to medical interventions into the sexed body? That answer depends on the given child—but 2.5 is certainly too young, and 18 is in most cases too old. What I suggest is that when addressing a medical practitioner urging genital surgery on an intersex infant, that we ask, “Would you perform a sex change on a child of this age who was not intersex?” Conversely, when facing transphobic activists saying that no one who is not a legal adult can be old enough to consent to medical transition services, we should ask if our opponent would say the same if the child were intersex. For example, a child with congenital adrenal hyperplasia may be born with a penis externally, and a uterus and ovaries internally. At around age 12 or 13, if there has been no medical intervention, that child can begin to menstruate through the penis, develop breasts, etc. Would the opponent argue that the child could not be old enough to say that he identifies as male and wants to take testosterone (or that she identifies as female and has decided that she wishes to have surgery to feminize her genitalia)? Would the opponent argue an intersex pubescent child should not at least be able to take puberty-postponing medications to avoid unwanted penile menstruation if they and their family and support professionals were still unsure whether to commit to any more permanent intervention?

What we must ask is that society treat intersex and trans-identified children consistently. We all raise our children to learn to make good decisions, so that they can lead good lives. We must nurture children’s autonomy as they grow, understanding that there are some decisions only they can make for themselves. To force a person to live in a sex with which they do not identify is cruelty; to impose unwanted bodily alterations unconscionable. Wishing happiness for our children, we must nurture and then defer to their right to self-determination over interventions into the sexed body.