- If reproductive rights include the right not to reproduce, then doesn’t this include all forms of non-procreative sex, and why then should any one form have the status of normativity or moral virtue? That is, if we refuse the principle that only procreative sex is “good,” or that it has a higher place than any other form, are we willing to take up Gayle Rubin’s long-ago challenge and to reject all sexual hierarchies?
Petchesky seems to be asking us to rethink the separation of “sexual” and “reproductive” rights, and understand the two to be intimately bound up in the same kind of exclusive and overly dichotomous politics which generally governs discussions of sexuality. She then drops this bombshell of a question, asking in sort: how do we discuss reproductive rights with subaltern sexual identities, and what does it mean to include sexual “deviants” in the penumbra of reproductive rights? She already goes ahead and dismisses the current political tendency to simply tack on extra letters to LGBT (think of the new Vanderbilt LGBTQI house) as a disingenuous kind of inclusion.
Instead, she seems to take a page from Butler and suggest the fostering of a multiplicity of sites of erotic pleasure. Shifting the emphasis from “procreative” reproduction to the proliferation of bodily erotic pleasure, she asks that we include sexualities and reproduction all under an analysis of bodily sexual experience (whether its procreative or not). I find this suggestion incredibly compelling, but difficult to concretize. Because psychosexual development largely unfolds along a few dominant large-scale ideological axis, it would require immense collective action in order to accomplish what Petchesky wants. In addition, as she mentioned, any subversion of the norms of reproductive politics and sexual politics includes both resistance and accommodation, so we cannot expect to completely avoid reinscribing our own understandings of sexual and reproductive norms, either, when we try to change the language of “sexual and reproductive rights.” Again, we can see this in the new Vandy LGBTQI house.
It seems, then, that we might actually not be able to accomplish Ruben’s goal of abolishing sexual hierarchies. Because these politics of sexuality and reproduction are rooted in history, we can’t totally avoid history reimposing itself on the present in the form of deep social convictions. What can we do, then? If not abolish sexual hierarchies overall, what can we expect from our strategies for resistance and transformation?
3. If reproduction is about kinship and childrearing as well as pregnancy and childbearing, then what would it mean to support the reproductive rights of gay men, transgenders (including transsexuals), intersex people, and sex workers—eg, to adopt and raise children and to receive family, child care, and child health insurance benefits within whatever non-traditional households and kin networks they choose to form?
In response to Petchesky’s question, if we assume reproduction is about pregnancy and childbearing, to support the reproductive rights of gay men, transgenders, intersex people, and sex workers would mean an inseparable union between the already tense union between “reproductive rights” and “sexuality rights.” This inseparable union will be messy in that there will always be questions of where the line should be drawn as far as the reproductive rights of gay men. For example, should all gay men be allowed to adopt? Are the transgenders eligible to adopt if gay men are allowed to adopt? I argue that moving to an expanded concept of reproduction could end up shifting attention away from the core concept of control over pregnancy and childbearing. I find the potential result posed in question two might not be farfetched; the potential result was talking about “reproductive and sexual health services” in a way that was not gender-exclusive, could lead to the usual list being extended to include hormonal treatments, urological services, etc.
Petchesky poses her questions as a means of rethinking who “counts as part of our communities.” I think it is important to discuss not only who is included in “reproductive rights,” but who determines who is included. For example will women get to decide if transgenders are similar in reproductive rights? Gary Dowset, quoted by Petchesky, has noticed complex distinctions and tensions between “…homosexuals, bisexual, transsexual, intersexual, and then how gender crosses over and through all of these in the unstable ‘transgender’ tent.” Further, he points out the issues in that despite cross over some gay men resent transgendered men and how some feminist groups are hostile to transsexuals because they are not “real” women. I would like to pose the question should women as a collective be able to keep the transgender out of “reproductive rights” policy and keep them out of the “we” Petchesky mentions?
-Lauren Dillon
Kevin, I too see the impossibility of completely rejecting social hierarchies, however, I believe much can be gained from the fight. The deep moral convictions from which we desire to reject these hierarchies must be acted upon. Even if we may not be able to achieve the ultimate goal, regressive laws and harmful frameworks may dissipate as a result of the strategies for resistance and transformation you speak of in your post. That gender and sexuality are social constructions and therefore malleable (p2) is evident in the inextricable links brought up in the CARASA statement that reproductive freedom must also “mean freedom of sexual choice, which implies and end to the cultural norms that define women in terms of having children and living with a man.” Tearing down this construction is inherently tied to affirming “people’s right to raise children outside of conventional families” (p2). Lauren argues that “in moving to an expanded concept of reproduction could end up shifting attention away from the core concept of control over pregnancy and childbearing,” that we could lose sight of the larger question when bogged down with debates over seemingly smaller issues, like adoption rights for some parties in the sex-gender rainbow. Perhaps because it is Election Day and my mind is elsewhere, I see these arguments as akin to the difference between McCain’s “trickle-down” economic plan and Obama’s “it’s time to try trickle-up” theory. In response to Lauren’s idea as well as to Kevin’s question, (What can we expect to gain?) I am arguing that fighting for adoption rights for all people may “trickle-up” into greater sexual and reproductive justice. If we are to believe Petchesky and others’ arguments that gender is a social construct, we cannot then exclude some people out for the sake of an easier argument. The inclusiveness on which feminist theories lay do not allow for such parceling of rights. Furthermore, I believe in rising to the difficulty of the challenge we may see greater equality for all as we deconstruct the idea of sexual rights defined “in terms of women having children and living with a man.”
I agree with you Lauren. I also find the term reproduction is very confining and limiting. When I think of reproduction, what immediately comes to mind is the idea of a man and woman having a child together. To include all individuals, it is necessary to think of reproduction as something that all individuals have the potential of biologically taking part in. Therefore, since all people have the potential to aid in the process of reproduction, then all people are entitled to reproductive rights.
Here is a definition I found of reproductive rights from the World Health Organization that I is very inclusive of all people. Reproductive rights needs to be thought of in this way to answer Petchesky’s question:
Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.
You pose an interesting question/concept, forcing us to think beyond reproductive rights and to look at the community itself and who decides who is in this community. First, people who make decisions for the community should ideally be a representation of the population, including men and women. Only when everyone is included in the community, including gays and transsexuals, can everyone’s reproductive rights be secured. If a person or group is not considered a legitimate player in the community, then it will be impossible for their reproductive rights to be protected. It is first necessary to attempt to change people’s attitudes so that they are more inclusive of all.
Personally, I support the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexuals, transgendered, intersexed to marry, have families, have access to “good public childcare centers and schools; decent housing, adequate welfare, and wages high enough to support a family; and of quality medical, pre- and post-natal and maternal care.” I do not think that these rights fall outside the scope of basic human needs. However, after reading everyone’s comments I had a thought. I don’t think it is actually possible to break down social hierarchies that have historically existed in this country and elsewhere. I think that the “reproductive rights” in terms of procreation between heterosexual individuals should be separated from the “sexual rights” of others, and that the former rights do hold superiority over the other. My reasoning is this: you need a baby to be conceived before you can talk about adoption. It requires an egg and a sperm to make a baby… (SEX ED 101, right?). Yes, there are ways that trans-sexuals, gays, lesbians can conceive a child in their own bodies (artificial insemination, etc), but this reproductive path is always going to go back to the sperm and the egg. I’m trying to work out my thoughts here, and maybe I’m just off on a tangent, but I think that this somehow supports the idea that heterosexual reproductive rights are superior. I define “heterosexual reproductive rights” to mean the process of actually conceiving the child and not to encompass rights to sexual acts intended for pleasure only to be seen as “superior.”
It suprises me that no one has identified the alternative to children not being adopted by “abnormal” families… Alot of these children are left feeling unloved and unwanted in youth homes and foster care being pushed through a state system that seems like it would cost just as much as providing help to those who truly want to have children.
I know that I keep saying this, but it upsets me so much that alot of people just cannot be tolerant and understanding of others. The world would be a much better place to live in if everyone just respected each other for who they are. Even marginalized groups are discriminating against other marginalized groups (as Petchesky said about gays and feminists against transgender people). Maybe they could get further in the battle for sexual rights if they could join in a united front (same problem that the feminists were having in the reading of Povey).
I definately agree with Lauren Page Black about social hierarchy when she says, “Even if we may not be able to achieve the ultimate goal, regressive laws and harmful frameworks may dissipate as a result of the strategies for resistance and transformation you speak of in your post.” I fully believe that positive thoughts and actions take us further than one would think.
Susan, I kind of see what you are talking about. It is almost a natural order that works against these other type of couples. Organizations like the church see this advantage and use their deep-rooted influence to capitalize on people’s fear and reluctance to support these LGBT couples. “Written Out” contains a section discussing religions that “lend their endorsements to local prejudice in the name of transcendent moral values…in alliance with the state.” These alliances do present a lot of difficulty and I am with Kevin in thinking, “what can we do?”