The Torontotonians raising a "genderless" child should consider the ethics of experimenting on kids.
by Margaret Somerville (Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law, McGill University)
The following is the full article (highlighting is mine) as it was published in the Ottawa Citizen.
With same-sex marriage, we saw the advent of arguments for
“genderless parenting” – the idea that all a child needs is love, and
that it’s irrelevant whether the loving persons are male or female. Now
we have “genderless kids.”
Kathy Witterick and David Stocker, the parents of five-year-old Jazz,
two-year-old Kio, and three-month old Storm, want to rear and love each
of their children not as a daughter or son, not as a girl or a boy, but
just as a child.
Now, at one level, that’s not a bad thing. It’s a statement of
unconditional love for one’s child simply because he or she is one’s
child, and it stands as a small counter-statement to the abomination of
the millions of missing girls in India and China, where daughters are
aborted or killed as infants because the parents want a son instead.
But, as the Supreme Court of Canada, citing the United States Supreme
Court, once said, in distinguishing what parents were free to decide
with respect to their own medical treatment as compared with what they
could decide for their children, “Parents may be free to become martyrs
themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical
circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.”
So, are Witterick and Stocker making martyrs of their children? Is
their conduct with respect to their children unethical? And, if it is,
does society have any obligation to step in? These are difficult
questions to answer, and ones that require us to consider some
definitions and facts.
First, a person’s sex is a matter of biology: Women have two X
sex chromosomes, and men have one X and one Y. (There are other
combinations, such as XXY or XO, but these are not the norm, and the
people who have them are usually infertile).
Gender, on the other hand, is the cultural expression of male and female. For most people, gender parallels their biological sex.
Media reports quote Witterick and Stocker as wanting their children
to be “gender creative.” In trying to achieve this goal, they allow the
two older boys “to make their own choices” with respect to clothing and
hairstyles (they often wear pink feather boas, dresses, and braids). As a
result, the boys are often mistaken for girls, and other children do
not want to play with “that girl-boy.”
The sex of the baby, Storm, has not been disclosed to anyone other
than the midwives who delivered it, a close family friend, the father,
and the two siblings, who have been told to keep it secret (which also
raises ethical issues). They refer to the baby as “Z,” not he or she.
Even the grandparents don’t know Storm’s sex.
To analyze this situation, ethically and legally, the basic
presumption from which we start is that the parents have a right to make
decisions concerning their children, and have obligations to them in
doing so. That right can be displaced, however, when the parents’
conduct constitutes neglect or abuse. My guess is that most people would
be very reluctant to argue that that’s the case here, but, at the same
time, many believe that these children are going to have a difficult
path in life as a result of the nature of their upbringing. So what do
we need to consider in trying to gain some insights as to whether the
parents’ present approach is acceptable?
The parents seem to believe that children “can make choices to be
whoever they want to be,” including regarding their gender, and they are
giving them the opportunity to do this. Are the parents, however,
conducting a social experiment on their children, or – as it’s been
described – “a social experiment of nurture”? If so, the principles
governing experimentation should be especially stringent when children
are the subjects, because children are classified as “vulnerable
persons.” Ethics requires that, when there is a conflict that prevents
us from honouring everyone’s rights or claims, we must decide in a way
that gives a preference to the most vulnerable people.
As with all experimentation, we can only find out later what harm may
result, but we have obligations, at the very least, to avoid reasonably
foreseeable harm. In this regard, we might learn from past unethical
experimentation. Sexologist and psychologist Dr. John Money's experiment on David Reimer
is a tragic example. In the infamous case, Reimer was sexually
reassigned after a botched circumcision destroyed his penis. Money
reported the reassignment as successful, and as evidence that gender
identity is primarily learned. However, later research showed that
Reimer never identified as female, and he began living as male at age
15. He lived a tormented life and eventually committed suicide.
I suggest that we might also gain insights from asking: “Are the
parents doing this for the kids, as they claim, or are they doing it for
themselves?” My guess is that they would say – and probably believe –
they’re doing it for the kids, but that their own ideological and
political beliefs are the main motivation. When the adults’ beliefs
about such things are concordant with the “best interests” of the
children, there is no problem – but when they clash, there is. The
conflict situation can be compared to that of a physician asking a
patient to participate in a medical experiment. Long ago, as a
protective measure, we started to teach patients to ask doctors who
approached them to be research subjects: “Are you doing this for me,
doctor, or am I doing it for you?” These kids need someone to ask their
parents that question for them.
It merits noting that there is an ethical difference between parents
having children who are non-conformist in some ways, and parents
intentionally making their children non-conformist, as in this case. As
well, parents are still making a choice when they choose not to choose for their children.
Witterick and Stocker’s strong emphasis on the idea of choice, and on
giving their children choice, even at such a young age, is also
noteworthy. In many ways, it seems naïve. It is a rejection of the
belief that there is a natural reality, including with respect to our
own selves, with which we need to live in harmony and balance. Much of
what makes us who we are as individuals, and what matters to us as human
beings, is not open to choice. The new field of epigenetics
is showing us, from one scientific perspective, just how complex the
interaction of nature and nurture is in forming who we are and who we
become.
There is also arrogance in ignoring millennia-worth of human wisdom
when it comes to what we need in order to become as fully actualized as
we can. Before the “choice armies” come after me, let me quickly add
that this does not mean that we must not change or continue to evolve
socially. Instead, it means that, in seeking to do good, we must be
careful that we do not do serious harm to individuals or society.
Finally, in the context of some other work I’m involved in from time
to time, it’s interesting to note that the most socially liberal parents
(such as Storm’s parents) and the most socially conservative ones (such
as, for example, those who want strict obedience from their children
and are willing to use corporal punishment to get it) both want the
state to keep its nose out of family issues. (Strange bedfellows!) But
society always has residual obligations to protect its children.
This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Citizen.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment